Maritime Business: Pedra Branca and South Ledge Dispute - Term Paper Example

Maritime Business Management: Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge Dispute Introduction The Pedra Branca/MiddleRocks/South Ledge dispute between Malaysia and Singapore first came up when Malaysia, in 1979, published a map claiming that Pedra Branca Island was part of their territory (International Court of Justice, p. 9). This declaration prompted Singapore to enter its dissent on such claim. This dispute was brought before the ICJ for a formal resolution and for the removal of any blight in the bilateral relations of these two countries. The dispute took 20 years before it was brought before the ICJ – with the suggestion first made by Singapore in 1989. Malaysia accepted the proposal in 1994 (International Court of Justice, p. 9). Both Singapore and Malaysia agreed to a Special Agreement prepared by the ICJ in 1998 and such agreement was signed in 2003 by the Foreign Minister of both Singapore and Malaysia. Formal notification was made with the ICJ in 24 July of 2003 which finalized the submission of the issue for resolution (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “History Dispute”). Pedra Branca is a granite island about 130 meters long and 60 meters wide and is located at the eastern entrance of the Straits of Singapore – approximately “24 nautical miles to the east of Singapore, 7.7 nautical miles to the south of the Malaysian state of Johor and 7.6 nautical milles to the north of the Indonesian island of Bintan” (Tanaka, p. 2). Middle Rocks are two clusters of small rocks which are permanently above water found 0.6 nautical miles south of Pedro Branca (Tanaka, p. 2). Finally, South Ledge is considered a low-tide elevation lying 2.2 nautical miles south-south-west of Pedra Branca. As both nations sought to establish their claim over the territories, they underwent a series of unsuccessful negotiations from 1993-1994 until the submission of their claims and disputes with the ICJ in 2003. Discussion The dispute between these two countries was primarily through the international laws of dispute settlement. After years of bilateral negotiations which did not yield any agreeable results for either country, the issue was forwarded to the ICJ for settlement. The issue was forwarded based on the query: whether or not Pedro Branca, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge belonged to Malaysia or Singapore (International Court of Justice, p. 1). Proceedings before the ICJ required both countries to present written pleadings three times from 2004 to 2005. After such pleadings were submitted, oral hearings before the ICJ were held in November 2007 and the verdict on the issue was submitted by the ICJ on the 23rd of May 2008 (International Court of Justice, p. 1). The pleadings of Singapore as submitted to the ICJ stated that their sovereignty over Pedra Branca was part of their claim over Middle Rocks and South Ledge and that Pedra Brance was strategically important to them because it commanded the entire eastern approach to the Straits of Singapore (Jayakumar & Koh, p. 9). The channel was an area where about 900 ships a day passed through. All in all, Singapore claimed that it complied with the two requisite requirements involving intention and activities in order to support their claim of sovereignty over the island (Jayakumar & Koh, p. 11). The British construction of the Horsburgh Lighthouse in the island was acknowledged by the Dutch and the East India Company several times in its history as belonging to Britain, and such ownership was later passed on to Singapore (Jayakumar & Koh, p. 10). Singapore also pointed out that Malaysia never conducted any competing activities in order to justify their claims over the islands. Instead, Malaysia sent a letter in 1953 disclaiming ownership of Pedra Branca; Malaysia also published six maps where they included the island as part of Singapore; and the actions of Malaysia before their 1979 declaration of sovereignty over the islands indicated their recognition that the island indeed belonged to Singapore (ICJ. p. 1). On the other hand, Malaysia’s claim of sovereignty over the Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge was based on the historical kingdom of the Sultanate of Johor (ICJ, p. 2). Since it was part of the Sultanate of Johor, then the island could not be terra nullius. Malaysia also pointed out that the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824 transferred sovereignty over Singapore from Johor to the East India Company – and with it the different islets and rocks within 10 geographical miles of Singapore. And since Pedra Branca was 25.5 nautical miles away from Singapore, the island was not part of Singapore (ICJ, p. 2). Malaysia pointed out that Singapore’s claims were attempts at contradicting the arrangements which were already set between Johor and Great Britain for over 150 years past (ICJ, p. 2). Malaysia insisted that Singapore’s claims over the island was an attempt at establishing maritime domain over it, and not at all based on its standing as a lighthouse operator. Malaysia claimed that Singapore had no legitimate stand to claim the three territories because these three were separate features which were territories of Johor (ICJ, p. 2). The ICJ agreed with Malaysia’s position on the issue, citing that the Sultan of Johor had original historical title over the Pedra Branca, as opposed to Singapore’s terra nullius claims (ICJ, p. 2). The court also established that based on the Johor territories, it covered the islands and islets within the Straits of Singapore and therefore included Pedra Branca. Moreover, the claims based on the Sultanate of Johor were never challenged by other territories, hence, satisfying the requirements for continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty over the territories (Rao in ICJ decision, p. 1). The court nevertheless considered Singapore’s contention when it pointed out that even as Malaysia had historic title over the Pedra Branca, Singapore was able to exercise sovereignty over the island and Malaysia did nothing to refute Singapore’s declaration of sovereignty over the island. The ICJ considered the correspondence between Colonial Secretary of Singapore and the Acting State Secretary of Johor on the Pedra Branca Island where the secretary stated that it was not claiming Pedra Branca (ICJ, p. 2). Singapore’s conduct also indicates that it displayed acts of sovereignty over the island which included: the investigation of shipwrecks in the surrounding waters of the island; the installation of military communications equipment on the island; and the proposed reclamation works on the island – without Malaysia uttering a word of protest (ICJ, p. 2). Malaysia also referred to the Horsburgh Lighthouse as a Singapore station in 1959 and 1967 reports. In 1962 and 1975, Malaysia published six maps where they considered Pedra Branca to be a part of Singapore. Moreover, Malaysia protested the flying of Singapore flags in Pulau Pisang but not in Pedra Branca (ICJ, p. 2). Based on the above indicators, the ICJ in a 12-4 decision awarded the sovereignty of Singapore over Pedra Branca (Channel News Asia, “Singapore”). However, as for Middle Rocks, the ICJ declared that Malaysia held the same sovereignty over the rocks and such historical title had to remain and be upheld (ICJ, p. 2). For the South Ledge, based on the Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, the ruling of the court on low-tide elevation was that the ruling on islands could not apply to these elevations (Harrison, “ICJ”). Since the ruling of the ICJ was called on to decide the sovereignty over these territories, and not to decide on the delimitations on territorial waters, then the court could only decide based on the requests of the countries involved. The court then ruled that the South Ledge belonged to the state where the territorial waters of the ledge were found (ICJ, p. 2). This judgment is based on sound international law principles as mandated by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The decision of the ICJ followed the clear provisions and procedures as mandated by the international laws and by jurisprudence. It was detailed enough to satisfy the issues raised by both Malaysia and Singapore. The decision was also well-settled and did not give any room for lingering doubts or questions on the issue. I also noted how both countries accepted and respected the decision of the ICJ on the matter and putting to rest all lingering queries on the issue. Potential future challenges as a result of this judgment may however be seen on nations having historical claims on territories. It raises the question of whether or not territories which are being historically claimed have to be protected through acts of sovereignty or else be lost as territories. In this case, Malaysia had historical title over Pedra Branca and because it stopped declaring sovereignty over such territory, it lost its sovereignty over the island. Would this mean then that any state declaring acts of sovereignty over other territories can later have such territories declared as theirs? There is a risk of this ruling being used as precedence for the land-grabbing of territories and unintentional acts which seem to relinquish sovereignty over a territory may be interpreted against the state with the historical title over the territory. In the future, this decision also implies that issues between dissenting states can be settled without a single shot being fired (Cheam, “News”). The Pedra Branca issue has been an issue which has been settled peaceably by both nations – from the moment the first stirrings of dissent were made, until the issue was finally settled by the ICJ in 2008. The ruling also implies that if and when contending parties are willing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of a neutral party and later to abide by the decision of such party, it is possible to settle an issue peacefully (Cheam, “News”). Other nations should take the cue from Singapore and Malaysia when it comes to territorial or even non-territorial disputes. In the current international political arena where many nations are violently battling each other for territories, for sovereignty, and even for political and economic domination, this issue sets forth a clear example of how beneficial the peaceful resolution of conflicts can be for all parties concerned. Works Cited Cheam, J. “A good ruling, for both”. News (24 May 2008) The Straits Times. 03 June 2010 from http://news.asiaone.com/News/The%2BStraits%2BTimes/Story/A1Story20080524-66756.html Channel News Asia. “ICJ awards Pedra Brancas sovereignty to Singapore”. Singapore. (23 May 2008). Channel News Asia. 03 June 2010 from http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/349592/1/.html Harrison, J. “International Court of Justice determines Malaysia/Singapore sovereignty dispute”. ICJ. 30 May 2008. International Law Observer. 03 June 2010 from http://internationallawobserver.eu/2008/05/30/international-court-of-justice-determines-malaysiasingapore-sovereignty-dispute/ International Court of Justice “Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) Judgment”. p. 9. (2008) ICJ-CIJ. 03 June 2010 from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/130/14492.pdf Jayakumar, S. & Koh, T. “Pedra Branca: the road to the world court”. p. 9-11. (2009). Singapore: National University of Singapore. Ministry of Affairs. “History of the Dispute”. (n.d) Ministry of Affairs. 03 June 2010 from http://www.mfa.gov.sg/pedrabranca/histDispute.html National University of Singapore. “Case Concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks, and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) Judgment”. (23 May 2008) International Court of Justice. 03 June 2010 from http://law.nus.edu.sg/asiansil/doc/PB_Verdict_May_08_amended.pdf Rao, S. in International Court of Justice decision. “Separate Opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Sreenivasa Rao”. p. 1. (2008) Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 03 June 2010 from http://www.mfa.gov.sg/pedrabranca/pdf/SeparateOpinionOfJudgeAdHocSreenivasaRao.pdf Tanaka, Y. “Passing of Sovereignty: the Malaysia/Singapore Territorial Dispute before the ICJ”. pp. 1-2. (n.d) Hague Justice Portal. 03 June 2010 from http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/Docs/Commentaries%20PDF/Tanaka_ICJ_Singapore-Malaysia_EN.pdf Read More