The sea areas of Bangladesh are reportedly rich in straddling fish stocks and mineral resources, including hydrocarbons. But a long-standing dispute over maritime boundary delimitation with India and Myanmar remains a major stumbling block in exploration of these resources. The overlapping claims of these three countries over the maritime zones in the Bay of Bengal need to be settled for peaceful exploration of natural resources. While India and Myanmar want to delimit the maritime boundary on the basis of the equidistance principle, Bangladesh demands that delimitation should be based on the equitable method. The special geographical circumstances of the coastal zones of these countries warrant that any delimitation, whether agreed or determined by a third party, must result in an equitable solution. The decisions of the international courts and tribunals, state practice, and the Law of the Sea Convention clearly demonstrate that there has been a shift from the equidistance principle to the equitable principle of delimitation and strongly indicate that the equitable principle is the preferred method of delimitation.
This article examines how a right to health, expressed as a minimum core obligation under international law, can be advanced within the constitutional framework of Bangladesh. Reinforcing this right is important within the post-2015 Development Agenda under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Drawing upon examples of other jurisdictions to develop minimum core obligations of a right to health, it is argued that courts have a key role to play in actively enforcing a right to health to benefit poor, vulnerable and marginalised people. This article proposes that judicial adherence through interpretation of domestic and international law may provide the best mechanism to promote a right to health as a minimum core obligation in Bangladesh.