Written Observations of Singapore

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23MAY 2008 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,MIDDLE
ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) (MALAYSIA V. SINGAPORE)
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
30 OCTOBER 2017
This page is intentionally left blank.
i
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1
A. Malaysia’s Request for Interpretation of the Judgment .................. 2
B. The Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee ...................... 5
C. The Request for Interpretation and Malaysia’s Earlier Application
for Revision of the Judgment ............................................................ 15
D. Structure of these Written Observations ......................................... 18
CHAPTER II – LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO A
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION ........................................................ 19
A. Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 19
B. Admissibility ....................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER III – MALAYSIA’S FIRST SUBMISSION: THE WATERS
SURROUNDING PEDRA BRANCA .......................................................... 25
A. The Absence of Jurisdiction for Malaysia’s First Submission ...... 27
B. Malaysia’s First Submission Is Inadmissible .................................. 37
C. Conclusions on Malaysia’s First Submission .................................. 41
CHAPTER IV – MALAYSIA’S SECOND SUBMISSION:
SOVEREIGNTY OVER SOUTH LEDGE ................................................. 43
A. The Absence of Jurisdiction for Malaysia’s Second Submission .. 45
B. Malaysia’s Second Submission Is Inadmissible .............................. 57
C. Conclusions on Malaysia’s Second Submission .............................. 61
SUMMARY OF SINGAPORE’S REASONING ......................................... 63
SUBMISSION.................................................................................................. 65
CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................... 67
APPENDIX 1 ................................................................................................... 71
APPENDIX 2 ................................................................................................... 75
ii
APPENDIX 3 ................................................................................................... 83
APPENDIX 4 ................................................................................................... 91
LIST OF ANNEXES ....................................................................................... 97
iii
LIST OF INSERTS
Number Description Location
Insert 1A Maritime chart published by Malaysia’s Chief
of Navy on Twitter on 21 August 2017
after page 34
Insert 1B Maritime chart published by Malaysia’s Chief
of Navy on Twitter on 21 August 2017, with
Singapore’s further annotations (in the blue
text boxes), including translations of relevant
words from the Malay language to the English
language, for reference
before page 35
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 1 -
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 On 30 June 2017, Malaysia filed its request for interpretation (“the
Request for Interpretation”1) of the Judgment delivered by the Court on
23 May 2008 in the Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore) (“the Judgment”)2.
1.2 By a letter dated 10 July 2017, the Registrar informed the Parties that,
pursuant to Article 98, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, the time-limit
for the filing of Singapore’s written observations on the Request for
Interpretation had been fixed at 30 October 2017.
1.3 These Written Observations are submitted in accordance with Article 98,
paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court and the time-limit fixed by the Court.
1 In these Written Observations, Singapore will, in accordance with the
terminology applied by the Court, refer to the request for interpretation of the
Judgment of 23 May 2008 filed by Malaysia on 30 June 2017 as “the Request
for Interpretation”; and to the application for revision of the Judgment of 23
May 2008 filed by Malaysia on 2 February 2017 as “the Application for
Revision”.
2 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 12. In
accordance with the terminology applied in the jurisprudence of this Court in
previous revision cases, the Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore) is referred to hereafter as “the original case”.
- Page 2 -
A. Malaysia’s Request for Interpretation of the Judgment
1.4 In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia alleges that the Parties have
been unable to agree over “the meaning of the 2008 Judgment as it
concerns South Ledge and the waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh”3, and in particular over “the meaning and/or scope of the
following two points of the 2008 Judgment:
(1) the Court’s finding that ‘sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Singapore’, and
(2) the Court’s finding that ‘sovereignty over South
Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of
which it is located’.”4
1.5 The Request for Interpretation is a second attempt by Malaysia to appeal
the Judgment, following Malaysia’s earlier application for revision of the
Judgment under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court (“the Application
for Revision”). In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia seeks a
decision of the Court on issues that were not the subject of the proceedings
in the original case and, for that reason, were not decided by the Court.
1.6 Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003 (“the Special
Agreement”) determined the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction and task.
The Parties requested the Court:
“ … to determine whether sovereignty over:
(a) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh;
(b) Middle Rocks;
3 Request for Interpretation, para. 4.
4 Ibid., para. 5.
- Page 3 -
(c) South Ledge,
belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore.”5
1.7 In the Judgment, the Court found that:
(a) sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore;
(b) sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia;
(c) sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial
waters of which it is located6.
The Court’s holdings in its operative clause are perfectly clear and require
no interpretation.
1.8 The Court did what it was mandated by the Parties to do – rule on the
issue of sovereignty over the features in question; and the Court did not
do what it was not mandated by the Parties to do – which was to delimit
the maritime entitlements of the Parties generated by Pedra Branca and
Middle Rocks.
1.9 Malaysia now requests the Court to go beyond the mandate conferred on
it by the Special Agreement. It requests the Court to declare that:
“(a) ‘The waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh remain within the territorial waters of Malaysia;’ and
(b) ‘South Ledge is located in the territorial waters of
Malaysia, and consequently sovereignty over South Ledge
belongs to Malaysia’.”7
5 Judgment, p. 18, para. 2.
6 Ibid., p. 101-102, para. 300.
7 Request for Interpretation, para. 56.
- Page 4 -
1.10 Malaysia also claims that “[t]he necessity of this request is made clear by
the fact that incidents taking place in the waters and airspace surrounding
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and South Ledge continue to provoke
objections from the Parties.”8 Singapore will show that to the extent that
there were any “incidents” in the area around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge, these concerned the issue of the extent of maritime
entitlements of each Party, and not the meaning or scope of the Judgment,
which dealt only with sovereignty.
1.11 Malaysia has purported to set out a “Statement of the Facts” in the
Request for Interpretation9 in a bid to persuade the Court that the Parties
are deadlocked over the meaning or scope of the Judgment, and that
Malaysia is compelled to bring the Request for Interpretation because
there is no reasonable prospect of progress being made through further
bilateral discussions between the Parties. In an attempt to justify the
Request for Interpretation, Malaysia relies, in particular, on an alleged
impasse in the discussions between Singapore and Malaysia concerning
the implementation of the Judgment within the Malaysia-Singapore Joint
Technical Committee on the Implementation of the International Court of
Justice Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (“the
MSJTC”)10.
1.12 Malaysia’s assertions are misleading and not borne out by the facts. A
proper examination of all the facts, including the MSJTC discussions,
reveals that there is no dispute between the Parties over the meaning or
scope of the Judgment as alleged by Malaysia. Although there might have
been differences between the Parties over issues relating to the activities
8 Request for Interpretation, para. 55.
9 Ibid., paras. 8-20.
10 The facts relating to the MSJTC will be covered in greater detail in Section B
of this Chapter.
- Page 5 -
of each Party in the waters surrounding, and the airspace above the area
around, Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, these were
differences over the extent of each Party’s maritime and airspace
entitlements, and over the steps to be taken pending the completion of
delimitation. They were not a dispute over the meaning and scope of the
Judgment, which dealt only with sovereignty.
1.13 In these Written Observations, Singapore will demonstrate that the Court
has no jurisdiction over the Request for Interpretation and that the Request
for Interpretation is inadmissible. The Judgment is entirely clear and no
interpretation is required.
B. The Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee
1.14 The MSJTC was established on 3 June 2008 at the first bilateral meeting
between senior officials from both Governments after the delivery of the
Judgment to discuss issues “related to the smooth implementation of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment on the case concerning
sovereignty over Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”11. Its
work was based on the Parties’ common understanding of the Court’s
rulings. Both Parties accepted that the Court’s rulings on sovereignty
over Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks meant that the next step for the
Parties was to focus on the extent of each sides’ maritime and airspace
entitlements. The Parties were also in agreement that the issue of
sovereignty over South Ledge, as decided in the Judgment, depends on
the delimitation of the Parties’ respective maritime entitlements. The
11 Meeting between Malaysia and the Republic of Singapore on the
Implementation of the International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, 3 June 2008, Singapore, Record of
Meeting, attached as Annex 18 to these Written Observations, p. A117,
para. 3. For ease of reference, the Annexes to these Written Observations have
been presented in chronological order.
- Page 6 -
existence and work of the MSJTC are therefore entirely inconsistent with
Malaysia’s contention that the Parties are in “deadlock” over the meaning
or scope of the Judgment.
1.15 In remarks carried in the media after the delivery of the Judgment,
Malaysia’s Foreign Minister at the time, Dr Rais Yatim, stated:
“It is a victory for Singapore and it is a winning episode for
Malaysia for having obtained the Middle Rocks. We are also
pleased that the judgment which states that the territorial
waters within which South Ledge is situated, will be, to be
in favour of the state that has the territorial waters. We will
work this out with the technical committee and as George
[i.e., George Yeo, Singapore’s Foreign Minister] has stated,
the technical committee is already in swing and in operation,
virtually to be in session within 2 weeks from today.”12
1.16 Dr Rais Yatim also made these points on a Malaysian television current
affairs programme on 28 May 200813. In response to questions about how
the Judgment would be implemented, Dr Rais Yatim said that the
Committee would need to work out a number of issues, one of which was:
“… to determine the territorial waters where Singapore and
Malaysia already have claims … the issue of territorial
waters can only be determined when the experts of law of
the sea give their advice.”14
12 Transcript of doorstop interview with Singapore’s Foreign Minister, George
Yeo and Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Dr Rais Yatim on 25 May 2008 at
Yangon, attached as Annex 10 to these Written Observations.
13 This was a television programme conducted in the Malay language titled,
“Rancangan Bersemuka Dengan Media: Isu Semasa & Polisi Luar Negara”
(translated into English as “Face To Face with the Media: Current Issues and
Foreign Policy”), which was broadcast by Radio Television Malaysia. A
transcript of the television programme, with an English translation provided by
Singapore, as well as a screen capture of the webpage containing links to the
video files on the official website of Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are
collectively attached as Annex 16 to these Written Observations.
14 Annex 16 to these Written Observations, p. A75.
- Page 7 -
He added that:
“… because Pulau Batu Puteh had existed for such a long
time under British rule, thus the waters around it have not
been determined yet. Therefore, after [the work of the
committee] the territorial waters of Batu Puteh will be
determined, similarly also [the waters of] Middle Rocks and
also South Ledge – whether it overlaps with the waters of
Middle Rocks or not, will be determined.”15
1.17 Malaysia’s then Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi also commented on the
day after the Judgment was delivered that the next step was “for officials
from both sides to meet to decide on the maritime demarcation line as
soon as possible”16.
1.18 Malaysia has attached a document as Annex 1 to the Request for
Interpretation which it claims sets out the terms of reference of the
MSJTC. There is in fact no such document. The agreed mandate and
scope of the MSJTC was set out in the Record of Meeting for the First
MSJTC Meeting17, which was finalised long before 13 August 2008, the
apparent date of Malaysia’s document. The document appears instead to
be an internal document prepared by Malaysia labelled “draft”, which was
15 Annex 16 to these Written Observations, p. A75.
16 Report dated 24 May 2008 by The Star, “A sad Abdullah accepts ICJ ruling”,
attached as Annex 7 to these Written Observations. Other public statements
made by the Malaysian Government, and reported by the media, made similar
points. See, for example, report dated 25 May 2008 by The Star, “Don’t go to
Middle Rocks yet, police warn Malaysians”, attached as Annex 12 to these
Written Observations; and report dated 26 May 2008 by New Straits Times,
“Call for joint maritime patrols”, attached as Annex 14 to these Written
Observations.
17 Meeting between Malaysia and the Republic of Singapore on the
Implementation of the International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, 3 June 2008, Singapore, Record of
Meeting, attached as Annex 18 to these Written Observations, p. A117,
para. 3.
- Page 8 -
never tabled. But its provenance aside, the document confirms that the
Malaysian Government was, from the outset, ad idem with Singapore that
the MSJTC work included discussing “all preparatory issues leading to
bilateral maritime boundary negotiations”18.
1.19 After its establishment, a great deal of activity at the MSJTC and its subcommittees
ensued from 2008 to 2013. The MSJTC held seven meetings
and its sub-committees held a total of 17 meetings19. The MSJTC
Meetings involved delegations from both Parties led by senior officials in
both Parties’ Foreign Ministries. All the discussions between the Parties
at the meetings of the MSJTC and its sub-committees were predicated on
the common position that the Judgment had made clear in the operative
clause that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore,
sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia, and sovereignty
over South Ledge “belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which
it is located”. The Parties proceeded on the basis that, as a consequence
of the Judgment, they had maritime entitlements generated by Pedra
Branca and Middle Rocks, and that sovereignty over South Ledge flows
from maritime boundary delimitation. The function of the MSJTC was
to work out how the Parties could move forward in the light of this
common position. This had never once been disputed by Malaysia
throughout the course of any of the meetings of the MSJTC or its subcommittees.
1.20 Each of the three main tasks of the MSJTC and its sub-committees
supports Singapore’s case that there is no dispute between the Parties over
the meaning or scope of the Judgment.
18 Request for Interpretation, Annex 1.
19 A chronological listing of the meetings of the MSJTC and its sub-committees is
set out in a table within Appendix 1 to these Written Observations.
- Page 9 -
1.21 The first task was to conduct a joint survey in order to obtain hydrographic
data of the low-water line of both Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks, and
of any low-tide elevations in the designated survey area20. Significantly,
it was Malaysia which had proposed the joint survey. In his opening
remarks at the Second Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey
Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge held
on 19-20 August 200821, Malaysia’s co-chairman for the Sub-Committee
said:
“As both sides are aware, the technical sub-committee was
tasked to oversee the conduct of the Joint Survey Works in
and around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks in preparation
for eventual talks on maritime issues in and around the said
three (3) features.”22
20 General Scope of Works for the Joint Hydrographic Survey in and around Pedra
Branca and Middle Rocks, Annex to the Memorandum of Understanding
between the Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of
Singapore with regard to the Joint Hydrographic Survey in and around Pedra
Branca and Middle Rocks, attached as Annex 66 to these Written
Observations, p. A1052, para. 1.
21 The Sub-Committee on the Joint Survey Works in and around Pedra Branca,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge (“the Joint Survey Works Sub-Committee”)
was set up during the First MSJTC Meeting. The Joint Survey Works Sub-
Committee met a total of 14 times, and was eventually dissolved following the
Sixth MSJTC Meeting held on 22-23 February 2012, after both sides agreed that
it had successfully completed its work.
22 Second Joint Technical Committee Meeting between Malaysia and Singapore
on the Implementation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment on
Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Putrajaya, 20 August 2008,
Record of Meeting, attached as Annex 21 to these Written Observations, p.
A158, Appendix D3. See also Meeting between Malaysia and the Republic of
Singapore on the Implementation of the International Court of Justice Judgment
on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, 3 June 2008, Singapore,
Record of Meeting, attached as Annex 17 to these Written Observations, p.
A117, para. 4(iii), and p. A127, Appendix, para. 3.
- Page 10 -
1.22 The joint survey was successfully completed by May 2011, after which
both Parties agreed to commence maritime boundary delimitation talks23.
The conduct of the joint survey in order to prepare for delimitation talks
demonstrates that the Parties accepted that they had overlapping maritime
and airspace entitlements generated by Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks
and delimitation was therefore needed.
1.23 The second key task of the MSJTC was to discuss the management of the
waters and airspace around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge24. Among the outcomes of these discussions were (a) an agreement
that current traditional fishing activities by the fishermen of both
countries would be allowed to continue in waters beyond 0.5 nautical
miles around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge and that both
Parties would “advise their respective fishermen not to encroach into
these 0.5 nautical miles [sic] zones”25; and (b) an agreement on the
approach for rendering of assistance in the event of an incident at sea26.
23 See para. 1.25 below.
24 A “Sub-Committee on Maritime & Airspace Management and Fisheries” was
established under the MSJTC to “discuss the airspace and maritime
management and fisheries issue [sic] related to the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) Judgment on the case concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge”. See Second Joint Technical Committee Meeting
between Malaysia and Singapore on the Implementation of the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge, Putrajaya, 20 August 2008, Record of Meeting, attached as Annex 21 to
these Written Observations, p. A142, para. 7, and p. A197, Annex E, para. 3.
This Sub-Committee has met a total of three times thus far, from 2010 to 2012.
25 Second Joint Technical Committee Meeting between Malaysia and Singapore
on the Implementation of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgment on
Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Putrajaya, 20 August 2008,
Record of Meeting, attached as Annex 21 to these Written Observations, p.
A142, para. 4(iii), and p. A198, para. 3.3.
26 See Annex 18 to these Written Observations, p. A118, para. 4(vi), and
p. A129, Annex F, para. 1.
- Page 11 -
1.24 The Parties accepted that these discussions on airspace and maritime
management, such as those concerning incidents at sea27 and traditional
fishing activities28, were needed because of their overlapping claims to
maritime and airspace entitlements pending delimitation. At these
discussions, Malaysia again expressly “acknowledged that both sides
need to delimit the maritime boundary in that area”29.
1.25 The third task of the MSJTC was maritime boundary delimitation. After
the Prime Ministers of both Parties agreed on 19 February 2013 that the
MSJTC would begin work on delimitation30, the Parties held discussions
at the Seventh MSJTC Meeting on the creation of a new sub-committee
on delimitation; appointments of the co-chairs of the sub-committee; the
scope of its work; the sub-committee’s formal name; and other modalities
of the delimitation talks31.
1.26 While agreement was not reached on some of these issues, this can hardly
be said to amount to a lack of progress, especially as this was only the
27 See Annex 21 to these Written Observations, p. A197, Annex E, para. 3.2(ii).
28 Ibid., p. A198, para. 3.3(i).
29 Fourth Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee on the
Implementation of the International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Kuala Lumpur, 26-27 July 2010,
Record of Meeting, attached as Annex 58 to these Written Observations, p.
A883, para. 10.
30 Joint Statement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Prime Minister Dato’
Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak at the Singapore-Malaysia Leaders’ Retreat
in Singapore on 19 February 2013, Request for Interpretation, Annex 3, para. 7.
31 See diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, SHC 178/2013, dated 27
December 2013, attached as Annex 88 to these Written Observations, which
enclosed Singapore’s draft Record of Meeting for the Seventh MSJTC Meeting,
pp. A1484-1488, paras. 4-12; and diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore,
EC 68/2014, dated 27 April 2014 (but received by Singapore on 27 March
2014), attached as Annex 97 to these Written Observations, which enclosed
Malaysia’s draft Record of Meeting for the Seventh MSJTC Meeting, pp.
A1544-A1545, paras. 4-6.
- Page 12 -
first time that the Parties had begun delimitation talks in earnest following
the completion of the joint survey. In fact, both sides agreed to convene
the next meeting of the MSJTC in 201432. Moreover, the progress made
at the Seventh MSJTC Meeting was noted by the Prime Ministers of both
Parties at the 2014 Malaysia-Singapore Leaders’ Retreat, who also
welcomed the MSJTC’s decision to establish a new maritime boundary
delimitation sub-committee as a “positive step forward”33.
1.27 Malaysia implies in the Request for Interpretation that it is Singapore’s
fault that the MSJTC has not met since November 2013. Malaysia alleges
that “no further steps at all towards maritime boundary delimitation have
been taken by the two sides” and that “[t]he last official communication
between the two States on this topic of maritime boundary delimitation
was a Diplomatic Note sent by [Malaysia to Singapore] dated 27 April
2014”34. This is untrue. Singapore responded to Malaysia’s 27 April
2014 diplomatic note on 7 May 2014, i.e. within two weeks35. When no
response was received from Malaysia after six months, Singapore sent a
32 The Record of Meeting for the Seventh MSJTC Meeting has not been finalised.
However, what is common in each Party’s proposed draft of the Record of
Meeting is the fact that it was agreed that the Parties would meet again in 2014:
see Singapore’s draft Record of Meeting for the Seventh MSJTC Meeting,
Annex 88 to these Written Observations, p. A1493, para. 26; and Malaysia’s
draft Record of Meeting for the Seventh MSJTC Meeting, Annex 97 to these
Written Observations, p. A1546, para. 9.
33 “Joint Statement by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak
and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Malaysia-Singapore Leaders’
Retreat in Putrajaya, Malaysia on 7 April 2014”, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 5, para. 12. While Malaysia correctly describes this document in fn. 6
of the Request for Interpretation, it is erroneously cross-referenced to the 2016
Leaders’ Retreat in para. 11 of the Request for Interpretation.
34 Request for Interpretation, para. 11.
35 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00034/2014, dated 7
May 2014, attached as Annex 99 to these Written Observations.
- Page 13 -
further diplomatic note on 28 November 201436 in which it reminded
Malaysia that the Parties had agreed to hold the next MSJTC Meeting in
2014, and requested that Malaysia provide details of the Eighth MSJTC
Meeting. After waiting another year for a response from Malaysia,
Singapore sent another diplomatic note to Malaysia on 16 December
201537, requesting a response from Malaysia on, inter alia, the dates for
the Eighth MSJTC Meeting. Malaysia has not, to date, responded to any
of these diplomatic notes.
1.28 Against this backdrop, there is no basis for Malaysia’s insinuation that
Singapore is responsible for the MSJTC not reconvening. Singapore has
consistently demonstrated its willingness to continue with further
discussions at the MSJTC. Malaysia’s allegation that the Parties “remain
deadlocked as to the true meaning of the Court’s 2008 Judgment as it
concerns South Ledge and the waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh”38 mischaracterises the discussions at the Seventh MSJTC
Meeting, and glosses over the fact that both sides agreed to a further
meeting on delimitation and it is for Malaysia to propose suitable dates
for that meeting. In fact, as Singapore will elaborate below39, even
Malaysia’s recent 20 April 2017 diplomatic note40, and Singapore’s reply
diplomatic note of 25 May 201741, refer to further delimitation
36 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00091/2014, dated
28 November 2014, attached as Annex 100 to these Written Observations.
37 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00043/2015, dated
16 December 2015, attached as Annex 102 to these Written Observations.
38 Request for Interpretation, para. 20.
39 See para. 4.29 below.
40 Request for Interpretation, Annex 63.
41 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00022/2017, dated
25 May 2017, attached as Annex 103 to these Written Observations.
- Page 14 -
discussions between the Parties. Malaysia’s distortion of the facts is
advanced solely to suggest the existence of a “dispute” under Article 60
of the Statute of the Court, where none exists.
1.29 Malaysia misleadingly paints a negative picture of the work of the
MSJTC, describing it as having “failed to achieve its stated aims”42,
“reached an impasse”43, arrived at a “deadlock”44, been “incapable of
making progress”45 and “proven unsuccessful”46. Malaysia’s objective is
to try to convince the Court that the Parties therefore disagree over the
meaning or scope of the Judgment. But Malaysia’s contentions do not
show any dispute over the Court’s findings in the Judgment, and are
contradicted by its own conduct and statements over the years.
1.30 As explained above, through the MSJTC, both Parties undertook a joint
survey; reached agreement on how to manage incidents at sea and conduct
search and rescue operations; agreed that traditional fishing activities
could continue; discussed the management of other maritime and airspace
issues; and commenced maritime boundary delimitation. Throughout the
entire period, both Parties issued many public statements at the highest
levels of their governments noting and commending the progress made
by the MSJTC and its sub-committees47. None of these facts are
42 Request for Interpretation, para. 3.
43 Ibid., para. 11.
44 Ibid., paras. 11 and 20.
45 Ibid., para. 11.
46 Ibid., para. 20.
47 See, for example, Joint Press Statement by Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign
Affairs and Singapore’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Joint Press Statement:
The Second Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee (MSJTC) Meeting
on the Implementation of the International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”, dated 1 September 2008, attached as
Annex 25 to these Written Observations, p. A221, fifth para.; Joint Press
- Page 15 -
consistent with Malaysia’s case that the MSJTC was mired in
disagreements over the meaning or scope of the Judgment. In fact, the
full documentary records of the discussions in the MSJTC and its subcommittees
annexed by the Parties show clearly that there is no dispute
between the Parties concerning the meaning or scope of the Court’s
dispositif as alleged by Malaysia.
C. The Request for Interpretation and Malaysia’s Earlier Application
for Revision of the Judgment
1.31 The Request for Interpretation constitutes Malaysia’s second attempt to
appeal the Judgment. On 2 February 2017, Malaysia filed the Application
for Revision, in which it sought, on the basis of three sets of documents,
revision of the finding of the Court that sovereignty over Pedra Branca
belongs to Singapore. Malaysia claims that these documents were
discovered only after August 2016, and were unknown to the Court and
to Malaysia when the Judgment was rendered.
1.32 On 24 May 2017, Singapore submitted its Written Observations on the
admissibility of the Application for Revision. Singapore demonstrated in
those Written Observations that, save for the requirement that the
Application for Revision must be brought within ten years of the
Statement by Malaysia’s Foreign Minister and Singapore’s Foreign Minister,
“Third Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee
(MSJTC) on the Implementation of the International Court of Justice Judgment
on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”, dated 8 January 2010,
attached as Annex 48 to these Written Observations, p. A501, fourth para.;
“Joint Statement by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Prime Minister Dato’
Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul Razak at the Singapore-Malaysia Leaders’ Retreat
in Singapore on 19 February 2013”, Request for Interpretation, Annex 3, para.
7; and “Joint Statement by Prime Minister Dato’ Sri Mohd Najib Tun Abdul
Razak and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at the Malaysia-Singapore Leaders’
Retreat in Putrajaya, Malaysia on 7 April 2014”, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 5, para. 12.
- Page 16 -
Judgment, Malaysia has failed to meet any of the admissibility conditions
set out in Article 61 of the Statute of the Court.
1.33 Less than two weeks after Singapore filed its Written Observations on the
admissibility of the Application for Revision, Malaysia by way of a letter
dated 6 June 2017 informed the Registrar of the Court that “Malaysia will
shortly be submitting an Application for Interpretation of the Judgment of
23 May 2008 in the Case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), pursuant to Article 60 of the Statute of the
Court”48. Malaysia informed the Court that:
“Malaysia had originally intended to submit the Application
for Interpretation at the same time as the Application for
Revision was filed on 2nd February 2017”49
and that:
“ … given the relationship between the Application for
Revision and the Application for Interpretation, the Court
may consider it appropriate for the two applications to be
addressed in parallel.”50
1.34 However, in the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia now claims that “the
present Application for interpretation, which is made in accordance with
Article 60 of the Statute of the Court, is separate and autonomous from
the current revision proceedings before the Court, even if the two
proceedings are necessarily closely related”51.
48 Letter from Malaysia to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, dated
6 June 2017, attached as Annex 105 to these Written Observations.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Request for Interpretation, para. 7.
- Page 17 -
1.35 Singapore has pointed out that the Application for Revision was made for
internal reasons and has nothing to do with its merits. This comment
applies equally to the Request for Interpretation. It is telling that Malaysia
does not explain why the need for interpretation has only arisen four years
after the alleged “impasse” at the MSJTC or why the Request for
Interpretation could not have been filed sooner and instead was only filed
after Singapore had filed its Written Observations on the admissibility of
the Application for Revision. The filings of the Request for Interpretation
and Application for Revision appear instead to be a political manoeuvre
to demonstrate to Malaysia’s domestic audience that Malaysia is seeking
by all means to reverse those parts of the Judgment which Malaysia
regards as adverse to itself, and if unsuccessful, to seek a ruling of the
Court on delimitation in its favour. In fact, in respect of South Ledge, the
Request for Interpretation is a disguised attempt yet again to revise the
Judgment in Malaysia’s favour. These attempts run counter to Malaysia’s
claimed commitment to “honour and abide by the ICJ’s judgment and
fully implement its decision”52, and constitute a backdoor appeal that goes
against the res judicata principle upon which both the processes of
interpretation and of revision are premised. Like the Application for
Revision, the Request for Interpretation should be dismissed.
52 See, for example, Joint Press Statement by Malaysia’s Foreign Minister and
Singapore’s Foreign Minister, “Fifth Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint
Technical Committee (MSJTC) on the Implementation of the International
Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”,
dated 2 December 2010, attached as Annex 67 to these Written Observations.
See also Article 6 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003: “The Parties
agree to accept the Judgment of the Court given pursuant to this Special
Agreement as final and binding upon them” (Judgment, p. 19, para. 2).
- Page 18 -
D. Structure of these Written Observations
1.36 These Written Observations are divided into four Chapters including this
introductory chapter. The remaining Chapters are organised as follows:
(a) Chapter II sets out the legal requirements applicable to requests for
interpretation of judgments of the Court, as set out in the Statute
of the Court Statute and Rules of Court, as well as in the
jurisprudence of the Court.
(b) Chapter III will address Malaysia’s first submission in respect of
the waters surrounding Pedra Branca. Singapore will show that
the Court has no jurisdiction over this part of the Request for
Interpretation, that it is inadmissible, and that the first paragraph
of the operative clause of the Judgment is clear and requires no
interpretation.
(c) Chapter IV will discuss Malaysia’s second submission concerning
South Ledge. Singapore will again demonstrate that the Court has
no jurisdiction in respect of this aspect of the Request for
Interpretation, that it is likewise inadmissible, and that the third
paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment is clear and
requires no interpretation.
1.37 A Summary of Singapore’s Reasoning and Singapore’s Submission are
set out at the end of these Written Observations.
- Page 19 -
CHAPTER II
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO A REQUEST FOR
INTERPRETATION
2.1 As the Court recently observed in the Temple of Preah Vihear
interpretation case, when faced with a request for interpretation of one of
its judgments, the Court must first determine whether it has jurisdiction
over the request, and if so, whether the request is admissible53. This
involves two separate requirements: first, there must exist a dispute as to
the meaning or scope of the operative clause of the judgment in question
(jurisdiction); and second, the real purpose of the request for
interpretation must be solely to obtain clarification of the meaning and the
scope of what the Court has decided with binding force, and not to obtain
an answer to questions not so decided (admissibility).
A. Jurisdiction
2.2 With respect to jurisdiction, the Court has clarified that its task in matters
concerning a request for interpretation under Article 60 of the Statute of
the Court is
“ … to clarify the meaning and scope of what the Court
decided in the judgment which it is requested to interpret
(Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of
20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402).”54
2.3 However, no interpretation is needed if the judgment of the Court is clear.
In such a case, the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide on the request for
53 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case
concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v.
Thailand), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 294, para. 30.
54 Ibid., p. 306, para. 66.
- Page 20 -
interpretation. Moreover, to interpret a clear judgment would not only be
inappropriate, it would also put into question the finality of the Court’s
judgment itself and the res judicata principle guaranteed by Article 60 of
the Statute of the Court. As the Court stated concerning the request for
interpretation submitted by Nigeria in Cameroon v. Nigeria:
“It follows from the foregoing that the Court has already
clearly dealt with and rejected, in its Judgment of
11 June 1998, the first of the three submissions presented by
Nigeria at the end of its request for interpretation ... The
Court would therefore be unable to entertain this first
submission without calling into question the effect of the
Judgment concerned as res judicata.”55
In other words, if the meaning of a judgment is clear, there is no need to
interpret it any further: in claris non fit interpretatio.
2.4 In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia acknowledges that the Court
must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction over the request for interpretation
and that the request is admissible56. With respect to jurisdiction, Malaysia
refers to the well-established principle that a party requesting
interpretation must satisfy two conditions: (i) that a dispute exists between
the Parties, and (ii) that such dispute concerns the meaning or scope of the
operative part of the judgment57. These conditions arise from Article 60
of the Statute of the Court, which provides that:
“The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of
dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court
shall construe it upon the request of any party.”
55 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case
concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999, pp. 38-39, para. 16.
56 Request for Interpretation, para. 21.
57 Ibid., para. 24.
- Page 21 -
They also follow from the provisions of Article 98, paragraph 2, of the
Rules of Court, which stipulates that:
“A request for the interpretation of a judgment may be made
either by an application or by the notification of a special
agreement to that effect between the parties; the precise
point or points in dispute as to the meaning or scope of the
judgment shall be indicated.”
2.5 It is apparent that these two conditions need to be considered together.
The existence of a “dispute” is not in itself sufficient for jurisdictional
purposes. The real issue is whether the Parties have a dispute over a
matter that the Court has decided with binding force. As the Court put it
in its judgment on the request for interpretation in the Asylum case: “it is
necessary that there should exist a dispute as to the meaning or scope of
the judgment”58. Moreover, as the Court has also observed:
“ … any request for interpretation must relate to the
operative part of the judgment and cannot concern the
reasons for the judgment except in so far as these are
inseparable from the operative part.”59
58 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum
Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402. See also
Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1985, p. 223, para. 56; and Request for Interpretation of the Judgment
of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections
(Nigeria v. Cameroon), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999, pp. 36-37, para. 12.
59 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case
concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 35, para. 10; Request for Interpretation of the
Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican
Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of
America), Provisional Measures, Order of 16 July 2008, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p.
323, para. 47; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the
- Page 22 -
2.6 In this regard, the positions of the Parties in respect of the meaning or
scope of a judgment of the Court are relevant for the purpose of
determining whether there exists a dispute over the meaning or scope of
the Judgment for jurisdictional purposes under Article 60 of the Statute of
the Court. While the conduct of the Parties after a judgment cannot affect
the interpretation of the judgment, facts subsequent to the delivery of the
judgment are relevant for determining whether such a dispute exists60.
2.7 Singapore will demonstrate, in Chapters III and IV below, that there is no
dispute between the Parties over the dispositif of the Judgment and, on
this ground alone, the Request for Interpretation cannot stand. Moreover,
the first and third paragraphs of the operative clause of the Judgment are
crystal clear in meaning and require no interpretation. Any dispute
between the Parties is not over their meaning or scope, but over the extent
of each Party’s maritime and airspace entitlements, matters that the Court
was not requested to decide and did not decide in the Judgment.
B. Admissibility
2.8 With respect to the admissibility of a request for interpretation, the Court
has emphasised that:
“The real purpose of the request must be to obtain an
interpretation of the judgment. This signifies that its object
must be solely to obtain clarification of the meaning and the
Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)
(Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 296, para. 34.
60 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case
concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v.
Thailand), Provisional Measures, Order of 18 July 2011, I.C.J. Reports 2011,
p. 546, para. 37.
- Page 23 -
scope of what the Court has decided with binding force, and
not to obtain an answer to questions not so decided. Any
other construction of Article 60 of the Statute would nullify
the provision of the article that the judgment is final and
without appeal.”61
2.9 To the extent that a request for interpretation may go further, and seek “to
obtain an answer to questions not so decided”, the Court has also stated
that “no effect can be given to it”62. As the Court observed in the Temple
of Preah Vihear interpretation case:
“ … the Court must keep strictly within the limits of the
original judgment and cannot question matters that were
settled therein with binding force, nor can it provide answers
to questions the Court did not decide in the original
judgment.”63
2.10 The Court has also pointed out that:
“ … an interpretation – given in accordance with Article 60
of the Statute … cannot go beyond the limits of that
judgment itself, which are fixed by the special
agreement.”64
61 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum
Case, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402. See also, Request for Interpretation of the
Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear
(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2013, p. 303, para. 55.
62 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February
1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1985, p. 223, para. 56.
63 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case
concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v.
Thailand), Judgment I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 306, para. 66.
64 Interpretation of Judgment No. 3 (Treaty of Neuilly) (Chamber of Summary
Procedure), Judgment, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 4, p. 7.
- Page 24 -
and that:
“ … one must bear in mind the principle that it is the duty of
the Court not only to reply to the questions as stated in the
final submissions of the parties, but also to abstain from
deciding points not included in those submissions.”65
2.11 Singapore will show, in Chapters III and IV, that the Request for
Interpretation is inadmissible because Malaysia asks the Court to go
beyond the scope of the Judgment, and rule upon matters that the Court
did not, and indeed could not, decide with binding force.
65 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950, in the Asylum
Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402; See also,
Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1985, p. 217, para. 44.
- Page 25 -
CHAPTER III
MALAYSIA’S FIRST SUBMISSION:
THE WATERS SURROUNDING PEDRA BRANCA
3.1 Malaysia’s first submission asks the Court to adjudge and declare that:
“The waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh remain within
the territorial waters of Malaysia”66. In support of this submission,
Malaysia argues that “[t]he Parties have been unable to agree over the
meaning of the 2008 Judgment as it concerns … the waters surrounding
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”, and that, in this context, “it has become
necessary to request interpretation of those parts of the 2008 Judgment
over which the Parties cannot agree.”67
3.2 Malaysia attempts to link this submission to the first paragraph of the
operative clause of the Judgment by asserting that the Parties have been
unable to agree on the meaning and scope of “(1) the Court’s finding that
‘sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to
Singapore’”68. However, this assertion is entirely artificial and devoid of
merit. The first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment is
perfectly clear and requires no interpretation. The Court found that
“sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the Republic
of Singapore”69. There is no dispute between the Parties on this point.
Whatever dispute exists, as attested to by the annexes filed with the
66 Request for Interpretation, para. 56(a). Malaysia’s second submission in the
Request for Interpretation, concerning South Ledge, is addressed in Chapter IV
below.
67 Ibid., paras. 4-5.
68 Ibid., para. 5, citing para. 300(1) of the Judgment.
69 Judgment, p. 101, para. 300(1).
- Page 26 -
Request for Interpretation, concerns the extent of each Party’s maritime
and airspace entitlements, not the finding that sovereignty over the island
belongs to Singapore. But the extent of the maritime and airspace
entitlements around Pedra Branca was intentionally not placed before the
Court in the original case.
3.3 It will be recalled that in Article 2(a) of the Special Agreement, the Parties
requested the Court to determine whether sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of
Singapore70. This was the question decided by the Court in the first
paragraph of the dispositif. The Court was not requested to determine any
question of maritime entitlements or delimitation between the Parties. It
had no jurisdiction to do so, and accordingly made no such ruling. The
res judicata effect of the Judgment therefore extends solely to the decision
on sovereignty, a matter that needs no interpretation. It follows that
Malaysia’s submission is patently misguided when it nonetheless requests
the Court “to render an authoritative and binding interpretation of the
meaning of its 2008 Judgment in respect of the waters surrounding Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”71.
3.4 In Section A of this Chapter, Singapore will show that there is no
jurisdictional basis for Malaysia’s first submission. Quite simply, the first
paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment is clear and there is no
dispute between the Parties over the meaning or scope of the Court’s
ruling that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore. Indeed,
the facts which Malaysia relies on demonstrate why Malaysia has no basis
for submitting the Request for Interpretation.
70 The text of the Special Agreement is set out in para. 2 of the Judgment. Article
2 of the Special Agreement is also reproduced in para. 1.6 above.
71 Request for Interpretation, para. 6.
- Page 27 -
3.5 In Section B of this Chapter, Singapore will show that Malaysia’s first
submission is also inadmissible under the well-established conditions for
the admissibility of requests for interpretation. By requesting the Court
to declare that “[t]he waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
remain within the territorial waters of Malaysia”72, Malaysia is seeking an
answer to a question that the Court was not called upon to decide in the
original case, and that the Court did not decide.
3.6 In Section C of this Chapter, Singapore will offer concluding remarks on
Malaysia’s first submission.
A. The Absence of Jurisdiction for Malaysia’s First Submission
3.7 In making the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia tries to blur the
requirement that there must be a dispute over the meaning or scope of the
Judgment by referring to the principle that a legal dispute exists between
two States when there is “a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a
conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons”73, or when
“the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other”74. Malaysia
then points to a stream of diplomatic correspondence between the Parties
following the Judgment, in which they took different positions over the
delimitation of the waters surrounding Pedra Branca, in order to argue that
there is a “legal dispute” between the Parties. Based on this material,
Malaysia asserts, without any explanation, that this “dispute” concerns the
72 Request for Interpretation, para. 56(a).
73 Ibid., para. 26, citing Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2,
1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11.
74 Ibid., para. 26, citing South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia
v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 December 1962, I.C.J.
Reports 1962, p. 328.
- Page 28 -
first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment, in which the Court
found that “sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to
the Republic of Singapore”, and that the condition that there be a dispute
for jurisdictional purposes is thus “fully satisfied”75.
3.8 This is where Malaysia’s arguments on jurisdiction collapse. For nothing
in the Parties’ conduct, interactions or correspondence in the years
following the delivery of the Judgment shows the existence of a dispute
over the meaning or scope of what the Court decided in the first paragraph
of the operative clause of the Judgment – namely, that sovereignty over
Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore. In fact, the Application for Revision
reflects Malaysia’s acceptance that the meaning and scope of what the
Court decided in the first paragraph of the operative clause of the
Judgment is clear.
3.9 In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia has asked the Court to adjudge
and declare that “[t]he waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
remain within the territorial waters of Malaysia”76. Malaysia appears to
be arguing now that Singapore is not entitled to any territorial waters
surrounding Pedra Branca and that all of the waters beyond the low-water
line of Pedra Branca belong to Malaysia. However, its case is not borne
out by Malaysia’s own conduct and statements. Whatever Malaysia may
now say in the Request for Interpretation, the fact is that both Malaysia
and Singapore have always conducted themselves on the basis that in the
first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment, the Court awarded
sovereignty over Pedra Branca to Singapore, but did not rule on the extent
of the maritime entitlements of either Party. The conduct of both Parties
also shows that they are ad idem that the extent of their maritime
75 Request for Interpretation, para. 29.
76 Ibid., para. 56.
- Page 29 -
entitlements is to be determined through the process of maritime boundary
delimitation.
3.10 In Chapter I, Singapore has set out various public statements made by
Malaysia’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister after the delivery of the
Judgment, which show that this was clearly Malaysia’s position77. In
Chapter IV78, Singapore sets out other public statements by the Malaysian
Government at the highest levels that whether Singapore or Malaysia has
sovereignty over South Ledge flows from maritime delimitation. These
statements were reported in detail by the media, and can only be consistent
with the premise that both Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks have territorial
waters. Moreover, the entire point of extensive bilateral discussions
between Singapore and Malaysia in the post-Judgment period, which
Singapore has described in Chapter I, was to resolve how both Parties
could move forward and delimit the waters in the area around Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge79.
3.11 All of the MSJTC discussions were based on the obvious premise that
Singapore had sovereignty over Pedra Branca while Malaysia had
sovereignty over Middle Rocks, and that each Party had maritime and
airspace entitlements which flow from this. Otherwise, there would be
nothing to delimit. The Parties also recognised that the next step was to
determine the extent of these entitlements bilaterally. In particular, the
Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of Malaysia
and the Government of the Republic of Singapore with regard to the Joint
Hydrographic Survey in and around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks
77 See paras. 1.15-1.17 above.
78 See paras. 4.11-4.18 below. See also Appendix 2 to these Written
Observations.
79 See paras. 1.15-1.17 above.
- Page 30 -
acknowledged that the purpose of the joint survey was “to prepare for
eventual talks between both Parties on maritime issues in and around
Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks”80. This shows that Malaysia recognised
at the time that the Court had only decided the sovereignty question, and
had not concerned itself with the question of the delimitation of the waters
around Pedra Branca, a matter that was left to the Parties and not put
before the Court.
3.12 In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia refers to various “incidents”81
involving Singapore and Malaysian Government personnel, vessels and
aircraft in the area around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge,
and the diplomatic protests and correspondence that were exchanged by
both sides in response. Malaysia attempts to rely on these actions and
correspondence to show that there has been “ongoing disagreement
between the Parties throughout the post-Judgment period on two issues:
the status of South Ledge, and the status of the waters surrounding Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”82. But all the exchanges between the Parties
concerned the status of the waters around Pedra Branca, not sovereignty
over the island. They reveal that Singapore and Malaysia have differing
positions on the extent of each State’s maritime entitlements in the
relevant area. These are not “disputes over the meaning or scope of the
Judgment” for the simple reason that there has always been common
ground between the Parties that the Court did not have jurisdiction to
80 Request for Interpretation, Annex 2, p. 2. A copy of the signed Memorandum
of Understanding is attached as Annex 66 to these Written Observations. In
the same vein, the Joint Statement of the Parties’ Prime Ministers of 19 February
2013 welcomed the completion of the Joint Survey Works in and around Pedra
Branca and Middle Rocks “and agreed that the next step would be for the
MSJTC to move into the delimitation of maritime boundaries”: Request for
Interpretation, Annex 3, para. 7. See para. 1.25 and fn. 30 above.
81 Request for Interpretation, para. 55.
82 Ibid., para.12.
- Page 31 -
determine the extent of the Parties’ waters surrounding Pedra Branca, and
the first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment says absolutely
nothing about those waters.
3.13 Despite the seemingly impressive number of documents Malaysia has
annexed to the Request for Interpretation in an effort to show the existence
of a dispute over the meaning or scope of the Judgment, those documents
do no more than assert with tedious repetitiveness the same argument –
namely, that the territorial waters surrounding Pedra Branca and the
airspace over those waters are Malaysian83.
3.14 The most that Malaysia has asserted in all its correspondence is that “[t]he
waters around Batu Puteh are part of the territorial waters and maritime
areas of Malaysia as depicted in the Map Defining the Boundaries of the
Continental Shelf of Malaysia of 1979” and “the maritime area
surrounding Batu Puteh is located within the territorial waters of Malaysia
in accordance with the principles of international law as well as the
Judgment of the ICJ.”84 These assertions concern disagreement over how
delimitation should be effected and not over the meaning or scope of the
Judgment. None of the diplomatic correspondence cited by Malaysia,
whether its protests over Singapore’s issuance of Notices to Airmen
83 Malaysia itself notes that “[i]n no fewer than 54 diplomatic notes, Malaysia has
reminded Singapore that the waters around Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh are
within Malaysia’s territorial waters, and that the airspace above those waters is
part of Malaysia’s airspace”: Request for Interpretation, para. 15.
84 Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC 53/2008, dated
29 October 2008, Request for Interpretation, Annex 121.
- Page 32 -
(NOTAMs)85 and designation of Restricted Area WSR 3186, or its
responses to Singapore’s protests over Malaysia’s designation of dumping
grounds for dredging activities87, or interference with search and rescue
and wreck removal and salvage operations88 have ever pointed to any
dispute over the meaning or scope of the Judgment.
3.15 In fact, contrary to the interpretation Malaysia seeks from the Court, all
the discussions at the MSJTC and its sub-committees proceeded on the
basis that both Singapore and Malaysia had overlapping maritime
entitlements around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks respectively in
accordance with international law.
3.16 The interpretation which Malaysia seeks is also inconsistent with
Malaysia’s stance even after it filed the Request for Interpretation. In a
recent tragic collision of two vessels which occurred in the vicinity of
85 See, for example, Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia
to the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
22/2009, dated 12 March 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 9.
86 See, for example, Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia
to the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
30/2009, dated 2 April 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 10.
87 See, for example, Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia
to the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
71/16, dated 28 June 2016, Request for Interpretation, Annex 61; and Note
Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High Commission
of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC 144/16, dated 24 November
2016, Request for Interpretation, Annex 98.
88 See, for example, Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia
to the High Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
63/17, dated 8 June 2017, Request for Interpretation, Annex 62.
- Page 33 -
Pedra Branca89, Malaysia’s Chief of Navy published a maritime chart90
on 21 August 2017 via social media, which clearly recognised that
Singapore is entitled to a territorial sea generated from Pedra Branca (even
if Singapore does not agree with the extent of the territorial sea as
depicted). The maritime chart published by Malaysia’s Chief of Navy, as
well as the same maritime chart with Singapore’s further annotations (in
the blue text boxes), including translations of relevant words from the
Malay language to the English language, for reference, are shown in
Inserts 1A and 1B respectively on the following pages.
89 This was a collision which occurred on 21 August 2017 between US guidedmissile
destroyer USS John McCain and Liberian-flagged merchant vessel
ALNIC MC in the Singapore Strait, northeast of Pedra Branca: see press
statement by the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, “Collision of US
Guided-missile destroyer JOHN MCCAIN and TANKER ALNIC MC in
Singapore Waters”, dated 21 August 2017, attached as Annex 106 to these
Written Observations.
90 Screen captures of the Twitter posts by and profile of Malaysia’s Chief of Navy,
with enlargements of the maritime chart in the Twitter posts, and further
annotations, including English translations by Singapore, are collectively
attached as Annex 107 to these Written Observations. A screen capture of
Malaysia’s Chief of Navy’s profile on the official website of the Malaysian
Armed Forces Headquarters is attached as Annex 108 to these Written
Observations.
- Page 34 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
Insert 1A
Maritime chart published by Malaysia’s Chief of Navy on Twitter on 21 August 2017
Insert 1A – Maritime chart published by Malaysia’s Chief of Navy on Twitter on 21 August 2017
Insert 1B
Maritime chart published by Malaysia’s Chief of Navy on Twitter on 21 August 2017, with
Singapore’s further annotations (in the blue text boxes), including translations of relevant
words from the Malay language to the English language, for reference

- Page 35 -
3.17 The above images are extracts of a chart of the area in which the collision
occurred, over which additional information was overlaid by Malaysia.
The overlaid information highlights Pedra Branca (“BATU PUTEH” on
the chart) and includes an area bounded in green lines which is labelled,
“POTENSI LAUT WILAYAH SINGAPURA” (“potential Singapore
territorial sea”). The Malaysian Chief of Navy’s tweet, and the
accompanying chart containing Malaysia’s overlaid information on the
“potential Singapore territorial sea”, were reported in the international
media91. Clearly, even up until as recently as August 2017, the Malaysian
Government at its highest levels continued to conduct itself in a manner
which shows that there is no dispute over the meaning and scope of the
first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment.
3.18 Malaysia’s attempt to now deny Singapore any maritime entitlements
around Pedra Branca through its first submission is moreover clearly
incompatible with international law. Under Article 121 of the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary
international law, the island of Pedra Branca generates its own maritime
entitlements. Indeed, the Court recognised as much in the Judgment when
it addressed the question of sovereignty over South Ledge (discussed in
the next Chapter) by stating that it “will proceed on the basis of whether
South Ledge lies within the territorial waters generated by Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, which belongs to Singapore, or within those
generated by Middle Rocks, which belongs to Malaysia.”92
91 See, for example, report dated 21 August 2017 by The Telegraph, “‘That’s too
bad’: Donald Trump criticised for response to news ten sailors missing, five
injured after US warship collides with oil tanker near Singapore”, attached as
Annex 109 to these Written Observations.
92 Judgment, p. 101, para. 297. As the Court noted in the Territorial and Maritime
Dispute case: “It inevitably follows [from Article 121 of UNCLOS] that a
comparatively small island may give an entitlement to a considerable maritime
- Page 36 -
3.19 For present purposes, however, this is not the question. Jurisdiction over
a request for interpretation of a judgment of the Court depends on the
existence of a dispute as to the meaning or scope of what the Court
decided in the operative clause of its judgment. As is clear from the
above, there is no dispute between the Parties over the meaning and scope
of the Court’s holding that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to
Singapore. The fact that the Parties may have a dispute over the extent of
their respective maritime and airspace entitlements does not provide a
jurisdictional basis for the Court to entertain Malaysia’s first submission.
Those issues bear no relation to the matters decided by the Court.
3.20 It follows that Malaysia has not satisfied the requirements of Article 60
of the Statute of the Court or Article 98, paragraph 2, of the Rules of
Court, the latter of which obliges a party seeking interpretation to indicate
the “precise point or points in dispute as to the meaning or scope of the
judgment”93. There is no such dispute over the first paragraph of the
operative clause. In these circumstances, the statement of the Court in its
judgment on the request for interpretation in the Avena case is particularly
apposite:
“45. … Whether or not there is a dispute, it does not bear on
the interpretation of the Avena Judgment …
area”. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 689-690, para. 176.
93 As the Court noted in Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20
November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1950, p.403, Article 98, para. 2, of the Rules of Court (which at the time
was Article 79, para. 2) confirms the condition in Article 60 of the Statute that
there must be a dispute on definite points over the meaning or scope of the
judgment, and that a request that does not satisfy the requirements of Article 60
and Article 98, para. 2 is not admissible.
- Page 37 -
46. For these reasons, the Court cannot accede to Mexico’s
Request for interpretation.”94
3.21 The reality is that there can be no possible ambiguity, let alone need for
interpretation, regarding the Court’s holding that “sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to the Republic of Singapore”. Those
words say what they mean and mean what they say. Singapore has
sovereignty over Pedra Branca; no more and no less. The exact same
words are used in the dispositif for Middle Rocks, over which Malaysia
has not raised any issue of interpretation. Both formulations are equally
clear. It follows that there are no possible grounds for Malaysia’s first
submission for interpretation (in claris non fit interpretatio).
B. Malaysia’s First Submission Is Inadmissible
3.22 The clarity of the Judgment and the absence of a dispute providing a
jurisdictional basis for entertaining Malaysia’s first submission are
sufficient reasons for dismissing that submission. Nonetheless, Singapore
will show in this section that Malaysia’s submission is also inadmissible
under the well-established criteria for admissibility that have been
consistently applied by the Court, which Singapore has set out in
Chapter II.
3.23 Malaysia pays lip service to these principles in the Request for
Interpretation95. But it completely fails to apply them with respect to its
94 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case
concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of
America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 17, paras. 45-46.
95 Request for Interpretation, para. 50.
- Page 38 -
own first submission for interpretation. That submission, it must be
recalled, is for the Court to adjudge and declare that:
“[t]he waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
remain within the territorial waters of Malaysia”96.
3.24 It is clear on its face that, in this submission, Malaysia asks the Court by
way of an interpretation of the Judgment to answer a question – the extent
of the Parties’ entitlements to the waters surrounding Pedra Branca – that
was simply not decided by the Court in the Judgment, and could not be
decided by the Court because it was not within its mandate to do so. As
such, it is patently inadmissible under the Court’s consistent jurisprudence
on this point, and should be given no effect.
3.25 Singapore has already recalled that the Special Agreement submitting the
original case to the Court limited the request made to the Court to a
determination of sovereignty over three features: Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Nothing in the Special
Agreement sought any ruling from the Court on the extent of the Parties’
maritime entitlements in the waters around these features. This is well
reflected in the title of the original case: “Sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”.
3.26 Malaysia’s own pleadings in the original case confirm the point. In its
Memorial, Malaysia specifically described the scope of the case in the
following terms:
“The Special Agreement places before the Court a dispute
between the Parties relating to sovereignty over an island at
the entrance to the South China Sea, Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra
Branca), as well as two other features, Middle Rocks and
South Ledge (hereinafter collectively referred to as the
‘three features’). Specifically the Court is asked ‘to
96 Request for Interpretation, para. 56(a).
- Page 39 -
determine whether sovereignty over (a) Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh; (b) Middle Rocks; (c) South Ledge, belongs to
Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore’.”97
Malaysia then repeated the point in its “Overview of the Dispute”:
“The question put to the Court refers to sovereignty over
three features, Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge.”98
3.27 Similarly, in its Counter-Memorial, Malaysia stated that:
“To avoid any risk of confusion in the light of these
statements, it should be emphasised what this case is and is
not about. This case concerns sovereignty – over PBP [i.e.
Pulau Batu Puteh/Pedra Branca], Middle Rocks and South
Ledge – and that alone.”99
3.28 Malaysia’s submissions were to the same end. For example, in its final
submissions read out at the end of the oral proceedings in the original
case, Malaysia stated the following:
“In accordance with Article 60, paragraph 2, of the Rules of
Court, [Malaysia] respectfully request[s] the Court to
adjudge and declare that sovereignty over:
(a) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh … belongs to
Malaysia.”100
3.29 Quite clearly, Malaysia did not ask for, and did not expect, any ruling
from the Court on the extent of the Parties’ maritime entitlements in the
waters surrounding Pedra Branca. Nor did Singapore. In its Memorial,
Singapore recalled that the Special Agreement “does not request the Court
97 Memorial of Malaysia, para. 3.
98 Ibid., para. 5.
99 Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, para. 183.
100 Judgment, pp. 21-22, para. 15.
- Page 40 -
to enter into an exercise of delimitation or to make declarations
concerning fishing or other economic rights.”101 Moreover, Singapore’s
submissions were also limited to the question of sovereignty, in
requesting the Court to adjudge and declare that “the Republic of
Singapore has sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”102.
3.30 The Parties limited the scope of the original matter submitted to the Court
to the question of sovereignty. The Court had no jurisdiction to rule on
the extent of the waters surrounding Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks
which appertained to Singapore or Malaysia, and the Judgment’s
dispositif contains no such ruling. To the contrary, the Court underlined
that it had not been mandated by the Parties to draw the delimitation line
with respect to the Parties’ respective territorial waters103. The Court also
excluded the possibility that its Judgment could be interpreted to mean
that Pedra Branca had no territorial waters by noting that “South Ledge
falls within the apparently overlapping territorial waters generated by the
mainland of Malaysia, Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle
Rocks.”104
3.31 Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear that when Malaysia now
asks the Court to adjudge and declare that “[t]he waters surrounding Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh remain within the territorial waters of
Malaysia”, it is seeking an answer to a question that was not decided by
the Court in the Judgment nor within its mandate to do so. As the Court
stated in the Avena case: “In short, the question is not decided in the
101 Memorial of Singapore, para. 1.4.
102 Judgment, p. 21, para. 15.
103 Ibid., p. 101, para. 298.
104 Ibid., p. 101, para. 297.
- Page 41 -
Court’s original Judgment and thus cannot be submitted to it for
interpretation under Article 60 of the Statute.”105 The submission is thus
inadmissible; its real purpose is not to seek an interpretation of the
Judgment, and it should be rejected in limine.
C. Conclusions on Malaysia’s First Submission
3.32 Malaysia’s first submission for interpretation is fundamentally flawed.
Malaysia has not demonstrated, in accordance with Article 60 of the
Statute and Article 98, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that there is any
dispute between the Parties over the meaning or scope of the Court’s
holding that sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to
the Republic of Singapore. On the contrary, the Parties have always acted
post-Judgment on the basis that there is no ambiguity in the first paragraph
of the operative clause of the Judgment, which is crystal clear in its
meaning and scope, and requires no interpretation. In fact, the
Application for Revision reflects Malaysia’s acceptance that there is no
dispute over the meaning or scope of the first paragraph of the operative
clause of the Judgment. For these reasons, there is no jurisdictional basis
for Malaysia’s submission, and it cannot be given effect.
3.33 Malaysia’s first submission is also inadmissible. It seeks a ruling from
the Court – that “[t]he waters surrounding Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
remain within the territorial waters of Malaysia” – which was not decided
in the Judgment. In other words, Malaysia’s submission is not a genuine
105 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case
concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of
America) (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009,
p. 17, para. 44, citing Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November
1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p.
402.
- Page 42 -
request for interpretation of the meaning and scope of what the Court
decided with binding force in the Judgment. It should, therefore, be
rejected.
- Page 43 -
CHAPTER IV
MALAYSIA’S SECOND SUBMISSION:
SOVEREIGNTY OVER SOUTH LEDGE
4.1 In respect of South Ledge, Malaysia contends that “a dispute has emerged as
to the meaning and scope of the 2008 Judgment” about the question “whether
or not the operative clause of the 2008 Judgment has indeed decided with
binding force the question of sovereignty over South Ledge.”106 For this
reason, it requests the Court to adjudge and declare that “South Ledge is
located in the territorial waters of Malaysia, and consequently sovereignty
over South Ledge belongs to Malaysia.”107
4.2 In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia has characterised Singapore’s
position on the third paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment as one
which “entails the interpretation that the 2008 Judgment’s operative clause
does not answer the specific question posed to it by the Parties.”108 Malaysia
claims that, “[i]n contrast, Malaysia considers that the Court had discharged
its function”109, and therefore suggests that the Parties are in dispute over this
issue. This suggestion that Singapore views the Court as not having carried
out the task allotted to it under the Special Agreement is both mischievous
and incorrect. Singapore has always taken and maintains the position that the
Court has fully discharged its function under Article 2(c) of the Special
Agreement in ruling on sovereignty over South Ledge given the particular
characteristics of that feature as a low-tide elevation.
106 Request for Interpretation, para. 44.
107 Ibid., para. 56(b).
108 Ibid., para. 45.
109 Ibid., para. 46.
- Page 44 -
4.3 A definitive decision on sovereignty over South Ledge does not necessarily
require the Court to say in its judgment that South Ledge belongs to
Singapore or to Malaysia, just like a definitive determination of a maritime
boundary between two States does not necessarily require the identification
and determination of the exact end point110. The Court’s decision is entirely
clear and sufficient.
4.4 Having clarified that there is no dispute on this point, Singapore will show in
this Chapter that Malaysia’s second submission faces the same objections as
those that apply to its first submission. In Section A, Singapore will
demonstrate that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Malaysia’s second
submission. The arguments raised in the previous Chapter on the Court’s
jurisdiction in relation to Malaysia’s first submission can be transposed
mutatis mutandis to its second submission concerning sovereignty over South
Ledge: the facts and history of the Parties’ conduct following the delivery of
the Judgment show that there is no dispute over the meaning or scope of the
third paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment.
4.5 In Section B, Singapore will show that, in any event, Malaysia’s second
submission is inadmissible, as its true purpose is to have the Court decide a
question that it could not, and did not, decide in the Judgment.
4.6 In Section C, Singapore makes concluding remarks on Malaysia’s second
submission.
110 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application for
Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 442, para. 64. See
also Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 685, para. 162.
- Page 45 -
A. The Absence of Jurisdiction for Malaysia’s Second Submission
4.7 As recalled in Chapter II above111, Article 60 of the Statute of the Court and
Article 98, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court provide that a Party requesting
interpretation of a judgment must satisfy two cumulative conditions: (i) that
a dispute exists between the Parties, and (ii) that such dispute concerns the
meaning or scope of the operative clause of the judgment. These conditions
have not been fulfilled in respect of Malaysia’s second submission
(concerning South Ledge) any more than in respect of its first submission
(concerning the waters surrounding Pedra Branca).
4.8 In the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia has purportedly identified the
“dispute” in respect of South Ledge in the following way:
“In light of these diplomatic exchanges, the precise point on
which a dispute has emerged as to the meaning and scope of
the 2008 Judgment is whether or not the operative clause of
the 2008 Judgment has indeed decided with binding force
the question of sovereignty over South Ledge. In the Special
Agreement by which the Parties jointly initiated proceedings
before the Court on 24 July 2003, the Parties requested the
Court ‘to determine whether sovereignty over ... South
Ledge ... belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore’.
The relevant section of the operative clause of the
2008 Judgment states that ‘sovereignty over South Ledge
belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is
located’.”112
4.9 Malaysia asserts that the Parties are in dispute “concerning the Court’s
finding that ‘sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the
territorial waters of which it is located’”113. The facts do not bear this out.
Instead, the facts establish that, in reality, there is no dispute concerning
111 See paras. 2.2-2.7 above.
112 Request for Interpretation, para. 44.
113 Request for Interpretation, para. 39.
- Page 46 -
whether the third paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment has
decided the question of sovereignty over South Ledge. Both Parties have
been clear over the meaning and scope of the third paragraph of the operative
clause of the Judgment. The Parties have always recognised that, as the
Judgment decided that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in
the territorial waters of which it is located, and given the Court’s observation
that “South Ledge falls within the apparently overlapping territorial waters
generated by the mainland of Malaysia, Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and
Middle Rocks”114, maritime delimitation in the area is necessary.
4.10 Malaysia now argues “that the 2008 Judgment allocated to Malaysia
sovereignty over South Ledge”115. Apart from being contrary to the
Judgment, this is wholly unsupported by the facts and history of the Parties’
dealings. In other words, Malaysia has artificially manufactured a dispute
where none exists. It is especially telling that at no point during a period of
almost ten years following the Judgment has Malaysia ever stated that the
Judgment in and of itself allocated sovereignty over South Ledge to
Malaysia.
4.11 On the contrary, the Malaysian Government consistently made public
statements recognising that the status of South Ledge fell to be determined
between the Parties through delimitation talks. For example, shortly after the
Judgment was delivered, Malaysia’s Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi
explained at a press conference in Tokyo on 23 May 2008 that:
“We must be thankful that Middle Rocks belongs to us.
What needs to be determined is South Ledge … ”116
114 Judgment, para. 297.
115 Request for Interpretation, para. 45.
116 Report dated 23 May 2008 by Berita Nasional Malaysia (Bernama), “Malaysia
Needs to Prepare to Implement ICJ Decisions”, attached as Annex 5 to these
Written Observations.
- Page 47 -
A separate media report of the same press conference recorded that:
“[Malaysia’s Prime Minister] said Malaysia was grateful
that the ICJ had awarded Middle Rocks to the nation, adding
that the next step was for officials from both sides to meet to
decide on the maritime demarcation line as soon as possible.
“Any discussion to be held or action to be taken with
Singapore must be done in a peaceful manner and with
understanding from both sides. We do not want any conflict
to arise,” he stressed.
The Prime Minister also said that action must also be taken
to determine the location of South Ledge.
“We need to determine the demarcation line to show that
South Ledge is in our waters,” he added.”117
4.12 Malaysia’s then Foreign Minister, Dr Rais Yatim, also acknowledged in a
press interview on 25 May 2008 that the Court did not find that South Ledge
belonged to Malaysia. He stated:
“We are also pleased that the judgment which states that the
territorial waters within which South Ledge is situated, will
be, to be in favour of the state that has the territorial waters.
We will work this out with the technical committee ... ”118
4.13 Malaysia’s Foreign Minister made similar points in another press interview
given that day, noting that:
“We should not create commotion out of [the Judgment]
because for the last two weeks we have laid the ground for a
peaceful solution. The fact that we have won half and
117 Report dated 24 May 2008 by The Star, “A sad Abdullah accepts ICJ ruling”,
attached as Annex 7 to these Written Observations.
118 Transcript of doorstop interview with Singapore’s Foreign Minister, George
Yeo and Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Dr Rais Yatim on 25 May 2008 at
Yangon, attached as Annex 10 to these Written Observations; see also para.
1.15 above.
- Page 48 -
Singapore half, this is to us sufficient reward so far subject
to our next negotiation on South Ledge.”119
He further stated that in the case of South Ledge, the joint technical
committee set up by both countries would hold a meeting in two weeks’ time
to lay down the principles and the steps ahead.
4.14 Singapore has always agreed with this position. Singapore’s official press
statement on 23 May 2008 recognised that “[t]he Court also decided that
South Ledge belongs to the country in whose territorial waters it is located.”
It clarified, in response to media queries, that “[t]he Court was not asked to
determine such questions of maritime space or boundary delimitation” and
that “Singapore’s rights and interests on these matters will be pursued in
accordance with international law.”120
4.15 The official Malaysian Government press statement on the release of the
Judgment also explained that the Judgment did not determine that South
Ledge belongs to Malaysia. It acknowledged that:
“Relating to South Ledge, the Court ruled that its
sovereignty is dependent on the State in which the territorial
waters are located.”121
The press statement further added that:
119 Report dated 23 May 2008 by Berita Nasional Malaysia (Bernama), “Msia
Loses Batu Puteh Not Due to Weak Arguments, Says Rais”, attached as Annex
6 to these Written Observations.
120 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Statement, International Court of Justice
Awards Sovereignty of Pedra Branca to Singapore, dated 23 May 2008,
attached as Annex 2 to these Written Observations.
121 Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs Dato’ Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim to
RTM on the Verdict by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Pulau
Batu Puteh Case, 23 May 2008, attached as Annex 3 to these Written
Observations.
- Page 49 -
“Since South Ledge is within the territorial waters of Middle
Rocks, Malaysia appears to be the sovereign holder.”122
[Emphasis added]
4.16 Such statements continued long after the Judgment was delivered. In 2010,
the Malaysian media reported on remarks concerning South Ledge made by
Malaysia’s Deputy Foreign Minister:
“Deputy Foreign Minister, A. Kohilan Pillay said that
negotiations are underway with Singapore and are expected
to take some time before a final decision is reached.
“Respectively Malaysia and Singapore want to claim their
ownership rights over South Ledge.
“South Ledge is a rock that only emerges during low tide, it
is situated in the overlapping area in the waters of Malaysia
and Singapore,” he said when contacted by Utusan Malaysia
here today.
…
With regard to that, Malaysia and Singapore need to detail
the waters between Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks as well
as South Ledge through the Technical Committee.”123
4.17 Similar statements were made by the Chief Director of Research, Treaty and
International Law of Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Co-Agent
of Malaysia in the original case:
122 Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs Dato’ Seri Utama Dr Rais Yatim to
RTM on the Verdict by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Pulau
Batu Puteh Case, 23 May 2008, attached as Annex 3 to these Written
Observations.
123 Report dated 6 February 2010 by Utusan Malaysia, a Malaysian newspaper,
“Malaysia pertahankan kedaulatan Tubir Selatan” (translated into English as:
“Malaysia defends sovereignty over South Ledge”), and English translation
provided by Singapore, attached as Annex 49 to these Written Observations.
- Page 50 -
“PUTRAJAYA 18 Feb. – Malaysia and Singapore need to
carry out measuring works before determining the
sovereignty of South Ledge in south Johor.
This was confirmed by the Chief Director of Research,
Treaty and International Law of the Foreign Ministry, Datuk
Noor Farida Ariffin in reply to the issue concerning the
sovereignty of the rocky outcrop which only emerges when
the tide is low.
She informed that even though geographical fact shows that
South Ledge is situated in the national waters and is nearest
to Middle Rocks, nevertheless Kuala Lumpur would
continue with negotiations based on the spirit of
neighbourliness and friendship with Singapore.
“Negotiations are needed to prove that Malaysia has
sovereignty over South Ledge.
“This is one of the things that are contained in the Malaysia-
Singapore Joint Technical Committee’s meeting agenda,”
she said in a statement here today.”124
4.18 There were, in fact, other similar statements made by the Malaysian
Government at the highest levels, and reported in detail by the media. A list
of, and extracts from, media reports setting out statements by the Malaysian
Government that the Judgment did not determine whether Singapore or
Malaysia had sovereignty over South Ledge, which consequently could only
be determined by maritime boundary delimitation is set out in Appendix 2
to these Written Observations.
4.19 Malaysia therefore understood perfectly what the Court actually decided.
That “South Ledge falls within Malaysia’s territorial waters” was nothing
more than in the nature of a claim can be seen in the language carefully
124 Report dated 19 February 2010 by Utusan Malaysia, “Wisma Putra jawab isu
Tubir Selatan dengan Singapura” (translated into English as: “Wisma Putra
replies about South Ledge issue with Singapore”), and English translation
provided by Singapore, attached as Annex 50 to these Written Observations.
- Page 51 -
chosen by the Malaysian Government. It has remained clear to both
Singapore125 and Malaysia126 that which State has sovereignty over South
Ledge as a low-tide elevation depends on bilateral maritime delimitation. As
Singapore has pointed out in Chapter I above, both Parties engaged at the
MSJTC in extensive discussions and in conducting a joint survey on that
basis.
4.20 The mutual understanding of the Parties concerning what the Court actually
decided in respect of South Ledge is also confirmed by the numerous
exchanges of notes and letters between Singapore and Malaysia. To support
125 See, for example, letter from Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong to
Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Abdullah Badawi, dated 26 May 2008, attached as
Annex 15 to these Written Observations (“There is still work to be done to
implement the decision of the Court, including finalising the status of South
Ledge”); letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 22 August 2008, attached as Annex 22 to these
Written Observations (“We both agreed that, consistent with the ICJ
judgement, the status of South Ledge would have to be determined by the proper
process of delimitation”); diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00025/2008, 23 August 2008, attached as Annex 23 to these
Written Observations; letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 15 September 2008, attached as
Annex 27 to these Written Observations (“As the delimitation of boundaries
around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge has yet to be carried out,
the status of South Ledge remains indeterminate until the proper process of
delimitation has taken place”); and letter from Singapore’s Permanent
Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s Secretary-
General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 12 October 2009,
attached as Annex 38 to these Written Observations (“We both agreed that,
consistent with the ICJ judgement, the status of South Ledge would have to be
determined by the proper process of delimitation”).
126 See, for example, letter from Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa to Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho, dated 29 August 2008, attached as Annex 24 to these
Written Observations (“Consistent with the International Court of Justice
(ICJ) judgment “that sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the
territorial waters of which it is located”, a proper process of delimitation of the
whole area around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge would have
to be carried out.”)
- Page 52 -
its arguments, Malaysia refers to these exchanges as evidence that they hold
“differing interpretations of the meaning and effect”127 of the third paragraph
of the operative clause128. However, a closer examination reveals that the
positions taken by Malaysia in this correspondence in fact reflect, and are
consistent with, its recognition that whether South Ledge belongs to
Singapore or Malaysia depends on maritime delimitation.
4.21 In October 2008, only five months after the Court had rendered the Judgment,
Malaysia started to send diplomatic notes and protests concerning the
airspace and the maritime space of South Ledge. Until very recently129,
Malaysia never once suggested or claimed in its diplomatic notes that the
Court had awarded South Ledge to Malaysia. Rather, Malaysia’s position
was that:
“ … the ICJ concluded that “sovereignty over South Ledge,
as a low tide elevation, belongs to the State in the territorial
waters of which it is located”. In light of the ICJ judgment,
the Government of Malaysia strongly affirms that as Tubir
Selatan/South Ledge is 7.9 nautical miles from the mainland
of Johor and 1.7 nautical miles from Batuan Tengah/Middle
Rocks, it is clearly located within the territorial waters of
Malaysia. It naturally follows that sovereignty over Tubir
Selatan/South Ledge belongs to Malaysia in accordance with
the principles of international law in particular the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982
as well as the Judgment of the ICJ.”130
127 Request for Interpretation, para. 47.
128 In para. 47 of the Request for Interpretation, Malaysia refers to the “first part of
the 2008 Judgment’s operative clause”. It appears that this should be a reference
to the third paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment concerning South
Ledge.
129 See paras. 4.26-4.29 below.
130 Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC 52/2008, dated
29 October 2008, Request for Interpretation, Annex 7.
- Page 53 -
4.22 This was repeated consistently by Malaysia in numerous subsequent
diplomatic notes and letters which it sent to Singapore. A list of 53 notes and
letters in which Malaysia set out its position on South Ledge is in Appendix
3 to these Written Observations.
4.23 Malaysia’s argument has been that South Ledge belongs to it because of its
proximity to the Johor mainland and to Middle Rocks. This is not an
argument about the meaning or scope of the Judgment. It is an argument
about how the maritime boundary between the Parties should be drawn,
taking into account the geography of the area. Malaysia’s contention has
been that because South Ledge lies within the territorial waters which it
claims around Middle Rocks and the Malaysian mainland, delimitation of the
area will result in Malaysia having sovereignty over South Ledge. Leaving
aside for the moment the fact that Malaysia’s claim ignores the fact that Pedra
Branca also generates territorial waters, which the Court acknowledged in the
Judgment131, this is different from what Malaysia now contends: that on a
“true interpretation” of the Judgment132, the Court has already awarded
sovereignty over South Ledge to Malaysia, without the need for any further
delimitation of the area.
4.24 Singapore, on the other hand, has consistently pointed out that only maritime
delimitation in the area provides a definitive solution to the question whether
South Ledge falls in the territorial waters of Singapore or Malaysia. In its
responses to Malaysia, Singapore has emphasised that:
“ … the ICJ had only concluded that the sovereignty of
South Ledge “belongs to the State in the territorial waters of
which it is located” and that the status of South Ledge has
131 Judgment, p. 101, para. 297.
132 Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC 46/17, dated
20 April 2017, Request for Interpretation, Annex 63.
- Page 54 -
to be determined through the process of maritime boundary
delimitation between our two countries.”133
4.25 Singapore has also repeated this position in numerous diplomatic notes and
letters which it sent to Malaysia. A list of 41 notes and letters in which
Singapore set out its position on South Ledge is in Appendix 4 to these
Written Observations.
4.26 It was not until its diplomatic note dated 20 April 2017134, i.e., just two
months before lodging the Request for Interpretation and some two and onehalf
months after filing the Application for Revision, that Malaysia took a
different position in respect of its understanding of the Judgment. In that
diplomatic note, Malaysia contended, for the first time, that it follows from
the Judgment itself that South Ledge belonged to Malaysia:
“The Government of Malaysia wishes to state that in view
of this Judgment which held, inter alia, that sovereignty
over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia, Malaysia takes the
position that, on a true interpretation of the Judgment, South
Ledge falls within the territorial sea of Malaysia and is thus
subject to the sovereignty of Malaysia.”135
Malaysia claims that this note demonstrates that “[m]ost recently, Malaysia
has restated its interpretation of the operative clause of the 2008
Judgment”136. However, three observations in respect of Malaysia’s recent
133 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00044/2008, dated
9 December 2008, attached as Annex 28 to these Written Observations.
134 Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC 46/17, dated
20 April 2017, Request for Interpretation, Annex 63.
135 Ibid.
136 Request for Interpretation, para. 43.
- Page 55 -
diplomatic note dated 20 April 2017137 are called for. First, as noted above,
the language adopted by Malaysia in the 20 April 2017 note is a complete
departure from any of its previous statements on South Ledge. Malaysia’s
statement in this note – that South Ledge is subject to Malaysia’s sovereignty
“on a true interpretation of the Judgment” – is not only incorrect, but also an
entirely new contention. Nowhere in any of Malaysia’s previous
correspondence or statements has it ever taken the position that the Judgment
in and of itself awarded sovereignty over South Ledge to it.
4.27 Second, the note was not sent in response to any recent incidents or
interactions between the Parties or any statements made by either of them.
The note itself provides no context whatsoever for its sudden issuance. It
appeared out of the blue with no other purpose than to attempt to lay a
foundation for a request for interpretation of the Judgment.
4.28 Third, Malaysia stated in this note that it was “willing to discuss with the
Government of Singapore the question of the consequential delimitation of
the relevant areas”. Singapore’s response, conveyed by way of a diplomatic
note dated 25 May 2017, was that it “welcomes Malaysia’s confirmation …
that it is willing to discuss the question of delimitation.”138 Further
delimitation talks were therefore expressly countenanced by both Parties.
Yet only two months later, Malaysia submitted the Request for Interpretation,
alleging that there was absolutely no possibility of any further progress being
made in bilateral discussions.
4.29 These three facts make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that the issuance
of the 20 April 2017 note was simply a contrived attempt by Malaysia to
137 Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC 46/17, dated
20 April 2017, Request for Interpretation, Annex 63.
138 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00022/2017, dated
25 May 2017, attached as Annex 103 to these Written Observations.
- Page 56 -
create a dispute over the third paragraph of the operative clause of the
Judgment where none actually existed. This is particularly apparent from
Malaysia’s letter to the Court dated 6 June 2017139, in which Malaysia
claimed that it had “originally intended to submit the Application for
Interpretation at the same time as the Application for Revision was filed on
2nd February 2017.” If Malaysia had indeed intended by February 2017 to
submit a request for interpretation of the Judgment, then the issuance of the
20 April 2017 note was clearly a self-serving act done for no other reason
than to artificially change its position on South Ledge in an attempt to meet
the conditions in Article 60 of the Statute of the Court.
4.30 As the foregoing has demonstrated, contrary to Malaysia’s contention, there
is in fact no dispute over the meaning or scope of the Judgment. Rather, any
issues that have arisen concern, once again, the extent of the Parties’
territorial waters around South Ledge, a question that was not decided in the
Judgment. As the Court noted in the Asylum Case: “it is necessary that there
should exist a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment.”140 There
is no such dispute and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction under Article 60
of the Statute of the Court.
139 Letter from Malaysia to the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, dated
6 June 2017, attached as Annex 105 to these Written Observations.
140 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum
Case, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402. See also Application for Revision
and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning
the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 223, para. 56; Request for
Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land
and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria),
Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999,
pp. 36-37, para. 12.
- Page 57 -
B. Malaysia’s Second Submission Is Inadmissible
4.31 As is the case concerning Malaysia’s first submission, Malaysia’s submission
on South Ledge also does not satisfy the criteria for admissibility of requests
for interpretation, which “must keep strictly within the limits of the original
judgment and cannot question matters that were settled therein with binding
force, nor can it provide answers to questions the Court did not decide in the
original judgment.”141
4.32 In the third paragraph of the operative clause, the Court held “that sovereignty
over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is
located.”142 This decision was the consequence of the fact that South Ledge
is a “special geographical feature as a low-tide elevation”143, and that the
Court had not been “mandated by the Parties to draw the line of delimitation
with respect to the territorial waters of Malaysia and Singapore in the area in
question.”144 The Court could not, and did not, decide that question or make
any finding as to whether South Ledge is located within the territorial waters
of Malaysia or Singapore, because it did not have the mandate to do so under
the Special Agreement.
4.33 This is confirmed by the Court’s reasoning contained in the following
paragraphs of the Judgment, which are inseparable from the operative
clause145:
141 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case
concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v.
Thailand), Judgment I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 306, para. 66.
142 Judgment, p. 102, para. 300(3).
143 Ibid., p. 99, para. 291.
144 Ibid., p. 101, para. 298.
145 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case
concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon),
- Page 58 -
“293. Malaysia asserts the fact that South Ledge, which lies
1.7 nautical miles from Middle Rocks and 2.2 miles from
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, would attach to Middle
Rocks rather than to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, for the
simple reason that it is located within the territorial sea
appertaining to Middle Rocks. Malaysia, citing the
following passage from the Judgment in the case concerning
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between
Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain): ‘a coastal State has
sovereignty over low-tide elevations which are situated
within its territorial sea, since it has sovereignty over the
territorial sea itself …’ (Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2001, p. 101, para. 204), claims that it has sovereignty over
South Ledge.
294. Singapore argues that “contrary to Middle Rocks, South
Ledge is a low-tide elevation which, as such, cannot be
subject to separate appropriation”. In its support, Singapore
also cites a passage from the Judgment in the case
concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions
between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), as
confirmed in the recent Judgment of the Court in the case
concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute between
Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua
v. Honduras) (Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 704,
para. 144).
…
297. In view of its previous jurisprudence and the arguments
of the Parties, as well as the evidence presented before it, the
Court will proceed on the basis of whether South Ledge lies
within the territorial waters generated by Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, which belongs to Singapore, or
within those generated by Middle Rocks, which belongs to
Malaysia. In this regard the Court notes that South Ledge
falls within the apparently overlapping territorial waters
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 35, para. 10: “… any request for interpretation
must relate to the operative part of the judgment and cannot concern the reasons
for the judgment except in so far as these are inseparable from the operative
part”. See also Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów),
Judgment No. 11, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13, p. 20, where the Permanent
Court referred to “a condition essential to the Court’s decision”.
- Page 59 -
generated by the mainland of Malaysia, Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh and Middle Rocks.
298. The Court recalls that in the Special Agreement and in
the final submissions it has been specifically asked to decide
the matter of sovereignty separately for each of the three
maritime features. At the same time the Court has not been
mandated by the Parties to draw the line of delimitation with
respect to the territorial waters of Malaysia and Singapore in
the area in question.
299. In these circumstances, the Court concludes that for the
reasons explained above sovereignty over South Ledge, as a
low-tide elevation, belongs to the State in the territorial
waters of which it is located.”146
4.34 It is clear from the above extracts that the Court expressly refrained from
deciding on whether South Ledge falls within the territorial waters of
Singapore or Malaysia, as this would have involved engaging in maritime
delimitation, which the Court had not been mandated to do.
4.35 The Judgment in fact completely contradicts Malaysia’s assertions that the
Court specified a “formula”, the application of which “naturally leads to the
conclusion that Malaysia has sovereignty over South Ledge”147. Moreover,
by asking the Court to rule that South Ledge belongs to it, before the Parties
have even completed delimitation of the area, Malaysia is putting the cart
before the horse. While the Judgment stated that sovereignty over South
Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located – i.e.,
depends on maritime delimitation – Malaysia’s new argument reverses the
order of things by contending that the Court effectively found that Malaysia
has sovereignty over South Ledge and that delimitation should consequently
be based on that fact. The argument has no merit whatsoever.
146 Judgment, pp. 99-101, paras. 293-299.
147 Request for Interpretation, para. 46.
- Page 60 -
4.36 The Court decided on sovereignty over South Ledge without any uncertainty:
since both Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks are without any doubt entitled to
at least some territorial sea, South Ledge necessarily lies in one or the other
State’s territorial sea, a matter that the Court could not decide according to
the terms of the Special Agreement. Had it done so, it would have decided
ultra petita in contradistinction with the principle of consent to the Court’s
jurisdiction148. The Court must of course bear in mind this cardinal principle
when exercising its power under Article 60 of the Statute of the Court149.
4.37 In fact, the relevant parts of the reasoning of the Court also show that
Malaysia made arguments in the original case which are similar to what it is
making now, concerning the proximity of South Ledge to Malaysia’s
mainland and Middle Rocks. Having considered these arguments, the Court
declined to decide whether South Ledge lies in Singapore’s or Malaysia’s
territorial waters.
4.38 Malaysia’s submission that the Court declare that “South Ledge is located in
the territorial waters of Malaysia”150 asks the Court to rule on the extent of
Singapore’s and Malaysia’s territorial seas surrounding Pedra Branca and
148 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v.
Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 18-19, para. 43; Request for
Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case
(Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402. See also, Request
for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the
Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 307, para. 71.
149 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case
concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v.
Thailand), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2013, p. 307, para. 75. See also Application
for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case
concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 217, para. 44;
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum
Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 402.
150 Request for Interpretation, para. 56(b).
- Page 61 -
Middle Rocks respectively. But this was simply not decided, and could not
be decided, by the Court, since nothing in the Special Agreement sought any
ruling on the delimitation of the waters around these features. What Malaysia
is in fact doing is, under the guise of interpretation of the Judgment, appealing
against, or seeking to revise, the Judgment. As the Court has emphasised
previously, “[i]nterpretation can in no way go beyond the limits of the
Judgment”151. It follows that, “[s]o far as the [Malaysian] request for
interpretation may go further, and seek ‘to obtain an answer to questions not
so decided’, or to achieve a revision of the Judgment, no effect can be given
to it”152.
4.39 For this reason, the second submission is also inadmissible.
C. Conclusions on Malaysia’s Second Submission
4.40 As with Malaysia’s first submission, there is no jurisdictional basis for its
second submission for interpretation. The facts demonstrate that there is no
dispute between the Parties over the Court’s holding that sovereignty over
South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters of which it is
located.
4.41 Malaysia’s second submission is also inadmissible. By deciding that
“sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to the State in the territorial waters
of which it is located”, the Court had fully discharged the mandate conferred
upon it by the Parties. There is no ambiguity in that decision. The Court’s
ruling means exactly what it says, and Malaysia’s backdoor attempt to appeal
151 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum
Case (Colombia v. Peru), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 403.
152 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of
24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1985, p. 223, para. 56.
- Page 62 -
against or revise the Judgment under the guise of a request for interpretation
should be rejected.
- Page 63 -
SUMMARY OF SINGAPORE’S REASONING
1. In accordance with the Court’s Practice Direction II, Singapore presents
a short summary of the reasoning developed in these Written
Observations.
2. Malaysia has failed to meet the jurisdictional and admissibility
requirements for a request for interpretation of the Judgment under Article
60 of the Statute of the Court and Article 98, paragraph 2 of the Rules of
Court.
3. The Court has no jurisdiction over the Request for Interpretation because
there is nothing in the conduct or the statements of the Parties in the period
following the release of the Judgment, and in particular during the
discussions of the MSJTC, which demonstrates the genuine existence of
a dispute over the meaning or scope of the Judgment:
(a) The first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment is
clear: sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore.
There is no dispute over that holding, and the Parties have
always proceeded on the common basis that, given this clear
ruling, the next step is for the Parties to commence maritime
delimitation in view of the overlapping maritime and airspace
entitlements of the Parties in the area.
(b) In respect of the third paragraph of the operative clause of the
Judgment, there has likewise been no dispute between the
Parties that sovereignty over South Ledge will flow from
maritime boundary delimitation. This follows from the Court’s
reasoning in paragraphs 293 to 299 of the Judgment, and its
clear ruling that South Ledge, as a low-tide elevation, belongs
to the State in the territorial waters of which it is located.
- Page 64 -
4. While the Parties may disagree on the extent of their maritime and
airspace entitlements, this is not a disagreement over the meaning or scope
of the Judgment.
5. Furthermore, the Request for Interpretation is inadmissible because
Malaysia’s real purpose in submitting the Request for Interpretation is not
to seek an interpretation of matters which the Court has decided with
binding force, but to seek answers to questions not so decided:
(a) The first paragraph of the operative clause of the Judgment only
addresses sovereignty over Pedra Branca and nothing more. By
seeking a declaration that “[t]he waters surrounding Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh remain within the territorial waters of
Malaysia”, Malaysia is asking the Court to rule on the delimitation
of the waters around Pedra Branca, something that the Court was
not mandated to do under the Special Agreement and did not do in
the Judgment.
(b) By seeking a declaration that “South Ledge is located in the
territorial waters of Malaysia, and consequently sovereignty over
South Ledge belongs to Malaysia”, Malaysia is also asking the
Court to decide on maritime delimitation, something that the Court
was not mandated to do under the Special Agreement, and
expressly declined to do in the Judgment.
6. The first and third paragraphs of the operative clause of the Judgment are
clear and require no interpretation. The Request for Interpretation is
nothing more than another attempt by Malaysia to institute a backdoor
appeal against, and a revision of, the Judgment, in order to overturn those
aspects of the Judgment which Malaysia considers unfavourable to itself.
- Page 65 -
SUBMISSION
For the reasons set out above, and reserving the right to amend or add to these
submissions, the Republic of Singapore requests the Court to adjudge and
declare that the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the Request for
Interpretation and that the Request for Interpretation is inadmissible, and
accordingly that Malaysia’s submissions at paragraph 56 of the Request for
Interpretation are rejected.
Attorney-General Lucien Wong
Agent for the Government of the Republic of Singapore
- Page 66 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 67 -
CERTIFICATION
I have the honour to certify that the documents annexed to these Written
Observations are true copies and conform to the original documents and that the
translations provided are accurate.
Attorney-General Lucien Wong
Agent for the Government of the Republic of Singapore
- Page 68 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 69 -
Appendix 1
Meetings of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical Committee
and its Sub-Committees
- Page 70 -
This page is intentionally left blank.

- Page 73 -
Appendix 2
List of media reports containing statements by Malaysia which
set out its position regarding South Ledge
- Page 74 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 75 -
Appendix 2
The following is a list of media reports containing statements by Malaysia which
set out its position regarding South Ledge:
1. Report dated 23 May 2008 by Berita Nasional Malaysia (Bernama), “ICJ
Verdict a “Win-Win” Outcome for M’sia and S’pore, says Rais”, on
comments made by Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Dr Rais Yatim, attached
as Annex 4 to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“On South Ledge, Dr Rais said the court said its sovereignty was subject
to its location in the territorial waters of the country concerned. “This
may be an issue which has to be taken up together by Singapore and
Malaysia to determine the sovereignty status of the island,” he said in an
interview televised live by RTM from The Hague.”
2. Report dated 24 May 2008 by New Straits Times, “1953 Johor letter
‘hands’ island to Singapore (HL)”, on comments made by Malaysia’s
Foreign Minister, Dr Rais Yatim, attached as Annex 8 to these Written
Observations.
Relevant extracts
“Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim called it a “win-win” ruling
since each side won a partial victory. “Resolving such disputes through
the rule of law,” he said, “will make the world safer.” He said the two
countries would establish a committee to determine ownership of South
Ledge, which lies in overlapping territorial waters.”
3. Report dated 24 May 2008 by The Star, “A sad Abdullah accepts ICJ
ruling”, on comments made by Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Abdullah
Badawi, attached as Annex 7 to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“He said Malaysia was grateful that the ICJ had awarded Middle Rocks
to the nation, adding that the next step was for officials from both sides
to meet to decide on the maritime demarcation line as soon as possible.
“Any discussion to be held or action to be taken with Singapore must be
done in a peaceful manner and with understanding from both sides. We
do not want any conflict to arise,” he stressed.
- Page 76 -
The Prime Minister also said that action must also be taken to determine
the location of South Ledge. “We need to determine the demarcation
line to show that South Ledge is in our waters,” he added.”
4. Report dated 25 May 2008 by New Straits Times, “Doing it the Asean
Way”, on comments made by Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Dr Rais
Yatim, attached to as Annex 11 to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim declared the
decision “a win-win outcome for both sides”; and continued that on
South Ledge and other related matters, both countries would set up a
committee and future announcements would be made through it.”
5. Report dated 25 May 2008 by The Star, “Don’t go to Middle Rocks yet,
police warn Malaysians”, on comments made by Malaysia’s Federal
Marine Police Commander, SAC II Isa Munir, attached to as Annex 12
to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“SAC II Isa added that Malaysia and Singapore had to resolve several
issues over Middle Rocks before people could have access there.
“Among these are the boundaries and territorial waters of the two
countries.
I strongly advise the public to avoid any unwanted tension with
Singapore by going there.”
6. Report dated 26 May 2008 by New Straits Times, “Call for joint maritime
patrols”, on comments made by Malaysia’s Minister of Home Affairs,
Syed Hamid Albar, attached as Annex 14 to these Written
Observations.
Relevant extracts
““Though Singapore got Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks belongs to us and
our fishermen and vessels should not be hindered from going to the
area.”
“The technical committee must sit down and figure out the security
arrangement and navigation in the area,” Syed Hamid said.
- Page 77 -
Following the decision by the court on Friday, the government said a
bilateral technical committee would be formed to draw up the two
countries' maritime borders around Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.
The committee would also determine which country possessed South
Ledge, an outcropping southwest of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks
that is only visible at low tide.”
7. Report dated 3 June 2008 by The Star, “Time to move on after decision”,
on comments made by Malaysia’s High Commissioner to Singapore, N
Parameswaran, attached as Annex 17 to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“On the issue of the boundaries and South Ledge – another rock outcrop
south of Batu Puteh – Parameswaran said the technical committee would
be convening soon to discuss the matter.”
8. Report dated 3 June 2008 by The Star, “Proposal on Middle Rocks just a
suggestion, says Rais”, on comments made by Malaysia’s Foreign
Minister, Dr Rais Yatim, attached as Annex 19 to these Written
Observations.
Relevant extracts
“Rais said that he would be presenting a report to Cabinet on Wednesday
as a follow-up to the judgment in The Hague last month where Malaysia
got back part of the “contentious domain”, adding one of the main
activities was to determine the territorial waters of Middle Rocks by
experts.
“This may take a while as we must take cognisance of the rights of
Singapore as well, being a very close neighbour of Middle Rocks. We
would also like to map out territorial areas of Middle Rocks, vis-a-vis
the distance of the outcrop to South Ledge.
“This is important because according to the ICJ, South Ledge should be
in the territorial waters of the state that be or the state that owns it and
most probably, according to logical assumption, South Ledge could be
in the territorial waters of Middle Rocks,” he said.”
9. Report dated 4 June 2008 by New Straits Times, “New dimension to
Middle Rocks”, on comments made by Malaysia’s Foreign Minister, Dr
Rais Yatim, attached as Annex 20 to these Written Observations.
- Page 78 -
Relevant extracts
“He said the ministry's technical committee in a follow up to the ICJ
judgment had compiled information and data on Middle Rocks and its
territorial waters, but will need to enlist further help from experts as to
the kind of activities that can be undertaken there, and the exact
boundary lines to mark the surrounding territory.
The ownership of another marine feature, South Ledge, has yet to be
fully determined, although, Rais said, it would seem that it lay in the
territorial waters of Middle Rocks.
“We need to map out the territorial area, vis-a-vis the distance from
Middle Rocks to South Ledge.
“According to the ICJ, South Ledge should be in the territorial waters of
the state that owns it (the waters), and according to logical assumption,
South Ledge could be in the territorial waters of Middle Rocks.”
He said fishermen were still advised to stay away from Middle Rocks
until the boundaries were finalised with Singapore.”
10. Report dated 6 February 2010 by Utusan Malaysia, “Malaysia
pertahankan kedaulatan Tubir Selatan” (translated into English as:
“Malaysia defends sovereignty over South Ledge”), on comments made
by Malaysia’s Deputy Foreign Minister, A. Kohilan Pillay, attached as
Annex 49 to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“Deputy Foreign Minister, A. Kohilan Pillay said that negotiations are
underway with Singapore and are expected to take some time before a
final decision is reached.
“Respectively Malaysia and Singapore want to claim their ownership
rights over South Ledge.
“South Ledge is a rock that only emerges at low tide, it is situated in the
overlapping area in the waters of Malaysia and Singapore,” he said when
contacted by Utusan Malaysia here today.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, Netherlands had
last year ruled Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore whereas Middle
Rocks would belong to Malaysia.
The status of another maritime formation, South Ledge, however has
been granted to whichever country whose territorial waters the
formation lies in.
- Page 79 -
With regard to that, Malaysia and Singapore need to detail the waters
between Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks as well as South Ledge
through the Technical Committee.”
11. Report dated 19 February 2010 by Utusan Malaysia, “Wisma Putra jawab
isu Tubir Selatan dengan Singapura” (translated into English as: “Wisma
Putra replies about South Ledge issue with Singapore”), on comments
made by the Chief Director of Research, Treaty and International Law of
Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin,
attached as Annex 50 to these Written Observations.
Relevant extracts
“PUTRAJAYA 18 Feb. – Malaysia and Singapore need to carry out
measuring works before determining the sovereignty of South Ledge in
south Johor.
This was confirmed by the Chief Director of Research, Treaty and
International Law of the Foreign Ministry, Datuk Noor Farida Ariffin in
reply to the issue concerning the sovereignty of the rocky outcrop which
only emerges when the tide is low.
She informed that even though geographical fact shows that South
Ledge is situated in the national waters and is nearest to the Middle
Rocks, nevertheless Kuala Lumpur would continue with negotiations
based on the spirit of neighbourliness and friendship with Singapore.
“Negotiations are needed to prove that Malaysia has sovereignty over
South Ledge.
“This is one of the things that are contained in the Malaysia-Singapore
Joint Technical Committee’s meeting agenda,” she said in a statement
here today.”
- Page 80 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 81 -
Appendix 3
List of diplomatic notes and correspondence in which Malaysia
set out its position regarding South Ledge
- Page 82 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 83 -
Appendix 3
The following is a list of diplomatic notes and correspondence in which Malaysia
set out its position regarding South Ledge:
1. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
52/2008, dated 29 October 2008, Request for Interpretation, Annex 7;
2. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
54/2008, dated 29 October 2008, Request for Interpretation, Annex 8;
3. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 07/2009, dated
6 February 2009, attached as Annex 29 to these Written Observations;
4. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 08/2009, dated
6 February 2009, attached as Annex 30 to these Written Observations;
5. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 09/2009, dated
6 February 2009, attached as Annex 31 to these Written Observations;
6. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 10/2009, dated
6 February 2009, attached as Annex 32 to these Written Observations;
7. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 11/2009, dated
6 February 2009, attached as Annex 33 to these Written Observations;
8. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 12/2009, dated
6 February 2009, attached as Annex 34 to these Written Observations;
9. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
22/2009, dated 12 March 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 9;
10. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
30/2009, dated 2 April 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 10;
- Page 84 -
11. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
73/2009, dated 3 July 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 11;
12. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
75/2009, dated 3 July 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 12;
13. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
116/2009, dated 7 October 2009 Request for Interpretation, Annex 14;
14. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
117/2009, dated 7 October 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 15;
15. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
118/2009, dated 7 October 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 16;
16. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
119/2009, dated 7 October 2009, Request for Interpretation, Annex 17;
17. Letter from Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa to Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho, dated 23 November 2009, attached as Annex
43 to these Written Observations;
18. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
88/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation, Annex 18;
19. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
89/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation, Annex 19;
20. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
90/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation, Annex 20;
- Page 85 -
21. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
91/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation, Annex 21;
22. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
92/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation, Annex 22;
23. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
93/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation, Annex 23;
24. Letter from Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa to Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho, dated 6 August 2010, sent under cover of
diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 123/2010, dated 11
August 2010, attached as Annex 59 to these Written Observations;
25. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
141/2010, dated 22 September 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 24;
26. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
142/2010, dated 22 September 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 25;
27. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
143/2010, dated 22 September 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 26;
28. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
144/2010, dated 22 September 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 27;
- Page 86 -
29. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
145/2010, dated 22 September 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 28;
30. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 162/2010, dated 1
November 2010, attached as Annex 60 to these Written Observations;
31. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 163/2010, dated 1
November 2010, attached as Annex 61 to these Written Observations;
32. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 165/2010, dated 1
November 2010, attached as Annex 62 to these Written Observations;
33. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 166/2010, dated 1
November 2010, attached as Annex 63 to these Written Observations;
34. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
169/2010, dated 1 November 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 29;
35. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
177/2010, dated 18 November 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 30;
36. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
193/2010, dated 8 December 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 31;
37. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Malaysia to the High
Commission of the Republic of Singapore in Kuala Lumpur, EC
99/2011, dated 29 June 2011, Request for Interpretation, Annex 32;
38. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 105/2011, dated
7 July 2011, attached as Annex 72 to these Written Observations;
- Page 87 -
39. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 106/2011, dated
7 July 2011, attached as Annex 73 to these Written Observations;
40. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 115/2011, dated
4 August 2011, attached as Annex 75 to these Written Observations;
41. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 123/2011, dated
22 August 2011, attached as Annex 76 to these Written Observations;
42. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 125/2011, dated
22 August 2011, attached as Annex 77 to these Written Observations;
43. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 147/2011, dated
30 September 2011, attached as Annex 78 to these Written
Observations;
44. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 16/2012, dated
14 February 2012, attached as Annex 81 to these Written
Observations;
45. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 17/2011, dated
14 February 2012, attached as Annex 82 to these Written
Observations;
46. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 6/2014, dated
27 January 2014, attached as Annex 89 to these Written Observations;
47. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 10/2014, dated
28 January 2014, attached as Annex 90 to these Written Observations;
48. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 12/2014, dated
29 January 2014, attached as Annex 91 to these Written Observations;
49. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 15/2014, dated
30 January 2014, attached as Annex 92 to these Written Observations;
50. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 16/2014, dated
4 February 2014, attached as Annex 93 to these Written Observations;
- Page 88 -
51. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 19/2014, dated
5 February 2014, attached as Annex 94 to these Written Observations;
52. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 21/2014, dated
6 February 2014, attached as Annex 95 to these Written Observations;
and
53. Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC 23/2014, dated
7 February 2014, attached as Annex 96 to these Written Observations.
- Page 89 -
Appendix 4
List of diplomatic notes and correspondence in which Singapore
set out its position regarding South Ledge
- Page 90 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 91 -
Appendix 4
The following is a list of diplomatic notes and correspondence in which
Singapore set out its position regarding South Ledge:
1. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00044/2008,
dated 9 December 2008, attached as Annex 28 to these Written
Observations;
2. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00018/2009,
dated 20 April 2009, attached as Annex 35 to these Written
Observations;
3. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00030/2009,
dated 3 September 2009, attached as Annex 36 to these Written
Observations;
4. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00033/2009,
dated 9 October 2009, attached as Annex 37 to these Written
Observations;
5. Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 12 October 2009, attached as Annex 38
to these Written Observations;
6. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00034/2009,
dated 12 October 2009, attached as Annex 39 to these Written
Observations;
7. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00036/2009,
dated 20 October 2009, attached as Annex 40 to these Written
Observations;
8. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00038/2009,
dated 27 October 2009, attached as Annex 41 to these Written
Observations;
- Page 92 -
9. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00040/2009,
dated 5 November 2009, attached as Annex 42 to these Written
Observations;
10. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00045/2009,
dated 25 November 2009, attached as Annex 44 to these Written
Observations;
11. Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 10 December 2009, attached as Annex
45 to these Written Observations;
12. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00003/2010, dated 30 March 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 120;
13. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00008/2010, dated 31 May 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 102;
14. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00012/2010, dated 15 June 2010, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 103;
15. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00030/2010,
dated 19 July 2010, attached as Annex 55 to these Written
Observations;
16. Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 23 July 2010, attached as Annex 56 to
these Written Observations;
17. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00035/2010, dated 19 August 2010, Request for
Interpretation, Annex 104;
- Page 93 -
18. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
SEA/00003/2010(1), dated 11 February 2011, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 99;
19. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
SEA/00005/2010, dated 11 February 2011, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 100;
20. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00010/2011, dated 29 April 2011, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 105;
21. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00013/2011, dated 15 July 2011, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 106;
22. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00015/2011,
dated 15 July 2011, attached as Annex 74 to these Written
Observations;
23. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00036/2011, dated 6 September 2011, Request for
Interpretation, Annex 107;
24. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00048/2011,
dated 17 November 2011, attached as Annex 79 to these Written
Observations;
25. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00056/2011,
dated 29 December 2011, attached as Annex 80 to these Written
Observations;
- Page 94 -
26. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00030/2012,
dated 27 April 2012, attached as Annex 84 to these Written
Observations;
27. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA1/00001/2012, dated 2 May 2012, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 108;
28. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA1/00006/2012, dated 28 May 2012, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 109;
29. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00019/2012,
dated 24 August 2012, Request for Interpretation, Annex 110. As the
copy of the document annexed by Malaysia is unclear, a clear copy is
attached as Annex 85 to these Written Observations;
30. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00022/2012,
dated 11 September 2012, Request for Interpretation, Annex 111. As the
copy of the document annexed by Malaysia is incomplete, a complete
copy is attached as Annex 86 to these Written Observations;
31. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA1/00027/2012, dated 1 November 2012, Request for
Interpretation, Annex 112;
32. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA1/00002/2013, dated 11 January 2013, Request for
Interpretation, Annex 113;
33. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA1/00026/2013, dated 3 June 2013, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 114;
34. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
- Page 95 -
MFA/SEA1/00046/2013, dated 18 June 2013, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 115;
35. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEAl/00074/2013, dated 4 November 2013, Request for
Interpretation, Annex 116;
36. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA/00079/2013,
dated 26 December 2013, attached as Annex 87 to these Written
Observations;
37. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00002/2014, dated 7 January 2014, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 117;
38. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00030/2014,
dated 8 April 2014, attached as Annex 98 to these Written
Observations;
39. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA1/00042/2014, dated 22 July 2014, Request for Interpretation,
Annex 118;
40. Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, MFA/SEA1/00093/2014,
dated 2 December 2014, attached as Annex 101 to these Written
Observations; and
41. Note Verbale from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore to the High Commission of Malaysia, Singapore,
MFA/SEA/00041/2016, dated 30 September 2016, Request for
Interpretation, Annex 119.
- Page 96 -
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 97 -
LIST OF ANNEXES
(For ease of reference, the Annexes to these Written Observations are presented
in chronological order.)
Number Description Annexes
Page No.
Annex 1 Meeting between Malaysia and Singapore on
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and
South Ledge, 16 May 2008, Putrajaya, Record of
Meeting
A3
Annex 2 Ministry of Foreign Affairs Press Statement,
International Court of Justice Awards Sovereignty
of Pedra Branca to Singapore, dated 23 May 2008
A13
Annex 3 Statement by Minister of Foreign Affairs Dato’ Seri
Utama Dr Rais Yatim to RTM on the Verdict by the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the Pulau
Batu Puteh Case, 23 May 2008
A17
Annex 4 Report dated 23 May 2008 by Berita Nasional
Malaysia (Bernama), “ICJ Verdict a “Win-Win”
Outcome for M’sia and S’pore, says Rais”
A23
Annex 5 Report dated 23 May 2008 by Berita Nasional
Malaysia (Bernama), “Malaysia Needs to Prepare
to Implement ICJ Decisions”
A27
Annex 6 Report dated 23 May 2008 by Berita Nasional
Malaysia (Bernama), “Msia Loses Batu Puteh Not
Due to Weak Arguments, says Rais”
A31
Annex 7 Report dated 24 May 2008 by The Star, “A sad
Abdullah accepts ICJ ruling”
A35
Annex 8 Report dated 24 May 2008 by New Straits Times,
“1953 Johor letter ‘hands’ island to Singapore
(HL)”
A39
- Page 98 -
Annex 9 Report dated 24 May 2008 by Berita Nasional
Malaysia (Bernama), “Singapore Urged to
Consider Fishermen at Pulau Batu Puteh”
A43
Annex 10 Transcript of doorstop interview with Singapore’s
Foreign Minister, George Yeo, and Malaysia’s
Foreign Minister, Dr Rais Yatim, on 25 May 2008
at Yangon
A47
Annex 11 Report dated 25 May 2008 by New Straits Times,
“Doing it the Asean way”
A51
Annex 12 Report dated 25 May 2008 by The Star, “Don’t go
to Middle Rocks yet, police warn Malaysians”
A55
Annex 13 Report dated 26 May 2008 by The Star, “Keep off
Middle Rocks”
A59
Annex 14 Report dated 26 May 2008 by New Straits Times,
“Call for joint maritime patrols”
A63
Annex 15 Letter from Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien
Loong, to Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Abdullah
Ahmad Badawi, dated 26 May 2008
A67
Annex 16 Transcript of RTM1 programme, “Rancangan
Bersemuka Dengan Media: Isu Semasa & Polisi
Luar Negara” (translated into English as: “Face to
Face with the Media: Current Issues and Foreign
Policy”), broadcast on Radio Television Malaysia
on 28 May 2008, and English translation provided
by Singapore, as well as screen capture of webpage
containing links to video files on the official
website of Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs
A71
Annex 17 Report dated 3 June 2008 by The Star, “Time to
move on after decision”
A113
Annex 18 Meeting between Malaysia and the Republic of
Singapore on the Implementation of the
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, 3 June
2008, Singapore, Record of Meeting
A117
Annex 19 Report dated 3 June 2008 by The Star, “Proposal on
Middle Rocks just a suggestion, says Rais”
A132
- Page 99 -
Annex 20 Report dated 4 June 2008 by New Straits Times,
“New dimension to Middle Rocks”
A137
Annex 21 Second Joint Technical Committee Meeting
between Malaysia and Singapore on the
Implementation of the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge, Putrajaya, 20 August
2008, Record of Meeting
A141
Annex 22 Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s
Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 22 August 2008
A209
Annex 23 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00025/2008, dated 23 August 2008
A213
Annex 24 Letter from Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa to
Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho, dated 29 August 2008
A217
Annex 25 Joint Press Statement by Malaysia’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Singapore’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, “Joint Press Statement: The
Second Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical
Committee (MSJTC) Meeting on the
Implementation of the International Court of
Justice Judgment on Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge”, dated 1 September 2008
A221
Annex 26 Third Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey
Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 11-12
September 2008, Record of Discussion
A225
Annex 27 Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s
Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 15 September 2008
A295
Annex 28 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00044/2008, dated 9 December 2008
A299
- Page 100 -
Annex 29 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
07/2009, dated 6 February 2009
A305
Annex 30 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
08/2009, dated 6 February 2009
A313
Annex 31 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
09/2009, dated 6 February 2009
A323
Annex 32 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
10/2009, dated 6 February 2009
A333
Annex 33 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
11/2009, dated 6 February 2009
A343
Annex 34 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
12/2009, dated 6 February 2009
A353
Annex 35 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00018/2009, dated 20 April 2009
A365
Annex 36 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00030/2009, dated 3 September 2009
A381
Annex 37 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00033/2009, dated 9 October 2009
A389
Annex 38 Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s
Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 12 October 2009
A393
Annex 39 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00034/2009, dated 12 October 2009
A397
Annex 40 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00036/2009, dated 20 October 2009
A401
Annex 41 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00038/2009, dated 27 October 2009
A405
Annex 42 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00040/2009, dated 5 November 2009
A409
Annex 43 Letter from Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa to
A415
- Page 101 -
Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho, dated 23 November 2009
Annex 44 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00045/2009, dated 25 November 2009
A419
Annex 45 Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s
Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 10 December 2009
A425
Annex 46 Third Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint
Technical Committee on the Implementation of the
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, 5 January
2010, Singapore, Record of Meeting
A429
Annex 47 Fourth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey
Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge, Singapore, 5 January 2010,
Record of Discussion
A457
Annex 48 Joint press statement by Malaysia’s Foreign
Minister and Singapore’s Foreign Minister, “Third
Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical
Committee (MSJTC) on the Implementation of the
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”, dated 8
January 2010
A501
Annex 49 Report dated 6 February 2010 by Utusan Malaysia,
“Malaysia pertahankan kedaulatan Tubir Selatan”
(translated into English as: “Malaysia defends
sovereignty over South Ledge”), and English
translation provided by Singapore
A505
Annex 50 Report dated 19 February 2010 by Utusan
Malaysia, “Wisma Putra jawab isu Tubir Selatan
dengan Singapura” (translated into English as:
“Wisma Putra replies about South Ledge issue with
Singapore”), and English translation provided by
Singapore
A511
Annex 51 Fifth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey
Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
A517
- Page 102 -
and South Ledge, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 23-24
February 2010, Record of Discussion
Annex 52 Sixth Meeting of the MSJTC Sub-Committee on
Joint Hydrographic Survey in and around Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Johor
Bahru, Malaysia, 1 April 2010, Record of
Discussion
A553
Annex 53 Seventh Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint
Survey Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
13-14 May 2010, Record of Discussion
A597
Annex 54 Eighth Meeting of the MSJTC Sub-Committee on
the Joint Survey Works in and around Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Singapore,
15-16 July 2010, Joint Record of Discussion
A647
Annex 55 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00030/2010, dated 19 July 2010
A775
Annex 56 Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho to Malaysia’s
Secretary General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Rastam Mohd Isa, dated 23 July 2010
A779
Annex 57 Ninth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey
Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26 July
2010, Record of Discussion
A783
Annex 58 Fourth Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint
Technical Committee on the Implementation of the
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Kuala
Lumpur, 26-27 July 2010, Record of Meeting
A863
Annex 59 Letter from Malaysia’s Secretary General, Ministry
of Foreign Affairs, Rastam Mohd Isa to
Singapore’s Permanent Secretary, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Peter Ho, dated 6 August 2010,
sent under cover of diplomatic note from Malaysia
to Singapore, EC 123/2010, dated 11 August 2010
A897
- Page 103 -
Annex 60 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
162/2010, dated 1 November 2010
A901
Annex 61 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
163/2010, dated 1 November 2010
A905
Annex 62 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
165/2010, dated 1 November 2010
A909
Annex 63 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
166/2010, dated 1 November 2010
A913
Annex 64 Fifth Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint
Technical Committee on the Implementation of the
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Singapore,
29-30 November 2010, Record of Meeting
A917
Annex 65 Tenth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey
Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge, Singapore, 29-30 November
2010, Record of Discussion
A935
Annex 66 Memorandum of Understanding between the
Government of Malaysia and the Government of the
Republic of Singapore with regard to the Joint
Hydrographic Survey in and around Pedra Branca
and Middle Rocks, dated 30 November 2010
A1043
Annex 67 Joint Press Statement by Malaysia’s Foreign
Minister and Singapore’s Foreign Minister, “Fifth
Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint Technical
Committee (MSJTC) on the Implementation of the
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge”, dated 2
December 2010
A1073
Annex 68 Eleventh Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint
Survey Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, 13
December 2010, Record of Discussion
A1077
Annex 69 Twelfth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint
Survey Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge, 14-15 February 2011,
Singapore, Record of Discussion
A1215
- Page 104 -
Annex 70 Thirteenth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint
Survey Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
18-19 March 2011, Record of Discussion
A1273
Annex 71 Fourteenth Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint
Survey Works in and around Pedra Branca, Middle
Rocks and South Ledge, Singapore, 20 July 2011,
Record of Discussion
A1345
Annex 72 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
105/2011, dated 7 July 2011
A1381
Annex 73 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
106/2011, dated 7 July 2011
A1387
Annex 74 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00015/2011, dated 15 July 2011
A1393
Annex 75 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
115/2011, dated 4 August 2011
A1399
Annex 76 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
123/2011, dated 22 August 2011
A1405
Annex 77 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
125/2011, dated 22 August 2011
A1409
Annex 78 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
147/2011, dated 30 September 2011
A1413
Annex 79 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00048/2011, dated 17 November 2011
A1417
Annex 80 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00056/2011, dated 29 December 2011
A1423
Annex 81 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
16/2012, dated 14 February 2012
A1429
Annex 82 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
17/2011, dated 14 February 2012
A1433
Annex 83 Sixth Meeting of the Malaysia-Singapore Joint
Technical Committee on the Implementation of the
A1437
- Page 105 -
International Court of Justice Judgment on Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Kuala
Lumpur, 22-23 February 2012, Record of Meeting
Annex 84 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00030/2012, dated 27 April 2012
A1453
Annex 85 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00019/2012, dated 24 August 2012
A1465
Annex 86 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00022/2012, dated 11 September 2012
A1471
Annex 87 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA/00079/2013, dated 26 December 2013
A1477
Annex 88 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia, SHC
178/2013, dated 27 December 2013
A1483
Annex 89 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
6/2014, dated 27 January 2014
A1511
Annex 90 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
10/2014, dated 28 January 2014
A1515
Annex 91 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
12/2014, dated 29 January 2014
A1519
Annex 92 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
15/2014, dated 30 January 2014
A1523
Annex 93 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
16/2014, dated 4 February 2014
A1527
Annex 94 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
19/2014, dated 5 February 2014
A1531
Annex 95 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
21/2014, dated 6 February 2014
A1535
Annex 96 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
23/2014, dated 7 February 2014
A1539
Annex 97 Diplomatic note from Malaysia to Singapore, EC
68/2014, dated 27 April 2014, but received by
Singapore on 27 March 2014
A1543
- Page 106 -
Annex 98 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00030/2014, dated 8 April 2014
A1549
Annex 99 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00034/2014, dated 7 May 2014
A1555
Annex 100 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00091/2014, dated 28 November 2014
A1583
Annex 101 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00093/2014, dated 2 December 2014
A1611
Annex 102 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00043/2015, dated 16 December 2015
A1617
Annex 103 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00022/2017, dated 25 May 2017
A1645
Annex 104 Diplomatic note from Singapore to Malaysia,
MFA/SEA1/00023/2017, dated 31 May 2017
A1651
Annex 105 Letter from Malaysia to the Registrar of the
International Court of Justice, dated 6 June 2017
A1657
Annex 106 Press statement by the Maritime and Port Authority
of Singapore, “Collision of US Guided-missile
destroyer JOHN MCCAIN and TANKER ALNIC
MC in Singapore Waters”, dated 21 August 2017
A1661
Annex 107 Screen captures of Twitter posts by and profile of
Malaysia’s Chief of Navy, with enlargements of the
maritime chart in the Twitter posts, and English
translations by Singapore
A1665
Annex 108 Screen capture of Malaysia’s Chief of Navy’s
profile on the official website of the Malaysian
Armed Forces Headquarters
A1677
Annex 109 Report dated 21 August 2017 by The Telegraph,
“‘That’s too bad’: Donald Trump criticised for
response to news ten sailors missing, five injured
after US warship collides with oil tanker near
Singapore”
A1681