Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-56f9d74cfd-mgjtl Total loading time: 0.226 Render date: 2022-06-27T21:22:11.439Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

D. H. Anderson*
Affiliation:
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

Abstract

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Decisions
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangl./Myan.), Case No. 16 (ITLOS Mar. 14, 2012) [hereinafter Judgment]. The basic documents, pleadings, transcripts, press releases, and other materials on the case are available on the Tribunal‘s website, http://www.itlos.org. see also Bangladesh-Myanmar, Report No. 6-24 (Add.1), in International Maritime Boundaries Online: Region (06) Vi, Indian Ocean and South East Asia (Coalter Lathrop ed., forthcoming 2012), at http://nijhoffonline.nl/book?id=IMBO_IMBO-Book-6 (by subscription).

2 See, most recently, Maritime Delimitation in the Bkck Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 61 (Feb. 3).

3 Myanmar’s submission and later submissions by India and by Bangladesh are available online through the link to the Commission at http://www.un.org/depts/los/. The claims to areas of the continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal overlap. The Commission decided to defer its consideration of the submissions in view of the unresolved delimitation disputes.

4 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 Unts 3, available at http://www.un.org/depts/los/.

5 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 7(1), (2), opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

6 Article 15 of the Convention, supra note 4, provides, in pertinent part:

Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each of the two States is measured. This provision does not apply where special circumstances require delimitation at variance with it.

7 This feature is also known as “Bluff Cape.”

8 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 61 (Feb. 3).

9 The Tribunal’s provisional equidistance line is shown in sketch-map No. 5. See Judgment following paras. 271-74.

10 North Sea Continental Shelf (Frg/Den.; FRG/Neth.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3 (Feb. 20).

11 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Guinea and Guinea-Bissau, 25 ILM 251 (1986), 77 ILR 635 (ad hoc arb. trib. Feb. 14, 1985).

12 The judgment does not discuss the possibility of according the island less than full weight. Illustration Map 2, attached to Separate Opinion of Judge Gao, shows full, half, and no effect for the island.

13 There are several agreements in the six volumes of International Maritime Boundaries, edited variously by Jonathan I. Charney, Lewis M. Alexander, Robert W. Smith, and David Colson (1993-2011), defining boundaries extending beyond the 200-nautical-mile limit.

14 Different approaches over methodology are indicated in the Joint Declaration of Judges Nelson, Chandrasekhara Rao, and Cot; the Separate Opinion of Judge Cot; and the Separate Opinion of Judge Gao, all attached to the Judgment.

15 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Art. 31, Convention, supra note 4, Annex VI.

16 Bangladesh v. India (filed Oct. 8, 2009). For details, see Bangladesh v. India, at http://www.pca-cap.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1376.

4
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *