This document discusses international sea laws and maritime boundary demarcation between India and Sri Lanka. It summarizes the key United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) conferences that have aimed to establish international laws governing states' rights and jurisdictions in different maritime zones. The document focuses on how UNCLOS defines territorial seas, exclusive economic zones, and continental shelves and establishes principles for demarcating maritime boundaries between neighboring states, including using the median line or equidistance principles. It provides context on the maritime boundary negotiations between India and Sri Lanka.

1. INTERNATIONAL SEA LAWS AND MARITIME
BOUNDARY DEMARCATION BETWEEN INDIA AND SRI
LANKA
‘Sea’ is a very important element in every nation’s foreign policy and its development.
Sea is a treasure of natural resources like fisheries, minerals, oil etc. Historical studies
have shown that countries have been heavily depending on the sea for their security and
development. In ancient time a country’s power and prestige was determined by its
control over the sea and so as in present. For a certain time of period it was assuming that
the sea resources are unlimited, which can never be finished but the scientific and
technological advancement had proved this assumption wrong. Countries now started to
exploit marine resources and try to establish their monopoly over more and more sea
areas to get control over sea resources. These situations led to the great consequences
between different countries. To solve these consequences some efforts were made by
international community through the development of sea laws in various conferences.
The initiative effort to establish sea laws was taken by the ‘League of Nations’ in the
convention of 1930, convened at The Hague, but this convention failed to reach any
agreement. Following 1930 conference, there were a series of conventions organized by
the United Nations Organization named as ‘United Nation Convention on Law of the
Sea’ in the years of “1958, 1960 and 1973-82, respectively”. UNCLOS controls monitor
and regulate all the principle aspects of international Ocean affairs. Law of the Sea
proposed different types of maritime zones over which countries can claim their
sovereignty known as maritime boundaries and specify the authorities and responsibilities
of countries in these areas. Nugzar Dundua describes law of the sea as a hard and multi
type branch of law includes a state’s rights and obligations regulations in the maritime
areas. He says that the law of the sea divides sea areas into zones and decides their limits.
1

2. Maritime boundary demarcation is a very important part of the UNCLOS. Maritime
boundary of a nation composes ‘territorial waters’, ‘contiguous zones’, and ‘exclusive
economic zones’ recognized by the United Nations Convention on the basis of Law of the
Sea. Maritime zones and boundaries are of the major sources of disputes between two or
more countries. Maritime boundaries between different countries decided their claims
over those particular sea areas, over which they can enjoy the rights of jurisdiction,
exploitation and use of sea resources. Sea resources play a determining role in the overall
development of a State and that’s why maritime boundaries demarcation is important. It
is also important from the view point of strategic interests and security of a nation. Many
times the boundary demarcation between two or more states go wrong or perceive
unjustified by other states, this situation is also can led to conflicts between those
countries. Highlighting the importance of maritime boundary demarcation between states
Elisio Benedito Jamine says that, Maritime boundary delimitation always occurs as a
sensitive issue during the deciding process of the sovereign and jurisdiction rights over
sea areas and its natural resources. He also highlighted the potential effects of an
unresolved maritime boundary in the bilateral relations between two states. In this context
he said that in today’s world, boundary disputes between states are resulting as a high
strategic and security risk. These maritime boundaries disputes between states can easily
affect their bilateral relations like economic cooperation, exploitation of natural resources
of the sea due to competition between them to prove their excusive jurisdictional rights
over sea. It may also affect international peace and security.
Demarcation of Maritime Boundaries under Law of the Sea
States that are willing for the demarcation of maritime boundaries take its basic norms
from UNCLOS Conventions. The demarcation of maritime boundaries between two or
more states was done by some agreements accepted by both sides through negotiations. In
this process they decide of different zones, Islands over which states have their sovereign
2

3. rights to use that area and its natural resources. As stated above, guidelines for this
division is provided by UNCLOS Conventions.
In 1958 the first meeting of UNCLOS took place in Geneva. This convention developed
in four other conventions on different areas of sea that is: “Convention on the Territorial
Sea and the Contiguous Zone; Convention on the Continental Shelf, Convention on the
High Seas, and Convention on the Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of
the High Seas.” However UNCLOS-I failed to conclude any agreement. UNCLOS II held
in 1960 but ended without any result. UNCLOS III convened from 1973 to 1982, and
implemented on 16th November 1994. The convention was attended by 164 member
countries and 120 observer countries. This convention was described by scholars as the
best developed body of international law. Elisio Benedito Jamine characterized the
negotiations of UNCLOS as
“One of the greatest diplomatic events of humanity and in the history of International
Relations, due to the different interests involved and the difficulties experienced over ten
years of complex negotiations.”
UNCLOS set up maritime zones over which coastal States has jurisdiction powers and
proposed and regulate the principles for the demarcation of maritime boundaries.
UNCLOS establishes the “Territorial Sea (Article 15), The Exclusive Economic Zone
(Article 74) and The Continental shelf (Article 83), which would be most often subject to
boundary delimitation between two or more States”. The demarcation of the Territorial
Sea between two states under article 15 adopts the Principle of ‘Median line’, and articles
74 and article 83 adopts the Principle of Equidistance for the establishment of EEZ and
CS. Article 15 of the UNCLOS discusses about the demarcation of the Territorial sea
between two or more states with adjacent and opposite coasts. Article 15 has a provision
that;
“Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two
3

4. States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial
sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on
the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is
measured. The above provision does not apply, however, where it is necessary by reason
of historic title or other special circumstances to delimit the territorial seas of the two
States in a way which is at variance therewith.”
Territorial sea indicates towards that part of the sea which is claim by a costal state as its
sovereign territory. Started with the shores of the coastal state area extending 12 nautical
miles is known as the territorial sea. The coastal state exercises its sovereign and
jurisdictional power in this area. The states have both the legitimate rights and the
proprietary rights to monitor and control over use of natural resources in their maritime
boundaries and a right to make rules and regulate others states activities in their maritime
boundaries.
UNCLOS of 1982 gives some sovereign and jurisdictional rights to a coastal over its
territorial water, includes the following;
(1) A costal state has full right to monitor and uses of the sea resources and to fish in that
area of sea which comes under its territorial sea. It can also use the airspace above of its
territorial sea.
(2) A costal state also has an exclusive right to transport goods and people by using its
territorial waters from one part to another.
(3) It also has the jurisdictional right to implement laws concerning immigration,
navigation, health, and customs duties, which is bind for all foreign ships.
(4) A costal state has right to order a warship to leave its territorial waters if it ignores
regulations related with navigation.
(5) It also has jurisdictional powers and powers to take in custody over ships and people
4

5. on board, which try to commit crimes within its territorial sea.
(6) A state also has a right to exclude itself from a war in the territorial waters in which it
is neutral.
The width of the territorial sea always remained a subject of concern in international law.
Traditionally, the limit of a territorial sea was limited at 3 nautical miles, but after states
claimed, this limit was extended to 12 nautical miles.
Article 33 of the UNCLOS convention also establishes contiguous zone, a zone with the
limit of 24 nm from the baseline. In this zone state has partial jurisdictional rights. In this
zone;
“the coastal State may exercise that level of control which is necessary to prevent
breaking of its laws, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its
territorial sea, punish infringement of the above laws and regulations committed within
its territory or territorial sea.”
Article 74 of the UNCLOS establishes ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’. It has a provision that
the demarcation of the ‘Exclusive Economic Zone’ between to opposite states shall be
based on article 38 of the “Statue of the International Court of Justice which shall be
affected by agreement on the basis of International law to achieve an equitable solution”.
According to the UNCLOS provision (article 57) “the area of the EEZ shall not be extend
beyond 200 nm from the baseline of a costal state.” The EEZ is a sea zone over which a
state may “exercise sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting its
natural resources, whether it is living or non-living.”
Article 83 of the UNCLOS establishes Continental shelf. The demarcation of continental
shelf followed same procedure as the demarcation of EEZ adopts. It state that;
“The delimitation of the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent
coasts shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in
Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an
5

6. equitable solution.”
Article 77 of the UNCLOS gives sovereign rights to costal state to exploit and explore
natural resources of continental shelf.
Maritime Boundary Demarcation between India and Sri Lanka
India and Sri Lanka are maritime neighbours both located in the Indian Ocean. India and
Sri Lanka shares a common maritime boundary with each others. The maritime boundary
between Sri Lanka and India is divided at the three different points of sea areas; “Bay of
Bengal in the North, the Palk Straits in the Middle, and the Gulf of Mannar in the South.
Sri Lanka is located in southern side of India separated trough a narrow strip of Ocean
known as ‘Palk Strait’. Palk Strait is an important factor that plays a crucial role in India-
Sri Lanka maritime relations.”
Maritime boundary between India-Sri Lanka demarcated by the agreements signed by the two countries in
the years of 1974 and 1976
6

7. “The Palk Strait is named after Robert Palk, who was the governor of Madras presidency
from 1755 to 1763. The Palk Bay stretches from point Calimerien North to Rameswaram
and Dhansukh Kohdi in the South. It separates the coastal region of Nagapattinam,
Thanjavur, Pudukottai and Ramnathpuram districts from the republic of Sri Lanka.” “The
Palk Strait in length is 137 kms and in width it is 64 km in. The Palk bay is a strait, which
links the Bay of Bengal with the Gulf of Mannar. The average distance between Sri Lanka
and India through the Palk Straits is about 32 kms.” Both countries have concluded
bilateral agreements for the determination of maritime boundaries between them based on
the UNCLOS.
“In 1918, the Madras governmental authorities proposed a proposal related with the
extension of three mile limit of territorial water to twelve miles, and for maritime
boundary demarcation between India and Sri Lanka but the British Government rejected
that proposal. In October 1918 in a conference in Sri Lanka both side concluded the
delimitation of Palk Bay on the basis of the Principle of Equidistance and Median line
according to the International Sea Laws but the question of the jurisdiction over
Kachchatheevu Island had been occurred as a big problem. But the problem was solved
through the adjustment in the Principle of Equidistance. The delegation which takes part
from the side of British India prepared a report on this issue in the year 1921. According
to the final demarcation the Island of Kachchatheevu was fall in to Sri Lanka’s
jurisdiction. This was not acceptable to the Indian side and India rejected the 1921
proposals.” Later the government of Sri Lanka also raised its concern over maritime
boundary delimitation but the maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka was
decided by the two agreements.
Maritime Agreement of 1974
The first agreement was known as the “Agreement between India and Sri Lanka on the
boundary in historic waters between the two countries and related matters” inked by the
7

8. then Indian PM Indira Gandhi and the then Sri Lankan President Bandaranaike, on 26
June 1974. In this agreement the boundary has determined on the basis of principal of
“Equidistance”, except in the surroundings of Kachchatheevu Island. “Though
Kachchatheevu was not mentioned but it fell on the Sri Lankan side of the boundary
agreed upon by the two countries. The agreement demarcated a boundary in the sea from
a point about 18 nautical miles North-West of Point Pedra in Palk Strait to Adams
Bridge, distance of approximately 86 nautical miles.” Setthayln Malndhan has given the
following provisions of this agreement in his work “Katchatheevu; the Betrayed Indian
Territory”, which are as follows;
Article-I
“The boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the waters from Adam’s Bridge to Palk
Strait shall be arcs of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence
given below, defined by latitude and longitude: Position 1: 10° 05H North, 80° 03H East,
Position 2: 09° 57H North, 79° 35H East, Position 3: 09° 40.15H North, 79° 22.60H East,
Position 4: 09° 21.80H North, 79° 30.70H East, Position 5: 09° 13H North, 79° 32H East,
Position 6: 09° 06H North, 79° 32H East.”
Article -II
“The coordinates of the positions specified in Article first are geographical coordinates
and the straight lines connecting them are indicated in the chart annexed hereto which has
been signed by the surveyors authorized by the two Governments, respectively.”
Article -III
“The actual location of the aforementioned positions at sea and on the seabed shall be
determined by a method to be mutually agreed upon by the surveyors authorized for the
purpose by the two Governments, respectively.”
Article-IV
“Each country shall have sovereignty and exclusive jurisdiction and control over the
8

9. waters, the islands, the continental shelf and the subsoil thereof, falling on its own side of
the aforesaid boundary.”
Article -V
“Subject to the foregoing, Indian fisherman and pilgrims will enjoy access to visit
Kachchatheevu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain travel
documents or visas for these purposes.”
Article-VI
“The vessels of India and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other’s waters such rights as they
have traditionally enjoyed therein.”
Article-VII
“If any single geological petroleum or natural gas structure or field, or any single
geological structure or field of any other mineral deposit, including sand or gravel,
extends across the boundary referred to in Article 1 and the part of such structure or field
which is situated on side of the boundary, is exploited, in whole or in part, from the other
side of the boundary, the two countries shall seek to reach agreement as to the manner in
which the structure or field shall be most effectively exploited and the manner in which
the proceeds deriving there from shall be appointed.”
Article-VIII
“This agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of
exchange of the instruments of the ratification which will take place as soon as possible.”
Maritime Agreement of 1976
In 1976, the two countries has signed another agreement, named as “Agreement between
Sri Lanka and India on the maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of
9

10. Mannar and the Bay of Bengal and related matters” to extend their maritime boundary
line in the Bay of Bengal and the Gulf of Mannar. This agreement gave each party
sovereign right and established exclusive economic zones, and gave legitimate rights over
its living and not living resources, exist in their maritime boundaries. This agreement has
a provision that, “the fishing vessels fishermen of India shall not engage in fishing in the
historic waters, the territorial sea and exclusive economic zone of Sri Lanka, nor shall the
fishing vessels and fishermen of Sri Lanka engage in fishing in the historic waters,
territorial sea and the exclusive-economic zone of India without the express permission of
Sri Lanka or India as the case may be”. The provisions of this agreement were mentioned
by Setthayln Malndhan in his book “Katchatheevu; the Betrayed Indian Territory”, which
are as follows;
10

11. Gulf of Mannar
Article –I
“The maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the Gulf of Mannar shall be arcs
of Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, defined by
latitude and longitude: Position 1 m: 09° 06.0H N 79° 32.0H E, Position 2 m: 09° 00.0H N.
79° 31.3H E, Position 3 m: 08° 53.8H N 79° 29.3H E, Position 4 m: 08° 40.0H N 79° 18.2H E,
Position 5 m: 08° 37.2H N 79° 13.0H E, Position 6 m: 08° 31.2H N 79° 04.7H E, Position 7
m: 08° 22.2H N 78° 55.4H E, Position 8 m: 08° 12.2H N 78° 53.7H E, Position 9 m: 07° 35.3H
N 78° 45.7H E, Position 10 m: 07° 21.0H N., 78° 38.8H E, Position 11 m: 06° 30.8H N 78°
12.2H E, Position 12 m: 05° 53.9H N 77° 50.7H E, Position 13 m: 05° 00.0H N 77° 10.6H E.
The extension of the boundary beyond position 13m will be done subsequently.”
Article-II
“ maritime boundary between India and Sri Lanka in the Bay of Bengal shall be arcs of
Great Circles between the following positions, in the sequence given below, defined by
latitude and longitude : Position 1 b: 10° 05.0H N 80° 03.0H E, Position 1 ba: 10° 05.8H N
80° 05.0H E, Position 1 bb: 10° 08.4H N 80° 09.5H E, Position 2 b: 10° 33.0H N 80° 46.0H E,
Position 3 b: 10° 41.7H N 81° 02.5H E, Position 4 b: 11° 02.7H N 81° 56.0H E, Position 5 b:
11° 16.0H N 82° 24.4H E, Positions 6 b: 11° 26.6H N 83° 22.0H E.”
Article-III
11

12. “The co-ordinates of the positions specified in Articles I and II are geographical
coordinates and the straight lines connecting them are indicated in the chart annexed
hereto, which has been signed by the surveyors duly authorised by the two governments,
respectively.”
Article- IV
“The actual location at sea and on the seabed of the positions specified in Articles I and II
shall be determined by a method to be mutually agreed upon by the surveyors authorized
for the purpose by the two governments, respectively.”
Article - V
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 law and regulations and the rules of international
law.”
Article - VI
“If any single geological petroleum or natural gas structure or field, or any single
geological structure of field of any mineral deposit, including sand or gravel, extends
across the boundary referred to in Articles I and II and the part of such structure or filled
12

13. which is situated on one side of the boundary is exploited, in whole or in part, from the
other side of the boundary, the two countries shall seek to reach agreement as to the
manner in which the structure or field shall be most effectively exploited and the manner
in which the proceeds deriving there from shall be apportioned.”
Article - VII
“The Agreement shall be subject to ratification. It shall enter into force on the date of
exchange of instruments of ratification which shall take place soon as possible.”
Controversies over Maritime Agreements
However, India and Sri Lanka finalized their maritime boundaries as per the above two
agreements but these two agreements remained controversial because both sides have
different explanations on some of its provisions. Both of the agreements of 1974 and
1976 were occurred as a weak base for the maritime relations between India and Sri
Lanka. In these agreements both sides felt cheated by other side.
The provisions under article 5 and 6 of the Maritime Agreement of 1974 are having
controversial nature within it as both sides explain them according to their concerns.
Article 5 stated that “Subject to the foregoing, Indian fisherman and pilgrims will enjoy
access to visit Kachchatheevu as hitherto, and will not be required by Sri Lanka to obtain
travel documents or visas for these purposes.” Article 6 stated that “The vessels of India
and Sri Lanka will enjoy in each other’s waters such rights as they have traditionally
enjoyed therein.”
India and Sri Lanka both countries had different explanations of these provisions which is
proved by their statements. During the discussion in the Indian parliament Swaran Singh,
the then external affairs minister said that in spite of this maritime boundary division
between India and Sri Lanka the fishermen were generally free to do fishing even around
13

14. Kachchatheevu Island and they can also use Kachchatheevu Island for drying their nets.
Although India recognized Sri Lanka’s claim of sovereignty over Kachchatheevu Island
“the traditional rights of Indian fishermen and pilgrims to visit the Island remain an
affected.”
But the government of Sri Lanka had different view. The senior officials in the ministry
of foreign affairs in Colombo gave a different interpretation of article 5 and 6. They
explained that article 5 did not recognize any fishing right of Indian fishermen, but only
gave the right to visit island and to rest and dry their fishing nets. It only recognizes the
navigational rights.
These opposite explanations created very much disappointment among Tamil Nadu
leadership and Tamil fishermen. At that time this agreement was highly criticized by
Tamil leadership and various Tamil groups. Another effect of this agreement was that the
Kachchatheevu Island was handover to Sri Lankan government. Indian government
recognized the sovereign right of Sri Lanka over Kachchatheevu Island. This led to
another criticism of this agreement. In this context, Partha Gosh in his work “Ethnicity
versus Nationalism” said that the issue of Kachchatheevu Island was played an important
role in their diplomatic relations.
“When the negotiations had virtually failed, and the Indian official delegation was
pressurizing Indira Gandhi not to give up India’s claim on the Island, Srimavo
Bandaranaike made a personal appeal to Indira Gandhi to come to her rescue as it
would otherwise spell political disaster for her. Indira Gandhi appreciated Mrs. Srimao
Bandaranaike’s predicament and manipulated the situation in such a way that it became
a fait accompli even before the Indian delegation could react. Srimavo Bandaranaike
remembered this gesture as late as 1990 with immense gratitude.”
A.B Vajpayee, the then leader of Jan Sangh and former Prime Minister of India,
characterized this agreement as ‘unconstitutional’ and accused government to
surrendering Indian Territory to Sri Lanka. He said that the surrendering the island to Sri
14

15. Lanka is as another “bhoodan (land donation)” and “an assault on India’s territorial
integrity”. Mookiah Thevar, said that “the mistake made by Nehru in handing over of
Aksai Chin had been repeated by his daughter Indira Gandhi as a Prime Minister of
India.”
The question also raised on the Principle of Equidistance and Median line adopted for the
maritime boundary division between India and Sri Lanka. The further criticism of this
agreement is that, at the moment of delimiting the boundary line near Kachchatheevu
Island the Principle of Equidistance was not properly followed. As S.P. Jagota noted;
“The boundary line between India and Sri Lanka followed the median line, except as
adjusted in the Palk Bay in relation to the settlement on the question of island of
Kachchatheevu.”
DP O’Connel expert of International law said that the ‘Principle of Equidistance’ was
adopted by both government but in a different way. Nirmala Chandrahasan also said that,
“delimitation was based on agreement rather than on equidistance.”
The argument of Tamil Nadu Governments and leaderships is that the Maritime
Agreement of 1974 was more inspired by the wish to established strong relation with a
neighbor state and that’s why for the sake of good neighbour relationship, interests of
Tamil people and fishermen was avoided.
Whereas the Maritime Agreement of 1974 handover the Kachchatheevu Island to Sri
Lanka, the Maritime Agreement of 1976 made provisions for banning of Indian
Fishermen’s fishing activities in Sri Lankan maritime boundaries and surrounding of
Kachchatheevu Island. “In an exchange of letters on March 1976, the Indian foreign
secretary wrote to his Sri Lankan counterpart stating that the fishing vessels and
fishermen of India and Sri Lanka shall not engage in fishing activities in each another
historic waters, the Territorial sea and exclusive economic zone without any express
permission of Sri Lanka or India, as the case may be”.
W.T.Jayasinghe, foreign secretary of Sri Lanka, in his book “Katchatheevu and Maritime
15

16. Boundary of Sri Lanka” has stated that, “As per the terms of the 1976 Agreement
between the foreign secretaries of India and Sri Lanka the Indian Fishermen and pilgrims
would not enjoy visiting Kachchatheevu Island as hitherto”.
Maritime Agreement of 1976 abolished the traditional fishing rights of Tamil fishermen
and abandons the visiting of Tamil pilgrims on Kachchatheevu Island. Shri Madhavan,
(the former Law Minister in the Tamil Nadu Government) characterized Maritime
Agreement of 1976 as the death knell of Indian fishermen’s rights. However both of the
agreements were signed for the delimitation of maritime boundaries between India and
Sri Lanka but the provisions were not explained properly and that led to another problem
between India and Sri Lanka. The uncertainties in these agreements gave birth to other
problems like Kachchatheevu Island problem, fishermen problem, dissatisfaction among
Tamil peoples etc.
.
16

17. REFERENCE
17