Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dispute settlement in the law of the sea, the extended continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal and the CLCS: some preliminary observations on the basis of the case Bangladesh/Myanmar before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea

  • Article
  • Published:
Aegean Review of the Law of the Sea and Maritime Law

Abstract

On the basis of the maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, the scope of this article is to briefly describe the relative procedures provided by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Part XV and to analyse an important part of this dispute concerning the delimitation of the outer continental shelf. Following this reasoning, a special reference is made to the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf, to which Myanmar submitted all information and data for its continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the Bay of Bengal.

Résumé

Sur la base du différend maritime entre le Bangladesh et le Myanmar dans le golfe du Bengale, cet article vise à rappeler brièvement les procédures pertinentes prévues par la Convention des Nations Unies sur le Droit de la Mer/Partie XV et de mettre en exergue un aspect délicat de ce différend, à savoir la délimitation du plateau continental au-delà de 200 milles marins. Ensuite, nous rappelons les fonctions et le rôle de la Commission des limites du plateau continental, à laquelle le Myanmar a fait sa demande en fournissant toutes les informations et les coordonnées de son plateau continental étendu dans le golfe du Bengale.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more information about the ITLOS, see http://www.itlos.org (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  2. The UNCLOS was signed on 10 December 1982 (Montego Bay, Jamaica) and entered into force on 16 November 1994, according to Article 308(1).

  3. The UNCLOS is now being implemented together with the Agreement relating to the Implementation of the Part XI of the Convention of 1982. This agreement modifies some of the institutional and technical features of the regime for mining the seabed. For an analysis of the 1994 Agreement, see Oxman (1999, pp. 15–35) and Gautier (1995, pp. 56–77).

  4. See Quéneudec (2002, pp. 621–632).

  5. See Boyle (1997, pp. 37–54).

  6. See Charney (1996, pp. 69–75).

  7. See Treves (2000, pp. 726–746) and Treves (2005, pp. 9–39).

  8. For studies of the UNCLOS III negotiations, see Sanger (1986) and Miles (1998).

  9. For accounts of the negotiating history of the Convention’s dispute settlement provisions, see Adede (1987).

  10. Memorandum by the President of the Conference on Document A/CONF.62/WP.9, U.N. Doc A/CONF.62/WP.9/Add.1 (1976).

  11. See Dupuy (1985, pp. 499–505) and Jagota (1991, pp. 977–1011).

  12. See Koroma (1996, pp. 227–236) and Brownlie (2009, pp. 267–283).

  13. See Vukas (2004a, pp. 318–322).

  14. Pursuant to Article 3 of Annex VII of UNCLOS, if parties are unable to reach an agreement on the appointment of one or more of the members of the tribunal to be appointed by agreement, or on the appointment of the president of the arbitral tribunal, these appointments shall be made by the President of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, at the request of a party to the dispute and in consultation with the parties. As an example, it is interesting to refer to the arbitral proceedings instituted to settle the maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and India in the Bay of Bengal. On 12 February 2010, the President of ITLOS, Judge Jose Luis Jesus, appointed three arbitrators to serve as members of the Annex VII arbitral tribunal for the settlement of the aforementioned dispute. The arbitrators are Rüdiger Wolfrum (President), Tulio, Treves and Ivan Shearer.

  15. See UNCLOS, Articles 188(2), 292(4), 296; Annex VI, Articles 15(5), 33, 39; Annex VII, Articles 11; Annex VIII, Article 4.

  16. See UN Charter, Article 94; ICJ Statute, Article 59.

  17. See map in Appendix 1.

  18. For an analytical presentation, see Klein (2004), Mensah (1998, pp. 307–323) and Quéneudec (1991, pp. 381–387).

  19. For an overview of all documents on the case, see http://www.itlos.org/start2_en.html (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  20. See Beigzadeh (2000, p. 72). For an overview of the Commission, see Meese (2005, pp. 418–440) and Smith (1999, pp. 135–140).

  21. In addition, we underline that Annex II of the Final Act of UNCLOS III also refers to the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf. The Final Act is not part to the Convention.

  22. The Commission is not in charge of questions related to delimitation. Its task is to fix of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.

  23. Karagiannis (1994, p. 171).

  24. See Gardiner (1978, p. 145 and s).

  25. See Zinchenko (2004, pp. 223–250).

  26. See de Marfy Mantuano (2003, p. 400).

  27. See CLCS/11 at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_documents.htm#Documents (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  28. de Marfy Mantuano (2003, paragraph 1.3).

  29. See Nelson (2002, pp. 1235–1253).

  30. The application of Article 76 could influence the delimitation of maritime zones beyond 200 nautical miles. This could create a new basis for the law of maritime boundary delimitation, considering that it could reinforce arguments based on the natural prolongation. In the case Libya/Malta, the International Court of Justice rejected the arguments claiming that the natural prolongation could play an important role in the delimitation of maritime zones within 200 nautical miles. The Court left open this possibility in the case of zone beyond 200 nautical miles. See Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgement, I.C.J. Reports 1985, note 22, paragraph 39. See also Decaux (1985, pp. 294–323). For an overview of the relevance of the natural prolongation, see Charney (2002, pp. 1011–1029).

  31. For the latest version of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, see CLCS/40, 2 July 2004. It is reminded that the Rules of Procedure were adopted in 1997. From that moment, the Commission introduced a series of changes.

  32. For an extensive analysis, see Johnson and Oude Elferink (2006, pp. 93–119).

  33. The executive summary of the submission made by the Union of Myanmar, can be found at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mmr.htm (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  34. See CLCS/64 at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_documents.htm#Documents (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  35. For the text of the Final Act, see http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  36. According to B. Vukas, the Final Act does not have a unique legal nature. As far as Annexes I and II, he sustains that these can be considered as international agreements. For a general presentation of these aspects, see Vukas (2004b).

  37. The notes verbales sent in response to the submission of Myanmar can be found at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_mmr.htm (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  38. It is interesting to mention that on 6 May 2009 Kenya made its submission to the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf. In the executive summary of the submission, we underline paragraph 4, according to which Kenya invokes, inter alia, the specific method for the establishment of the outer edge of the continental margin set out in the Statement of Understanding. Responding to Kenya, Sri Lanka sent a note verbale, reiterating that the principal state referred in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Understanding is Sri Lanka. In addition, it confirmed its position that the application of the Statement of Understanding and the Commission’s mandate to make recommendation under the said Statement is limited to states in the southern of the Bay of Bengal as reflected in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Understanding. On 3 September 2009, the delegation of Kenya presented its submission to the CLCS. During the presentation and responding to the note verbale by Sri Lanka, Kenya was of the view that the principles contained in the Statement of Understanding could apply to whenever a state is able to demonstrate the existence of the special conditions envisaged in the Statement. Moreover, recalling the note verbale by Sri Lanka, it emphasised that neither the Convention nor the Statement of Understanding refer to any “principal State”. The Commission decided to revert the consideration of the submission at the plenary level at the time when the submission is next in line for consideration as queued in the order it was received. The executive summary of the submission as well as the notes verbales, can be found at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/submissions_files/submission_ken_35_2009.htm (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  39. For more information, see CLCS/64 at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/commission_documents.htm#Documents (last visited on 27 February 2010).

  40. It has to be reminded that the first case, in which an international tribunal faced the question of the delimitation of the outer continental shelf, was the arbitration between Canada and France in 1992. According to the award, the tribunal declared that it was not competent to decide on such delimitation. For an extended analysis of the award, see Dipla (1994, pp. 653–669). The second international case where the issue of the delimitation of the outer continental shelf was brought was in the arbitration between Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago in 2006. We underline that in both of these two cases, during the procedures, the parties made no submission to the Commission on the limits of the continental shelf. For more information about the outer continental shelf question before the Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Annex VII arbitral tribunal, see Kwiatkowska (2007, p. 594 and s).

References

  • Adede AO (1987) The system for settlement of disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: a drafting history and a commentary. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, p 285

    Google Scholar 

  • Beigzadeh E (2000) La Commission des limites du plateau continental. In: Annuaire du droit de la mer, vol 5. Pedone, Paris, p 72

  • Boyle AE (1997) Dispute settlement and the Law of the Sea Convention: problems of fragmentation and jurisdiction. Int Comp Law Q 46(1):37–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (2009) The peaceful settlement of international disputes. Chin J Int Law 8(3):267–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney JI (1996) The implications of expanding international dispute settlement systems: the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. Am J Int Law 90(1):69–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charney JI (2002) International maritime boundaries for the continental shelf: the relevance of natural prolongation. In: Nisuke Ando, Edward McWhinney, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Betsy Baker Röben (eds) Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol 2. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 1011–1029

  • de Marfy Mantuano A (2003) La fixation des dernières limites maritimes: le rôle de la Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental. In: Vincent Coussirat Coustère, Yves Daudet, Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Pierre Michel Eisemann, Michel Voelckel (eds) La mer et son droit: mélanges offerts à Laurent Lucchini et Jean-Pierre Quéneudec. Pedone, Paris, p 400

  • Decaux E (1985) L’arrêt de la Cour internationale de Justice dans l’affaire du plateau continental (Libye/Malte): arrêt du 3 juin 1985. Annuaire français de droit international 31:294–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dipla H (1994) La sentence arbitrale du 10 juin 1992 en l’affaire de la délimitation entre le Canada et la France. Journal du droit international 121(3):653–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy RJ (1985) La Zone, patrimoine commun de l’humanité. In: Dupuy RJ, Vignes D (eds) Traité du nouveau droit de la mer. Economica, Paris, pp 499–505

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner PRR (1978) Reasons and methods for fixing the outer limit of the legal continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. Revue iranienne des relations internationales 11–12:145 and s

  • Gautier P (1995) De 1982 à 1994: Les étapes d’une modification “singulière”. De la partie XI de la Convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer de 1982. Revue belge de droit international 28(1):56–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagota SP (1991) Les fonds marins au-delà des limites des juridictions nationales. In: Bedjaoui M (ed) Droit international: bilan et perspectives. Pedone, Paris, pp 977–1011

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson C, Oude Elferink AG (2006) Submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in cases of unresolved land and maritime disputes: the significance of the Article 76(10) of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. In: Freestone D, Barnes R, Ong DM (eds) The Law of the Sea: progress and prospects. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 93–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Karagiannis S (1994) Observations sur la Commission des limites du plateau continental. Espaces et ressources maritimes 8:171

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein N (2004) Dispute settlement in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 29–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Koroma AG (1996) The peaceful settlement of international disputes. Neth Int Law Rev 43(2):227–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwiatkowska B (2007) The Landmark 2006 UNCLOS Annex VII Barbados/Trinidad and Tobago Maritime Delimitation (Jurisdiction and Merits) Award. George Washington Int Law Rev 39(3):594 and s

  • Meese R (2005) La Commission des Limites du Plateau Continental: un organe scientifique et technique à l’épreuve. In: Julio D. González Campos, Luis Ignacio Sánchez Rodríguez, Victoria Abellán Honrubia (eds) Pacis Artes: Obra Homenaje Al Profesor Julio D. Gonsalez. Eurolex, Madrid, pp 418–440

  • Mensah TA (1998) The dispute settlement regime of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Max Planck Yearb U N Law 2:307–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles EL (1998) Global ocean politics, the decision process at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, p 551

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DLM (2002) The continental shelf: interplay of law and sciences. In: Nisuke Ando, Edward McWhinney, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Betsy Baker Röben (eds) Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol 2. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 1235–1253

  • Oxman BH (1999) The 1994 Agreement relating to the implementation of Part XI of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. In: Vidas D (ed) Order for the oceans at the turn of the century. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 15–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Quéneudec J-P (1991) Le choix des procédures de règlement des différends selon la Convention des Nations Unies sur le Droit de la Mer. In: Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du développement: mélanges Michel Virally. Pedone, Paris, pp 381–387

  • Quéneudec J-P (2002) Coup d’œil rétrospectif sur les origines du Tribunal International du Droit de la Mer. In: Nisuke Ando, Edward McWhinney, Rüdiger Wolfrum, Betsy Baker Röben (eds) Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, vol 1. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 621–632

  • Sanger C (1986) Ordering the oceans: the making of the Law of the Sea. Zed Books Ltd, London, p 225

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith R (1999) The continental shelf commission. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN (eds) Oceans policy: new institutions, challenges and opportunities. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, pp 135–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2000) Le Tribunal international du droit de la mer et la multiplication des juridictions internationales. Rivista di diritto internazionale 83(13):726–746

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2005) Le Tribunal international du droit de la mer dans la pléiade des juridictions internationales. In: Delas O (ed) Les juridictions internationales: complémentarité ou concurrence? Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 9–39

  • Vukas B (2004a) Le choix des procédés prévus par l’Article 287 de la Convention de 1982 sur le Droit de la Mer. In: Le processus de délimitation maritime: étude d’un cas fictif: Colloque international, Monaco, 27–29 mars 2003, Pedone, Paris, pp 318–322

  • Vukas B (2004b) The Law of the Sea: selected writings. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 58–63

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinchenko AA (2004) Emerging issues in the work of the commission on the limits of the continental shelf. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN, Heidar TH (eds) Legal and scientific aspects of continental shelf limits. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 223–250

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ecole de Droit de la Sorbonne/Sorbonne Law School, Centre d’Etude et de Recherche en droit international, University of Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Ioannis Konstantinidis

Authors
  1. Ioannis Konstantinidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ioannis Konstantinidis.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

South Asia: The Bay of Bengal. Source United Nations. www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/seasia.pdf

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Konstantinidis, I. Dispute settlement in the law of the sea, the extended continental shelf in the Bay of Bengal and the CLCS: some preliminary observations on the basis of the case Bangladesh/Myanmar before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Aegean Rev Law Sea 1, 267–285 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12180-010-0015-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12180-010-0015-1

Keywords

Mots clés

Search

Navigation