What's new

Bangladesh-Myanmar sea limits verdict Wed

Well i have heard that from indians and Awami thugs since 2009 when awami regime installed in power. Over time all my comments about Awami stooge regime came to prove and thn some. So you can take pot shot on behalf of indians but we all know your color behind deceiving act.

Now back to the topic, if you have facts to contradict what I have pointed, do so. Otherwise you are just awami stupid flip flopping.

And where is the contradiction?

Just because you find something not suiting your tastes doesn't mean that someone is an 'awami stupid flip flopping'. See, this is what is called extreme paranoia and obsession.

The verdict was already settled. Read post #183 by russell.

You proved close to nothing mate.

Must be a RAW propaganda. Are you a RAW agent?

No. CIA :enjoy:
 
And where is the contradiction?

Just because you find something not suiting your tastes doesn't mean that someone is an 'awami stupid flip flopping'. See, this is what is called extreme paranoia and obsession.

The verdict was already settled. Read post #183 by russell.

You proved close to nothing mate.



No. CIA :enjoy:

Idune is a fascist at heart, by his logic if someone doesnt follow his accords, he/she is an awami league dalal.
 
And where is the contradiction?

Just because you find something not suiting your tastes doesn't mean that someone is an 'awami stupid flip flopping'. See, this is what is called extreme paranoia and obsession.

The verdict was already settled. Read post #183 by russell.

You proved close to nothing mate.



No. CIA :enjoy:

Dont play smart Alec, and try to slip and slide form points I have stated from the verdict. Points I have made are not about final verdict but the observation tribunal made on base point and implication of it on dispute with india. You did not able to answer/counter base point assertion by tribunal.

Because Bangladesh side did not provide any point to calculate delimaition and did not counter Myanmar provided wrong base point, tribunal already accepted base point east of real demarcation point (mid stream of Raimongol river) between India and Bangladesh. Since this base point consideration by tribunal is final along with judgement, tribunal more than likely will try to use this base point to decide Bangladesh-India part of the delimiation. Imapct and implication from that:

1) Bangladesh already lost significant area from its EEZ.
2) If tribubnal uses base point β2 (co-ordinates 21° 38’ 57.4” N, 89° 14’ 47.6” E) for delimiation Bangladesh will loose Talpatti island and adjacent areas for both territorial water and EEZ.

Since, you can NOT comprehand (technical discussion) base point decision and its implication on boundary delimiation decision, you are not fit for making discussion other than making comments like " verdict was already settled".
 
Dont play smart Alec, and try to slip and slide form points I have stated from the verdict. Points I have made are not about final verdict but the observation tribunal made on base point and implication of it on dispute with india. You did not able to answer/counter base point assertion by tribunal.

Because Bangladesh side did not provide any point to calculate delimaition and did not counter Myanmar provided wrong base point, tribunal already accepted base point east of real demarcation point (mid stream of Raimongol river) between India and Bangladesh. Since this base point consideration by tribunal is final along with judgement, tribunal more than likely will try to use this base point to decide Bangladesh-India part of the delimiation. Imapct and implication from that:

1) Bangladesh already lost significant area from its EEZ.
2) If tribubnal uses base point β2 (co-ordinates 21° 38’ 57.4” N, 89° 14’ 47.6” E) for delimiation Bangladesh will loose Talpatti island and adjacent areas for both territorial water and EEZ.

Since, you can NOT comprehand (technical discussion) base point decision and its implication on boundary delimiation decision, you are not fit for making discussion other than making comments like " verdict was already settled".

Talpatti Island is no more :lol:

You know, some sources and maps wouldn't hurt to back up your claims :enjoy:

Otherwise, you are proving nothing other than saying that India this, India that, India etc.
 
Talpatti Island is no more :lol:

You know, some sources and maps wouldn't hurt to back up your claims :enjoy:

Otherwise, you are proving nothing other than saying that India this, India that, India etc.

You are not fit for technical discussion otherwise with provided information/map in the verdict, you should able to look up in the map. I have no reason to spoon feed you and waste my time with someone who does not understand other than allergic to see criticism against awami regime inaction that stand to benefit india.

And why dont you bring facts to prove against what has been said about india? Show your competence in appropirate threads.
 
You are not fit for technical discussion otherwise with provided information/map in the verdict, you should able to look up in the map. I have no reason to spoon feed you and waste my time with someone who does not understand other than allergic to see criticism against awami regime inaction that stand to benefit india.

And why dont you bring facts to prove against what has been said about india? Show your competence in appropirate threads.

It's simply a query.

And again, you proved nothing.
 
Does anyone know on how long will our gas run based on the current proven reserves?

It all depends how much we use our onshore and proved gas reserves. If we produce power at the Japanese scale, the reserve may last a little more than three years. So, the present serve is not that big. However, this small reserve has become a useful tool for INITIATING our export-oriented economic activities. New finds in the BoB will increase these activities at a faster rate and it will propel a double digit rise of GDP in the future.
 
so according to Eastwatch's claim all the area that is now sea can be claimed by Bangladesh!!!

Can you please put the map over here!!!

You have posted a good map. Please see the white line in the sea that starts from Sri Lnaka. This is the Continental Shelf (CS). But, a country cannot claim this as its own exclusive sea territory if the depth at any point is over 200 meter (as far as I remember, correct me if I am wrong) from the Mean Sea Level.

Now, check the shelf line south of present-day BD. It is far and far away from the present BD shore than it is from both the Indian and myammar shores. Why it is so? Thing is, before about 10,000 years ago it was the last Ice Age. During that period, much of the sea water was in the form of ice in the north and southe poles. As a result, the coast line of today's BD was farther south where the CS line can be seen.

UN has declared CS line to be the base line for delimitating the sea territory of any country. Since,CS of BD is farther away comparing to that from Burma, therefore, naturally, BD, by UN verdict, gained more territories in the sea comparing to its own land area.
 
You are not fit for technical discussion otherwise with provided information/map in the verdict, you should able to look up in the map. I have no reason to spoon feed you and waste my time with someone who does not understand other than allergic to see criticism against awami regime inaction that stand to benefit india.

And why dont you bring facts to prove against what has been said about india? Show your competence in appropirate threads.

The basepoint accorded by Tribunal in Naf river gone against Bangladesh but BD will be in better position against India.
 
http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=226363

Thursday, March 15, 2012Front PageSea Limit Row with Myanmar
Bay is ours
International tribunal upholds Bangladesh's economic, territorial rights over 200 nautical miles from coast
Rezaul Karim

Bangladesh yesterday won a landmark verdict at the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which sustained its claim to 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic and territorial rights in the Bay of Bengal rejecting the claims of Myanmar.

The verdict of the court went absolutely in Bangladesh's favour and even beyond, as it gave more than what Bangladesh had asked for. The judgment is final and cannot be appealed against.

The verdict of the tribunal gave Bangladesh a substantial share of the outer continental shelf beyond 200 miles, which would open ways for offshore oil and gas exploration in the Bay.

The tribunal also awarded Bangladesh a full 12-mile territorial sea around St Martin's Island, overruling Myanmar's argument that the island be cut in half and shared.

“We have got everything, even more than what we wanted. We are happy, we are absolutely delighted,” cheerful Foreign Minister Dipu Moni told The Daily Star over the phone from Hamburg, Germany.

"This is a great day for Bangladesh. All our strategic objectives were achieved," she said, adding that Bangladesh could now proceed with its oil and gas exploration in the area. “In our claims, we wanted around 1 lakh square miles but the tribunal in its verdict gave us 1.11 lakh square miles,” she said.

Yesterday's 151-page judgment was the first by any court or tribunal to delimit the maritime area beyond 200 miles, known as the “outer continental shelf”, and is certain to establish an important precedent.

“Bangladesh's full access to the high seas out to 200 miles and beyond is now recognised and guaranteed with our undisputed rights to the fish in our waters and the natural resources beneath our seabed,” Minister Dipu Moni said.

The tribunal, based in Hamburg, Germany, was established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to adjudicate disputes between states concerning issues covered by the convention, including the delimitation of maritime boundaries.

President of the tribunal Jose Luis Jesus of Cape Verde read out the judgment in the courtroom yesterday around 4:30am Bangladesh time. The 23-member panel of judges of the tribunal delivered its judgment after following a series of procedures and long hearings between September 8 and September 24, 2011, when both the countries presented their arguments.

The verdict, which the judges passed voting 21 to 1, concludes the case initiated by Bangladesh against Myanmar on October 8, 2009, to resolve a longstanding dispute over the maritime boundary.

Sources said Bangladesh lodged cases after India and Myanmar unfairly cut off a significant portion of Bangladesh's maritime area in the Bay.

Bangladesh's objection to Myanmar's claim was lodged with the tribunal and its objection to the Indian claim was filed with the UN's Permanent Court of Arbitration based in The Hague, the Netherlands. The arbitration with India is expected to be settled in 2014.

Bangladesh favours a principle based on "equity" while India and Myanmar favours "equidistance" system to get larger maritime areas.

Under a UN charter, the principle of "equity" takes into account a country's population, economic status and needs, GDP growth, and other issues, while the "equidistance" system marks the boundary through geometric calculations.

According to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, any such dispute should be resolved on the basis of equity, and in the light of relevant circumstances. This makes Bangladesh's demand for equity-based demarcation justified, experts said.

Foreign Minister Dipu Moni, who was present in the courtroom during the judgment, told The Daily Star immediately afterwards that the people of Bangladesh were deeply connected to and dependent on the Bay of Bengal, both as a source of nutrition and for employment.

The legal certainty afforded by this verdict would ensure that “we will be able to maximize the benefit of this important resource for the people of Bangladesh while at the same time ensuring long-term sustainability,” she added.

The foreign minister said energy-starved Bangladesh's exploration for petroleum and natural gas in the Bay, which had been delayed by conflicting boundary claims, could now proceed.

The judgment would now allow Conoco Philips Bangladesh to explore oil and gas for Bangladesh in deep-sea areas previously marked disputed. The oil company conditionally signed a production sharing contract last year leaving out the disputed areas.

The company kept a provision saying that it would explore the disputed areas after the issue had been settled.

“Today's ruling constitutes the equitable solution that Bangladesh has long desired, but was unable to obtain during the 38 years of diplomatic stalemate preceding the lawsuit,” the foreign minister asserted.

“The bold and visionary decision of the prime minister to seek a binding judicial resolution of this longstanding dispute has been vindicated.

“But it is a victory for both states…because it finally resolves, peacefully and according to international law, a problem that had hampered the economic development of both states for more than three [almost four] decades. We salute Myanmar for its willingness to resolve this matter by legal means and for its acceptance of the tribunal's judgment,” she said.

Myanmar wanted its maritime boundary with Bangladesh cut directly across the Bangladesh coastline, severely truncating Bangladesh's maritime jurisdiction to a narrow wedge of sea not extending beyond 130 miles.

Myanmar also claimed that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to award continental shelf rights beyond 200 miles from either state's coast.

The tribunal rejected both these arguments.

“We are very pleased with the expertise, fairness and efficiency of the ITLOS [the tribunal] and its judges,” said Dipu Moni. “The case was resolved, from beginning to end, in a little over two years. This is unprecedented in judicial efficiency in a maritime boundary case.”

As the agent of Bangladesh in the proceedings the foreign minister presided over an eminent legal team, including deputy agent Rear Admiral (retd) Md Khurshed Alam, attorneys James Crawford, Philippe Sands and Alan Boyle of the United Kingdom, Paul Reichler and Lawrence Martin of the United States, and Payam Akhavan of Canada.

Myanmar was represented by its agent Attorney General Tun Shin. Its counsels included Alain Pellet and Mathias Forteau of France, Sir Michael Wood of the United Kingdom and Coalter Lathrop of the United States.

It may be mentioned that the army-backed caretaker regime invited bids for offshore exploration in February 2008 after dividing its sea territory in the Bay into 28 blocks.

But both India and Myanmar raised objections in all most all the blocks bordering “their maritime boundaries” that prevented Bangladesh from exploring for oil-gas. Myanmar even claimed rights to part of an area of Bangladesh and at the peak of the dispute in 2008, a war-like situation developed when both countries sent their navy to the disputed area.
 
2012-03-15__front01.jpg
 
We've lost on the Base point 2(bangladesh claim,red arrow) point B (myanmar claim)
originating from the river Naf but have retained point 7,8. This has been
substituted with a point just in the middle of both countries claimed
cordinates . Although the loss in point 2 ( 20° 40’ 00.5” N 92° 21’ 5.2” E )
is quite insignificant compared to the gain in extension line 252° from point 6 (20° 33’ 40.5” N 92° 25’ 49.2” E ).

(Green line Bangladesh, Red Myanmar)


cpastalpoints.jpg



On the part where Idune is trying to portray is the point T3 which is controlled
by β1, β2 and μ3 and which has the coordinates 18° 31’ 12.5’’ N, 89° 53’ 44.9’’ E.
This projection went slightly against our claim because of the large coastline they possess
against ours which is in the ratio 1:1.42 in favour of Myanmar.

tangent.jpg


Therefore the adjusted extension line of EEZ can be derived as

extension.jpg


So all in all we can say the verdict was 70% in our favour but the later(30%) went
to myanmar, so it's not a total win as portrayed by newsportals and Dipu Moni.

**It has to be noted that the first agreed basepoint in 1974 under mujeeb
has been compromised and scraped in the verdict.

The next verdict against India shall be given in 2014 .
Phew!
 

Back
Top Bottom