Sir Creek Issue between India and Pakistan- (Part-1)

Описание: Sir Creek, a 96km narrow piece of water between India’s Gujarat state and Pakistan’s Sind province, is a contentious issue, which has plagued the two nations for decades. 

Historically, Pakistan considers it to be its sovereign territory because when a dispute arose between Sind and the Kutch Durbar, The matter was referred to arbitration, and the Indo-Pak western boundary case Tribunal’s Award on 1968, Uphold 90 percent of India’s claim to the entire Rann of Kucth conceding sectors to Pakistan.

The dispute arises from the agreement of the parties before the tribunal to limit their differences only at the border in the north.

In 1914 a settlement was made on the basis of a compromise; The Sind government foregoing its claim on Kori Creek, Further east of Sir Creek to gain ownership over the entire Sir Creek.

After India’s partition in 1947, Sind became a part of Pakistan while Kutch remained with India, Thus, according to the International Law of uti possidetis juris, that decolonized sovereign states should have the same borders that their preceding dependent area had before independence, Pakistan deems to have inherited its right over Sir Creek.

Initially territorial waters extended only till 12 nautical miles but since the advent of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,

A coastal state can now have control over five sea zones: internal water, territorial sea area (12 nautical miles wide), contiguous zone (12 nautical miles wide),

The (EEZ) Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical miles wide), The continental shelf (from 200 nautical miles up to maximum 350 nautical miles wide).

India has a problem with each of its neighbors, in terms of boundaries as well as the exploitation of natural resources.

The dispute over water resources was not enough, the possibility of extracting more resources via intrusion in Pakistan’s EEZ, Prompted the Indians to challenge the boundary demarcation in the Sir Creek area.

Pakistan maintains that the doctrine is not applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable.

India rejects the Pakistani stance by maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable in high tide. 

Application of the Thalweg Doctrine will cause Pakistan to lose 2,246 square kilometers of EEZ.

Although India and Pakistan had surveyed the 100km Sir Creek estuary in 2007,

Yet Indian delaying tactics have frustrated Islamabad’s attempts to resolve the issue.

India now proposes that the maritime boundary should be demarcated as per the provisions of technical aspects of Law of Sea (TALOS).

However, Pakistan has staunchly refused the proposal on the grounds that the dispute should be resolved through arbitration before the demarcation.

India has flatly refused, maintaining that all bilateral disputes should be resolved without the intervention of third parties.

This is contrary to facts since the issue of Rann of Kutch was arbitrated successfully by the British.

India has now taken the illegal action of erecting a “floating fence” anchored by submerged metallic meshes/net/web/network along the disputed Sir Creek.

The two agencies involved in the project are the National Buildings Construction Cooperation (NBCC) which will erect the fence of 75km of the Creek

While the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) has already started work in the rest of the area.

Such aggressive steps by India would complicate things between both countries.

This issue could be resolved by Arbitration if India agrees.

Mutual cooperation is the only way forward.






---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER


Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.