國際海洋法庭於2012年孟加拉/緬甸案中，就海洋法公約第76 條外大陸礁層自然延伸原則的解釋，在國際法學界引起了辯論。部分 學者認爲自然延伸原則在本判決後，在海洋法公約中僅是政治迷思， 部分認爲其重要性被肯認。又，自然延伸原則究應爲自然地貌或地質 延伸原則，也在本案中引發不同意見。本文檢視國際法院判決與大陸 礁層界限委員會的建議案後，主要有三個研究發現。首先，孟加拉/ 緬甸案應被視爲透過條約約定的特殊情況，而得以地質證據作爲自然 延伸原則的標準。又，自然延伸原則仍然是認定外大陸礁層的法律要 件而非政治迷思。最後，爲維持自然延伸原則與區域制度的穩定，自 然地貌沿伸原則具有重要的證據說服功能，但未排除自然的地質延伸原則。

In 2012, International Tribunal of Law of the Sea (“ITLOS”) issued its first maritime delimitation judgment on Bangladesh v. Myanmar. The said judgment raised a very important debate among both the academics and the judges about how to interpret the natural prolongation principle of continental shelf extended over 200 nautical miles provided in Article 76 of United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”). Some scholars argue that the natural prolongation principle has become only a political myth in UNCLOS after the said judgment, whereas some scholars argue that the importance of the principle is actually reconfirmed. Moreover, whether the natural prolongation principle is a natural “geomorphological” or “geological” principle also raised different opinions in the said judgment. This article aims to respond to this debate by analyzing various International Court of Justice’s judgments and outer continental shelf recommendations issued by the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf in the recent years. There are three key research findings. Firstly, the concept of natural “geological” prolongation principle adopted in Bangladesh v. Myanmar case should be regarded as an exceptional situation, a result of the special circumstance of the Bay of Bengal provided by UNCLOS. Secondly, the natural prolongation principle is still an indispensable legal element provided in UNCLOS and not just a political myth. Third, geomorphological evidence plays an important probative function in the regime of outer continental shelf, which does not exclude geological evidence to be used in the natural prolongation principle and also preserves the stability of the common heritage of mankind in the area.