You go, ‘Grrl! Hope Lewis to be honored at SALT’s 2015 Annual Dinner Jan. 4

unnamed

We are proud to announce that IntLawGrrl Hope Lewis will be receiving the 2015 M. Shanara Gilbert Human Rights Award at the Society of American Law Teachers (SALT) Annual Dinner on Jan. 4, 2015.

Hope is Faculty Director of Global Legal Studies and a founder of the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE). An internationally recognized legal scholar and commentator on human rights, she co-authored the textbook Human Rights & the Global Marketplace: Economic, Social, and Cultural Dimensions (Brill, 2005). She is a founding co-chair of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) International Disability Rights Interest Group and served on the ASIL executive council between 2010 and 2013. She now serves on the board of governors of the Society of American Law Teachers and the executive committee of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Minority Groups.

Hope is a co-drafter and compiler of the Boston Principles on the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights of Non-citizens, a project of the law school’s Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy. Her research and teaching interests include public international law; international human rights law; critical perspectives on Identity and international law (race, gender, culture, migration status and disability), as well as globalization and social development. She is the 2014 Kate Stoneman Visiting Professor of Law and Democracy at Albany Law School (April 2014) and she is the recipient of the 2012 American Bar Association’s Mayre Rasmussen Award for Mentorship of Women in International Law. She is also a recipient of the 2011 Thomas J. Carroll Award from the Carroll Center for the Blind and the Massachusetts Commission for the Blind as well as the 2001 Haywood Burns/Shanara Gilbert Award from the Northeast Regional People of Color Legal Scholarship Conference for her human rights work and mentorship of students and colleagues. Hope was a 2008 Sheila Biddle Fellow (Ford Foundation) of the W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African & African-American Research at Harvard University.

From all of us at IntLawGrrls, heartfelt congratulations, Hope!

Advertisements

The Bay of Bengal Maritime Arbitration Case: Part I

Introduction

On 7 July 2014, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Hague, passed the award in the Indo-Bangladesh Maritime Arbitration Case (The Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration). The case was initiated by Bangladesh against India in October 2009, pursuant to Art. 287 of the UNCLOS, after 11 rounds of negotiations between the parties over five decades proved to be indecisive, and often marred by local politics. Following pages give a summary of various issues and facts considered by the tribunal to reach the final award.

The Tribunal was composed of: Judge Rudiger Wolfrum (President), Judge Jean-Pierre Cot, Judge Thomas A. Mensah, Dr. P.S. Rao, and Prof. Ivan Shearer. Dr. P.S. Rao reserved a concurring and dissenting opinion.

Background

The Indian Independence Act, 1947 of the United Kingdom, partitioned from India the state of West Pakistan and East Pakistan. East Pakistan was carved out of the Bengal Province, with West Bengal remaining in India. In order to demarcate the boundary between East Pakistan and West Bengal, the Bengal Boundary Commission was set up in 1947 chaired by Sir Cyril Radcliffe. On 13 August 1947, the report was submitted describing the boundary, and is known as “Radcliffe Award.”

Thereafter, in the light of disputes on the application of Radcliffe Award, an Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal was set up, known as Bagge Tribunal. The Award of this Tribunal dealt with segments not relevant to this case.

On 26 March 1971, Bangladesh declared Independence from Pakistan and succeeded to the territory of East Pakistan and its boundaries.

The boundary between India and Bangladesh runs across the Sunderban Delta region. The southern section of the land boundary lies in the riverine features, which fall in the Bay of Bengal. This delimitation exercise involves delimiting the boundary river, identifying the terminal point of the land boundary, to delimit the territorial sea, the EEZ, the continental shelf within and beyond 200nm.

Jurisdiction

The Parties were deemed to have accepted arbitration in accordance with Annex VII since there was no declaration made by either party under Art. 287(3) (Choice of Procedure), nor had any party made a declaration under Art. 298, thereby, not excluding the current dispute from compulsory dispute resolution mechanism entailing binding procedure. The Tribunal assumed the jurisdiction to ‘… adjudicate the present case, to identify land boundary terminus and   to delimit the territorial sea, the Exclusive Economic Zone and the continental shelf between the parties within and beyond 200nm in the areas where the claims of the parties overlap. Continue reading