Bangladesh Maritime Dispute With India And Myanmar - A Review

Author: LawSphereX

Category: International Law

Published: 2026-08-23T18:25:46.668158+00:00

Updated: 2026-08-26T17:11:53.733+00:00

BANGLADESH MARITIME DISPUTE WITH INDIA AND

MYANMAR: A REVIEW

Humaira Adiba Kotha, Department of Law & Human Rights, University of Asia Pacific,74/A, Green Road, Dhaka-1205, Bangladesh Shafiul Azam, Dalian University of Technology, Linggong Road 2, Dalian 116023, China

ABSTRACT

The maritime boundary disputes of Bangladesh with its neighbors, India and Myanmar, have long-standing historical, legal, and geopolitical significance. Located at the northern tip of the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh faced challenges in asserting its maritime rights due to its unique concave coastline and overlapping claims with the other two nations. This article examines the geographical and legal dimensions of these disputes, highlighting the critical role of international adjudication through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). By analyzing the judgments in these cases, the study underscores the application of the equidistance/relevant circumstances method in achieving equitable resolutions.

Comparative insights are drawn from other notable maritime disputes, such as the South China Sea and the Chile-Peru cases, to contextualize the outcomes. The analysis reveals the strategic, economic, and legal implications of these judgments for Bangladesh, emphasizing the importance of international law in fostering regional stability and cooperation. The article concludes with a discussion of challenges and future directions for sustainable maritime governance in the Bay of Bengal.

Introduction Maritime boundaries are critical for determining a state’s jurisdiction over marine resources and economic zones. For Bangladesh, a densely populated coastal nation, access to the Bay of Bengal’s resources is vital for economic development and national security (Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014). However, overlapping claims with neighboring countries, India and Myanmar, led to prolonged disputes over maritime boundaries (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). These disputes primarily revolved around the delimitation of exclusive economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982).

The resolution of these disputes through international adjudication represents a landmark in maritime law. The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) provided platforms for equitable and peaceful dispute resolution (Beckman, 2012). This article reviews the historical background, legal arguments, and outcomes of these cases. It highlights the role of international law in shaping maritime boundaries and explores the implications of these rulings for Bangladesh and the region. Method and Materials This study employs a qualitative research methodology, relying on a combination of primary and secondary sources to analyze the maritime boundary disputes involving Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar.

The following materials and methods were utilized: Legal Documents and Judgments The research primarily focuses on the official judgments and rulings of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): • The ITLOS judgment in the case between Bangladesh and Myanmar (Case No. 16, Judgment of 14 March 2012). • The PCA award in the arbitration between Bangladesh and India (Award of 7 July 2014). These documents were analyzed to understand the legal reasoning, application of international law principles, and outcomes of the disputes.

International Legal Frameworks The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) serves as the primary legal framework governing the disputes. Key provisions, including Articles 15, 74, and 83, were examined to assess their application in the adjudication process. Additional analysis of Annex VII arbitration mechanisms provided insights into procedural aspects. Geographical and Cartographic Data Geographical and cartographic analyses were conducted using publicly available maps and reports to contextualize the maritime claims of Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar. This included: • Examination of coastline configurations, focusing on the concave nature of Bangladesh’s coastline. • Review of maritime zones, including Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and continental shelves, based on official submissions to the United Nations.

Comparative Case Studies Comparative analysis was conducted using other international maritime disputes to draw parallels and highlight unique aspects of the Bangladesh cases. Case studies included: • The South China Sea dispute, particularly the Philippines v. China arbitration. • The Chile-Peru maritime boundary dispute adjudicated by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). These cases were selected for their relevance to the application of international law in resolving overlapping maritime claims. Secondary Sources A comprehensive review of academic literature, including journal articles, books, and policy

reports, was undertaken to provide context and interpret the legal and geopolitical implications of the disputes. Key sources included: • Scholarly analyses of maritime boundary delimitation principles.

Commentaries on ITLOS and PCA rulings. • Regional studies on the Bay of Bengal and its geopolitical significance. Analytical Framework The research employs an analytical framework grounded in international law and geopolitics. Key analytical tools include: • Evaluation of the equidistance/relevant circumstances method for maritime delimitation. • Assessment of the equity principle in addressing geographical disadvantages. • Analysis of the broader implications of the judgments for regional stability and international maritime law. By synthesizing these materials and methods, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the maritime disputes involving Bangladesh and their resolution through international adjudication.

Discussion Geographical and Maritime Area Description Bangladesh Bangladesh is located at the northern tip of the Bay of Bengal, with a coastline spanning approximately 710 kilometers. Its maritime zones extend from its concave coastline, presenting unique geographical challenges for maritime boundary delimitation (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). The country’s EEZ and continental shelf hold significant fisheries and hydrocarbon resources, crucial for its economy. However, the concave nature of its coastline creates a "cutoff" effect when applying the equidistance principle, necessitating equitable adjustments (Oude Elferink, 2014). India India’s eastern coastline, adjacent to the Bay of Bengal, stretches over 1,900 kilometers,

encompassing several states such as West Bengal, Odisha, and Andhra Pradesh. India’s maritime claims in the Bay of Bengal include a vast EEZ and continental shelf, rich in natural resources. India’s larger landmass and extensive coastline gave it an advantageous position in maritime boundary negotiations, favoring the equidistance method (PCA, 2014). However, its overlapping claims with Bangladesh necessitated arbitration to achieve an equitable resolution. Myanmar Myanmar’s coastline along the Bay of Bengal extends approximately 1,930 kilometers. The country’s maritime zones include significant portions of the EEZ and continental shelf, vital for its energy and fisheries sectors. Like India, Myanmar advocated for the equidistance method, which would have limited Bangladesh’s access to maritime resources (ITLOS, 2012).

The disputed areas with Bangladesh were particularly significant for hydrocarbon exploration, increasing the stakes for resolution. Historical Context of the Disputes Bangladesh’s Dispute with Myanmar The maritime boundary dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar traces back to the 1970s. Both countries laid competing claims over the Bay of Bengal’s EEZ and continental shelf (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). Myanmar’s preference for the equidistance method clashed with Bangladesh’s argument for equity, considering its concave coastline’s impact (Oude Elferink, 2014). Tensions escalated in the early 2000s when Myanmar initiated hydrocarbon exploration in contested areas, prompting Bangladesh to seek international adjudication in 2009 (ITLOS, 2012).

These tensions not only posed a challenge to bilateral relations but also threatened regional stability, given the strategic importance of the Bay of Bengal as a vital maritime route (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). Bangladesh’s Dispute with India Similarly, the maritime boundary dispute with India arose from overlapping claims to the EEZ and continental shelf (PCA, 2014). Bangladesh’s concave coastline created a disproportionate disadvantage under the equidistance principle favored by India (Rayfuse, 2005). After decades of negotiations failed to yield a solution, Bangladesh referred the matter to arbitration under

Annex VII of UNCLOS in 2009 (UNCLOS, 1982). The strategic and economic stakes were high for both nations, as the contested areas held significant potential for hydrocarbon resources, fisheries, and other marine wealth (Beckman, 2012). Comparison with Other Maritime Disputes South China Sea Dispute One notable comparison is the South China Sea dispute, involving multiple claimants such as China, the Philippines, Vietnam, and others. Unlike the peaceful resolutions achieved by Bangladesh, the South China Sea dispute has been marked by unilateral actions and military confrontations (Beckman, 2012). While UNCLOS principles underpin both disputes, the lack of adherence to international rulings in the South China Sea contrasts sharply with the cooperative approach demonstrated in the Bay of Bengal cases (Rayfuse, 2005).

Chile-Peru Maritime Dispute The maritime dispute between Chile and Peru shares similarities with Bangladesh’s cases. Both involved overlapping claims to EEZs and continental shelves, with significant economic implications. In both cases, international courts played a pivotal role in delivering equitable solutions, emphasizing the utility of judicial mechanisms in resolving maritime disputes (Oude Elferink, 2014). However, Bangladesh’s reliance on equity-based arguments due to its concave coastline distinguishes its disputes from the relatively straightforward geographical considerations in the Chile-Peru case (Beckman, 2012). Legal Framework and Adjudication UNCLOS Principles UNCLOS provides a comprehensive legal framework for maritime boundary delimitation. Key provisions include: • Article 15: Governs the delimitation of territorial seas (UNCLOS, 1982).

• Articles 74 and 83: Address the delimitation of the EEZ and continental shelf, emphasizing equitable solutions (Oude Elferink, 2014).

Annex VII: Establishes the framework for arbitration proceedings, enabling countries to resolve disputes amicably through international tribunals (Rayfuse, 2005). These provisions emphasize a balanced approach to resolving disputes, ensuring that geographical disadvantages, historical rights, and equitable considerations are accounted for in adjudication (Beckman, 2012). The ITLOS Ruling (Bangladesh v. Myanmar) In 2012, ITLOS delivered a judgment on the Bangladesh-Myanmar dispute. The tribunal employed the equidistance/relevant circumstances approach, adjusting the boundary to account for Bangladesh’s geographical disadvantage (ITLOS, 2012). It allocated a significant portion of the disputed area to Bangladesh while ensuring Myanmar’s rights to its EEZ (Beckman, 2012).

The ruling emphasized the importance of equity and practical considerations in maritime delimitation (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). This decision was particularly significant because it clarified the application of the equidistance/relevant circumstances methodology in cases involving concave coastlines (Oude Elferink, 2014). The PCA Award (Bangladesh v. India) The PCA issued its award in 2014, addressing Bangladesh’s dispute with India. The tribunal applied a similar equidistance/relevant circumstances method, acknowledging Bangladesh’s concave coastline (PCA, 2014). The adjusted boundary granted Bangladesh access to 118,813 square kilometers of the Bay of Bengal, reaffirming its sovereign rights over significant maritime resources (Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014).

The PCA also recognized that strict adherence to the equidistance principle would have disproportionately disadvantaged Bangladesh, thus reinforcing the principle of equitable solutions under UNCLOS (Rayfuse, 2005). Implications of the Judgments Strategic Gains for Bangladesh The resolutions secured extensive maritime zones for Bangladesh, enhancing its access to fisheries, hydrocarbons, and other marine resources (International Maritime Organization, 2018). These outcomes bolstered Bangladesh’s economic prospects and validated its reliance

on international law for dispute resolution (Beckman, 2012). The rulings also positioned Bangladesh as a proactive participant in the international legal framework, showcasing its commitment to peaceful dispute resolution (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). Contributions to International Maritime Law The judgments set critical precedents in maritime boundary delimitation. They demonstrated the utility of the equidistance/relevant circumstances approach in addressing geographical inequities (Oude Elferink, 2014). These cases underscore the effectiveness of legal frameworks in resolving complex disputes (Rayfuse, 2005). Furthermore, the judgments highlighted the importance of balancing legal principles with pragmatic considerations, ensuring that outcomes are both just and sustainable (Beckman, 2012).

Regional Stability and Cooperation The adjudications mitigated longstanding tensions in the Bay of Bengal, fostering a stable environment for regional cooperation (Schofield & Arsana, 2012). By resolving disputes amicably, the judgments paved the way for collaborative resource management and joint development initiatives among Bangladesh, India, and Myanmar (International Maritime Organization, 2018). These resolutions also contributed to broader regional stability, reducing the risk of conflict and promoting maritime security in a geopolitically sensitive area (Rayfuse, 2005). Challenges and Future Directions Despite these legal victories, Bangladesh faces challenges in managing its maritime zones effectively. Illegal fishing, resource depletion, and environmental degradation remain significant concerns (Rayfuse, 2005).

Strengthening governance mechanisms and enhancing regional partnerships are crucial for sustainable management (International Maritime Organization, 2018). Additionally, emerging maritime security threats, such as piracy and transnational crime, necessitate collaborative efforts among Bay of Bengal states (Beckman, 2012). Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach, integrating legal, economic, and environmental strategies to ensure the sustainable use of maritime resources (Oude Elferink, 2014).

Institutional Strengthening Bangladesh must invest in institutional capacity-building to monitor and enforce maritime laws effectively. This includes modernizing its navy and coast guard, adopting advanced surveillance technologies, and fostering regional partnerships to combat illegal activities (International Maritime Organization, 2018). Improved governance will ensure that Bangladesh can fully capitalize on its expanded maritime jurisdiction. Environmental and Climate Considerations Climate change poses an existential threat to maritime nations like Bangladesh. Rising sea levels, increasing cyclonic activity, and marine pollution directly impact maritime boundaries and resource availability (Rayfuse, 2005). Collaborative regional frameworks are needed to address these challenges, with a focus on resilience and adaptive management strategies (Beckman, 2012).

Conclusion The maritime boundary disputes of Bangladesh with India and Myanmar highlight the importance of international law in resolving territorial conflicts (ITLOS, 2012; PCA, 2014). The ITLOS and PCA rulings not only upheld equitable principles but also reinforced the legitimacy of legal frameworks in addressing complex issues (Beckman, 2012). These resolutions provided Bangladesh with critical access to maritime resources, contributing to its economic development and regional standing (Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2014). Furthermore, the judgments underscore the need for sustained cooperation and effective governance in the Bay of Bengal (International Maritime Organization, 2018). As Bangladesh navigates its expanded maritime rights, its experience offers valuable lessons for other nations engaged in similar disputes (Schofield & Arsana, 2012).

The peaceful resolution of these conflicts underscores the potential of international adjudication to promote stability and equitable resource distribution in contested maritime spaces (Oude Elferink, 2014). Moving forward, Bangladesh must leverage its legal victories to foster regional collaboration, ensuring that the Bay of Bengal remains a zone of peace and prosperity (Rayfuse, 2005).

References

1. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982.

2. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS), Case No. 16, Dispute

Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012.

3. Permanent Court of Arbitration, Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration

Between Bangladesh and India (Bangladesh v. India), Award of 7 July 2014.

4. Beckman, R. (2012). "The Role of ITLOS in Resolving Maritime Disputes." The

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law, 27(1), 1-20.

5. Oude Elferink, A. G. (2014). "Equity in the Determination of Maritime Boundaries."

Ocean Development & International Law, 45(3), 237-252.

6. Schofield, C., & Arsana, I. M. A. (2012). "Maritime Boundary Disputes in the Bay of

Bengal: An Overview." Contemporary Southeast Asia, 34(3), 383-406.

7. Rayfuse, R. (2005). "The Future of Compulsory Dispute Settlement Under the Law of

the Sea Convention." Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 36(4), 683-713.

8. Bangladesh Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2014). "Maritime Victory: A Historic

Achievement for Bangladesh." Dhaka: Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

9. International Maritime Organization. (2018). "Maritime Governance and Security in

the Bay of Bengal." IMO Publications. Titles:

1. Resolving Maritime Boundaries: Bangladesh's Disputes with India and Myanmar in the

Bay of Bengal"

2. "Navigating Maritime Conflicts: Legal Resolutions of Bangladesh's Boundary Disputes

with India and Myanmar"

3. "Equitable Maritime Delimitation: Lessons from Bangladesh's Disputes in the Bay of

Bengal"

4. "Maritime Justice in the Bay of Bengal: Bangladesh's Boundary Resolutions with India and

Myanmar"

5. "International Law in Action: Bangladesh's Maritime Boundary Settlements with India and

Myanmar"

6. "From Conflict to Cooperation: Resolving Maritime Disputes in the Bay of Bengal"

7. "Geography, Equity, and Law: Bangladesh's Maritime Boundary Resolutions"

8. "Securing Maritime Rights: Bangladesh's Successes in International Arbitration"