Maritime Dispute: tough time ahead!

[Maira La]

Maritime Dispute with India
Dhaka should argue on basis of sediment deposition system
Says Deshpremik Mancha


Sediments from Indian land do not get deposited in the Bay of Bengal crossing the Swatch of No Ground, so India has no right anywhere beyond that line, speakers said at a press briefing in the capital yesterday.

They advised Bangladeshi experts to produce a correct sediment deposition map called "bathymetric map of Bengal sediment depositional system" to argue with India to arrive at an equitable solution to the maritime boundary disputes and to get entry to the high seas from the country's own waters.

They came up with the advices as India claims some part of an 111,631 square kilometre area in the Bay, which Bangladesh won through a verdict of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Seas (ITLOS) in Hamburg, Germany.

The speakers said another method of claim called "angle-bisector method", as stipulated in the United Nations Convention Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS), would be favourable for India, and in that case, Bangladesh would lose its right to extracting or using the sea resources, said a statement, "Maritime Boundary with India: Tough Time Ahead", sent by "Deshpremik Mancha", which organised the press briefing.

They suggested that Bangladeshi official delegations should argue on the basis of natural prolongation, which was stipulated in Article 76 of the UNCLOS.

"If we agree or compromise with Indian claims, the Arbitrary Tribunal [International Arbitrary Tribunal in the Hague] might deliver a verdict within 2014. But if we want to establish our claims, it would take longer and tougher periods," said Engineer M Inamul Haque, explaining the laws and methods of claiming sea area.

If Bangladesh fails to argue on the basis of natural prolongation by producing a correct sediment deposition map or compromises with India or maintains the boundary line drawn by the ITLOS, the country's sea area would be limited within or beyond 200 nautical miles of its continental shelf and Bangladesh would be surrounded by the maritime area of Myanmar or India, the speakers said.

Then Bangladesh would be only allowed to use the high seas only for some specific purposes, including navigation and over-flight and laying of submarine cables and pipelines as per the UNCLOS, they added.


Source

 

[idune]

^^^^
Please dont fall for indian flame bait, just report.

 

[Ayush]

self delete

 

[scholseys]

Our Jew lawyer will fight this battle and win, inshallah!

 

[Hammer-fist]

Our Jew lawyer will fight this battle and win, inshallah!

lolzzzzz

May the force be with him!

 

[sidr]

Umm,did I miss something?couple of posts seems deleted.

 

[Luffy 500]

If Bangladesh fails to argue on the basis of natural prolongation by producing a correct sediment deposition map or compromises with India or maintains the boundary line drawn by the ITLOS, the country's sea area would be limited within or beyond 200 nautical miles of its continental shelf and Bangladesh would be surrounded by the maritime area of Myanmar or India, the speakers said.

Then Bangladesh would be only allowed to use the high seas only for some specific purposes

This is the most important issue. We risk being virtually landlocked , detached from intl waters. Settlement of dispute with burma wasn't the "bijoy" BAL dalals beat the drums & propagated it to be. We R talking about 2014 & BAL dalals even if they leave will lead BD for most of this period. India may make them compromise on the dispute before these dalals r ousted. I am not optimistic at all.

 

[idune]

Fighting the claim all the way in the court is the best way. But Awami League regime previously indicated that they want to negotiate with Delhi, that would suicide for Bangladesh national interest. We all know Awami League given up all national interests to india and CAN NOT be trusted.

 

[eastwatch]

If one minutely reads the border map between western BD and India, he will see the line of border demarcation does not go directly to the south at a straight line, but bends southeast towards BD.

1) India wants a sea as its own that compasses an area when the border demarcation line goes southeast. This is how BD loses its legitimate territory.

2) But, Bangladesh wants the border line to go down straight to the south and cuts through the western edge of south Talpatti. Bangladesh claims since this island has been created by the sediments coming down from a river inside Bangladesh, therefore, South Talpatti rightfully belongs to BD. BD wants UN to survey the sedimentation carrying process in the river and subsequently its effects on the formation of Talpatty.

3) India counters it by claiming the sediments are from an Indian river a little west of the border line.

The above is what I believe will be the points of contention between BD and India. The newspaper wrote something that is very incompresible to me.

 

[Anubis]

We could keep the ocean and dredge the sediment and give it back to them!

 

[Hammer-fist]

If one minutely reads the border map between western BD and India, he will see the line of border demarcation does not go directly to the south at a straight line, but bends southeast towards BD.

1) India wants a sea as its own that compasses an area when the border demarcation line goes southeast. This is how BD loses its legitimate territory.

2) But, Bangladesh wants the border line to go down straight to the south and cuts through the western edge of south Talpatti. Bangladesh claims since this island has been created by the sediments coming down from a river inside Bangladesh, therefore, South Talpatti rightfully belongs to BD. BD wants UN to survey the sedimentation carrying process in the river and subsequently its effects on the formation of Talpatty.

3) India counters it by claiming the sediments are from an Indian river a little west of the border line.

The above is what I believe will be the points of contention between BD and India. The newspaper wrote something that is very incompresible to me.

Though these international courts in theory are "impartial" the US said last year that Bangladesh is responsible for the security of the bay of Bengal.

What bearing - if any - would that have on this dispute?

 

[idune]

In Myanmar dispute case Awami League willfully stated that Talpatti does not exist, obviously was done to benefit indian position. I had made detail comments on that in earlier thread. Key should be taking mid stream of Rai Mongal river as demarcation point but if that point will be presented with convincing data and argument is in doubt. With Awami League regime in power Bangladesh would not get fair and righful representation on its right and rightful share.

Also, one of the judge in the pannel is indian (Dr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao), Bangladesh should have raised objection to that.

 

[perplexed]

India is gonna be super rich now that some additional shoals gonna be a part of it

 

[animelive]

In Myanmar dispute case Awami League willfully stated that Talpatti does not exist, obviously was done to benefit indian position. I had made detail comments on that in earlier thread. Key should be taking mid stream of Rai Mongal river as demarcation point but if that point will be presented with convincing data and argument is in doubt. With Awami League regime in power Bangladesh would not get fair and righful representation on its right and rightful share.

Also, one of the judge in the pannel is indian (Dr. Pemmaraju Sreenivasa Rao), Bangladesh should have raised objection to that.

What the fvck? the judgement should happen after they are out of power

 

[MandarK]

Though these international courts in theory are "impartial" the US said last year that Bangladesh is responsible for the security of the bay of Bengal.

What bearing - if any - would that have on this dispute?

Judges in International Court may/may not be from US.