-------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:57 PM
Subject: RE: JUDGMENT: INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
The discussion now centres on the evaluation of the judgment and the knowledge of rights and privileges thus acquired by, accrued to or incurred by both parties and also on remaining alert to any future developments due to geographic, political, economic, military or any other factors. In particular, the govt must do the home work for the settlement of the maritime boundary dispute with India in light of the present judgment. In Myanmar's case India sided with Myanmar against the claims of Bangladesh, in trying to strangulate Bangladesh in the sea, and so it can be assumed that India will try to influence the ITLOS judges against Bangladesh, especially India has never been fair about the interests of Bangladesh.
Since you have done a lot of work on the subject and referred to a number of documents, I am referring to an additional number of documents for anyone who is interested:
The Judgment on the
DISPUTE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR IN THE BAY OF BENGAL
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/1-C16_Judgment_14_02_2012.pdf
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GAO
http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/9-C16.sep_op.Gao.withmaps.orig.E.pdf
2009: Bangladesh Invokes UNCLOS Dispute Settlement Mechanism to Resolve Territorial Maritime Disputes With India & Myanmar
http://itssdjournalunclos-lost.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/bangladesh-invokes-unclos-dispute.html
Tribunal on Bangladesh v. India
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1376
Former Ambassador to UN Barrister Harun ur Rashid: Maritime boundary with India: Arbitration or bilateral negotiations
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=227962
(Pro-BAL, Anti-BNP report) Shakhawat Liton: Defending our Bay
http://www.thedailystar.net/magazine/2012/03/04/current.htm
(Praising BAL, BNP and all concerned) Former Ambassador M. Serajul Islam: ITLOS decision opens up vast possibilities in the Bay
http://ambassadorseraj.blogspot.co.uk/
Engineer M Inamul Haque, former Director General of Water Resources Planning Organisation under the water resources ministry
http://newagebd.com/newspaper1/op-ed/30511.html
Prothom Alo: Engineer M Enamul Haque
http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2012-03-30/news/236452
Amar Desh: সমুদ্রসীমা নির্ধারণই প্রাপ্তি: বাংলাদেশ হারিয়েছে বেশি: তেল-গ্যাসের ৬টি ব্লক পুরোপুরি ও ৪টি আংশিক হাতছাড়া
http://www.amardeshonline.com/pages/details/2012/04/02/139105
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 15:13:27 +0600
Subject: Re: JUDGMENT: INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
To:
Who Won the Case in the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar ?
Abid Bahar
"On Wednesday 14 March, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea issued its judgment in the Dispute concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar. The dispute concerned the delimitation of the territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves of these two states in the Bay of Bengal.
Dipu Moni, the Bangladeshi foreign minister, told reporters."This is a great day for Bangladesh."Hasina claims, she won a battle in the sea.
Some Burmese believe,...the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITOLS) in Hamburg, Germany was biased. Myanmar was pariah nation at the given moment and it was a way to punish Myanmar. If the dispute was addressed today the outcome would be different."
Other Burmese observers report, "Bangla may have won their disputed deep sea block 11 but Myanmar will still retain Bangla's drawn up gas-field blocks 18, 22, 23, 27 and 28.
http://horizonspeaks.wordpress.com/2011/09/11/bangladesh-vs-myanmar-the-maritime-arbitration/
http://internationallawobserver.eu/2012/03/15/judgment-in-bangladesh-myanmar-maritime-boundary-dispute/
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/print_news.php?nid=111566
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/print_news.php?nid=48489
http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ablos/ABLOS10Folder/S5P3-Pres.pdf
"So who won the case? There have already been claims of "victory" in the case. However, in the context of maritime boundary delimitation disputes, this is probably not an appropriate question to ask. Throughout its judgment, the Tribunal stressed that the goal of maritime boundary delimitation (beyond the territorial sea) was an "equitable solution."
"This is perhaps clearest in relation to the single maritime boundary drawn for the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf within 200 nautical miles. Bangladesh had argued that the Tribunal should use the angle-bisector method in drawing the boundary, as the equidistance line would, in its opinion, lead to inequitable result. This argument was rejected by the Tribunal which accepted that the equidistance/relevant circumstances method was appropriate in this case, as had been argued by Myanmar. Yet, the Tribunal did not fully accept all of the arguments of Myanmar put forward by Myanmar on this point. The Tribunal stressed that it was not bound by the base points suggested by Myanmar in its proposed equidistance line and the Tribunal added its own base point to lead to a more equitable provisional equidistance line. Moreover, the Tribunal also rejected the argument of Myanmar that there were no relevant circumstances. Bangladesh had identified several possible relevant circumstances. The Tribunal accepted that it was necessary to adjust the equidistance line to take into account the concavity of the coast. But it did denied the relevance of the other circumstances, put forward by Bangladesh, including the position of St. Martins Island (subject to the sovereignty of Bangladesh) which was given no effect in the delimitation. (Para. 319 of the Judgment) The adjustment of the line is largely done at the discretion of the Tribunal, with the Tribunal itself noting that "there are no magic formulas." (Para. 327 of the Judgment) Arguably, the final delimitation line for this part of the boundary gives something to both parties.
"The equitable nature of the solution is also apparent in relation to the settlement of the boundary beyond 200 nautical miles. On this point, Myanmar had argued that the Tribunal should not exercise its jurisdiction, but the Tribunal was clear that it had the right to decide on the delimitation, regardless of whether the extension of the outer continental shelf had been approved by the Commission on the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf. The tribunal also rejected Myanmar's argument that Bangladesh has no continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. At the same time, the tribunal rejected the argument of Bangladesh that there was no natural prolongation from the coast of Myanmar because of the geological discontinuity where the Indian tectonic plate meets the Burma tectonic plate about 50 nautical miles from the coast of Myanmar. In an important clarification of the law, the Tribunal held that natural prolongation refers to the extension of the continental margin and there was therefore no need for geological continuity. (See Para. 437 of Judgment; see also Para. 460) Nor did the Tribunal accept that the geographic origin of the sedimentary rocks had any relevance for the delimitation of the outer continental shelf. (Para. 447 of the Judgment) In the end, the Tribunal simply extends the adjusted equidistance line that it had already drawn for the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf within 200 nautical miles. Again, this solution can be seen as giving something to both parties, but it certainly does not give either of them everything they had asked for.
"Reflecting the thaw in the relationship, Dipu Moni was quoted in the Financial Express as saying, "It is a victory for both of the states. Because it finally resolves—peacefully and according to international law—a problem that had hampered their economic development for more than three decades. We salute Myanmar for its willingness to resolve this matter by legal means and for its acceptance of the tribunal's judgment."http://www2.irrawaddy.org/article.php?art_id=23218
Who won and who lost? It seems that it was not a case of win or loss. On the other hand it is clear that both the two developing countries error-ed in making their claims which the ITOLS had to fix and give its judgement. On Bangladesh part we are delighted that ITOLS was led by an expert team of people to deliver to the parties what the countries deserved. Instead of congratulating, we are rather disappointed to see the poor home work done by the team led by Dipu Moni. It appears that under Dipu Moni's messy foreign relation's management this is another case of failure to provide the wrong information for its claims. The ITOLS had to fix them and provide Bangladesh's legitimate claims beyond what Bangladesh demanded. Under the bullying by Myanmar with Indian collaboration Bangladesh had no alternative but to refer it to the UN. So we congratulate the UN body of experts to help solve this vital issue of concern in Burma-Bangladesh relations.
No doubt, "the judgment will also be an important point of reference in the on-going dispute between Bangladesh and India concerning their maritime boundaries on the other side of the Bay of Bengal. The tribunal dealt with the delimitation of the maritime boundary in three different parts: the territorial sea; the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf within 200 nautical miles; and the continental shelf beyond 2oo nautical miles.http://internationallawobserver.eu/2012/03/15/judgment-in-bangladesh-myanmar-maritime-boundary-dispute/
We strongly recommend Bangladesh foreign ministry not make the same mistake in making claims, this time with Myanmar it was luck favored to get more than Bangladesh demanded because the claims were not properly presented by Bangladesh. With Hasina's India love Bangladeshis like to see Dipu does things right for Bangladesh.
Bangladeshis are nervously waiting to see that Bangladesh would have similar neutral judgement from the ITOLS in India-Bangladesh sea boundary demarcation. Not surprisingly, India fearing its hegemony going foiled,quickly tried its Chaniakya trick to resolve this bilaterally. Thanks to Dipu Moni for rejecting the offer that is of course already at the UN. It seems that Dipu Moni is learning from Indian deception but in a snail's pace.
-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Zoglul Husain <zoglul@hotmail.co.uk>
Date: Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Subject: RE: JUDGMENT: INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
The UN verdict, according to Amar Desh report, seems to have incurred the following losses to Bangladesh:
সমুদ্রসীমা নির্ধারণই প্রাপ্তি: বাংলাদেশ হারিয়েছে বেশি: তেল-গ্যাসের ৬টি ব্লক পুরোপুরি ও ৪টি আংশিক হাতছাড়া
(Please click to read Amar Desh report 2 April 2012)
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 10:25:27 +0600
Subject: Fwd: JUDGMENT: INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
From: bdmailer@gmail.com
To:
------- Forwarded message ----------
From: minamul haque <minamul@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: JUDGMENT: INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
To: Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com>
Pl go through this link:http://www.prothom-alo.com/detail/date/2012-03-30/news/236452
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Isha Khan <bdmailer@gmail.com> wrote:
JUDGMENT: INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA
14 March 2012
DISPUTE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR IN THE BAY OF BENGAL
(BANGLADESH/MYANMAR)
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/16006544/1063938709/name/DISPUTE+CONCERNING+DELIMITATION+OF+THE+MARITIME+BOUNDARY+BETWEEN+BANGLADESH+AND+MYANMAR+IN+THE+BAY+OF+BENGAL.pdf
__._,_.___
