Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) - The Court finds that the Application of the Philippines for permission to intervene cannot be granted

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt. The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: Il www.icj-cij.org

Communiqué
unofficial
forimmediaterelease

No. 2001!28
23 October 2001

Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan
andonesia!Malaysia)

The Court finds that the Application of the Philippines for permission to intervene
cannot be granted

THE HAGUE, 23 October 2001. Today the International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal
judiciaJ organ of the United Nations, delivered its Judgment on the Application of the Philippines for
permission to intervene in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligita.n and Pulauipadan
(lndonesia!Malaysia).

In its Judgment, the Court finds that "the Application of the Republic of the Philippiins, filed

the Registry of the Court on 13 March 2001, for permission to intervene in the proceedings under
Article 62of the Statute of the Court, cannat be granted".

Reasoning of the Court

After recalling the proceduraJistocy of the case, the Court considers the contention by the
Parties that the Application for permission to intervene should not be granted because of its late

submission by the Philippines and because of the failure of the Philippines to annex documentai)' or
other evidence in support of the Application. The Court observes that, notwithstanding that the
Application was not filedas soon as possible", as contemplated by Article 81 of the Ru!es of Court,
the Philippines cannat be held to inviolation of the requirement of that same Article, according to
which an Application for permission to intervene should be filed "not later than the closure of the
• writtenproceedings". In fact, on the date of the filing of the Philippine Application, neither the Court
nor thirdStates could know whether the written proceedings bad come to an end since the Special
Agreement (the document by which the Parties brought the dispute to the Court) provided for the

possibility of one more round of written pleadings, which eventually were not filed. The Court further
emphasizes that, whlle Article1 of the Rules of Court indeed provides that the application shall
contain a list any documents in support, there is no requirement that the State seeking to intervene
should necessarily attach such documents to its application. The Court therefore concludes that the
Philippine Application was not filed outime and contains no formai defect.

The Court theo considers the objections based on the absencea jurisdictional link. lt recalls
that the Philippines specified that it was seeking to intervene in the case as a nonHence, the
Court finds that the absence of a jurisdictionallink between the Philippines and the Parties to the main

proceedings does not present a bar to the Philippine intervention.

The Court finally considers the arguments of the Parties that the Application to intervene cannot
be granted for the reasons, first, that thepines bas not established the existence of an "interest of
a legal nature" justifying the intervention sought, and, secondly, that the object of the intervention
would be inappropriate. It begins by recalling that the Philippines does not seek to intervene in thecase because it has a territorial interest on Sipadan and Ligitan islands, but because it believes that its
claim ofsovereignty over NorthBomeo rnight be affected by the Court's reasoning or interpretation of

treaties in issinthe dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia.

The Court finds that the interest of a legal nature to be shown by a State seeking to intervene is
not limited to the diSJ>ositifalone of a judgment, but may also relate to its reasonItgoes on to
consider the question whether the interest invokedby the Philippines might be affected within the
sense of Article 62 of the StatutItnotes that,inoutlining its claim, the Philippines bas emphasized

the importance of a document dated 22 January 1878 by which the Sultan of Sulu. with whom title, at
least to part of Sabah (North Bomeo),lay, bad made grant in that part to Messrs. Overbeck and Dent
(which grant did not include Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan). This instrument, according to the
Court, is said by theilippines to be its ''primaisource" oftitle in North Borneo and is interpreted by
it as a lease and not as a cession of sovereign title. The Court however observes that neither Indonesia
nor Malaysia reliesn the 1878 grant as a source oftitleto Ligitan and Sipadan islands.

After consideration of other instruments invoked by the Philippines in support of its claim, the
Court observes that, as regards nonef them, has the Philippines been able to discharitsburden of
demonstrating that it has an interest of a legal nature specifie to it that may be affected, within the
meaning of Article 62, by reasoning or interpretations of the Court in the main proceedings. e
According to the Court, either such interests form no part of the arguments of Indonesia and Malaysia
orthose Parties' reliance on those arguments does not bear on the issue of retention of sovereignty by
the Sultanate of Sulu in respect of its claim to North Bomeo. Accordingly, and notwithstanding that

the fusttwo of the abjects indicated by the Philippines for its interventi..m are appropriate, the Court
cannot grant the Application. It adds, however, thatremains cognizant of the positions stated before
it by Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

Composition ofthe Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Guillawne; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda,
Ranjeva, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal; Judges ad hoc Weeramantly, Franck; Registrar Couvreur.

Judge Oda appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Koroma appends
a separate opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judges Parra-Aranguren and Kooijmans append
declarations to the Judgment of the Court; Judges ad hoc Weeramantty and Franck append separate

opinions to the Judgment of the Court.

•

A summary of the Judgment is given in Press Communiqué No. 2001128bis, to which a
summary of the declarations and opinions is annexed. The full text of the Judgment, of the

declarations and opinions is available on the Court's website (http:/lwww.icj-cij.org).

Infonnation Department:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary (+31 70 302 23 36)

Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (+31 70 302 23 37)
E-mail address: [email protected]