Connect with us

Features

Addressing issue of poaching in Sri Lanka’s territorial waters

Published

on

Illegal fishing in Sri Lankan waters (File photo)

by Neville Ladduwahetty

A point of view has been presented by the Pathfinder Foundation in an article titled, “Poachers take an aggressive stand: A wake-up call for action” (The Island, July 8, 2024).  The reason for “action” is apparently to prevent the ‘fisheries dispute’ from being used by “political opponents” to derail the growing bilateral relations between India and Sri Lanka.

If the motive for “action” is only to prop up bilateral relations, the question that needs to be asked is this: “at what cost to Sri Lanka are these relations?” not only in terms of the economic loss and environmental degradation due to bottom trawling but also in terms of the loss of livelihood of the Sri Lankan fishing Community. Furthermore, if such costs are to be incurred by Sri Lanka, despite the much-touted India’s policy of “Neighbourhood First”, what could Sri Lanka possibly expect, other than more exploitation in one form or another, through connectivity.

PROPOSED ACTION

Discussions between the representatives of India and Sri Lanka, at various levels to resolve issues of poaching amicably, have failed thus far. The article cited above states that India has in fact “acknowledged that the number of trawlers and other mechanized fishing vessels in the Palk Bay area is far beyond the Bay’s holding capacity”. Following this acknowledgement, the Union Government and the State of Tamil Nadu, in 2017 “proposed to remove 2,000 mechanised vessels from the bay area within three years (i. e. 2020). Despite such intentions, all they could achieve to date was to refit around 60 vessels” (Ibid).

The fact that the Union Government has done nothing since then indicates that either it has no influence over the issue of poaching by Tamil Nadu, or the belief that they could overcome its negative impact by other means, such as financial aid and infrastructure to bolster connectivity of a sort to make Sri Lanka dependent on India.

The Union Government lacks influence over poaching because the DMK, which has a majority of Lok Sabha members from Tamil Nadu, supports the fishing community in that state; out of 39 seats, the DMK won 22, Congress nine and others eight at the recently concluded election.

Under the circumstances, nothing is going to be achieved by “negotiating the matter or delegating the matter to a Joint Working Group” since it will turn out to be an exercise in futility because Pathfinder has not factored in the influence of the DMK in Tamil Nadu politics. Furthermore, such an exercise would most likely result in a much-publicized undertaking, similar to the one in 2017, with no penalties for failing to fulfill its commitments.

Therefore, if Sri Lanka is to protect its resources, and the livelihood of its people, it has to engage in a frank discussion and inform India that the only option left for Sri Lanka, in the absence of effective and just intervention by the Union Government of India, is to seek the opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the condition that both India and Sri Lanka will accept its determination. Such a determination should include compensation for the annual economic loss to Sri Lanka’s resources, for the destruction of the seabed within its Exclusive Economic Zone over the years as well as the annual livelihood losses due to sustained poaching.

DOCTRINE of UTI POSSIDETIS

According to Black’s Law Dictionary the legal Doctrine of “Uti Possidetis Juris” is defined as “the doctrine that old administrative boundaries will become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence (Hensel & Allison, “A Colonial Legacy and border Stability”, p.2 quoting Garner 1999).

“The principle behind this doctrine dates to Roman times. The principle first emerged in the modern sense with decolonization of Latin America when each former Spanish colony agreed to accept territories that were “presumed to be possessed by its colonial predecessors” (Ibid). The same Doctrine was accepted by former colonies in the African continent. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) “has argued for its relevance across the world” (Ibid).

“The principle was stated most directly in the ICJ’s decision in the Frontier Dispute/Burkina Faso Republic of Mali case. The ICJ had been asked to settle the location of a disputed segment of the border between Mali and Burkina Faso, both of which had been part of French West Africa before independence. In their judgment over the merits of these frontier dispute cases the ICJ emphasized the legal principle of “uti possidetis juris”.

“The ICJ judgment in the Mali-Burkina Faso Dispute case also argued that the principle of uti possidetis should apply to any decolonization situation, regardless of the legal or political status of the entities on which side of the border”.

“The territorial boundaries which have to be respected may also derive from international frontiers which previously divided a colony of one State from the colony of another, or indeed a colonial territory from the territory of another independent State.     There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers, in the event of State succession, derives from the general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula of uti possidetis” (ICJ 1986, Ibid).

CONCLUSION

The issue of poaching is intimately linked to the issue of International Maritime Border Line (IMBL). Despite the fact that the IMBL was established after protracted discussions, dating back to colonial times and embodied in Bilateral Agreements of 1974 and 1976, Tamil Nadu does not accept the agreements concluded by the Union Government. The most recent expression of this fact was made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the run up to the recent election.

Since the background for these agreements are based on historical narratives, there is sufficient room for the claims made on such narratives to be challenged. Therefore, it is imperative that a fresh approach be jointly pursued by India and Sri Lanka by relying on International Law for the sake of furthering bilateral relations and in keeping with India’s Policy of “Neighbourhood First”. Since the most appropriate and recognised Institution is the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the issue of establishing IMBL should be resolved by jointly seeking a determination from the ICJ. Such a determination would go a long way to resolve the issue of poaching. However, since poaching is not likely to cease overnight, the determination by the ICJ should address compensation for the losses incurred by Sri Lanka in respect of lost revenue, damage to the seabed via the practice of bottom trawling and livelihood losses incurred by the Sri Lankan fishing community over decades.

Despite the fact that the losses cited above far outweigh, what the “View Point” by the Pathfinder refers to as “generously provided” by India “to pull Sri Lanka out of the economic morass”, reflects a level of reality that is appalling because the $4 billion given was a loan to be paid back unlike the looting, death and destruction of resources that continue unabated without compensation. Sri Lanka must exercise its rights in keeping with international law, notwithstanding the disingenuous Policy of “Neighbourhood First”, which in practice means India is “First in the Neighbourhood”.  Therefore, whether India participates or not, Sri Lanka should seek the opinion of the ICJ supported by the International Seabed Authority to establish the IMBL in terms of recognised International Law of “Uti Possidetis juris” and put an end to the status of Kachchativu and address the issue of compensation for violations committed against universally recognised rights of a sovereign State.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Fractious West facing a more solidified Eastern opposition

Published

on

An Iranian attack on a neighbouring Gulf state. Image courtesy BBC.

Going forward, it is hoped that a reported ceasefire agreement between the US and Iran would provide a basis for a degree of stability in the Middle East and pave the way for substantive peace talks between the powers concerned. The world is compelled to fall back on hope because there is never knowing when President Donald Trump would change his mind and plans on matters of the first importance. So erratic has he been.

Yet, confusion abounds on who has agreed to what. The US President is on record that a number of conditions put forward by him to Iran to deescalate tensions have been accepted by the latter, whereas Iran is yet to state unambiguously that this is so. For instance, the US side claims that Iran has come clear on the point that it would not work towards acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, but there is no official confirmation by Iran that this is so. The same goes for the rest of the conditions.

Accordingly, the peace process between the US and Iran, if such a thing solidly exists, could be said to be mired in uncertainty. Nevertheless, the wider publics of the world are bound to welcome the prospects of some sort of ceasing of hostilities because it would have the effect of improving their economic and material well being which is today under a cloud.

However, questions of the first magnitude would continue to bedevil international politics and provide the breeding ground for continued tensions between East and West. Iran-US hostilities helped highlight some of these divisive issues and a deescalation of these tensions would not inevitably translate into even a temporary resolution of these questions. The world community would have no choice but to take them up and work towards comprehending them better and managing them more effectively.

For example, there are thorny questions arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Essentially, this treaty bans the processing and use of nuclear weapons by states but some of the foremost powers are not signatories to it.

Moreover, the NPT does not provide for the destroying of nuclear arsenals by those signatory states which are already in possession of these WMDs. Consequently, there would be a glaring power imbalance between the latter nuclear-armed states and others which possess only conventional weapons.

Such a situation has grave implications for Iran’s security, for instance. The latter could argue, in view of the NPT restrictions, that the US poses a security threat to it but that it is debarred by the Treaty from developing a nuclear arms capability of its own to enable it to match the nuclear capability of the US. Moreover, its regional rival Israel is believed to possess a nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, a case could be made that the NPT is inherently unfair. The US would need to help resolve this vexatious matter going forward. But if it remains, US-Iran tensions would not prove easy to resolve. The same goes for Iran-Israeli tensions. Consequently, the Middle East would remain the proverbial ‘powder keg’.

Besides the above issues, the world has ample evidence that it could no longer speak in terms of a united NATO or West. Apparently, there could be no guarantee that US-NATO relations would remain untroubled in future, even if the current Iran-US standoff is peacefully resolved. US-NATO ties almost reached breaking point in the current crisis when the US President called on its NATO partners, particularly Britain, to help keep open the Hormuz Straits for easy navigation by commercial vessels, militarily, on seeing that such help was not forthcoming. Such questions are bound to remain sore points in intra-Western ties.

In other words, it would be imperative for the US’ NATO partners to help pull the US’ ‘chestnuts out of the fire’ going ahead. The question is, would NATO be willing to thus toe the US line even at the cost of its best interests.

For the West, these fractious issues are coming to the fore at a most unpropitious moment. The reality that could faze the West at present is the strong opposition shown to its efforts to bolster its power and influence by China and Russia. Right through the present crisis, the latter have stood by Iran, materially and morally. For instance, the most recent Security Council resolution spearheaded by the US which was strongly critical of Iran, was vetoed by China and Russia.

Accordingly, we have in the latter developments some marked polarities in international politics that could stand in the way of the West advancing its interests unchallenged. They point to progressively intensifying East-West tensions in international relations in the absence of consensuality.

It is only to be expected that given the substance of international politics that the West would be opposed by the East, read China and Russia, in any of the former’s efforts to advance its self interests unilaterally in ways that could be seen as illegitimate, but what is sorely needed at present is consensuality among the foremost powers if the world is to be ‘a less dangerous place to live in.’ Minus a focus on the latter, it would be a ‘no-win’ situation for all concerned.

It would be central to world stability for International Law to be upheld by all states and international actors. Military intervention by major powers in the internal affairs of other countries remains a principal cause of international mayhem. Both East and West are obliged to abide scrupulously with this principle.

From the latter viewpoint, not only did the West err in recent times, but the East did so as well. Iran, for instance, acted in gross violation of International Law when it attacked neighbouring Gulf states which are seen as US allies. Neither Iran nor the US-Israel combine have helped in advancing international law and order by thus taking the law into their own hands.

Unfortunately, the UN has been a passive spectator to these disruptive developments. It needs to play a more robust role in promoting world peace and in furthering consensual understanding among the principal powers in particular. The need is also urgent to advance UN reform and render the UN a vital instrument in furthering world peace. The East and West need to think alike and quickly on this urgent undertaking.

Continue Reading

Features

Science-driven health policies key to tackling emerging challenges — UNFPA

Published

on

Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga

Marking World Health Day on April 7, health experts have called for a stronger commitment to science-based decision-making to address increasingly complex and evolving health challenges in Sri Lanka and beyond.

Dr. Dayanath Ranatunga, Assistant Representative of the United Nations Population Fund, stressed that health is no longer confined to hospitals or traditional medical systems, but is shaped by a broad spectrum of social, environmental, and technological factors.

“This year’s theme, ‘Together for Health. Stand with Science,’ reminds us that science is not only for laboratories or policymakers. It is a way of thinking and a tool that shapes everyday decisions,” he said.

Dr. Ranatunga noted that modern health challenges are increasingly interconnected, ranging from infectious diseases such as COVID-19 to climate-related risks, demographic shifts, and emerging forms of online violence.

He warned that maternal and newborn health continues to demand urgent attention despite progress. Globally, an estimated 260,000 women died from pregnancy and childbirth-related causes in 2023 alone—many of them preventable through timely, science-based interventions.

“In countries like Sri Lanka, where fertility rates are declining and survival rates improving, every pregnancy carries greater significance—not just for families, but for the future of communities and economies,” he said.

The UNFPA official also highlighted the growing threat of Technology Facilitated Gender-Based Violence (TFGBV), including cyber harassment and online abuse, noting that these forms of violence can have deep psychological consequences despite lacking visible physical harm.

He emphasised the need for multidisciplinary, science-informed approaches that integrate mental health, digital safety, and survivor-centered care.

Turning to demographic trends, Dr. Ranatunga pointed out that increasing life expectancy is bringing new challenges, particularly the rise of non-communicable diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular illnesses, and cancers.

In Sri Lanka, nearly 13.9% of mothers develop diabetes during pregnancy, a trend attributed to obesity and unhealthy lifestyles, underscoring the urgent need for preventive healthcare strategies.

“Are we investing enough in prevention?” he asked, noting that early intervention and healthier lifestyles could significantly reduce long-term healthcare costs, especially in a country with a free public healthcare system.

He underscored the importance of data-driven policymaking, stating that scientific research and analytics enable governments to identify gaps, anticipate future needs, and allocate resources more effectively.

The UNFPA, he said, is already leveraging tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to improve access to maternal healthcare, including mapping travel times for pregnant women to reach health facilities.

Digital innovation is also transforming healthcare delivery, from telemedicine to real-time data systems, improving efficiency and ensuring continuity of care even during emergencies.

In Sri Lanka, partnerships between the government and development agencies are helping to modernise training institutions, including facilities in Batticaloa, equipping healthcare workers with both clinical and digital skills.

However, Dr. Ranatunga cautioned that technology alone is not a solution.

“It must be guided by evidence and grounded in equity,” he said, pointing out that women’s health remains significantly underfunded, with only about 7% of global healthcare research focusing on conditions specific to women.

He also drew attention to the growing health impacts of climate change, including extreme weather, food insecurity, and displacement, describing it as an emerging public health crisis.

“Health does not begin in hospitals. It is shaped by the environments we live in, the choices we make, and the systems we build,” he said.

Calling for renewed commitment, Dr. Ranatunga urged stakeholders to invest in prevention, embrace innovation, and ensure that science remains central to policy and practice.

“Science is not just about knowledge—it is about ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live healthy, dignified lives, and that no one is left behind,” he added.

 

By Ifham Nizam

Continue Reading

Features

Sharing the festive joy with ‘Awurudu Kaale’

Published

on

The visually impaired who make up Bright Light Band in Awurudu attire

Melantha Perera is well known as a very versatile musician.

He was involved with the band Mirage, as their keyboardist/vocalist, and was also seen in action with other outfits, as well, before embarking on a trip to Australia, as a solo artiste.

I now hear that he has plans to operate as a trio.

However, what has got many talking about Melantha, these days, is his awesome work with the visually impaired Bright Light Band.

They have worked out a special song for the Sinhala and Tamil New Year, aptly titled ‘Awurudu Kaale.

Says Melantha: “This song has been created to celebrate the spirit of the Sinhala and Tamil New Year and to share the joy of the Awurudu season with all Sri Lankans”.

Yes, of course, Melantha composed the song, with the lyrics written collaboratively by Melantha, Badra, and the parents of the talented performers, whose creative input brought the song to life during moments of inspiration.

Melantha Perera: Awesome work with Bright Light Band

This meaningful collaboration reflects the strong community behind the Bright Light Band.

According to Melantha, accompaning the song is a vibrant video production that also features the involvement of the parents, highlighting unity, joy, and togetherness.

Beyond showcasing their musical talents, the visually impaired members of Bright Light Band deliver a powerful message, through this project, that their abilities extend beyond singing, as they also express themselves through movement and dance.

Melantha expressed his satisfaction with the outcome of the project and looks forward to sharing it with audiences across the country during this festive season.

He went on to say that Bright Light Band extends its sincere gratitude to Bcert Australia for their generous Mian sponsorship, the CEO of the company, Samath Fernando, for his continuous support in making such initiatives possible, and Rukshan Perera for his personal support and encouragement in bringing this project to completion.

The band also acknowledges Udara Fernando for his invaluable contribution, generously providing studio space and accommodating extended recording sessions to suit the children’s availability.

Appreciation is warmly extended to the parents, whose unwavering commitment from ensuring attendance at rehearsals to supporting the video production has been instrumental in the success of this project.

Through ‘Awurudu Kaale’, Bright Light Band hopes to spread festive cheer and inspire audiences, proving that passion and talent know no boundaries.

Continue Reading

Trending