Homo Sapiens
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2015
- Messages
- 9,641
- Reaction score
- -1
- Country
- Location
You can be rest assured that Bangladesh's maritime border will always touch the international water. The two favorable verdict we got with Myanmar(2012) and India(2014) concerning delimitation of EEZ eleminated forever the chance of their maritime boundary surrounding Bangladesh's. Those who are still unconvinced can read these expert opinion.Lmao
I’m talking in terms of Bangladesh here. India can and will do a blockade on us to make us subservient, not specifically on that gap as you thought I’m saying because that makes no sense. but strategically to our entire ocean access. So yes, bd should resolve this in court.
oh for your information, india isn’t getting the offshore continental shelf mining rights
I was led to believe the blockades happened long before land war. Thanks for the explanation.
the rest is what I’m trying to explain but not quiet able to. Bd will need to be prepared to contest for the outer continental shelf claim with military deterrence. If myanmar tried, it won’t be too long for india to do the same especially under a hindu extremist government.
@DalalErMaNodi @Bilal9 @magra
A new opportunity for Bangladesh in the Bay
A new opportunity for Bangladesh in the Bay
It was realised in the early days of independence that Bangladesh would need to explore and exploit the immense untapped natural resources of the sea as the land territory of Bangladesh covered only about144, 000 square kilometers. Against this backdrop, bilateral talks to demarcate the maritime...
Thu Jan 1, 2015 12:00 AM
It was realised in the early days of independence that Bangladesh would need to explore and exploit the immense untapped natural resources of the sea as the land territory of Bangladesh covered only about144, 000 square kilometers. Against this backdrop, bilateral talks to demarcate the maritime boundary commenced with India and Myanmar in 1974. But the talks remained stagnant for more than three decades. Under these circumstances, Bangladesh had to look for another way to resolve the maritime disputes with the two countries.
On October 8, 2009, the AL government took a bold but a risky decision to seek justice under the arbitral settlement provisions of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of The Sea (UNCLOS). This avenue was open as all three countries -- Bangladesh, India and Myanmar -- had filed UNCLOS and hence were bound to act by the provisions of the Convention. The risk was that the judgment of the UN dispute machinery could go against Bangladesh unless there was a thorough preparation of Bangladesh's case and a team of international lawyers of repute could be put together to argue the case of Bangladesh before the arbitral tribunals. It was a 'legal gamble' for Bangladesh.
Under the Convention, two methods of dispute-resolving mechanisms were available to the parties. Myanmar agreed to the jurisdiction of the Hamburg-based International Tribunal of the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), while India agreed to the authority of The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), and verdicts of both courts have been delivered.
Bangladesh –Myanmar dispute:
On March 14, 2012, ITLOS delivered the judgment rejecting the application of equidistance method in delimiting the boundary of economic zone and continental shelf. It awarded 200 nautical miles of economic zone to Bangladesh (before that Bangladesh could claim only 130 miles of economic zone), thus allocating 1,11,631 square kilometers of sea area to Bangladesh. St. Martin's Island would have full 12-miles territorial sea instead of six miles as territorial sea.
Bangladesh was able to claim not only 200 nautical miles of economic zone but also continental shelf (seabed) beyond the 200 nm, which was a significant gain, given the fact that no international adjudicating body yet has exercised its jurisdiction in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nm while the outer limit of the continental shelf is pending before the UN.
The judgment is a “win-win” situation for both countries as it has resulted in clearly defined maritime areas for both Bangladesh and Myanmar. Both countries are now able to explore and exploit the living and non-living resources of the maritime zones for their benefits.
Bangladesh-India dispute:
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague officially conveyed the result to both parties on July 7, 2014, which was made public on July 8. India said that the judgment would further enhance goodwill between the two countries by putting an end to a longstanding issue.
The Court rejected the application of equidistance method in awarding to Bangladesh 19,467 sq. km. of the total disputed 25,602 sq km sea area (76%), leaving 6,135 sq. km. (24%) to India.
The judgment allows Bangladesh 200-nautical miles exclusive economic zone (EEZ), an additional 134 nautical miles of continental shelf (sea bed) beyond the 200-nautical miles economic zone and an access to the open sea, thus the possibility of turning Bangladesh into a “sea-locked country” is gone forever.
There was an apprehension among some jurists that judgments of ITLOS and the Permanent Court of Arbitration under UNCLOS would lead to the fragmentation of international maritime law, but this has proved to be baseless. Rather, both the judgments have adhered to judicial past precedents and substantially contributed to the progressive development of maritime international law.
Safeguarding the maritime areas:
The total maritime area of Bangladesh covers more than118, 000 sq. km, 200 nm of EEZ and an additional area of about 154 nm of continental shelf (seabed) from the coast. The total area under the sovereign rights of Bangladesh constitutes nearly 81% of the mainland of Bangladesh. So there is an added responsibility to safeguard the area, the prime responsibility of which falls on the Bangladesh Navy (BN). BN too has taken steps to bring in changes in its infrastructure. Moreover, as part of the digitisation effort, various automation systems are being developed for different functions. These efforts are likely to enhance BN's performances.
It is further reported that the office of the prime minister has constituted a cell consisting of relevant ministries and agencies to develop a maritime policy including setting up a maritime commission to protect the vast sea-area of Bangladesh. The protection of the maritime domain is to be understood from the lenses of national security. It will also include assertion of sovereignty over the areas, environmental security, harnessing the resources of the sea and combating non-traditional maritime threats (piracy, oil-spilling, gun running and human trafficking)
Importance of Blue Economy:
The delimitation of the sea-boundary with India and Myanmar has opened up a new opportunity for Bangladesh for achieving sustainable economic growth leveraging the blue ocean to its south.
The ocean is one of Earth's most valuable natural resources. It provides food in the form of fish and shellfish. It's used for transportation -- both travel and shipping. It provides a treasured source of recreation for humans. It is mined for minerals (salt, sand, gravel, and some manganese, copper, nickel, iron, and cobalt can be found in the deep sea) and drilled for crude oil and gas. The ocean is an increasingly important source of biomedical organisms with enormous potentials for fighting diseases.
Increase in population coupled with positive indications of economic growth in the country has resulted in increasing demand for energy (oil and gas) in Bangladesh which could be found in the seabed. As the land resources diminish, the people will depend more on the resources of the sea.
On September 2, 2014 Bangladesh foreign minister reportedly spoke at a two-day international workshop on blue economy and said that “Blue-Economy” must be inclusive, and people-centric. The minister gave an idea of the collaboration that could take place and said that it must be based on certain universal principles of engagement, mutual trust, mutual benefits and equitable sharing of benefits. All collaboration would have to be in research, observation, surveillance, and in respect of sharing analyses, outcomes and observations.
It is reported that India, Maldives and Sri Lanka constituted a working group in 2011 to harness the resources of the sea. Cooperation and partnership with India, Myanmar and other countries could be sought in extracting resources from the Bay of Bengal. We expect that the private sector of Bangladesh will play an important role in the growth of blue economy.
The writer is former Ambassador to UN, Geneva, Switzerland.
Peaceful Resolution of Bangladesh-India Maritime Boundary Dispute Sets Global Example
Peaceful Resolution of Bangladesh-India Maritime Boundary Dispute Sets Global Example - Future Directions International
India and Bangladesh have accepted the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on their maritime boundary. While some further legal clarification may be needed, both countries are satisfied with the resolution, commending the PCA and each other. As a result, the agreement provides a...
India and Bangladesh have accepted the ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) on their maritime boundary. While some further legal clarification may be needed, both countries are satisfied with the resolution, commending the PCA and each other. As a result, the agreement provides a credible template for solving the ongoing South China Sea dispute.
Background
On 7 July 2014, after five years of international legal proceedings and disjointed bilateral relations, the maritime claims of both India and Bangladesh have been collectively agreed upon, through the PCA, and willingly accepted by both governments. The development concludes Dhaka’s longstanding maritime disputes with its neighbours and prevents the country becoming “sea-locked”. For India, on the international stage, it displays the rising power’s diplomatic maturity. The fresh accord between the two countries is also likely to provide economic evidence that compromise can be lucrative.
Comment
Since its formation in 1971, Bangladesh has, by its own reckoning, often felt that its maritime economic potential has been unfairly restricted, due to the concave geography of the Bay of Bengal. With Bangladesh being positioned on the northern rim, it has long feared that its sea-lanes are, or will become, “sea-locked” by its neighbours’ territorial waters. The new resolution provides security for Bangladesh’s seaborne trade, ensuring that a wide expanse of ocean will serve as de facto Bangladeshi territorial waters, while not constituting any one country’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).
The ensuing certainty, combined with additionally awarded EEZ near its western boundaries, will come as a boost and provide an incentive for local and international investment, especially in the country’s much-tipped “blue-economy” (seabed mineral and gas extraction) potential. Commenting on the ruling, Bangladeshi Foreign Minister, Abul Hassan Mahmood Ali, commended India for its ‘willingness to resolve this matter peacefully by legal means’ and ‘for its acceptance of the tribunal’s judgment’. Sometimes rare in modern diplomacy, the reciprocal nature of the agreement should not be ignored.
For India, the ruling firstly confirms its once-disputed sovereignty over the newly-formed island of New Moore/Talapatti. This small, uninhabited island was created after a vicious cyclone in 1970, yet its formation provided the impetus for the partial redrawing of a maritime territorial claim. In 1985, however, it was partially submerged by another storm, while still remaining clearly identifiable for geographical purposes. With the prospect of rising sea-levels of particular concern to Bangladesh, it was deemed appropriate for the island to retain its geographical status. In 2006, with the discovery of natural gas in the vicinity of the island and near the mouth of the Hariabhanga River, the prospect of untapped wealth galvanised India’s resolve for legal sovereignty. Pleased with the Arbitral Tribunal’s awarding of the island to India and the granting of a claim in the nearby river-mouth, Indian External Affairs spokesman, Syed Akbaruddin, applauded the decision. He stated that it ‘will further enhance mutual understanding and goodwill between India and Bangladesh, by bringing to closure a long-pending issue’.
On initial appraisal, the outlook arising from the new boundaries is positive, with both countries eager to profess their commendations and confidence in their future dealings. Despite this ready acceptance, the latter clauses of the ruling, covering non-EEZ waters, are somewhat obscure. Although the new ruling is unlikely to be challenged for the next decade or so, those clauses are almost certainly going to be problematic.
Section Five of the PCA’s resolution found that because Bangladesh and India’s 200 nautical mile continental shelf boundaries overlap, beyond the shelf and in the cross-over area, now dubbed the ‘grey area’, no country could claim a ‘superior entitlement’. Section Eight of the PCA resolution, however, determines that within this ‘grey area’ Bangladesh has a ‘potential entitlement with respect to the continental shelf, but not an exclusive economic zone’. It then states that ‘India is potentially entitled to both zones’. It is possible then, that Section Eight alludes to the further legal clarification that will be needed to prevent possible diplomatic deadlock, should respective national interests collide in the future.
The international ramifications of the PCA’s ruling are profound. First, the notion of a potential great power allowing its smaller, poorer and less powerful neighbour to hold firm on integral aspects of its national interest, is a welcome development in a world where compromise is sometimes regarded as weakness. On the contrary, this case helps to depict India as a benevolent power, enabling it to be perceived regionally as ready to share in, rather than dominate, the economic and diplomatic development of the subcontinent.
Second, while this issue is neither as intricate, nor as intense, as the South China Sea boundary disputes, the notion of two sovereign states agreeing to allow a non-partisan international tribunal to decide on the validity of their individual claims, could help to bolster the possibility of an independent judicial adjudication on the various competing claims in the South China Sea.
Perhaps it will also provide a stark reminder to China that fostering international goodwill and upholding national interests need not be clashing sentiments. Beijing’s recent placement of an oil rig in an area that Vietnam considers to be within its EEZ, indicates that China’s appetite for accepting independent, international decrees remains dubious.
Ben Pattison
Research Assistant
Indian Ocean Research Programme
Any opinions or views expressed in this paper are those of the individual author, unless stated to be those of Future Directions International.
Published by Future Directions International Pty Ltd.
Suite 5, 202 Hampden Road, Nedlands WA 6009, Australia.
Tel:+61 8 6389 0211
Web: www.futuredirections.org.au
India-Bangladesh: UNCLOS and the Sea Boundary Dispute
14 Jul, 2014 · 4557
Harun ur Rashid says that the judgment could usher in a new era of cooperation between maritime neighbours in the Bay of Bengal
Harun ur Rashid
Bangladesh went to the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) at The Hague on 08 October 2009 seeking judgment under the dispute clause of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The submission of documents and oral hearings from both India and Bangladesh was concluded in December 2013 and the Court officially conveyed the result to both parties on 7 July 2014.
The judgment is final and cannot be appealed against. Among the five arbitrators only the Indian arbitrator delivered a dissenting judgment. India accepted the judgment and reportedly said that the judgment would further enhance goodwill between the two countries by putting an end to a long standing issue. It went in fabour of Bangladesh because Bangladesh has been awarded 19,467 sq km of the total 25,602 sq km sea area (76 per cent), leaving 6,135 sq km (24 per cent) to India. The judgment also allows Bangladesh a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile economic zone and access to the open sea, thus preventing it from turning into a ‘sea-locked country’.
Bangladesh’s awarded area reportedly includes 10 off-shore blocs in the west which were in dispute with India; 10 per cent of the six blocs went to India. It is noted that the disputed maritime area of 25,602 sq km in the Bay of Bengal with Bangladesh constitutes probably only about 3-5 per cent of the maritime area of India’s vast coastline, stretching east from the Bay of Bengal, the Indian Ocean and to the Arabian Sea in the west. For Bangladesh, the area in the west with India is 100 per cent because there is no other maritime area available for Bangladesh to its west and it is vital for Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal to have this area under its jurisdiction.
The first session on Indo-Bangladesh sea boundary talks took place in 1974 in Dhaka at the official level. Later, several meetings took place at the level of Foreign Secretaries. When the Foreign Secretaries could not resolve the differences because of the methods of delimiting the boundary between the two sides, it was elevated to the Foreign Ministers’ level in 1975 but remained inconclusive. It was reported that at the Commonwealth Summit in Jamaica in May 1975, Bangladesh President Sheikh Mujibur Rahman proposed arbitration to resolve the issue to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi but India rejected it. Although the sea boundary talks were renewed in 1978, 1982, 2008 (under the caretaker government), and in March 2009 under the Hasina government, it could not be resolved because of the differences over boundary delimitations. When the Hasina government found that the talks had stalled, it had no option but to look out for the involvement of a third party to resolve the dispute. Finally the Hasina government decided to lodge the dispute with the Court of Arbitration under Article 287 (the dispute machinery clause) of UNCLOS. India had ratified the UN Convention in 1995 and Bangladesh in 2001, and are both therefore bound by the provisions of the UNCLOS.
The judgment stands out for several following reasons. First, both Bangladesh and India have settled the maritime boundary through the legal mechanism under the UNCLOS, which demonstrates that the two countries are committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes. It is not a complete victory for Bangladesh because India has won on some issues. It is however a victory for fairness and justice. The judgment is a win for international law which both countries have always respected. Second, the judgment substantially contributes to the development of maritime international law. There was an apprehension among some jurists that judgment by the Court of Arbitration under UNCLOS would lead to the fragmentation of maritime law, but this has been found to be unfounded. Rather, the judgment reflects the great advantages of consistency and transparency by adhering to judicial precedents.
Third, the peaceful and amicable settlement of the maritime dispute between Bangladesh and India could be an example in the international arena at a time when in many parts of the world maritime disputes are emerging as major flash points. For example, in the South China Sea, disputed maritime boundaries between China and its neighbours, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, and in the East China Sea, between South Korea and Japan and Japan and China, are causing grave tension. Finally, the judgment may assist Bangladesh to concretise the Japanese proposal for a Bay of Bengal Industrial Growth Belt (BIG-B) initiative with India and Myanmar for Japanese trade and investment. It can usher in a new era of cooperation between maritime neighbours in the Bay of Bengal.
Last edited:
