MEMORIAL OF BANGLADESH4 4 Note by the Registry: The text reproduced here contains the corrections made by Bangladesh subsequent to the initial submission. MEMORIAL - BANGLADESH 23 INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA DISPUTE CONCERNING DELIMITATION OF THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR IN THE BAY OF BENGAL BANGLADESH/MYANMAR MEMORIAL OF BANGLADESH VOLUME! 1 JULY2010 24 BAY OF BENGAL Table of Contents Page CHAPTER 1 lNTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. l I. Reasons for the Institution of Proceedings Against Myanmar ................................... 2 II. Structure of the Memorial .......................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 THE GEOGRAPHY, GEOLOGY, AND GEOMORPHOLOGY OF BANGLADESH, MYANMAR,AND THE BAY OF BENGAL ...................................................................................... 11 I. Geographical Circumstances .................................................................................... 12 A. The General Geographical Context for the Delimitation ................................ .12 B. The Geography ofBangladesh ......................................................................... 13 C. The Geography ofMyanmar ............................................................................ 17 II. Geological and Geomorphological Circumstances ................................................. .18 A. The Indian and Burma Tectonic Plates ............................................................ 19 B. The Bengal Depositional System ..................................................................... 23 1. The Subaqueous Bengal Delta ................................................................... 23 2. The Bengal Fan ......................................................................................... .24 CHAPTER 3 THE HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE ........................................................................ 29 I. The Parties' Maritime Legislation ............................................................................ 29 A. Bangladesh ....................................................................................................... 29 B. Myanmar .......................................................................................................... 32 II. The Parties' Efforts To Negotiate a Comprehensive Maritime Boundary Agreement ............................................................................................................... .35 A. The Parties' Agreement on a Boundary in the Territorial Sea ........................ .35 B. Efforts to Settle the Maritime Boundary in the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone .............................................................................. 40 III. The Parties' Claims in the Outer Continental Shelf.. .............................................. .42 CHAPTER 4 THE JURISDICTION OF ITLOS TO DELIMIT THE MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR ................................................................................. .45 MEMORIAL - BANGLADESH 25 I. The Parties Have Accepted ITLOS Jurisdiction by Special Agreement ................. .45 II. The Subject Matter of the Dispute Falls Under the 1982 Convention and the Jurisdiction ofITLOS ............................................................................................... 49 A. Delimitation of the Outer Continental Shelf.................................................... 50 B. Delimitation of an Area That Is Also Claimed by India .................................. 55 CHAPTER 5 DELIMITATION OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA ....................................................... 59 I. Applicable Law ........................................................................................................ 59 II. Agreement on the Delimitation of the Territorial Sea .............................................. 61 CHAPTER6 DELIMITATION OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF WITHIN 200 MAND THE EEZ ... 67 I. The Applicable Law ......................................................................•.......................... 68 A. The Regime of the Continental Shelf within 200 Mand the EEZ ................... 68 B. International Judicial and Arbitral Practice ..................................................... 71 II. The Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar .. 77 A. The Equidistance Line Claimed by Myanmar ................................................. 77 B. The Inequity of the Equidistance Line ............................................................. 78 I. The Cut-OffEffect ..................................................................................... 78 2. It Is Inequitable to Prevent Bangladesh from Exercising Sovereign Rights in the Continental Shelf Beyond 200 M ......................................... 83 3. The Entire Course of the Equidistance Line Is Determined by a Single, Insignificant Feature .................................................................................. 84 C. The Angle-Bisector Method ............................................................................ 86 1. Use of the Method by the ICJ and Arbitral Tribunals ............................... 86 2. Application to the Bangladesh-Myanmar Boundary ................................. 91 3. The Equitableness of the 215° Line ........................................................... 92 CHAPTER 7 DELIMITATION OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES ....................................................................................................................................... 95 I. Entitlement to an Outer Continental Shelf Beyond 200 M ...................................... 96 II. The Concept of "Natural Prolongation" ................................................................... 98 ii 26 BAY OF BENGAL III. The Bay of Bengal Outer Continental Shelfls the Natural Prolongation of the Bangladesh Landmass ............................................................................................ 100 IV. Myanmar Has No "Natural Prolongation" into the Bay ofBengal.. ...................... 104 SUBMISSIONS .....•......•..........................•................•.........................•.........•..........•......•........... 113 LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... 115 LIST OF ANNEXES ................................................................................................................... 11 7 iii MEMORIAL - BANGLADESH 27 CHAPTERl INTRODUCTION 1.1 The People's Republic of Bangladesh initiated these proceedings against the Union of Myanmar on 8 October 2009, when it filed a Notification under Article 287 and Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS" or "the 1982 Convention"), together with a Statement of Claim and the grounds on which it was based. 1 In response, on 4 November 2009, Myanmar accepted the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ("ITLOS" or "the Tribunal") for the settlement of the dispute between Bangladesh and Myanmar ''relating to the delimitation of [the] maritime boundary between the two countries in the Bay of Bengal".2 On 13 December 2009, Bangladesh confirmed in writing that it too accepted the jurisdiction of ITLOS for the settlement of the dispute that was the subject of its Notification of8 October 2009.3 1.2 On 16 December 2009, ITLOS entered the case in its List of Cases as Case No. 16, based on the Special Agreement notified to it by the letter of 13 December 2009 from Bangladesh's Foreign Minister. With the Special Agreement, Bangladesh nominated Professor Vaughan Lowe QC as Ad Hoe Judge. 1.3 By Order dated 20 January 2010, the Tribunal fixed the time limit for the filing of the Memorial by Bangladesh as 1 July 2010 and the time limit for the filing of the Counter­ Memorial by Myanmar as 1 December 2010, and reserved the subsequent procedure for further decision. By Order dated 17 March 2010, the Tribunal fixed the time limits for the filing of the Reply by Bangladesh as 15 March 2011 and the filing of the Rejoinder by Myanmar as 1 July 2011. This Memorial is submitted pursuant to the first of these Orders. 1 Government of Bangladesh, Statement of Claim and Notification under UNCLOS Article 287 and Annex VII, Article 1 (8 October 2009). 2 Government of Myanmar, Declaration under Article 287 of the UNCLOS Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal/or the Law ofthe Sea (4 November 2009). Memorial ofBangladesh (hereinafter "MB"), Vol. III, Annex 22. 3 Government of Bangladesh, Declaration under Article 287(1) of the UNCLOS Accepting the Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law ofthe Sea (12 December 2009). MB, Vol. III, Annex 23. 28 BAY OF BENGAL 1.4 Bangladesh has brought these proceedings for four related reasons: first, to bring to an end the long-standing difference between the two States that is undermining their efforts to develop the resources associated with the maritime spaces adjacent to their coasts, including reserves of oil and gas; second, in regard to the territorial sea, to obtain confirmation that the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar is delimited by the 1974 Agreed Minutes Between the Bangladesh Delegation and the Burmese Delegation Regarding the Delimitation ofMaritime Boundary Between the Two Countries; third, to