COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF MYANMAR COUNTER-MEMORIAL - MYANMAR 261 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 I MYANMAR COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR VOLUME I 1 DECEMBER 2010 262 BAY OF BENGAL TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER! INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... l I. PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................... 1 II. THE DISPUTE SUBMITTED TO THE TRIBUNAL .................................................................. 3 III. THE EXTENT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL .................................................... 5 IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES ........................... 9 V. STRUCTURE OF THE COUNTER-MEMORIAL ................................................................... 13 CHAPTER2 THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 15 I. THE GEOGRAPHICAL SITUATION ................................................................................... 15 A. The Geography of Myanmar and its Rakhine Coast... ........................................... 16 B. The Geography of Bangladesh and its Coastline ................................................... 22 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 24 III. MARITIME DELIMITATIONS IN THE REGION .................................................................. 27 CHAPTER3 THE HISTORY OF THE DISPUTE ................................................................................... 35 I. THE PARTIES' MARITIMELEGISLATION ........................................................................ 35 A. Myanmar ................................................................................................................ 35 B. Bangladesh ............................................................................................................. 37 II. THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN BANGLADESH AND MYANMAR REGARDING MARITIME DELIMITATION ............................................................................................. 38 A. The First Eight Rounds (1974-1986) ..................................................................... 39 B. The Resumed Talks 2008-2010 ............................................................................ .49 CONCLUSIONS .....•••. : ........................................................................................................... 54 COUNTER-MEMORIAL - MYANMAR 263 CHAPTER4 DELIMITATION OF THE TERRITORIAL SEA ............................................................ 57 I. APPLICABLE LAW ..........••......•..•....•.•............................................................................ 57 A. Summary of Applicable Law ................................................................................. 57 B. Absence of Any "Agreement to the Contrary" or of an Estoppel... ....................... 58 1. Bangladesh's Claim that the 1974 Agreed Minutes Constitute a Binding Agreement........................................................................................... 5 8 2. Bangladesh's Claim that the Conduct ofthe Parties Establishes a Tacit or de facto Agreement ...................................................................................... 69 3. Bangladesh's Claim that Myanmar is Estopped from Denying the Existence ofan Agreement ............................................................................... 71 II. THE DELIMITATION BETWEEN THE TERRITORIAL SEAS OF MYANMAR AND BANGLADESH, AND BETWEEN THE TERRITORJAL SEA OF BANGLADESH AND THE EEZ/CONTINENTAL SHELF OF MYANMAR .................................................................... 73 A. St. Martin's Island as a Special Circumstance ....................................................... 73 B. The Delimitation Line Proposed by Myanmar ...................................................... 78 CONCLUSIONS ..............••......•.••....•.••••.....•........................................................................... 84 CHAPTERS DELIMITATION OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF AND THE EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE .............................................................................................................. 87 I. THE APPLICABLE LA w ·································································································· 89 A. The Sources of the Relevant Rules ........................................................................ 89 B. Bangladesh's Distorted Approach of the Applicable Law .................................... 90 C. The Applicable Rules of Delimitation ................................................................... 94 D. The Unity of the Method ofDelimitation ............................................................ 102 II. THE RELEVANT COASTS AND THE RELEVANT AREA ..............................................•.... l 03 A. Preliminary Remarks ........................................................................................... 105 B. Bangladesh's Relevant Coast. .............................................................................. 107 C. Myanmar's Relevant Coast .................................................................................. 111 D. The Relevant Area ............................................................................................... 114 Ill. THE THREE STAGES OF THE DELIMITATION PROCESS ................................................. 121 A. Stage 1 -The Provisional Equidistance Line ...................................................... 121 1. The Provisional Equidistance Line beyond Point E ...................................... 122 2. The Appropriate Base Points .......................................................................... 129 ii 264 BAY OF BENGAL B. Stage 2- (Ir)relevant Circumstances ................................................................... 137 1. The Bangladesh Argument Based on its Alleged "Needfor Access to its Entitlement in the Outer Continental Shelf' .................................................. 138 2. The Bangladesh Argument Based on the Alleged "Cut-Off Effect" .............. 143 a. International Courts and Tribunals cannot Refashion Nature .................. 145 b. Concavity Does Not as such Result in an Inequitable Application ofEquidistance ......................................................................................... 146 c. There is No Right to "Have Broadly Comparable Rights to Extend its Maritime Jurisdiction as Far Seawards as International Law Permits" .................................................................................................... 152 C. Stage 3 -The Test ofDisproportionality ............................................................. 155 IV. THE DELIMITATION LINE ............................................................................................ 163 A. The Final Direction of the Boundary Line ........................................................... 163 B. Description of the Maritime Boundary between Myanmar and Bangladesh ....... 167 SUBMISSIONS .................................................................................................................... 171 APPENDIX MYANMAR'S ENTITLEMENT TO A CONTINENTAL SHELF BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES ..................................................................................................... 173 I. BANGLADESH'S ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 76 OF UNCLOS ............ 174 A. The Context .......................................................................................................... 174 B. The travaux preparatoires of Article 76 ofUNCLOS ........................................ 182 C. The Relevant Practice .......................................................................................... 186 II. MYANMAR'S ENTITLEMENT TO A CONTINENTAL SHELF BEYOND 200 NAUTICAL MILES IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 76 OF UNCLOS ............................................ 190 A. The Foot of the Continental Slope Points ............................................................ 190 B. The Implementation of the Article 76 (4) (a) Formulae ...................................... 197 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. :.. 201 III. THE SUBMISSIONS TO THE COMMISSION ON THE LIMITS OF THE CONTINENTAL SHELF ......................................................................................................................... 202 A. The Submission made by Myanmar .................................................................... 202 B. The Submiss_ions made by Sri Lanka and India ................................................... 205 iii COUNTER-MEMORIAL - MYANMAR 265 CHAPTERl INTRODUCTION 1.1. By its Order 2010/1 dated 28 January 2010, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (hereinafter "the Tribunal" or "ITLOS") fixed the dates for the filing of the Memorial and the Counter-Memorial in the present case. The Union of Myanmar (hereinafter "Myanmar") submits this Counter-Memorial, pursuant to that Order, in response to the Memorial of the People's Republic of Bangladesh (hereinafter "Bangladesh") dated 1 July 2010. 1.2. In accordance with article 62 (2) of the Rules of the Tribunal, Myanmar