Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
The judgment delivered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in the dispute concerning the delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh-Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal has a historic significance. The Bay of Bengal is an important area for many significant reasons for both the parties. To explore and for the exploitation of living and non-living resources, this judgment has played a vital role. The unique contribution of the judgment is that, the extension of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from the baseline, and pronouncement of the grey area. This article mainly focuses on the contribution of the case in international law which covers: background of the dispute; straight baseline; continental shelf beyond 200 nm; the role of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nm; and the grey area. Before the conclusion. It also focuses on the theory of natural prolongation and the dissenting opinion given by the judge of the Tribunal.
Highlights
In today’s international law there are a variety of maritime zones in which the coastal State exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction to the exclusion of other States.[1]
The first modern straight baseline was established by the Norwegian Royal Decree on 12 July 1935.30 The validity of straight baselines in international law was given in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries case, 1951 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and made it clear that the coastal State does not have unfettered discretion as to how it draws straight baselines, and it laid down a number of conditions governing the drawing of such baselines.[31]
The decisions of the international courts and tribunals, State practice, and the LOS Convention clearly demonstrate that there has been a shift from the equidistance principle to the equitable principle of delimitation and strongly indicate that the equitable principle is the preferred method of delimitation.[107]
Summary
In today’s international law there are a variety of maritime zones in which the coastal State exercises sovereignty, sovereign rights or jurisdiction to the exclusion of other States.[1]. 9 Firstly, it’s the first maritime boundary delimitation dispute decided by the Tribunal.[10] Before this dispute, maritime delimitation cases that were not resolved by the States involved had gone either before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or to other arbitral tribunals, the other fora allowed by the LOS Convention.[11] Secondly, it’s the first decision on the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nm from the baseline.[12] Thirdly, this is the first instance where either Bangladesh or Myanmar has participated in binding State-to-State dispute resolution.[13] this is the first occasion on which an international tribunal has made the pronouncement of the grey area.[14] the Tribunal established a single maritime boundary to delimit the territorial sea of each State, as well as its EEZ and continental shelf.[15] This judgment resolves legal uncertainty and political tension surrounding the two States’ claims in the north-eastern part of the Bay of Bengal. It is a credit to the Tribunal that it has shown such strength and speed in settling the dispute and providing a remedy to the parties in a short span of time.[17]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
