Prem Raj Silwal

Seas and oceans that occupy 70 per cent of the space of the earth are a crucial part of trade and commerce, mineral extraction, power generation and so on. It is considered an essential source of "Blue Economy." To date, 42 states have lacked access to the sea coast in the world, Kazakhstan being the largest among these states.
Landlocked countries have their pros and cons when it comes to having access to the sea. On one hand, they are disadvantaged in terms of having smooth development, trade, transport, transit, business and in many other fields of oil, gas, fishing and mining. But on the other, they possess no "natural threats of the sea."
Our country is a small landlocked country which is surrounded by two large nations i.e., India from three southern sides and China from the northern side. Bhutan is another small landlocked country in South Asia.
There is a long list of landlocked countries from around the world which includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Ethiopia, Hungary, Laos, Luxembourg, Mali, Moldova, Magnolia, Niger, Paraguay, Uganda, Zambia and others. Switzerland is an exceptional landlocked country, which has maintained its global mark in terms of development, federalism, good governance, rule of law, freedom, political system and public participation.
A separate law is assigned to regulate affairs regarding the sea around the globe. The UN Convention on the Law of Sea or UNLOSC is a specific international law of the sea. UNLOSC, signed on December 10, 1982, came into force on November 16, 1994. Article 124(1) of this law mentions, "The landlocked states means the states having no sea-coast." This is an international agreement dealing with all traditional aspects of ocean governance and uses.
Articles from 124 to 132 have special provisions for the landlocked countries on UNLOSC (1982). The landlocked states shall have the right of access to and from the sea to exercise the rights provided for in this Convention including those relating to the common heritage of mankind. landlocked states shall enjoy the freedom of transit states concerning through bilateral or any other agreements. The transit states have their full sovereignty and their territorial integrity, the right to take all measures necessary.
There are several bilateral treaties between landlocked and port states for trade and transit. Nepal and India have formally maintained bilateral transit treaties ever since 1960. With this treaty, Nepal has enjoyed certain privileges and facilities.
As mentioned in the provision of that treaty, Nepal can use different procedures and storage facilities at the port of Calcutta. The Indo-Nepal Treaty (1991) of Trade and Transit and agreement for co-operation to control unauthorized trade has given Nepal the privilege to access the port of India.
Landlocked Nepal is eligible for the security and right of the transit sector provided by international sea law. However, India has been giving rather little and low trade and transit access and facilities to Nepal as per India's geographical, political, economic and other hidden interests.
Another Northern neighbour China is ready to provide easy and free access to trade and transit facilities to Nepal. But we are geographically obliged towards Indian transit port which makes it difficult to access the Chinese port.
Treaty of 1950
Nepal-India shares vital bilateral relations geographically, historically, economically and culturally. India and Nepal have signed several bilateral treaties and agreements in various histological and political time frames. Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty (1950) is one of the most important and influential treaties between Nepal and India. However, this treaty is rather biased against Nepal and includes many provisions that raise questions about Nepal's sovereignty, territorial integrity, security and national interest.
Nepal-India Peace and Friend Treaty, 1950 (popularly known as 1950's Nepal-India Treaty) includes ten articles. Article 5 mentions, "The Government of Nepal shall be free to import, from or through the territory of India, arms, ammunition or warlike material and equipment necessary for the security of Nepal. The procedure for giving effect to this arrangement shall be worked out by the two governments acting in consultation."
This provision indirectly states that Nepalese internal security and purchase of weapons are under the control of the Indian government. It is an indirect intervention to Nepal by the Indian government. Article 6 of the same treat states, "Each government undertakes, in token of the neighbourly friendship between India and Nepal, to give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national treatment concerning participation in the industrial and economic development of such territory and to the grant of concessions and contracts, relation to such development."
Though Nepal and India share a few common grounds, they are still different in terms of geography, trade and population. This article has tried to maintain the legal monopoly of Indian contractors in Nepal.
Likewise, Article 7 of this treaty states, "The Government of India and Nepal agree to grant, on a reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the territories of the other with the same privileges in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation in trade and commerce, movement and other privileges of the same nature."
This provision is very harmful to Nepal and the Nepalese territory. Nepal has a population of 30 million while India is the second most populated country in the world with an enormous population of 135 million. That's why this article is unnatural, unjustifiable, impractical and harmful on behalf of Nepalese security, territorial integrity and national interest.

UN Convention
The UN Convention on Law of Sea, 1982 has guaranteed rights and privileges of landlocked states. Articles 124-132 are the special article of rights and privileges for the landlocked states. Our country Nepal is a landlocked nation that has rights guaranteed by such articles.
However, India is rather ignorant about such provisions mentioned in the international law and bilateral treaties including the Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty, 1950. These treaties and provisions of international laws in Nepal with India should be revised and our government should be sincere regarding its implementation.

(The writer, PhD., is an advocate)