Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2007/28
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2007
Public sitting
held on Monday 19 November 2007, at 10 a.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 lundi 19 novembre 2007, à 10 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 Ranjeva
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
RaMjev.
Shi
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’ Haji Abd. Ghaffar bin Abdullah, Deputy State Secretary of Johor (Administration),
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’Haji Abd. Ghaffar bin Abdullah, secrétaire d’Etat adjoint du Johor (administration),
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 and I give
the floor to Professor Jayakumar. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr. JAYAKUMAR:
1. Mr.President and Members of the Court, it is my privilege to commence Singapore’s
second round of oral pleadings.
Distractions by Malaysia
2. During Singapore’s first round of oral pleadings, we have focused our presentations purely
on legal and factual issues in dispute between the Parties. We have carefully avoided mentioning
extraneous matters that may affect the integrity of the proceedings before this honourable Court. In
view of the good relations between the two countries, we had expected Malaysia to do likewise.
3. We are therefore surprised and disappointed that Malaysia has, in her oral pleadings, made
a series of allegations and insinuations against Singapore. These are of a nature which, unless
rebutted, would impeach or diminish Singapore’s integrity or could impress on the minds of the
Members of the Court that there could be dire consequences for relations in the region if the
dispute were decided in Singapore’s favour.
4. It would therefore not be right for Singapore to embark on our second round pleadings
with these extraneous and prejudicial remarks remaining unanswered. These include:
⎯ an insinuation that Singapore may have concealed a letter from the Court;
⎯ an allegation that Singapore is subverting the ex isting legal order, and that stability in the
region will be affected if sovereignty over Pedra Branca is awarded to Singapore;
⎯ an attribution of sinister motives to Singapore;
⎯ an accusation that Singapore moved its navy be latedly to Pedra Branca and used aggressive
methods to assert Singapore’s claim; and
⎯ a gratuitous “offer” to continue respecting Singa pore’s “right” to operate the lighthouse should
Malaysia win the case. - 13 -
5. This morning, I am therefore compelled to point out how baseless and tendentious
Malaysia’s allegations are and to set the record straight. My colleagues, who will follow me, will
deal in detail with the other issues raised by Malaysia.
Malaysia’s insinuation of concealment of letter
6. Let me begin by addressing the most disturbing insinuation. During last week’s
proceedings, SirElihu Lauterpacht insinuated th at Singapore may have “deliberately concealed”
Butterworth’s 1844 letters of request addressed to the Sultan and Temenggong of Johor.
7. Sir Eli Lauterpacht said:
“Like many other documents in this case, these must originally have been in the
Singapore archive. Malaysia has requested their production by Singapore, but
Singapore has given no reply. In the circum stances we are obliged to consider two
possible inferences that may be drawn from the available correspondence read as a
whole. And I leave entirely aside any suggestio n of a third inference, namely that
Singapore has deliberately concealed these letters.” 1
8. This carefully contrived “non-statement” was expressed in public and came after both
sides had said, in their written pleadings, that th ey were unable to locate the letters and after
2
Singapore had repeated this in the first round of our oral pleadings .
9. Malaysia’s Agent also claimed that, in 1994, Malaysia requested Singapore to furnish a
3
copy of the letter but Singapore did not respond to their request .
10. Mr.President, Members of the Court, Si ngapore does not have a copy of Butterworth’s
letters. Singapore had searched for the letters over the years, at various archives but to no avail. In
fact, I was personally involved in the search wh en I was then Dean of the Law Faculty and
professor.
11. It is a matter of public record and knowledge that Singapore’s archives are incomplete.
In Dr. Mary Turnbull’s history of The Straits Settlements, from which Malaysia also has extracted
for her own judges’ folder last week, she states very clearly that many volumes in a series of files
4
in the Singapore archives are missing or in poor condition . The relevant extracts can be found in
1CR 2007/24, p. 42, para. 35 (Lauterpacht).
2
CMS, p. 88, para. 5.41; CR 2007/21, p. 28, para. 54 (Pellet).
3CR 2007/24, pp. 14–15, para. 18 (Kadir).
4Turnbull C. M., The Straits Settlements 1826-67 ⎯ Indian Presidency to Crown Colony (1972), pp. 392-393. - 14 -
tab1 of the judges’ folder. In any case, Ma laysia will be aware that microfilm copies of
Singapore’s archival records are available in vari ous institutions outside Singapore. For example,
the microfilm copy of the Series “Governor’s Letters to Native Rulers” from 1817 to 1872 had
been bought by Monash University in 1961. The Butterworth letters are missing also from this
microfilm copy.
12. In fact, Singapore has already explained why our records are incomplete in our written
5
pleadings . That was why Singapore decided in 1953 to ask the Johor Government whether they
had any documents relating to Pedra Branca.
13. Secondly, it is not true that Singapore did not respond to the request from Malaysia.
After the second round of bilateral consultations between Singapore and Malaysia in January 1994,
Malaysia sent a diplomatic Note in May 1994 to Singapore asking for copies of various documents.
Singapore replied to that request orally in June 1994, through our High Commission in
Kuala Lumpur, by asking whether it was Malaysia’s in tention to continue the work of the bilateral
consultations through correspondence, and suggested instead that the Parties should convene a third
round of bilateral consultation for this purpose. In the event, the idea of convening a third round of
consultations was not pursued because a decision was taken by both Governments, in
September 1994, to refer the dispute to this Court 6.
14. Thirdly, let us look at the facts. Wh y should Malaysia say that these document “must
originally have been in the Singapore archive” 7? Why? This letter was sent to SultanAli and to
the Temenggong of Johor. Would it not be more logical for the original of the letters to be in
Johor, not Singapore? However, Malaysia has stat ed that she also does not have the letters.
Singapore, on our part, has accepted that in good faith.
5
CMS, p. 194, para. 7.25.
6
MS, p. 26, para. 4.9; MS, Ann. 192.
7CR 2007/24, p. 42, para. 35 (Lauterpacht). - 15 -
Malaysian claims that Singapore seeks to subvert the long-established arrangements
15. I now turn to Malaysia’s claim that Singapore “seeks to disrupt the long-established
8
arrangements in the Straits” and to “subvert the arrangements reached between Johor and Great
Britain over 150 years ago” 9.
16. Malaysia’s allegations are another attempt to impress on the Court that Malaysia is the
victim and Singapore the perpetrator of some hi storic wrong against Malaysia. In fact, it is
Malaysia who is trying to alter the status quo by suddenly claiming title to Pedra Branca after
130 years of inaction in the face of Singapore’s exercise of Singapore’s sovereignty over the island.
17. This is evident from Malaysia ’s telegram of 20December 1979 10informing all her
overseas Missions that her 1979 map would “affect”:
⎯ Thailand;
⎯ Vietnam;
⎯ Singapore;
⎯ Indonesia;
⎯ Brunei;
⎯ the Philippines; and
⎯ China.
One map, seven countries affected.
18. As Malaysia had anticipated, her map indeed attracted protests from all seven
11
countries . Who then, may I ask, was seeking to upset the existing legal order?
19. Malaysia’s Agent also says that if this Court finds in favour of Singapore, the stability of
12
Malaysia’s relationship with Indonesia will be affected . This is another attempt to influence the
Court with extraneous considerations which have no foundation.
8
Ibid., CR 2007/24, p. 16, para. 31 (Kadir).
9
Ibid., CR 2007/24, p. 13, para. 8 (Kadir).
1Malaysia’s judges’ folder, tab 17.
1Haller-Trost R., The Contested Maritime and Territo rial Boundaries of Malaysia ⎯ An International Law
Perspective (1998).
1CR 2007/24, p. 18, para. 41 (Kadir). - 16 -
Malaysia attributing sinister motives to Singapore
20. The Agent of Malaysia has also alleged sinister intentions on the part of Singapore. He
speculates that Singapore may reclaim the se a around Pedra Branca to create a “maritime
13 14
domain” with potential adverse impact on the environment, on navigation and on security . He
also alleged that Singapore wants to create “a military presence” 15.
21. Malaysia’s reference to the impact of possible reclamation plans is an attempt at scare
mongering. Singapore is a law abiding country and is proud of its record in this respect.
22. Singapore’s economic well-being and, indeed , our very survival depend on our status as
a major port of call, which in turn is dependent on the smooth flow of maritime traffic through the
Singapore Strait. We have never taken, and we will never undertake, any action which would
endanger the marine environment, the safety of navigation and the security situation in the
Singapore Strait.
23. Malaysia has also alleged that Singa pore has adopted in the present case “an attitude
which is more colonialist than the colonial power herself” 16. This, as well as Malaysia’s claim that
17
Singapore is attempting to create a “maritime domain” on Pedra Branca, is ridiculous. Only last
Thursday, Malaysia dismissed Pedra Branca as a tin y rock which, in relation to Pulau Pisang, is
like “the nail of a little finger is to the hand as a whole” 18.
Malaysia’s accusation on Singapore navy’s methods
24. Next, Malaysia complains about Singa pore’s “military presence” and alleges that
Singapore sent its naval vessels to Pedra Branca in 1986, well after the critical date, raising
tensions in the area and chasing away Malay fishermen 19.
25. Mr.President and Members of the Court, Singapore’s naval presence around Pedra
Branca is not a recent development. Since 1975, when the British navy withdrew from Singapore,
13Ibid., p. 16, para. 33 (Kadir).
14
Ibid., p. 17, para. 37 (Kadir).
15
Ibid., p. 18, para. 43 (Kadir).
16
CR 2007/27, p. 61, para. 48 (Kohen).
17CR 2007/24, p. 16, para. 33 (Kadir).
18CR 2007/26, p. 44, para. 29 (Lauterpacht).
19
CR 2007/24, p. 17, para. 38 (Kadir). - 17 -
the Singapore navy has established a specific patrol sector around Pedra Branca and has regularly
patrolled there.
26. The presence of the Singapore navy around Pedra Branca is no different from its
presence in any other part of Singapore’s terr itory. It has always been peaceful and
non-confrontational and has enhanced security and safety in the area. As for Singapore’s policy
towards fishermen in Pedra Branca waters, this w as clearly stated in our diplomatic Note to
Malaysia dated 16 June 1989:
“Singapore Marine Police and Navy pa trols often find Malaysian vessels in
Singapore territorial waters, fishing in what they claim to be traditional fishing
grounds. Singapore has not arrested these boats. Wherever possible, it has allowed
them to continue fishing. Where this is not possible for security or other reasons, the
Singapore authorities have asked them to leave instead of arresting them.” 20
This Note can be found at tab 2 of the judges’ folder.
27. Mr.President, Singapore has never arrest ed any Malaysian fishermen in Pedra Branca
waters. On the other hand, it is Malaysia whic h has been aggressively arresting Singapore fishing
vessels and raising tensions 21, including through the use of physical violence against Singapore
22
fishermen in the vicinity of Pedra Branca . All these are documented in our written pleadings and
can also be found at tab 3 of the judges’ folder.
28. As for Malaysia’s complaint that its officials could not go anywhere near Pedra Branca
23
without being challenged by the Singapore navy , I would like to remind my Malaysian friends
that, way back in 1989, Singapore had indicated to Malaysia that we would be happy to invite
24
Malaysian officials to visit Pedra Branca if they wished to do so . This can be found at tab4 of
the judges’ folder.
20
MS, Ann. 160.
21
MS, Ann. 160; MS, Ann. 175 and MS, Ann. 177.
22MS, Ann. 182.
23CR 2007/24, pp. 17-18, para. 38 (Kadir).
24MS, Ann. 163. - 18 -
Malaysia’s “offer” to continue to respect Singapore as lighthouse operator
29. Finally, in another attempt to influence the Court with extraneous considerations,
Malaysia’s Agent told the Court that Malaysia had always respected the position of Singapore as
25
operator of the Horsburgh lighthouse and wished to place on record that it will continue to do so .
30. There is no need, and certainly no basis for Malaysia to do so. Singapore’s rights in
relation to Pedra Branca are the rights of a country having sovereignty over the island, not that of a
lighthouse operator. Singapore’s activities in relation to Pedra Branca go well beyond the
operation of a lighthouse operator. They include various sovereign acts on the island and in its
territorial waters. Singapore’s sovereign status over Pedra Branca had been recognized as such by
Malaysia, until December 1979.
31. The questions for the Court, as agreed by both countries in the Special Agreement,
concern sovereignty. This case is not about the right to operate the Horsburgh lighthouse.
32. Mr.President and Members of the Court, Singapore has had no choice but to rebut
Malaysia’s baseless allegations and insinuations. And I have done so with much reluctance. Every
State which appears before this honourable Cour t in any dispute would of course do all it can to
persuade this Court to decide in its favour. That is perfectly le gitimate. However, we should seek
to win by stating objective facts and submitting pers uasive legal arguments, and not by resorting to
unfounded political statements and making insinuati ons damaging to the integrity of the opposite
Party.
33. Having said this, let me end by reitera ting what Singapore’s Agent said on 6 November,
namely, that both countries agreed to submit our cas e to this honourable Court instead of allowing
the dispute to adversely affect our overall good relations 26. I have no doubt that both countries are
committed to maintaining these friendly and peaceful relations.
34. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I tha nk you for your patience and attention. May I
now request that you please invite the Attorney-General, Mr. Chao, to address the Court.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Professor Jayakumar, for your
speech and invite the Attorney-General, Mr. Chao, to the podium.
25
CR 2007/24, p. 18, para. 43 (Kadir).
2CR 2007/20, p. 16, para. 3 (Koh). - 19 -
Mr. CHAO:
G EOGRAPHICAL SETTING AND M IDDLE R OCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
Introduction
1. Mr.President and Members of the Court, in this presentation, I will be dealing with two
points. The first relates to the issue of proximity of Pedra Branca to the coast of Johor. Secondly, I
will be responding to Malaysia’s arguments on Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
I. Geographical setting ⎯ proximity
2. Professor Kohen devoted a significant part of his presentation last Wednesday attempting
to persuade you that Pedra Branca was “near Po int Romania” as the phrase was used in the letter
27
from the Temenggong of Johor to Gover nor Butterworth of 25 November 1844 . He showed you
J. T. Thomson’s 1851 map 28and made the rather curious ar gument that because Pedra Branca and
the Romania Islands were on the same map, they belonged to the so-called “region” of Romania
and therefore were near to each other9.
3. The 1851 map shows, in fact, the exact opposite of what Professor Kohen contends. You
only need to look at the map on the screen and at tab5 of your folder to appreciate that, from
Thomson’s perspective, since Peak Rock was the intended location of the lighthouse “near
PointRomania” in 1844, Pedra Branca ⎯ which was located nearly six times the distance from
Point Romania compared to Peak Rock ⎯ could not be regarded by the British colonial
government as “near Point Romania”. And let us not forget that the only contemporaneous official
document which actually discussed the relative distance of Pedra Branca from the Johor coast is the
26August1846 letter from Governor Butterworth, where he explained his original preference to
build the lighthouse at Peak Rock because Pedra Br anca was “at so great a distance from the Main
30
Land” .
27CR 2007/25, pp. 49-52, paras. 43-53.
28
CMS, Map Atlas, map 8.
29CR 2007/25, p. 50, para. 48.
30MS, Vol. 2, Ann. 16, p. 135. - 20 -
31
4. Professor Kohen accused Singapore of main taining what he called “absolute silence” in
relation to John Crawfurd’s 1818 diary entry, and here I quote from the entry:
“Romania is the Eastern part of the Singapore Straits, the entrance is divided
into two channels by a cluster of rocks, the l32gest is 20 feet above the level of the sea
named by the Portuguese Pedro Branca.”
But what is there in this entry for Singapore to respond to? Point Romania and the Romanian
islands are at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait and Pedra Branca does divide the entrance
to the Strait into the Middle and South Channels. Crawfurd did not speak of a “region” of
Romania, as Malaysia claims. That so-called “region” is a figment of the imagination.
5. Malaysia also suggested that Singapor e had been engaging in what was termed
“photographic tactics” because we did not produ ce a photograph showing Pedra Branca with the
33
Johor coast in the background . Last week, in an attempt to convey a subliminal message of
proximity between Pedra Branca and the coast of mainland Johor, Malaysia produced the
photograph which appears on the screen 34. This was tab 78 in Malaysia’s judges’ folder.
6. Mr.President and Members of the Cour t, members of the Singapore team who have
visited Pedra Branca were greatly surprised to see this photograph. It did not correspond with their
recollection of what Pedra Branca and the Johor ma inland looked like when they were there. Nor
did it correspond with what J. T. Thomson saw and sketched in 1850 3.
7. Let us examine a close-up of the photograph relied on by Malaysia showing the lighthouse
with the hill, Bukit Pelali or Mount Berbukit, in the background, and compare that with a
photograph taken a few days ago s howing what the human eye actually sees as one looks in the
same direction.
8. If we compare the hill in the background with the same hill in Malaysia’s photograph,
Malaysia’s photograph exaggerates the height of the hill by approximately seven times.
9. The cause of this is an effect calle d “telephoto compression” which occurs when a
telephoto lens is used, instead of a lens that gives a perspective similar to the human eye. The lens
31CR 2007/25, p. 50, paras. 46-48.
32
MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 23.
33
CR 2007/25, p. 51, para. 51.
34Ibid., p. 51, para. 50.
35MS, Vol. 4, Ann. 61, p. 475. - 21 -
used for the photograph on the right approximates what the human eye sees . Thomson’s sketch,
together with all the photographs, are at tab 6 of your folder.
10. I have a few more observations on the photograph relied on by Malaysia. Malaysia
attributes its source to a “blog” website 3. This blog website is a most unusual one. It was created
only last month. There is no information on the identity of the blogger and the photograph used by
Malaysia was only put on the website on 2 November 2007, four days before the start of these oral
proceedings.
II. Middle Rocks and South Ledge
11. I now turn to the question of Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Here I would like to note
that my learned counterpart, the Attorney-Gener al of Malaysia, claims that “[t]he dispute
concerning these two features only crystallized on 6 February 1993 when, for the first time during
the first round of bilateral discussions between the Parties, Singapore included Middle Rocks and
South Ledge in addition to its claim to Pulau Batu Puteh” 37.
12. With respect, the assertion is as wrong as it is artificial. What Malaysia describes as
Singapore’s “claim” over Middle Rocks and South Ledge on 6February 1993 was, in reality,
Singapore’s response to Malaysia’s statement made a day earlier describing Middle Rocks and
South Ledge as two Malaysian islands 38. The reality is that Middle Rocks and South Ledge cannot,
by any stretch of the imagination, be considered as distinct from Pedra Branca. It follows that the
critical date for all three features must naturally be the same.
13. Last Thursday, we heard the presentation of ProfessorSchrijver on Middle Rocks and
South Ledge. Two key arguments emerged from that presentation:
(a) first, that Malaysia had original title over Middle Rocks and South Ledge; and
(b) secondly, that Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge did not form a group.
36
www.leuchtturm3.blogspot.com, screen shots of which are found at tab 7.
37
CR 2007/24, pp. 31-32, para. 14 (Gani Patail).
38CMS, Vol. 1, p. 201, paras. 8.1-8.2. - 22 -
A. Alleged original title
14. Professor Schrijver’s first point can be very briefly dealt with. As with Pedra Branca,
Malaysia provides not a single piece of evidence th at Johor had any title to or carried out any
sovereign act over Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
B. Whether the features form a group
15. This brings me to Professor Schrijver’s second point ⎯ the assertion that the three
features do not form a group and cannot be treated t ogether. Malaysia’s position in this regard is
wholly contradicted by the way it puts forward its case. The acts of Malaysia which
Professor Schrijver cites in support of Malaysia’s sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge
are, first, Commodore Thanabalasingham’s so-called “Letter of Promulgation”, secondly, the 1968
oil concession, and thirdly, the 1985 Fisheries Act 39. These are the same acts Malaysia relies upon
to claim Pedra Branca, which Ms Malintoppi will address tomorrow. This shows that Malaysia has
treated them and continues to treat them as a group.
16. Professor Schrijver devoted the better pa rt of his presentation taking issue with the
reasons listed by Professor Pellet in support of Si ngapore’s position that the fate of the three
features was necessarily linked 4. I do not propose to respond to every one of the points made.
41
They have already been covered exte nsively in Singapore’s written pleadings and
42
Professor Pellet’s presentation . But I note in passing Professor Schrijver’s rather astonishing
suggestion that the three features could not form a group because Singapore was unable to show all
43
of them in a single photograph . If photography can determine whether features form a single
group, we have countless photographs showing Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks in the same frame.
These two features were what Commander Kennedy referred to as the “Horsburgh Group” in
44
1958 . As for South Ledge, it is a low-tide eleva tion within the territorial sea of the Pedra
Branca/Middle Rocks group, so its fate follows that of the group.
39CR 2007/26, pp. 24-25, para. 8.
40
Ibid., pp. 26-34, paras. 12-38.
41
MS, Vol. 1, pp. 180-184, paras. 9.8-9.17; CMS, Vol. 1, pp. 202-209, paras. 8.4-8.10.
42CR 2007/23, pp. 52-54, paras. 15-16.
43CR 2007/26, p. 28, para. 18.
44CMS, Vol. 3, Ann. 37, p. 350. - 23 -
17. I will focus instead on three aspects of Professor Schrijver’s analysis ⎯ first, proximity,
secondly, geomorphology; and, thirdly, whether th ere exists navigable channels between the three
features.
(1) Proximity
18. On proximity, Professor Schrijver quite erroneously cited dicta from the Arbitral Award
in the Eritrea/Yemen case to argue that, and here I quote, “The mere extending of the territorial sea
from PBP cannot in itself generate sovere ignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge.” 45 The
passage he cited from Eritrea/Yemen was concerned with Eritrea’s so-called “leapfrogging”
argument that sovereignty exists over island B because it falls within the territorial sea of island A
and that sovereignty exists over is landC just because it, in turn, li es within the territorial sea of
46
island B, and so on .
19. That passage is completely irrelevant to the present case where all three features lie less
than 3nautical miles from each other and Middle Rocks and South Ledge clearly fall within the
territorial sea of Pedra Branca. Moreover, the Tribunal in Eritrea/Yemen, as is clear from the
dispositif of its Award, did award sovereignty to the “islands, islets, rocks and low-tide elevations”
of the Zuqar-Hanish group and the sovereignty to the “islands, islets, rocks and low-tide
47
elevations” of the Zubayr group to Yemen as groups of maritime features .
(2) Geomorphology/geology
20. Turning to geomorphology ⎯ or, more correctly, geology ⎯ Professor Schrijver argued
that the same rock type on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge can be found in other
48
neighbouring islands but not Singapore Island itself . This contention is baffling. Clearly, in
determining whether the three features constitute a group, what matters is whether those three
features have similar geological characteristics. The answer is “yes”. Whether other places do or
45
CR 2007/26, p. 27, para. 15.
46
Eritrea/Yemen, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of the proceedings (Territorial Sovereignty and
Scope of the Dispute)¸ 9 Oct. 1998, 114 ILR 1, pp. 132-133, paras. 473-474.
47Ibid., p. 147, para. 527.
48CR 2007/26, pp. 27-28, para. 17. - 24 -
do not have such characteristics is beside the point. After all, the issue is not whether Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks, South Ledge and Singapore form a group.
(3) Navigable channels
21. I turn now to Professor Schrijver’s argum ent that the three features do not constitute a
49
group because they are separated by navigable channels .
22. Malaysia’s contention that a navigable ch annel exists between Pedra Branca and Middle
Rocks is quite surreal. No one denies that a stretch of water separates the two features, so some
boats must be capable of traversing those wate rs. But what determines whether a navigable
channel exists is whether commercial maritime traffic can safely use that route.
23. The navigable width of the “channel” betw een Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks, if it can
be called that, is less than 200m, as can be seen on the screen and in the chart at tab8 of your
folder. No prudent mariner will navigate commerc ial vessels through such waters and, in reality,
no one does that. It is not for nothing that British Admiralty Chart2403 shows a danger line
50
surrounding Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks .
24. As for the so-called “navigable channel” between Middle Rocks and South Ledge, I
would like to make two comments. First, whether this channel exists does not affect the unity of
Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks. As we said last week 51, the material question is whether Pedra
Branca and Middle Rocks should be treated as one. Once that is settled, the fate of South Ledge, a
low-tide elevation, follows that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks. Secondly, the fact is that
commercial maritime traffic traversing those waters uses either Middle Channel or South Channel
because they are safe routes.
25. Last week, Professor Schrijver referred us to an extract of the sailing directions for the
north-eastern approach to the Singapore Strait, whic h is at tab10 of your folder. Relying on the
sentence which reads “passage between Middle Rock s and South Ledge is possible at LW (low
water) provided both are plainly visible”, he then boldly asserted “if possible at low water, passage
49
CR 2007/26, pp. 29-30, paras. 20-23.
50MM, Map Atlas, map 25. A large format of this map is in the sleeve of Malaysia’s Counter-Memorial. A
close-up of the relevant section is at tab 9 of the judges’ folder.
51CR 2007/23, pp. 51-52, paras. 12-13 (Pellet). - 25 -
is easy at high water” . He could not be more wrong. Passage is possible provided both features
are plainly visible, allowing a pilot to steer clear of South Ledge by sight. At high water, South
Ledge, which is a low-tide elevation, is not visible at all. Passage between Middle Rocks and
South Ledge becomes dangerous.
26. This brings me to more general observations on Malaysia’s case with respect to Middle
Rocks and South Ledge. Malaysia’s written and oral pleadings thus far have been almost
single-mindedly devoted not to demonstrati ng acts of sovereignty over the two features ⎯ which
she has not done and cannot do ⎯ but to demonstrating that Middle Rocks and South Ledge are not
part of the same group as Pedra Branca. Why? Why is Malaysia so anxious to separate the fate of
Middle Rocks and South Ledge from Pedra Branca? Why is Malaysia insisting that, if a group
53
exists at all, it would consist of only Middle Rocks and South Ledge ? Is Malaysia hoping that,
by doing so, they can salvage something for future maritime delimitation if the Court finds that
sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapor e? Is Malaysia hoping that this Court might
hand down a judgment like King Solomon by awarding Pedra Branca to one side and Middle
Rocks and South Ledge to the other? The law and the facts simply do not support such a ruling.
Conclusion
27. Mr.President, Members of the Court, I shall conclude with a reiteration of Singapore’s
case with respect to Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
(a) First, Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Le dge have always been treated together and are
so treated in Malaysia’s pleadings.
(b) Secondly, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, being less than 3 nautical miles from Pedra Branca,
fall within its territorial sea.
(c)Thirdly, Middle Rocks, located only 0.6na utical miles from Pedra Branca, is a mere
geomorphological extension of Pedra Branca. It belongs to and forms a single group with
Pedra Branca.
52
CR 2007/26, p. 31, para. 27.
5Ibid., pp. 33-34, para. 38. - 26 -
(d) Fourthly, South Ledge, being a low-tide elevati on, cannot be independent ly appropriated. Its
fate must follow that of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.
(e) Finally, because sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore, sovereignty over Middle
Rocks and South Ledge also belongs to Singapore.
28. That concludes my presentation. I woul d like to thank you for your attention.
Mr. President, may I ask you to call upon Mr. Chan to continue with Singapore’s presentation?
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Mr. Chao, for your speech. I now
call on Mr. Chan to continue with Singapore’s presentation.
Mr. CHAN:
H ISTORICAL SETTING
1. Mr.President and Members of the Court, my presentation this morning will address the
arguments of ProfessorCrawford on Malaysia’s claim to an original title to Pedra Branca and
Professor Schrijver’s arguments on the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. Both sets of argument have no merit.
Malaysia’s lack of response to Singapore’s arguments
2. I begin by observing that ProfessorCrawford did not respond to my argument that the
territorial extent of the Johor Sultanate was indeterminate because it was unstable and its rulers had
a conception of sovereignty based on control of people rather than control of territory. He simply
dismissed it as a theory of the disappearing Sultana te and labelled it as the discontinuity thesis
which has three elements.
3. Professor Crawford claims that all these three elements can be contradicted, firstly, by the
expert opinions of ProfessorHouben and Professo rAndaya; secondly, by the documentary and
historical evidence; and thirdly, by the conduct of the Parties. In fact, they are not.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I am so sorry to interrupt you. May I ask you to
speak a little more slowly, please.
Mr. CHAN: Yes, Mr. President. - 27 -
Let me elaborate. The first element, that the State of Johor “dates from the mid-nineteenth
century” is a quotation from Professor Trocki’s book, The Prince of Pirates 54, which
Professor Houben has endorsed in his report 55. These passages can be found at tabs 11 and 12 of
the judges’ folder.
The second element, that traditional Malay sovereignty is “based on the allegiance of
subjects and not on the control of land” is the unanimous opinion of all expert historians Singapore
has referred to in her Counter-Memorial, incl uding ProfessorAndaya, who wrote in 1997 in his
article, “Writing a History of Brunei”: “Historians have accepted the truism that in Southeast Asia
56
it is not the control over land but people which is the crucial element in statecraft.” (Emphasis
added.) Professor Crawford’s description of a Malay State as “virtually non-territorial” is his, not
mine. In my speech last week, I took great pains to make clear that:
“it is not Singapore’s case that the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty means that
a Malay sultanate had no territory. What it means is that the only reliable way to
determine whether a particular territory bel onged to a ruler is to find out whether the
inhabitants pledged allegiance to that ruler.” 57
Instead of rebutting this proposition and proving it wr ong, ProfessorCrawford simply ignored it.
The proposition creates difficulties for Malaysia in showing when and how the Johore Sultanate
acquired title to Pedra Branca.
The third element, that it was only in the late nineteenth century that the concept of territorial
sovereignty became apposite for the Malay States, including Johor, is extracted from a passage in
Professor Andaya’s book A History of Johore , which I have quoted during the first round. The
passage is found in the judges’ folder at tab13. ProfessorHouben also endorses this view in
paragraph 13 of his report, which can be found in th e judges’ folder at tab 12, where he also cites
58
another study by Professor Milner published in 1995 .
54
See Trocki C., Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and th e Development of Johor and Singapore 1784-1885
(1979), p. 1.
55
RM, p. 225, App. II, para. 16.
56Andaya L., “Writing a History of Brunei” in Barrington B. (ed.), Empires, Imperialism and Southeast Asia:
Essays in Honour of Nicholas Tarling (1997), p. 201.
57CR 2007/20, p. 44, para. 24 (Chan).
58RM, p. 224, App. II, para. 13. - 28 -
4. Mr.President and Members of the Court , Malaysia’s case is based on original title. But
up to today, Malaysia has produced no evidence whatever to prove her claim. She has produced no
evidence whatever that the Johor Sultanate had ev er exercised any sovereignty over Pedra Branca
or carried out State activities specific to the island. My argument is that the three elements of
(1) the historical instability of the Johor Sultanate throughout its existence,
(2) the indeterminacy of its territorial boundaries, and
(3) the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty
constitute a huge obstacle to Malaysia’s claim, which she has not surmounted. Pedra Branca was a
small, barren and uninhab ited island. There were no inhabitants to pledge allegiance to the ruler,
and so this test cannot be satisfied. In the case of Pedra Branca, Malaysia has to show that the
Sultanate has carried out acts of a sovereign nature specific to the island.
5. Singapore’s case is not that the Sultanate disappeared. Obviously, the Sultanate could not
disappear because, as Professor Andaya has stated in his report: “Wherever the ruler settled, there
would be a royal capital and the center of the kingdom.” 59 This is the underlying basis of my
argument. It is precisely because a Malay sultanate is centred entirely on the person of the Sultan
that the territorial extent of a Malay kingdom is inherently indeterminate. When the Sultan was
driven out of his capital, he lost territory and al so, eventually, the allegiance of the subjects whom
he could no longer protect. Each time he moved, he had to acquire new subjects to build up a
kingdom again. That is the traditional concept of Malay sovereignty, but that does not mean a
Malay kingdom has no territory, contrary to what Professor Crawford wants us to say or the Court
to think. It simply means that the territory cannot be defined without a reference to the people who
live there and pledge allegiance to the ruler.
Malaysia’s other arguments
6. Let me now deal with Professor Crawford’s other arguments that Pedra Branca was part of
the Johor Sultanate.
59
RM, p. 209, App. I, para. B.2. - 29 -
The activities of the Orang Laut
His7. first argument is that the territory of the ruler “included islands whose surrounding
60
waters were used by his subjects” . Particular reference is made to the Orang Laut who were the
subjects of the Sultanate. The argument appears to suggest that the mere usage of the waters of an
island by the Sultanate’s subjects is evidence that those waters belong to the Sultanate. That cannot
be right. Private acts are not sufficient in law to establish the sovereignty of the Sultan over Pedra
Branca and the adjacent waters. In fact, the wa ters around Pedra Branca have been used by
mariners and merchant ships from all over the world for hundreds of years.
8. In any case, not all Orang Laut were subject s of the Sultanate. Orang Laut came from all
parts of the archipelago, some as far as the Phili ppines and Thailand or Vietnam. They were also
called sea nomads. Some of them paid allegiance to no one 61. They both engaged in fishing and in
piracy. Begbie referred to the piratical activities of the Lanum ⎯ or Illanum ⎯ from Mindanao,
62
Philippines, who were not subjects of Johor . Paragraphs 12 to 15 of Presgrave’s report on piracy
also refer to Orang Laut from Thailand, Trengannu, Selangor, Perak, Sulu, Borneo ⎯ all engaging
63
in piracy .
The Dutch letters of 1655 and 1662
9. The waters around Pedra Branca have never been the territorial waters of the Johor
Sultanate or claimed as such by th e Sultanate. In this connection, Professor Crawford has referred
to a proposed Dutch scheme, in 1655, to divert Ch inese junks from the mouth of the Johor River to
Malacca. He claimed that the Sultan protested against this scheme in 1662, seven years later 64. It
is not clear whether the two incidents were related, but the fact was that the scheme and the protest
had nothing to do with territory but trade. Prof essor Crawford, in disregard of the contents of the
1662 letter, interpreted that the Sultan’s “great disp leasure was at the infringement of its territorial
60
CR 2007/24, p. 60, para. 10 (Crawford).
61
See Trocki C., Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore 1784-1885
(1979), p. 56.
6Begbie P. J., The Malayan Peninsula (1834, reprinted 1967), pp. 264-265.
6Report from Presgrave E. (Registrar of Imports and Exports) to Murchison K. (Resident Councillor)
dated 5 Dec. 1828 (MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 27).
6CR 2007/24, p. 62, paras. 15-16 (Crawford). - 30 -
65
rights” . Nothing in the 1662 letter speaks of territorial rights. In fact, the reaction described by
the Governor-General shows clearly that the Sulta n’s great displeasure was against the seizure of
the two Chinese junks to prevent them from sailing in to the Johor River to trade. The protest was
not against either the Dutch or the Chinese encroaching or trespassing in the waters of the
Sultanate, but about the diversion of trade away from the Sultan. In this connection, Malaysia
appears to have acknowledged her mistake in tran slating the Dutch word for “express” as “his” in
the 1662 letter to convey the idea that the waters around Pedra Branca belonged to the Sultan.
Absence of evidence despite 300 years of history
10. Except for the single article in the Singapore Free Press referring to Batu Puteh which
Professor Pellet will examine again in his presenta tion, Malaysia has not managed to harvest from
the 300 years of the existence of the Johor Sultanate any evidence that it had an original title over
Pedra Branca. The paucity of evidence is a strong indication that Pedra Branca had never belonged
to the Sultanate.
The reliance on general descriptions of the Sultanate
11. Professor Crawford also relies on general d escriptions of the geographical extent of the
Sultanate’s possessions given by Crawfurd and Presgr ave as evidence of its title to Pedra Branca.
But Presgrave and also the Dutch and British ne gotiators of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty acknowledged
66
that they did not know the territorial limits of the Sultanate . Even the Sultan of Trengganu, as
late as 1875 did not know the extent of his territory 67. In the context of a Malay sultanate which
was people-centric and not territory-centric, genera l descriptions of the geographical extent of the
Sultanate’s domains have no probative value at all as attributions of sovereignty. Crawfurd himself
was aware of the nature of traditional Malay sovereignty. He had accepted the Temenggong’s
claim to certain islands on the basis that the inhabitants there had cheerfully pledged their
allegiance to the Temenggong 68.
65
CR 2007/24, p. 62, para. 16 (Crawford).
66See CR 2007/20, pp. 44-45, paras. 24-25 (Chan). See also Re port from Presgrave E. (Registrar of Imports and
Exports) to Murchison K. (Resident Councillor) dated 5De c.1828 (MM, Vol.3, Ann. 27), as extracted at CMS,
pp. 51-52, para. 4.25 (b).
67See Milner A. C., Kerajaan: Malay Political Culture on the Eve of Colonial Rule (1982), p. 8.
68See CMS, p. 22, para 3.9 (a). - 31 -
12. In any case, as these descriptions do not name Pedra Branca specifically, they have no
probative value as evidence of title to the island. As this Court has stated in the
Indonesia/Malaysia case, which was reiterated at paragr aph174 of your recent Judgment (of
8 October 2007) in the Nicaragua v. Honduras case: “The Court . . . can only consider those acts
as constituting a relevant display of authority whic h leave no doubt as to their specific reference to
the islands in dispute as such.” ( Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
(Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 682-683, para. 136.)
The Sultanate’s lack of interest in small, uninhabited islands
13. The nature of traditional Malay sovere ignty militates against the ruler showing any
interest in small, uninhabited islands, especially an isolated one like Pedra Branca. Begbie and
69
Presgrave only listed inhabited isla nds as belonging to the Sultanate . The Sultanate’s disinterest
in Pedra Branca is consistent with and explai ns the absence of any evidence that the Johor
Sultanate had claimed, or had any intention to claim, Pedra Branca as its territory.
Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824
14. Mr.President and Members of the Court , let me now examine ProfessorSchrijver’s
arguments on the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. He argues that:
(a) the Treaty divided up the Straits of Singapore 70;
(b) the 1825 donation by SultanAbdul Rahman had no legal effect whatever, as the issues were
71
already resolved by the two Treaties of 1824 ; and
(c) the Treaty, although intended to create spheres of influence between the two Powers, in fact
72
determined the boundaries of the territories of a divided Sultanate .
Professor Pellet will also deal with some aspect s of the second argument, and also the third
argument.
69
See Begbie, P.J., The Malayan Peninsula (1834, reprinted 1967), pp.269-272 (CMS, Ann.8) and List of
Islands attached to Presgrave’s report of 5 Dec.1828 (CMS, Ann.7). Both these documents are re ferred to at CMS,
p. 23, para. 3.10.
70
CR 2007/25, p. 27, para. 13. (Schrijver).
71CR 2007/25, p. 31, para. 29 (Schrijver).
72CR 2007/25, pp. 31-32, paras. 29-31 (Schrijver). - 32 -
15. Professor Schrijver’s first argument is wrong. It is contradicted by the negotiating
history and the text of Articles 10 and 12 of the Treaty and an internal Note of the Dutch Ministry
of Colonies dated 15 October 1858 and corresponden ce between Crawfurd and the Government of
India 73. A copy of Articles10 and 12 can be found in the judges’ folder at tab 14.
Professor Schrijver argued that Singapore’s interpretation is untenable and unsustainable because it
was “unthinkable that they would have agreed to leave the entire Straits of Singapore open and
74
undivided” . He also claims that not a single shred of evidence can be found to support
Singapore’s thesis. But then, what evidence has Malaysia produced? Only an imaginative
sketch-map on which was traced an imaginary line.
16. However, there is further evidence to show that the “dividing lin e” was the entire Straits
of Singapore. The Court will recall that in 1886 Sultan Abu Bakar requested the British to keep a
register of all his islands to keep out other Powers. The Secretary to the Sultan sent a
memorandum with the title “The Natunas, the Anambas and the Tambilan Islands” dated 5 May
1886 to the British Colonial Office. This Note ca n be found in the judges’ folder at tab15.
Paragraph 3 of this note states:
“3. By the English-Dutch Treaty of 1824, the Dutch are excluded from
exercising any right or interfering with the islands to the North of the Straits of
Singapore. The groups in question are situat ed to the north of that line, with the
exception of certain islands of the Tambelan Group, on one of which the Dutch have a
coal depot and a fort. This island is below the line of the Straits of Singapore.” 75
17. This memorandum was sent after obtaini ng legal advice from Mr. Rodyk, a lawyer who
founded the oldest law firm in Singapore, Rodyk & Davidson, which is still one of the largest law
firms in Singapore today. The memorandum clearly identifies the whole of the Straits of Singapore
as the dividing line , with the British sphere of influence north of the Straits of Singapore and the
Dutch sphere of influence south of the Straits of Singapore. To emphasize this meaning, the word
“North” is underlined in the original manuscript. This understanding is also significant in another
context which I shall discuss later. There is thus a coincidence of the views of the Dutch, the
British and the State of Johor itself that the entire Straits of Singapo
re is “the dividing line”.
73
CR 2007/20, pp. 47-48, paras. 36-38 (Chan).
74CR 2007/25, p. 27, para. 13 (Schrijver).
75See Memorandum from Inchi Abdul Rahman (Secretary to the Sultan of Johore) to the British Colonial Office
dated 5 May 1886 (CMS, Ann. 21 (iv)). - 33 -
The donation letter of 1825
18. Mr.President and Members of the Court , I will now examine Professor Schrijver’s
argument that the 1825 donation lette r had no legal effect as a matter of international law because
the issues had been resolved by the 1824 Treaties. Professor Schrijver cites no applicable
international law principle to support this. He does not identify the issues that had been resolved or
their relevance to the donation letter. The Angl o-Dutch Treaty created two spheres of influence,
not two territories. The Dutch needed Abdul Ra hman, as the ruler of the Johor Sultanate, to
enhance a “spheres of influence” arrangement into a division of the possessions of the Sultanate.
The Sultan was not a civil servant.
19. The 1825 donation was a constitutional act of the highest order. In transferred
sovereignty of territory by one ruler to another ruler under Malay adat law. Any suggestion that
the donation had no legal effect was plainly absurd.
20. Professor Schrijver has carefully avoided any discussion of the text of the donation letter.
So, let us have another look at the text of the le tter of donation to see what it says. This is now
shown on screen and can be found at tab 16 of the judg es’ folder. I have read out this text earlier
(CR 2007/20, p. 50, para. 43) so I will read out only the underlined words:
“Your territory, thus, extends over Johor and Pahang on the mainland or on the
Malay Peninsula. The territory of your Brother [Sultan Abdul Rahman] 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 Your Brother, and whatever is
situated on the mainland is yours.” 76 (Emphasis added.)
21. The donation letter gives to Sultan Hu ssein as Sultan of Singapore and all obedient
dependencies, Johor and Paha ng on the mainland or on the Malay Peninsula, with
Sultan Abdul Rahman retaining for himself “all other islands”, and “whatsoever may be in the sea.”
Obviously, “all other islands” and “whatsoever may be in the sea” cannot be given a literal
meaning. They cannot refer to islands which did not belong to the Sultanate (such as Pedra
Branca) or islands which the donation letter itself gives away. Hence, the extent of the territory
donated or retained by SultanAbdulRahman can not be determined by reading the words of
donation literally, but contextually. And what is the context? It was, as pointed out by Professor
Schrijver, that the Dutch needed Sultan Abdul Rahman to “effectuate” the arrangements made
76
Letter from Sultan Abdul Rahman to Sultan Hussein dated 25 June 1825 (CMS, Ann. 5). - 34 -
under the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, and “to include in that arrangement that part of the Kingdom of
77
Johor which is situated within the British sphere of influence” . The Dutch wanted Sultan Abdul
Rahman to donate his territory within the British sphere of influence to Sultan Hussein.
22. In this context, the extent of the terr itory donated to Sultan Hussein becomes clear. It
extends to all the Sultanate’s territory north of the Straits of Singapore. Sultan Abdul Rahman also
provided a detailed description of the respective territories of both Sultans: those not donated to
Sultan Hussein would be retained to himself, that is , all islands and whatsoever may be in the sea.
The effect of the donation was that Sultan Abdul Rahman expressly retained all his former territory
not donated to Sultan Hussein.
23. Professor Schrijver has never been able to rebut Singapore’s case that the entire
Singapore Strait was the dividing line. Singapore’ s interpretation on this point was, as I have
shown a few minutes ago, also the understanding of the Sultan of the State of Johor in 1886 where
he sought the assistance of the British Government to recover the Natunas as his territory on the
ground that they were situated north of the Stra its of Singapore. The British Government rejected
the request on the ground that they had already recognized Dutch sovereignty over the Natunas
before 1886. The correspondence on this issue is found in Annex 21 of the Counter-Memorial of
Singapore.
24. Accordingly, the scope of the donation did not affect Pedra Branca, even assuming that
the island belonged to Sultan Abdul Rahman. It was not donated to Sultan Hussein. This
interpretation finds support in Professor Schrijve r’s account as to the circumstances in which
Sultan Abdul Rahman agreed to donate his territo ry within the British sphere of influence to
Sultan Hussein.
25. For this reason, it would not be neces sary to discuss whether the donation letter also
included all the dependencies of Sultan Hussein (as indicated by the title of the document itself) as
such dependencies would naturally be part of his territory north of the Straits of Singapore.
26. The Court will recall that in 1864, a dispute arose between Johor and Pahang as to the
ownership of certain islands situated at the bounda ry separating them. The dispute was referred to
7Extracts of letter from Elout to the Governor-General of the Netherlands East Indies dated 31 Aug 1824 (RM,
Ann. 2), as quoted in CR 2007/25, p. 31, para. 27 (Schrijver). - 35 -
arbitration by Governor Ord and this led to the Ord Award. Malaysia has attempted to construe the
Ord Award to include Pedra Branca. This is plainly wrong as there was no dispute between Johor
and Pahang as to ownership of Pedra Branca, a nd also because Pedra Branca was never donated to
Johor or Pahang. It would be very odd indeed for the Governor to award Pedra Branca to Johor
when the island was not within the terms of referen ce of the dispute. It would be odder still if, had
the Ord Award awarded Pedra Branca to Johor, J ohor would disclaim ownership of Pedra Branca
in 1953. The Ord Award was a very significant victory for Johor and it is reasonable to assume
that the Acting State Secretary of Johor could no t have failed to consider its terms when the
Government of Johor decided to disclaim title to Pedra Branca in 1953.
The 1861 incident
27. As I am now on the topic of mainland Johor, I wish to take this opportunity to clarify an
issue in connection with the 1861 incident involving certain fishermen. Last Thursday,
SirElihuLauterpacht referred to two letters from the British Governor to the Temenggong
78
concerning this incident . He argued that certain subtle differences in tone between the two letters
revealed that the British Governor did not rega rd Pedra Branca as falling within British waters.
SirElihu’s conclusion is not borne out by a prope r reading of the documents. What he fails to
mention is that the two letters in fact refer to the same incident. The full analysis given by
79
Singapore is in AppendixB of our Reply , which I do not propose to repeat here, but it
demonstrates very clearly that the Singapore fishermen concerned and the British officials in
Singapore had the clear understanding that the Temenggong possessed no jurisdiction and authority
around Pedra Branca.
Conclusion
28. Mr.President and Members of the Court : the crux of the issue is the source of the
original title that Malaysia has claimed? Where is the evidence of this source? Malaysia has never
been able to provide the answer to this critical i ssue. Where is the evidence of the Johor Sultanate
having claimed or exercised sovereignty over Pedra Branca or its waters before 1847? There is
78
CR 2007/26, p. 45, paras. 48-52 (Lauterpacht).
7RS, App. B. - 36 -
none, and therefore it is not surprising that Malaysia pleaded time immemorial or possession
immemorial.
29. Before I conclude my presentation, I would refer to Professor Crawford’s statement that
both Parties have to prove their propositions 80. We agree. For Malaysia, she must prove that Pedra
Branca was part of the Johor Sultanate and, assumi ng that she can prove it, she must further prove
that the Sultanate’s original title had been transm itted to the Malaysian State of Johor. For the
81
reasons I have given in my speech at the first round and today, I respectfully submit that Malaysia
has failed to prove both propositions, and that Malaysia does not have an original title to Pedra
Branca.
30. Mr. President and Members of the Court, before I sit down, I would wish to express my
deep appreciation of the Court’s kindness and patien ce in listening to my submissions on behalf of
the Republic of Singapore in what will be my one and only appearance as counsel before this
Court. It is an honour and a privilege I will not forget. But I would like to leave the Court with
this submission. Malaysia has been trying to explain away the 1953letter as a disclaimer of
ownership of property, not sovereignty. But if that was the intention, Malaysia should have some
documentary evidence to prove it. There was abso lutely no reason for the Johor Government to
declare, and it would never have declared, that it “does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca” 82
unless it did not own Pedra Branca. The continuous pattern of activities by Singapore and the
continuous silence of Malaysia in relation to Pedra Branca from 18 47 onwards are consistent with,
and confirmed by, the 1953 disclaimer. In truth a nd logic, Malaysia’s absence of any title to Pedra
Branca was the source and origin ⎯ the fons et origo ⎯ of the 1953disclaimer of title. Johor
disclaimed title because it had no title. What more can be said?
Mr.President, may I now request that you ca ll on ProfessorPellet to continue Singapore’s
presentations. Thank you.
80
CR 2007/24, p. 58, para. 2 (Crawford).
8CR 2007/20, p. 52, para 48 (Chan).
8Letter from M. Seth bin Saaid (Acting State of Secretary of Johor) to the Colonial Secretary, Singapore, dated
21 Sep 1953 (MS, Ann. 96). - 37 -
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Mr. Chan, for your speech. I now
call on Professor Pellet.
M. PELLET: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président.
LA QUESTION DU TITRE SUR P EDRA BRANCA EN 1847
ET DE LA «PERMISSION » DE JOHOR
1. Monsieur le président, Messieurs les juges, la Partie malaisienne a affirmé avec insistance
que «la» question cruciale dans cette affaire est celle de savoir qui possédait le titre originaire sur
Pedra Branca 8. Ce n’est pas la question, Monsieur le président, mais c’est certainement l’une des
questions qui se posent ⎯et une question importante car si la Malaisie ne peut établir le titre
originaire de Johor, c’en est fini de sa thèse, qui dépend entièrement de cette question comme mon
contradicteur et toujours ami le professeur Crawford (contrairement à certains, je considère que le
titre de professeur n’a rien de déshonorant…) l’a reconnu ingénument dans son intervention
conclusive vendredi dernier.
Projection 1 ⎯ Les équations du professeur Crawford
Les équations qu’il a posées et qui sont projetées derrière moi le montrent avec la clarté de
l’évidence :
«if… :
(1) PBP was not terra nullius in 1847
and [if]
(2)PBP did not fall within the Dutch s phere under the Anglo-Dutch agreement of
1824,
then,
(3) PBP was part of Johor in 1847.
And if :
(1) PBP was part of Johor in 1847
and [if]
(2) Johor’s consent to the construction of a lighthouse included PBP…
then
83CR 2007/24, p. 34, par.9-10 (Lauterpacht); CRp. 15, par. 9 (Crawford) ; CR 2007/26, p. 35, par. 1
(Lauterpacht) ; CR 2007/27, p. 63-64, par. 4 (Crawford). - 38 -
(3) Britain’s administration of the lighthouse was not as a matter of law an act à titre
84
de souverain…»
2. Cela fait beaucoup de «si» ; mais il en résulte que si l’une ou l’autre des trois conditions
annoncées n’est pas fondée, la thèse de Singapour l’emporte sans qu’il soit besoin d’aller plus loin
⎯ et c’est à cette démonstration que je vais m’atteler ce matin à la suite de M. Chan.
3. Je tiens cependant à souligner que toute l’a ffaire ne peut se résumer à cette question, pour
importante qu’elle soit. En effe t, s’il advenait que la réponse fû t positive et que la Malaisie eût
passé ces trois obstacles (à notre avis insurmontables), il lui faudrait encore établir que ce titre a été
maintenu par la suite car, pour reprendre le célèbre raisonnement de Max H uber dans l’affaire de
l’Ile de Palmas :
«Si un différend s’élève en ce qui concerne la souveraineté sur une partie de
territoire, il est d’usage d’examiner lequel des Etats réclamant la souveraineté possède
un titre… supérieur à celui que l’autre Etat peut éventuellement lui opposer.
Cependant, si la contestation est basée sur le fait que l’autre partie a effectivement
exercé la souveraineté, ceci est insuffisant pour fonder le titre par lequel la
souveraineté territoriale a été valablement acquise à un certain moment; il faut aussi
démontrer que la souveraineté territoriale a continué d’exister et existait au moment
85
qui, pour le règlement du litige, doit être considéré comme décisif.»
4. Au bénéfice de cette remarque, je me propose pour l’instant de montrer, d’une part, que la
Malaisie n’a nullement établi l’existence d’un titre territorial de Johor sur l’île et, d’autre part, que
nulle permission n’a été donnée aux Britanniques pour s’y établir par le sultan ou le temenggong de
Johor.
I. L’absence de document probant établissant l’existence d’un titre territorial
originaire de Johor sur Pedra Branca
5. Pour établir le titre originaire de Johor su r Pedra Branca, nos amis de l’autre côté de la
barre ont rivalisé d’humour et d’ironie, parfois de férocité, mais ils n’ont, pour autant, prouvé ni
que l’île n’était pas terra nullius, ni qu’elle ne relevait pas de la sphère d’influence néerlandaise
définie en 1824, ni qu’elle faisait partie de Johor en 1847. Ce sont pourtant les trois défis qu’ils
devaient relever conformément aux équations de «Mr.» Crawford lui-même.
[Fin de la projection 1]
84CR 2007/27, p. 65, par. 8-9 ; les italiques sont de nous.
85 Arbitrage relatif à l’île de PalmaCour permanente d’arbitrage, sentence du4 avril 1928 , Nations Unies,
recueil des sentences arbitrales,vol.II, p.852. [Traduction française: Ch.Rousseau, Revue générale de droit
international public, t. XLII, 1935, p. 164.] (Pour le texte anglais, RIAA., vol. 2, p. 845.) - 39 -
6. Aux fins de la définition d’une terra nullius, la Malaisie fait grand cas de l’avis de la Cour
de 1975 dans l’affaire du Sahara occidental 86 ; nous aussi 87. Et nous pensons également que le
88
passage clé est celui-là même que M. Crawford a cité : «Quelles qu’aient pu être les divergences
d’opinions entre les juristes, il ressort de la pra tique étatique de la période considérée que les
territoires habités par des tribus ou des peuples ayant une organisation sociale et politique n’étaient
pas considérés comme terra nullius» (avis consultatif C.I.J.Recueil1975 , p.39, par.80). «Les
territoires habités…», Monsieur le président, pas d’immenses étendues marines qui n’étaient ni
«habitées» ⎯ au sens, en tout cas où l’on habite un te rritoire, ni susceptibles d’appropriation. Le
Sahara et la mer de Chine ou l’océan Indien ce n’est pas tout à fait la même chose et l’on ne peut
transposer purement et simplement aux derniers les règles applicables au premier. Le Sahara n’est
certes guère hospitalier et est peu habité, mais il est habitable et attribuable; la mer, ne l’est pas
⎯ et il ne suffit sûrement pas de dire que Johor constituait un «empire maritime» pour que les mers
et tout ce qui s’y trouvait lui revinssent: lu i appartenaient les îles sur lesquelles il pouvait se
prévaloir d’un titre, c’est-à-dire les îles habitées (et c’est le critère retenu dans l’affaire du Sahara
occidental), dont la population lui prêtait allég eance (car, nous l’avons longuement montré 89 et
M. Chan vient de le rappeler, dans le monde malais traditionnel, c’ est ce lien d’allégeance seul qui
permettait d’attribuer un territoire à un Etat). Or, nous sommes en présence d’une île minuscule,
inhospitalière ⎯ donc nullius au sens de la jurisprudence de1975, contrairement, je le dis en
passant, à l’île de Singapour qui n’est pas seulement habitable, cela va de soi, mais qui, en 1824
90
était évidemment habitée, contrairement aux allégations de sir Elihu (j’espère vivement que nous
le reverrons rapidement parmi nous), le temenggong avait même sa résidence à Singapour.
7. Et je voudrais, Monsieur le président, ouvrir une brève parenthèse sur ce point.
M.Crawford, désireux surement de nous faire passer pour de méchants «colonialistes», nous a
expliqué en substance que le droit international éta it un et que ce n’était pas bien de vouloir priver
86
Voir CR 2007/25, p. 13-15, par. 7-8 ; voir aussi MM, p. 48, par. 98 ; CMM, p. 10-11, par. 16-18.
87
Voir CR 2007/21, p. 22-26, par. 39-48 (Pellet) ; voir aussi RS, p. 9, par. 2.10.
88CR 2007/25, p. 13, par. 7.
89Voir CR 2007/20, p.42-45, par.20-27 (Chan); CR 2007/21, p.23-25, par.40-45 (Pellet); voir aussi CMS,
p. 18-24, par. 3.4-3.12.
90CR 2007/24, p. 56, par. 72. - 40 -
91
Johor du bénéfice des principes universels énoncés par la Cour dans son avis . Puis-je timidement
suggérer que c’est peut-être mon contradicteur qui fait preuve d’un eurocentrisme inopportun ? La
haute juridiction se montre plus accueillante que lui à la diversité des traditions et des conceptions
juridiques: «De l’avis de la Cour, aucune règle de droit international n’exige que l’Etat ait une
structure déterminée, comme le prouve la dive rsité des structures étatiques qui existent
actuellement dans le monde.» ( Sahara occidental, avis consultatif, C.I.J.Recueil1975 , p.43-44,
par.94.) Il n’est dès lors pas convenable de transposer purement et si mplement la conception
eurocentrique du territoire à des parties du monde dans lesquelles, comme c’était le cas des
principautés malaises, prévalait une autre conception des rapports du souverain au territoire. Il est
«légitime», pour reprendre l’expression de la Cour ( ibid., p.43-44, par.94), de prendre cette
conception pleinement en considération. Telle est aussi l’opinion d’un excellent auteur selon
lequel l’allégeance permet de «tenir compte des particularismes propres à certaines formes
d’organisation du pouvoir, différentes de la structure étatique traditionnelle d’origine
92
européenne» .
8. Ceci étant dit, quelle que soit la concep tion que l’on retient, ce n’est certainement pas
parce que Pedra Branca était parfaitement connue qu’elle n’était pas suscep tible d’appropriation
par le biais d’une occupation ( Sahara occidental, avis consultatif , C.I.J. Recueil 1975, p. 39,
par. 79) : une terra nullius n’a évidemment pas à être incognita. Et ce qui est intéressant,
justement, c’est que, bien que l’île fût parfaitement connue, elle n’a jamais, dans aucun document
antérieur à 1847 été revendiquée par Johor.
9. Nos contradicteurs en ont cité plusieurs ⎯pas beaucoup, mais plusieurs. Aucun, sauf
l’article du Singapore Free Press de 1843 sur lequel je reviendrai ⎯ ne mentionne Pedra Branca
comme relevant de la souveraineté de celui-ci :
93
⎯ L’anecdote du raja Muda ? Il n’est pas question de Pedra Branca.
⎯ La position de sir Stamford Raffles 94 ? Rien sur Pedra Branca.
91CR 2007/25, p. 14, par. 8.1.
92
Marcelo Kohen, Possession contestée et souveraineté territoriale, PUF, Paris, 1997, p. 236.
93
CR 2007/25, p. 18-19, par. 24 (Crawford).
94Ibid., p. 19, par. 24. - 41 -
⎯ La lettre envoyée par Crawfurd au gouvern eur général de l’Inde le 10 janvier 1824 95 ? Rien
sur Pedra Branca.
⎯ La lettre datée du 3 août 1824 adressée au secrétaire du gouvernement de l’Inde par
Crawfurd 96 ? Toujours rien sur Pedra Branca.
er
⎯ Celle datée du 1 octobre 1824, de Crawford au même secrétaire du gouvernement de
97
l’Inde ? A nouveau rien sur Pedra Branca.
⎯ Et le rapport Presgrave de 1828 98? Toujours aucune mention de Pedra Branca.
10. Les deux seuls documents postérieurs à la prise de possession de l’île par les
Britanniques et cités par la Partie malaisienne, sont tout aussi peu convaincants. Il s’agit
⎯ de la lettre datée du 20 mars 1886 adressée au comte Granville, principal secrétaire d’Etat aux
colonies, par le sultan de Johor 99, qui est également muette sur Pedra Branca ; et
100
⎯ de la notice de l’ Encyclopaedia Britannica écrite par sir Hugh Clifford en 1926 , qui garde
également un silence obstiné sur Pedra Branca ⎯et commet, je l’indique en passant, une
inexactitude flagrante, puisque cette notice place la limite entre Pahang et Johor au parallèle
2° 40' sud, alors qu’il résulte de la sentence Ord qu’elle suit le parallèle 2° 59' 20" nord 101.
11. Ne reste que l’article du Singapore Free Press de 1843. Je pourrais, tant c’est évident,
me contenter, Monsieur le président, de dire qu’il est de peu de poids face au silence assourdissant
dans lequel il dénote ⎯ et c’est, en effet, une toute petite not e qu’il fait entendre. Mais c’est aussi
une fausse note, fausse parce que les arguments que j’avais fait valoir à l’encontre de sa valeur
102
probante le 6 novembre n’ont pas été réfutés la semaine dernière (y compris, je le souligne, en ce
qui concerne son auteur ⎯ dont le professeur Crawford a parlé longuement et savamment mercredi
103
et vendredi derniers alors qu’il s’agit d’un auteur anonyme ! — la seule chose certaine c’est que
95 CR 2007/24, p. 37-38, par. 20-22 (Lauterpacht) ; CR 2007/25, p. 19, par. 24 (Crawford).
96
CR 2007/24, p. 39-40, par. 28-29 (Lauhterpacht).
97
Ibid., p. 40, par. 30.
98
Ibid., p. 40-41, par. 31 (Lauterpacht) ; CR 2007/25, p. 19, par. 24 et p. 25-26, par. 26 (Crawford).
99 CR 2007/25, p. 20, par. 24 (Crawford).
100CR 2007/24, p. 33-34, par. 4-8 (Lauterpacht) ; CR 2007/25, p. 20, par. 24 (Crawford).
101Voir MM, annexe 86.
102
CR 2007/20, p. 54-56, par. 7-9.
103
CR 2007/25, p. 21-22, par. 28 ; CR 2007/27, p. 64, par. 6. - 42 -
ce n’était assurément pas le sultan de Johor ou le temenggong ⎯ dont la position sur ce point
aurait, assurément eût plus de poids…). Mais fa usse note aussi parce que, contrairement à ce qu’a
affirmé avec une égale assurance mon contradicteur et ami, il est loin d’être certain que
PulauTinggi que l’article attribue à Johor relevait en réalité de Pa hang; si la Cour de Calcutta
semble avoir été d’un avis contraire (à en croire en tout cas un ⎯ autre ⎯ article du Singapore
Free Press qui résume l’arrêt) 10, telle est la conviction de Crawfurd — que c’était Pahang — dans
105
sa description des îles de la région, dont il avait une connaissance intime .
12. Donc, en dehors de ce document douteux et, en tout cas, secondaire, et n’émanant pas du
sultan de Johor et du temenggong, il n’y a que le silence : Pedra Branca n’est nommée dans aucun
des documents sur lesquels la Par tie malaisienne fonde la revendica tion de son titre originaire. Je
106
le sais, elle ne manquera pas de nous accuser de «Pedra Branca centrisme» . C’est que nous
sommes «Pedra Branca centristes», Monsieur le président! Nous le sommes car, ainsi que cela
résulte de l’arrêt de la Cour de 2002 dans l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et
Pulau Sipadan , les documents dans lesquels les îles revendiquées par une partie ne sont pas
«nommément citées» n’ont pas de valeur en matière de revendication de titre ( Souveraineté sur
Pulau Ligitan et Pulau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p. 674, par. 108 ;
voir aussi Différend territorial et maritime entre le Nicaragua et le Honduras dans la mer des
Caraïbes (Nicaragua c. Honduras), arrêt du 8 octobre 2007, par. 161). C’est ce qui avait conduit la
Cour à écarter, en particulier, les instruments juridiques qui se bornent à mentionner «tout
l’archipel [ou l’île] de Sulu et ses dépendances» ou «toutes les îles qui se trouvent…» dans une aire
déterminée ( Souveraineté sur Pulau Ligitan et Pu lau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie), arrêt ,
C.I.J. Recueil 2002, p.674-675, par.109). C’est précisément ce que fait la litanie de documents
égrainée par la Malaisie la semaine dernière et que je viens d’énumérer: tous visent «toutes les
îles» se trouvant ici ou là ; aucun ne mentionne Pedra Branca, dont il n’est pas non plus possible de
104
Calcutta Supreme Court, 12 July 1837, R v. Malay Prisoners, résumé in Singapore Free Press , 3 août 1837,
reproduit in : http://catalogue.bl.uk/F/KQPN852XAC5L MHJAGREHFNJEK3IBYJ3TF4ACD9GX23YFRYYKAF-
83970?func=fullset-set&set_number=011225&set_entry=000005&format=999.
105
CMS, annexe 17, p. 167 ; voir aussi CMS, p. 59, par. 4.39.
106CR 2007/25, p. 19, par. 24 ; CR 2007/27, p. 64, par. 6 (Crawford). - 43 -
prétendre décemment qu’elle peut être considérée «comme «se rattachant» géographiquement» à la
côte de Johor (voir ibid., p. 657, par. 64).
13. Comme M.Chan l’a montré s’agissant de la donation de 1825, il n’est pas possible de
prendre, dans les documents de cette époque (et relatifs à cette région du monde), l’expression
«toutes les îles» au pied de la lettre.
Projection 2 — Extrait de MM, encart 7 (Le traité Crawfurd, 1824), modifié pour montrer les
effets d’une interprétation littérale du traité Crawfurd
Mais d’autres exemples l’établissent également. Pensez seulement, Messieurs les juges, je
vous prie, au traité Crawfurd de 1824 lui-même et au résultat auquel c onduirait son interprétation
littérale. Cette conséquence a pparaît à nouveau à l’écran: ce la permettrait à Singapour de
revendiquer des îles qui, pourtant, ne lui appartiennent certainement pas.
14. «Toutes les îles» cela veut dire (et ne peut vouloir dire que) : «toutes les îles appartenant
à l’Etat en vertu d’un titre établi», conformément au droit en vigueur à l’é poque dans cette région
du monde, c’est-à-dire soit sur le fondement de l’allégeance, soit sur celui du rattachement
géographique au sens de proximité immédiate des côtes, comme vous l’avez admis dans votre arrêt
de 2002 (et je me permets de vous renvoyer sur ce point, Messieurs de la Cour, à ce qu’a dit tout à
l’heure M.Chao sur cette question de la proximité ). Mais on ne peut pas raisonner «dans l’autre
sens» comme le voudrait la Malaisie et faire de l’expression «toutes les îles» une sorte de baguette
magique dont on pourrait faire sortir un titre comme un magicien fait sortir un lapin d’un chapeau.
«Toutes les îles» cela veut dire «toutes les îles dont on se soucie».
[Fin de la projection 2.]
15. Et c’est aussi de cette manière qu’il faut comprendre l’opinion de Charles Alexandrowicz
dont sir Elihu se prévaut 107 : certes les Etats européens ne pouvaient acquérir les territoires relevant
de souverains locaux dans cette pa rtie du monde par l’occupation ou la découverte, mais ceci ne
nous renseigne pas sur la consistance de ces territo ires. Comme l’indique Harding, juriste respecté
et membre des Doctors’ Commons , à propos d’une île inhabitée voisine des côtes d’un rajah
local (dossier de plaidoiries, onglet 18) :
107
CR 2007/24, p. 34-35, par. 11-14. - 44 -
«[A]lthough the circumstance of the Island in question being uninhabited is not
in my opinion by any means decisive, yet that 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 recognition authority, I con ceive that the British Crown may lawfully
take possession of and appropriate to its own use the Island in question.» 108
Cette opinion très autorisée date de 1853.
Monsieur le président, j’en ai encore pour un petit moment mais je m’aperçois que le temps
passe et si vous le souhaitez je pourrais peut-être suspendre pour la pause.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I think we should have a break now,
Professor Pellet. We will resume when we come back. We will take a break for 10 minutes.
The Court adjourned from 11.35 to 11.45 a.m.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Please be seated. Please continue.
M. PELLET : Thank you very much, Mr. President.
[Retour à la projection 1.]
16. Monsieur le président, pour faire le point à ce stade :
⎯ Pedra Branca était res nullius, à la veille de la prise de possession par les Britanniques ; et
⎯ la Malaisie n’a établi aucun titre territorial appartenant à Johor sur l’île.
Voici déjà deux des «si» de M. Crawford qui ne sont pas vérifiés ⎯ et, de son aveu même,
cela doit suffire, Messieurs de la Cour, à attribuer Pedra Branca et ses dépendances à Singapour,
puisque, je le rappelle, il s’agit de conditions cumulatives, qui doivent toutes être satisfaites. Le
troisième «si» ⎯la troisième condition ⎯ pour que la Malaisie gagne son affaire n’est, du reste,
pas davantage rempli. Il n’est en effet pas ét abli que Pedra Branca fût incluse dans la sphère
d’influence britannique à la suite du traité de 1824. Et, au surplus, je ne pense pas que la question
se suffise à elle-même. Je ne ferai que deux remarques à cet égard ⎯ mais je les crois importantes.
17. La première est que l’objet du traité de 1824 n’était pas de fixer une frontière mais
d’établir les sphères d’influence respectives de la Grande-Bretagne et des Pays-Bas. Il en résulte,
d’une part, que la limite pouvait, sans inconvénient, être assez approximative ⎯et elle l’a été
puisque l’article 12 de notre traité fixe au «détroit de Singapour», sans autre précision, la limite qui
108
Lord McNair ed., International Law Opinions, Cambridge U.P., 1956, p. 312. - 45 -
109
sépare la zone britannique de la zone hollandaise . D’autre part, il ne pouvait en résulter une
«attribution» quelconque de territoires, et sûreme nt pas de petites îles inhabitées: «l’influence»
avait vocation à s’exercer sur des entités politiques.
18. Au surplus, et c’est ma seconde remarque, un tel instrument ne pouvait, en aucune
manière, priver les sultans locaux ni de leur souveraineté, ni de le urs territoires et, comme l’a fait
remarquer M. Chan, il est assez étonnant, choquant à vrai dire, que le professeur Schrijver ait dénié
à la donation de 1825 tout effet juridique au prétexte que le partage avait été effectué par le traité
de l’année précédente 110 : la Malaisie ne peut pas à la fois se poser en champion de la souveraineté
de Johor et prétendre que les puissances eu ropéennes pouvaient, beno îtement, dépecer son
territoire. En réalité, le traité de s phère d’influence était, pour le sultanat, res inter alios acta , et,
même si c’est certainement sous la pression des Pays-Bas que le sultan Abdul Rahman a cédé une
partie de ses territoires à son demi-frère le sultan Hussein, il n’en reste pas moins que c’est cet
instrument, la donation, qui a réalisé le partage juridiquement parlant.
Projection 3 ⎯ Lettre datée du 25 juin 1825 adressée par le sultan Abdul Rahman au sultan
Hussein (extraits) (dossier des plaidoiries, onglet 16)
19. Et celui-ci est clair : à Hussein le Johor continental, péninsulaire ; mais les îles ⎯ toutes
les îles ⎯, à AbdulRahman, et ceci assorti d’une pr écision importante sur laquelle j’attire votre
attention : «On the basis of these premises I earnes tly beseech you that your notables, the Paduka
Bendhara of Pahang and Temenggong Abdul Rahman, will not in the slighest concern themselves
111
with the islands that belong to Your Brother.» La donation a pour objet de préciser ce qui n’était
pas précis dans le traité de1824, de préciser « our respective empires» dont, comme M.Chan l’a
montré, les limites étaient fixées de manière trop va gue au détroit de Singap our par le traité de
sphère d’influence. Et puis suit la description :
«Your territory, thus, extends over J ohor and Pahang on the mainland or on the
Malay Peninsula. The territory of Your Brother extends out over the Islands of
Lingga, Bintan, Galang, Bulan, Ka rimon and all other islands. Whatsoever may be in
109
Voir CR 2007/20, p. 48, par. 37 (Chan) ; voir aussi CMS, p. 30-31, par. 3. 23 ; RS, p. 17-19, par. 2-24-2.27 et
p. 21-22, par. 2.34.
110
CR 2007/25, p. 31-32, par. 29.
111CMS, annexe 5 ; les italiques sont de nous. - 46 -
the sea, this is the territory of Your Brother [de Riau], and whatever is situated on the
112
mainland is yours. On the basis of these premises I earnestly beseech you...»
20. En d’autres termes :
⎯ le traité anglo-néerlanda is de 1824 ne pouvait imposer à Johor, Etat souverain ⎯ nous ne
113
contestons nullement l’autorité de Grotius sur ce point ⎯, un démembrement de son
territoire, par le biais d’un traité auquel il n’était pas partie ;
⎯ ce partage n’est intervenu qu’avec la donation de 1825, par laquelle le sultan Abdul Rahman
(celui qui restait à Riau) cédait à Hussein la par tie continentale de l’ancien Sultanat de Johor,
mais se réservait l’intégralité des îles («toutes les autres îles») ;
⎯ si bien que si Pedra Branca devait ne pas être considérée comme une terra nullius quod non ,
elle serait, juridiquement, demeurée dans le giron de Riau-Lingga.
[Fin de la projection 3.]
21. Très bien me direz-vous ! Alors, Pedra Branca doit revenir aujourd’hui à un tiers ? Si tel
était le cas, cela se saurait, Monsieur le président ! Mais tel n’est pas le cas, car Pedra Branca est
singapourienne: Singapour en a hérité du Royaum e-Uni qui en a pris possession et l’a occupée
constamment et pacifiquement depuis la constr uction du phare Horsburgh en1847-1851. Mais
comment a-t-il pu acquérir ce titre? Notre ferme conviction est que c’est parce que, lorsqu’il l’a
occupée, l’île était res nullius ⎯ je crois l’avoir montré. Et, si elle ne l’était pas, elle serait en tout
cas tombée en déshérence du fait du désintérêt constant qu’a manifesté son seul maître potentiel, le
sultan de Riau, vis-à-vis de l’île et des activit és que les Britanniques, puis Singapour, y ont menées
depuis centcinquanteans. Mais, dans les deux ca s, le résultat est le même: la souveraineté
appartient à Singapour.
II. La prétendue «permission» donnée par Johor
22. Monsieur le président, il me faut encore dire quelques mots de la prétendue «permission»
donnée par Johor en 1844 ⎯ sans cependant, au risque de décevoir mon ami Marcelo Kohen, qu’il
me paraisse indispensable d’entrer à nouveau en matière dans les méandres des échanges de
correspondances qui ont entouré cette pseudo-autorisati on. Pour deux raisons : d’abord tout a déjà
112
Ibid.
113Cf. CR 2007/24, p. 35, par. 12 (Lauterpacht) ; ou CR 2007/25, p. 36, par. 41 (Crawford) ; CR 2007/27, p. 19,
par. 30 (Schrijver). - 47 -
114
été dit ; ensuite, parce que toute la stratégie de la Partie malaisienne repose sur un postulat
spécieux. Au lieu de partir d’un titre prouvé pour démontrer l’existence d’une permission sur un
territoire donné, la Malaisie opè re un double tour de passe-passe: elle part d’«une» permission
concernant un territoire indéterminé pour affirmer que «donc» cette permission concernait Pedra
Branca et que, «donc» encore, Pedra Branca appartenait à Johor.
23. Car c’est bien ainsi que procèdent nos amis de l’autre côté de la barre :
⎯ ainsi, sir Elihu n’hésite pas à classer la «correspondance Butterworth de 1844» parmi les
huitéléments sur lesquels il entend se fonder pour établir que «Pulau Batu Puteh n’était pas
terra nullius en 1847» 115 ⎯ et c’est l’élément auquel il consacre le plus de temps 116 ;
⎯ de même, le professeur Kohen inverse la probl ématique lorsqu’il prétend qu’«une telle
117
permission ne peut signifier qu’une affirmation de souveraineté de Johore…» .
Mais sur quoi ? C’est mettre la charrue avant les bŒufs, Monsieur le prés ident : la permission ne
peut porter que sur un territoire sur lequel Johor exerce sa souveraineté ; or, il ne la possède pas sur
Pedra Branca qui, comme je l’ai montré, est soit terra nullius, soit, peut-être, terra sultanatis Riau
⎯ mais en tout cas pas johoris. Et puis, de toute manière, il est tout de même assez téméraire de la
part de la Malaisie de faire dépendre toute son affaire (elle por te, ne l’oublions pas, sur la
souveraineté sur Pedra Branca ) d’une lettre qui ne mentionne pas ce nom ⎯et dont il est
invraisemblable qu’elle s’y réfère implicitement.
24. Laissant de côté l’allusion blessante pour Singapour, et gratuite comme l’a montré le
professeur Jayakumar, selon laquelle nous aurions pu posséder le texte de la demande britannique
sans le produire, je partage ⎯une fois n’est pas coutume ⎯ l’avis de sir Elihu selon lequel «[i]n
the circumstances, we are obliged to consider tw o possible inferences that may be drawn from the
118
available correspondance read as a whole» :
⎯ ou bien la lettre du gouverneur Butterworth se référait spécifiquement à Pedra Branca, ce qui
aurait donné à penser qu’il reconnaissait l’appartenance de l’île à Johor ;
114CMS, p. 82-92, par. 5.28-5.50 ; RS, p. 38-43, par. 3.8-3.22 ; CR 2007/21, p. 27-34, par. 50-65 (Pellet).
115
CR 2007/24, p. 36, B.
116
Cf. ibid., p.42-43, par. 34-36.
117CR 2007/25, p. 48, par. 40.
118CR 2007/24, p. 42, par. 35. - 48 -
⎯ ou bien il ne mentionnait aucun lieu spécifique et, da ns ce cas, on ne peut tout simplement rien
inférer du tout, ni de la lettre du gouverneur, ni de la réponse.
25. S’agissant de la première hypothèse: on pe ut toujours spéculer à l’infini sur le contenu
de la demande du gouverneur, mais, ce qui est clair c’est que la réponse ne mentionne pas
PedraBranca; c’est tout ce que nous savons. Au demeurant, la supposition de la Malaisie paraît
tout à fait abracadabrante tant il semble évident que, si Butterworth avait mentionné Pedra Branca,
le temenggong n’eût pas manqué de reprendre l’expression, comme il a parlé de Peak Rock.
26. En revanche, quelle qu’en soit l’origine, la réponse du temenggong comprend
l’expression: «any place deemed eligible». Ce la ne pouvait vouloir dire que «tout autre lieu
qu’elle jugera approprié se trouvant dans les possessions de Johor » car, bien sûr, la demande
d’autorisation ne pouvait porter que sur celles-ci. Mais cela ne voulait pas dire à l’avance que
l’emplacement finalement retenu «tomberait» du même coup sous la souveraineté de Johor. Un tel
119
raisonnement est assez extravagant ⎯ c’est pourtant le discours que tiennent nos contradicteurs .
Projection 4 ⎯Carte des environs du phare Horsburgh et de la côte malaise adjacente,
dressée par J. T. Thomson (1851) annotée pour marquer les distances qui le séparent de la
côte malaise (RS, encart 6) (dossier des plaidoiries, onglet 19)
27. Je ne reviendrai pas en détail sur une chronologie qui a été abondamment commentée par
120 121
Singapour et que je ne pense pas que Marcelo Kohen ait mise à mal . Et il ne suffit
certainement pas de proclamer co mme il l’a fait qu’«[i]l s’agit du même projet, du phare
122
Horsburgh, quel que soit son emplacement final» pour répondre à la question car, notre
problème, justement, ce n’est pas le phare, mais son emplacement. Et, comme je l’ai déjà montré
sans avoir besoin de m’y attarder à nouveau, en 1844, lorsque Butterworth écrit au sultan et au
temenggong, le balancier est bien fixé sur Peak Rock, même si 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». Je ne reviens pas non plus sur
la question de la proximité dont a parlé tout à l’ heure M.Chao. Mais le croquis projeté derrière
119Voir plus haut par. 23.
120
CR 2007/21, p. 30-31, par. 61 (Pellet) ; voir aussi CMS, p. 82-88, par. 5.29-5.41.
121
CR 2007/25, p. 44-46, par. 26-34.
122Ibid., p. 46-47, par. 34 ; les italiques sont dans l’original. - 49 -
moi rivalise sans doute d’éloquence sur ce point avec l’ Attorney-General : il montre que Pedra
Branca n’est pas «près de Point Romania».
28. Je ne reviens aussi que pour mémoire sur deux autres arguments qui semblent avoir fait
les délices du professeur Kohen :
[Fin de la projection 4.]
⎯ Le fait que la correspondance de 1844 eût été jointe au rapport final et «complet»
(«full Report») de Butterworth sur la construction du phare me paraît n’avoir strictement aucun
effet juridique: ceci relève de la bonne pratique administrative et il n’est rien de plus normal
pour un fonctionnaire consciencieux, une fois un dossier bouclé, que d’y inclure tous les
documents y relatifs. Je ne c onnais pas de l’intérieur les usag es britanniques à cet égard, mais
lorsque l’on pratique même un peu les archives du Foreign Office, comme j’ai eu l’occasion de
le faire parfois, on ne peut qu’être frappé par le soin, presque maniaque (et admirable) mis à
tout archiver ; le rapport de Butterworth en témoigne une nouvelle fois.
Projection 5 ⎯ Comparaison case et care
⎯ Et je ne veux pas croiser trop longtemps le fe r à nouveau sur la question graphologique (qui, je
l’avoue ne me passionne pas beaucoup personnellement) ; une seule remarque : Marcelo Kohen
a agrémenté sur ce point sa plaidoirie d’une projection, qui m’avait troublé sur le moment et
qui figure à nouveau sur l’écran. Mais, apr ès plus ample examen, ce n’est qu’à moitié
troublant car la Malaisie s’est soigneusemen t bornée à juxtaposer le mot litigieux avec les
autres «case» figurant dans le rapport ; mais, il me semble que l’on est au moins aussi «à moitié
troublé» lorsque l’on fait le même exercice en confrontant le même mot à ceux du même
document comprenant les lettres «r e», ce que fait le tableau que nous avons préparé… Je vous
laisse, Messieurs de la Cour, méditer sur cette grave question ; mais, pour ma part, je dois dire
que «care» ou «case», je n’y vois pas malice: que ce soit l’ un ou l’autre, pas grand-chose ne
me paraît pouvoir en être inféré, même si, compte tenu du contexte, «care» semble plus logique
123
et si, contrairement à ce que prétend la Malaisie , il n’est pas rare de rencontrer dans la
littérature relative aux phares, l’expression «care of the light» ou «of the lighthouse» ⎯ elle
123
Voir RM, p. 79, par. 158, ou CR 2007/25, p. 55-56 (Kohen). - 50 -
apparaît par exemple dans l’ouvrage (contemporain de l’épisode dont je parle puisqu’il date
de 1848) de Alan Stevenson sur le phare Skerryvore 124 ⎯ vous trouverez ceci sous l’onglet 21
de votre dossier.
[Fin de la projection 5.]
29. Il reste, en revanche, un argument autrem ent plus sérieux qui mérite quelques mots. A
maintes reprises, la Malaisie s’est targuée de ce que jamais les autorités coloniales n’avaient
invoqué l’argument de la souve raineté de Johor comme un élément à prendre en compte pour le
choix de l’emplacement du phare 125 et M.Kohen a redit ceci la semaine dernière. Ceci n’est pas
exact. Dans la lettre qu’il à écrite au gouverneur Butterworth le 7novembre1850,
ThomasChurch, le conse iller résident à Singapour 126, a, très clairement, expliqué que l’une des
raisons militant en faveur du choix de Pedra Branca sur «a Station near Point Romania» was that
127
Romania «belongs to the Sovereign of Johore, where the British possess no legal authority» . Il
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 et entière ⎯et cela s’appelle la
souveraineté.
[Retour à la projection 1.]
30. Thomas Church avait raison, Monsieur le président,
⎯ lorsque les Britanniques en ont pris possession, Pedra Branca était terra nullius ;
⎯ s’il fallait, à toute force, l’attribuer à un souverain local, elle aurait relevé du sultan de
Riau-Lingga et sûrement pas de celui du nouveau Johor ; et
⎯ en aucune manière, l’autorisation donnée par le sultan et le temenggong ne s’étendait à notre
île, qui n’est pas mentionnée dans leurs lettres, qui ne se trouve pas «à proximité de Point
128
Romania» au sens où le professeur Kohen l’entendait , et qui, en 1844 n’était pas envisagée
comme un emplacement convenable pour construire le phare Horsburgh.
124
Account of the Skerryvore Lighthouse with Notes on the Illumination of Lighthouses, Adam and Charles Black,
North Bridge, Edinburgh/Longman and Co., London, 1848, p. 46.
125
CR 2007/25, p. 40, par. 10 (Kohen).
126MS, annexe 48.
127MS, annexe 48 ; voir aussi CMS, p. 100, par. 5.72, ou p. 107-108, par. 5.88-5.90 ; RS, p. 36-37, par. 3.5-3.7.
128CR 2007/25, 14 novembre 2007, p. 49-52, par. 43-53. - 51 -
C.Q.F.D. selon James Crawford.
[Fin de la projection.]
Messieurs de la Cour, grand merci de m’avoir écouté. Puis-je vous prier, Monsieur le
président, de bien vouloir donner la parole à mon éminent collègue et ami, M. Brownlie ?
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you so much, Professor Pellet. I shall
now give the floor to Mr. Brownlie.
Mr. BROWNLIE: Thank you, Mr. President.
T HE ACQUISITION OF TITLE TO P EDRA BRANCA IN 1847-1851
The general approach of Malaysia
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, this Great Hall of Justice is a pleasant environment
for an advocate in several respects. And, in particular, it provides the pleasure of listening to the
practised eloquence of old friends on the other side of the Bar. But, Mr. President, the pleading of
my friends on the other side has, I have to say, been disappointing, because the eloquence has not
been matched by the substance of the arguments.
2. The general approach of Malaysia has been characterized by a series of flaws.
3. In the first place, there was a marked te ndency to produce discontinuities in the sequence
of the pleadings. These discontinuities appeared in two forms. The first was the settled habit of
SirElihu Lauterpacht to refer to the Memorial of Singapore, but not, in his response to my first
round speech, to either the Counter-Memorial or the Reply.
4. And it will be obvious, given the simultaneous exchange of written pleadings, that it is a
serious matter if the relevant part of the Reply iignored. The fact is that many of the matters
raised by counsel for Malaysia are examined in detail in Singapore’s Reply at pages 35 to 94.
5. The tendency to ignore the content of the Reply is matched by the tendency of Malaysia to
avoid a response to the first round presentation on behalf of Singapore. In relation to our
presentation on acquisition of title, Sir Elihu maintained silence on the following topics: first, the
question of the applicable law; second, the misl eading use by Malaysia of the fifth edition of
Oppenheim’s International Law ; third, Malaysia’s patent disr egard for the sources of applicable
inter-temporal law; and last, the nature of acts à titre de souverain. - 52 -
6. A second major flaw is the sudden reassessm ent of key matters of fact. Thus, in his
presentation on Thursday, Sir Elihu was prepared to recognize the significant status of Thomson as
the author of what SirElihu describes as “the fu llest narrative of what happened in these critical
years” (CR 2007/26, p. 17, para. 27). This is in c ontrast to the treatment of Thomson in the written
pleadings of Malaysia, in which he is described as though he were some kind of private interloper.
I refer here to the Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, paragraphs 105 to 106.
7. A third major flaw is the repetition of the distortions of legal logic to be found in the
written pleadings of Malaysia.
8. The first such distortion concerns the nature of activity à titre de souverain. Counsel for
Malaysia insist that the building of a lighthouse, even if the project is organized and funded by a
government, does not constitute evidence of an intention to acquire title to the territory. I refer here
to the argument of Sir Elihu Lauterpacht on Thursday (CR 2007/26, p. 21, paras. 42-44.)
9. Sir Elihu refers to the public works involved in building the lighthouse and then he says:
“43. These are, of course, and obviously so , the steps that needed to be taken to
proceed with the construction of the light. With the possible exception
of the first
two, they describe exactly what would have ha d to be done if it had been possible in
those days to hire a private contracting firm to plan and undertake the whole work.
However, the fact that they were done by the Government does not mean that
individually or in total they manifested an intention to claim the underlying territory.”
And Sir Elihu continues:
“44. What Singapore does is to turn these items into a single process of
evolution seemingly evincing a government intent to acquire title to the territory. But
the conclusion thus drawn is an extensive ⎯ indeed, imaginative ⎯ extrapolation
from a series of facts that taken at face value amount to a description of exactly what
had to be done to build the lighthouse. Ma laysia does not deny that Britain built the
light. But Malaysia cannot find anything in this process which reflects a co-existing
intention ⎯ a silent intention ⎯ on the part of Britain to assert title to the territory.”
(CR 2007/26, p. 21, paras.43-44.)
10. Mr.President, this provides a very appropriate example of the legal logic by which
Malaysia seeks to distract the Court from the ove rall picture of law and fact. And it is a logic
which lacks any legal foundation. If I can elaborate.
11. In the first place, of course it would not make any difference if the work was done by a
private contracting firm. In fact, the work was carried out by a private contractor. The point is that
the private or public character of the contract or is irrelevant providing the construction was - 53 -
undertaken on the instructions of the British Crow n. As Sir Elihu says: “Malaysia does not deny
that Britain built the light.”
12. In the second place, there is no evidence that the British interest consisted of an intention
to create an asset which only represented private pr operty. To the contrary, there is documentary
evidence to the effect that the British authorities were very conscious of the significance of the
attribution of sovereignty as between the Powers in the region. And I refer to my speech in the first
round (CR 2007/21, pp. 35-36, paras. 7-11).
13. The general context was that of co-existing political entities. There was a natural relation
between the exclusive use of territory and the existence of sovereignty over that territory. It is thus
appropriate that the General Secretary, Dutch East Indies, should refer, in 1850, to “the
construction of a lighthouse on British territory”. Mo reover, no private law instrument, such as an
indenture, was involved.
14. In the third place, the analysis of counsel for Malaysia without legal justification
divorces the question of intention from the process of taking possession. This is a part of the
tendency of our distinguished opponents to fragment the evidence of title. The construction of the
lighthouse involved the implementation of the intention of the British Crown as expressed in
numerous official documents.
15. The issue of proof is approached by Ma laysia on the basis that the applicable law
requires the making of a formal act of annexation. This is an assertion and no more. It is not the
case that proof of sovereignty cannot be based upon other forms of evidence.
The taking of lawful possession
16. Mr. President, Members of the Court, I would invite the Court to put itself in the place of
the British authorities. The decision is made to build a lighthouse upon an island, which does not
form part of Johor, and the necessary operations involve the use of the island as a whole and the
exclusive use of the island. Any government co mpleting such an enterprise would seek one of two
forms of political and legal security. The choice would be between maki ng an arrangement with
the relevant territorial sovereign, if such existed, or assuming sovereignty on the basis of a peaceful
process of taking of possession. - 54 -
17. There is clear evidence to the effect that the British Government made the second choice.
On the facts, the first choice was simply not appl icable. Once the decision had been made not to
build on Peak Rock, the choice of Pedra Branca did not involve the territories of the Sultan of
Johor. And it is absolutely clear that Pedra Branca was not to be c onfused with Peak Rock: I refer
to the letter from Governor Butterworth to Cu rrie, dated 28 November 1844, Singapore Memorial,
Annex 13.
18. In addition, the position of Malaysia on the issue of acquisition of title avoids the basic
elements of causation in this case. The fact is that, without a decision of the British Crown to fund
the construction of a lighthouse on Pedra Branca, no lighthouse would have come into existence.
Thus, first, it was the Government which decided on the final site of the lighthouse; second, it was
the Government which provided the funding; th ird, it was the Government which decided the
modalities of the funding; and last, it was the Government which took the final decision to build.
19. When the Court of Directors of the E ast India Company decided on Pedra Branca as the
site of the project in February1847, the issu e of public funding assumed prominence. When the
Court of Directors approved the scheme in September1849, the decision was on the basis that a
levy would be made on shipping as soon as the li ghthouse was completed. As the Court will
readily appreciate, such a method of funding would be the result of government action.
20. The key documents are as follows. First, the letter from the Court of Directors of the
East India Company to the Governor General of India in Council dated 5 September 1849, which is
at tab 22 of the judges’ folder. This letter reads as follows:
“Our Governor General of India in Council.
Para: 1. Your letter No. 3 dated 3rd March last on the subject of the proposed
Horsburgh Light House, informs us that the cost of that Bu.lding which originally was
not expected to exceed 7,000 Dollars, or rupees 15,750 is now estimated at
rupees 29,417 exclusive of the cost of a lanter n, which together with other expenses,
will raise the total amount to rupees 50,917 and this does not include the conveyance
of the workmen and materials for which it is proposed that the Government shall be
responsible. It is evident that even this increased estimate which is subject to several
contingencies is very likely to be considerably exceeded in a work of such difficult
construction.
[And the letter continues]
2. The increased charge has been occasioned by the selection (made after
communication with the Lords of the Admiralty) of the Island of Pedra Branca instead - 55 -
of Peak Rock, as the site of the Light House, the former being not only much more
distant from Singapore and much less accessible, but being also so much more
exposed to the influence of the waves du ring the North East Monsoon, as to render it
absolutely necessary that the Structure shoul d be ‘entirely faced with granite set in
Cement’, with a back work of Masonry instead of being composed of brick and
Chunam Materials which would have sufficed on Peak Rock which is situated on the
Northern Shore of the Straits.
3. The subscriptions hitherto received for the Light House amount to
rupees22,194 leaving a deficit of rup ees28,723, which you propose should be
advanced by Government, and to ensure repayment of this loan, you further propose
that the duty authorized by us to be levied on Vessels touching at Singapore or
clearing out from Indian Ports to China or the Eastward of Singapore should be raised
from one rupee to two dollars or 4½ rupees per 100 tons.
[And the letter is completed with the paragraph]
4. As the smaller rate would be quite inadequate to meet the expenses of a Light
House on Pedra Branca and as there seems no more unobjectionable mode of
providing for its construction and maintena nce than the imposition of a suitable
tonnage duty on Shipping, we authorize you to levy a duty as soon as a light is
exhibited on that Station: but as we have no doubt that the expense will exceed the
amount you have estimated we direct that a Tonnage duty of 2½ Dollars per 100 Tons
be levied on the Shipping above described.” (MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 31)
21. And the second key document is the letter from the Under-Secretary to the Government
of India to Seton Karr, Under-Secretary to the Government of Bengal dated 27 October 1849. This
is at tab 23 of the judges’ folder, and I quote:
“With reference to the correspondence noted in the margin, I am directed by the
President in Council to transmit the accompanying copy of a Despatch from the
Hon’ble the Court of Directors, No 3, dated 5th September 1849, relative to the
construction of a Light House on Pedra Branca, and to request that authority may be
given to the Governor of Singapore for the immediate commencement of the building.
2. It will be observed that a duty of 2½ dollars per 100 tons is to be levied on
the shipping as soon as the Light House is completed. A Law will be necessary for the
purpose and Colonel Butterworth should be dir ected to take an early opportunity of
submitting the draft of an Act containi ng such provisions as may be deemed
requisite.” (MS, Vol. 3, Ann. 32.)
22. Thus the question of funding by the G overnment formed the critical stage of the
decision-making process which led to the decision to build the lighthouse. Moreover, in the
correspondence in the period 1842 to 1845 it ha d always been assumed that the lighthouse
envisaged would be financed by the Government of India.
23. These documents, and the documentary record as a whole, provide the necessary
corrections to the misleading picture presented by ProfessorKohen in his presentation on
Wednesday (CR 2007/25, paras. 3-11). - 56 -
24. In his evaluation the planting of the brick pillars on Pedra Branca was of little
importance. But, Mr. President, it was a significan t development which demonstrated the intention
of the Government to build a lighthouse on Pedra Branca. Because, at this stage, the only issue still
to be determined was the nature of the materials to be used for the construction of the lighthouse on
Pedra Branca. The decision to use granite, as opposed to brick, had major fi nancial implications.
It was only when the nature of the materials had been determined that the funding could be
assessed. The decision to build was then possible. And so, Mr. President, Members of the Court,
the placing of the brick pillars, in order to determ ine which materials would resist the force of the
monsoon, was central to the process of decision making by the Government of India.
25. Moreover, the entire process had the necessar y implication that the Government of India
envisaged the use of the island as a whole, and that such use would be exclusive. Moreover, it was
clear that no other political authority was involved in the process of decision making.
26. Mr.President, in the circumstances, the suggestion that a formal annexation was
required, or that possession was not obtained, is the product of wishful thinking.
27. During the lengthy process of decision making relating to Pedra Branca, there is no
single reference to the need for the agreement of the Sultan of Johor or of his co-operation in any
form. No third State expressed any protest or r eservation in face of the public activity of the
British authorities on the island. The only reaction of the other powers in the region was in fact
acquiescence. The Dutch authorities expressed no opposition because, as the relevant Dutch
document expressly indicated, the lighthouse was being constructed on British territory.
I now move to the Malaysian propositions denying the title of Singapore.
Malaysian propositions denying title
First proposition: that aids to navigation do not constitute evidence of sovereignty
28. The first proposition is that aids to naviga tion do not constitute evidence of sovereignty.
Counsel for Malaysia strenuously maintain that aids to navigation do not constitute evidence of the
acquisition of sovereignty. On Tuesday, Sir Elihu Lauterpacht insisted that:
“The accumulation of case law and practice is completely at odds with
Singapore’s proposition that the construction and maintenance of the Horsburgh
lighthouse somehow in and of itself constituted a ‘taking of lawful possession’ of
Pulau Batu Puteh for the purpose of acquiring sovereignty. The jurisprudence is clear - 57 -
[he says]. Conduct in the administration of a lighthouse does not, without more,
evidence sovereignty.” (CR 2007/24, para. 56.)
29. Mr.President, Members of the Court, this is not Singapore’s case. It is, with respect,
entirely misleading to propose that Singapore has offered the lighthouse as a form of effectivité in
respect of the taking of possession in the period 1847 to 1851. The position of Singapore is that the
process of decision making and operations in relation to the construction constitute incontrovertible
evidence of the taking of lawful possession. It is unacceptable to seek to divide this network of
evidence into artificial fragments.
30. Moreover, SirElihu himself is careful to qualify his assertions by stating that the
operation of lighthouses and navigational aids is “not normally taken as a test of sovereignty”
(CR 2007/24, para. 55).
31. The correct legal position is surely that the standard of proof of title is that of the
intention to acquire sovereignty and, in his presentation on Thursday, SirElihu actually adopted
that position (CR 2007/26, pp. 15-20, paras. 16-37.)
32. And, in conclusion, the jurisprudence is not uniformly negative, as SirElihu asserts.
And the Court is respectfully referred to th e examination of the case law in Singapore’s
Counter-Memorial at paragraphs 5.121 to 5.128.
The second proposition of Malaysia is that British practice required a formal act of
acquisition of sovereignty
33. In his presentations both on Tuesday and Thursday, SirElihu Lauterpacht repeated the
assertion of the written pleadings that the British pr actice in acquiring sovereignty over territory
required a formal act (see CR2007/24, pp.44-45, paras.43-44; and CR2007/26, pp.12-14,
paras. 1-13).
34. Malaysia in this context avoids the authoritative work, which is that of Roberts-Wray. In
the first round I explained why Roberts-Wray is authoritative (CR2007/21, p.47, para.62).
Singapore relies upon the following materials for the proposition that resort to a formal act is
sufficient but it is not a legal requirement. The first authority is SirKennethRoberts-Wray,
Commonwealth and Colonial Law , 1966, page1s07-108; and the second is
Sir Humphrey Waldock, in the British Year Book of International Law , Volume25 (1948) at
page 334. - 58 -
Waldock puts the matter in this way, and we see this is at tab 24 of the judges’ folder:
“Effective occupation is a term of art denoting not physical settlement but the
actual, continuous, and peaceful display of the functions of a state. The Permanent
Court in the Eastern Greenland case did not in fact use the phrase effective occupation
but referred to a title derived from ‘conti nued display of authority’ involving
twoelements each of which must be show n to exist. These elements are (1)the
intention and will to act as sovereign (i.e., animus occupandi) and (2)some actual
exercise of display of such authority (i.e., corpus occupandi). The first element seems
to mean no more than that there must be positive evidence of the pretensions of the
particular state to be the sovereign of the territory. This evidence may consist either of
published assertions of title or of acts of sovereignty.”
35. Counsel for Malaysia has chosen to leave these authorities aside in spite of the
professional status of the writers. But Sir Elihu will surely remember Sir Humphrey Waldock, who
was a colleague of his in the counsel appearing in the Beagle Channel case, and, of course,
Waldock became President of this Court.
36. In response, SirElihu has quoted the monograph by Keller, Lissitzyn and Mann
(CR2007/24, p.44, para.43). But the formulation from this work is far from dogmatic in tone.
Moreover, the passages which follo w the passage quoted by SirElihu make it very clear that the
practice was not at all consistent. This is at tab25 of the judges’ folder and is highlighted
accordingly. Thus, the authors observe:
“On occasion, however, English practice did display a definite tendency toward
simplicity in form; thus, all that was done, in some instances, was the erection of a
plain wooden cross bearing the royal arms. It is doubted, however, if this comparative
informality had any adverse effect whatsoev er upon the validity in law of the title so
acquired. Such an occurrence was, at the most, an inessential modification of the
customary procedure. In the final analysis it was clearly the simple fact of the
performance of a symbolic act alone, whatever its form, which was of significance and
never the degree of formality observed in the course of such an act.” ( Creation of
Rights of Sovereignty through Symbolic Acts 1400-1800, pp. 98-99.)
37. If these passages are compared with the more authoritative writers cited by Singapore, it
will be seen that there is little or no discrepancy in any event.
38. Counsel for Malaysia suggests the rele vance of certain episodes of British practice
involving certain types of formality (see CR2007/26, pp.13-14, paras.9-13). Mr.President, the
citation of selected episodes of British practice, such as Rockall or Labuan, can be of little
assistance to the Court at this stage. The Parties are agreed that a formal annexation of territory is a
sufficient basis of title. But the practice offered by Ma laysia fails to address the real question
whether a formal annexation is legally necessary. In any case, the practice has been examined in - 59 -
the written pleadings at some length: and I refer now to the Singapore Reply, pages 76 to 85, and
301 to 308.
The third proposition of Malaysia is that sovereign acts may be performed on the territory of
another State without this necessarily involving an intention to acquire sovereignty over
the area concerned
39. This proposition was advanced by SirElihu on Wednesday and was linked, somewhat
precipitately, to the concepts of international leases and servitudes (CR2007/25, pp.65-66). The
subject was also referred to briefly by ProfessorKohen and by ProfessorCrawford in his final
presentation.
40. Mr. President, with a certain regret, I shall leave these interesting topics on one side. No
case has been made for the existence of this type of legal interest in favour of Singapore or
Malaysia in relation to Pedra Branca. And it is perfectly obvious that, when Malaysia began to
make claims to Pedra Branca late in the last centu ry, no claim of the type envisaged by SirElihu
was produced.
The fourth proposition of Malaysia: that the official ceremony of laying the foundation stone
did not constitute evidence of an intention to acquire sovereignty
41. I come now to the fourth proposition of Malaysia, which involves the denial that the
laying of the foundation stone of the lighthouse on 24May1850 constituted evidence of an
intention to acquire sovereignty. My disti nguished opponents have sought to disparage the
evidential significance of this ceremony on at l east four occasions in the first round of these
hearings. Mr. President, Malaysia has some difficu lties in deciding which target to aim for. They
are anxious to assert that the episode did not amount to a formal annexation. But, of course,
Singapore has not contended that the ceremony had that character. In any event, the ceremony was
undeniably official. It was a government occasion, and it was a Singapore occasion.
42. The role of the Master of the Masonic Lodge was subordinate ⎯ clearly subordinate ⎯
to that of the Governor, who was the organizer and host of the occasion. The reference by the
Master of the Masonic Lodge to Pedra Branca as a dependency of Singapore was made in the
presence of the Governor and all the other invited officials and guests. - 60 -
43. The entire enterprise had an official ch aracter and the laying of the foundation stone
formed part of the long expected constructi on of the lighthouse on the exclusive basis of
government planning and government funding (seethe Singapore Memorial, pp.50-58; and my
presentation in the first round, CR 2007/21, pp. 54-59, paras. 97-119.)
Conclusion
44. In coming to my conclusion, Mr.President, I would return to the question of the
evidence of an intention to acquire sovereignty. The approach adopted by counsel for Malaysia,
especially Sir Elihu Lauterpacht and Professor Kohe n, faces insurmountable obstacles. In the first
place, the approach involves a repudiation of the long-established legal principles governing
acquisition of territory.
45. The intention to acquire sovereignty can be, and very commonly is, based upon acts of
sovereignty, that is, the exercise or display of s overeignty. Sir Humphrey Waldock explains these
principles very clearly in his well-known British Year Book article. The placing of the brick pillars
by Thomson was directly related, directly linked, to the assessment of the cost of the construction
and, as I have shown, provided the basis of the final decision to build.
46. There is, secondly, the significance of the purpose of the enterprise. This necessarily
involved the control of the island as a whole and, of course, the element of exclusive use.
47. In the third place there was a natural relation between the exclusive use of territory and
the existence of sovereignty over the territory. An d, in this context, the attitude of the Dutch
authorities in the region is legally significant. The Dutch Resident in Riau sent gunboats to Pedra
Branca which arrived on 6 May 1850 and which, with British approval, were maintained during the
term of the building operation. I refer here to Thomson, Account, pages424 and 475 in
Singapore’s Memorial, Annex61, in Volume4, with the pagination, pages527 and 576. This
Dutch official assistance, furnished with British approval, provides the practical context of the
letter of November 1850 in which the General S ecretary, Dutch East Indies, refers to “the
construction of a lighthouse at Pedra Branca on British territory” (RS, Ann.8 (English
translation)). This Dutch attitude clearly relates to sovereignty in respect of territory, and not to the
acquisition of private property. - 61 -
48. And, then, there is the element of legal and political security. There could have been no
need to effect a formal annexation of Pedra Br anca. There were no sources of political opposition
to the title and control of the British Crown. Thus, there was no political need, or legal
requirement, for a formal annexation. The displa y of sovereignty was palpable and continuous.
There was no controversy with Johor or with the Dutch. And during the lengthy process of
decision making relating to Pedra Branca, there is no reference to the need for the co-operation of
the Sultan of Johor in any form.
49. Finally, there was no consideration of law, of politics, or of common sense, which
required the British Crown to do anything further to establish title. All that was necessary was for
title to be maintained.
50. As I reach the end of my speech, I would like to reaffirm the views of Singapore on the
relevance of the decision of the Pitcairn Island Court of Appeal (CR 2007/21, p.47, paras. 60-61).
The Agent of Singapore has asked me to assure the Court that the question put by Judge Keith last
Friday will be answered in writing.
I would thank the Court for its customary pa tience and consideration and would ask you to
call on my colleague, Mr. Bundy.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you, Mr.Brownlie. I now call on
Mr. Bundy.
May I ask you what is the theme of your statement, because I do not have a transcript of it?
Mr. BUNDY: The subjects I will be addressing ⎯ and I will certainly spill into tomorrow
morning, following on Mr.Brownlie, will be Si ngapore and Britain’s c onduct after 1851 and the
maintenance of its title and I will also be touching on issues relating to the Straits Lights. I think I
can find an appropriate breaking point in that speech after about 15 minutes, if that is ok?
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you, please go ahead.
Mr. BUNDY: Thank you, Mr. President. - 62 -
150 YEARS OF STATE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED BY SINGAPORE ON PEDRA B RANCA
AFTER 1985 AND ON THE STRAITS LIGHTS
1. As I said, Mr. President, Members of the Court, my task this morning, and to be continued
tomorrow, is to turn to Singapore’s conduct on Pedr a Branca and within its territorial waters after
1851 and also to the relevance of Malaysia’s conduct relating to the Straits Lights during this same
period.
2. In my first round presentation two weeks a go, I reviewed the numerous examples of State
conduct ⎯ effectivités ⎯ that Singapore undertook on Pedra Branca after 1851 and I pointed out
how this conduct evidences how Singapore confirmed and maintained the title it acquired to Pedra
Branca during the period 1847 to 1851, discussed by my colleague, Mr. Brownlie, and this was
maintained by concrete actions on the ground. Now the maintenance of title ⎯ the maintenance of
title ⎯ is an important element of sovereignty, although I can well understand Malaysia’s
sensitivity to this point given its complete asence from the island, whether before 1851 or
afterwards.
3. Malaysia’s written reply la belled Singapore’s conduct “periphe ral” to the main issues in
this case. Last Tuesday SirElihuLauterp acht was more extravagant in downgrading that
description. He asserted that Britain’snd Singapore’s conduct on Pedra Branca after 1851 is
“irrelevant” and he went on to say that “it is unnecessary for Malaysia to respond at all”. Given the
alleged irrelevance of Singapore’s conduct, it wainteresting and perhaps revealing to find both
SirElihu and ProfessorCrawford devoting a considerable time to addressing that conduct last
Thursday, even though Sir Elihu, I admit, confessed that he was dealing with the subject “with the
greatest reluctance”.
4. Now, counsel’s main point was that unless by 1851 there really existed British title over
Pedra Branca, then “there was nothing that could be maintained or confirmed, either by Britain’s or
Singapore’s subsequent conduct” (CR2007/24, p. 47, para.49). To recall my distinguished
colleague’s schoolboy tale, zero multiplied by any number produces zero, and it was on the basis of
this reasoning and, dare I call it the “lobsterpot th eorem”, that SirElihu went on to say: “Either
Britain acquired title by 1851 or it did not. If d, Singapore is right. If it did not, Singapore
loses, and loses without more. It is as simple as that.” (CR 2007/24, p. 53, para. 59). - 63 -
5. The problem with this line of argument is that the situation we have here is not one of
multiplication, zero times some other number. It is a question of addition, involving the fact that
while there is absolutely nothing on Malaysia’s side of the equation, on Singapore’s side there are
the activities of the British Crown during the period 1847 to 1851 plus the numerous activities that
Britain and Singapore carried out thereafter on the is land. In other words, one plus much more
than one.
6. Now, counsel’s assertion also runs against all of the recent jurisprudence on the issue of
disputed sovereignty to small islands, despite my learned friend’s confident assertion that
“Malaysia’s position is entirely in line with the Court’s case law and that of arbitral tribunals”
(CR 2007/24, p. 51).
7. To appreciate the point, I would respectively ask the Court, once again, to consider what
the position would be if, quod non, Malaysia was somehow correct in its thesis that Great Britain’s
activities on Pedra Branca between 1847 and 1851 did not evidence the intention to acquire
sovereignty over the island at that time ⎯ a proposition which Mr.Brownlie has thoroughly
rebutted. In other words, what would be the pos ition if sovereignty remained indeterminate as of
1851, bearing in mind that Malaysia has not shown any intention on the part of Johor to exercise
sovereignty over the specific territory in disput e nor a single sovereign act carried out on these
features before that time.
8. As I pointed out in my first round presentation, the Court would then be faced with the
question as to which Party could show the better title to the specific territory in dispute, based on
their conduct relating to that territory. That was the question that the Court ultimately had to deal
with in the Minquier and Ecrehos case. It was also the determinative issue in the Qatar v. Bahrain
case, with respect to the small island of Qit’at Jaradah; in the Indonesia/Malaysia case, with
respect to both Pulau Ligitan a nd Pulau Sipadan; and in the Nicaragua v. Honduras case with
respect to the four cays claimed by Honduras. And it was also an issue that the Arbitral Tribunal,
which was presided over by a former President of this Court, was confronted with in the
Eritrea/Yemen case dealing with a number of uninhabited islands in the Red Sea.
In9. every one , every one , of those cases the conduct of the parties was assessed to
determine which one had demonstrated a greater intensity of State activities undertaken on the - 64 -
islands in question à titre de souverain and the question of sovereignty was decided on that basis.
Professor Schrijver complains that Singapore never claimed title to Pedra Branca before 1980. Of
course, neither did Johor nor Malaysia. But as this Court so clearly articulated just last month in its
Judgment in Nicaragua v. Honduras ⎯ and it is a statement that can be applied to Great Britain’s
and Singapore’s conduct on Pedra Branca: “A sovereign title may be inferred from the effective
exercise of powers appertaining to the authority of the State over a given territory.” (Judgment of
8 October 2007, para. 172.) Or, to borrow the words of the sole arbitrator in the Island of Palmas
case: “the continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty is as good as title” ( RSA,
Vol. II, p. 839).
10. In these circumstances, I fail to see how Singapore’s exclusive, peaceful, open and
long-standing conduct with respect to its administ ration and control over Pedra Branca, including
its territorial waters, both between 1847 and 1851, and from 1851 all the way up to the present, can
possibly be categorized as either “peripheral” or “irrelevant”.
11. In his second intervention on post-1851 conduct last Thursday, SirElihu attempted to
distinguish the cases that I just mentioned from the present one. He argued that in none of those
cases was the starting-point of the determination of the conduct of the Parties a predetermination
that one of them had a clear title ⎯ as Malaysia contends ⎯ and the other did not rely on
prescription (CR 2007/26, pp. 35-36, para. 1). And he added: “Here the position is quite different;
the starting-point of Singapore’s post-1851 efforts must be the acceptance of Johor’s prior title.”
(Ibid., p. 36, para. 1.)
12. Now that line of argument is flawed in three fundamental respects.
13. First, the assertion that the starting-point for assessing Singapore’s post-1951 activities
on the islands must be the acceptance of Johor’s prior title simply begs the proposition that
Malaysia has so utterly failed to prove. How can a claim to an historic title over Pedra Branca
survive when Johor never demonstrated any intention to act as sovereign, to claim sovereignty over
Pedra Branca, never once mentioned the island by name, and never set foot on Pedra Branca in any
sovereign capacity? How can historic titles survive those facts?
14. Second, counsel assumes away the actions of Great Britain in taking possession of the
island from 1847 to 1851. Although, to be fair, I should recall that SirElihu did concede that if - 65 -
Britain had acquired title by 1851, as Mr. Brownlie has shown, Singapore is right ⎯ it has
sovereignty (ibid., p. 35, para. 1).
15. Third, it is incorrect to assert that cases such as Minquiers and Ecrehos , or
Eritrea/Yemen, or Indonesia/Malaysia, did not involve a prior examination of whether a claim to an
historic title had been made out. In Minquiers and Ecrehos, the Court rejected France’s claim of an
historic title because it had not been proved before the Court went on to take up the issue of the
conduct of the parties on the disputed territory. In Eritrea/Yemen, the Arbitral Tribunal also
rejected Yemen’s claim of an historic title to the islands based on ties to the Ottoman Empire
before deciding the case on the basis of the effectivités. Moreover, with respect to that case,
counsel fails to mention the fact that the administration of the Red Sea lights in the case was not
relevant because the colonial Powers ⎯ Great Britain and Italy ⎯ had agreed a specific
understanding: it was the 1927 Rome Understanding, referred to in the Award, that provided that
those kinds of acts would be without prejudice to the issue of sovereignty. And in the
Indonesia/Malaysia case, the Court rejected both parties’ claims of an historic chain of title before
deciding the case on the basis of the effectivités. Professor Pellet will be coming back tomorrow to
say more about the Indonesia/Malaysia case.
16. In addressing the relevance of Singapore’s post-1851 conduct on Pedra Branca, counsel
for Malaysia also exhibited an acute sensitivity to the doctrine of prescription: so much so, that
SirElihu mentioned prescription both in his first speech, where he suggested that Singapore was
trying to induce the Court to accept a kind of “pseudo”-prescriptive conduct (CR 2007/24, p.53)
and in his last speech, where he accused me of engaging in “verbal gymnastics” in giving the
impression that Britain’s post-1851 conduct can override Johor’s earlier historic title (CR 2007/26,
p.35, para. 1). And for good measure, Professo rCrawford also felt it necessary to make a
reference to prescription in his closing arguments (CR 2007/27, p. 63, para. 4).
17. In my first round presentation, I pointed out that it was Malaysia, in its written pleadings,
that argued that Singapore was trying to displace a prior Malaysian title: and I said that the Court
does not need to address this issue because of three main factors. First, Malaysia has in no way
demonstrated an historic title to the specific territory in dispute ⎯ in other words, there was no
Johor title to displace; second, because Great Britain established title to the island by its actions - 66 -
from 1847 to 1851, discussed by my colleague; and third, because, even if title was somehow
indeterminate as of 1851, Singapore has demonstrated that it was the only party to carry out
sovereign acts on Pedra Branca thereafter. I also pointed out that it is Malaysia, it is Malaysia,
which previously told this Court ⎯ five years ago ⎯ that in the face of the complete inactivity of
one party which asserts a prior title to disputed territory, the subsequent administration of the
territory in question over a long period of time by the other party is sufficient to establish title in
that party.
18. Now I realize that I have cited from Malaysia’s oral argument in the Indonesia/Malaysia
case in the first round. But given that counsel for Malaysia neglected to mention this fact last
week ⎯ and I can perhaps understand why ⎯, it is appropriate to recall Malaysia’s own discussion
of the issue: a discussion which post-dated by several years the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case to
which Professor Crawford made reference last Friday. To quote again from counsel’s statement of
principle in the Indonesia/Malaysia case: “A title based on a peacef ul and continuous display of
State authority would in international law prev ail over a title of acquisition of sovereignty not
followed by an actual display of State authority.” (CR 2002/30, pp. 35-36, para.22.) That is
Malaysia speaking to the Court.
19. If nothing else, this observation shows that Malaysia itself recognizes the need for a party
claiming title at least to maintain that title ⎯ something that Malaysia never did even if one
accepts, for purposes of argument, our opponent’s far-fetched theory of an original title: one that
has not been proved.
Mr. President, with your permission, I find that would be an appropriate place for me to
break. Thank you very much.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Mr. Bundy. We shall listen to the
remainder of your statement at tomorrow’s sitting. I should like to interject a thought though: your
name was not inscribed on the list and whilst I understand the need for full and optimal utilization
of the time available, I would appreciate it if, in the future, a full list of the speakers is given to us
beforehand. - 67 -
This brings to an end this morning’s sitting. The Court is adjourned and will meet tomorrow
morning at 10 o’clock.
The Court rose at 1 p.m.
___________
Audience publique tenue le lundi 19 novembre 2007, à 10 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)