03-25-2007, 11:10 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Mar 20 2007, 11:53 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Mar 20 2007, 11:53 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting facts in these US Navy directives:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...62305/India.doc
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...5/Sri_Lanka.doc<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Implications of damaging Rama Sethu under international Law of the Sea
a) India and Sri Lanka have consistently treated Palk Bay, Gulf of Mannar and Palk Straits as 'historic' and 'internal'.
b) USA does not recognize this claim, has always protested against these, and considers the waters as 'international' and rejects the 'historic' claim too.
c) India , by choosing a Sethu Samudram Channel alignment running VERY close to international waters, involving damage the Ramar bridge (called Adam's Bridge) is going back on its earlier claims of waters being historic waters.
d) This view of historic waters also means Sri Lanka is free to do what it likes on its side of the waters.
e) A more serious situation arises by keeping the alignment close to the 'international' waters. Coast guard will be handicapped in protecting the channel from the Srilanka side since coast guard vessels will have to constantly get into international waters.
f) It will make eminent sense in terms of the juridical regime of historic and internal waters to choose an alignment close to Pamban island WITHOUT damaging the Ramar Bridge (Adam's Bridge). The relevant extracts from UN documents are given below.
Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, including Historic Bays Bottom of Form
last update: 30 June 2005
The first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1958) adopted, in paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, a provision to the effect that its rules on bays "shall not apply to so-called 'historic' bays". [1] The Conference also adopted on 27 April 1958 a resolution requesting the General Assembly to arrange for the study of the juridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays. [2]
The General Assembly thereafter adopted resolution 1453 (XIV) of 7 December 1959 ( E, F, S, R , C, A), which requested the International Law Commission, as soon as it considers it advisable, to undertake the study of the question of the juridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays, and to make such recommendations regarding the matter as the Commission deems appropriate.
The Commission, at its twelfth session (1960) requested the Secretariat to undertake a study of the topic, and deferred further consideration to a future session. [3] A study prepared by the Secretariat was published in 1962. [4] Also in 1962, the Commission, at its fourteenth session, decided to include the topic in its programme, but without setting any date for the start of its consideration. [5] At its nineteenth session (1967), the Commission examined the advisability of proceeding actively with the study of this topic. The Commission's report (which also dealt with the topic "Right of asylum") summarized the views expressed as follows:
"Most members doubted whether the time had yet come to proceed actively with either of these topics. Both were of considerable scope and raised some political problems, and to undertake either of them at the present time might seriously delay the completion of work on the important topics already under study [...]" [6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 516, p. 210.
[2] Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol. II, Plenary Meetings , (United Nations publication, Sales No.: 58.V.4, vol. II), p. 145.
[3] See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, I960, vol. II, p. 180, document A/4425, para. 40. (see Analytical Guide )
[4] Ibid., 1962, vol. II, p. 1, document A/CN.4/143. (see Analytical Guide)
[5] Ibid., p. 190, document A/5209, para. 60. (see Analytical Guide)
[6] Ibid., 1967, vol. II, document A/6709/Rev.1, para. 45. (see Analytical Guide)
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/8_4.htm#_ftnref2
Paragraphs 4 to 6 of Article 7 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone read as follows:
4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed twenty-four miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters. 5.Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay exceed twenty-four miles, a straight baseline of twenty-four miles shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is possible with a line of that length. 6.The foregoing provisions shall not apply to so-called "historic" bays, or in any case where the straight baseline system provided for in article 4 is applied.
Section 7 of President of the Republic of Srilanka in Presidential Proclamation of 15 January 1977 in pursuance of Maritime Zones Law No. 22 of 1 September 1976 reads as follows:
(7) (i) that the historic waters of Sri Lanka shall comprise the areas of sea in the Palk Strait, Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar bounded by:
(a) the coast of the mainland of Sri Lanka;
(b) the maritime boundary between Sri Lanka and India as defined in Section 8 of the Maritime Zones Law, No. 22 of 1976;
© the arc of Great Circle between the following positions defined by latitude and longitude in the Gulf of Mannar:
(i) 08° 15' 0" North, 79° 44' 0" East,
(ii) 08° 22' 2" North, 78° 55' 4" East; and
(d) the arc of Great Circle between the following positions defined by latitude and longitude in the Palk Strait:
(i) 09° 49' 8" North, 80° 15' 2" East,
(ii) 10° 05' 0" North, 80° 03' 0" East;
(ii) the historic waters in the Palk Bay and Palk Strait shall form part of the internal waters of Sri Lanka;
(iii) the historic waters in the Gulf of Mannar shall form part of the territorial sea of Sri Lanka.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONAND...roclamation.pdf
Agreement between Sri Lanka and India on the Maritime Boundary between the two Countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal and Related Matters 23 March 1976
The Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Government of the Republic of India, Recalling that the boundary in the Palk Strait has been settled by the Agreement between the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of India on the Boundary in Historic Waters between the Two Countries and Related Matters, signed on 26/28 June, 1974, And desiring to extend that boundary by determining the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal, Have agreed as follows:
â¦Article 5
(1) Each Party shall have sovereignty over the historic waters and territorial sea, as well as over the islands, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary.
(2) Each Party shall have sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone as well as over their resources, whether living or non-living, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary.
(3) Each Party shall respect rights of navigation through its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in accordance with its laws and regulations and the rules of international law.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONAND...A-IND1976MB.PDF
Document:-
A/CN.4/143
Juridical Regime of Historic waters including historic bays - Study prepared by the
Secretariat
Topic:
Juridical régime of historic waters, including historic bays
Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-
1962 , vol. II
38. In summary, the concept of "historic waters" has its root in the historic fact that States through the ages claimed and maintained sovereignty over maritime areas which they considered vital to them without paying much attention to divergent and changing opinions about what general international law might prescribe with respect to the delimitation of the territorial sea. This fact had to be taken into consideration when attempts were made to codify the rules of international law in this field, i.e., to reduce the sometimes obscure and contested rules of customary law to clear and generally acceptable written rules. It was felt that States could not be expected to accept rules which would deprive them of considerable maritime areas over which they had hitherto had sovereignty.
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/e...h/a_cn4_143.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...62305/India.doc
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/...5/Sri_Lanka.doc<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Implications of damaging Rama Sethu under international Law of the Sea
a) India and Sri Lanka have consistently treated Palk Bay, Gulf of Mannar and Palk Straits as 'historic' and 'internal'.
b) USA does not recognize this claim, has always protested against these, and considers the waters as 'international' and rejects the 'historic' claim too.
c) India , by choosing a Sethu Samudram Channel alignment running VERY close to international waters, involving damage the Ramar bridge (called Adam's Bridge) is going back on its earlier claims of waters being historic waters.
d) This view of historic waters also means Sri Lanka is free to do what it likes on its side of the waters.
e) A more serious situation arises by keeping the alignment close to the 'international' waters. Coast guard will be handicapped in protecting the channel from the Srilanka side since coast guard vessels will have to constantly get into international waters.
f) It will make eminent sense in terms of the juridical regime of historic and internal waters to choose an alignment close to Pamban island WITHOUT damaging the Ramar Bridge (Adam's Bridge). The relevant extracts from UN documents are given below.
Juridical Regime of Historic Waters, including Historic Bays Bottom of Form
last update: 30 June 2005
The first United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (1958) adopted, in paragraph 6 of article 7 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, a provision to the effect that its rules on bays "shall not apply to so-called 'historic' bays". [1] The Conference also adopted on 27 April 1958 a resolution requesting the General Assembly to arrange for the study of the juridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays. [2]
The General Assembly thereafter adopted resolution 1453 (XIV) of 7 December 1959 ( E, F, S, R , C, A), which requested the International Law Commission, as soon as it considers it advisable, to undertake the study of the question of the juridical regime of historic waters, including historic bays, and to make such recommendations regarding the matter as the Commission deems appropriate.
The Commission, at its twelfth session (1960) requested the Secretariat to undertake a study of the topic, and deferred further consideration to a future session. [3] A study prepared by the Secretariat was published in 1962. [4] Also in 1962, the Commission, at its fourteenth session, decided to include the topic in its programme, but without setting any date for the start of its consideration. [5] At its nineteenth session (1967), the Commission examined the advisability of proceeding actively with the study of this topic. The Commission's report (which also dealt with the topic "Right of asylum") summarized the views expressed as follows:
"Most members doubted whether the time had yet come to proceed actively with either of these topics. Both were of considerable scope and raised some political problems, and to undertake either of them at the present time might seriously delay the completion of work on the important topics already under study [...]" [6]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 516, p. 210.
[2] Official Records of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, vol. II, Plenary Meetings , (United Nations publication, Sales No.: 58.V.4, vol. II), p. 145.
[3] See Yearbook of the International Law Commission, I960, vol. II, p. 180, document A/4425, para. 40. (see Analytical Guide )
[4] Ibid., 1962, vol. II, p. 1, document A/CN.4/143. (see Analytical Guide)
[5] Ibid., p. 190, document A/5209, para. 60. (see Analytical Guide)
[6] Ibid., 1967, vol. II, document A/6709/Rev.1, para. 45. (see Analytical Guide)
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/8_4.htm#_ftnref2
Paragraphs 4 to 6 of Article 7 of the Convention of the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone read as follows:
4. If the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay does not exceed twenty-four miles, a closing line may be drawn between these two low-water marks, and the waters enclosed thereby shall be considered as internal waters. 5.Where the distance between the low-water marks of the natural entrance points of a bay exceed twenty-four miles, a straight baseline of twenty-four miles shall be drawn within the bay in such a manner as to enclose the maximum area of water that is possible with a line of that length. 6.The foregoing provisions shall not apply to so-called "historic" bays, or in any case where the straight baseline system provided for in article 4 is applied.
Section 7 of President of the Republic of Srilanka in Presidential Proclamation of 15 January 1977 in pursuance of Maritime Zones Law No. 22 of 1 September 1976 reads as follows:
(7) (i) that the historic waters of Sri Lanka shall comprise the areas of sea in the Palk Strait, Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar bounded by:
(a) the coast of the mainland of Sri Lanka;
(b) the maritime boundary between Sri Lanka and India as defined in Section 8 of the Maritime Zones Law, No. 22 of 1976;
© the arc of Great Circle between the following positions defined by latitude and longitude in the Gulf of Mannar:
(i) 08° 15' 0" North, 79° 44' 0" East,
(ii) 08° 22' 2" North, 78° 55' 4" East; and
(d) the arc of Great Circle between the following positions defined by latitude and longitude in the Palk Strait:
(i) 09° 49' 8" North, 80° 15' 2" East,
(ii) 10° 05' 0" North, 80° 03' 0" East;
(ii) the historic waters in the Palk Bay and Palk Strait shall form part of the internal waters of Sri Lanka;
(iii) the historic waters in the Gulf of Mannar shall form part of the territorial sea of Sri Lanka.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONAND...roclamation.pdf
Agreement between Sri Lanka and India on the Maritime Boundary between the two Countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal and Related Matters 23 March 1976
The Government of the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Government of the Republic of India, Recalling that the boundary in the Palk Strait has been settled by the Agreement between the Republic of Sri Lanka and the Republic of India on the Boundary in Historic Waters between the Two Countries and Related Matters, signed on 26/28 June, 1974, And desiring to extend that boundary by determining the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mannar and the Bay of Bengal, Have agreed as follows:
â¦Article 5
(1) Each Party shall have sovereignty over the historic waters and territorial sea, as well as over the islands, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary.
(2) Each Party shall have sovereign rights and exclusive jurisdiction over the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone as well as over their resources, whether living or non-living, falling on its side of the aforesaid boundary.
(3) Each Party shall respect rights of navigation through its territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in accordance with its laws and regulations and the rules of international law.
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/LEGISLATIONAND...A-IND1976MB.PDF
Document:-
A/CN.4/143
Juridical Regime of Historic waters including historic bays - Study prepared by the
Secretariat
Topic:
Juridical régime of historic waters, including historic bays
Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-
1962 , vol. II
38. In summary, the concept of "historic waters" has its root in the historic fact that States through the ages claimed and maintained sovereignty over maritime areas which they considered vital to them without paying much attention to divergent and changing opinions about what general international law might prescribe with respect to the delimitation of the territorial sea. This fact had to be taken into consideration when attempts were made to codify the rules of international law in this field, i.e., to reduce the sometimes obscure and contested rules of customary law to clear and generally acceptable written rules. It was felt that States could not be expected to accept rules which would deprive them of considerable maritime areas over which they had hitherto had sovereignty.
http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/e...h/a_cn4_143.pdf