On Delineation of the Continental Shelf: Decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar, 2012

With the development of technical capabilities for the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf, the desire of coastal states to expand the area of their jurisdiction in the "underwater territory" (the territory of the seabed) increased. Thanks to the activism of the judges of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the concept of the continental shelf for the purposes of international maritime law has been significantly developed. As a result, the coastal states signatories to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea were able to establish the outer limit of the continental shelf, which, under certain conditions, can extend even beyond 350 nautical miles from the baseline.

Disputes between states on the continental shelf mainly arise in connection with the need to distinguish between marine areas rich in sources of living and non-living resources. In such cases, it may be necessary to delineate the continental shelf between adjacent States (with a common border) or located opposite each other, i.e. their delimitation under article 83 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea. The subject of the dispute is the external legal boundary of the continental shelf of the state, where it extends beyond 200 nautical miles from the baseline of that state (the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles), adjoins the area that is the common heritage of mankind, outside the jurisdiction of any of the states.

On the issue of determining the limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, the decision of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea of 14.03.2012 "On delimitation of maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar" is of a precedent value, since no international court has previously addressed this issue.

1. Abashidze AKh. Printsipy mezhdunarodnogo prava: problemy ponyatiyno-soderzhatelnogo kharaktera [Principles of international law: Problems of conceptual and substantive nature]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava [Moscow Journal of International Law]. 2017;4(108):19-30. (In Russ.)

2. Biryukov PN, Rekhovskiy AF, Savelyev IV, Zadorin MYu. Arkticheskoe pravo: uchebnik [Arctic law: A textbook]. Moscow; 2020. (In Russ.)

3. Vylegzhanin AN. Normy mezhdunarodnogo prava ob iskhodnykh liniyakh [International law rules on boundaries]. Gosudarstvo i pravo [State and law]. 2012;1:89-98. (In Russ.)

4. Zhudro IS. Obychno-pravovye normy kak komponent unikalnogo, istoricheski slozhivshegosya statusa rktiki [Usual legal rules as a component of the unique, historically established status of the Arctic]. Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences. 2014;6:110-118. (In Russ.)

5. Kalamkaryan RA. Kodifikatsiya mezhdunarodnogo prava kak faktor obespecheniya miroporyadka na osnove verkhovenstva prava [Codification of international law as a factor in ensuring a world order based on the rule of law]. Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. 2005;7:125-135. (In Russ.)

6. Klyuchnikov AYu. Razvitie mezhdunarodnogo prava cherez sudebnoe tolkovanie [Development of international law through judicial interpretation]. Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Juridical Journal]. 2018;4(121):37- 42. (In Russ.)

7. Klyuchnikov AYu. O pravotvorcheskoy roli mezhdunarodnykh sudov [On the law-making role of international courts]. Rossiyskoe pravosudie [Russian justice]. 2018;6(146):47-53. (In Russ.)

8. Lebedeva NB. Treugolnik «Indiya — Myanma — Kitay» (problemy i kompromissy vzaimodeystviya) [Triangle "India — Myanmar — China" (Problems and compromises of interaction)]. Yugo-Vostochnaya ziya: aktualnye problemy razvitiya. 2010;15:46-78. (In Russ.)

9. Mirzai S. Ponyatie obshchego naslediya chelovechestva v traktovke Mezhdunarodnogo tribunala po morskomu pravu [The concept of the common heritage of mankind as interpreted by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea]. Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 5: Yurisprudentsiya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Series 5: Jurisprudence]. 2016;15-4(33):162-168. (In Russ.)

10. Spiridonov VA, Vinnikov AV, Golenkevich AV, Mayss AA. Uyazvimye morskie ekosistemy i blizkie ponyatiya v praktike upravleniya morskim prirodopolzovaniem: kontseptsii, terminologiya i vozmozhnosti prilozheniya k sokhraneniyu morskoy sredy i biologicheskikh resursov [Vulnerable marine ecosystems and related concepts in the practice of marine environmental management: concepts, terminology and possible applications to the conservation of the marine environment and biological resources]. Trudy VNIRO. 2018;174:143-173. (In Russ.)

11. Tiunov OI. Predmet, sistema i printsipy mezhdunarodnogo prava okruzhayushchey sredy [Subject, system and principles of International environmental law]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2013;6(198):66-79. (In Russ.)

12. Balaram PA. Case Study: The Myanmar and Taiwan Maritime Boundary Dispute in the Bay of Bengal and Its Implications for South China Sea Claims. Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs. 2012;3:87–88. (In Eng.)