India and Bangladesh highlight need for cooperation on Bay of Bengal maritime grey areas
Worth reading — New development — a live issue with two sides, good for Mains, no past question yet.
2-minute summary
Following a 2014 UN Tribunal award that resolved major maritime boundaries between India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal, maritime experts have highlighted the emergence of 'grey areas' requiring bilateral cooperation. Specifically, these are zones where Bangladesh exercises jurisdiction over the seabed while India retains jurisdiction over the water column, creating practical management challenges for resource exploitation and marine activities like oil exploration. While the previous administration under Sheikh Hasina successfully curbed piracy near Chittagong port through joint security frameworks involving India and the United States, future regional connectivity depends heavily on integrated port modernisation and maritime coordination. Bangladesh's interim government has moved to enhance port capacity, exemplified by leasing terminal infrastructure to foreign operators, raising the need for a long-term strategic vision for Bay of Bengal shipping, autonomous vessels, and shared security architecture.
Why it's in the news
Experts have underscored the management challenges posed by 'grey areas' in the India-Bangladesh maritime boundary following the 2014 UN Tribunal verdict, drawing attention to bilateral coordination needs in the resource-rich Bay of Bengal.
Facts to remember
- A UN Tribunal in 2014 settled the India-Bangladesh maritime boundary dispute, awarding Bangladesh 19,467 sq. km of the Bay of Bengal.
- Maritime 'grey areas' in the Bay of Bengal represent zones where Bangladesh holds seabed jurisdiction while India holds water column jurisdiction.
- The Chittagong port in Bangladesh has seen enhanced security cooperation involving India and the United States to counter coastal piracy.
- Bangladesh's interim government has pursued port modernisation, including leasing terminal operations at Chittagong port.
Background and context
The maritime boundary between India and Bangladesh in the Bay of Bengal was a long-standing point of contention concerning territorial waters, Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ), and continental shelf claims. In 2009, Bangladesh initiated arbitration under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Permanent Court of Arbitration delivered its award in July 2014, resolving the dispute amicably by awarding Bangladesh a substantial portion of the disputed maritime space. However, the geometric application of equidistant principles and delimitation lines generated complex overlapping maritime zones or 'grey areas' where split jurisdictions over the seabed and water column occur, necessitating cooperative frameworks between New Delhi and Dhaka that remain a work in progress.
Constitutional provisions
- Article 51 — Directs the Indian State to promote international peace and security, maintain just and honourable relations between nations, and foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in international dealings.
International organisations
- Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) / UN Tribunal under UNCLOS — Deliberated and adjudicated the India-Bangladesh maritime boundary arbitration under the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 2014.
Mains practice: The resolution of maritime boundaries between India and Bangladesh under international law is a milestone, but managing jurisdictional 'grey areas' requires innovative bilateral frameworks. Discuss.
The peaceful resolution of the maritime boundary dispute between India and Bangladesh via the 2014 UN Tribunal award under UNCLOS demonstrated a model of cooperative conflict resolution in South Asia. However, the resulting maritime delimitation created complex 'grey areas' where seabed jurisdiction and water column jurisdiction are split between the two nations.
• Strategic and Economic Dimensions: In grey areas, Bangladesh possesses jurisdiction over the seabed (concerning mineral and hydrocarbon resources), while India holds jurisdiction over the overlying water column (concerning fisheries and navigation). This requires synchronized regulatory mechanisms to prevent operational conflicts in resource exploration.
• Maritime Security and Piracy: Effective surveillance against non-state threats, such as piracy near the Chittagong port coastline, demands joint patrolling and intelligence sharing between the Indian Navy, Bangladesh Navy, and regional partners, aligning with Article 51 of the Constitution which champions international law.
• Regional Connectivity and Trade: Unlocking landlocked northeastern India's access to the Bay of Bengal through Bangladeshi ports like Chittagong and Matarbari depends on predictable transit agreements and coordinated port infrastructure development.
• Institutional Frameworks: Setting up joint technical committees under existing bilateral institutional mechanisms is vital to formulate operating procedures for commercial activities, environmental protection, and disaster response in overlapping zones.
Way Forward:
• Establish a bilateral Maritime Joint Commission specifically mandated to draft protocols for resource sharing and environmental monitoring in grey areas.
• Enhance joint naval exercises and interoperability focusing on humanitarian assistance, disaster relief (HADR), and anti-piracy operations in the Bay of Bengal.
• Streamline customs, digital logistics, and multimodal transit connectivity to boost regional economic integration under BIMSTEC.
Conclusion:
Deepening maritime cooperation in the Bay of Bengal transforms geographical proximity into shared economic prosperity, reinforcing regional stability in line with India's Neighbourhood First policy and SAGAR vision.
Prelims practice questions
Q1. Consider the following statements regarding maritime boundaries and the Bay of Bengal region: 1. The maritime boundary dispute between India and Bangladesh was resolved through an award delivered by a UN Tribunal operating under UNCLOS in 2014. 2. A maritime 'grey area' refers to a zone where one nation has jurisdiction over the seabed while the neighbouring nation holds jurisdiction over the water column. 3. The Permanent Court of Arbitration award granted Bangladesh a significant portion of the disputed sea area in the Bay of Bengal. How many of the above statements are correct?
- Only one
- Only two
- All three
- None
Answer: C. Statement 1 is correct because the India-Bangladesh maritime boundary was adjudicated by a UN Tribunal under UNCLOS in 2014. Statement 2 is correct because grey areas involve split jurisdiction over the seabed and water column. Statement 3 is correct as the tribunal awarded Bangladesh a major share of the disputed sea area (19,467 sq. km). Hence, all three statements are correct.
Q2. Which of the following best describes the core legal and practical challenge posed by 'grey areas' in maritime boundaries as highlighted in bilateral relations?
- The complete absence of international treaties governing exclusive economic zones across global archipelagos
- The overlapping jurisdiction where seabed resource rights and water column navigation or fishing rights belong to different states
- The total prohibition of commercial shipping and container trans-shipment in zones located beyond territorial waters
- The mandatory transfer of continental shelf sovereignty to international seabed authorities without coastal state consent
Answer: B. Option B accurately describes a maritime grey area where split jurisdiction creates coordination challenges for activities like oil platforms and fishing. Option A is incorrect because treaties like UNCLOS exist. Option C and D are incorrect descriptions of grey areas.
Q3. With reference to the 2014 UN Tribunal award concerning the India-Bangladesh maritime boundary, consider the following statements: Statement I: Both India and Bangladesh agreed to abide by the arbitration decision delivered under the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Statement II: The tribunal award completely eliminated all overlapping maritime claims and technical jurisdiction anomalies in the Bay of Bengal. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I
- Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I
- Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect
- Statement-I is incorrect but Statement-II is subject to judicial review
Answer: C. Statement I is correct because both nations voluntarily submitted to arbitration and accepted the UNCLOS tribunal verdict. Statement II is incorrect because the award did not eliminate all complexities, leaving behind 'grey areas' requiring separate cooperative management. Hence, Statement-I is correct but Statement-II is incorrect.
Revision flashcards
- What international convention governs the law of the sea and provides mechanisms for maritime boundary arbitration like the 2014 India-Bangladesh tribunal? United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
- What constitutional Article in India directs the state to promote international peace, security, and respect for international law? Article 51 of the Constitution of India.
- In what year did the UN Tribunal deliver its award on the India-Bangladesh maritime boundary dispute in the Bay of Bengal? In 2014, resolving major sea boundaries and awarding Bangladesh 19,467 sq. km of sea area.
- What specific jurisdictional challenge was highlighted in October 2026 regarding maritime boundaries between India and Bangladesh? The existence of 'grey areas' where one country holds seabed jurisdiction while the other holds water column jurisdiction.
- Why do maritime 'grey areas' between neighbouring states necessitate bilateral cooperation? Because split jurisdiction over the seabed and water column prevents unilateral execution of resource projects without mutual agreement.