Non-Corrigé
Uncorrectecl
InternationalCourt Courinternationale
of Justice deJustice
THEHAGUE
LAHAYE
YEAR 2001
Public sitting
heldon Thursday28June 2001, at10a.m, atthePeacePalace,
PresidentGuillaumepresiding
in the caseconcerningSovereigntyoverPulau LigitanandPulauSipadan
(IndonesiallMalaysia)
Applicationfor permissiontointerveneJiledbytheRepublicof thePhilippines
VERBATIMRECORD
Audiencepublique
tenue lejeudi 28juin 20à10heures,au Palais delaPaix,
souslaprésidencedeM. Guillaume,président
en l'affairerelativeSouverainetésurPulau Ligitan et PulauSipadan
(Indonésie/lMalaisie)
RequêteàJin d'interventiondépoear laRépubliquedesPhilippines
COMPTERENDUPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Oda
Bedjaoui
Ranjeva
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Higgins
Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Judgeadhoc Weeramantry
Franck
Registrar CouvreurPrésents:M. Guillaume,président
M. Shi,vice-président
MM. Oda
Bedjaoui
Ranjeva
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal,juges
Weeramantry
Franck,juges adhoc
M. Couvreur,greffierTheGovernmentof theRepublicof thePhilippinesisrepresentedby:
H.E. Mr. Eloy R.Bello III, Ambassadorofthe Republicof the Philippines to theKingdomof the
Netherlands,
asAgent; 9
Mr.MerlinM.Magallona,Under-Secretaryof Foreign Affairs,Govemmentof the Republicof the
Philippines,
as Co-AgentandCounsel;
ProfessorW.MichaelReisman,YaleLawSchool,
as CounselandAdvocate;
Dr.PeterPayoyo,University of thePhilippines,
as Counsel;
Mr.Alberto A. Encornienda,Secretary-General,Maritime and OceanAffairsCenter,Departrnent
of Foreign Affairs,
Mr. AlejandroB. Mosquera,AssistantSecretxy, Office of Legal Affairs, Departrnentof Foreign
Affairs,
Mr.GeorgeA.Eduvala,Attaché, Embassy ofthe Republicof the PhilippinesintheNetherlands,
Mr. Eduardo M.R. Meîiez, SecondSecretary, Embassyof the Republic ofthe Philippinesin the
Netherlands,
Mr.Igor G. Bailen,ActingDirector, Officeof LegalAffairs,DepartmentofForeign Affairs,
asAdvisers.
TheGovernmentoftheRepublic ofIndonesiais representedby:
H.E. Dr. N.HassanWirajuda,DirectorGeneralforPoliticalAffairs
asAgent;
H.E. Mr. AbdulIrsan,Ambassadorof Indonesiato theKingdomoftheNetherlands
as Co-Agent;
Mr.AlainPellet,Professor at the Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,Memberofthe InternationalLaw
Commission,
Mr.Rodman R.Bundy, Avocat à la Cour d'appelde Paris, Member of theNew YorkBar, Frere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris
as CounselandAdvocates;Le GouvernementdelaRépublique des Philippines erse tpresentépar:
S.Exc.M.EloyR.Bello III, ambassadeurdelaRépublique desPhilippinesauxPays-Bas,
commeagent;
M.Merlin M. Magallona, sous-secrétaieuministère des affaiétrangères,
commecoagentet conseil;
M. W.MichaelReisman,professeura la facultéde droitdeYale,
commeconseilet avocat;
M. PeterPayoyo, del'universitédes Philippines,
commeconseil;
M. AlbertoA. Encomienda,secrétairegénérad lu centre des affaires océaniques et maritsued
ministèredes affairesétrangères,
M. Alejandro B. Mosquera, secrétaireadjointau bureau des affaires juridiquesdu ministère des
affairesétrangères,
M. GeorgeA. Eduvala,attaché àl'ambassadede la RépubliquedesPhilippinesaux Pays-Bas,
M. EduardoM.R.Mefiez,deuxièmesecrétaire àl'ambassadede la Républiquedes Philippinesux
Pays-Bas,
M. Igor G. Bailen,directeurpar intérimdu bureaudes affairesjuridiquesdu ministère des affaires
étrangères,
commeconseillers.
Le GouvernementdelaRépublique d'lndonésieestrepresentépar:
S.Exc. M. Hassan Wirajuda,directeurgénéradles-zffairespolitiques,
commeagent;
S.Exc.M.AbdulIrsan,ambassadeurd'Indonésie aux Pays-Bas,
commecoagent;
M.AlainPellet, professeuràl'universitéde Paris X-Nanterre,membrede la Commissiondu droit
international,
M.Rodman R. Bundy, avocatà lacour d'appelde Paris,membredubarreaudeNewYork, cabinet
FrereCholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
commeconseilsetavocats;Mr.AlfredH.A. Soons,Professor ofPublic International LawU , trecht University,
Ms Loretta Malintoppi, Avocat à la Cour d'appelde Paris, Member of the Rome Bar, Frere
CholmeleyiEvershedsP , aris,
I
Mr.Charles Claypoole, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, Frere
Cholmeley/EvershedsP , aris,
*
as Counsel;
Mr.HasyimSaleh,DeputyChiefof Mission, Embassyofthe RepublicofIndonesia,The Hague,
Mr.DonniloAnwar,DirectorforTreatiesandLegal Affairs,Departmentof ForeignAffairs,
Mr.Major General Djokomulono,Territorial Assistantto Chief of Staff for Territorial Affairs,
IndonesianArmedForcesHeadquarters,
Mr. Rear-Admira1Yoos F. Menko, Intelligent Assistantto Chief of Staff for General Affairs,
IndonesianArmed ForcesHeadquarters,
Mr.KriaFahrniPasaribu,MinisterCounsellor, Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia,TheHague,
Mr. Eddy Pratomo, Head of Sub-Directorate forTemtorial Treaties, Department ofForeign
Affairs,
Mr.Abdul KadirJaelani,Officer,EmbassyoftheRepublicof Indonesia,TheHague
as Advisers.
TheGovernmentofMalaysia isrepresentedby:
H. E. Tan SriAbdulKadirMohamad,SecretaryGeneralof theMinistryof ForeignAffairs,
as Agent;
H.E. MsNoorFaridaArifEn,ArnbassadorofMalaysiato theKingdomoftheNetherlands,
as Co-Agent;
ProfessorSirElihu LauterpachtC.B.E.,Q.C.,HonoraryProfessorof InternationalLaw,University
of Cambridge, MemberoftheInstitutdeDroit International,
ProfessorJean-PierreCot,EmeritusProfessor, Université de Paris1,Advocate,Paris andBrussels
Bars,
L
ProfessorJames Crawford,S.C., F.B.A., WhewellProfessor of InternationalLaw, Universityof
Cambridge,Member, InternationaL l awCommission,
ProfessorNico Schrijver,Professorof InternationalLaw,Free UniversityAmsterdam andInstitute
of SocialStudies,TheHague; Memberof the PermanentCourtof Arbitration,
as CounselandAdvocates,M.AlfredH.A. Soons,professeurde droitinternationalpublic àl'universitéd'Utrecht,
Mme Loretta Malintoppi, avocatà la cour d'appel de Paris, membre du barreau deRome, cabinet
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
M. CharlesClaypoole,Solicitorà la Coursuprême d'Angleterreet du Pays de Galles, cabinetFrere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
commeconseils;
M.Hasyim Saleh,chef adjointde la missionàl'ambassaded'Indonésie à LaHaye,
M. Donnilo Anwar, directeur des traitéset des affaires juridiques au ministère des affaires
étrangères,
Le général dedivision Djokomulono, assistant pour les questions detemtoire auprèsdu chef
d'état-majorchargédesaffairestemtoriales, quartier généles forcesarméesindonésiennes,
Le contre-amiral YoosF. Menko, assistant auprès du chefd'état-majorpour les affairesgénérales
(servicederenseignements), quartier génédlesforcesarmées indonésiennes,
M. KriaFahmiPasaribu,ministre conseilleràl'ambassade d'Indonési e LaHaye,
M. Eddy Pratomo, chef de la sous-direction destraités territoriauxau ministère des affaires
étrangères,
M.Abdul KadirJaelani,fonctionnaireàl'ambassaded'Indonésie àLa Haye,
commeconseillers.
Le Gouvernement dela Malaisieest representépar:
S.Exc.M. Tan SriAbdulKadirMohamad,secrétairegénérd al ministèredesaffairesétrangères,
commeagent;
S.Exc. MmeNoor FaridaAriffin,ambassadeurde laMalaisieauxPays-Bas,
commecoagent;
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht,C.B.E., Q.C., professeur honoraire dedroit internatiàl'universitéde
Cambridge,membredel'Institutde droit international,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot, professeur éméràtl'université deParis 1,avocat auxbaneaux de Pariset de
Bruxelles,
M. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de droit internatioàl'universitéde Cambridge,
titulairede lachaireWhewell, membrede la Commissiondudroit international,
M. Nico Shrijver,professeur de droit internatiànl'université libred'Amsterdamet àl'Institut
d'études sociales LaHaye,membrede la Courpermanente d'arbitrage,
commeconseils et avocats;DatukHeliliahYusof,Solicitor-Generalof Malaysia,
Mrs.HalimaHj.Nawab Khan, Acting StateAttorney-Generalof Sabah, Malaysia,
Mr. AthrnatHassan, LegalOfficer,SabahStateAttorney-General's Chambers,Malaysia, I
as Counsel;
I
H.E. Ambassador HussinNayan, Under-Secretary,Territorial and Maritime Affairs Division,
Ministry of ForeignAffairs,Malaysia,
Mr. Muhamadbin Mustafa,DeputyDirector-General,NationalSecurityDivision,PrimeMinister's
Department,Malaysia,
asAdvisers;
Mr. Zulkifli Adnan, Principal Assistant Secretary,Temtorial and Maritime AffairsDivision,
Ministry of ForeignAffairs,Malaysia,
Mr.Raja AznamNazrin,Counsellor of theEmbassyofMalaysiaintheNetherlands,
Mr.NikAzizNikYahya,First Secretaryof theEmbassyofMalaysiainthe Philippines,
Mr. Tan AhBah,PrincipalAssistantDirectorof Survey, BoundaryDivision,DepartmentofSurvey
andMapping,Malaysia,
Ms HaznahMd. Hashim,Assistant Secretary,Territorialand MaritimeAffairs Division,Ministry
of ForeignAffairs,Malaysia,
Mr. ShaharuddinOnn,Assistant Secretary,Territorial andMaritimeAffairs Division,Minisûy of
Foreign Affairs,Malaysia,
as administrativestaflDatukHeliliahYusof,SolicitorGeneralde laMalaisie,
Mme HalimaHj.NawabKhan,Attorney General par intérim d1'Etatdu Sabah(Malaisie),
M.AthmatHassan,juriste aucabinetde l'AttorneyGeneralde 1'Etatdu Sabah (Malaisie),
commeconseils;
S. Exc.M. HussinNayan, ambassadeur, sous-secrétairaeu départementdes affaires territorialeset
maritimes duministèredesaffaires étrangères,
M. Muhamad bin Mustafa, directeur généraaldjoint du départementde la sécurité nationale,
cabinetdu premierministre,
commeconseillers;
M.Zulkifli Adnan,secrétaireadjoint principalau départemetes affairesterritoriales etmaritimes
duministèredesaffairesétrangères,
M.RajaAnam Nazrin,conseillerdel'ambassadede la Malaisieaux Pays-Bas,
M.NikAzizNikYahya,premiersecrétaire del'ambassadede laMalaisieauxPhilippines,
M. Tan Ah Bah, sous-directeurprincipalde latopographiedu servicedes frontières,département
delatopographie etde la cartographiedelaMalaisie,
MmeHaznahMd. Hashim,secrétaireadjointau département des affaires territorialeset maritimes
duministèredes affairesétrangères,
M. Shaharuddin Onn, secrétaire adjoint audépartementdes affairestemtoriales et maritimesdu
ministère desaffairesétrangères,
commepersonneladministratif: LE PRESIDENT :Veuillez vous asseoir. La séance est ouverte. Nous sommes réunis
aujourd'hui pourentendre le deuxième tourde plaidoiriesde la Républiquedes Philippinesetje
#
donne immédiatemenltaparole au professeur MichaelReisman. Professor Reisman,you have the
floor.
Mr.REISMAN:
1. Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, ProfessorMagallona and 1 appreciate the
opportunity to respondto learned counsel for Indonesia and Malaysia and to correct certain
misunderstandingsor distortions ofour positionand differenceswith respectto the law. Let me
begin by stating a fundamentaldifference. The Courtwill recall that we emphasizedthe dual
functionof Article62: for the Statewhichconsidersthat ithasan interestthatmaybe affectedby a
decision in a case between two other States and, equally, if not more important,as a mode by
whichthe Court can informitself of possible consequencesof a decisionfor a third State that the
immediate partieswill not bringto itsattention. Article62 is asvital tothe Courtin its application
ofjustice asit isto the thirdStatein itspursuitofjustice.
2. The Philippinesbelieves thatin this case, one or both of the Parties mayrely on treaties
and agreementsandpressinterpretationsoftheseinstrumentsthatcouldaffectits interestof a legal
nature,specificallyitslong-standing claimto temtories inNorthBomeo. It is that concem andnot
a claimto the islandsindisputethathas stimulatedthe requestforthe pleadingsanddocumentsand
the opportunityto submitwrittenand oral observations. AfterTuesday, itis plain that, in spiteof
the factthat the Philippinesdoesnot challengethe claim of either Party,bothareutterlydisdainful
ofthe Philippineinterest,suchthat without its intervention, itinterestand viewwill simply not be
before the Court. The Parties to this case opposeinterventionfor different reasons: Indonesia
acknowledgesthat there is a "long-standing claim"to temtory in North Borneo,on whichit takes
I
no positionbut it objectsto interventionon the groundoftimeliness. Malaysia simplydeniesthat
there is an interest or that the Philippines has failedto demonstrate such an interest. The ,
presentationsby MalaysiaandIndonesiaon Tuesdaydodemonstrateonecommon ground:the last
thingthat bothStateswish is for the Court tobe informedof the Philippineinterestandthe wayit
might be affected. We believe that we have now îully complied with the requirements ofArticle62 and Rule81 and shouldbe permitted to intervene, for without allowing interventiont,he
Courtwill not be fully informedof effects thatmay flow fiom its decision which could prejudice
Philippine interestsof a legal nature.
The preliminarycharacter oftheArticle62procedure
3. As weunderstandtheprocedure contemplatedby Article 62, itis not an interventionin its
own right, but a preliminary determinationby the Courtas to whether a party should be permitted
to intervene. If this preliminary procedure yieldsan affirmative decision by the Court, then the
intervener receives copies ofthe pleadings and documents and is entitled to submit a written
statement to which the parties may respond in writing and to submit observations in the oral
proceedings,but only"with respectto the subject-matterof the intervention". UnderArticle62,the
Courtdoes not decide on the interestandhow it may beaffectedby the decision, butonly whether
the applicant for intervention hashown that it has an interest of a legal nature and that it rnaybe
affectedby a decisionof the Court. We do notsuggest,for a moment,as ProfessorPellet intimates
and ProfessorCot said, that the Court does not make this decision. But we do Saythat in the
absence of a jurisdiction ratione materiae and rationepersonae, the Court perforce gives great
weight to the subjective assessment of the requesting State in deciding whether to allow
intervention. Thereupon, and only thereupon,the intervener, now supplied with pleadings and
documents, participatesin the very limited way prescribed in Rule 85. It is the Court that then
decideshow, if at all, to deal with the intervener'sinterest of a legal nature in its ownjudgment.
ProfessorMagallona and1had the feeling on Tuesdaythat our learned friends assumedand acted
as if we had receivedthe pleadings anddocumentsandwere already arguing about themandwere
obligedto makethe case which we would - and couldonly - make in the merits phasewhenwe
arepermitted to takethe carefully circumscribedroleofthe intervener. But, of course,wehave not
receivedthe documents anddo not know their contents. As petitioners for the right to intervene,
that is one ofthethingswe are askingfor.
Theinterestofa legalnature
4. In the case conceming the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute
(El Salvador/Honduras),ApplicationtoIntervene,the Chambersaid: "[Ilt is clear, first, that it is for a State seeking to intervene to demonstrate
convincingly what it asserts, andthus to bearthe burdenof proof; and, second,that it
has onlyto showthat its interest'may'be affected,notthat it will ormustbe affected."
(Judgment, I.C.JR.eports 1990,p. 117,para.61 .)
i
We believe that we have demonstratedto a level required by Article62 our interest of a legal
nature. First, there is a dispute. Indonesiaacknowledgedit on Tuesday, characterizedit as a
long-standing dispute. Professor Pellet called "an ancientandrecurringdispute". Malaysia, long
involved in the dispute, its Agent even announcing in open court that its own position was
non-negotiable, insisted- in defianceof logic- that there was no dispute, and, in any case, that
the Philippines had no legal rights in the matter. This, in itself, seems dramatic evidence of a
dispute but, more to the point, al1three Parties have issuedjoint declarations confirming the
dispute. Second,the dispute is not a recent,fnvolous invention designedto complicatethis case,
but is long-standingand based uponvery senous legal and factual arguments. Third,the Parties to
the case have acknowledged the Philippines claim and in a solemn international declaration
confirmed the common positionthat it should be resolved in accordance with internationallaw.
This declaration constituted an important intemationalization ofthe dispute, fiom which flow
procedural implications thatare not irrelevant to a request under Article62. Fourth, we have
shown that certain of the treaties, upon which we believe-with even more confidence after
hearing the arguments on Tuesday-that the Parties are relying upon,are critical to the rights
whichwe claimin certaintenitory in North Bomeo. The factthat counselfor Indonesiastatesthat
someof thesetreaties are being reliedupon andcounsel for Malaysiastatesthat they are not, gives
us even greatercause for disquiet. Fifth, we have shown that interpretationswhichthe Court may
be invited to adopt to support the claim of one of the Parties could affect the interests of the
Philippines. In sum, we submit that we have shown, as required by Article 62, that we have an
interestof a legal nature.
5.Professor Cotsaysthat the interestwehave describedis "political"and has no legal basis. *-
His authority for this conclusion is the statement to that effect made immediatelyprior to his
b
appearanceby the Malaysia Agent. ProfessorPelletcontendsthat the Philippineinterest doesnot
amountto an interest in the sense in which the term is used in Article62 of the Statute. We agree
entirely with the jurisprudence of the Court in Tunisia/Libyaand Nicaragua that a concern about
rules and general principles of law does not constitute sufficientinterest under Article62. Theissue here,however,is not general principles oflaw, butspecifictreatiesabouttenitory whichhave
an effect on us. None of those other cases deals with a situation in which an interpretationof a
temtorial treaty upon which one of the parties is relying will affect-and possibly
profoundly - the interestof athird Stateand with respectto whichthe third State wishes toinform
the Court of the risk. We donot agreewithProfessorCot'sstatementthat theNicaraguaJudgrnent
speaksto thisparticularissueat all.
1stheinterestaffected?
6. Could our legal interest be affected by the decision in this case? The standard which
Article62 appliesis conditional. The applicantfor permission tointemene need only showthat a
decisionmayaffectits interest. In a maritimeboundarydispute, athird Statecanpoint to achartto
show the vector of a provisional equidistant line.In this case,things are more complicated. We
askedfor the documentsbut weredenied,sowe mustbe speculative. ProfessorPellet is quiteright
that Malta, too, was denied the documents before it soughtto intemene, but that was a maritime
case and charts and minimum familiarity with "equitable principles" was enough togive them a
sensethat theybelieved theirinterestswerethreatened. That is not our situation. The Partieswho
deniedus the documents insistthat thereis norelationbetweentheir case and our interest. If that is
so, why were they, having solemnly declared that there was a dispute, still so loath to allow a
neighbouring State to see the documents to assuage its real concerns? This was not, as
ProfessorPelletsuggests, an exerciseof curiosityor an "academic"mission. Aninterventionunder
Article62 is too serious an endeavour- not to speak of being too expensive politically - to be
undertakenfor idlecuriosity.
7. Whatburden with respect tospecificity mustwe dischargein the specific circumstancesof
this case? Here,Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, 1must retm for a momentto the rejection
of our request for documentsunder Rule53. We are not, incidentally, engagedin an appeal from
that decision, as Mr. Bundy contended, but, given the nature of this case, there are certain
proceduraland substantiveconsequencesthat inevitably flowfromthe denial of the pleadings and
documents. Thisis not, as 1said, a case in whichthe third Stateneed only look at a publicchart.
We need information andif we have been denied accessto the pleadings and submissions, itis acaricatureof law forthe Statesthatdenied theaccessto tellus to "guess"whatis in the documents
and then to fault us for not being precise. In the circurnstancesof this case, the "may" in
9
Article 62's"maybeaffected hasto bemoreelastic.
8. In fact, the presentations of Indonesia and Malaysia on Tuesday only confirmed our
t
suspicions that thePhilippinesinterestmay indeedbe affected. In paragraph31 of his pleading,
ProfessorCot cited four treatiesand agreementsrelied upon or challengedby one or both of the
Parties to prove their title to the contested islands,and he contended,in paragraph32, that the
Philippines"doesnotcite anyof thesetextsto advanceits territorial claimon NorthBorneo". The
Court will recall thatProfessorMagallona on Monday dealt with three of those four treaties.
ProfessorCotproceedsto argue,in paragraph33, that neither Indonesianor Malaysia hasfounded
its territorialclaim on the gant of the Sultan of Sulu of 1878. But Mr. Bundy'stracking of the
chain of succession atpage 8 of his pleading tells a different story. The statementsmade by
IndonesiaandMalaysiaon Tuesdayprovideevidence thattheCourtwillbe presented withmanyof
the treaties andagreementsuponwhichthe Philippinesclaimis basedand willbepressed to adopt
interpretationsthatwillcertainly affectthePhilippine interest.
9. ProfessorsCotandPellet,in different ways,assertthat theinterestof a legal natureofthe
Staterequestingpermission to intervenemustbe related tothe dispute betweenthe parties tothe
case andthat it is theparties' submissithat determinesthe permissiblescopeof the third State's
interest. Because the Philippines disavowsan interest in the outcome of the dispute over the
islands, theyconcludethat the Philippineinterestdoesnotrelate to the caseat barand,hence,fails
the test of Article62. For authority, they citethe 1984Malteserequest,and the 1990Nicaraguan
intervention. ThoseJudgrnentssupportus. Thelawfulpurposeof aninterventionunderArticle62
is, indeed,not tografta new case ont0 the one before theCourt, rather, as the Charnbersaid in
1990, "[ilnterventionunder Article62 of the Statute is for the purpose of protecting aState's
'interest of a legal nature'that mightbe afected by a decision in an existing case already
established between other States.. ." (Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute
(ElSalvador/Honduras),ApplicationtoIntewene,Judgment,I. C.J .eports 1990,p. 133, para.97;
emphasis added). 10.We find nothingin the precedentsabout the permissible scope of an interventionbeing
determined by the language of the submission, but rather by the possible consequenceof the
Court's decision. Thetest isnot connective,but consequential; not whetherthere is a "connection"
to the submission - whateverthat means-but whetherthe decisionofthe Court couldaffectthe
interest of a legal nature of a third State. Malaysia insiststhat, while its argument forthe islands
may relyon sometreatieswhichthe Philippines might relyupon, its argumentshaveno connection
with the Philippine claimto North Borneo. But if its theory ofthe caseimports a chain oftitle that
is inconsistentwith the claim of title upon which the Philippines bases its claim to temtories in
North Borneo,that interpretationwill affectinterestsof a legal nature. Ifthe Courtislaterseised of
the Philippine claimto North Borneo- as proposedonmany occasionsby the Philippines - how
will the Court deal with the Philippineclaim if it has already decided it- in the absence ofthe
Philippines?
11.Professor Cot seemsto acknowledgethat the test is consequentialitywhen he Statesat
paragraph 24 that "the interest of a legal natur.. .must be affected by the decision of the Court
and not just by the reasoning". 1 do not wish to go into an enquiry of the extent to which the
reasoning of a judgment is part of its res judicata, a venerable problem in this Court which
Judge Anzilottioriginallytook up in its predecessor. Sufficeit to Saythat the Court'sreasoningis
the very stuff of international law. Treaties about territorial title and their interpretations
"necessarily imping[e]uponthird States",astheEritreamemen Tribunalsaid.
12.We submit that, on the basis of that part of the record towhich we have been allowed
access, the probability of consequencesfor the interests of the Philippines meets the "may"
requirementsof Article62 andjustifies Philippine intervention.
Whatisthequantumrequired?
13. Rule 81(2)(5) requires the applicationto intervene to state "the precise object of the
intervention". Giventhe handicap thatwe laboured underin the unique circurnstancesofthis case,
in contrastto, let'sSay,a maritime delimitationcase, and having been denied the documents,the
Philippine Application stated,in sections(a) and(b) of itsobjects:
"(a) First, to preserve andsafeguardthe historical and legal rights of the Governrnent
of the Republic of the Philippines arising from its claim to dominion and sovereigntyoverthe temtory of North Borneo, tothe extentthat these rights are
affected,or rnay be affected,by a determination ofthe Court of the questionof
sovereigntyover PulauLigitanandPulauSipadan.
(b) Second,to intemenein the proceedingsin orderto informthe Honourable Court
of the nature andextentof the historical andlegalrights of the Republicof the
Philippineswhichrnaybeaffectedbythe Court's decision."
Some six weeks ago, Indonesia andMalaysiafiled their observationson our Application, %
whichsuppliedus with alittlemoreinformation. Thanksto that addition, Professor Magallona on
Monday was able to explain in Mer detail our concems and objectives. We thank
ProfessorPellet(at page4) for acknowledgingthat our objective ofinterveningto informthe Court
is, as the Chambersaidin theNicaraguaintervention, a legitimate objetnderArticle62. Indeed,
the full Courtin its Orderof 1999,allowed Equatorial Guineato intemene"to state its viewsas to
howthe maritime boundary claimsof CameroonorNigeriarnayor rnaynot affectthe legalrights
and interestsof Equatorial Guinea". Inthe case concerningLand,Islandand MaritimeFrontier
Disputethe Chambersaid: "It is forthe State seekingto interveneto identiQthe interestof a legal
naturewhich itconsidersrnaybe affectedby the decisioninthe case,and to showinwhatwaythat
interest rnay be affected.." And the Court acknowledgedthe idiosyncratic character ofeach
case: "Whatneedsto be shownby a Stateseekingpermissionto intemenecan onlybejudged in
concret0andinrelationto al1thecircumstances ofaparticularcase."
14.WesubmitthattheApplication,supplemented by Professor Magallona's scholarlyeview
of the historical claim, amply demonstratetshe object ofthe intervention for thepurpose of a
decisionunderArticle 62.
15.Now Sir Eli saysthatthatisstillnot enoughand,onTuesday,he recountedthe nurnbing
detail with which, 20years ago, he presentedto the Courtthe objects ofMalta'sApplication to
intervene. Considering that Malta'sApplicationwas then denied, SirEli'smode1does not seem
like one to emulate, thoughwe cancertainly understandwhyhe would urge iton us. We submit
?
that the objects (a) and (71)in the Applicationmake clear the objectives of the Philippines in
applyingto the Court for permissionto intemeneunderArticle62, are consistentwiththe Court's
jurisprudence; andamplyfulfilthe requirements ofthe Statute. Timeliness
16. Mr. President, Members of the Court,1tum briefly to the issue of timelinessraised by
Mr.Bundy. In appraisingthegeneral issue of timeliness, itis importanttorelatethe Applicationto
intervene to the prior request for access to the submissions, the written submissions,under
Article53. As 1mentioned on Monday, the present Application mightwell have been obviated,
hadaccessnot beenopposed.
17. The Philippines could nothave beenmore timely under Rule 53 or Article 62. Other
than in the obvious case of a maritime boundary,the logical sequencefor a State consideringthat
an interestmaybe implicatedin a case betweentwo other Statesis to requestthe documentsin the
case under Article53 of the Rules. When would Indonesia expectthe request under Article53 to
come? Beforethe Partieshad made their written submissions?That wouldbe absurd, therewould
be nothing to request. The proper time is when the bulk of the written submissions havebeen
made. Andthis is precisely when the Philippines requested - and requested a second time-
copiesof thepleadingsunderArticle 53.
18. In the nature of the case, the Philippines could hardly haverequested permission to
interveneunderArticle62before it triedto securethe documents. Andit was onlywhen it became
apparent that the request for the documents was not going tobe granted, that the Philippines
requested permission to intervene. So the fact is that not only is the Philippines within al1the
time-limits, it could not,as a logicalandpracticaler,have submittedits requestany sooner.
19. So we submitthat under the prudential calculusof timeliness,the equation is positive in
favour of the Philippines. We do not agree that our interventi-n if approvedby the Court-
will impose any procedural hardships on the Parties or the Court. As we have said, we are not
requestinga restructuringof the case or the Bench or the scope of the submissionand will accept
whatevertimetablethe Courtmay wishto prescribe.
20. Mr.President, Membersof the Court, onMonday, 1submittedtoyouthat this is a caseof
first impressionforthree, interrelated reasons: the character of the interest,the character of the
case in which it may be engaged and the denial of pleadings and documents. 1suggested that
Article62 is as important forthe Court as it is for the would-be intervener andthat, in the instant
case,it is evenmore importantfor the Court, giventhe nature ofthe case,and the handicapsnderwhich the Philippines labours. We submit that the Philippines has filfilled the requirements of
Article62 andthatit shouldbepermitted to intervene.
r
21. Mr. President, Members of the Court, we appreciate that fiom the standpoint of the
parties to the litigation and, to an extent, fiom the standpoint of the Court, an application to
e
intervene under Article62 is always awkwardand likely to be greeted with less than enthusiasm.
The intervener is seen as an intruder, an interloper, an uninvited guest, an ill-mannered
"party-crasher", a troublemaker. Inthis sense,interventionis never "timely". Theparadigm ofthe
Statuteis binary, bilateral: a disputebetweentwoparties and, even ifthere aremorethan two,then
only two groups of interests. Butthe drafters of theStatute appreciatedthat that paradigm is not
always true to reality. Even a bilateral disputemay involve the interests of third parties, in the
sense that some possible decisions ofthe Court couldaffect those interests. Whenthose interests
are ofa legal nature,the draftersof the Statute decided, in their wisdom,that it is better thatthe
Court, as the principal judicial institution ofthe world, be informedthan remain ignorant of and
obliviousto thoseinterests.
22. As we readthe recentjurisprudence of the Court,thereis anew appreciationof theutiliv
of Article 62 and an acceptance,in a world of interdependence,more and more of whose disputes
are appearingin the docket, that interventionis the other side of interdependence. It reflects afact
of life and has a place- a normal place- in the procedure of the Court, both to protect the
interests of a legalnature ofthethird Stateandto protectthejudicial function.
23. Mr.President,Membersof the Court,thankyou for yourattention. M. President,1now
ask you to cal1uponProfessorMagallona.
Le PRESIDENT : Je vous remercie, professeur Reisman. 1 will now give the floor to
ProfessorMerlin Magallona.
4
Mr. MAGALLONA: Mr.President, Membersof the Court:
1. During the oral presentations by Indonesia and Malaysia last Tuesday 26 June2001,
several points were raised on the matter of the definition of the Philippines "interest of alegal
nature which may be affectedby the decisionof the case". As wehave endeavouredto explainin
the course of our initial arguments,the Philippines "interest of a legal nature" is founded on theinterpretation,application andappreciationby this Courtof specifictreaties,agreementsand other
documents adducedby Indonesia andMalaysia which couldaffect the Philippines outstanding
temtorial claimto certainerritoriesinNorthBorneo. It shouldbe beyondargumentnowthatthere
isa seriousand long-standingdispute abouttheseinterpretationsand theirconsequences.
Replyto Indonesia
2. TheAgentof Indonesiahas statedthathis Govemmentdoesnotwishto expressanyviews
at this timeon the meritsof the Philippinesistorie claimto North ~orneo'. CounselPellet has
Mer statedthatIndonesiadoesnot wishto commentonwhathe callsthe "long-standingdispute
betweenthe Philippinesand~alaysia"'. MyGovemmentrespectstheseviewstakenby Indonesia.
As wesaidlast Monday, itis not, and itwasnever,the intentionof the Philippinesto ventilatethe
merits of its claim in these proceedings,nor to seek an endorsement of its substantiveviews
regarding thisclaim onthe part of any govemmentor party. May 1stress,though, thatIndonesia
by its statementshas expressly acknowledgedthat there isa historicclaimthat hasbeen asserted,
andthat there is, inits ownwords, a"long-standingand recurrentdisputebetweenIndonesia and
Malaysia"occasionedby thisclaim. Thesestatementsarea reiterationofthejudicious standtaken
by Indonesiaas reflectedin the ManilaAccord of 1963,to which 1have alreadyreferred inmy
presentation last Monday.
3. And yet, whileIndonesiaattemptstoprojectan attitudeof disinterestednesson the merits
ofthePhilippineclaimto North Borneo,Indonesiahas invokedthese sarnemerits ofthePhilippine
claim inits case againstMalaysia. Inthe discussiononthe "Implicationsof the Applicationforthe
Meritsof the Disputebetween Indonesiaand Malaysia",counsel c und ^a^s thatMalaysia's claim
to the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan has been underminedby the substantive merits of the
PhilippineclaimtoNorthBorneo. Thus,Indonesiarecognizesthe positivemeritsofthe Philippine
claimto North Borneothat "flowfkomthe PhilippinesApplication and Malaysia'r seactionto it
which havea findamental bearing on the issue of sovereignty overthe islands of Ligitan and
Sipadan as between Indonesia and Malaysia". We understand Indonesiato be saying that the
'CR200112,p. 10(Wirajuda).
2~~200112,p. 13(Pellet).
3~~ 200112,p. (Bundy).determinationof sovereignty overSipadanand Ligitan cannot but make reference to (1)pivota1
aspectsof thePhilippine claimto NorthBomeo; and(2)the Philippineviewthat thelegal statusof
North Bomeo isnecessarily implicatedin the determinationof the issue ofsovereigntyin the case
between IndonesiaandMalaysia.
Ir
4. Evidently, the chain of title which Malaysia asserts to defend its territorial claim to
Sipadanand Ligitan,based as it is on its own interpretations of,and representationson, specific
treaties, agreementsandotherdocuments,is linkedto the chainoftitle whichthe Philippinesrelies
onto defenditsterritorial claimto NorthBomeo. Allowmeto elaborateonandexplorethedetails
ofthis "ramification",ascounselBundy hasdescribed it.
5. Malaysiahas specified atleastfourtreatiesand agreementswhich it argueshave a direct
bearingon thesovereigntyissueinvolving Sipadanand Ligitan. Ifwe relateMalaysia's submission
to Indonesia'sregardingthe chainoftitle allegedby Malaysiato supportthe Malaysianclaim,then
we will have afair view of what the prejudiceto the Philippineinterestwouldlook like. 1Say if,
becausethe Philippineshasnot seenthepleadings of Malaysia.
6. 1ndonesia4saysthat Malaysia's sovereignty claim oveS ripadanandLigitan isbased ona
theoryof ownership,or chainof title,whichfollowsthischronology: originally,the two islandsin
question belongedto the Sultanof Sulu. Sometimein the nineteenthcentury,the Sultan's titlewas
transferred to Spain, who in turn transfened its title to the United Statesvia the Treaty of
7 November 1900.Andthen,throughthe 1930Anglo-United States Conventiont,he UnitedStates
transfened itstitleto GreatBritain, thepredecesso?:n-interestof present-day Malaysia.
Now Malaysia saysSthat the Parties have submitted four legal instrumentsa ,mongmany
others we presurne, in order to prove their respectiveclaims before the Court. These legal
instrumentsare:
- the 1891Anglo-DutchAgreement;
- the 1900Spain-UnitedStatesConvention;
- the 1907United States-United KingdomExchangeofNotes;and
- the 1930United States-United KingdomConvention.
4~~ 2001/2,p.33(Bundy).
'CR2001/2,p.51,para.31(Cot).Two pointsin the Malaysian chain oftitle describedby Indonesia,1900and 1930, correspondto
two agreements cited by Malaysia: the 1900United States-Spain Convention and the
1930United States-UnitedKingdomConvention.Nowwhatif the Court upholdsthe interpretation
oftheseintemationalagreementssuggestedby Malaysia?
7. Let us focus on the 1930United States-UnitedKingdomAgreement. This is a crucial
legal instrumentbecauseifthe Malaysian submissionas allegedby Indonesiais correct- and we
needto veriQ this fiom theMalaysianpleadings- thenMalaysiais claiming that Britainobtained
titleto Sipadanand Ligitanbywayof cessionfiom theUnitedStatesin 1930. Thisis of coursethe
presumed Malaysian interpretation of the 1930 Agreement. The Philippines opposesthis
interpretation and submithe following.
8. First, the Philippines has a direct legalinterest in the interpretation of the
1930UnitedStates-United Kingdomboundary, beingthe successor-in-interest of one partyto that
agreement,theUnited States.
9. Secondly, the 1930Agreement cannot be construed in any way as an instrument of
cession. As we have explained,the purposeand overall intention ofthis Agreement wassimplyto
delineateboundariesbetween,on theone hand,United Statestemtory6andtemtory that "belongto
the Stateof NorthBomeowhich is underBritish protection",on the otherhand. The questionof
UnitedKingdomtitle overtemtory referredto in the 1930Convention,or the Exchangeof Notes
accompanyingit, never arose. The legal situation,as we illustratedlast Monday,parallelsthe one
obtaining whenthe 1891Anglo-DutchAgreementwas concluded. The 1891Agreementdrawsa
boundary line between,or segregates, "Netherlandspossessions"n the onehand,and the temtory
of the "Statesunder protection", on the other. The independentState of Sabahunder British
protectionin 1891was the sameindependentState of SabahunderBritishprotection referredto in
the 1930United States-UnitedKingdomAgreement. The Philippines also clearly demonstrated
that the independent State of Sabahfiom 1891 up to 1930, and beyond, was under the
administration ofthe British North Bomeo Companyby virtue of delegated authority fiom the
Sultan of Sulu,inwhomthe sovereigntyofNorthBomeovested.
60r ,thePhilippine archipelago". 10.Thirdly, neither the Agent nor counselfor Malaysiain their presentationlast Tuesday
dwelt on the question of the legal capacityof the United Kingdom to enter into agreements
respecting NorthBomeofrom 1878 up to 1946. The Philippines, thereforet,akes this tomeanthat 'I
Malaysia accepts (a)the Philippine characterization of the legalstatus of the United Kingdom
4
Govemmentin North Borneoduringthis period, and (b)the fact that North Bomeo was territory
under the indisputable sovereigntyof the Sultan of Sulu, whichwas administeredby the BNBC,
and (c)the understandingexpresslymade in the1907 Exchangeof Notes that "the privilege of
administration"on the part of the BNBC"doesnot carrywith it territorial rights". No amountof
selectivememorycan modiQ or revisethe intentof the 1930Agreement. Britain could not have
acquiredsovereigntyover Sipadanand Ligitanby virtue of the interpretationplacedby Malaysia
onthe 1930United States-UnitedKingdomAgreement.
11. Because, as the Philippines contends, the Sultan of Sulu enjoyed continuous,
unintempted and intemationallyrecognizeddejure sovereignty over North Bomeoduring the
wholeperiod of 1878and 1962,then it followsthat the two islandsin questionwere acquiredby
the United Kingdomin 1930for andonbehalfofthe Sultanof Sulu. Thetwo islandswhich were
lostto the Sultanaspartof his dominion inthenineteenthcenturyreverted backto the Sultanatein
1930!
12.May 1statethatthe territory cededby the Sultanto thePhilippinesin 1962coveredonly
those territorieswhich were included and described in the 1878Sulu-Overbeck lease agreement.
The present Applicationforpermission to interveneisbasedsolelyonthe rights oftheGovernment
of the Republicof the Philippinestransfen-edby and acquired fromthe Sulu Sultanate. If at al1
there are otherterritories appertaining tothe Sultanatenot coveredby the Sulu-Overbeck leaseof
1878,the Philippines,as agent and attorneyfor the Sultanate, has reservedits position on these
Replyto Malaysia
z
13. May 1 now tum to Malaysia's arguments against the Philippines formulationof its
interest of a legal nature. The Malaysian argumentsrest on the critical proposition that the
'~hisreservationwasfirstmadeduringthe Anglo-PhilippinesMinisterialTalksheld in London in1963. SeeThe
Philippinelaim to North Borneo, Vol.II(Manila: BureauofPri1968)p. 2.Philippines does not have any relevant "interest of alegal nature" in the present proceedings
because ultimately the Philippine claimto North Bomeo is unfounded and has no legal basis8. 1
believe that 1have already laiddown beforethe Court the most salient elementsof the Philippine
claim and its historic rights to North Bomeo, which we considered are necessary to fulfil the
substantiverequirementsunder Article62. 1have shownprima facie that there is a legal dispute
between Malaysia,as successor-in-interest toGreatBritain, on the one hand, and the Philippines,
on the other, on the matter of the legal status of North Bomeo. 1 need not go over this ground
again. Allow me, however, to make three observations in reply to specific points raised by
MalaysialastTuesday aboutthe validity ofthe Philippine territorialclaimtoNorth Bomeo.
The scopeofthe disputeon NorthBorneo
14. First, may 1 emphasize that the Philippines claim is not about the legitimacy of the
Republicof Malaysia or of its constituentstate Sabahor a claimthat the latter's self-determination
isinvalidor somehowbeingput into question. The Republic ofthe Philippinesacceptsthe validity
of the State of Malaysia and its political componentsas evidenced by its diplomatic relations,in
particularits participationin the ASEAN. The Philippine claimis a territorial claimon a portionof
Sabah which properly belongs tothe Philippineson the basis of a sound titlejure gentiumand
which Malaysiais improperly occupyingon the basisof a faultytitle which had beentransferred to
it by aprior faulty titleholder. Nothingin the confirmation ofself-detemination of the peopleof
Sabah by the Secretary-Generalof the United Nationsor the admission of Malaysia to the United
Nations importedmore than a confirmationby the international community of Malaysia's political
identity. This isthe caseof every admissionto the United Nations. None ofthose actions signified
an international confirmation of Malaysia's claims to territory that may have been contested. So
Malaysia'sargumentsaboutself-detemination, orthenon-negotiability ofthe "futureof thepeople
of Sabah",are irrelevant,as they arenot inissuein the Philippine claim,andMalaysia's attemptsto
attribute designs against its political character by the Philippines are unfounded. In sum, the
Philippinesis not clairningal1of Sabahor contestingits political legitimacy. The Republic of the
*CR200112,p.39(Mohamad); CR200112,p. 48, para. 16(Cot); CR200112,p. 55,para.6(Lauterpacht).Philippines is claiming a piece of tenitory in North Borneo. At its core, that claim must be
assessedby exarninationofthe chainoftitle.
..
Agreementsonthe legalstatusofNorthBorneo
15.Secondly,there seemsto havebeena misreading ofthe Philippinearguments presented 4
lastMonday regardingthe Philippine positionon the legal status of North Borneo. For instance,
counselCot identifiesfour legalinstruments9which,accordingto Malaysia, have been reliedupon
by oneor both ofthe Partiesto prove their case: (1)the 1891Anglo-DutchBoundaryAgreement
assupplementedby agreementsin 1915 and 1928; (2)the 1900United States-Spain treaty;(3)the
1907 Anglo-UnitedStates Exchangeof Notes; and (4) the 1930 United States-UnitedKingdom
boundaryagreement. It is nottrue that we have failedto refer toany of these legalinstrumentsin
the courseof our explanation ofthe Philippine claimon North ~omeo". We have citedthree of
theseagreementsinthe context ofthe overall argumentthatwe wantedto make,namely,thatthese
agreements arepart of an intercomected set of legal instruments whichif appreciatedin their
propernormative contextwould definitely oppose anytitle of sovereigntyover North Bomeoon
thepartof Bntain,orits successor-in-interest,Malaysia.
16.The assertionhas alsobeenmadethatthePhilippines has acknowledged in four instances
Britishtitle over North~omeo". Counsel Lauterpachtcites the factthat the Philippineshad done
so whenit enteredinto severalarrangementswith the UnitedKingdom: the two on air services,
one on labour employment,and a fourthone whichconsistsof an Exchangeof Notes regardinga
BritishGovemmentrequestto the Philippinesconceminga lighthousesituatedon a certain island
underPhilippinesovereignty. The Philippinesdoes not see how specializedbilateral agreements
with respect to air services or labour employment, or a proposa1on the maintenance of a
lighthouse, variouslytaking place inthe penod 1948to 1955,canpossiblybe invoked againstthe
Philippinesas a recognitionof, oracquiescenceto,Britishtitle overNorth Borneo. Moreover, this L
misconstrues the basic theory behind the Philippine claimto North Borneo. As 1have explained .:
last Monday, thetitle of the Philippines toNorth Borneo is based on the cessioneffectedby the
'CR 2001/2p. 51para.31(Cot).
'O~eeCR 2001f2p. 51para.32(Cot).
"CR 2001f2p.56,para.11(Lauterpacht).Sultanateof Sulu in favour ofthe Philippinesof certaintenitory in North Bomeo. Legallyand
logically,the Philippinescan only be in a positionto question British pretensionsto sovereignty
overNorthBomeo afterthat cessionhastakenplacein 1962.
ThePhilippinestheoryofsovereigntitle overNorthBorneo
17.This leads me tomy thirdpoint: the Philippines claimto North Bomeocouldonlyhave
beenpossiblein 1962,afierthe Sultanateof Sulufinally cededNorthBomeo to thePhilippines. Of
course, thisposition is drastically opposedto the Malaysian contentionthat the Sultanateof Sulu
"disappeared"as a legal entityeveraltimes. Accordingto counsel Lauterpacht,the SuluSultanate
"disappeared"or was "abolished"as an entity in 1878as a result of Spanish conquest,again in
1915 under unknown circurnstancesduringthe Americanrégime, andthen again in 1936by an
undefinedact on thepart ofthe United States,and then once again in 1936,with the death ofthe
sultan12. We may add another dateof demiseof the Sultan - in 1946,when Britain unilaterally
abolishedthe Sulu Sultanateby annexingNorthBomeoto become a British colony.
18. An awareness ofthe criticaldatewhenNorth Bomeo was cededto the Philippineswill
necessarilydisposeof theargumentMer putforwardby counselLauterpachtthatthe Philippines
slept on its nghts or could have protested against Britain but then chose to remain silent.
CounselLauterpacht mentions that thePhilippinescould have opposed Britishpretension oftitle to
North Bomeo in 1947,when an Arnericanadviserto the PhilippinePresident urgedthe Philippine
Govemment to repudiatetheBritish NorthBorneo CessionOrderof 1946. Alsoin 1947,according
to him, the PhilippineConstitution wasratified in a plebiscite. Al1these instances of alleged
neglect ofright took placebeforethe PhilippineGovemment hadacquiredthe territorialrightsover
NorthBomeofiomthe Sultanate. Many oftheassertions are,in addition, wrong.
19. Counsel Lauterpachthas faultedthe Philippinesfor enactingthe BaselineLaw in 1961
with "nomention ofany Philippine claimto North Bomeo". It shouldbe obvious nowwhythis
claim couldnot have beenprovidedin that law,at thattime, for it was not until 1962 thattitle to
temtory in North Bomeo becarne vested in the Philippines. ThePhilippines duly amended
I2seeCR200112,pp. 57and 58,paras. 12and 15(Lauterpacht).this 1961 law in 1968. Republic Act 5446, amending Republic Act3046 of 1961, now provides
that the "Philippineshasacquireddominionand sovereignty"overSabah,situatedinNorth Borneo.
20. Starting in 1962, the Philippine claim to sovereignty and dominion over a portion of
North Borneo became a legal right. If asserted before that date, it could have been rightly
@
characterized as a politicallaim. After the act of cession fiom the Sultanate, the Philippines
acquired rights over the territory of North Bomeowhich the Philippines was duty-boundas a
sovereignto protect andpreserve.
Theabsenceof abasisforMalaysiantitletoNorth Borneo, Malaysia's recognitionofthe
Philippineclaim,andits obligationto settletheNorthBorneodisputebypeacefulmeans
21. Allow me, Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, to go into some specifics regarding
Malaysia's attitude to the Philippineclaim. In our pleadings last Monday25 June 2001, we
outlined to the Court as briefly we could the historical basis ofthe Philippine claim to certain
temtories in North Borneo,becausethe legalbasisof that claimis intricatelyintertwined with that
history. As thesametime, in doingthis, we haveshownthatthe British Govemment,as well as its
successor-in-interest, Malaysia,on the same historical and legal considerations could not have
acquiredsovereigntitleto North Borneo.
22. Now, counsel Lauterpacht,tells us that in such an effort "thePhilippinesmisunderstands
the basis of British and now Malaysiantitle to North Bomeo". Hethus rejected reference to the
past and would nowrely on contemporaneoussupport for British and/or Malaysian title. Hesaid
"that title is not now dependentin any way upon nineteenth centurygrants or treaties". Unable to
explain how the British Government derived its sovereigntitle to North Bomeo, it is of course
convenientfor him to dismissthepast.
23. Counsel Lauterpacht enumerated a number of points in an attempt to provide a
contemporaneous basis for such assumed title. However, these points are based largely on a
&
misconception ofthenatureof thePhilippineclaim.
24. For example,counsel Lauterpachthascharged the Philippines notonly of sleepingon its
rightssince 1946but ofmaking a claimbased on "ahundredyears of absence"fiomNorth Bomeo.
In response, we again have to recall our basic proposition thatthe Philippine territorial claim is
based onthe transfer of dominionand sovereigntyover a portion of NorthBomeo to the PhilippineGovernrnentby the Sultanateof Sulu in 1962. Hence,reference to events and transactions before
this cession in 1962 by way of imputing to the Philippines failureto assert temtorial rights is
misplaced.
25. Secondly,counselLauterpachtalso refersto a Constitution of 1947which doesnot exist,
andto a plebisciteon nationaltemtory - butthere wasnone.
26. Thirdly,in connectionwiththe 1930United States-UnitedKingdom Convention,even if
it were timely for the Philippines tohaveaffirmed its territorial claim by refiaining fiom making
referenceto the said UnitedStates-UnitedKingdomtreaty in this Constitution,there was not much
good reason to do so, because, as adrnittedby counsel Lauterpacht,the treaty mentionsthe "State
ofNorth Bomeo" as merely"underBritishprotection", notunder "Britishtitle".
27. Fourthly, counsel Lauterpacht should have referred to the 1935Constitution which
provided referenceto the aforementioned United States-UnitedKingdom treaty, but at that time,
the Philippines did not have the status of an independent and sovereign State and could hardly
make a claim. Moreover,the 1935Constitution came about27 years before the cession of North
Borneo by the Sultan of Sulu in favourof the Philippines, and while lease payments were still
beingmade.
28. So nowwe knowthat the title ofMalaysia overBomeo is fiagile, and that the Philippine
claimhasbeenassertedatthe most appropriatetime. What doesthe history of the claimfurthertell
us about the merits of the claim? Accordingto counsel Lauterpacht,the claim is "so manifestly
defective",but if he takesthe timeto studythe Malaysianposturetowardsthe claim,the conclusion
we reach is otherwise. Malaysiahad, on many occasionsnot only acknowledgedthat there is a
claim,but that it is a claimthat shouldbe settledas soon as possible, and not precluding reference
to the International Courtof Justice.
29. Thus,in February1964,the MalaysianPrime Minister reached an understanding withthe
Philippine President todiscuss- according totheir communiqué - "as soon as possible the best
way of settling the dispute, not precluding referenceto the International Court of Justice". In
August 1964, the Malaysian and Philippine Governrnents agreed, in an exchange of
aides-mémoiresto a meetingof their representativesin Bangkok for the pupose of clarieing the
Philippine claim and of discussing the means of settling the dispute. In February 1966, thePhilippines, respondingto Malaysia's diplomaticNote reiterating its assurance to abide by the
ManilaAccord andthe JointStatement,proposed"that both Governments agreeassoonaspossible
on a mode of settlement that is mutually acceptable toboth parties". In June 1966, the two
Govemments,in a joint communiqué, agreed once again to abide by the ManilaAccord and the
Joint Statement,and they reiteratedtheicommonpurposeto clarifj the Philippine claimandthe 4
meansof settlingit. In August 1968,again in ajoint communiquét,he two Governmentsagreed
that talks on an officia1level wouldbe held as soon as feasibleregarding thePhilippineclaimto
Sabah. In May 1968,the two Governments exchanged diplomaticNotes in whichthey agreedto
hold talks on an officia1level on the Philippine claim and the bestmeans of settling the dispute
between them. On the occasion of the Bangkok talks, in July1968, the Philippine delegation
presentedthe Malaysian delegation with awrittenquestion: "Willyou discusswith us the modes
of settlementof our claim atthis conference herein Bangkok, irrespectiveof your own unilateral
assessrnent of the sufficiency of the clarification given?" The answer of Malaysia was
unqualifiedlyintheaffirmative.
30. These efforts areno?marked by unilateralacts on the part ofthe Philippines. Theyare
recorded as undertaken jointly by Malaysia and the Philippines. They repeatedly convey
Malaysia's recognitionof the existenceof a Philippine claim to North Borneoand Malaysia's
willingness toseîtlethe disputeoccasionedbythisclaimpeacefùllyandamicably.
31.And 1st but not the least, whatdo we make of counselLauterpacht's allegatiothatthe
Philippines is "unwilling to faceup to the implications of proper litigation proceedingtso a
judgrnentby whichas a party itwouldbe bound"13?Weonlyhaveto checkthehistoricalrecordto
provethat his allegationiswrong.
32. What really happened? In the face of the growing demandin the Philippinesto take
steps towards the enforcementof the Philippine claim to a portion of North Borneo, iwtas the
E
British Govemment, in an aide-mémoireto the PhilippineGovernmentdated 24 May 1962,who
expressed firmresistance- and 1 quote fromthe aide-mémoir e "to any claimto part of North 5
Borneo, whetheradvancedbythe Philippine Governmentor byprivatepersonsinthe Philippines".
' 3 200112p.61,para.25(Lauterpacht).This was accompanied by a threat, in the same aide-mémoire,that a public dispute with the
Philippine Govemment aboutNorth Bomeo - and1quoteagain fromthe aide-mémoire - "could
impair the present fnendly relations betweenGreatBritain and herally, the Philippine Republic".
These arenot wordsthat a smallnew Statecantreatlightly.
33. Inthe Anglo-PhilippinesTalks held in London in February 1963,on the initiative of the
Philippines, the Philippine and British delegations devoted extensive discussion to the Philippine
claim to NorthBomeo. In these talks, the Philippines proposedthat the legal dispute overNorth
Borneo be submitted to the International Court of Justice. Thisproposa1 wasreiterated a month
later in meetings between the two govemments held in Manila. In August 1963,the Philippine
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, formally proposedonce again submission of the dispute to this
34.Again in 1963,the Philippine Secretaryof Foreign Affairssent a Note to the Malaysian
Ambassadorin Manilarequesting assistance "tosecurethe agreementof the British Govemmentto
the submission of the dispute over North Bomeoto the jurisdiction of the International Courtof
Justice". Asimilarnotewas addressedto the IndonesianAmbassadorin Manila.
35. In a policy statement beforethe Twenty-FourthSession of the United Nations General
Assembly,the Philippine Secretaryof Foreign Affairs reiterated the proposa1to submitthe claimto
North Bomeo to the Intemational Courtof Justice. The following year in 1970, the Philippine
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, again before the United Nations General Assembly, expressed the
hope that Malaysia would agreeto submitthe Philippine claimto North Borneoto the International
Courtof Justice.
36. Earlier, in October 1968 at the United Nations General Assembly, the Philippines
challenged Malaysia to go to the International Court of Justice withthe Philippines for the
settlement of the claim. This was in response to Malaysia'sattack on the Philippine claim,
describingit, to quotethe Malaysian delegate: "acompositeof fantasy,fallacy and fiction". Those
are words echoed last Tuesdayby counselLauterpacht,who described the Philippine claim as a
I41twasproposed"thatthe two govemmentsagreeto enter into a specialagreementto referthe disputebetween
them to the Intemational Courtof Justice, so that it shouldhether thesovereignty and dominion overNorth
Bomeo belong to the Republic of the Philippines or to Her Majesty's Govemment";Philippine Note, dated
21 August 1963, addressedto Theo Peters, Chargéd'AflaBertsh Embassy, Manila.Text in Philippine Claim to
North Bomeo, Vol.II,anila: BureauofPrinting, 1968),p112-113."pretence"and so "manifestly defective". But what dothe facts establish? The "pretence"is
Malaysia's avowalthat it recognizesthe Philippineclaim aswell as its duty to settle the North
Borneodisputein a peaceful manner.
Conclusion
37. Mr. President, Members of theCourt. 1would like to close by recalling a remark of
Mr.Lauterpachtin his presentation toyou on Tuesday. He quoted to you a Latinmaximto the
effectthat exfactisjus. It ia chillingand cynicalmaxim,the very antithesisof law, for what it
saysis that mightmakesright. Judge Lauterpacht,formerlyof this great Court,saidthe opposite.
Hismaxim was ex delicto nonorihrrjus. Rightsdo not rise fromdelicts. My country believesin
international lawand has turnedto the InternationalCourtof Justicewith confidencethat itis the
Court'smission to ensure that law, and not naked power, prevail. Allow me, Mr.President,
Membersof the Court to request you to hear our Agent,Ambassador EloyBello, in his closing
statementonbehalfof theRepublicofthePhilippines. Thankyou for your kind attention.
Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie beaucoup Monsieulre professeur. 1now give the floor
to Ambassador EloyBello,Agentof the Republicofthe Philippines.
Mr. BELLO:
1. Mr. President, Membersof the Court. On behalf of the Republic of the Philippines,1
would like to thank the Court for the opportunityto present my Govemment'sreasons for its
Applicationforpermission tointemeneinthecaseconcerningSovereignwoverPulauSipadanand
Pulau Ligitan. As 1 said in my openingremarks, this is a matter of great importanceto the
Republic of thePhilippinesand it isdeeplyconscious,as am 1,of the honourto appearbeforethe
Court.
2. Counsel forthe Philippines havedealt with the legal argumentsthat have been lodged t
against our Application to intemene, but one argumentby our adversaries involves a political
i
criticismof my Govemment,to which1feelI am duty boundto respond. It has been alleged,not
thatthe Philippinesviolateda deadlineprescribedby theCourt, whichis not correct,but ratherthat
it submitteditsrequests,bothfor documentsandthento intervene,in an untimely way. Whileourcounsel have refuted that allegation, 1 should like to Say that my Govemment proceeded in a
careful and deliberative manner, consistent with our respect for the Court and our amicable
relations with Malaysia and the Republic of Indonesia and our appreciationthat interventionin the
International Court of Justiceis a momentous step. 1reject, and 1know that the Court will reject,
any intimation that the Philippines request is some sort of adventure or part of a political
propaganda.
3. Onbehalf of the Republicof the Philippines, 1should like torestate the remedywhichmy
Govemmentrequests fiom the Court in this intervention. Accordingly,we ask for the remedy in
Article85,
- paragraph 1: "the intervening State shall be supplied with copies of the pleadings and
documents annexedand shallbe entitled to submit awrittenstatement within a time-limitto be
fixed bythe Court"; and
- paragraph3: that "the interveningStateshallbe entitled,in the course of the oral proceedings,
to submitits observationswithrespect to the subject-matterofthe intervention".
As counsel have said, if our examinationof the documents dispelsthe concerns that have been
raised by the Special Agreement and several paragraphs in the Malaysian observations, the
Philippines will infonn the Court of that fact and will not exercise either of the remedies made
availableto it.
4. Mr.President,Membersof the Court, inclosing, 1wishto invitethe attentionof the Court
to the factthat the Philippine Application for permtssionto intervenerises out of the broad setting
of unsettled territorial disputesin our region which are a dim legacy of Western imperial and
colonial rule. This shouldbe a reminderto countrieslike Indonesia,Malaysia and the Philippines
that the meaningful resolution of these issues very much involves the challenge of creatively
applyingand patiently pursuing legal andpacificapproaches tothe settlementof inheritedpolitical
disputes. It is in this context that the Philippines appreciatesthe role of the Court as doubly
significant: providing notonlya venue for the authoritative vindicationof claims but also a forum
for inclusive dialogue and comprehensive conflict resolutionin the post-colonial world ofthe
twenty-firstcentury. Thankyou, Mr.President,Membersof the Court. The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Mr.Ambassador. Ceci conclut le deuxième tour de
plaidoiriesde la Républiquedes Philippines. La Cour prend acte des conclusionsfinalesdont vous
-
avezdonnélectureau nom des Philippines. La Cour se réuniàanouveaudemainvendredi 29juin
*'F
à 10heures pour le secondtour de plaidoiries del'Indonésieet de la Malaisie. Je vous remercie. w.
*
La séanceest levée.
L'audienceestlevée à 11h 10.
Public sitting held on Thursday 28 June 2001, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding