Audience publique tenue le jeudi 22 novembre 2007, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l'affaire relative à la So

Document Number
130-20071122-ORA-01-00-BI
Document Type
Number (Press Release, Order, etc)
2007/30
Date of the Document
Bilingual Document File
Bilingual Content

Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected

CR 2007/30

International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice

THHEAGUE LAAYE

YEAR 2007

Public sitting

held on Thursday 22 November 2007, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace,

Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President, presiding

in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore)

________________

VERBATIM RECORD
________________

ANNÉE 2007

Audience publique

tenue le jeudi 22 novembre 2007, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix,

sous la présidence de M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président,
faisant fonction de président

en l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour)

____________________

COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -

Present: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President
Judges Shi

Koroma
Parra-Aranguren
Buergenthal
Owada

Simma
Tomka
Abraham
Keith

Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Judges ad hoc Dugard

Sreenivasa Rao

Registrar Couvreur

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -

Présents : M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l’affaire
ShiMM.

Koroma
Parra-Aranguren
Buergenthal
Owada

Simma
Tomka
Abraham
Keith

Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Sjoteiskov,
Dugard.

Sreenivasa Rao, juges ad hoc

Cgoefferr,

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -

The Government of Malaysia is represented by:

H.E.Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Ambassado r-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Malaysia, Adviser for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister,

as Agent;

H.E. Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, Ambassador of Malaysia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,

as Co-Agent;

H.E. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,

Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney-General of Malaysia,

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C., Honorary Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit inte rnational, member of the Permanent Court of

Arbitration,

Mr.James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr.Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Professor of Public In ternational Law, Leiden University, associate
member of the Institut de droit international,

Mr. Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International La w, Graduate Institute of International Studies,
Geneva, associate member of the Institut de droit international,

Ms Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, University of Cambridge,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Datuk Azailiza Mohd Ahad, Head of Interna tional Affairs Division, Chambers of the

Attorney-General of Malaysia,

Datin Almalena Sharmila Johan Thambu, Deputy Head 1, International Affairs Division, Chambers

of the Attorney-General of Malaysia,

MsSuraya Harun, Senior Federal Counsel, Inte rnational Affairs Division, Chambers of the
Attorney-General of Malaysia,

Mr. Mohd Normusni Mustapa Albakri, Federal Coun sel, International Affairs Division, Chambers
of the Attorney-General of Malaysia,

Mr. Faezul Adzra Tan Sri Gani Patail, Federal C ounsel, International Affairs Division, Chambers
of the Attorney-General of Malaysia,

MsMichelle Bradfield, Research Fellow, Lauterpach t Centre for International Law, University of

Cambridge, Solicitor (Australia),

Coausnsel; - 5 -

Le Gouvernement de la Malaisie est représenté par :

S. Exc.M. Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, ambass adeur en mission extrao rdinaire, ministère des
affaires étrangères de la Malaisie, conseille r auprès du premier ministre pour les affaires
étrangères,

comme agent ;

S. Exc.Mme Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, ambassadeur de la Malaisie auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,

comme coagent ;

S. Exc. M. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, ministre des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,

M. Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C., professeur honorai re de droit international à l’Université de
Cambridge, membre de l’Institut de droit inte rnational, membre de la Cour permanente
d’arbitrage,

M. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de dr oit international à l’Université de Cambridge,
titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international,

M. Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, professeur de droit international public à l’Université de Leyde, membre

associé de l’Institut de droit international, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,

M. Marcelo G. Kohen, professeur de droit interna tional à l’Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationales de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,

Mme Penelope Nevill, chargée de cours au Downing College de l’Université de Cambridge,

comme conseils et avocats ;

Datuk Azailiza Mohd Ahad, chef du département des affaires internationales, cabinet de
l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

Mme Datin Almalena Sharmila Johan Thambu, pr emière adjointe au chef du département des
affaires internationales, cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

Mme Suraya Harun, conseiller fédéral principal au département des affaires internationales, cabinet
de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

M. Mohd Normusni Mustapa Albakri, conse iller fédéral au départ ement des affaires

internationales, cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

M. Faezul Adzra Tan Sri Gani Patail, conseiller fédéral au département des affaires internationales,
cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

Mme Michelle Bradfield, Research Fellow au Lauterpacht Research Center for International Law
de l’Université de Cambridge, Solicitor (Australie),

comme conseils ; - 6 -

Dato’ Hamsan bin Saringat, Director, State Economic Planning Unit, Johor State,

Mr.Abd. Rahim Hussin, Under-Secretary, Maritime Security Policy Division, National Security
Council, Department of the Prime Minister of Malaysia,

Mr.Raja Aznam Nazrin, Under-Secretary, Adjudi cation and Arbitration, Ministry of Foreign

Affairs of Malaysia,

Capt. Sahak Omar, Director General, Department of Hydrography, Royal Malaysian Navy,

Mr. Tuan Haji Obet bin Tawil, Deputy Director 1, Land and Mines Office of Johor,

Dr.Hajah Samsiah Muhamad, Director of Acqui sition, Documentation and Audiovisual Centre,
National Archives,

Cdr. Samsuddin Yusoff, State Officer 1, Department of Hydrography, Royal Malaysian Navy,

Mr.Roslee Mat Yusof, Director of Marine, Nort hern Region, Marine Department Peninsular
Malaysia,

Mr.Azmi Zainuddin, Minister-Counsellor, Embassy of Malaysia in the Kingdom of the

Netherlands,

Ms Sarah Albakri Devadason, Principal Assistant Secretary, Adjudication and Arbitration Division,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,

Mr. Mohamad Razdan Jamil, Special Officer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,

MsHaznah Md. Hashim, Principal Assistant Secr etary, Adjudication and Arbitration Division,

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,

as Advisers;

Professor Dato’ DrS. haharil Talib, Head of Special Research Unit, Chambers of the
Attorney-General of Malaysia,

as Consultant;

Mr.Tan Ah Bah, Director of Survey (Boundary Affairs Section), Department of Survey and
Mapping,

Professor Dr.Sharifah Mastura Syed Abdullah, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and
Humanities, National University of Malaysia,

Professor Dr. Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud, Director of the Institute for Malaysian and International
Studies, National University of Malaysia,

Mr. Ahmad Aznan bin Zakaria, Principal Assistant Director of Survey (Boundary Affairs Section),

Department of Survey and Mapping, - 7 -

M. Dato’ Hamsan bin Saringat, directeur de l’unité de planification économique de l’Etat de Johor,

M. Abd. Rahim Hussin, sous-secrétaire au département de la politique de sécurité maritime, conseil
de la sécurité nationale, services du premier ministre de la Malaisie,

M. Raja Aznam Nazrin, sous-secrétaire au département de la justice et de l’arbitrage, ministère des

affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,

Le capitaine Sahak Omar, directeur général du service hydrographique de la marine royale
malaisienne,

M. Tuan Haji Obet bin Tawil, premier directeu r adjoint du bureau du territoire et des mines du
Johor,

M. Hajah Samsiah Muhamad, directeur des acquisitions, centre de documen tation audiovisuel des
archives nationales,

Le commandant Samsuddin Yusoff, premier officier d’état-major du service hydrographique de la
marine royale malaisienne,

M. Roslee Mat Yusof, directeur de la marine pour la région septentriona le, département de la

marine de la Malaisie péninsulaire,

M. Azmi Zainuddin, ministre conseiller à l’ambassade de la Malaisie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,

Mme Sarah Albakri Devadason, secrétaire adjointe pr incipale au département de la justice et de
l’arbitrage, ministère des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,

M. Mohamad Razdan Jamil, assistant spécial du ministre des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,

Mme Haznah Md. Hashim, secrétaire adjointe prin cipale au département de la justice et de
l’arbitrage, ministère des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,

comme conseillers ;

M. Dato’ Shaharil Talib, professeur, directeur du service des études spéciales du cabinet de

l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,

comme consultant ;

M. Tan Ah Bah, directeur de la topographie, ser vice des frontières, département de la topographie
et de la cartographie,

Mme Sharifah Mastura Syed Abdullah, professeur, doyenne de la faculté des sciences sociales et

humaines de l’Université nationale de la Malaisie,

M. Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud, professeur, directeur de l’Institut d’études malaisiennes et
internationales de l’Université nationale de la Malaisie,

M. Ahmad Aznan bin Zakaria, directeur adjoint pr incipal de la topographie, service des frontières,
département de la topographie et de la cartographie, - 8 -

Mr.Hasnan bin Hussin, Senior Technical Assist ant (Boundary Affairs Section), Department of
Survey and Mapping,

as Technical Advisers.

The Government of the Republic of Singapore is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large, Mini stry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore,

as Agent;

H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar s/o N T Nayar, Ambassador of the Republic of Singapore to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,

as Co-Agent;

H.E. Mr. S. Jayakumar, Deputy Prime Minister, Co -ordinating Minister for National Security and

Minister for Law, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore,

Mr. Chan Sek Keong, Chief Justice of the Republic of Singapore,

Mr. Chao Hick Tin, Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore,

Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., member of the English Bar, Chairman of the United
Nations International Law Commission, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International
Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institu t de droit international, Distinguished Fellow,

All Souls College, Oxford,

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, member and former Chairman of
the United Nations International Law Commission, associate member of the Institut de droit

international,

Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar,
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,

Ms Loretta Malintoppi, avocat à la Cour d’ap pel de Paris, member of the Rome Bar,
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,

as Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. S. Tiwari, Principal Senior State Counsel, Ch ambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic
of Singapore,

Mr. Lionel Yee, Senior State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic of
Singapore,

Mr. Tan Ken Hwee, Senior Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Singapore
,

Mr. Pang Khang Chau, Deputy Senior State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the
Republic of Singapore,

Mr. Daren Tang, State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, - 9 -

M.Hasnanbin Hussin, assistant technique principal du service des frontières, département de la
topographie et de la cartographie,

comme conseillers techniques.

Le Gouvernement de la République de Singapour est représenté par :

S. Exc. M. Tommy Koh, ambassadeur en mission ex traordinaire (ministère des affaires étrangères
de la République de Singapour), professeur de droit à l’Université nationale de Singapour,

comme agent ;

S. Exc. M. Anil Kumar s/o N T Nayar, ambas sadeur de la République de Singapour auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,

comme coagent ;

S. Exc. M. S. Jayakumar, vice-premier ministre, mini stre coordinateur pour la sécurité nationale et
ministre de la justice, professeur de droit à l’Université nationale de Singapour,

M. Chan Sek Keong, Chief Justice de la République de Singapour,

M. Chao Hick Tin, Attorney-General de la République de Singapour,

M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., membre du barreau d’Angleterre, président de la

Commission du droit international des Nations Un ies, professeur émérite de droit international
public (chaire Chichele) à l’Univer sité d’Oxford, membre de l’In stitut de droit international,
Distinguished Fellow au All Souls College d’Oxford,

M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de ParisX-Nanterre, membre et ancien président de la
Commission du droit international des Nations Un ies, membre associé de l’Institut de droit
international,

M. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de New York, cabinet
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,

Mme Loretta Malintoppi, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de Rome, cabinet
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,

comme conseils et avocats ;

M. S. Tiwari, Principal Senior State Counsel au cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la République de
Singapour,

M. Lionel Yee, Senior State Counsel au cabinet de l’ Attorney-General de la République de
Singapour,

M. Tan Ken Hwee, premier greffier adjoint de la Cour suprême de Singapour,

M. Pang Khang Chau, Deputy Senior State Counsel au cabinet de l’ Attorney-General de la
République de Singapour,

M. Daren Tang, State Counsel au cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la République de Singapour, - 10 -

Mr. Ong Chin Heng, State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic of
Singapore,

Mr. Daniel Müller, Researcher at the Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris X-Nanterre,

as Counsel;

Mr. Parry Oei, Chief Hydrographer, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore,

Ms Foo Chi Hsia, Deputy Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Singapore,

Mr. Philip Ong, Assistant Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Singapore,

Ms Yvonne Elizabeth Chee, Second Secretary (Political), Embassy of the Republic of Singapore in

the Netherlands,

Ms Wu Ye-Min, Country Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Singapore,

as Advisers. - 11 -

M. Ong Chin Heng, State Counsel au cabinet de l’ Attorney-General de la République de
Singapour,

M. Daniel Müller, chercheur au centre de droit in ternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris X-Nanterre

comme conseils ;

M. Parry Oei, hydrographe en chef de l’autorité maritime et portuaire de Singapour,

Mme Foo Chi Hsia, directeur adjoint au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République de
Singapour,

M. Philip Ong, sous-directeur au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République de Singapour,

Mme Yvonne Elizabeth Chee, deuxième secrétaire (affaires politiques) à l’ambassade de la
République de Singapour aux Pays-Bas,

Mme Wu Ye-Min, chargée de mission au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République de
Singapour,

cocomnseillers. - 12 -

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Please be seated. The sitting is open. For the

same reasons duly communicated to me and ann ounced by me on Tuesday, Judge Ranjeva will not

be able to sit this afternoon.

The Court meets today to hear the second round of oral argument of Malaysia. Malaysia will

be heard this afternoon from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. and tomorrow afternoon from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. I shall

now give the floor to His Excellency Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, the Attorney-General of Malaysia.

You have the floor, Sir.

GMAr. I:

INTRODUCTION

1. Mr.President, distinguished Members of th e Court, it is a privilege for me to appear

before you once again today. By way of introduction to Malaysia’s reply, my task for today is to

respond briefly on issues of Singapore’s assertions of lawful possession of Pulau Batu Puteh as

well as the critical date. In addition, I will provi de a summary of the institutional legal framework

of the State of Johor applicable in 1953 to appr eciate the context in which the alleged disclaimer

letter of 1953 was written. I will be followed by ProfessorCrawford who will identify the legal

issues as they now stand following Singapore’s reply this week. Following Professor Crawford,

Professor Schrijver will discuss the original title of the Sultanate of Johor over the three features,

having regard to Singapore’s latest remarks. Professor Kohen will then respond to Singapore’s

argument on the consent of Johor to the constructio n and operation of the lighthouse. He will be

followed by Sir Elihu Lauterpacht who will address you on Singapore’s theory of lawful taking of

possession, responding to Professors Brownlie and Pellet. He will also provide, orally, Malaysia’s

answer to the question asked by Judge Sir Kenneth Keith.

Singapore’s assertions of lawful possession of Pulau Batu Puteh

2. Mr.President, distinguished Members of the Court, Singapore has repeatedly contended

that Malaysia had not proven its original title to Pulau Batu Puteh. As you have heard from

Professor Crawford last week, this is certainly not the case. Professor Crawford discussed in great

detail and established that Pulau Batu Puteh is without doubt part of Johor Sultanate’s territory. - 13 -

3. Related to this issue, I now respectfully request the Court’s consideration to the following

unproven assertions made by Singapore:

First, Singapore claimed that it had taken possessi on of Pulau Batu Pu teh in 1847-1851.

Singapore claimed that the taking of possession of Pulau Batu Puteh was possible because Pulau

Batu Puteh was terra nullius at the relevant time. Singapore however had not produced any

evidence that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius. Rather, as I submitted last week and Singapore

did not refute, Singapore’s case simply rests on the “inference” 1 that Pulau Batu Puteh was terra

nullius.

Second, Singapore remained silent or failed to pr oduce the “incontrovertible legal evidence”

2
in the form of documents claimed in 1978 to be in the possession of Singapore . Malaysia

however has demonstrated that Johor consented to the construction of the Horsburgh lighthouse, as

evidenced by the permission letters of 25 November 1844 from the Sultan and Temenggong of

Johor.

4. Singapore’s silence on this matter should not be ignored. To cite your Judgment in the

Temple of Preah Vihear case:

“Both Cambodia and Thailand base their respective claims on a series of facts

and contentions which are asserted or put fo rward by one Party or the other. The
burden of proof in respect of these will of course lie on the Party asserting or putting
them forward.” (Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment,

I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 16.)

Mr. President, while Malaysia has proven its case, Singapore has not.

Critical date of the dispute

5. On 19 November 2007, the learned Attorney-General of Singapore and a good friend of

mine commented that the date as submitted by me to be the critical date for Middle Rocks and

South Ledge was, in reality, the date of Singapor e’s response to Malaysia’s statement made a day

earlier during the bilateral consultations where Ma laysia described Middle Rocks and South Ledge

as “two Malaysian islands” 3. With respect, if Singapore had intended to claim Middle Rocks and

1CR2007/24, p. 30, para. 8.
2
CR 2007/24, p. 28, para. 2, p. 29, para. 8 and p. 30, para. 9.
3CR 2007/28, p. 21, para. 12. - 14 -

South Ledge in its Protest Note dated 14 February 1980, it should have specified the two features

by name in that Protest Note. The two features have been known by their present names for a very

long time ⎯ not later than the fourteenth century for Pu lau Batu Puteh, the nineteenth century for

the other two features. The fact that Singapore had raised the matter only as a response to what

Malaysia had said is irrelevant as there was no dispute regarding Malaysia’s sovereignty over the

two features prior to 6 February 1993.

6. Subsequently, on 20 November 2007, Mr.Bundy asserted that I had merely dismissed

Singapore’s conduct after the critical date as irrelevant without offering any argument whatsoever

to back up this assertion 4 . This is far from the truth. In fact, I made it clear that Singapore’s

conduct after the critical date is irrelevant for the purpose of assessing effectivités as it is not a

normal continuation of Singapore’s prior acts of administration of the lighthouse but are acts to

5
strengthen its legal position in the present dispute carried out especially in the 1990s .

Institutional legal framework of the State of Johor after 1948

7. Mr.President, distinguished Members of the Court, counsel for Singapore has

interchangeably used terms such as “disclaimer” and “confirmation of title” to describe the effects

of the letter of 1953. Professor Koh, the Agent of Singapore said on 20 November 2007:

“in 1953, when Johor was a sovereign State under international law, the State

Secretary of Johor, writing in an official capacity, informed the Singapore
Government that ‘the Johor Government does not claim ownership of Pedra
Branca’” 6.

Professor Pellet also asserted that the Johor State S ecretary was, by virtue of Johor’s constitution

then in force, the highest civil servant in charge of the State’s administrative matters 7.

8. I will now address “the official capacity” of the Acting State Secretary. The question is

whether he was duly authorized and had the legal capacity to renounce, disclaim or confirm title to

any part of the territory of Johor.

4CR2007/29, p.22, para. 58.
5
CR2007/24, p. 30, para. 11 and p. 31, para. 13 .
6CR 2007/29, p. 58, para. 6.

7CR 2007/29, p. 46, para. 14. - 15 -

9. In addressing the “official capacity” of the Acting State Secretary, two important

Agreements applicable to the State of Johor in 1953 need to be highlighted. These are the Johor

Agreement of 1948 and the Federa tion of Malaya Agreement, also of 1948. Both these treaties

were entered into between Johor and His Brit annic Majesty where Johor, a sovereign State,

transferred to Great Britain all of its rights, powers and jurisdiction on matters pertaining to defence

and external affairs. At that time Johor was a protected State, with much less formal independence

than it had possessed under the Treaty of Alliance of 1824 (the Crawfurd Treaty), or prior to the

appointment of a British Adviser in 1914.

8
The Johor Agreement of 21 January 1948

10. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I will begin with the Johor

Agreement dated 21 January 1948, which I will late r on refer to simply as the “Johor Agreement”:

this Agreement is contained in ta b162 of the judges’ folder. This was one of the nine almost

identical State agreements signed between the Rule rs of the Malay States and the British Crown.

These State agreements addressed, amongst other things, the division of power and jurisdiction

between the British Crown and the Rulers of the Malay States.

11. In respect of external affairs, Clau se 3(1) of the Johor Agreement provides that

His Majesty

“shall have complete control of the defence and of all the external affairs of the State
of Johore and His Majesty undertakes to protect the Government and State of Johore
and all its dependencies from external hostile attacks and for this and other similar

purposes His Majesty’s Forces and persons authorised by or on behalf of
HisMajesty’s Government shall at all times be allowed free access to the State of
Johore and to employ all necessary means of opposing such attacks”.

12. In addition, the Sultan of Johor, pursuant to Clause3(2) of the Johor Agreement

“undertakes that, without the knowledge and consent of Hi s Majesty’s Government, he will not

make any treaty, enter into any engagement, deal in or correspond on political matters with, or

send envoys to, any foreign State”.

13. On the matter of the sovereignty of the Sultan of Johor within Johor, Clause15 of the

Johor Agreement provides that

8
CMS Ann. 29; see judges’ folder, tab 162. - 16 -

“The prerogatives, power and jurisdiction of His Highness within the State of

Johore shall be those which His Highness th e Sultan of Johore possessed on the first
day of December, 1941, subject nevertheless to the provisions of the Federation
Agreement and this Agreement.”

That is, subject, among other things, to Clause 3.

The Federation of Malaya Agreement 1948 9

14. Apart from the Johor Agreement, the Fede ration of Malaya Agreement of 1948, referred

to under Clause15 of the Johor Agreement as “the Federation Agreement”, is also of relevance.

This Agreement is found at tab 163 of your folder.

15. As shown on the screen, in terms of th e authority over Johor’s external affairs, Clause 4

of the Federation Agreement states that

“ His Majesty shall have complete control of the defence and of all the external
affairs of the Federation and undertakes to protect the Malay States from external

hostile attacks and, for this and other similar purposes, His Majesty’s Forces and
persons authorized by or on behalf of His Majesty’s Government shall at all times be
allowed free access to the Malay States and to employ all necessary means of

opposing such attacks.”

16. Clause 16 of the Federation Agreement, in providing for the executive authority of the

Federation states that such authority shall extend to all matters set out in the first column of the

Second Schedule to the Federation Agreement. The first column of the Second Schedule, amongst

other things, provides that the Federal Legislatur e has the power to make laws on all external

affairs, including “the implementing of treaties, conventions and agreements with other countries or

international organizations” and for the “obligations of the Federation in relation to the British

Empire and any part thereof” . By virtue of the word “including” which is non-exhaustive, this

confirms that all external affairs of the Fe deration will be under the complete control of

His Britannic Majesty referred to under Clause 4 of the Federation Agreement ⎯ including, in the

definition of external affairs, the relations of Johor with the British Empire or any part thereof.

17. The Federation Agreement was subsequent ly revoked by virtue of the Federation of

Malaya Independence Act of 1957 on 31 August 1957.

18. Mr.President, distinguished Members of the Court, for these reasons the Agreements

applicable in 1953 to the State of Johor were th e Federation Agreement and the Johor Agreement.

Tab 96 of the complete documents of certain annexes contained in the Malaysia n Memorial; See judges’

folder, tab 163. - 17 -

Both provided for all external affairs of Johor to be transferred to the Crown and executed through

the High Commissioner of the Federation. The High Commissioner was appointed by the

Commission of the Crown. Both Agreements c ontinued to be in force until 1957 upon the coming

into force of the Federation of Malaya Independence Act of 1957.

19. Both Agreements clearly provided that all external affairs of the State of Johor are

transferred to His Britannic Majesty and executed through the High Commissioner of the

Federation. In the discharge of this function, Clause 17 of the Federation Agreement provided that

“The executive authority of the Federa tion shall be exercised by the High
Commissioner either directly or through officers subordinate to him, but nothing in

this clause shall prevent the Legislative Council from conferring functions upon
persons or authorities other than the High Commissioner within the powers given to it
by this Agreement.”

20. The Legislative Council, established unde r Clause 36 of the Federation Agreement,

consisted of the High Commissioner as President, three ex officio members, 11 State and

Settlement members, 11 official members and 50 un official members. The general power to make

laws on matters pertaining to external affairs and defence rested only with the High Commissioner,

with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and not with the State Secretary of Johor.

21. In addition, Clause 48 of the Federation Agreement made it abundantly clear that no

power or authority exercised by the High Commissi oner of the Federation could be exercised by a

State Secretary. Clause 48 provides that:

“Subject to the provisions of this Agre ement, it shall be lawful for the High
Commissioner and Their Highnesses The Rulers, with the advice and consent of the
Legislative Council, to make laws for th e peace, order and good government of the
Federation with respect to the matters set out in the Second Schedule to this

Agreement and subject to any qualifications therein.”

Mr. President, it is significant to note that paragraph 2 of the second column of the Second

Schedule to the Federation Agreement does not provide for the conferral of executive authority to

any State or Settlement. I must apologize for the imag e, it is not very clear, but what is very clear

is that in the second column there is a total blank on the conferral of powers. This can be found, of

course, in tab163 at page59 of the judges’ folder, which is much clearer. Mr.President, Johor

therefore had no power, no competence to deal with matters pertaining to external affairs or to

promulgate such laws. - 18 -

Conclusion

22. To conclude on this matter, the Johor Acting State Secretary M. Seth Bin Saaid was

merely a civil servant of the State of Johor. He was definitely not authorized or had the legal

capacity to write the 1953 letter, or to renounce, disclaim, or confirm title of any part of the

territories of Johor ⎯ if that is what the 1953 letter purported to do, which Malaysia denies and

which, of course, ProfessorKohen will show wa s not the case. In contrast, I refer to the Eastern

Greenland case where the Court had considered that the response by

“the Minister of Foreign Affairs on behalf of his Government in response to a request
by the diplomatic representative of a fore ign Power, in regard to a question falling
within his province, is binding upon the country to which the Minister belongs”.

M. Seth has been clearly shown not to have any such capacity.

23. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, I would also draw the attention of the

Court to certain facts about the letter from J. D. Higham and the letter issued by M. Seth bin Saaid,

the Acting Secretary of State. These letters are contained under tab 89 and tab 105 of your folder.

Firstly , the letter of J. D. Higham was addressed to the British Adviser Johor and copied to

the Chief Secretary Federation of Malaya 10. It was not addressed to M. Seth bin Saaid, as clearly

shown.

Secondly , the Acting State Secretary undertook himself to issue the letter to J.D.Higham.

He wrote directly to a local authority of the British Colony of Singapore. He did not copy his letter

11
to the Chief Secretary of the Federation at all . There is no evidence to show that the Chief

Secretary or the High Commissioner was aware of the contents of this letter. The way the

correspondence was conducted is procedurally irregular and incorrect.

24. Mr.President, distinguished Members of th e Court, this brings me to the end of my

submission. I thank you for your kind attention. If I may ask you now to give the floor to

Professor James Crawford to continue with Malaysia’s presentation. Thank you.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Tha nk you, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail. I give

the floor now to Professor Crawford.

10
See judges’ folder, tab 89.
1See judges’ folder, tab 105. - 19 -

CMRr. WFORD:

SINGAPORE ’S CASE AFTER ITS REPLY

1. Mr.President, Members of the Court, on Friday last ⎯ how long ago it seems! ⎯ I

showed you Malaysia’s case in three sets of thr ee propositions. ProfessorPellet showed some of

12
them to you again on Monday , though he interspersed each of them with a sibilant and

incredulous “if” (si) and he mostly talked about other hypotheses, notably concerning the Sultan of

13
Lingga whose disappearance from the Straits in 1824 seems to have been much exaggerated . For

Singapore, the Sultan of Lingga seems to have b een immune from the disease of disappearance,

from what I may call Chanism ⎯ which is defined in the ethnographic dictionaries as the tendency

to lose the support of one’s followers and fragment suddenly at the slightest setback. This genetic

weakness seems to be distributed unevenly amongst the leadership of the old Sultanate of Johor.

The younger brother, the Sultan of Lingga, apparently held on in the Straits at least to 1851,

performing the indispensable task of acquiescing in British occupation of the three features ⎯ if

they were not indeed terra nullius , which ProfessorBrownlie, for his part, is still inclined to

14
believe .

2. Anyway, let us look again at my three sets of premises and conclusions, and see what the

Parties now say about them. This may be describ ed as a guided tour through the structure of our

case ⎯ my colleagues and I in due course will act as more specialized commentators at particular

stops on the way, but let me show you the overall itinerary.

3. I turn to the first set of premises, which you will recall: (1) PBP was not terra nullius in

1847; (2) PBP did not fall within the Dutc h sphere under the Anglo-Dutch Agreement; then

(3) PBP was part of Johor in 1847.

4. What do the Parties say about proposition (1), the terra nullius proposition?

Nico Schrijver will deal with this in more detail shortly, and I will make only two observations.

5. First, the Court will have noticed the comparison between the confident certitude of

ProfessorBrownlie in week1 ⎯ “The term ‘lawful possession’ is synonymous with the effective

1CR 2007/28, p. 37, paras. 1-2 (Pellet).
13
CR 2007/28, p. 45, paras. 19-20 (Pellet).
1CR 2007/28, p. 56, para. 27 (Brownlie). - 20 -

15
occupation of terra nullius . . .” ⎯ and the ifs and buts of ProfessorPellet in week3. It is too

much to say of such advocates that they are wracked by doubt ⎯ I have never known

ProfessorPellet to be wracked by doubt on any subject ⎯ but nonetheless doubts have set in.

16
Thus, Mr.Pellet says you do not have to decide the issue of original title , and he also says that

you would still decide in Singapore’s favour if PBP was not terra nullius, at least if title was

“indeterminate” 17. Singapore’s pleadings in this cas e hitherto have been nothing if not

determinate: it is interesting that this note of i ndeterminacy has crept in. I will return to the issue

of indeterminacy in my final remarks tomorrow, in the light of a brief survey of your case law.

6. My second observation on the terra nullius proposition concerns Singapore’s tab18. In

order to bolster his case, Mr.Pellet quoted from McNair’s law officers’ opinions, an opinion by

Harding on the question whether uninhabited features could be terra nullius 18. We have put it back

in tab 164 in our folder today. Sir Elihu ⎯ who returns as often as the Pink Panther and with just

as much pleasure for others ⎯ will analyse Harding’s opinion as a matter of international law, for

it does not say what Mr. Pellet says it says. But I am more interested in the history. What actually

happened to the offshore uninhabited islands which Harding opined might perhaps be terra nullius,

at least if no one owned them? In fact they were not terra nullius at all.

7. Harding’s opinion related to the Kuria Mu ria Islands, which are small mostly uninhabited

19
islands 20 nautical miles offshore of Oman: you can see their location on the screen .

8. And here from Wikipedia is a closer view of them, using their Arabic names, which the

British papers misspelt grotesquely 20. The correspondence to which the Harding opinion relates is

21
in the 1857 Parliamentary Papers and is available on the internet . Extracts are in tab167 of

today’s folder.

15
CR 2007/21, p. 43, para. 44 (Brownlie) (emphasis added).
16
CR 2007/28, p. 38, para. 5 (Pellet).
17CR 2007/29, p. 48, para. 21 (Pellet).

18A. D. McNair, International Law Opinions (CUP, 1956) Vol.I, 312, cited CR2007/28, pp.43-44, para.15
(Pellet).

19See judges’ folder, tab 165.

20See judges’ folder, tab 166.
21
http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co.uk/fulltext/fulltext.do?area=hcpp&id=1857-
033662&pagenum=1&resultNum=13&entries=76&queryId=../session/1195637457_10989&backto=FULLREC. - 21 -

9. It emerges that the British did not rely upon Harding’s highly conditional opinion; they

did not simply occupy the islands. You can see this from the letter of the Foreign Office dated

14February1854, nearly five months after the Harding opinion. The Under-Secretary,

22
Lord Wodehouse , conveying the decision of the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Clarendon, to

Captain Fremantle of HMS Juno, wrote:

“If it should turn out that the islands either positively belong to, or are, with a
good show or right, claimed by, the Imaum, Captain Fremantle would, in that case . . .
have to ascertain whether the Imaum would be disposed to cede them in whole or in

part to Great Britain . . .

In the event of the Imaum of Muscat disclaiming any title to the Kooria Mooria
Islands, Captain Fremantle should, in Lord Clarendon’s opinion, still proceed as above

recommended... and... should by means of an interpreter obtain as accurate
information as might be procurable from the inhabitants, or from any other sources
within reach, as to the lordship and ownership of them [that is the islands]; and he

should then place himself in personal communication with that chief or proprietor, and
make with him such terms as might be practicable for their cession to the Crown of
Great Britain.

A regular written contract of cession [t he letter goes on], and transfer properly
signed and sealed ought, however, to be obtai ned from the Arabian Rajah or Chief,
who might be found to be the owner by right or usance of the said islands [right or

usance of the said islands].”

What then happened is described in Captain Fremantle’s despatch of 18 July 1854, which is also in

tab 167. This is by way of an Arabian holiday from the Straits of Johor, mostly the holidays were

taken in the opposite direction. As he discovere d, the local people, although dressed in rags and

with hardly any possessions except a few mats, “look[ed] up to and acknowledge[d] the Imaum of

Muscat as their chief and sovereign” ⎯ just like the Orang Laut who frequented the islands in the

Straits did to the Temenggong. Captain Fremantle then obtained a cession from the Imam of

Muscat ⎯ the text of the session is in tab167 ⎯ and he declared his intention “to return to

Helaaneea [that is, AlHalaaneea] and take formal possession of the islands in the name of

HerMajesty”, using, be it noted, the Union flag ⎯ the Union flag: just the flag which has never

flown over PBP, just the formal ceremony never concluded there. The island remained British

until retroceded to Oman pursuant to the Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands Act 1967.

2Wodehouse was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affair s from 1852-1856: see A Hawkins & J Powell (eThe,

Journal of John Wodehouse First Earl of Kimberley, 1862-1902 (CUP, 1997), p. 47. - 22 -

10. Mr. President, Members of the Court, such episodes could be multiplied many times. I

have taken this one, rather than the many others referred to in our pleadings, because Singapore

relied on it ⎯ through Professor Pellet ⎯ in support of their twin theses, (a) that uninhabited islets

more than 3miles offshore may be terra nullius , and (b)that Great Britain had a practice of

informal taking of possession of such islands. The case of the Kuria Muria islands, dating from

precisely our period, shows precisely the opposite. Not merely did the British formally take

possession even of tiny ceded islets, but there was absolutely no presumption that offshore islets

were terra nullius ⎯ quite the reverse. If the region was inhabited the islands were presumed to

belong to someone with whom a treaty would be concluded.

11. Mr. President, Members of the Court, the second proposition in Group 1, you will recall,

is that PBP did not fall within the Dutch sphe re under the Anglo-Dutch Agreement. Again,

Nico Schrijver will deal with this in more detail and again I need make only two points.

12. The first point concerns Singapore’s continuing effort to present the delimitation between

the British and the Dutch spheres, achieved by th e Anglo-Dutch Treaty, as being the Straits as a

whole. On Monday Mr. Chan tried again 23, this time by reference to a document of 1886 which is

(1)inconsistent with the actual terms of the 18 24 Treaty, (2)inconsistent with its object and

purpose, (3)inconsistent with the intention of the parties as shown in the travaux of the

1824Treaty, and (4)above all, inconsistent with th e practice of the parties in giving effect to the

Anglo-Dutch Treaty in the years immediately afte r 1824, especially through the Crawfurd Treaty,

whose effects the Dutch expressly recognized. I obs erve that Singapore said nothing this week in

response to Sir Elihu’s argument that it was thereby shooting itself in one or both feet. To put the

same point less colloquially, in pushing a myth ical Dutch claim for islands in the Straits ⎯ the

Dutch never made such a claim themselves ⎯ Singapore is derogating from the grant of its own

territory ⎯ Singapore is derogating from th e grant of its own territory ⎯ a position which,

expressed anatomically, conjures up images even more painful than shooting in the foot.

13. The second point concerns Singapore’s second and more subtle way of dealing with the

Anglo-Dutch Treaty, which is to present it, in the words of Mr.Pellet, as a “Treaty on spheres of

23
CR 2007/28, p. 32, para. 16 (Chan). - 23 -

influence [which] was, for the Sultanate [of Lingga], res inter alios acta ” . Hence the so-called

donation of Sultan Abdul Rahman, of which Nico Sc hrijver will say more shortly, now erected to

the level of a “constitutional” instrument. For my purposes it is sufficient to note:

⎯ first, the so-called donation refers to the Anglo-Dutch Treaty and should be construed as

consistent with it; there is no evidence what ever that the Sultan of Lingga asserted any

jurisdiction or exercised any control in the Straits;

⎯ second, the Crawfurd Treaty itself is powerful evidence to the contrary, as is the Dutch

admission that the Sultan of Lingga’s influence there was “nil”;

⎯ third, Singapore cannot at the same time assert through Mr. Chan that the Johor authorities had

no jurisdiction over uninhabited is lands in the Straits and through ProfessorPellet that the

Lingga authorities, to whom no allegiance was owed by the followers of the Temenggong, did;

⎯ fourth, the fact is that the British never rec ognized the Sultan of Lingga; rather, within the

British sphere as defined by the Anglo-Dutch Trea ty they dealt with the Johor authorities.

These individuals ⎯ the Sultan and the Temenggong of Johor ⎯ were recognized by and were

placed in alliance with the British, even before the so-called “donat
ion” letter was issued. It

was they who prevailed. If the international la w of treaties applied in the Straits, as it certainly

did, so did the international law of recogn ition. Singapore’s donation argument has that

familiar circular feeling: the acts of the Sultan of Lingga in the Straits were legitimate because

he had authority in the Straits. Quod erat demonstrandum: Mr. Pellet would say. I would say:

quod non.

14. On this basis, Singapore’s efforts at discrediting my premises (1) and (2) having failed, it

follows, as the night the day, that PBP was part of Johor in 1847. There was simply no third entity

whose territory it could be part of: if not terra nullius it was part of Johor, as the editor of the

Singapore Free Press, William Napier, editorially affirmed 25.

15. I turn to my second set of premises, which are as follows:

(1) PBP was part of Johor in 1847;

and

24
CR 2007/28, p. 45, para. 18 (Pellet).
2CR 2007/28, p. 41, para. 11 (Pellet). - 24 -

(2) Johor’s consent to the construction of a lighthouse included PBP;

then

(3) Britain’s administration of the lighthouse was not an act à titre de souverain ⎯ as Britain’s

own conduct demonstrated.

16. The first proposition we have established. This week very little was offered by

Singapore against the second: what there was will be dealt with by MarceloKohen whose

arguments I will not anticipate.

17. But what has to be stressed is that ⎯ the argument so far being accepted, which is of

course a matter for the Court ⎯ the conclusion (3) follows as a matter of law. I will deal with this

again briefly tomorrow when I deal with the British period. But we say it is true also as a matter of

fact. Great Britain never claimed or represented the three features as part of Singapore.

18. Confronted, I guess subjectively for the first time, with the possibility that Malaysia’s

case as to British sovereignty over the three features might actually obtain ⎯ Malaysia’s case as to

British non-sovereignty over the three features ⎯ Singapore has shifted ground, but only to a

limited extent. First, it still does not claim title by pr escription: in this at least it is consistent. All

26
it says is that subsequent conduct is relevant in its favour if the legal position is “indeterminate” .

As I have said, I will deal with the indeterminacy argument tomorrow in the light of your case law.

Second, although the 1953 exchange of correspondence attracts greater attention, Singapore is also

consistent in saying that it is not a root of title 27, it is not a cession 28, and ⎯ to judge from the

complete silence on the other side during these oral hearings ⎯ nor is it put forward as the basis for

an estoppel ⎯ a proposition which is untenable for many reasons, not least the absence of any

reliance whatever by Singapore on the correspondence at the relevant time. What, if any, effect

should be given to the correspondence will be di scussed by Marcelo Kohen tomorrow, drawing on

what the Attorney-General of Malaysia has just said about the constitutional position.

26
CR2007/29, p. 48, para. 21 (Pellet).
27
CR2007/29, p. 47, para. 16 (Pellet).
28Ibid., para. 17 (Pellet). - 25 -

19. It follows from my first two groups of propositions that PBP was not “in Singapore” in

1965 and that the waters around PBP were not “Singa pore waters”. And that is how the Parties

behaved.

20. Singapore tries to explain this, or to expl ain it away, by citing a few internal documents

that show that certain people ⎯ in particular the Master Attendant, Mr.Rickard ⎯ wereofthe

view that “Horsburgh Lighthouse . . . is Colony territory” 2. That statement is a rather strange one.

A lighthouse is “territory”, but we will leave that aside for the moment, it was after all an internal

letter. The question is one of law, not opinion, and if the actual legal position is as we have argued,

the unpublished contrary opinion of the Master A ttendant does not change anything. I will return

to this point tomorrow in a short examination of the practice up to the late 60s.

21. I turn to my third set of premises, which cover the period from 1966 to the critical date

and subsequently. They are essentially points of fact, as follows:

(1) In fact, Singapore never publicly claimed PBP in the period 1965-1978.

(2) The events of 1978-1980, confused and uncerta in though they may have been, led up to the

crystallization of the dispute and cannot possibly have changed the position.

(3) Conduct since the critical date is irrelevant.

22. In its Reply, Singapore presented no ne w argument on the first and second of these

points. On the third, it continued to insist that ⎯ at least as to lighthouse-related conduct, it was

entitled to take into account the continuation after the critical date of its administration of the

lighthouse. Well one can agree with that ⎯ in so far as it concerns th e continuation of an activity

already engaged in before the rele vant date, you can take it into account. But the point is that the

administration was consented to by Johor a nd was therefore not adverse to Malaysia,

proposition six, and this is true after 1980 just as much as before.

23. My colleague Penelope Nevill will deal br iefly with the third group of issues in her

presentation tomorrow.

24. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that concludes this tour d’horizon, highlighting the

points where Singapore developed its arguments this week. I have not of course mentioned all the

29
See RS, Ann. 24. - 26 -

points of detail. Mr.President, Malaysia takes seriously your injunction at the end of the first

round that in our second round of reply we only deal with the essentials, and we will try to do that.

It will lead to our finishing slightly early on both days ⎯ no doubt to the Court’s regret!

Mr. President, in this regard, could I ask you to call upon my colleague, Mr. Schrijver.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Professor Crawford, for your

arguments. I now call on Professor Schrijver.

Mr. SCHRIJVER:

T HE HISTORY OF THE SULTANATE OF J OHOR AND THE THREE FEATURES

1. Thank you, Mr.President, distinguished Memb ers of the Court. It is my task today to

respond to Singapore’s arguments relating to the history of the Sultanate of Johor, as well as to the

consequences of the 1824 treaties and the so-called letter of “donation” of 1825. I will demonstrate

Johor’s original title, now vested in Malaysia, to the three features.

The history of the Johor Sultanate

2. For a proper understanding of the history of sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh and the

other two features, it is important to understand the history of the Sultanate of Johor as a maritime

empire. Today I will build of course on the speech of my colleague Professor Crawford in the first

round, which Singapore made little or no attempt to rebut this week 3.

3. Initially, in its written pleadings Singapor e hardly addressed the history of the Johor

Sultanate and conveyed the impression that for Singapore, history starts in 1819, if not 1847. In its

oral pleadings Singapore paid more attention to the historical setting. Unfortunately, its historical

understanding is extremely defici ent and would not be supported ⎯ is not supported ⎯ by any

contemporary historian of the region. I will now r espond in particular to Mr.Chan’s intervention

on this topic.

4. With due respect, Mr. Chan failed once again to acknowledge the long-standing history of

Johor, dating back to 1511. The Sultanate of Johor shows a remarkable continuity, as

Professor Crawford demonstrated in our first round. This continuity is reflected in the survival of

30
See CR 2007/24, pp. 57-66; and CR 2007/25, pp. 12-37. - 27 -

its name, its dynasty, the allegiance of its people and the control of territory. In particular, there is

a continuity of treaty relations concerning territory ⎯ as shown by the progression from the

1824 Crawfurd Treaty (between the East India Company and Johor), the 1927 Agreement (between

Great Britain and Johor) and the 1995 Agreemen t (between Singapore as the successor of Great

Britain and Malaysia as successor of Johor). Ag ain Mr.Chan made no attempt to rebut this

compelling demonstration earlier this week.

5. In his intervention, Mr.Chan repeated Singapore’s argument that “the Johore Sultanate

was indeterminate because it was unstable and its rulers had a conception of sovereignty based on

control of people rather than control of territo ry” and that “the only reliable way to determine

whether a particular territory belonged to a rule r is to find out whether the inhabitants pledged

allegiance to that ruler” 31. This statement, however, cannot mean that there was no sense of where

this territory was. The territorial extent of th e Johor Sultanate was wher e its subjects were settled

or lands productively exploited, either as land fo r planting crops or for using as a springboard for

seafaring activities. As early as 1604, Hugo Grotius had no problem in locating the principality of

Johor as a sovereign entity and from the context of his writing it is clear that this included the

32
Straits of Singapore .

6. Singapore argues that when the capital of Johor was destroyed the ruler was weakened, he

lost territory, he lost people whom he could no longer protect, and had to seek new people.

Mr. President, this is not what actually happened. When a capital was destro yed, the ruler and his

followers relocated, and the people continued to give allegiance to him. When the ruler of Malacca

was forced to flee from his capital as a result of the Portuguese attack in 1511, he was guided to a

new site by the Orang Laut, who then informed the people where the ruler had gone.

7. The ability of the ruler to quickly reassemble his court and fo llowers at a new site in the

Straits of Malacca meant that there was little problem in retaining the loyalty of his subjects.

Malay sources as well as and seventeenth and eighteenth century Dutch documents both emphasize

that it was not external destruction of a capital but cruelty and injustice that were the causes of

31
CR 2007/28, p. 27, para. 2.
32CR 2007/27, p. 19, para. 30. - 28 -

33
abandonment of a ruler : one could call this a standard of ⎯ or perhaps even a cry for ⎯ good

governance avant la lettre.

8. Singapore’s interpretation of the Orang Laut is way off the mark. There was a distinct

difference between the Orang Laut, the inhabitants of the waters and the islands at the southern end

of the Straits of Malacca, and the sea people el sewhere. These Orang Laut were definitely under

the control of the Sultanate of Johor 34, as shown by AmbassadorN oor Farida in her opening

35 36
speech and by Professor Crawford in his first speech .

37
CMhan.. stresses that there is no proof that Pulau Batu Puteh was inhabited. Of course,

it was not inhabited ⎯ it is just a clump of rocks! Indeed, it is not inhabited today; the lighthouse

keepers go there for fixed periods of time and, of course, there is no community of PBP. But as we

have shown, it was regularly used by the local people ⎯ subjects of Johor. Their lands and waters

included a particular trajectory of movement within a territory as part of their subsistence activities.

10. As the seventeenth century documents i ndicate, the Orang Laut were always in the

vicinity because PBP was an important landmark for shippers and therefore a place which the

Orang Laut frequented for purposes of conducting their business. In this regard, PBP and the

adjoining straits that form the main shipping lanes can be said to belong to the ruler of Johor since

his subjects used these waters and islands, including PBP, as part of their duties to their ruler: and

these duties included encouraging or, if necessary, forcing ships to go to Johor’s ports to trade.

11. Mr.Chan raised again, in Singapore’s second round, the issue of the 1655 and 1662

Dutch letters relating to diverting Chinese junks from trading in the Johor River 38. Singapore

focuses only on the translation of one particular phrase by Professor Andaya. Professor Crawford

39
already provided a response in the first round . But what matters, Mr.President, is the fact that

the Dutch ships were stationed around the area of PBP, precisely where the Chinese ships passed

33L. Y. Andaya, Kingdom of Johor, 1641-1728, Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press (1975), p. 21.
34
Reference to be provided.
35
CR 2007/24, p. 19-27.
36
Ibid., p. 60, para. 10.
37CR 2007/28, p. 28, para. 4.

38CR 2007/28, p. 29, para. 9.
39
CR 2007/24, p. 62, para. 15. - 29 -

on their way to the Straits of Malacca. The Orang Laut were also stationed there for the same

reasons as the Dutch, namely, to attract trader s. Whereas the Dutch wanted to divert them away

from the Johor River, the Orang Laut were expected to divert them to the Johor River. Both groups

were engaged in principle in the same activity ⎯ yet for Singapore the Dutch colonialists’ activity

was legitimate or “sovereign”, while the indigeno us rulers’ activity was not. This only illustrates

Singapore’s extraordinary Eurocentrism. And the vital point for our present purposes is that the

location of Johor’s activities in protecting that trade was, expressly, PBP.

12. The PBP area was therefore very much an im portant part of the areas used by the Orang

Laut to perform their duties to the ruler and, of course, also for their own personal enrichment.

40
When Singapore argues that this small island was “uninhabited” , it is ignoring the idea of use and

the nature of exploitation by the local population, who ⎯ as Thomson recorded in the 1840s ⎯

were masters of the area, with a capacity to outsail European vessels of a similar type. The

difference in understanding is a reflection of diffe rent ways of perceiving the land and the seas.

Currently, the Orang Laut still live within the domains of Johor. I have been informed that they

form part of the constituency of Malaysia’s Mini ster for Foreign Affairs, who is from Johor and

who is honouring us, once again, with his presence during the second round.

Singapore’s terra nullius theory

13. Singapore advanced its terra nullius proposition at a very late stage, namely in its Reply.

Earlier it only argued its case on the basis of “the lawful taking of possession” of the island in the

mid-nineteenth century. The Court will have not ed that, during the oral pleadings this week,

Singapore betrayed some uncertainty as to the validity of its terra nullius theory. Apart from the

words of ProfessorPellet 4, to which, ProfessorCrawford, you just referred, ProfessorKoh

conceded: “should the Court find that the title to Pe dra Branca was indeterminate at that time [that

is the period 1847-1851] . . . Singapore has clearly shown that it has sovereignty” 42. Now, this lack

of conviction has apparently led Singapore to back two horses in the same race.

4CR 2007/28, p. 28, para. 4 (Chan).
41
CR 2007/28, pp. 39, para. 6 (Pellet).
4CR 2007/29, p. 59, para. 10 (Koh). - 30 -

T1his. terra nullius claim is untenable. At all relevant times, PBP was not terra nullius.

The island was featured by name on the earliest maps, as a seamark as well as a point of danger.

The native population used the island as referred to in Portuguese books as early as 1562. In 1822,

nearly 300 years later, Crawfurd reported that the “men of the sea” living in that area were subjects

43
of the Sultanate of Johor , a fact confirmed by articles in the Singapore Free Press around the

time of the construction of the lighthouse. An d, by the way, again Professor Pellet made no

attempt to disprove our demonstration that William Napier, the founder and editor of the Singapore

Free Press, knew what he was talking about. Dutch di plomatic exchanges with the sovereign of

44
Johor regarding piracy control and the conduct of trade also made reference to Pulau Batu Puteh .

15. In another burst of Eurocentrism Mr.Chan stated that “the nature of traditional Malay

sovereignty militates against the ruler showing any interest in small, uninhabited islands, especially

an isolated one like Pedra Branca” 45. Mr. President, Members of the Court, with due respect, this

is an untenable statement. Not merely were all local features named ⎯ there were songs about

them, including the song about PBP that Ambassador Noor Farida regrettably declined to sing, at

least until now!

16. The argument that the ruler of Johor was “disinterested” in the small islands is simply not

correct. For example, there is a statement in the Sejarah Melayu ⎯ the Malay annals ⎯ where the

46
ruler of Malacca states that he does not care if a territory is “only the size of a coconut shell” !

The relevant quotation is under tab 168 of your folder.

17. As this Court observed in its Western Sahara Opinion (1975):

“Whatever differences of opinion there may have been among jurists, the State
practice of the relevant period indicates that territories inhabited by tribes or peoples
having a social and political organization were not regarded as terrae nullius . It

shows that in the case of such territories the acquisition of sovereignty was not
generally considered as effected un ilaterally through ‘occupation’ of terra nullius by
original title but through agreemen ts concluded with local rulers.” (Western Sahara,

Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 39, para. 80.)

43RM, p. 29, para. 63.
44
Professor Houben’s report, see CR 2007/24, p. 21, para. 8.
45CR 2007/28, p. 31, para. 13.

46See Sejarah Melayu or Malay Annals, an ann otated translation by C.C. Brown , Oxford University Press
(1970), p. 57. - 31 -

As in the Western Sahara case, this particular region of Johor was ⎯ and I quote from

paragraph81 of the Opinion, which is also under tab169 of your folder ⎯ “inhabited by peoples

which, if nomadic, were socially and politically or ganized in tribes and under chiefs competent to

represent them”.

18. Contrary to what ProfessorPellet stated , this observation is certainly pertinent to

maritime areas and to the islands and rocks thereof as used by local people, which form part of the

Sultanate of Johor as one of the world’s oldest political organizations. Why would your Advisory

Opinion on the Western Sahara only apply to land territories, as Professor Pellet seems to suggest?

Why would your Advisory Opinion only apply to inhabited lands, whether on the mainland or on

islands? Has your Opinion ever been interpreted to mean that uninhabited lands are susceptible to

appropriation? The “State practice of the releva nt period” to which the Court referred in the

Western Sahara Opinion applied equally to offshore islands as to hinterlands ⎯ as Professor

Crawford demonstrated today by references to Singapore’s chosen example, the Kuria Muria

islands of Oman. It is a fact that the maritime Sultanate of Johor included many islands, islets and

rocks, as was also demonstrated by the 1824cession of Singapore itself. Mr.President,

ProfessorPellet has only succeeded in building a sandcastle ⎯ certainly also my childhood

wish ⎯ from your Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, a sandcas tle which immediately collapses

on the first exposure to the wind of logical argument.

The extent and continuity of the Sultanate of Johor

19. The international status of the Johor Sultanate prior to the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of1824

was well known and generally accepted. Its domain covered parts of the mainland of the Malay

Peninsula, parts of the island of Sumatra, all isla nds within and at the entrance of the Straits of

Singapore and numerous other islands in the open China Sea, including the Natunas, Anambas and

the Tambelans. PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge were clearly included in this domain.

47
20. Mr.Chan claimed that “the territori al limits of the Sultanate were not known” .

Moreover, citing Trocki, he asserted “that the Malaysian State of Johore dates from the

47
See CR 2007/ 28, p. 30, para. 11. - 32 -

mid-nineteenth century” 48 ⎯ the mid-nineteenth century. Throughout its pleadings, Malaysia

relied extensively on the research and observations of authoritative historians of the region, such as

Andaya, who provided the Court with an expert opinion, Windstedt, Netscher, Irwin and the

49
Andaya couple . This particular statement by Singapore can be easily challenged, even with a

quotation from Trocki himself on the very same page. While Singapore selectively quotes just

once sentence at the end of the first paragraph, we have highlighted two others on the same page ⎯

as you can see now on the screen ⎯ reading: “It began in 1512, when the defeated Sultan of

Malacca established a capital on the Johor River.. .”; and then, in the next paragraph, Trocki

concludes: “In many respects, the present state of Johor is a successor of the earlier empire.”

These passages can be found at tab 170 of the judges’ folder.

21. During the first round ProfessorCrawford provided you with seven quotations, which
50
demonstrated that Pulau Batu Puteh appertains to Johor . With the exception of the Singapore

Free Press articles, all these documents were dismissed by ProfessorPellet on the basis that the

words “Pedra Branca” or “Pulau Batu Puteh” coul d not be found in them. But it is Singapore’s

strategy not to reply to the fact that each of these contemporary documents refers to “all the islands

and islets”, or “the whole of the smaller islet s”, “all the islands”, “all the small islands on the

eastern side”, etc., all taken from these seven quota tions. Hardly any island is mentioned by name,

so how could there be a specific reference to PBP only, in this small patch of rocks? Yet again

Singapore is silent in face of this simple logic.

22. The Sultanate of Johor has, as a matter of fact, a remarkable continuity. What sometimes

occurred was, of course, a change of dyn astic rulers from one family to another ⎯ much the same

as in European dynastic conflicts, such as the succession issue in Sp ain. For example, as to Johor

in1699, the last ruler of the Malacca dynasty was assassinated, and the plotters placed the

Bendahara family on the throne of Johor. The Be ndahara family therefore continued the Sultanate,

in the same way that the Temenggong family of Johor continued, several times, the Sultanate in the

4See CR 2007/ 28, p. 27, para. 1.
49
See, e.g., RM, Vol. 1, p 5, para. 11.
5See CR 2007/25, p. 30, para. 24. - 33 -

51
mid-nineteenth century . In other words, the rulers tended to come from the most important

families in Johor, but the changes in dynasty did not signal the end of the Sultanate. The continuity

of the Sultanate was maintained despite the imposition of a new political superstructure, first under

the British and then under the independent Ma laysian Government. The Sultanate may be

administratively now called a “state” of federated Ma laysia, but it is still ruled by a Sultan and is

hence a “kerajaan” or “kingdom”. Thus, the Sultanate of Johor still exists today.

The two treaties of 1824 and their consequences

23. Mr.President, I now proceed to my section on the two treaties of 1824 and their

consequences. I would first of all like to put on record that once again Singapore has opted to

remain virtually silent on the Crawfurd Treaty. During the entire second round, the Treaty was

mentioned only once. For example, Ms Malintoppi did not include this important treaty in her list

of treaties pertaining to “boundaries in and around the Singapore Strait” 5. Professor Pellet only

53
mentioned it in passing . One may wonder why Singapore f eels so uneasy about the Crawfurd

Treaty? Is it because it so clearly defines any claims to seas, straits, and islands beyond

10geographical miles outside the area to which the Crawfurd Treaty makes the cession? Is it

because the Crawfurd Treaty has been incorporated in the 1927 and 1995 Territorial Waters

agreements?

24. In contrast, both Mr.Chan and Professo rPellet made more extensive responses on the

1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty. The issue, Mr. President, that divides us is whether the treaty included

the Straits of Singapore ⎯ that is, Malaysia’s view ⎯ or whether the entire Straits remained open

and undivided ⎯ that is, Singapore’s view. By reference to Article31 of the Vienna Convention

on the Law of Treaties, Malaysia emphasized the wording and the object and purpose of the Treaty.

Singapore did not respond. Instead, it preferred to stick to its untenable theory that the whole of the

Straits remained open and served as a dividing area, notwithstanding the actual words of

54
Article 12 -- let me quote them once again: “other Islands south of the Straights of Singapore” .

51See the list of Temenggongs and Sultans of Johor from 1762 in RM, p. 50, fig. 4.
52
See tab 31 of Singapore’s second round, day 1.
53CR 2007/28, p. 43, para. 13.

54See MM, Vol. 2, Ann. 6. - 34 -

25. Professor Pellet argued that the 1824Anglo-Dutch Treaty could not result in any

attribution of territory, since “influence” was to be exercised over political entities 55.

Mr.President, let me respond to Professor Pellet in the words of a very learned author, whose

scholarly works as a professor have contributed so much to my own understanding of international

law. It is Mr.Brownlie who, writing on African boundaries, observed ⎯ he was writing on

agreements concerning delimitation of spheres of influence:

“Whilst the purpose was political and the arrangement had a certain
provisionality, there were certain defined resu lts. In a situation in which two of the
parties to the agreement were the only states involved in the area, and in due course

both took control of the areas respectively reserved, the delimitation would both in
fact and in law attain the status of a boundary description. A proportion of spheres of
influence delimitations evolved into demarcat ed alignments in much the same way as
56
other divisions described in principle were confirmed by later arrangements.”

You can find the text of Professor Brownlie under tab 171 in your folder.

26. Malaysia demonstrated in its analysis of the post-1824 practice of the Dutch and British

that the two Powers carefully observed their spheres of influence. For example, the Temenggong’s

people inhabited the Karimons which are located south of the Straits. They were evicted from

those islands, which were within the Dutch sphere under the 1824 Treaty, and could get no support

from the British. This happened in 1827 57. In practice, the 1824 dividing line evolved within a

few years ⎯ in any case, well before the 1840s ⎯ into the delimitation of Johor and subsequently

Malaysia on the one side, and the Netherlands East Indies and subsequently Indonesia on the other.

The status and the legal effect of the 1825 donation letter

27. I will now address, Mr.President, Singapo re’s arguments concerning the contents and

legal effects of the so-called letter of donatio n of 25 June 1825. Singapore appears to be

embarrassingly short of the mark in qualifying th e “Your Brother” letter as a “constitutional act of

58
the highest order” (Chan) and “cet instrument, la donation, qui a réalisé le partage juridiquement

parlant” (“this instrument . . .which brought about the division in legal terms”) (Pellet) 59.

55
CR 2007/28, pp. 44-45, para. 17.
56
I. Brownlie, African Boundaries: A Legal and Diplomatic Encyclopaedia , London, C. Hurst & Co. (1979),
pp. 8-9.
57
RM, Vol. 1, p. 214, and Ann. 1 (Houben opinion).
58CR 2007/28, p. 33, para. 19 (Chan).

59CR 2007/28, p. 45, para. 18 (Pellet). - 35 -

28. Is it correct, Mr.President, for Singapore to attach so much significance to this letter?

For five reasons it is not:

⎯ First, this letter is nothing more, but also nothing less than a follow-up to the Anglo-Dutch

Treaty of 17 March 1824, the Crawfurd Treaty of 2 August 1824, the Van Angelbeek mission

to Resident Crawfurd in Singapore on 10April 1825 and the visit to the Viceroy in Riau on

23April 1825. You can see this chain of even ts reflected on the graphic which is also at

tab 172 of your folder. The full text of the letter is at the same tab.

⎯ My second argument: there is a fundamental pr oblem for Singapore in that the benefactor,

Sultan Abdul Rahman, had no sovere ignty over and no authority in the areas in question. He

was not recognized by the British. And in the wo rds of his protector, the Netherlands Minister

of Colonies Elout, his authority in this area was “already nil” 60.

⎯ Third, such a transfer of sovereignty over territo ry of one ruler to another ruler could just not

simply take place by a “your brother” letter, a letter of donation. Singapore here introduces

rather suddenly, and at a very late stage, Malay adat or customary law, but fails to present any

evidence of either its existence and its contents or its applicability. The consequences of the

1824 Treaty were governed by international law, and not by adat law: if Singapore wants to

introduce the latter, the onus is on Singapore to prove it.

⎯ Fourth, a proper reading of the letter makes it abundantly clear that the letter referred to islands

south of the Straits of Singapore only. This fo llows, first, from the heading of the letter, which

makes reference to the “Sulta n of the Islands Lingga, Bintan and all obedient dependencies

Abdul Rahman Shah, to the Sultan of Singapore and all obedient dependencies”; and, second,

it also follows from the following key paragraph: “The territory of your brother extends out

over the islands of Lingga, Bintan, Galang, Bulan, Karimon and all other islands. Whatsoever

may be in the sea, this is the territory of Y our Brother, and whatever is situated on the

mainland is yours.” Mr.President, you can now see these islands on the screen, and also

available at tab173 of your folder; you can see these islands on the 1842 Dutch map with

which all of us are now quite familiar. Out of these five specified islands, three ⎯ three ⎯

60
RM, p. 39, para 84. - 36 -

were mentioned in Article 12 of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824, namely, the Carimon Islands,

Bintang and Lingga, while the remaining two, Galang and Bulan, are islands clearly lying

south of the Straits of Singapore. Hence, th e phrase “all other islands” refers, of course, also

here to all other islands lying within the Dutch sphere of infl uence and not named explicitly in

the “Your Brother” letter, e.g., Batam and Singkep.

⎯ Fifth, as in its written pleadings, Singapore de liberately omitted the following reference to the

1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty from its quotation of this 1825 letter, which expressly states that the

division of the territories

“is in complete agreement with the spirit and the content of the treaty
concluded between their Majesties, the Kings of the Netherlands and
Great Britain. For this reason, My Brother, heed the advice of

YourBrother as much as possible and do not act contrary thereto. For
who can answer for the consequences?” 61

29. In sum, the letter of 25 June 1825 from Su ltan Abdul Rahman to his brother was not at

all “the constitutional act of the highest order” or the “donation”, as Singapore claims. Rather, it

was just a formal recognition of the situation imposed by the British and the Dutch that

SultanAbdul Rahman would stay below the Strait s and not claim sovereignty over any part of

Johor and its territory in and to the north of the Straits, including of course the islands and the

rocks. And this is what actually happened. The Sultan of Lingga made no protest at the

Crawfurd Treaty, which included all islands and rocks within 10 geographical miles of the main

island of Singapore. No one in 183 years ever suggested ⎯ before Professor Pellet suggested it to

your Court the other day 62 ⎯ that when Crawfurd raised th e Union Jack and proclaimed British

63
sovereignty over Rabbit and Coney islands ⎯ the most southerly islands of the cession of

Singapore ⎯ that he was taking territory belonging to the Sultan of Lingga. It is, with all the

respect due to mon ami Professor Pellet, an extraordinary su ggestion. As the Ord Award showed,

the territory of Johor included offshore islands and rocks, inhabited or uninhabited, well beyond the

3-nautical-mile limit ⎯ and no one , no one paid the slightest attention to the so-called donation

letter as concerning territory or islands within the British sphere. That donation letter was

6CMS, Anns. 5 and 6.
62
Singapore judges’ folder, Vol. 2, tab 17.
6MM, Vol. 1, para. 57. - 37 -

exclusively focused on islands south of the Straits ⎯ consistent with the Anglo-Dutch Treaty to

which it referred and which it sought to implem ent. The pieces of the puzzles fit very well

together.

30. Mr.President, Members of the Court, if, if ⎯ which is not the case ⎯ the so-called

donation letter had purported to have any releva nce in the British sphere under the Anglo-Dutch

agreement, it would have been ignored. In fact it was ignored. The British had already concluded

the Crawfurd Treaty of 1824 with the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor ⎯ a Treaty which, as

Singapore refuses to acknowledge, affirms Johor’s s overeignty over all islands and rocks within

10 geographical miles of the main island of Singapore and therefore, by necessary implication, also

over all islands and rocks within the British sphe re. The British had already proclaimed their

sovereignty over the islands within the scope of the Johor cession without any regard to the Sultan

of Lingga, whose authority in these regions they never recognized and which, as a matter of fact,

was already in the words of the Dutch Minister Elout “nil”. For all these reasons, Singapore’s

interpretation of the donation letter is untenable.

The status of the 1842 Dutch map

31. As to the 1842 Dutch map, Mr.President, Malaysia was gratified to note that in its

second round Singapore no longer questioned th e status and the significance of the

1842OfficialMap of the Netherlands East Indies made by order of and submitted to the King of

the Netherlands around the same time that the Br itish were seeking to construct a lighthouse near

Point Romania in Johor. Singapore no longer argues th at the three features are below the dividing

line, that is to say that they would fall under the sovereignty of the Riau-Lingga Sultanate 6.

Hence, it is, I must say, somewhat odd that both Mr. Chan and Professor Pellet speculated that the

three features at the time belonged to Sultan Abdul Rahman 65. This is simply incorrect, as the map

clearly shows. It is also odd because it is very in consistent with Mr. Chan’s main thesis. If Malay

sovereignty, Mr.President, comes and goes twice daily with the tide, how could the Sultan of

Lingga retain such authority over a region whic h the Dutch readily accepted he did not actually

64
CR 2007/29, pp. 30-31, para. 20.
6CR 2007/28, p. 34, para. 24 (Chan); CR 2007/29, p. 46, para. 21 (Pellet). - 38 -

control? His authority was “nil”, according to the Du tch in that particular region. Is the disease of

the disappearing Sultanate one which strikes only north of the Straits?

32. Mr.President, Members of the Court, you have heard Singapore repeatedly call for

specific evidence. Well, here on the screen we have evidence to satisfy the most confirmed

Pedrabrancist. The 1842 map shows Pedra Branca within the British sphere. The suggestion that

there was any Dutch claim north of the Riau residency ⎯ the northernmost Dutch residency ⎯ is

fanciful. This is a specific political attribution of the very islands in dispute to the British sphere.

It is contained in an authoritative and carefully prepared official Dutch map illustrating the effect

given to a treaty commitment of the Netherlands. It shows that the three features were not terra

nullius and that they were within the British, and not the Dutch sphere. There is no disclaimer. It

was produced immediately before the transactions which are in dispute in this case. It is an

official, and may I say, fine indication of the result of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty as achieved by 1842.

Incidentally, it also shows the continued existence of Johor as having land and island territories.

Mr. President, in so many respects, it is a refu tation of Singapore’s case on the so-called donation,

and much else besides.

33. This interpretation is confirmed by the 1886 Count de Byland map of the Dutch East
66
Indies prepared to accompany the 1882 and 1883 Conventions with Native Princes . PBP is also

here to the north of the Dutch sphere of influence ⎯ on a map prepared 35years after the

construction of the lighthouse.

The 1868 Ord Award

34. Mr.Chan also took issue with Malaysia ’s reference to the Award of 1868, by which

Governor Ord ⎯ acting as arbitrator in the boundary dispute between Johor and Pahang, two

Malay states ⎯ delineated their territories. The map annexed to the Award is shown on the screen.

Contrary to what Singapore states, Malaysia has never attempted ⎯ I quote from Singapore ⎯ “to

construe the Ord Award to include Pedra Branca” 6. That is a misunderstanding. There was no

dispute between Pahang and Johor over the three fe atures, obviously enough. All we have been

66
MM, Vol. IV, map 11.
6CR 2007/28, pp. 34-35, para. 26 (Chan). - 39 -

stating throughout the written and oral pleadings is that the Ord map annexed to the Award shows

the three features as belonging to Johor. Th is Award and its map we re published after the

construction of the lighthouse on PBP. No doubt, Ord, as the Governor of the Straits Settlements,

would have depicted Pulau Batu Puteh as British territory had Great Britain taken possession of the

island by 1851. However, as it stands, the Ord Award and its map now reflect what was well stated

in an article, which was so often quoted during our oral proceedings, namely the editorial of

25 May 1843 in the authoritative Singapore Free Press. This article reports that Batu Puteh ⎯ yes,

there we have the name again, in 1843 ⎯ that “Batu Puteh” is “within the territories of our well

beloved ally and pensionary, the Sultan of Johor, or rather of the Tomungong of Johore, for he is

the real Sovereign” 68.

The 1886 memorandum

35. Finally, Mr.President, Mr.Chan referre d to a memorandum of the Secretary to Sultan

Abu Bakar, entitled “The Natunas, the Anambas and the Tambilan Islands” and dated 5 May 1886.

Contrary to what Singapore concludes, the memo randum does not identify at all the whole of the

Straits of Singapore as the dividing line. Furthermore, what matters is, of course, the very text of

ArticleXII of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty” and this states in clear terms that “islands south of the

Straights of Singapore” do not fall within the British sphere of influence.

Conclusion

36. Mr. President, Members of the Court, in conclusion: from time immemorial, the

Sultanate of Johor has had an original title to the three features. PBP was never terra nullius.

37. The events in the nineteenth century did not change this. The Anglo-Dutch Treaty of

1824 did not alter the status quo for the three features. Similarly, they were not part of the cession

of Singapore through the Crawfurd Treaty. The 1825 letter of donation by Sultan Abdul Rahman

was of no legal import, and anyway it did not exte nd to islands within the Straits, including those

which were already part of the colony of Singa pore in 1825. The 1844 permission of the Sultan

68
MM, para. 95, and Ann. 40. See also RM, paras. 99-102. - 40 -

and the Temenggong of Johor to the British to cons truct a lighthouse on PBP did not involve the

transfer of sovereignty over the island.

38. Consequently, Mr. President, Members of the Court, the original title to the three features

passed over to its successor State: and that is Malaysia.

39. Mr.President, distinguished Members of the Court, I thank you for your kind attention.

Mr. President, this may be an appropriate moment to take a break and, with your kind permission, I

would like to invite you to call upon my colleague , Professor Kohen, to continue after the break

with Malaysia’s presentation. Thank you.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you, ProfessorSchrijver, for your

arguments. I will call on Professor Kohen after the break.

The Court adjourned from 4.35 to 4.50 p.m.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Please be seated. I call on ProfessorKohen.

You have the floor.

M. KOHEN : Thank you very much, Mr. President.

L E CONSENTEMENT DE J OHORE À LA CONSTRUCTION DU PHARE H ORSBURGH

A. La diabolica probatio de Singapour

1. Monsieur le président, Messieurs les juges, dans sa première plaidoirie lors du premier

69
tour, mon ami le professeur Alain Pellet avait parlé d’une diabolica probatio . C’est ainsi qu’il

avait qualifié sa tâche de démontre r que Pulau Batu Puteh était une terra nullius et que

l’autorisation de la construction du phare ne s’ étendait pas à cette île. La tâche de Singapour

s’avérait en effet très difficile, voire impossible, mais pas pour les raisons qu’il a indiquées. Le

second tour vient de le confirmer.

2. Mon ami Nico Schrijver vient de réfuter le dernier argumentaire de nos contradicteurs en

ce qui touche la question de la souveraineté de PBP, Middle Rocks et South Ledge au moment de

la construction du phare. Je va is maintenant entreprendre de réfuter les ultimes et vaines

69
CR 2007/20, p. 52, par. 1 (Pellet). - 41 -

prétentions de Singapour visant à nier que l’auto risation de Johore à construire le phare Horsburgh

comprenait Pulau Batu Puteh. Ma tâche se voit par ailleurs facilitée par le fait que Singapour a

laissé sans réponse l’essentiel de l’argumentation malaisienne relative à la construction du phare et

notamment à la permission de Johore.

3. Face aux difficultés, mon ami le conseil de Singapour s’est cru en droit de nous imposer à

son tour une sorte de diabolica probatio, sans aucun appui, bien entendu, sur une quelconque règle

relative au fardeau de la preuve. A lui d’insister : cela ne servirait à rien de prouver que le phare

Horsburgh a été construit à PBP avec l’autorisation de Johore car Johore n’était pas souverain de

PBP. Voilà une véritable diabolica probatio . Il aurait pu dire: même si la Malaisie prouve

l’existence de sa souveraineté sur PBP, elle n’a pas la souveraineté sur PBP. C’est tout de même

curieux, Monsieur le président. A en croire nos contradicteurs, si Singapour donne la permission à

une personne passionnée par les poissons, résidant aux Etats-Unis et visitant ses parents à

Singapour, de rester au phare Horsburgh, cela cons titue une preuve éclatante de la souveraineté

70
singapourienne . Une belle «effectivité» nous dira-t-on. Mais si les deux plus hautes autorités de

Johore, répondant à la demande du gouverneur Butterworth, donnent leur consentement à la

construction du phare Horsburgh et que ce consentement comprend PBP, alors cela ne vaut rien car

PBP ne serait pas un territoire de Johore, mais ⎯je cite Alain Pellet ⎯ «soit [une] terra nullius,

soit, peut-être, [une] terra sultanatis Riau» 71.

4. Cet effort de Singapour est doublement voué à l’échec. Primo, parce que ce que nous

demande Singapour, nous l’avons prou vé: à l’époque, Johore posséda it la souveraineté sur PBP.

Secundo, parce qu’autoriser un Etat étranger à construire un phare sur un territoire donné constitue

une manifestation indéniable d’exercice de la souveraineté.

B. Les échanges de 1844

5. Au lieu de répondre concrètement à notre analyse de la corr espondance réellement

existante, mon ami et contradicteur s’est livré à des spéculations à propos du contenu des demandes

d’autorisation de Butterworth. Il nous dit que «si Butterworth avait mentionné Pedra Branca, le

70
MS, par. 6.59.
71CR 2007/28, p. 47, par. 23 (Pellet). - 42 -

72
temenggong n’eût pas manqué de reprendre l’expression, comme il a parlé de Peak Rock» . Mais,

Monsieur le président, qui a parlé de Peak Rock ? En tout cas, ni le sultan, ni le temenggong. On

le sait : le dernier se réfère à une zone («near Point Romania») qui comprend aussi bien Peak Rock

que PBP, les deux emplacements envisagés à l’époque. Pour cette même raison, la proposition du

professeur Pellet à propos de la deuxième phrase du temenggong perd sa substance. Pour lui, «or

any spot deemed eligible» «ne voulait pas dire à l’avance que l’emplacement finalement retenu

73
«tomberait» du même coup sous la souveraineté de Johor» . Le problème de Singapour c’est que

seuls deux emplacements étaient envisagés à l’époque , et les deux tombaient sous la souveraineté

de Johore. Et le phare Horsbur gh, pour lequel on avait demandé la permission, a été construit sur

l’un des deux : Pulau Batu Puteh.

6. Alain Pellet répète encore une fois ⎯toujours sans apporter la moindre preuve ⎯ que

74
«lorsque Butterworth écrit au sultan et au temenggong, le balancier est fixé à Peak Rock» .

Comment le sait-il si ces lettres font justement défaut ? Ce qu’il mentionne tout de suite après est

plus intéressant. Il affirme que «d’autres emplacements «near Point Romania» (à proximité de

Point Romania) ne sont pas complètement abandonnés ⎯ d’où sans doute l’expression «ou en tout

autre lieu qu’elle jugera approprié»». Le conseil de Singapour a tout à fait raison, Monsieur le

président, l’autre emplacement ⎯à vrai dire, le seul autre emplacement à l’époque ⎯ «pas

complètement abandonn[é]» est celui qui a été présent depuis le début et jusqu’à la fin de cette

histoire : Pulau Batu Puteh.

7. Monsieur le président, le silence de Singa pour sur le contenu de la dernière lettre de

75
Butterworth écrite avant la réception des lettres du sultan et du temenggong est assourdissant . Le

gouverneur britannique parle de la c onstruction du phare «in the vicinity of Pedra Branca». Et

c’était à l’époque où selon Alain Pellet «le balancier est fixé à Peak Rock» ! Où est passé le «Pedra

Branca centrisme» de Singapour ? On me dira peut-être que l’expression «in the vicinity of Pedra

Branca» ne pouvait désigner Pedra Branca elle-m ême? Je vais me servir de quelqu’un qui y

72CR 2007/28, p. 48, par. 25 (Pellet).
73
CR 2007/28, p. 48, par. 26 (Pellet).
74CR 2007/28, p. 48, par. 27 (Pellet).

75CR 2007/25, p. 44, par. 27 (Pellet). - 43 -

connaissait quelque chose. Voilà comment T homson décrit «the vicinity of the Horsburgh

Lighthouse and Adjacent Malay Coast» dans sa carte de 1851 que les Parties vous ont projetée des

dizaines de fois. Que montre la carte des alentours du phare Horsburgh ? Elle comprend le phare

lui-même et donc son emplacement ⎯ PBP ⎯, les sondes dans toute la région, les îles Romanie et

«la côte malaise adjacente». Donc «the vicini ty of the Horsburgh Lighthouse» comprend le phare

lui-même et donc l’endroit où celui-ci est situé. Butterworth et Thoms on: les deux personnalités

qui ont joué le rôle le plus important du côté britannique. Comme ils le disent eux-mêmes : «In the

vicinity of Pedra Branca», Monsieur le président.

C. PBP continue d’être «near Point Romania»

8. Il y a plus, Messieurs les juges. Je suis autorisé à vous dire qu’après le second tour de

plaidoiries et malgré les efforts de M. Chao, la situation géographique n’a pas changé: PBP

continue d’être «near Point Romania». L’ Attorney-General de Singapour a une nouvelle fois

répété la même rengaine: Peak Rock est plus près de la Pointe Romanie que PBP, donc, cette

dernière n’est pas près de la Pointe Romanie 76. Je me suis déjà référé à cette question. Inutile d’y

revenir car il n’y a eu aucune réfutation singapourienne.

9. Singapour croit trouver un appui dans la lettre que Butterworth a écrite à Bushby le

26août1846. Le gouverneur y expliquait pourquoi il avait donné sa préférence à Peak Rock au

77
lieu de PBP en 1844 . Butterworth disait, en citant sa lettre du 22 août 1845, que PBP «is so

remote from Singapore, at so a great distance from the Main Land and so inaccessible at certain

78
seasons of the year» . Singapour nous dit que les questions de distance et de proximité sont

relatives79. La Partie adverse a oublié d’appliquer à sa lecture de ce paragraphe de la lettre du

26août1846 ce qu’elle a prêché par ailleurs. Car il est évident que PBP se trouve à une plus

grande distance de la Pointe Romanie que Peak Ro ck et que le but du para graphe en question était

pour Butterworth d’expliquer pourquoi il avait choisi Peak Rock et non PBP pour y construire le

phare.

76CR 2007/28, p. 19, par. 3 (Chao).
77
CR 2007/28, p. 19, par. 3 (Chao).
78MM vol. 3, annexe 51 ; MS vol. 2, annexe 16.

79CR 2007/28, p. 19, par. 3 (Chao). - 44 -

10. Monsieur le président, je me suis de mandé pourquoi Singapour n’a pas cité la lettre

originale, mais elle a préféré la citation de Butterwor th dans la lettre d’un an plus tard. Pourquoi ?

80
C’est très simple. Parce que dans la lettre du 22 août 1845 quelques lignes plus haut de la citation

en question, Butterworth qualifiait de «neighbourho od» «the vicinity of Pedra Branca and Point

Romania at the opening of the China Sea» 81. Les deux références géogr aphiques (Pedra Branca et

Pointe Romanie) y sont explicitement citées. Butterworth les qualifie comme étant un voisinage.

Où est passé le «Pedra Branca centrisme» de Singapour, Monsieur le président ?

11. M. Chao a rompu le silence singapourie n sur la définition que John Crawfurd a donnée

de Romania et que vous pouvez voir à l’écran. Dommage qu’il ait déformé quelque peu le propos

du signataire du traité de 1824 avec Johore, limitant l’étendue de «Romania» à la Pointe Romanie

et aux îles Romanie, ce que l’auteur ne fait pas. Il s’agit d’une seule phrase, et elle inclut dans la

définition tout ce qui s’y trouve.

1’2. Attorney-General de Singapour a préféré employer son temps à un tour de

prestidigitation photographique, accusant la Malaisie de manipulation 82. Tout est question de

perspective. Une photographie prise depuis une petite embarcation et une autre prise depuis le pont

d’un gros pétrolier, prises au même endroit et visant la même direction, mais donc à des hauteurs

différentes, n’offriront pas la même vue. Je ne pen se pas qu’il vaille la peine de s’attarder sur la

question. Singapour ne nie pas que la Pointe Romanie soit à portée de vue de PBP. Il aurait mieux

valu que Singapour analyse, par exemple, la dé finition de Thomson («Point Romania, the nearest

land to Pedra Branca»), le titre de la carte du même Thomson de 1851 ⎯ que vous venez de voir et

que vous connaissez très bien ⎯ et le lien concret et étroit entre PBP et la Pointe Romanie durant

la construction du phare décrit également par Thomson 83. La Partie adverse a cependant choisi de

garder le silence comme toute réponse sur ces quest ions fondamentales pour déterminer ce qu’est

«near Point Romania».

80
Dossier de pladoiries, onglet 174 ; MS vol. 2, annexe 14 ; MM, vol. 3, annexe 47.
81
MM, vol. 3, annexe 51, MS, vol. 2, annexe 16.
82CR 2007/28, p. 20-21, par. 5-10 (Chao).

83CR 2007/25, p. 49-51, par. 43-53 (Kohen). - 45 -

D. La correspondance ultérieure confirme que l’autorisation comprend PBP

13. Nous avons déjà vu que nos contradicteurs ont d’autres problèmes avec la lettre de

Butterworth du 26août1846. Je reviens donc à mon débat avec mon ami Pellet au sujet du mot

questionné par Singapour, «case» (e t non «care»). Il est comp réhensible que Singapour ait

finalement essayé de minimiser l’ importance de la question. Mais je dois relever toutefois un

lapsus révélateur fait pa r mon ami Alain Pellet. Il se dit troublé, puis seulement à moitié troublé

car «la Malaisie s’est soigneusement bornée à juxtaposer le mot litigieux avec les autres «case»

figurant dans le rapport» 84. Le conseil de Singapour a tout à fa it raison, Monsieur le président!

C’est bien avec les quatre « autres «case»» qui apparaissent dans le même document que nous

avons juxtaposé le mot devenu litigieux, c’est-à-dire «case». Car l’auteur de la lettre a employé

cinq fois dans sa lettre et ses annexes le mot «case», mais pas une seule fois le mot «care». Une

nouvelle fois, pas un mot sur l’analyse du contexte . Certes, je dois saluer l’efficacité de mon

contradicteur, qui a dû aller chercher une référence relative à un phare écossais pour trouver un seul

85
exemple de l’emploi de la formule «care of the Light» . Ce qui est frappant, cependant, c’est que

dans l’abondante correspondance relative au phare Horsburgh, il n’y ait pas un seul exemple de

l’emploi du mot «care» allant dans cette directi on. Pas un seul. Pire encore pour la Partie

singapourienne : chaque fois qu’elle-même s’est référée à la question du maintien ou de l’entretien

du phare durant cette affaire, ce n’est pas du «care» dont il est question, mais systématiquement de

86
l’«upkeep» de celui-ci . Il en va de même de la description faite par le directeur de la marine de

Singapour, M. Pavitt, dans le paragraphe de son Œuvre publiée par le Singapour Light Dues Board ,

qui crispe autant nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre: «The Board, formed by Statute in 1957, is

responsible for the provision and upkeep of all ship navigational aids in Singapore waters, and for

the outlying stations at Pedra Branca (Horsburgh) in the South China Sea and Pulau Pisang in the

Malacca Strait.» 87

84
CR 2007/28, p. 49, par. 28 (Pellet) ; les italiques sont de nous.
85CR 2007/28, p. 50, par. 28 (Pellet).

86MS, par. 6.22-6.23, 6.34; RS , par. 4.24 et p.278, par.1b) ; CR 2007/23, p. 17 par. 31 et 33 (Bundy) ;
CR 2007/22, par. 1 et 4 (Bundy).

87First Pharos of the Eastern Seas: Horsburgh Lighthouse, A Chronicle Compiled by J. A. L. Pavitt, 1966, p. 51.
MM, p. 114, par. 259 ; les italiques sont de nous. - 46 -

14. Messieurs les juges, vous avez cette importante lettre du gouverneur à l’onglet173A).

Sa lecture permettra de déterminer quel terme fait plus de sens, ainsi que la portée exacte de la

lettre et ses implications pour ce qui est de l’a pplicabilité de l’autorisation de Johore au site

finalement retenu: PBP. Tout comme la pratique subséquente que nous avons citée et que

Singapour n’a pas contestée, et qui démontre l’appl ication de l’ensemble des «détails» relatifs au

phare ⎯et pas seulement «le soin» à lui donner ⎯ prévus en 1844 à l’emplacement finalement

retenu : Pulau Batu Puteh 88.

15. Lors du second tour, Singapour est également restée silencieuse sur la dépêche du

gouvernement de l’Inde à la Cour des directeurs de la Compagnie des Indes orientales du

3octobre1846 se référant à l’approbation de PBP comme emplacement du phare Horsburgh et

contenant la lettre du gouverneur Butterworth du 28novembre1844 ainsi que les lettres de

permission du sultan et du temenggong.

16. Quant au «Rapport complet» du même gouverneur au gouvernement de Bengale du

12 juin 1848, Singapour a décidé de jeter l’éponge du point de vue de ses argumentations

juridiques. Son explication se borne finalement au soin «presque maniaque» de tout garder des

fonctionnaires britanniques, «d’y inclure tous l es documents y relatifs». Voilà tout ce que nos

adversaires ont trouvé pour expliquer que Butterworth lui-même, pas l’imagination des conseils de

la Malaisie, Monsieur le président, Butterworth lui-même, a qualifié sa lettre du 28 novembre 1844

⎯ dans laquelle, comme on le sait, il parle de l’autorisation de Johore et qui contient en annexe les

lettres de permission du sultan et du temenggong ⎯, comme «regarding the construction of a Light

89
House on PedraBranco» . Messieurs de la Cour, que reste-t-il du «PedraBrancacentrisme»?

Car ce sont des références concrètes et explicites à «Pedra Branca» dont il est question.

90
17. Fini donc « un phare et non du phare» . Non, maintenant il s’agit «d’y inclure tous les

documents y relatifs». D’accord. Je constate que «les documents y relatifs» ne commencent pas à

l’époque où l’on envisageait Tree Island (c’est-à-dire une île se trouvant dans la zone d’influence

néerlandaise) ou Barn Island (se trouvant en te rritoire cédé par Johore à la Grande-Bretagne

88CR 2007/25, p. 57, par. 69 et p. 58, par. 72 (Kohen).
89
MS, vol. 2, annexe 27.
90CR 2007/21, p. 28, par. 53 (Pellet). - 47 -

en1824). Non, Monsieur le président. Ils ne commencent, ni plus ni moins, qu’avec la lettre de

Butterworth du28 novembre1844. Monsieur le président, difficile de voir ici que «tout

91
s’enchaîne» dans la logique singapourienne . Encore moins que «toutes les pièces du puzzle» de

Singapour s’intègrent harmonieusement 92. Non. On nous disait que le phare à Peak Rock n’avait

rien à voir avec le phare à PBP et on finit par nous dire que, au fond, il s’agit d’un seul et même

dossier. On a vanté «le soin, presque mania que» des fonctionnaires britanniques lorsqu’il était

question de la documentation. Je veux bien le cr oire. Butterworth savait mieux que quiconque ce

qu’il devait inclure ou pas dans ce dossier. Eh bien, Monsieur le président, s’il en est ainsi, la

question est vraiment close: Johore a donné s on consentement pour la construction du phare

Horsburgh et la Compagnie des Indes orientales l’a construit. Oui, «near Point Romania or any

spot deemed eligible», à Pulau Batu Puteh.

E. La déformation par Singapour de la lettre de Thomas Church du 7 novembre 1850

18. Monsieur le président, pour conclure sa plaidoirie de mardi dernier sous une note

prétendument percutante, le con seil de Singapour a procédé à une dénaturation de la lettre que

Thomas Church a écrite au gouverneur Butterworth le 7 novembre 1850. Il a affirmé que Church

«a, très clairement, expliqué que l’une des raisons militant en fave ur du choix de Pedra Branca sur

«a Station near Point Romania» was that Romani a «belongs to the Sovereign of Johore, where the

British possess no legal authority». II s’en déduit bien sûr, a contrario, que la situation était

différente à Pedra Branca, sur laquelle les Britanniques pouvaient se réclamer d’une autorité pleine

93
et entière — et cela s’appelle la souveraineté» .

19. Messieurs de la Cour, vous avez le texte de cette lettre dans vos dossiers, à l’onglet 175.

De quoi s’agit-il? Nous sommes fin 1850. Il n’est plus question du choix de l’emplacement du

phare. Du tout. Thomson informa de l’avancemen t des travaux et proposa l’établissement d’une

station avec une présence armée britannique pour protég er le phare. Où, Monsieur le président?

94
On le sait déjà. A «Point Romania the nearest land to Pedra Branca» . C’est l’architecte du phare

91CR 2007/22, p. 51, par. 3 (Pellet) et 2007/29, p. 47, par. 39 (Malintoppi).
92
CR 2007/29, p. 39, par. 47 et p. 40, par. 48 (Malintoppi) et p. 59, par. 13 (Koh).
93CR 2007/28, p. 50, par. 29 (Pellet).

94Letter from Thomson to Church, 2 November 1850 (MM, vol. 3, annexe 58 ; SM, vol 3, annexe 47). - 48 -

Horsburgh qui le dit dans sa lettre. Et quelle est l’analyse de Church? Il affirme qu’une telle

station serait bien sûr d’utilité, mais doute qu’il soit absolument nécessaire ou proportionné à la

dépense qu’un tel établissement occasionnerait. Et il ajoute ceci :

«Romania moreover belongs to the Sovereign of Johore, where the British
possess no legal jurisdiction, it will, of c ourse be necessary for the Steamer or Gun

boats to visit Pedro Branca weekly, some benefit would also accrue by requesting His
Highness the Tamoongong to form a village at Romania under the control of a
respectable Panghooloo to render assistance to the inmates of the Light House in case
95
of emergency.»

20. A aucun moment Church ne compare le statut de PBP à celui de la Pointe Romanie. Il

n’est nullement question de décider de l’emplacement d’une station armée à PBP. L’alternative

était soit d’établir une station armée britannique à la Pointe Romanie, auquel cas il aurait fallu une

autorisation de Johore, soit de demander au te menggong d’y créer un village sous l’autorité d’un

96
pangaloo ⎯ un chef local ⎯ pour prêter assistance aux gardiens du phare en cas de besoin .

21. Messieurs les juges, cette lettre non seulement ne conforte pas la lecture a contrario

singapourienne selon laquelle Church considéra it PBP comme relevant de la souveraineté

britannique (1850), mais encore fournit-elle un exemple formidable qui suggère plutôt le contraire.

Church envisage, ni plus ni moins, de demander à Johore de s’occuper de la sécurité du phare. Où,

Monsieur le président ? A Pulau Batu Puteh.

Conclusion

22. Monsieur le président, Messieurs les juges, la question est finalement simple, malgré tous

les efforts de Singapour pour la rendre compliquée: on voulait construire un phare sur la Pierre

Blanche pour rendre hommage à James Horsburgh, l es autorités de Johore ont donné l’autorisation

pour construire ce phare et la Compagnie des Indes orientales a construit le phare. La preuve ne

fait pas défaut. Elle est plutôt surabondante : les lettres de Butterworth juste avant et juste après les

autorisations des autorités de Johore, le contenu de ces dernières, les lettres ultérieures y compris le

rapport complet de Butterworth, la pratique subséquente confirmant que ce qui était prévu pour

l’emplacement du phare au moment où le site envi sagé était Peak Rock fut également appliquée à

95
Letter from T. Church, Resident C ouncillor, to W.J. Butterworth, Gove rnor of Prince of Wales Island,
Singapore and Malacca, 7 November 1850: MM annexe 59; MS annexe 48, dossier de plaidoiries2 de la Malaisie,
onglet 74).
96RM, par. 239-246. - 49 -

PBP ⎯et que Singapour n’a pas contestée. Et en plus, l’on trouve des références explicites à

«Pedra Branca», l’idée fixe de nos contradicteurs.

23. L’essentiel de l’histoire se résume à cela. Les conséquences qui en découlent aussi. La

permission de Johore de construi re le phare fait s’effondrer irrémédiablement le fragile et

alambiqué cas singapourien, aussi bien en amont de la prétendue «prise de possession licite» d’une

terra nullius, qu’en aval de celle-ci, car rendant toutes les prétendues «effectivités»

singapouriennes dépourvues de valeur aux fins de l’établissement de la souveraineté territoriale.

24. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président et vous prie de donner la parole à mon distingué

collègue et ami sir Elihu.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you, Professor Kohen, for your speech. I

now give the floor to Sir Elihu Lauterpacht. You have the floor, Sir.

Sir Elihu LAUTERPACHT:

“S INGAPORE ’ S‘LAWFUL OCCUPATION ’THEORY ”

1. Mr.President and Members of the Court, the speech that I will now make covers three

matters.

I

2. The first is a response to the question put by JudgeKeith on 16November2007.

Judge Keith asked whether there is anything in the judgments of the Privy Council in the Pitcairn

Island case that is of significance for the present case. The short answer is “No”, as I shall now

elaborate.

3. References were made to the history of Pitcairn Island in the Singapore Reply

97
(paras. 3.102-3.104), and in Mr. Brownlie’s first speech on 7 November 2007 . These references

were made in support of the proposition that there is “no evidence that British State practice

98
requires the performance of formalities as a positive rule” .

4. An extract from the Pitcairn Island Court of Appeal was cited, and I quote again:

97
CR 2007/21, p. 47, para. 60.
9Ibid., p. 46, para. 58. - 50 -

“[A] formal act of acquisition is not requ ired. It is the intention of the Crown,
gathered from its own acts and surrounding ci rcumstances, that determines whether a
territory has been acquired for English law purposes. The same principle applies in
99
the resolution of international disputes as to sovereignty.”

5. This observation of the Court of Appeal was obiter and not necessary to its decision. It

formed part of a paragraph that began, and I quo te again: “It is not necessary to define with

accuracy the time at which Pitcairn Island did become a British possession.” 100 Nonetheless, in the

paragraph following, the Court said, and once more I quote:

“The available material establishes acquisition as a British possession, probably
as far back as 1838. The provision and acceptance then of the Union Jack and the

establishment of a Chief Magistrate required to take an oath of loyalty and to be
accountable to the Queen, are significant fact ors. Traditionally, this date has long
been regarded as the time when Pitcairn Island had its definite origin as a British
101
possession.”

I emphasize the points about the Union Jack and the establishment of the Chief Magistrate.

6. It will thus be observed that the origin of British title to the island is dated back to certain

specific acts ⎯ the appearance of the Union Jack and the establishment of the Chief Magistrate in

1838.

7. When the case came to the Privy Council, Lord Hoffman did not find it necessary to

examine the circumstances in whic h Pitcairn Island was occupied a nd settled. He said: “In 1898

the Secretary of State directed that the Order [tha t is the Pacific Order in Council] should apply to

Pitcairn. The direction was therefore a statem ent by the Crown that Pitcairn was a British

102
settlement.” He said later:

“it appears to them [their Lordships] that the legal status of the island as a British
possession is concluded by successive statements of the executive, starting with the
directions of the Secretary of State in 1898 and ending with the making of the 1970
103
Order in Council.”

He then referred to a case called The Fagernes 104 as authority for the proposition that a statement

of the executive as to the extent of the territory of the British Crown would be accepted by the

99Ibid., p. 47, para. 60.

100127 ILR, p. 294, para. 46.
101
Ibid., p. 295, para. 47.
102
[2006] UKPC 47, para. 4.
103[2006] UKPC, p. 4, para. 9.

104[1927] , pp. 311, 324. - 51 -

105 106
Court as conclusive . Lord Hoffman’s lead was followed by Lord Woolf . LordHope of

Craighead stated that “the evidence shows that Pitcairn was established by settlement” 10.

8. There is nothing else in the judgment in the Privy Council that bears upon the present

matter. That is why the short an swer to Judge Keith’s question is “No”. It needs only to be noted

that the Privy Council declined to consider the method of acquisition and so had nothing to say

about the general dictum of the Court of Appeal or upon its application in this case by reference to

the specific acts in 1838 of raising of the Union Jack and the appointment of a Chief Magistrate.

Now that is the end of our reply to Judge Keith.

II

9. I now go to the second main part of my short contribution. I now turn to an important

item in the speech of Professor Pellet. He dismissed rather abruptly in paragraph 15 of his speech

on 19 November 2007 my reference 108to the work of Professor Alexandrowicz. Please recall that

this reference was not to Professor Alexandrowicz alone, but also to Grotius, who none of us would

deny is an pre-eminent authority. The passages th at I cited deserved more in the way of response.

The reference was an important one because it so directly contradicts Singapore’s contention that

Pulau Batu Puteh was terra nullius and, more comprehensively, that there were any number of

terrae nullius scattered through the East Indies. The fact is that both Grotius, and

ProfessorAlexandrowicz following him, clearly did not consider that there were territories in the

East Indies that could be treated as terra nullius and that could be occupied at will by European

States. And their comprehensive assessment of the situation in the East Indies manifestly did not

exclude the area of Johor and of Pulau Batu Puteh.

10. Professor Pellet quotes a passage from an opini on by Sir John Harding, who was one of

the Law Officers of the Crown, in 1853, as if supportive of Singapore’s position.

ProfessorCrawford has already spoken in detail of this item, but I should just add a few

supplementary lines. Harding’s opinion, when properly read, does not support Singapore’s

10[2006] UKPC, p. 47 para. 30.
106
Ibid., para. 33.
10Ibid., para. 47.

10CR 2007/24, pp. 34-35, paras. 11-14. - 52 -

position at all, but entirely supports Malaysia’s case 10. You will now see on the screen an extract

from Sir John Harding’s opinion. As I say, Harding’s opinion when properly read does not support

Singapore’s position at all, but entirely supports Malaysia’s case. So much so that I must ask you to

forgive me for taking you through it phrase by phrase. I start:

“[A]lthough the circumstance of the Island in question being uninhabited is not
in my opinion by any means decisive, . . .”

Now, pausing there, evidently Harding is here say ing that the fact that the island in question is

uninhabited does not mean that it is for that reason alone open to occupation. He then goes on:

“yet,... on the assumption that it does not in fact belong to any nation, and that no
acts of ownership have been hitherto exercised over it by any recognized
authority . . .”

Now, pausing again, it is once more evident that Harding is making an assumption ⎯ that the

island does not in fact belong to any nation ⎯ that is, that the island is terra nullius. So we come

to Harding’s conclusion which I introduce with th e words “in these circumstances”, since what he

says is qualified by what came before:

“I conceive [he says] that the British Crown may lawfully take possession of and

appropriate to its own use the Island in question.”

In other words, it is on the assumption of terra nullius that possession can be taken of the island.

11. What could be more supportive of Malaysia’s position? On the assumption that the

island belongs to no one and that no acts of owne rship have hitherto been exercised over it, the

Crown may claim it as British territory. How this opinion helps Singapore I cannot understand, but

I do thank Professor Pellet for bringing it to the Court’s attention.

III

12. The third and more substantial part of th is speech is a response to some of the points

made by Mr. Brownlie in his speech of 19 November on the acquisition of title to Pulau Batu Puteh

in the years 1847-1851. Obviously, I cannot reply to all and I will limit myself to those that are

most open to exception. And some points will also, to a degree, be covered by my colleagues.

13. But first I must hope that I will be forgiven for repeating what I know the Court must

already well appreciate. Malaysia has shown that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in 1847

109
See judges’ folder, tab 176. - 53 -

but belonged to Johor. To the extent that Mr.Brownlie’s argument assumes otherwise ⎯ and it

does so to a great extent ⎯ it is fundamentally flawed. There was no basis on which Britain could

then, or at any other time, acquire title to an isla nd that could only be obtained with the consent of

the local sovereign. And the consent given w as restricted to the building and operation of a

lighthouse. I repeat my concern that the Court is in a sense being waylaid, or sidetracked, by the

introduction into the argument of this mass of evidence and discussion relating to events post-1851.

In my humble submission, they distort the case. This case is about title in 1847.

14. Can I come now to my comments on ProfessorBrownlie’s speech. My first comment:

Mr. Brownlie asserts that I maintained silence on the sources of applicable inter-temporal law. If

by that he means that I did not discuss the many learned nineteenth century publicists whom he

cites, it was because there is little scope for disagr eement with them. What Mr. Brownlie fails to

point out is that their views on the acquisition of territory by occupation all assume that the

territory in question is available for acquisition, is in fact terra nullius . Disregard of this feature of

their writings invalidates Singapore’s reliance on them.

15. My second comment: Malaysia was next cr iticized for its silence on the nature of acts

àtitre de souverain . Now, it is not every act carried out by a sovereign that is an act à titre de

souverain. An act à titre de souverain is an act that can only be carried out by a sovereign in the

performance of what is uniquely a sovereign act. During the period 1847-1851, the conduct of

Britain could not be classified as à titre de souverain. It was conduct, as I have already said to the

Court, in every respect related to the constr uction of a lighthouse and nothing more. It did not

involve an assertion of governmental authority. I devoted much time in my opening speech to

analysing in detail the process of the construction of the lighthouse. The placing of experimental

bricks, the cutting of rain channels and so on could hardly be described as acts à titre de souverain

unless one assumes, as Mr.Brownlie does, that somehow there was scope in these acts for the

attribution to them of that character, which I r espectfully suggest could not be so. But once the

basic foundation of his presentation is undermined, that is necessarily an end to the classification of

acts à titre de souverain. Instead, he calls the works “public works”. But this does not advance

Singapore’s case because, beyond the fact that the wo rks were done in public, which is certainly

not what Mr. Brownlie had in mind in using that adjective, there is nothing about them that could - 54 -

not have been done by a private person. He stated that “there is no evidence that the British interest

110
consisted of an intention to create an asset which only represented private property” . So what?

Even if the evidence were that the intention was that the lighthouse should be public property, what

difference would that have made to the question of sovereignty? That would not by itself convert

the act into an act à titre de souverain.

16. I come now to my third comment. Mr. Br ownlie said: “the British authorities were very

conscious of the significance of the attribution of sovereignty as between the Powers in the region”.

I can’t see what this adds to the argument. If the British authorities were as “conscious”, as

Mr. Brownlie suggests, of the attribution of sove reignty as between the Powers in the region, is it

not strange that they never said so, that they ne ver betrayed any indication of this consciousness,

that they never took the several opportunities open to them to declare their title to the island? One

cannot overlook the fact that in so many cases of acquisition of title by Britain to islands in the

region the intention to acquire was always manifest ed by some formal act: the arrival of a naval

vessel, the formal flying of a flag, the salute of 21 guns, and most important of all, the reading of a

declaration in which the claim was asserted. Was there perhaps a deliberate policy of restraint on

the part of the British authorities? Having obt ained a licence from the Sultan and the Temenggong

to build a lighthouse at any point deemed eligible, they took a cautious line. They were anxious not

to provoke a confrontation with those rulers ove r a point that had no significance for Britain to

whom at that time it mattered not a scrap whether it was sovereign over Pulau Batu Puteh or not.

What mattered was the construction and operation of a lighthouse for the benefit of ships plying

their trade between Britain and its far eastern comme rcial links. From an imperial, military or

naval perspective it simply was of no importance, whether the island was British or not. There was

after all no room on it anyway for any settlement by Britons unrelated to the operation of the light.

The fact that the island was not British was obviously not seen as adversely affecting the efficiency

of the operation of the lighthouse.

17. My fourth comment: and what does it mean when Professor Brownlie goes on to

declare: “The general context was that of co -existing political entities. There was a natural

110
CR 2007/ 28, p. 53, para. 12. - 55 -

relation between the exclusive use of territory and the existence of sovereignty over the

territory.”111 Sovereignty does not necessarily follow from exclusive use as is shown by the fact ⎯

quite incontrovertible ⎯ that so many lighthouses are built by one State upon the territory of

another, so many leases are enjoyed by one State in the territory of another, so many servitudes all

to the exclusion of the local State. Exclusive use does not by itself give rise to sovereignty.

18. Malaysia is then charged with divorci ng the question of intention from the process of

112
taking possession ⎯ of doing so without legal justification . Of course the two concepts are dealt

with separately ⎯ but in response to Singapore’s own exposition of the elements of intention.

19. So I pass to the fifth comment. Yet anot her unsustainable proposition is then advanced

as if it followed from what came before: “The construction of the lighthouse involved the

implementation of the intention of the British Crown as expressed in numerous official

113
documents.” I am sorry, I ought to read that again because it may not have come across clearly:

“The construction of the lighthouse involved the implementation of the intention of the British

Crown as expressed in numerous official documents.” How can this statement be made at the

beginning of the argument when it is precisely the “intention of the British Crown” that has to be

proved. Singapore acknowledges this. The establis hment of the Crown’s intention should be the

conclusion of the argument. The existence of the intention cannot be asserted as the starting-point.

And what are the unspecified “numerous official documents” in which this alleged intention is said

to have been “expressed”? I cannot find them.

20. So I come to the sixth comment. Let us pass now to Mr.Brownlie’s heading “The

Taking of Lawful Possession”. He starts by saying that “the decision is taken to build a lighthouse

upon an island which does not form part of Johor”. But where in the documentation is there any

indication that the decision was taken to build on Pulau Batu Puteh because it was not part of

114
Johor ? There is no sign of that.

11Ibid., para. 13.
112
Ibid., para. 14.
11Ibid., para. 14.

11Ibid., para. 16. - 56 -

21. And what about the choice that he intr oduces between making an arrangement with the

relevant territorial sovereign or assuming sovere ignty on the basis of a peaceful process of taking

possession 115? Where in the documents is there any in dication that this kind of choice was made

by the British authorities? Always, always, the assu mption is that Pulau Batu Puteh did not belong

to the Sultan of Johor because it was not Peak Rock , which did so belong. That’s the Singapore

position. The Court is specifically referred to Governor Butterworth’s letter to Currie of

28 November 1844 116 as if that helped Singapore’s case. But I have looked at it again and can find

nothing in it which does so.

22. So I come to the seventh comment. Then we are taken on to what are called “the basic

elements of causation in this case”. And what are they? I quote: “The fact is that without a

decision of the British Crown to fund the cons truction of a lighthouse on Pedra Branca, no

lighthouse would have come into existence.” But th e real fact is that the British Government did

not fund the construction of the light, or take th e initiative. We can see the funding details for

example, by looking at the last pages of Thomson’s report 117. The basic money came from private

subscription, with the balance being, in effect, borrowed from the Government to be repaid out of

light dues. This is made perfectly clear by Brita in in the preamble to the 1852 Act, from which I

quote now:

“whereas certain sums of money were subscribed by private individuals for that

purpose [the building of the light], but the sums were insufficient . . . and whereas the
East India Company agreed to build such a lighthouse and to advance certain sums of
money to complete the same, on condition that the said sums of money were repaid to

them by the levy of a toll on ships seeking the harbour of Singapore”.

And I should take this opportunity of drawing the C ourt’s attention to other provisions in the same

1852Act which reflect the limited role of the Government in the construction of the light. After

vesting the property in the lighthouse in the East India Company and making provision for the

collection of a toll on ships entering the port of Singapore, the Act then went on in SectionIV to

vest the management and control of the lighthouse and of everything related thereto in the

Governor of the Straits Settlements. Note, please, that in the view of the legislator there was a

11Ibid., para. 16.
116
MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 46.
11MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 43. - 57 -

clear distinction between title, ownership, of th e light and management and control of it.

Furthermore, it was clearly thought that the ob ligations of management and control had not

automatically vested in the Government merely by virtue of its involvement in the construction of

the light. So much for the notion of à titre de souverain.

23. I come to the eighth comment. And where did the initiative, of which Mr.Brownlie

spoke, come from? Let us look, for example, at the Bombay Times and Journal of Commerce of

10 January 1846 118. It published the report of a committee of the Chamber of Commerce. The

newspaper said:

“We are glad to see the Committee take up the matter [that is the matter of the

lighthouse] with such earnestness... As long as the matter was left in the hands of
the Indian Government we confess we saw little chance of it being carried through. It
appeared to us that the same indifference act uated their conduct in regard to this as to

most other matters relating to the Straits Settlements, which they can never bring
themselves to regard in any other light th an remote and semi-barbarous Settlements
upon which it would be beneath their dignity to bestow the trouble of thought.”

24. So really, it was the merchants, the memb ers of the Chamber of Commerce, the bankers,

and a few generous individuals, who were responsible for getting the Government to move. And

then, so Singapore would have us believe, a mome nt must have come when the Governor suddenly

realized the exciting possibility that lay before him. Hey presto! Here was a great chance to

expand the British Empire. Acquire a rock and bu ild a lighthouse on it. Just as Clive had become

Clive of India, so perhaps Butterworth could beco me Butterworth of Pulau Batu Puteh! Surely,

this was not the thinking that went on in Government House in Singapore, or in Bengal, or in the

East India Company or in the Admiralty in London. What they wanted was a light. The addition

of so small an item to the vast British Empire never entered their minds.

25. So we come to my ninth comment. The Singapore position, we are told, is that “the

process of decision-making and operations in relation to the construction constitutes

incontrovertible evidence of the taking of lawf ul possession. It is unacceptable to divide this

network of evidence of title into artificial fragments.” 119 What is “incontrovertible” about the

evidence? The answer is nothing. What is “unacceptable” about analysing this evidence? The

answer is nothing. What is “artificial” about identifying the fragments? The answer is, once more,

118
MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 48.
11CR 2007/28, p. 57, para. 29. - 58 -

nothing. The Court is constantly being asked to accept as proven precisely the point that has to be

proved. This, if I may venture the remark, is the single limitation and defect in

ProfessorBrownlie’s whole approach. The Court is constantly being asked to accept as proven

precisely the point that has to be proved. Was Pulau Batu Puteh terra nullius so that “lawful

possession” could be taken of it? The answer is certainly “No”.

26. So, to my tenth comment. My friends on the opposite side have been happy to have

caught me out on my arithmetic ⎯ well that was always a weak spot. The lobster pot of

multiplication, they say, should be discarded in favour of a process of addition. Zero plus one

makes one and so on. So, what are we to a dd together between 1847 a nd 1851 to produce a title

by 1851? A decision to support the construction of a light, a decision regarding the site, advancing

part of the funds on the basis that the excess over th e subscriptions will be repaid out of light dues,

the provision of an architect, some visits to the island by the governor ⎯ but never, never a

statement of intention or even a gesture towards the assumption or declaration of title.

27. I come to my eleventh comment. I am chided for my failure to acknowledge the value of

the writings of Sir Kenneth Roberts-Wray and Sir Humphrey Waldock. I have the greatest respect

for both these authorities, but each of them was writing about occupation in a quite different

context and on the basis that the territory being occupied was terra nullius. Only if the Court

rejects the proof of Johor’s title to Pulau Batu Puteh in 1847 can the Singapore case achieve lift-off.

And even then, it will have a pretty uncertain ride till it reaches the moon, if it does.

With that said, Mr.President and Members of the Court, I reach the end of this small

contribution to the case. It has been a great pleasure to appear before you and to enter into contest

with such agreeable colleagues as are appearing on behalf of Singapore. I would like to thank you

for your patience, understanding and kindness like that of your predecessors over the years. And,

who knows, I may yet be fortunate enough to have another opportunity to appear here.

Mr.President, that brings me to the end of what I have to say and I believe it would be

convenient to us if you could defer calling on Mr.Crawford till tomorrow afternoon. Thank you,

Mr. President. - 59 -

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you so much, Sir Elihu, for your speech.

I am sure we all wish you the best of health, happiness and longevity and look forward to seeing

you again in this Court.

This brings this sitting to a close. We w ill meet tomorrow afternoon at 3o’clock and will

adjourn now. Thank you.

The Court rose at 5.50 p.m.

___________

Document Long Title

Audience publique tenue le jeudi 22 novembre 2007, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix, sous la présidence de M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l'affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks et South Ledge (Malaisie/Singapour)

Links