Here is how indian subservient Awami League regime gave up South Talpatti Island by not even admitting its existence, whereas india claimed South Talpatti island as one of its base point.
197. Bangladesh’s objection to base points I-1 and I-2 is particularly acute. First, Bangladesh challenges the existence of South Talpatty/New Moore Island on which the points are located. In Bangladesh’s view, the island disappeared permanently below the surface in the late 1980s or early 1990s.104 Bangladesh submits that South Talpatty/New Moore Island is absent on any satellite images after 1989,105 and recalls that nothing more than breakers was seen during the site visit, despite multiple trips to the area.106
198. According to Bangladesh, even if South Talpatty/New Moore Island does exist as a low-tide elevation, it is “on the Bangladesh side of any conceivable boundary line” and inappropriate for a base point.107 In this respect Bangladesh notes that in Qatar v. Bahrain, the International Court of Justice held that low-tide elevations situated in the zone of overlapping claims must be disregarded for the purpose of drawing the equidistance line.108 In Bangladesh/Myanmar, the
103 India’s Rejoinder, paragraphs 4A.2- 4A.10.
Parties respected this practice and no low-tide elevations for base points were proposed in the delimitation of the territorial sea. 109
199. Sovereignty over South Talpatty/New Moore Island, Bangladesh argues, can only be determined by reference to the delimitation line as “a coastal State has sovereignty over low- tide elevations which are situated within its territorial sea” (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 40 at p. 101, paragraph 204). Bangladesh notes the decision in the Nicaragua v. Colombia case that low-tide elevations may not be appropriated, (Nicaragua v. Colombia, Judgment of 19 November 2012, paragraph 26) as well as decisions in the Malaysia/Singapore and Nicaragua v. Honduras cases in which the Court declined to determine sovereignty over the low-tide elevations in dispute (Case Concerning Sovereignty Over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, paras. 291-299; Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, paragraphs 144-145).
200. In addition, Bangladesh submits that South Talpatty/New Moore is “far too insignificant, and its stability far too suspect, to be accorded such importance in this delimitation”.110 Citing the Black Sea and Gulf of Maine decisions, Bangladesh argues that “the International Court of Justice has made it clear on several occasions that what it refers to as ‘minor geographical features’ should not be used as the basis for delimiting a maritime boundary” (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania/Ukraine) I.C.J Reports 2009, p. 61, paragraph 137; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/USA), I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 329, paragraphs 201, 210). In the Black Sea case in particular, Bangladesh further observes, the International Court of Justice declined to place a base point on Serpent’s Island, a much larger and more prominent feature than South Talpatty/New Moore.111 Similar small islands were disregarded in Libya/Malta and Nicaragua v. Colombia.
201. Bangladesh raises similar objections to India’s proposed base points I-3, B-3, and B-4, disputing the existence of each alleged low-tide elevation. Noting that none were observable during the site visit, Bangladesh submits that “t is plainly visible that all of these base points are out at sea”.112
