Background and Theoretical Foundations: According to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, if the continental margin along the land area of ​​the coastal state exceeds 200 nautical miles, it is possible to delimit the outer continental shelf for the coastal country and in this regard, important ‌The best result of delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles is the identification of an opaque maritime territory called the Gray Zone, a practical example of which has been realized in the Bay of Bengal cases. Considering that the determination of the extent and external boundaries of the territory of the maritime regions is one of the main objectives of the international law of the seas in the present age and based on the national jurisdiction of the coastal government of maritime regions such as inland waters, territorial sea, waters of the archipelago, strait International, adjacent, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf under national jurisdiction and the high seas, coastal areas, ocean floor and seabed beyond national jurisdiction, and exclusive economic zones and continental shelf beyond Territorial sovereignty and national jurisdiction of the coastal state. Also, given that sovereign rights in these two maritime regions are inherently limited to the same regions, it is important to delimit their fair limits, and therefore the large number of cases before the International Court of Justice and arbitral tribunals confirms this fact. During the last few decades, the continental shelf has been one of the most controversial maritime areas for delimitation between coastal countries. Given these issues, the question now arises as to whether a particular customary or legal rule is followed in delimiting the continental shelf beyond 200 miles. And how can the obligations and fraudulent rights of the coastal government in the gray area be analyzed?
Methodology: This research is a descriptive-analytical review of important cases and the decision-making of judicial and arbitral authorities such as the International Court of the Law of the Sea and the Court of Arbitration in these cases.
Findings: The findings of this study indicate that after years, the ruling of the International Court of the Law of the Sea in the Bangladesh / Myanmar case and the ruling of the Arbitration Court in the Bangladesh / India case to the maritime disputes of the coastal neighbors in the watershed The Bay of Bengal ended by accepting the authority to determine the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. However, the delimitation of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles created a gray area, which Professor Kelson did not consider effective in identifying the rights and duties of the coastal state in the case of John Maine Bay, and refused to accept it as an unusual condition. However, the conflict of interest in the gray area of ​​the Bay of Bengal, which stems from the simultaneous exercise of jurisdiction in the exclusive economic zone beyond the continental shelf, calls for immediate legal normalization to make better use of the resources of this special maritime zone in the near future. Pre-disclosures are expected to increase beyond 200 nautical miles after the success of judicial and arbitral awards in the Bay of Bengal, which means more small and large gray areas in other parts of the world.
Conclusion: This article examines the judicial and arbitral awards issued in the Bay of Bengal watershed and concludes that the International Court of Maritime Law and the Arbitration Court, while accepting the jurisdiction of the coastal state to delimit the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, apply a justice approach. The three-stage reform, adhering to the procedure of delimiting the continental shelf, made the realization of the gray area in these conditions inevitable. However, overcoming potential legal conflicts such as maritime issues, marine research and environmental issues in the region can only be resolved through future bilateral agreements.