Law of Natural Resources

LLMF-3232

Student Name : Md. Mahfuzur Rahman

Student Number : 2013220301095

LLM. (Final) Batch : 28 (C)

Dept of Law & Justice.

Lecturer Name : Dr. Chowdhury Ishrak Ahmed Siddiky.

Topic Name : “Sea Limit Row with India: An analysis regarding Profits and losses”

Brief Outline : (This study has been segmented on 5 parts. Part-I deals with

Introduction. Part-II is about Background of This Issue. Part-II

advocates the theory of Delimiting Issues and Factors. Part-IV

states the account of Profits and losses. Part- V finally organized

the concluding findings.)

Student Declaration

I declare that my assignment is on a topic I have not previously researched for an

assignment. I am aware that penalty for submitting work that has been prepared for

submission in another subject or course will be a mark of 0.I am aware that this

declaration is in addition to the University rules on plagiarism, which I am bound to

comply with.

Signed: .................................

2

RESEARCH TOPIC OUTLINE

“Sea Limit Row with India: An analysis

regarding Profits and losses”

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement Page- 5

Methodology Page- 6

Picture-1 Page- 7

PART-I

Introduction Page- 8

PART-II

Background Page- 9

Picture-2 Page- 10

PART-III

Delimiting Issues And Factors Page- 11-13

PART-IV

Profits & Losses Page- 14-18

PART-V

Findings Page- 19

Reference Page- 20

4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In the arduous road to make an term paper, I acknowledging the help that I have received from

others in the work presented here I must begin by recording that my greatest debt is to

Dr. Chowdhury Ishrak Ahmed Siddiky. who inspired me to work in this area. He is also a

marvelous teacher over many years and his ideas continue to influence me when I reach with some

of his conclusion. I acknowledged debt to my friends Md. Shahedul Islam, Md. Abdullah Al

Mamun, Md. Anyet Hossain who taken an attempt to finalized my work.

5

METHODOLOGY

The present study followed an analysis research design in which both primary and secondary

data were obtained using qualitative and quantitative data collection instrument. Primary data

were obtained incompliance with the specific objectives of the study from the Bangladesh-India

Maritime Delimitation Case with a view to realization the real Scenario.

6

PICTURE-1

7

PART-I

INTRODUCTION

In a Landmark Judgment, the international arbitral tribunal yesterday rejected India’s maritime

claim and upheld Bangladesh’s claim of 200 nautical miles’ exclusive economic zone and

territorial rights in the Bay of Bengal.

The verdict of the United Nations Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), based in The Hague,

went largely in favor of Bangladesh, (Except the south Talpotti Island) as it gave the country a

substantial share of the extended continental shelf beyond 200 NM.

The tribunal awarded Bangladesh 19,467 Sq km area out of the disputed 25,602 sq km. The

judgment is final and binding on both countries, it can't be appealed.

This study has been segmented on 5 parts. Part-I deals with Introduction. Part-II is about

Background of This Issue. Part-III advocates the theory of Delimiting Issues and Factors. Part-

IV states the account of Profits and losses. Part-V finally organized the concluding findings.

8

PART-II

BACKGROUND OF THIS ISSUE

Truly speaking right of access to sea would be determined as a gift for mankind by the Allah.

The vast region (45% of the earth’s total surface) with next to do governance or rule of law is

the high Seas-nearly two-thirds of the global ocean that lies outside of any country’s

Jurisdiction. How it is possible after all there is the legally binding 1982 United Nations

convention on the law of the sea (UNCLOS) which has been ratified by 166 states and the

European union. It is believed that water territory posses more property, wealth and resources

then the land territory. There are various kinds of living and non living resources such as

fisheries, flora, fauna, oil, gases, minerals etc among those a little portion has been collected yet

due to the technological know how along with political and other issues. The lion portion of

word’s export and Import trade conducted by sea route.

Geographically Bangladesh fenced by (3) three sides land territory of India and Myanmar. The

south sides of this country is open to enter into the Bay of Bengal. 54 trans boundary rivers

water follows from India through Bangladesh to the Bay. Due to the reasons of delimitation of

maritime dispute with India & Myanmar. Bangladesh has been depriving to enjoy, access to Sea

and Sea resources for a long time.

9

PICTURE-2

10

PART-III

DELIMITING ISSUES AND FACTORS

In Bay of Bengal against counter claim by India & Myanmar, Bangladesh has a little to remains

to own. Among 28 oil and gas blocks in the southern Bay of Bengal claim lodged by Myanmar.

On 17 blocks and India on 10 blocks respectively. For the enslavement of those dispute

regarding delimitation of maritime boundaries issues, Bangladesh learn to seek remedy against

India, on 8th oct’2009 before International forum that is Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA)

on Peace Palace at Hague in Nether land. The PCA at the Hague officially conveyed the result to

both parties on 7th July 2014. The judgment is final and cannot be appealed against. Earlier

Bangladesh won judgment in the case against Myanmar on March 14’ 2012.

It is noted that area of dispute with India in the bay of Bengal is much smaller than that

between Bangladesh and Myanmar which was 2,83,463 square kilometers. Tribunals awarded

Bangladesh 19,467 sq km area out of total disputed 25,602 sq km: with India, Bangladesh now

owns 1,18,413 sq km: territorial sea with an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending to 200

nautical miles.

Although Bangladesh and India sea boundary talks started in 1974, renewed in 1978 and

1982, it could not be resolved because of the differences over methods of delimiting the

boundary between the two sides.

Bangladesh submitted its statement of claim by May 2011 to the court of Arbitration.

India submitted Counter memorial by July 2012. Rejoinder by Bangladesh was lodged on 31st

January and India’s reply was submitted by 31st July 2013. Oral hearing from both sides were

heard by the Arbitration court in December 2013 (9th-18th December.)

The court of Arbitration consists of three jurists as Arbitrators Tullio Treves of Italy, I.A.

Shearer of Australia and Rudigar Wolfrum of Germany and one each nominated by Bangladesh

11

and India. Bangladesh nominated former Judge Thomas Mensah from-Ghana and India

nominated Dr. P. Sreenivasa Rao, former legal Adviser of the External Attains ministry.

Five arbitrators comprise the court presided over by Rudigar wolfrum of Germany. In July 2013

Treves resigned and a French jurist Jean Pierre cot was appointed in his place in consultation

with both parties. On behalf of India Lawyers, RKP Shankardass, Alain Pellet, Michcal Reisman

and Sir Michael Wood argued, while for Bangladesh Lawrence Martin, Philippe Sands, Payam

Akhavan, Paul Reichler, Alan Boyle and James Crawford.

Since the sea boundary could not be resolved bilaterally since 1974, Bangladesh government on

8th October 2009 initiated arbitration proceedings against India before the Court of Arbitration

in The Hague. UNCLOS provides a general guidelines of delimitation under Articles 15

(territorial sea) 74, (delimitation of EEZ) and 83 (delimitation of continental shelf). The

interpretation and application of maritime law of delimitation have been expounded by the

International Court of justice and Tribunals.

3rd United Nation Convention on the law of sea adopted in 1982 and came into force in 1994.

India adopted on 27 June’ in 1995 and Myanmar adopted on 21st May 1996. According to

section 287 Annexure VII Article 1, Bangladesh has already been raised its claim. It should be

noted that Bangladesh Enacted Territorial water and Maritime zone Act. 1974 through an

official gazette Notification.

The most significant precedent in the case of Bangladesh-India maritime dispute is arguably the

judgment delivered by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) on march 14th

2012 in the Bangladesh-Myanmar Maritime Delimitation Case.

12

The ITLOS judgment accepted Meghna estuary as part of relevant coast. It upheld Bangladesh

cannot be a “Sea-locked” state by cutting off its boundary line from Myanmar side in the Bay of

Bengal. It Recognized Bangladesh’s 12-mile territorial sea, 200 mile exclusive economic Zone,

and the rights of Bangladesh to the outer continental shelf beyond the economic zone (another

260 miles). Bangladesh has total rights over the undersea natural resources within continental

shelf as many nations have asserted mineral and land rights to their continental shelves. Most

importantly Bangladesh has access to the open sea.

The most important fact is that the judgment of the Court of Arbitration together with the ITLOS

judgment in 2012 has resulted in a clear maritime boundary which will allow Bangladesh, India

and Myanmar unhindered exploration of living resources (fishing and other living marine

species) and non- living (oil, gas and minerals) resources in the Bay of Bengal. Bangladesh will

have now not only 19,467 sq. kilo in the west but also 1,11,631 sq. kilo in the east (ITLOS

judgment) in the Bay of Bengal for exploration and exploitation of its resources. One of the

sources of food as well as oil and gas could be found from marine resources. As land resources

deplete more attention falls on the marine resources. Another fact stands out is that Bangladesh

and its neighboring states- India and Myanmar- have peacefully settled the maritime boundary

through the legal mechanism under the UNCLOS and it demonstrates all three countries have

been committed to have peaceful settlement.

13

PART-IV

PROFITS & LOSSES

Verdict brings new hope

The resolution of the maritime boundary dispute is a pleasant surprise for Petrobangla as

it will lose very little in terms for areas in six offshore oil and gas blocks bordering India in the

western Bay of Bengal.

“We will go for international bidding as soon as possible. At the same time, we will see

whether we can explore any of the offshore blocks on our own, as it does not cost much,”

Petrobangla Chairman Hussain Monsur said while welcoming the verdict of United Nations

Permanent court of the Arbitration.

Another Petrobangla high official noted, “If the government is willing, we can to for the

third-round offshore oil and gas exploration did by the third quarter of next year.”

Out of six, two deep-sea blocks down south will need redesigning as their boundaries will

require realignment by five to six kilometers each. The remaining four-including two

shallowones---will undergo minor changes, he said.

“However, to attract international oil companies in the deep seas, the government must

tailor the did terms and conditions in line with international practices--especially those

international practices---especially those.

In 2008 and 2012, the government floated two separate block bids and only one American

company, Conocophillips, is practically working in the deep seas upon signing a production

sharing contract (PSC).

Both bids had failed to adequately attract bidders because of the maritime dispute with

Myanmar---which was resolved in 2012---and with India. In addition to uncertainty over the

14

boundary, international oil companies were not very attracted by the incentives offered by

Bangladesh.

Now with the whole dispute clearing up, oil companies will not have any worries to did in

Bangladeshi maritime blocks.

“The government now has some experience in dealing with one company Conocophillips

have met high officials several times and conveyed to the government that the government must

change the existing format to have oil companies work in the deep-sea blocks.” the official noted.

Based on its seismic survey, the American company assessed that there was a prospect of

a gas resources of 5 to 7 trillion cubic feet.

“However, the possibility of success to find this gas is just 17 percent. So investment

here is highly risky,” said the official. The location of this prospect is around 350 kilometres

away from the Chittagong coast.

In this light Conocophillips wants the government to amend the PSC and hike the gas

price so that it proceeds with exploratory works.

“We actually have no idea about the dimension of investment required for deep sea

exploration,” he added.

“If we don’t want foreign investment, it’s fine. But as we understand the subject,

Bangladesh has no expertise or finances to tap this resource. Gas will stay where it is now,” the

official pointed out.

Bogged down with a gas crisis of 500 million cubic feet a day (mmcfd), which in one

fifth of the demand, Bangladesh has had hard luck finding any new major gas field since 1998

when the Bibiyana gas field since 1998 when the Bibiyana gas field was discovered. All follow

up discoveries were inadequate to meet the spiralling demands.

This had prompted the government to go for off-shore exploration bids in 2008 and

2012. There were 28 blocks--- each having exploration area of between 3,000 to 7,000 sq km.

15

Side by side the government had taken the initiative to import liquefied natural gas

(LNG) from the Middle East.

“If we are okay with paying $ 15 dollars per mmcfd LNG, why can’t we pay, say $ 10 to

fetch gas directly from the deep sea through a pipeline? It’s all about mindset,” quips an expert.

Bangladesh had only one producing field in the shallow waters of the Bay, the sangu

field, which died two years back. According to online energy magazine Geo Expro, from April

2009 India has been producing 2.1 billion cubic feet per day from different fields in Dhirubhai

deep-water block in the Bay which has 25 trillion cubic feet (tcf) gas in place. This is located in

Krishna Godavari Basin the midpoint of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Indian Reliance Industries

in leading the discoveries.

This has virtually doubled India’s gas output. Other Indian discoveries in the Bay are

closer to Bangladesh, having another 5to 6 tcf gas.

We lost south Talpotti Island

But through this delimitating Judgment BD has lost the right over south Talpotti Island.

It should be reminded that south Talpotti has been raising after the cyclone of 1970. This island

situated in the south corner of khulna and Bagherhat district. This island has been raised on

between our Raymongol and Hariabhanga river. This 2050 sq. km island has been identified by

American satellite is 1974 later on the area of this island increases into 10,000 sq Km. India

claimed this island and India’s west Bengal state government flagged in 1978 on this island

Although this island know as “south Talpotti” by Bangladesh, India Called it by “New more”

However, Bangladesh proposed for Joint survey regarding this island, India did not accept it,

Indian NAVY arrived on 9th May’ in 1987. Bangladesh requested to sent back India NAVY

troops but India did not accept it also Recently it was claimed by India that there is no sign of

Talpotti island. International law relating to Maritime issues advocates the theory of requiring

any place in the sea territory to be an island. Indian High commissioner stated there is no sign of

16

Talpotti island really and it was also affirmed by Bangladesh External Affairs Ministry. How it

could be possible?

It could only be determined by scientific survey that whether Talpotti has been lost its

existence due to the reason of green house that affects on sea water level raising. And in the same

time south Talpotti is a mangrove forest and for this reason at went into water while high tide.

Another question is there whether Bangladesh presented and exhibited sufficient

evidence for proving ownership of this island.

Officials of External Ministry of Bangladesh admit it on a press conference that in 2010

maps made by Bangladesh government, there is no existence of south Talpotti Island in this map.

Court (PCA) also pointed out in its judgment that there is no existence of south Talpotti

island. By this judgment we have lost it forever. Because PCA’S judgment can’t be appealed

against. Once we include this area in Block-21 with a view to the exploration of oil and mineral

resources. (oil, gas and fossil fuel) were reserved in this island. And for this reason India were

keen to acquire and thereby won this offshore oil and gas reservoirs that is nothing but south

Talpotti island.

Till today there has been no conducting of exploration of ail of gas but by the virtue of

this judgment India now entitled to explore offshore oil and gas.

It should be noted that in 1947 sir Radcliff determined the middle water flows line of

Hariabhanga river as a boundary line for East Pakistan and India.

If 1800 straight line has been drawn from the middle water flows of Hariabhanga river to

the sea then Bangladesh has gotten the Talpotti island. Bangladesh losses this island because

boundary line drawn from the main point of land to the sea in 177.30. In this question

Bangladesh favored a principal based on “equity” while India favored “equidistance” system to

get larger maritime areas.

17

Bangladesh had won in both the cases and the majority of 28 oil blocks came in the

water territory of Bangladesh.

The maritime affairs chief said, India clamed 10 blocks and Bangladesh got all the 10

that India claimed.

On the question of south Talpotti Dr. Khurshed Said the island did not exist anymore and

that it went under water after the cyclone at Urir Char in 1985. And as per the Radcliffe

boundary delimitation and all the maps published by Bangladesh till 1980, south Talpotti was

never a part of Bangladesh.

The judgment may assist Bangladesh concretise the Japanese proposal for a Bay of

Bengal Industrial Growth Belt(BIG-B) for Japanese trade and investment. Its ushers in a new era

of cooperation with the neighbors in maritime area.

18

PART-V

FINDINGS

The verdict of the United Nations permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), base in the Hague,

upholds, Country’s economic, territorial right over 200 nautical Miles from coast, Bangladesh

now owns 1,18,813 sq km. territorial sea and owns an exclusive economic zone extending to

200 nautical miles. Tribunal awarded Bangladesh all the 10 blocks claimed by India. We lost

south Talpotti Island forever. Which would be strongly believed that Talpotti is a reservoir of

offshore oil mine. The area went to Indian territory. As since the Judgment is final and bending

on both countries, and can’t be appealed against.

19

REFERENCE

1. ANDRES VELASCO’S Article on lawless sea

2. The United Nation Convention on law of the sea (UNCLOS-III).

3. The Daily star, July 9’ 2014.

4. Article Published by Ex. Judge, and political, Economical, Constitutional expert Iktder

Ahmed.

5. Internet from goole. com.

20