INDIAN AND SRI LANKA FISHERMAN CRISIS: THE PALK STRAIT AND THE KACHCHATHEEVU ISLAND DISPUTE BY - AYUSHI TRIVEDI
INDIAN AND SRI LANKA FISHERMAN
CRISIS: THE PALK STRAIT AND THE KACHCHATHEEVU ISLAND DISPUTE
AUTHORED BY - AYUSHI TRIVEDI
Student at Christ (Deemed to be
University), Bangalore
Abstract:
The India-Sri Lanka fisheries
dispute, centred around the Palk Strait and Kachchatheevu Island, highlights
ongoing tensions over maritime boundaries, fishing rights, and sustainable
practices. This Paper examines the conflict's historical, legal and
geopolitical dimensions, emphasising the destructive impact of bottom-trawling
by Indian fishermen and its repercussions on Tamil Nadu’s coastal communities. The
analysis explores the principles of internal law such as UNCLOS and Pacta Sunt
Servanda, and their applicability to the dispute. It underscores the lack of an
effective dispute-resolution mechanism and the humanitarian challenges posed by
arrests and detentions. Recommendations include comprehensive fisheries
management, a strict ban on bottom-trawling, adopting GPS tracking systems, and
strengthening bilateral and international frameworks. This paper advocates for
cooperative, sustainable solutions through Alternative and Global Dispute
Resolution mechanisms to ensure justice, uphold international law, and protect
livelihoods while fostering peaceful relations between the two nations.
Introduction:
Recently, the Minister of Fisheries
Ramalingam Chandrasekhar made a statement saying that the enduring fisheries
conflict in Palk Bay, can resolved only if the Indian Side Stops using the
destructive bottom-trawling method[1]. The
dispute of fishermen always poses concerns about the relationship between India
and Sri Lanka. One of the most affected states by the fishermen dispute is
Tamil Nadu according to the data of the Ministry of External Affairs. Noam
Chomsky said, “If it’s wrong when they do it, it’s wrong when we do it[2]”.
This emphasizes the principle of equality and justice, urging both nations to
hold accountable for their action and adopt fair practices in resolving
disputes. External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar stated “I wish to remind
the members that in concluding this agreement, the rights to fishing,
pilgrimage, and navigation which both sides have enjoyed in the past have been
fully safeguarded for the future”[3].
Facts of the Dispute:
After the independence, India and
Sri Lanka sought to demarcate maritime borders, focusing on Kachchathivu
island, a contentious issue. India, viewing it as insignificant, relinquished
the island to Sri Lanka through the 1974 Agreement (Indo- Lanka Maritime
Agreement), Article 5 allowing Indian fishermen access to pilgrimage and drying
nets. In 1974, then-foreign minister Swaran Singh Assured Parliament that
Indian fishers would continue accessing their historical fishing grounds[4]. The
1976 Agreement extended maritime boundaries in the Gulf of Mannar and Bay of
Bengal, resolving disputes over Sri Lanka’s fishing wadge Bank by allowing
temporary fishing access and committing India to supply 2,000 tons of fish
annually. An exchange of letters restricted fishermen from both nations from
fishing in each other’s water, including the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), without
explicit permission[5].
In 2016, the government of India and
Sri Lanka proposed the establishment of a joint working group to create a
hotline in Palk Bay[6].
However, Tamil Nadu’s exclusion in negotiation contradicted inclusive
federalism. The 1983 Tamil Nadu Marine Fishing Regulation restricting fishing
within three nautical miles has led fishermen to cross the International
Maritime Boundary Line. India and Sri
Lanka both are signatories of the UNCLOS, which must address claims of illegal
fishing under Article 19 (Meaning of innocent passage) and 21 (Laws and
regulations of the coastal state relating to innocent passage), which protect
coastal states’ fisheries law[7].
Even still recent data shows that Indian fishermen are often arrested by Sri
Lankan authorities for allegedly crossing the International Maritime Boundary
Line (IMBL).
The IMBL was a bilateral agreement
signed in 1974 and 1976 under the UNCLOS. However, it has failed to address the
issue[8]. In
2008, both the countries agreed to deal with the issue of bonafide fisherman of
either side crossing the IMBL[9]. In
the year 2014, the Meenakumari committee was set up to review the deep-sea
fishing policy and made recommendations like permission for foreign vessels to
engage in deep-sea fishing in Indian waters etc. which was later withdrawn [10].
In the case of Unknown Vs. Union of India 2019[11], it
was submitted before the Madras High Court that India and Sri Lanka do not have
a bilateral or multilateral treaty applicable that may confer jurisdiction over
the ICJ in matters concerning fishermen.
Issue of the dispute:
The India - Sri Lanka fishing
dispute arises from an Indian fisherman crossing the International Maritime
Boundary Line (IMBL) near Kachchatheevu Island, ceded to Sri Lanka in the 1974
Indo-Lanka Maritime Agreement. This violates Sri Lankan territorial waters
under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, leading to arrests and boat
seizures by the Sri Lankan Navy.
One of the main issues is the no
bilateral agreement between the countries to lead the dispute to the
International Court of Justice.
Principle of International Law rules
and Principle Applicable:
As Hans Kelsen defines,
“International Law or Law of Nations is the name of a body of rules which
regulate the conduct of states in intercourse with one another[12]”,
emphasizes the rules governing the conduct of states in their interaction,
which is central to resolving the maritime and fishing rights conflict between
India and Sri Lanka. According to J.G. Starke’s definition, “International Law
may be defined as that body of law which is composed for its greater part of
the principles and rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to
observe, and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other[13]”,
this highlights the binding nature of international principles and rules, such
as UNCLOS, which directly apply to the dispute involving maritime boundaries
and fishing rights. The 4 stakeholders of International Law include the
sovereign state (India and Sri Lanka), the international organizations (UNCLOS,
IMO, UNDP, ICJ and Geneva Convention), international NGOs and Individuals.
The Declaration on Principles of
International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States by
the Charter of the United Nations[14].
According to Luis Henkis, generally, all nations observe the principle of
International Law and their obligations. According to him objective of any law
and its implementation is most important not the means and methods. This
emphasizes the adherence of both countries to international laws like UNCLOS.
Both India and Sri Lanka, follow the
theory of Dualism which emphasises that Municipal law and International Law are
different branches of the same law. The Principle of Pacta Sunt Servanda
simplifies that agreements and treaties entered into by member states must be respected
and followed in good faith. It is Jus Necessarium of International Law. India
and Sri Lanka’s 1974 agreement on the boundary in the historical waters between
the two nations, the 1976 Maritime Boundary Agreement, and UNCLOS give a binding nature of these
treaties under this principle, obligated to honour their terms unless modified
by mutual consent or invalidated through legal or diplomatic processes.
Present Status of that issue:
The Fisheries conflict between the
two sovereign states India and Sri Lanka remains unresolved primarily due to
the ongoing practice of bottom-trawling by Indian fishermen, which Sri Lanka
Deems environmentally destructive. According to the Minister of State in the
Ministry of External Affairs (Shri Kirti Vardhan Singh), stated that currently
there are 83 Indian fishermen in the judicial custody of Sri Lanka, 4 Indian
fishermen serving sentences and 169 Indian fishing vessels apprehended by the
Sri Lankan authorities[15]. In
2024, up to July 22, 269 Indian fishermen and 37 were seized, primarily from
Tamil Nadu (251). Releases include 195 fishermen, of which 183 were from 2024
and 12 from 2023[16].
Existing Dispute Settlement
Mechanism:
Currently, the dispute between the
two Sovereign States regarding fisherman rights and maritime boundaries lacks
an effective mechanism for dispute resolution. The agreement of 1974 and 1976
was not properly effective between the two nations, there is no clear framework
for addressing the continued fisherman crisis crossing the International
Maritime Boundary. The lack of proper mechanisms in both Municipal Law and
international law creates a great concern for the individual and their
families. Sometimes the fisherman can be the sole breadwinner of the family. A
proper mechanism on the Municipal Law can resolve the issue in a more peaceful
manner between the Sovereign states. The method of humanitarian approach from
both sides promotes humanitarian assistance including the early release of
detained fishermen and ensuring no use of force against vessels.
The solution to resolve the Issue:
The solution to resolve the issue
may include Comprehensive fisheries management, where both countries can
collaborate on sustaining the fisheries management. A strict ban on bottom
trawlers must be implemented with large trawlers encouraged to operate in the
Country’s Exclusive Economic Zone. Even the proper knowledge about the coastal
area of the poor fishermen can help prevent them from going beyond the
Exclusive Economic Zone. With the evolvement of the technique, using a Global
Position System (GPS) tracking system can help in identifying and monitoring
fishermen. Strengthening the Joint Working Group can ensure that agreements are
adhered to. In the implementation of the provision, the involvement of the fisherman
can ensure that policies address the local needs.
Both nations should comply with the
UNCLOS provisions related to the conservation and management of marine
resources. This includes cooperative arrangements for sustainable fishing
practices and marine ecosystems. The use of Alternative Dispute Resolution
(ADR) and Global Dispute Resolution (GDR) can help resolve conflict over
fishing rights and territorial claims, ensuring a fair and neutral process.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the India - Sri
Lanka, fisherman dispute requires a cooperative, sustainable approach, focusing
on fisheries management, enforcement of agreement, and the protection of local
livelihoods. By strengthening the bilateral framework, utilizing technology and
implementing ADR and GDR mechanisms, both nations can resolve the conflict
fairly. This will uphold the principles of international law, ensuring peaceful
relations and long-term solutions for the affected fisherman and their
families.
[14] I.I. Lukashuk, The Principle Pacta
Sunt Servanda and the Nature of Obligation Under International Law, The
American Journal of International Law, Vol. 83, No. 3 (Jul., 1989), 513-518,
Cambridge University Press, JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2203309
