India Settles Sea Claim Dispute with Bangladesh to Seek Offshore Oil

[thesolar65]

so guys,have you seen in what way,you can still blame "RAW and India"??please learn this from Asad71.

Long time...no see. where were you?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Long time...no see. where were you?

busy bro,as my campassing is going on..

 

[dray]

India didn't give anything up, it tried for over 40 plus year to take that area. After years of negotiation that went no where Bangladesh government went to the UN courts to decide, it was a decision by the panel, to mark where the maritime border should be. It wasn't like india gave up the area, bilateral talks with india went no where, in the end it needed the UN to decide where the maritime border should be.

The difference between this and the Chinese issue is it's an maritime demarcation between 2 countries maritime borders, while the SCS is a multinational dispute with China, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Taiwan, Indonesia etc and it's far more complicated.


It was a binding decision of the international courts where the maritime courts should be, india took its claim, we took ours and this was the panels decision.

If India was so generous and gave up anything, why did it have to be dragged to the UN after 40 years of bilateral negotiations to decide where the border is?

"The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court"s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes."

This part is from ICJ website: Frequently Asked Questions | International Court of Justice

You should be grateful that India agreed to take the matter to International Court of Justice, India could have decided to deal with the matter bilaterally or through use of coercion, we had options, but we decided to resolve the matter peacefully unlike some other big countries.

Now tell me what options Bangladesh had if we had decided to resolve the dispute bilaterally, what Bangladesh could do about it?

 

[damiendehorn]

"The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court"s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes."

This part is from ICJ website: Frequently Asked Questions | International Court of Justice

You should be grateful that India agreed to take the matter to International Court of Justice, India could have decided to deal with the matter bilaterally or through use of coercion, we had options, but we decided to resolve the matter peacefully unlike some other big countries.

Now tell me what options Bangladesh had if we had decided to resolve the dispute bilaterally, what Bangladesh could do about it?

There is no need to be grateful to india, we tried for 40 years to negotiate bilaterally at the insistence of india it got us nowhere. It was Bangladesh that took the mater to the ICJ. Your coercion option is over rated, as is the typical bloated egos.

 

[dray]

There is no need to be grateful to india, we tried for 40 years to negotiate bilaterally at the insistence of india it got us nowhere. It was Bangladesh that took the mater to the ICJ. Your coercion option is over rated, as is the typical bloated egos.

I asked you a question; What options Bangladesh had if we had decided to resolve the dispute bilaterally, what Bangladesh could do about it?

 

[damiendehorn]

I asked you a question; What options Bangladesh had if we had decided to resolve the dispute bilaterally, what Bangladesh could do about it?

I answered your question, for 40 years india insisted in resolveing the issue bilaterally. It's just that Bangladesh gov realised that both nation were signatories to the UNs ICJ, and it would look bad for india if they refused to accept arbitration from the ICJ. Especially after burma accepted the border arbitration from the ICJ too.

The problem we faced is that we claimed the same area as india, based on two differing principals. Because the area was unresolved neither nations could exploit the natural resources in that area (although the india did do oceanographic research that showed potential oil and gas deposits in that area).

Diplomatically and politically india did not have the option to impose any coercion options, the BD gov realised this well in advance as the cost of doing so far outweighed any gains for india. In this the BD government played it smart, placing india in a situation where it was unable to impose its size without consequences.

Just a little background to this: in early 2009 the BD gov held several cabinet meetings to weight the options for BD to taking india to the ICJ under article 287 and what would be the indian governments options/reactions/consequences. According to journalists they role played the scene to see what could happen. It would seem the scenario played out according to their expectations except they were unable to judge what the ICJ would award each nation.

However following the earlier ruling from ICJ between Myanmar and Bangladesh that also was pursuant to article 287 on the bases of Bangladeshi's claim. The BD gov felt confident the ICJ had to accept similar arguments in the case between India and Bangladesh.

 

[dray]

I answered your question, for 40 years india insisted in resolveing the issue bilaterally. It's just that Bangladesh gov realised that both nation were signatories to the UNs ICJ, and it would look bad for india if they refused to accept arbitration from the ICJ. Especially after burma accepted the border arbitration from the ICJ too.

The problem we faced is that we claimed the same area as india, based on two differing principals. Because the area was unresolved neither nations could exploit the natural resources in that area (although the india did do oceanographic research that showed potential oil and gas deposits in that area).

Diplomatically and politically india did not have the option to impose any coercion options, the BD gov realised this well in advance as the cost of doing so far outweighed any gains for india. In this the BD government played it smart, placing india in a situation where it was unable to impose its size without consequences.

Just a little background to this: in early 2009 the BD gov held several cabinet meetings to weight the options for BD to taking india to the ICJ under article 287 and what would be the indian governments options/reactions/consequences. According to journalists they role played the scene to see what could happen. It would seem the scenario played out according to their expectations except they were unable to judge what the ICJ would award each nation.

However following the earlier ruling from ICJ between Myanmar and Bangladesh that also was pursuant to article 287 on the bases of Bangladeshi's claim. The BD gov felt confident the ICJ had to accept similar arguments in the case between India and Bangladesh.

Your 6-inch long paragraph sums up to one single line; "It would look bad for India if they refused to accept arbitration from the ICJ"!! So basically Bangladesh had little option other than banking on the fact that India is a responsible country and it may not act like a bully. Pretty much what I am saying. Bangladesh should be grateful that India acted responsibly and agreed to settle the issue in the ICJ unlike some other big countries, Bangladesh could do jack if we had decided to resolve the dispute bilaterally.

And about "looking bad" and "consequences"; you might be knowing that there are famous instances where we have just refused to resolve such disputes by any other means but bilaterally, without bothering about "looking bad" and "consequences", you should understand that we accepting 3rd party intervention in this particular case is basically rewarding Bangladesh for its soft stand and obedience.

 

[arp2041]

Since we pull the strings in Dhaka, it doesn't matter if we control or they (so called) control parts of Sea. It's one & the same thing.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

@MBI Munshi India's hegemonic designs.. blah blah ... and rest of jamtis

India again displayed its hegemonic intentions by blocking me from accessing PDF during the last few weeks ... ....

 

[dray]

India again displayed its hegemonic intentions by blocking me from accessing PDF during the last few weeks ... ....

I guess RAW paid a visit to webmaster especially for you!!

 

[historysheeter]

I answered your question, for 40 years india insisted in resolveing the issue bilaterally. It's just that Bangladesh gov realised that both nation were signatories to the UNs ICJ, and it would look bad for india if they refused to accept arbitration from the ICJ. Especially after burma accepted the border arbitration from the ICJ too.

The problem we faced is that we claimed the same area as india, based on two differing principals. Because the area was unresolved neither nations could exploit the natural resources in that area (although the india did do oceanographic research that showed potential oil and gas deposits in that area).

Diplomatically and politically india did not have the option to impose any coercion options, the BD gov realised this well in advance as the cost of doing so far outweighed any gains for india. In this the BD government played it smart, placing india in a situation where it was unable to impose its size without consequences.

Just a little background to this: in early 2009 the BD gov held several cabinet meetings to weight the options for BD to taking india to the ICJ under article 287 and what would be the indian governments options/reactions/consequences. According to journalists they role played the scene to see what could happen. It would seem the scenario played out according to their expectations except they were unable to judge what the ICJ would award each nation.

However following the earlier ruling from ICJ between Myanmar and Bangladesh that also was pursuant to article 287 on the bases of Bangladeshi's claim. The BD gov felt confident the ICJ had to accept similar arguments in the case between India and Bangladesh.

You can not go to ICJ unilaterally. Normally ICJ is brought in to save face in own constituency when the issue becomes emotional. However, the matter is resolved, so its better to be happy rather than digging graves. Both India an BD govts have shown maturity. While no one is cribbing in India, the jamatis and BNP are trying to make it a feel bad factor for all. This attitude should change.