465. The Parties differ on the status and treatment of the above-mentioned
“grey area”. For Bangladesh, this problem cannot be a reason for adhering to
an equidistance line, nor can it be resolved by giving priority to the exclusive
economic zone over the continental shelf or by allocating water column rights
over that area to Myanmar and continental shelf rights to Bangladesh.
466. Bangladesh argues that there is no textual basis in the Convention to
conclude that one State’s entitlement within 200 nm will inevitably trump
another State’s entitlement in the continental shelf beyond 200 nm.
Bangladesh finds it impossible to defend a proposition that even a “sliver” of
exclusive economic zone of one State beyond the outer limit of another
State’s exclusive economic zone puts an end by operation of law to the
entitlement that the latter State would otherwise have to its continental shelf
beyond 200 nm under article 76 of the Convention. For Bangladesh, it cannot
be the case that: