Public sitting held on Friday 29 June 2001, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Uncorrected

InternationalCourt Courinternationale
ofJustice deJustice

THE HAGUE LAHAYE

YEAR 2001

Publicsitting

heldon Friday29June 2001,at am, atthePeacePalace,

PresidentGuillaumepresiding

in thecaseconcerningvereigntyoverPulauLigitan andPulauSipadan
(Zndonesia/Malaysia)

Applicationfor permissiontointervenejiled bythe Republicof thePhilippines

VERBATIM RECORD

Audiencepublique

tenuele vendredi9juin 2001,à10heures,auPalaisdelaPaix,

souslaprésidencede. Guillaume,président

en l'affairerelativeouverainetésur Pulau Ligitanet PulauSipadan
(Zndonésie//Malaisie)

Requêteàfin d'interventiondépoear laRépubliquedesPhilippines

COMPTERENDUPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Oda
Bedjaoui
Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer

Koroma
Vereshchetin
Higgins
Pma- Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh

Buergenthal
Judgesad hoc Weeramanw
Franck

Registrar CouvreurPrésents:M. Guillaume,président
M. Shi,vice-président
MM. Oda
Bedjaoui
Ranjeva

Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Vereshchetin
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren

Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal,juges
Weeramantry
Franck,juges adhoc

M. Couvreur,greffierTheGovernmentoftheRepublic ofthePhilippinesis representedby:

H. E.Mr. Eloy R. Bello III,Ambassador of the Republic ofthe Philippinesto the Kingdomof the
Netherlands,

I
asAgent;

Mr.MerlinM. Magallona,Under-SecretaryofForeign Affairs, Government of the Republicof the ,
Philippines,

as Co-AgentandCounsel;

ProfessorW. Michael Reisman,Yale LawSchool,

as CounselandAdvocate;

Dr.PeterPayoyo,University ofthePhilippines,

as Counsel;

Mr.AlbertoA. Encomienda,Secretary-General,Maritimeand Ocean Affairs Center,Departrnent
ofForeignAffairs,

Mr.Alejandro B. Mosquera, Assistant Secretary, Office of Legal Affairs, DepartrneonftForeign
Affairs,

Mr. George A. Eduvala, Attaché, Embasso yfthe Republicofthe PhilippinesintheNetherlands,

Mr. EduardoM.R. Menez, Second Secretary,Embassyof the Republic of the Philippinesin the

Netherlands,

Mr. IgorG.Bailen,Acting Director,Onice of Legal Affairs,DepartmentofForeign Affairs,

as Advisers.

TheGovernmentoftheRepublicofIndonesia is representedby:

H.E. Dr.N. HassanWirajuda,DirectorGeneral for PoliticalAffairs

asAgent;

H. E.Mr.AbdulIrsan, Arnbassadorof Indonesiato theKingdomof the Netherlands

as Co-Agent;
+

Mr. AlainPellet,Professor atthe University of Paris X-Nanterre, Membeorf the InternationalLaw
Commission,

Mr.RodrnanR. Bundy, Avocat à la Cour d'appelde Paris, Memberof the New York Bar, Frere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris

as CounseIandAdvocates;Le Gouvernement delaRépublique desPhilippines estrepresentépar :

S.Exc.M.EloyR. Bello III, ambassadeurdelaRépublique des PhilippinesauxPays-Bas,

commeagent;

M. MerlinM.Magallona, sous-secrétaira euministèredesaffairesétrangères,

commecoagentet conseil;

M. W.Michael Reisman, professeur à la faculté de drteYale,

commeconseil et avocat;

M. Peter Payoyo, del'université dePhilippines,

commeconseil;

M. AlbertoA. Encomienda, secrétaire général c duntre des affaires océaniques etmaritimesdu

ministèredes affairesétrangères,

M. Alejandro B. Mosquera, secrétaire adjoinatu bureau desaffairesjuridiques du ministère des
affairesétrangères,

M. GeorgeA.Eduvala,attaché àl'ambassadede laRépublique des PhilippinesauxPays-Bas,

M. EduardoM.R.Meiiez,deuxième secrétaire àl'ambassade dela République desPhilippinesaux
Pays-Bas,

M. Igor G.Bailen,directeurpar intérim dubureaudes affairesjuridiquesdu ministèredes affaires
étrangères,

commeconseillers.

Le Gouvernementde laRépublique d'Indonésieest representé par

S.Exc. M. Hassan Wirajuda,directeur général daeffairespolitiques,

commeagent;

S.Exc.M.AbdulIrsan,ambassadeurd'Indonésia euxPays-Bas,

commecoagent;

M. AlainPellet, professeuràl'universitéde Paris X-Nanterre,membre de laCommission du droit
international,

M. Rodman R.Bundy, avocat à la cour d'appel de Par, embredu barreau deNewYork, cabinet
FrereCholmeley/EvershedsP , aris,

commeconseils et avocats;Mr.AlfiedH.A. Soons,Professorof Public InternationalLaw, UtrechtUniversity,

Ms Loretta Malintoppi, Avocat à la Cour d'appelde Paris, Member ofthe Rome Bar, Frere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,

Mr.Charles Claypoole, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England and Wales, Frere

Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,
I
as Counsel;

Mr.HasyimSaleh,DeputyChiefofMission, Embassy oftheRepublicof Indonesia,TheHague,

Mr.Domi10Anwar,DirectorforTreatiesand Legal Affairs,DepartmentofForeign Affairs,

Mr.Major General Djokomulono,Territorial Assistant to Chiefof Staff for TerritorialAffairs,
Indonesian Armed Forces Headquarters,

Mr. Rear-Admira1Yoos F. Menko, Intelligent Assistant to Chief of Staff for General Affairs,
Indonesian Armed Forces Headquarters,

Mr. KriaFahmiPasaribu,MinisterCounsellor,EmbassyoftheRepublicofIndonesia,TheHague,

Mr. Eddy Pratomo, Head of Sub-Directoratefor Territorial Treaties, Department of Foreign
Affairs,

Mr.AbdulKadirJaelani,Officer,Embassy oftheRepublic of Indonesia,The Hague

as Advisers.

TheGovernmentofMalaysiais representedby:

H.E. Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad,SecretaryGeneral oftheMinistryof Foreign Affairs,

as Agent;

H. E. MsNoorFaridaAriffin,Arnbassadorof Malaysia to theKingdomof theNetherlands,

as Co-Agent;

ProfessorSir Elihu LauterpachtC.B.E.,Q.C.,HonoraryProfessorof InternationalLaw,University
of Cambridge, Memberof theInstitutdeDroit International,

Professor Jean-Pierre Cot,meritusProfessor, Université de Pari1s,Advocate,Paris and Brussels

Bars,

Professor JamesCrawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge,Member,InternationalLawCommission,

ProfessorNico Schrijver,Professorof InternationalLaw,Free University AmsterdamandInstitute
of Social Studies,TheHague; Member ofthe PermanentCourtofArbitration,

as Counseland Aàvocates;M.AlfredH. A.Soons,professeur dedroit international publiàl'universitéd'Utrecht,

Mme Loretta Malintoppi,avocat à la cour d'appel de Paris, membredu barreau de Rome, cabinet
FrereCholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,

M. Charles Claypoole,Solicitoà la Cour suprêmed'Angleterreet duPays de Galles,cabinetFrere
Cholmeley/Eversheds,Paris,

commeconseils;

M.HasyimSaleh,chefadjointde lamission à l'ambassade d'IndonésieLa Haye,

M. Donnilo Anwar, directeur des traités et des affaires juridiques au ministèredes affaires
étrangères,

Le général de division Djokomulono, assistant poulres questions de territoire auprès du chef
d'état-majorchargé desaffairesterritoriales, quartier général dearméesindonésiennes,

Le contre-amiralYoos F.Menko, assistantauprèsdu chef d'état-majorpour les affairesgénérales
(servicede renseignements), quartiergénéraldes forcesarmésdonésiennes,

M. KriaFahmiPasaribu,ministreconseiller àl'ambassade d'Indonési eLa Haye,

M. Eddy Pratomo, chef de la sous-direction des traitésterritoriaux au ministèredes affaires

étrangères,

M. AbdulKadir Jaelani, fonctionnairàl'ambassaded'Indonésie àLaHaye,

comme conseillers.

Le Gouvernementde laMalaisie estrepresentépar :

S.Exc.M. Tan SriAbdulKadirMohamad,secrétairegénéral du ministèrdees affaires étrangères,

comme agent;

S. Exc.MmeNoorFaridaAriffin, ambassadeurde la Malaisie aux Pays-Bas,

commecoagent;

Sir Elihu Lauterpacht,C.B.E., Q.C., professeur honoraire de droitinternatiàl'Universitéde
Cambridge,membrede l'Institutde droitinternational,

M. Jean-PierreCot,professeur émérità l'universitéde Paris 1,avocat aux barreauxde Paris et de
Bruxelles,

M. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A.,professeur de droit internationàll'université deCambridge,
titulairede la chaireWhewell, membre dela Commission dudroitinternational,

M.Nico Shrijver,professeur de droit internationàl'universitélibre d'Amsterdamet à l'Institut
d'études sociales LaHaye, membre de la Cour permanente d'arbitrage,

commeconseils etavocats;DatukHeliliahYusof,Solicitor-GeneralofMalaysia,

Mrs. HalimaHj.NawabKhan,Acting StateAttorney-GeneralofSabah,Malaysia,

Mr. AthmatHassan,LegalOfficer,Sabah StateAttorney-General's Chambers,Malaysia, 8

as Counsel;
6
H. E. Ambassador Hussin Nayan, Under-Secretary,Temtorial and Maritime Affairs Division,
MinistryofForeignAffairs, Malaysia,

Mr. Muhamadbin Mustafa,Deputy Director-General, NationaS lecurityDivision,PrimeMinister's
Department,Malaysia,

asAdvisers;

Mr. Zulkifli Adnan, Principal AssistantSecretary, Temtorial and Maritime Affairs Division,
MinistryofForeignAffairs, Malaysia,

Mr.Raja Amam Nazrin,CounselloroftheEmbassyof Malaysia intheNetherlands,

Mr.NikAzizNik Yahya,First Secretaryof the Embassyof Malaysiain the Philippines,

Mr. Tan AhBah,PrincipalAssistantDirectorof Survey,BoundaryDivision,Departmentof Survey
andMapping, Malaysia,

Ms HaznahMd. Hashim, AssistantSecretary,Temtorial and MaritimeAffairsDivision,Ministry
ofForeign Affairs,Malaysia,

Mr. Shaharuddin Onn,AssistantSecretary, Territorialand MaritimeAffairs Division, Ministryof
Foreign Affairs, Malaysia,

asadministrativestaffDatukHeliliah Yusof,SolicitorGeneralde la Malaisie,

MmeHalimaHj. NawabKhan,Attorney Generalpar intérimde lYEtatdu Sabah (Malaisie),

M. AthmatHassan,juristeau cabinet del'Attorney Generad le 1'Etatdu Sabah (Malaisie),

commeconseils;

S. Exc.M. Hussin Nayan, ambassadeur, sous-secrétaireau départementdes affairestemtoriales et
maritimesdu ministèredes affaires étrangères,

M. Muhamad bin Mustafa, directeur général adjoind tu département de la sécurité nationale,
cabinetdu premierministre,

commeconseillers;

M. ZulkifliAdnan,secrétaireadjointprincipal au départemendtes affairesterritorialeset maritimes
du ministèredes affairesétrangères,

M.RajaAznarnNazrin,conseillerde l'ambassadede la Malaisieau Pays-Bas,

M.Nik AzizNik Yahya,premier secrétaire de l'ambassade dle a MalaisieauxPhilippines,

M. Tan AhBah, sous-directeur principal de la topographie du service defrontières,département
de latopographieetde la cartographiede la Malaisie,

Mme HaznahMd. Hashim,secrétaireadjointau départementdes affairesterritorialeset maritimes
du ministèredes affairesétrangères,

M. Shaharuddin On, secrétaireadjoint au département desaffaires territoriales et maritimes du
ministèredes affaires étrangères,

commepersonneladministratif: Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. La Cour est réunie cematin pour entendre le

second tour de plaidoiries de l'Indonésieet de la Malaisie et je donnerai d'abordla parole au

représentantde l'Indonésieet àM. RodmanBundy.

Mr. BUNDY: Merci M. le Président. Mr. President, Membersof the Court, my task this

moming is to deal with two aspects of the Philippine presentationwe heard yesterday: Jirst, 1will

commenton the question whetherthe Application hasbeen filedin a timely fashion; andsecond, 1

will seek to clarifya numberof misunderstandingswhichthe Philippines appearsto entertain with

respectto the practical effectof theApplicationforpurposesof themerits ofthe case.

First, to the question of timeliness.

1.The questionoftimeliness

Yesterday, 1 listened with interest to the distinguished Agent of the Philippines when he

statedthat, in bringing the Application, his Govemmenthad proceeded in a careful and deliberate

fashion (CR 200113,p. 31). Nonetheless,after listeningto Prof.Reisman, yesterday,on the issue

oftimeliness,Indonesiastillconsidersthatthe Application doesnot comportwiththe letteror spirit

of the Rules of Court and the Court's clear trend recently to encourage the expedition of

proceedings.

Prof. Reisman arguedthat it is importantto relate the Application to the Philippines request

under Article 53 of the Rules for copies of the written pleadingsin the case (CR200113,p. 17,

para. 17). Prof.Reisman asked: "Whenwould Indonesiaexpect the request under Article 53 to

come? Beforethe Partieshad made their written submissions?"(Ibid.)

No, Mr. President, not beforethe Partieshad made their written submissions. Butat least in

sufficienttime so that the Court could havetaken a decision on the matter before the Parties were

dueto file their final written pleadings, their repliesin the case. This wouldhave been in keeping 5

withtheRules andwouldhave permittedthe Philippinesto file a timely application.

In point of fact, the answer to Prof. Reisman'squestion liesin the past practice of parties in

previous intervention cases. In the TunisidLibya case, for example, Malta requested the written pleadingsfive months,

five months beforethe parties were due to file their Counter-Memorials. Because the Court first

had to ascertainthe views of the parties before deciding whetherto grant that request- and that

took twomonths - nonetheless thisstillleftMaltawithampletimeto file a timely application.

Now in the LibydMalta case,Italy requestedthe pleadings four and a-halfmonthsbeforethe

parties were dueto filetheir Counter-Memorials. And Italy too, hadno problem in filing a timely

request for permission to intervene.

Since both the Maltese and Italian requests for the documents were denied,1have a hard

time understandinghow Prof.Reisman can now maintain that this case that we are arguing here

this week, is a case of first impression because the Philippines has been denied access to the

pleadings. It's nota case of first impression (CR00113, p. 17,para.20).

In the El Salvador/Hondurascase, Nicaragua requestedthe pleadings two years before the

final written submissions weredue. It had no problems meetingthe timelinessdeadline for filing

an application. Andneither,morerecently,did Equatorial Guinea.

Yet the Philippines waiteduntil a mere eightdays,just eight daysbeforethe Parties' Replies

were dueto be filed. And giventhat the Courthad firstto ascertainthe views ofthe Parties before

deciding whether or not to grant that request, the fact that the request came a mere eight days

before the final replieswere due,made it, for al1practical purposes, impossible forthe Philippines

to know whether it wouldbe given access to the pleadingsbeforethe Parties had completed their

finalsubmissions.

Yesterday, both Prof. Reisman and the Philippines Agent referred to Article 85 of the

Rules - specifically, tothe provisioninparagraph 1of Article 85that providesthat a Statewhose

intervention requestis grantedisthen thereaftergivenaccess to the written pleadingsin the case. It

seems to me, Mr. President, that this provision alone would have been sufficient to put the

Philippineson notice that it couldnot presumethat it would haveaccess to the written pleadings

prior to the filing of its Application.So the question remains: why did the Philippines not act

earlier?

1s it right for Indonesia and Malaysia to be placed in the position in which they find

themselves today dueto the Philippinesdelay insubmitting its Application? Afterall, the recenttrend,whichis evidencedby variousarnendmentsto the Court'sRules, is forthe Court to make the

proceedingsmore efficient. 1referred on Tuesdayto the 1978 amendmentof the Rules which

provided fortighter deadlines for thefiling of applications tontemene. 1might also referin this

respect to the Court's recentamendmentof Article 79 of the Rules of Court, dealingwith the

time-limitsfor filingpreliminary objections.Bothof thesearnendmentspointto atrend- 1would

suggest- a trend by the Court to expediteits proceedings. The late filing of the Philippines

Application, Indonesia would suggest, neither comporw tsith this trend but it is one factorwhich

Indonesiasubmits should be taken into account in assessingwhether the Application shouldbe

granted.

2. The Philippinesmisrepresentstheimplicationsofits Applicationfor themerits ofthe case

As formy secondpoint,Mr.President, this concerns the use thatthe Philippines has tried to

make ofmy remarkson Tuesdayconcemingthe implications ofthe Applicationfor the meritsof

the case.

1shall,inparticular,dealwithtwopoints raisedby Prof.Magallona.

First, the distinguished professor claimed that hile Indonesiapurportsto adoptan attitude

of disintereston the ments of thePhilippinesclaimto NorthBorneo,Indonesiahas in factinvoked

themeritsof that claimin its caseagainst Malaysia. Incounsel's words:

"Indonesiarecognizesthe positive ments ofthe Philippine claimto North Bomeothat
'flow from the PhilippinesApplication and Malaysia's reaction to it which have a
fundamental bearing on the issue of sovereignty overthe islands of Ligitan and
Sipadan"'(CR200113,p. 19,para. 3).

1will explain presently why the premise which underliesthis argumentis incorrect. But

first,let menote thatcounsel wentonto assertthatwhat Indonesiawas ineffectsayingwasthatthe

determination of sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan cannot fail but make a reference to

"(1)pivota1aspectsof the Philippine claimto North Bomeo; and (2) thePhilippineviewthat the

legal statusofNorth Bomeois necessarily implicatedin thedeterminationof. ..sovereignty ... as

betweenIndonesiaandMalaysia"(CR200113,pp. 19-20,para. 3).

1 regret to Say that the Philippines, perhaps due tomy shortcomings, appears tohave

completely misunderstoodthe thrust of my interventionon Tuesday. First of all, there is no

question of Indonesiahaving recognized "the positive meritsof the Philippineclaim to NorthBorneo". Indonesiahas not deemed it appropriateto take any positionon the ments of that claim:

and the claim, such as it is, is a matter between the Philippines and Malaysia. Indonesia is not

involved.

Secondly,the determination of sovereigw over Sipadan and Ligitan as between Indonesia

and Malaysia innowaydependsonthe Philippine claimto NorthBorneo.

When1spoke onTuesday aboutthe implicationsof the Philippine Applicationfor the merits

of the case,1 was not referring to the Philippine claimto North Bomeo. My point was a very

simple one. It was, as the Court has repeatedly been told, that the Philippines has expressly

disavowedany title or sovereigntyto the islands of Sipadanand Ligitan: and it is this absenceof

any Philippine claim tothe islands which, as 1 explained, has implicationsfor the merits of the

case. Butthathas nothingto dowith theseparatequestionof thelegal statusofNorth Borneo.

It is precisely because the Philippines does not lay claim to the islands of Sipadan and

Ligitan that it cannot be said to have an interest of a legal nature which maybe affected by a

decision in the case. No implicationsfor the Philippines claim toNorth Borneo will flow from a

determinationby this Court of the issue of sovereignty over the islands. Sipadan and Ligitan are

simplynotpart of the Philippinesclaim.

That leads me to my second point. For, while in its Note Verbale and in its first round

presentation the Philippinescouldnothave been cleareras to its lack ofinterestin eitherofthe two

islands,1 was concemed to hear in Prof.Magallona's intervention yesterday ahint of hesitation

overthispoint. Let me just recallwhatthe distinguishedprofessor had toSay:

"Because, as the Philippines contends,the Sultan of Sulu enjoyed continuous,
uninterrupted and internationallyrecognized dejure sovereignty over North Bomeo
during the whole period of 1878 and 1962, then it follows that the two islands in

question[Sipadanand Ligitan]were acquiredby the UnitedKingdomin 1930for and
onbehalfof the Sultanof Sulu."(CR2001/3,p. 22, para. 11.)

Counselwent onto Say:

"If at al1there are other temtories appertaining to the Sultanatenot coveredby
the Sulu-Overbeck lease of 1878, the Philippines, as agent and attorney for the
Sultanate,has reserveditspositiononthesetemtories." (Ibid.,para. 12.)

Mr. President, at the appropriate time 1 have promised to my colleague and friend,

Prof. Pellet,that 1will attempt to unravel for him the mysteries of the doctrine of estoppel, but 1suspect that this is probably not the best time to do so. Nonetheless, whether one speaks of

estoppel,or good faith, or theprohibition against aStateblowing hotandcold atthesametime,the

positionis the same.

The Philippines is on record as having expressly disclaimedany territorial interest in either

Sipadan or Ligitan. If the famous Note Verbale is not enough, then let us recall the words of

Prof.Reisman on Monday: he said "This is not a Philippine claim forthe islands" (CR2001/1,

p. 27,para. 28). And he added: "Indonesiacorrectly observesthat the Philippinesis not interested

in the outcome of Ligitan and Sipadan"(CR2001/1, p. 30, para.43). Does Prof. Magallonanow

purport to take issue with his Govemment's diplomatic Noteor with the affirmations that

Prof.Reismanmade on Monday?

At the end of the day, Mr. President, the positionis clear. The case between Indonesiaand

Malaysia concems sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan. The Philippines has no claim in that

matter. Their concem is over the statusof North Borneo. But that is not the subject-matterof the

dispute before the Court. Nor is the legalstatus of North Bomeo in any wayimplicatedby the

questionof sovereigntyover the islands,or affectedby the Philippines lackof interestin either of

thetwo islands.

Mr.President, that concludesmy bief remarks, and1would be grateful if you could now

cal1onProfessorPelletto continuewithIndonesia'spresentation.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Mr.Bundy. Etj'appelle maintenant àla barre le

professeurAlainPellet.

M. PELLET :Merci beaucoup, Monsieurleprésident.

Monsieurle président,Madameet Messieurslesjuges,

Tout à faità la fin de son intervention d'hier matin, l'agent de la République des Philippines

a attirél'attentionde la Courtothe factthat the Philippine Application for permissionto intervene

arisesout of the broad settingof unsettled territorial issuesin our regionwhich are adim legacy of

Westernimperialand colonial rule»(CR2001/3,28 juin 2001,p. 31,par.4). Ceciest lereflet delapure vérité. Maicselaposeavecacuité la question de savoirsi telpeut

êtrel'objet légitimed'une intervention au titre del'article62 de votre Statut. A cette question,

l'Indonésie croiqtu'il faut fermementrépondp rear la négative.

Il va de soi qu'en s'acquittantde sa mission, qui est «de régler conformément au droit

international les différends qui lusiontsoumis»,la Cour contribue à éviterque certains litiges

s'enveniment etempêche certainement que d'autres surviennent.
Je me réfère, par exemple, à la

très remarquableprésentation de sirRobert Jenningslorsdu colloque qui a marqué lecinquantième

anniversairedela Cour,danslaquelleila faitpart desa conviction selon laquelle

((Properlyunderstood,the adjudicative processcan serve, not only to resolve

classical legal disputes, but it can also serve as an importanttool of preventive
diplomacyin more complex situations.)) (((Contibutionofthe Courtto theResolution
of International Tensions))in Connie Peck and Roy S. Lee eds., Increasing the
EflectivenessoftheInternational CourtofJustice,Nijhof£/UNITAR,1997,p. 79.)

Mais l'ancien président de votre haute juridiction d'ajouter aussqiôet ceci doit s'entendre

par rapport audifférendprécisqui lui est soumis,dontla Cour opère «thereduction,orrefinement,

or compression)) (p.80);et, en réponseàune question,sirRobert a précisé :((1wouldbe somewhat

fiightened of litigantscomingand expecting something different than the strictapplicationof the

law.))(P. 93.)

C'estque, etje cite l'arrêrtendudansl'affaire du Cameroun septentrional,«[l]afonction de

la Courest de direle droit,maisellene peut rendredes arrêts qu'àl'occasion decasconcretsdans

lesquels ilexiste,aumomentdujugement, un litige réel impliquant un conflitd'intérêts juridiques

entreles Parties))(C.I.J.Recueil1963,p. 33-34; voiraussilesarrêts du 20 décembre 1974dans les

affaires desEssais nucléaires,C.I.J.Recueil 1974,p. 270, par. 55,et p. 476, par. 58). Et ce n'est

qu'ens'acquittantdecettemission,dejurisdictio, dansles casparticuliersquilui sont déféré qs,e

la Cour peutjouer le rôlepréventifque les Philippines voudraient la voir accepter djouer à titre

principal. Oui, Monsieurle président, parson arrêt, laCour réglera ledifférendqui oppose

l'Indonésie à la Malaisieet l'empêchera de s'envenimer-et elle contibuera ainsi à apaiserles

tensionsdansla région.Maiscecine sauraitjustifierque,parlamême occasion, lC aoursepenche

sur un autre différend, dontle seul lien avec l'affaire quele compromisde 1997vous appelle à

trancherest qu'ilest,lui aussi,un élémendtulegs colonial. D'autant plus-et l'Indonésietient à le redire avec force-, qu'elle n'est, décidément,

nullement concernéepar ce différend-si différendil y a. En écoutant les plaidoiriesdes

représentantsdes Philippines hier matin, nous nous sentions dans la position de Rosencrantzet

Guildenstem-vous savez, Monsieurle président,ce sont ces deux personnagestrèssecondaires

d'Hamlet autour desquels Tom Stoppard a construitune piècede théâtre, intituléR e osencrantz et

Guildensternare Dead, danslaquelleles deuxcomparses sont placésau centrede l'actionetvoient

le Roi, la Reine, Hamlet,se débattredans des problèmesterriblesauxquelsils ne comprennent rien

et qui leur sont tout à fait étrangers. Et c'est bien par-dessus nos têtesde Guildenstem et

Rosencrantzque les avocats de l'Indonésiese sont adressés, hier, directementet exclusivement à

nos collèguesde laMalaisiepour exposer leursthèsesrelatives à la souverainetésur Sabah.

Monsieur le président,l'Indonésiel'a déjàdit, elle tient à le redire:elle n'entend prendre

aucune position sur le fond de la querelle entre ses deux voisins; elle n'entend mêmepas se

prononcer sur la question de savoir s'il existeentre eux un différend ausensjuridique du terme

puisque, apparemment,les Philippinesle soutiennent alors que la Malaisiele conteste. Ce dontelle

a, en revanche, la très ferme conviction, c'est que,si un tel différendexiste, il est, en tout cas,

totalement distinct,par les parties qu'il oppose,son objet et les thèsesen présence, de celui faisant

l'objetde votre saisinepar lecompromis de 1997.

Il n'est pas dutout impossible que, dansle cadre de ce différend- ou de ce non-différend,

peu importe - l'interprétationde certains des instruments quel'Indonésieou la Malaisie, ou les

deux, invoquent soient pertinents. Maisceci ne suffitpas pour fonder un intérêt d'ordre juridique

dontles Philippinespourraientseprévaloir pourjustifier leur intervention.

Monsieur le président,le professeur Reisman a dit quelque chosede trèsextraordinaire à cet

égard. Il a affirmé: «We find nothing in the precedents about the permissible scope of an

intervention being determinedby the language of the submission, but ratherby the possible

consequence ofthe Court's decision.)) (CR200113,28juin 2001,p. 15,par. 10.) Je crainsque le

professeur Reismann'aitpastrèsbien cherché. i

Certes, il faut que l'intérêdt'ordrejuridique invoqué par1'Etatqui cherche à intervenirsoit

susceptibled'être affectépar la décision dela Cour («maybe aflectedby thedecision inthecase»

précisele texte anglais de l'article62). Mais il faut aussique cet intérêstoit «pour lui en cause»dans la cause. Et commeje l'ai rappelémardi dernier (CR200112,26 juin 2001, p. 20)' la

jurisprudencede la Cour combine soigneusementles deux versions de sonStatut et tient compte

desdeux exigences.

Pour détermines ri unintérê etsteffectivementen cause pour1'Etatauteurde larequête à fin

d'intervention,il convient donc de confronter celle-ci aux demandes des Parties à l'instance

principale. La Courl'adit avecunetrèsgrandeclarté lorsqu'elle a écarté l'interventd onl'Italie

dans l'affaireLibye/Malte :«Normalement,la portéedes décisionsde la Cour est définiepar les

prétentionsou conclusionsdes parties...» Et c'estpar rapport à ces prétentions, éventuellement

telles que la Cour les a «circonscrites»(cf. les arrêts du 20 décembre 197dans les affairesdes

Essaisnucléaires,C.I.J.Recueil1974,p. 262,par.29etp. 466, par.30),quevotre hautejuridiction

appréciela portéede l'interventionen tenant comptede toutesles circonstances,en même temps

-et c'est cequi nous intéresseplus particulièrement ici-, «que de la nature de l'objet de

1'instanceintroduite))parlesPartiesàl'affaireprincipale (arrêt u1 mars 1984,requêtd ee l'Italie

à fin d'intervention dans l'affairedu Plateau continental (Jarnahiriya arabe libyenne/Malte),

C.I.J.Recueil1984,p. 19,par. 29).

Or les Philippines ont formellement donné à l'Indonésie l'assurance qu'elles n'avaient

aucune revendication à faire valoir sur Ligitanet Sipadandans la note du 5 avril dernier annexée

aux observations écritedsela République d'Indonése t ellesl'ontrépétéenplaidoirie (voir encore

CR200113,28 juin 2001, p. 10, par.2 (M. Reisman)). Cefaisant, elles reconnaissentque leur

requête à fin d'interventionest dépourvude toutlienavecl'objetde l'instance pendante devant la

Cour. Or, je le répète,ceci est l'une des deux conditions indispensables quedoit présenterune

requête à fin d'intervention pour être admise.

Ceci étant, forceest de constater que l'autre conditionmise par l'article62 du Statutà

l'accueild'une requêteen interventionqui a seule retenue l'attentioneos amisphilippins, n'est

pas davantageremplie :quellequ'ellesoit,la décisionde laCourne pourraêtrede nature àaffecter

un intérêjtridiquede la République des Philippines.

Selon eux, l'interprétatiodes traités et accordssur lesquels les Parties s'appuient (ou

pourraient s'appuyer) pour établir leudrroits sur Ligitan et Sipadan «will certainly affectthePhilippines interest)) (CR200113, 28 juin 2001, p. 14, par. 8 (Reisman)) Rien, Monsieur le

président,n'est moinscertain !

Que nous ont dit les professeurs Reisman et Magallona pour vous en convaincre ?

Essentiellement queles revendications philippines surle nord de Bornéopouvaient dépendrede

l'interprétationde certains traitéssur lesquels l'Indonésieet la Malaisie se fondent. C'est très

possible. Mais celane suffitcertainementpas à justifier une intervention.

D'abord parcequ'il estloin d'être certain qu'une simpleinterprétationpuisse êtreàl'origine

d'un intérêd t'ordrejuridique au sens de l'article62. A cet égard,M. Reisman a insisté sur la

différence quiexisterait entre «a concem about rules and general principles of law)), dont il

concède que : «it does not constitute a sufficient interest under Article62)) (CR200113,

28juin 2001, p. 12, par. 5) d'une part et les préoccupationsphilippines au sujet des traitéset

accords applicablesd'autre part. J'ai beaucoupde mal à suivremon ami Michael Reismansur ce

terrain:

- la différencene peut tenir, contrairemenà ce qu'il suggère(ibid.), aufait que ces instruments

ont un effet erga omnes puisque la mise en Œuvre desprincipes et règles de délimitation

aboutit exactementau même résultat,luiaussi opposableerga omnes;

- elle ne tient pasnon plus aufait que les demandesdes Philippinesseraientplus spécifiquesque

celles de Malte dans Tunisie/Libyeou du Nicaragua dansEl Salvador/Honduras par exemple;

puisque, commele rappelle àjuste titre mon contradicteur(p. 16,par. 13)'toute requêteà fin

d'intervention doit êtrexaminéein concreto;et,dans ces deux affaires,la Cour a reconnuque

les intérêts invoquép sar les pays qui cherchaient à intervenir étaient spécifiques(cf

C.I.J. Recueil1981, p. 17,par. 30 et 1990,p. 124, par. 76); mais, dans un cas comme dans

l'autre, la Cour a estimé qu'ils n'étaient pasde nature à fonder une intervention

(C.I.J. Recueil1981,p. 19,par. 33 et 1990,ibid.etp. 126,par. 82).

En second lieu et surtout,il est impensable queles interprétations quela Cour pourrait être

appelée à donner des traitésen cause puissent avoir un effet quelconque sur l'intérêd t'ordre

juridique que les Philippinesprétendentavoir. Elles ne seront données,ces interprétations,qu'aux

fins du différend opposantl'Indonésie à la Malaisie, qui porte, est-il nécessairede le rappe?,rexclusivement sur la souverainetésur Ligitan et Sipadan, problème par lequel les Philippines

déclarent expressémen nt'êtrpas concernées.

Prenons l'exemple,si crucial, de la convention entrela Grande-Bretagne et les Pays-Bas

de 1891. Leprofesseur Magallonaen a assez longuementparlé lundi (cf. CR200 1/1,25juin 2001,

p. 44-48).

Il est clair, Monsieurle président,que l'interprétationdes Philippines, quels que soient ses

mérites(ou ses faiblesses),n'a aucunlien avecl'objet du différendelles ne prétendent pasquece

traité,centraldans l'affaire qui opposeles Parties,n'est pasvalide, ni ne contestent seseffetsen ce

qui concerne Ligitanet Sipadan. Elles estiment simplementqu'il a étconclupar le Royaume-Uni

en tant que {(protecteurde 1'Etat du Bornéo septentrional»et non pas en son nom propre

(CR 2001/1,p. 44-45(M. Magallona)). Cepeut êtreou non le cas; celapeut avoir de l'importance

dansle cadredu différend entrelesPhilippineset la Malaisiesur la partie septentrionalede Bornéo;

cela n'a aucuneincidence dans le cadre du litige qui est pendant devant la Cour. Je n'ai pas le

temps d'examinerun àun les instruments cités par MM. Magallona et Reisman, maistoutes leurs

analyses appellent les mêmes remarques, ellen s'ont aucune incidence en ce qui concerne la

souverainetésurnos deux îles.

Que résulte-t-il de ces savantes analyses Que, dans tous les cas, les Philippines ont des

idées arrêtés esr la capacité danslaquellelesParties ces instrumentsles ont concluset, par voie

de conséquence,sur leurs effets quant à la souveraineté surle nord de Bornéo -jamais sur la

souverainetésur Ligitan et Sipadan. DécidémentM , adame et Messieurs de la Cour, l'intérêdtes

Philippinespour les traités etaccords pertinents d'unepart et l'objet mêmede l'affaire dontvous

êtessaisis, d'autre part, ne coïncidentpas et les positions que vous serez conduàprendre dans

votre arrênte peuventaucunementaffecterlesdroitsou intérêtd sesPhilippines.

La ferme position de la Cour dans les remarques finales figurant dans son arrêtde 1981

relatifàla requêteà fin d'interventionde Maltedans l'affaire Tunisie/Ls iimyeoseavec plus de

forceencoredansla présente procédure :

«Lesconclusions auxquelleselle [laCour] arriveraet les motifspar lesquels elle
y parviendra dans l'affaire entla Tunisieet la Libye[traduise:{(entrel'Indonésieet
la Malaisie))]porterontdoncinéluctablement,età titre exclusif,sur les questions dont
elle a étésaisie par le compromisentre ces deux Etats sur lequel sa compétence est
fondée en l'espèce. Il s'ensuit qu'aucune inférenceni déduction ne saurait légitimemenê t trtiréede cesconclusionsni deces motifs pourcequi estdes droitsou
prétentionsd'Etats qui ne sont pas parties à l'affaire))(C.I.J.Recueil1981, p. 20,
par. 35.)

LesPhilippines,par la voix du professeurReisman,interpellentles Partie:((pourquoi,nous

demandent-elles,s'il n'y apas de lien entre l'instanceet l'affaire en cause, marquer tant de

réticenceà nous laisser consulterles documentsqui dissiperaientnos doutes ?» (cf. CR2001/3,

28juin 2001,p. 13,par. 6). Eh bien, justement,Monsieur leprésident :parce que les Philippines

ne démontrentl'existence d'aucun intérêp tour elles en cause susceptible d'êtreaffectépar la

décision de lCour ! Et cen'est que sielles apportaientlapreuve d'un telintérqtu'elles auraient

undroit àrecevoircopiedespiècesde procédure envertudel'article 85duRèglement.

Il faut bien dire que,plus les débats progresse,lus les Philippines restreignentl'objet de

leur démarche. Au départ,elles affirmaient chercher, d'une manière générale, à ((préserveet

sauvegarder lesdroits d'ordre historiqueet juridique))qu'elles prétendentavoir sur le nord de

Bornéo - tel était l'objetpremierde l'intervention, décrit au paragrape leurrequête.Lundi,

cet objectif ambitieux disparaissaitlargementderrièrecelui,nettement pluslimité,d'informerla

Cour sur leur interprétatiodes traitéset accordséventuellementpertinents.Hier, les Philippines

ont encore restreint leursambitionset semblent, dorénavant,'assignerà leur interventionqu'un

seul objectif:obtenircommunication despièces dp erocédure dansl'affaire principa:e

- «we have not received the documentsand do not knowtheir contents. As petitionersfor the

right to intervene, thatis one thing that we are asking for» a dit M. Reisman (CR2001/3,

28juin 2001,p. 11,par.3); ouencore :

- et, en guise de conclusions, Monsieur l'ambassadeur Bello lui-mêm rée,itéranltes «remèdes»

queson gouvernementcherche à obtenirde la Courparlebiais de cette intervention s'est borné

à se référerà deux demandes fondées l'une et l'autre sur l'article 85du Règlementet, en

premier lieu, la communication despièceet documents (ibid p.3,1).

Monsieurleprésidentj,e ne peu m'empêcher de pense aupoker- cejeu que,je tiensàle

préciserj,e ne pratiquepas,maisoù,je crois,on «paiepour voir». L'avocatdes Philippines nousa

dit hier que le prixà payer pour une intervention était élevé (C 2R001/3, 28juin 2001, p. 13,

par.6 (M. Reisman)). L'Etat qui voudraitintervenirn'a paspu vous démontrerl'existenced'un

intérêt pour leni cause;ducoup,il inverseles facteursetse déclare prêtpayerceprixélevépourdéterminer sis,urla base des documentsquiluiseraient communiquésc,et intérê nte finiraitpaspar

apparaître, quitte, finalement,nepasintervenirlecas échéant.

Cettecurieuseprésentation des choses appelle deux observations :

En premier lieu,la nouvelle descriptionde l'objectifpoursuivipar les Philippines à travers

l'intervention qu'ellevoudrait voiradmisene meparaît pas crédible. Elleest contreditepar la

chronologie desinitiativesprises parleGouvernementphilippin :

- il a formulé sa demandd ee communicationdespiècesle22 févrierde cetteannée;

- sansattendre la décisionde laCour,il a déposé sarequête à fin d'interventionle 13mars;et

- ce n'est quele 15, aprèsla requêtedonc, que la Cour lui anotifiésa décision dene pas

accueillirsademandede communication.

Autrementdit, il est assez apparentque lelien, présenté avec de plus enplus d'insistance,

entre la non-communication despièceset larequête en interventioe nst uneconstruction artificielle,

forgéeexpostfacto pour,«apitoyer»laCourpourrait-on dire.

La seconde remarque queje voudraisfaire est la suivante : bien que les Philippines s'en

défendent (cfC. R 200113,28juin 2001,p. 13,par. 7), ce n'en est pasmoins en un appel contre la

décisionde leurrefuserl'accèsauxpiècesque,progressivement,elles ont transformé leur requêteà

find'intervention. Lundi , .Reisman avait parlé de «dénidejustice)) (CR200111,p. 22,par. 16et

p. 23, par.17et 18); hier,c'est de ((caricatureoflaw» qu'il s'est plaint(CR200113,28juin 2001,

p. 14,par.7). Cesontbiendesargumentsenappel - et de fortsévères..

La Courne me paraîtpas mériter de telsreproches. Elles'est bornée àappliquersonStatut

et son Règlement,qui impliquentqu'un Etatdoit d'abordétablir qu'ilremplit bienles conditions

de l'article62 et qu'il a ensuitela possibilité dese prévaloirdes droits prévus à l'article85 du

Règlement. Duralex,peut-êtres,ed lex.. .

J'ajouteune chose :contrairement à cequesemblent penserles Philippines,l'article 62 n'est

pas conçu commeune sortede <(joker»que destiers par rapport à un différent pourraient utiliser

pour renforcerleur main dans un litigeavec l'uneou l'autredes Partiesou les deux. Et,en tout

cas, la question du «lien juridictionneln et celle de la possibilitéd'intervenir en tant que

«non-partie))se trouveraient alors poséeavecune particulièreacuité. J'ai indiquémardi que l'Indonésie ne contestaip tas que l'informationde la Cour pouvait

constituer l'objet légitimed'une intervention, et le professeur Reisman a eu la bontéde m'en

remercier (CR200113,26juin 2001,p. 16, par. 13).Encore faudrait-il quece mode d'intervention

correspondît à un besoin réel,((chevillé)s )ur l'instance principale. Ce n'est pas le cas en la

présenteespèce : l'objectif des Philippines n'est pas d'informervotre Haute juridiction sur ses

intérêtesn cause dans l'instancedontvous êtes appelés àconnaître,mais de vous sensibiliser à un

autre différend enspéculantque ceci pourrait, peut-être, avoir un intérêt. Au mieux, elles

pourraientapparaîtrecomme un amicuscuriae - mais cela,vousne l'avez jamaisadmis, même en

matière consultative. Le permettre aujourd'hui serait,je le crains, ouvrir la voie à toutes les

dérives :tout finirait parêtre dansletout; par contagion,d'autresEtats voisinsvous demanderaient

à intervenir car tel traitépourrait revêtir une certaine importance pour la solutiodne tel ou tel

différendrelatifà une autre île ouà un autre archipel- et l'on ne peut ignorer combienles mers

qui baignent l'Indonésie, la Malaisieet les Philippines sont riches desituations qui pourraient s'y

prêter... Je préfère nepas donner d'exemplespour, surtout,ne pas donner de mauvaises idées à

d'autres voisins!

Monsieur le président, avec votre permission, je souhaiterais, pour terminer, résumer

l'essentieldespositionsjuridiques del'Indonésie.

Nous pensons que la demandeen intervention des Philippinesest intempestive au sens

propre du mot - elle n'arrive paà son heure -, et qu'ellene respecte pas la lettre ni, sûrement,

l'espritde l'article81 duRèglement.

Plusgrave, elleneremplitpasles conditionsposées àl'article 62du Statut:

1) l'intérêt qu'invoquen lts Philippines n'est pas pour elles en cause dans l'affaire entre

l'Indonésieet laMalaisie;

2) si intérêitly a, c'est dans un autre différendque les Philippines disent avoiravec la seule

Malaisie, ce que celle-ci nie, étant entendque l'Indonésie n'entend prendre aucune position

surcepoint, ni, afortiori, surlefonddu litige; &

accepterl'interventionreviendrait àgreffer sur l'instance principale cetautre différend auquel
3)

l'Indonésien'estnullement partie maissur lequelelle devraitalors se prononcer, cequ'ellene souhaite pas faire- avec le résultat paradoxalqu'elle serait liée parl'àrintervenir alors

que les Philippines nele seraientpas;

4) en tout étatde cause,cet arrêtne saurait avoirune incidence quelconqurles intérêts qules

Philippinesdisentvouloirsauvegarder;

l'infonnation que celles-ci voudraient,par ce biais, donàela Cour ne constitue doncpas,
5)

danslescirconstancesde l'affaire,n objetlégitime del'interventiondemandée;

6) il en va a fortiori de mêmede l'objectif avoué des Philippines d'obtenir de cette manière

communication despièceset documents,qui leur a été refuséepar la décisionde la Cour du

15marsdernier;

7) plus largement, l'intervention des Philippines constitueratn précédentdangereux et mal

venu, qui ferait peserune menacegrave sur la confidentialitédes affaireslaquelle les Etats

qui se présententdevant la Cour peuvent légitiment teniret sur le système mêmede

l'intervention.

Enfin et en tout étatde cause, Monsieur le président, l'Indonésie considère que la tenue

même deces audiences,donne plus quelargement satisfaction auxPhilippinespuisqu'elles ontpu

exposer à loisiràla Cour (et, au-delàà l'opinion publique) leurfaçon de voir sur les traitésou

accords qui leur paraissent pertinents l'appui de leurs positionssur leur litige concernant la

souverainetésur la partie septentrionale de Bornéo-instruments que, par hypothèse, elles

connaissentpuisqu'ilsconstituentle fondementde leurrevendication.

Il sembleà l'Indonésiequ'il convient,àl'avenir, de recentrerles débats surl'affaire qu'elle

vous a soumised'accordcommun aveclaMalaisie :la souverainetésur Ligitanet Sipadan.

Il me reste, Madameet Messieurslesjuges, à vous remercierde votre patience- età vous

prier, Monsieurle président, debien vouloir autoriser l'agentde l'Indonésieprésenter quelques

très brèves remarques conclusives. Merci beaucoup.

Le PRESIDENT :Merci Monsieur le professeur. 1 now give the floor to His Excellency

Mr.Hassan Wirajuda, Agentfor Indonesia. Mr. WIRAJUDA: Mr. President, Members ofthe Court, 1wish to thank the Court for this

final opportunity to address you on the issue of the Philippines Application and to conclude

Indonesia'soralpresentations.

As counselhave explainedthe casebetweenIndonesia and Malaysiaconcemingthe issue of

sovereignty over theislands of Ligitanand Sipadanis a separateand entirely distinct disputefrom

the issueof the Philippinesclaimto parts of Sabah. In bringing their dispute before youby Special

Agreement, Mr.President, Indonesia, and1believe Malaysia also, intendedthe Court to decidethe

question of sovereignty over the two islands, and this question alone. That is the very limited

subject-matterofthe SpecialAgreement,nothingelse.

Indonesia has stated before, and reaffirms its position now, that it does not consider it

appropriate to express any views with regard to the Philippine historic claims since we are not

dealing withthe merit of it. This is simplynot a matter which concems Indonesia, andit is not a

matter which will be affected or prejudiced by any decision that the Court reaches over the

questions of ownership of Ligitan and Sipadan. However Indonesiafeels it is obliged to set the

recordstraighton itsposition whichthe Philippinesreferredto as "judicious stands".

Our colleagues fromthe Philippinesin their oral presentation have made repeated references

to the 1963Manila Accord signed by Indonesia, Malaysia andthe Philippines. Let me simply

recall that that Accord in no way prejudged the merits of the Philippines claim. If 1 may be

permittedto citethe key passageof the 1963Accord, itprovidesas follows:

"The Ministers took note of the Philippines' claim and the right of the

Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the
principle of pacific settlement of disputes. They agreed that the inclusion of North
Bomeo in the Federationof Malaysia would not prejudice eitherthe claim or anyright
thereunder."

However, in a different but related context, Indonesia and Malaysia recognizedin their

1966Agreement that the people of Sabah and Sarawak would be afforded an opportunity to

reaffirm, in afull and democraticmanner, their previous decision about their status in Malaysia.

%
Thisposition hasbeen strengthenedby Indonesia's subsequentdiplomaticpractices.

The curent proceedings between Indonesiaand Malaysia arenot the place to pursue these

matters, or for the Philippinesto justifi its claims against MalaysiaAs 1understandthe Court's

precedentson the question of intervention, there hasnever been an intervention requestwhichhasbeendirectedat safeguardingthe applicantState'slegalinterestsvis-à-vis onlyone of the partiesto

the main proceedings. Yetthis is the situation we areconfiontedwithhere.

That being so, my Government does not understand why the present, purely bilateral,

proceedingsbetween Indonesiaand Malaysia shouldnow be opened up to bring into question a

claimwhich concernsmattersbetweenthe PhilippinesandMalaysia,but not Indonesia.

For this reason, as well as on the legal grounds presented by counsel, the Republic of

Indonesia respectfullysubmitsthat the Republic of the Philippines should notbe grantedthe right

to intervene,the effect of whichwould be to tack on to the proceedings anew case which neither

concerns Indonesia, nor relates to the specificdisputejointly submittedto the Court by Special

Agreement. This being said, in accordancewith Article62, paragraph2, of the Court'sStatute,

Indonesiaof courserecognizesthat it isforthe Courttodecideuponthe Philippinesrequest.

It only remains forme, Mr. President,to thank the Court for thekind attention which they

have accordedto me andto the membersofthe Indonesiandelegation. 1 would also like to express

my gratitude to the Agents of Malaysia and the Philippines, as well as to their counsel for the

courtesieswhichthey have shownus duringthesehearings.

Finally,Mr. President,1would liketo thank the Registrar and his staff, and the interpreters,

forthe assistancetheyhaverenderedduringtheseproceedings.

That concludesmyremarks, Mr. President.Thankyou verymuch.

The PRESIDENT: Thankyou verymuch, Mr.Wirajuda. Ceciconclut le deuxièmetour de

plaidoiries pour l'Indonésie.La Court prend acte des conclusions finales dont vous avez donné

lecture au nom de la Républiqued'Indonésie. Et nous allons maintenant passer la parole à la

Malaisie pour le deuxième tour de plaidoirie et je donnerai donc la parole au

ProfesseurJamesCrawford. Mr.Crawford, youhavethe floor.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Merci, Monsieurle President. Mr. President,Membersof the Court, itis

a greatpleasureto speakbeforeyou again. Onepreliminaryremark: Malaysiawill not addressthe

question ofprocedural delayin respect ofthis Application. That issue hasbeenfully dealt withby

Indonesia. We agree with what they have said; we simplyfeel no need to add to it. We would

onlyhope that if the Courtdecidesto rejectthis Application onthe groundof proceduraldelaythat,in the wordsof the Presidentin a recent case, thisshould not beregardedas having anya contrario

implication.

1.The Courtwillhave notedthat the Philippinesrequestof 13March2001 completelyfailed

to specifi how a Philippines legalinterest couldbe affectedin this case. The requestrefers to the

claim to Sabahbut offersno Mer precision at all. Malaysiahad to assume that the Philippines

claim was the claim that had been presented in the discussionsof the 1960s. In those discussions

the Philippineshad simply referred toa claim to Sabah. Ithadclaimedif not the wholethen avery

large part of Sabah and certainly the whole of the east coast. There was never any previous

suggestion,for example,that Tawau orCowieBay or the entiretyof the Sempomapeninsulawere

not partofthe claim.

2. Moreoverif the claim wasa coherentone,then Tawauand CowieBay andthe entiretyof

the Sempornapeninsula shouldhave been includedin it. ThePhilippinesclaim is assuccessornot

to the United States, not to Spain, but specifically to the Sultan of Sulu. You heard

Prof. Magallonaon that (CR200113,p. 25). Spain and the United Stateswere obliged to respect

the boundariesto which they had agreed in 1885and 1930,respectively. But the Sultanwas not,

becausehe retained sovereign capacityin respectof Borneoeventhoughhe had lostit in respectof

Sulu. Thatis the Philippinescase.

Now the Sultan's original grant of 1878 covered the whole east coast down to the

SibukoRiver. The graphic,1might Say,is graphic 1in yourfolder. The claimwentdown as faras

the red line approximately. The Philippinesshowec?fiis in oneof the graphics on Monday,which

is back on the screen- 1am grateful to my colleagues fiom the Philippines for lending us their

graphics. The grant is shown as the red line on the east coast; you see how far down it extends.

Moreover,the Sultan's confirmation of 1903purported to coveroffshoreislands beyond 9 nautical

miles along that coast, including several islands by name which the Philippines now does not

claim. It was logicalto think that if the Philippines was successorto the Sultan of Sulu then its

rights wouldbe the sameas the Sultan'shad been.

3. It was only when we read Indonesia's written statement thatwe discovered that the

Philippines does not claim the two islands. It was only when we saw the Philippines letter of

5 April2001. On Mondaywe saw for the firsttimethe actualextent of the Philippines claim,nowseen in yellow on the screen. It is perhaps the first egg-shapedterritorial claim in international

legal history, but apparentlythis is a case ofirst impression(CR200111,p. 18). You see on the

screen,this claim shownby Prof. Magallona,andyou can seeit doesnot coverthe samearea asthe

Sulugrant. Itfalls shortpreciselyin the area ofthe islands. Howconvenient!

4. Prof.Pellet emphasizedon Tuesday thatthe Philippines declarationthat it does not claim

the two islandsis legallybinding on it (CR200112,p. 25). ProfessorPelletis right. 1pause onlyto

note that he is right for theong reasons. The reasonis not estoppel. The reason is that this is a

binding unilateral act under the Eastern Greenland and Nuclear Tests principle. There is no

estoppelbecauseMalaysiahas not reliedon the Philippines declaration. Howcould we have? We

didn't know anything about it until Indonesia gave it to the Court on 2 May. We appreciate

Indonesia'scandourin doingso; it's notclear that itwas intendedfor circulation.

5. Now the Philippines statement that it does not claim the two islands transforms the

situation from the point of view of interventionunder Article62. If it had claimed them, it was

arguably entitledto intervene because it would have asserted a legalinterest in the subject-matter

of the dispute. That was the basis on which Nicaraguaand Equatorial Guineawere allowed to

intervene - they claimedpart of the areawhich wasin disputein the case,respectivelythe Gulfof

Fonseca andthe areasaroundthe Zafiro oil field.

6. By contrast, when a State does not claim particularterritory it has not been allowed to

intervene, eventhough it said that the Court'sdecision on the territory might impact on it in some

way. That wasthe position of Nicaragua in respect of the islands in the Gulf- it did not claim

them and it wasnot allowedto interveneas to them.

7. Mr.President, when we thought - quite reasonably - that the Philippines claimed the

east Coast and al1 its islands down to the Sibuko River, we had a problem in resisting its

intervention. We had to show that its claimwas nonsense. That is not difficult to do, since the

claim depends - among many otherthings - on the propositionthat the private law heirs of the

last Sultan retained his sovereignty over territory whichthey could cede to the Philippines in a

private law deed. They can-iedthat sovereignty aroundwith them, apparently,in their collective

pockets. Now that is a wholly untenable proposition, but1canunderstandthe Courtnot wanting to

go into itat all. Afterl1ithas not beensubmittedtoyou. 8. But now the Court is in a different position. Itdoes not have to face the problem of a

request to intervene based on a State's claimto disputed temtory where the claim is wildly

implausible. Thereis no dispute about these two islands between Malaysia and the Philippines.

There is no dispute over them between Indonesia and the Philippines. Thereis only a dispute

between Malaysia and Indonesia, and itis this dispute which you are asked to resolve,not some

otherdispute.

9. Sohow doesthe Philippinesmakeout its claimthat it has a legalinterestin the decisionin

this case? Note that Article62 says "decision". A State can only intervene ifit has a legalinterest

in the very thingto be decidedin the case - here, sovereigntyoverthetwo islands. Aninterestin

the development ofthe law is not enough. Global dispute settlementis not enough. Giving the

Court more informationis not enough. The Courtmay well feel it has enough information about

thesetwo islands!

10.In particular a Statecannotinterveneunder Article62just because it feels or fears thatin

the course of its reasoningin a case, the Court may Saysomethingwhich has implications for that

State'sown separateclaim. Article62 is not intended to coversucha case. If it did,thenwe would

have to enlarge this court room, because in virtually everyboundary dispute there will be other

States who fear that they may be affected, applying Prof.Reisman's"test of consequentiality''

(CR200113,p. 15). There will be queues of States seeking to intervene. Far fiom facilitating

disputesettlementthatwill makeit more difficult.

11.Now thePhilippines triesto get aroundthis in two ways.

12.First,it says that the Sipadanand Ligitan case involvesthe interpretationof treatiesand

agreements on which the Philippines bases its- separate- claim to part of Sabah (see, for

example,CR 2001/1, pp. 17,28). But it entirelyfails to make precise what propositions itdraws

fiomthose treatiesthatthe Courtmay needto considerin orderto decidethis case. It cornplains -

no lessthan 33 times' - that the Court did notgive it accessto the pleadings so it does not lcnow

what Malaysia said. The highest ratio of complaints totime spent, 1think, in the history of the

Court, but this is a case of first impression. Incidentally,the Philippinesnever wrote to ask us

'~~2001/1, paras.6, 7 (AmbassadBello); paras.2,3, 12,13, 14, 15, 16,17, 18,19,21,27, 33, 36,38,42,44,
46, 47 (Prof.Reisman); CR200113, paras. 2, 3, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16,17, 18, 20 (Prof.Reisman); paras. 2, 3
(Ambassador Bello).directlyforthepleadings,orto ask us to summarizeOurcase, which wouldhave been a normalfirst

step.

13. Butthe Philippinesknows whatis in the treatiesand agreements. It could havespecified

what propositions in those treaties, what provisions,what points of interpretation,are vital to its

claim. It hasneverdone so. Had it intervenedunder Article63,no questionof legalinterestwould

have arisen. But it would stillhave hadto specifj thepoint of construction ofthe treaty which was

in question. Of courseunderArticle63 itwouldthenhave beenboundby the Court's interpretation

onthe questionof construction.Despiteitsprotestationsthat isthe lastthing the Philippineswants,

to be bound by yourdecision. Ratherit simplywantsto come,likea loosecanon,and interferein a

territorial disputein which it professes to haveno directinterest at all, in order to protect its own

allegedseparateinterestin differenttemtories. That isnotthe purposeof Article62.

14.Anywaythe Philippinesclaimto Sabah is not based on any treaties. It is not based on

the 1885Protocol,or on the 1930Convention. It is based ona private law cessionby the private

lawheirs ofthe Sultanof Suludating fiom 1962. Prof.Magallonawas quite clear about it (see,for

example,CR200111,p. 36; CR200113, pp.22,25).

15.The secondway the Philippinestries to dealwith this point is by the argument thatthe

Court's reasons will,or may, affect the separate claim of the Philippines to parts of Sabah.

Prof. Reismanput it very clearlyin the followingwords:

"if [Malaysia's]theory ofthe caseimports a claimof title that is inconsistentwith the
claim of title uponwhichthe Philippinesbasesits claimto territoriesinNorth Borneo,
that interpretationwill affect interestsofa legalnature" (CR200113,p. 15).

Yet again Prof.Reisman rewrites Article 62 of the Statute. On Monday he paraphrased

Article62 approximately as follows: "if a third State subjectively feels it has a stake in some

proceedings which may be affected it shouldbe allowedto intervene,to see the pleadings andit

will tell us al1later whether it wants to take the matter any further" (CR200111,pp. 27-28, 32).

The word "stake" 1 thought was particularly telling. That is so obviously not what Article62 says

that hetriesagain. This is his secondroundinterpretation:

"If the theory of a party'scaseinvolves points for interpretationthat might be
inconsistent with the theory of a territorial claim made by a third State, then even

though that claim affects differenttemtory, the third State should be allowed to
interveneto protect itsown theory." (CR2001/1,p. 15.)Actually, it's a bit like the mythical Chapter6-and-a-half of the Charter: we might cal1this

Article62-and-a-halfof the Statute. It is al1abouttheories and interpretationand contingencyand

subjectivity and interdependence. It bearsno relation to the written words, and this Court has

recently reminded us of the importance of what the words of a treaty actually Say (LaGrand,

Judgrnentof 27 June2001, para.77). The crucialwordin Article62 is "decision".

16. Butanywayletus assumefor the sake of argument that Prof. Reisman's consequentiality

test is right and that an interveningatehas a legalinterestin a case if a party'stheory ofthe case

might be inconsistentwith the intervenor's theoryin some other case. Accordingto this test, there

is legalinterestas betweentwo separateclaims if the theory ofone is or may be inconsistentwith

the theory of another. Well let's accept it forthe sake of testing itenso, it is still necessaryto

point to theinconsistency.What arethe propositionsthat formpart of the Philippines theory ofits

claimto Sabah whichthe Courtmighthave to decidein this case? The Philippinesmust beable to

articulate whatthosepropositionsare, irrespectiveof what thePartiesmay haveargued. It must -

presumably - be aware of the legal theory on which this so-called long-standingclaim is based.

Sowhereis the potential inconsistency?The Philippines hasnot botheredtotellthe Court.

17. Letme howevertake Prof.Magallona's presentation and try to identiQ those Philippine

propositions whichformthe theory ofits claimandask whether theyare raisedby the present case.

Let me take five of them. In respect of each of these, when 1 use the phrase "parts of North

Borneo" 1mean the egg-shapedclaim you see on the screen, which excludesthe two islands and

the other islands in the Ligitan Groupand CowieBay and the northem part of SebatikIsland. On

that understanding letus look atProf. Magallona'spropositions:

PropositionNo. 1. The Philippines fundamentalproposition is that the private law heirs of

the Sultan of Sulu collectively retained sovereignty over partsof North Bomeo in 1962,which

sovereignty they could, notwithstanding the treaty obligationsof the Philippines, cede to the

Philippines (CR 200111,pp. 36-37). The Court does not have to decide that. Nothing that

happened in Manila in 1962 is relevant to the question whether Sipadan and Ligitanbelong to

Indonesiaor Malaysia. Sothe so-calledcessionof 1962cannotaffectthis case.

PropositionNo.2. The Philippines arguesthat the 1878grantof the Sultanof Suluwas valid

(CR2001/1, pp. 22, 39-40). Malaysia'scase does not depend upon whetherit was valid or not.The validity of that grant is not an issue between Malaysia and Indonesia. Spain and the United

Kingdomexpresslyleftthat pointto oneside in concludingthe 1885Protocol. Thiswasthe reason

forthe phrase "temtories onthe continentof Borneo,which belong,or whichhave belongedin the

past, to the Sultan of Sulu", in Article III (Mernorialof Malaysia, Vol. 2,Ann.MM 15, p. 65).

They did not agree on the point, theydid not haveto resolve their disagreement, neitherdoes the

Court.

PropositionNo. 3. Thenthe Philippinesarguesthat the 1885Protocol left the Sultan'srights

over parts of North Borneo unaffected(CR200111,pp. 41-42). That is not an issue in this case.

Malaysia'stitle to the islands does not depend upon the 1885 Protocol, which only concerned

islandsbeyond 9miles ofthe coast. Itwas unaffectedby it.

PropositionNo. 4. Thenthe Philippinesarguesthat the Convention of 1930left the Sultan's

rights over partsof North Bomeo unaffected(CR200111,p. 46; CR200313,pp. 21-22). Thattoo

is not an issue in this case. The Court may perhapshave to Saysomething about the territorial

scope of the 1930 Convention as concerns the two islands- although that is a subsidiarypoint.

But the territorial scope of the Conventionas concems the area claimed by the Philippines is

perfectlyclear and is not an issue in this case. Anyway the Philippines claim to certain parts of

Sabah does not depend on the territorial scope of the 1930 Convention. Neither Malaysia nor

Indonesiahas said anythingin the pleadingsaboutthe effect of the 1930Convention onthe Sultan

of Sulu. To repeat,thatis simplynotanissue.

PropositionNo. 5. Thenthe Philippinesarguesthat the 1946proclamation of NorthBorneo

as aBritish colonywas unlawfulvis-à-vis theSultanof Suluand could not have affectedhis rights

(CR 200111,pp.48-49). Thattoo is not an issuein this case. If Sipadan and Ligitanwere not part

ofNorth Bomeoin 1945,the proclamationofNorth Borneo as aBritish colony did not changethat

situation. TheproclamationofNorthBorneoas aBritishcolony madeno territorialdifference. No

question of the legality of the 1946 proclamation vis-à-visthe Philippines could possibly be

relevant tothetwo islands.

18. Mr. President, Members of the Court, that makes five propositions which are part of

Prof.Magallona'stheory of the case. They may not be the only ones but they arethe essential

ones. Not one of them is an issue in this case. No argumenthas been addressed to the Court byeither of the Parties on any of these issues. If the Court were to decide them it would be acting

ultra petita. 1 suppose it is possible that the Court might Say things in passing which might

indirectly reflect upon one or other of them- though the Court is normally very careful about

what it says. In any event a Statecannotinterveneunder Article62 out of a fear of possibleobiter

dicta. And 1am sure that after this week of argument the Courtwill be careful to limit itself to

whatisnecessaryinthis case.

19.Mr. President, Membersof the Court,intervention is,as Prof.Reismansays, a necessary

weaponin the Court's procedural armoury.It is one of the thingsthat distinguishesthis Court from

an ad hoc arbitral tribunal. But the Court'sfunction is still to decide cases brought to it by

consentingStatesonthe basis ofrespect for internationallawas betweenthosetwo States. It is not

to engage in a fiee-ranging discussion about the disputes of the region. A State which seeks to

intervene under Article62 has to comply with its requirements. The Philippines having applied

underArticle 62hasfirst to identiGwith precisionits ownlegal interestsand,secondly,toSayhow

they may be affected. In the absence of accessto the pleadings, 1suppose it may be marginally

more difficult to do the second of these things. Butthe Philippinescouldcertainly have done the

first,andanywaythere is no particularmysteryaboutthesetwo islands,whichhavebeen discussed

in some detail in the published literature. The Philippines completely failedto do either of those

twothings: first,to identiQ withprecision itsown legalinterestin relationto the dispute,now that

itdoesnot claim theislands; secondly, toclariQ how those legal interests maybe affectedby the

decision in this case. In those circumstances,itsRquest cm and should be rejected without any

prejudiceto the valuable incidentalrole that Article62 can perform in appropriatecases. As you

can seefiom the mapon the screenand the egg-shapedclaim,this is not sucha case.

Mr. President, Members of the Court, thank you for your attention. May1ask you, Sir, to

callupon Sir Elihu Lauterpacht.

Le PRESIDENT : Merci beaucoup, Monsieurle professeur. 1now call Professor Sir Elihu

Lauterpacht. Sir ElihuLAUTERPACHT:

1.Mr Presidentand Membersof the Court, 1will berelativelybrief. 1will notspendtimein

replying to certain remarks made on behalf of Indonesia on 26 Juneregarding references by

Malaysiato the Indonesian claimto Pulau Ligitanand Pulau Sipadan(CR200112, p.12). Thisis a

matterrelevant only to the proceedingson the substanceof the case and can be left until then. The

samegoes for the implicationsthatIndonesiasought to draw fi-omthe Philippines letter addressed

to Indonesia renouncing any temtonal interest in the two islands (CR200112,pp. 37-38). As

regards thesematters,1merely reserveMalaysia'sposition.

2.1 go straightawayto the mainpoint that requiresconsideration. The Courtwill recallthat

on Tuesday 1identified the concem expressedby the Philippines in its statement of the first and

second objects of its Application as being focused on the preservation of what it called its

"historicaland legalrights" to dominionand sovereigntyoverNorth Bomeo. 1submittedthat these

so-called"rights" were so insubstantially supportedthat they couldnot properly be treated by the

Courtasvalidly justiQing the Application forintervention.

3. In particular, 1referred to certain acts of Philippinerecognition of, and acquiescencein,

British sovereignty over North Bomeo (CR200112,pp. 56-57). To my referencesto four treaties

betweenthe Philippinesand Britaininwhich referencewasmadeto BritishNorth Bomeo, the only

reply givenby distinguishedcounselforthe Philippines,Prof. Magallona,was that

"ThePhilippinesdoesnot see how specializedbilateral agreementswith respect
to air services or labour employment, or a proposa1 on the maintenance of a
lighthouse, ...can possibly be invoked against the Philippinesas recognition of, or
acquiescenceto, Britishtitleover NorthBomeo." (CR200113, p.24, para. 16.)

The answer is quite simple: When a treaty between two States refers to a certain temtory as

belongingto one of them,the other cannotsubsequentlybe heard to denythat that is the fact. It is

a formof recognitionor estoppelor preclusion. But nomatterwhatname one may giveto the legal

process, and it willdependto some extent on the circurnstances,the legal effect is undeniable. It

could onlyhave been avoidedif the Philippineshadmadesome expressreservation. So far as 1am

aware, they neverdid this.

4. Likewise, counsel for the Philippinescompletelyevaded the instances that weregiven of

acquiescenceby the Philippinesin conductrelated to British title overNorth Bomeo. The Courtwill recall that it was Prof.Magallona himself who first referred to the advice given by

GovemorHarrison in 1947,to the thenPresidentofthe Philippines. He spokeof the British North

Bomeo Cession Order as an act of "politicalaggression"and he advisedthe President to repudiate

it. Prof. Magallona said that the act had been repudiated (CR 200111,p. 49, para. 42). 1replied

that 1had foundno evidenceof suchrepudiationandsuggestedthat Prof. Magallonamightprovide

fùrther informationwhen next he spoke. But whenhe spoke yesterday hedid not respondto that

suggestion. The only referencethat wasmade to the episode was that it had taken place before

1962(CR200113, p.25, para. 18).

5. Why does that year matter? Becausethat isthe date whichthe Philippinesnow identifies

quite firmly as being the date on whichit acquiredtitle to North Bomeo. As Prof. Magallonaput

it:

"[Tlhe title of the Philippinesto North Bomeo is based on the cession effected
by the Sultanate of Sulu in favour of the Philippines of certain temtory in North

Bomeo. Legally and logically, the Philippines can only be in a position to question
Britishpretensionsto sovereignty overNorthBomeo afterthat cession hastakenplace
in 1962."

And in the text of Prof. Magallona's statementthe word "after"in the phrase "afterthat cessionhas

takenplace"has been emphasized(CR200113,pp.24-25, para. 16).

6. Mr. President and Members of the Court, before 1 came into this courtroom at the

beginning ofthis week, 1evidentlydidnot clearlyunderstand thenature ofthe Philippines claimto

North Bomeo. 1 had beenrelying ontwoPhilippinesdocumentsrelatingto thematter.

7. The first was the Philippines Applicationto intervenein the case. The expressionsin it

relevantto the Philippinesclaim were, first: "TheConstitution ofthe Republicof the Philippines,

as well as its legislation, have laid claim to dominion and sovereignty over NorthBorneo." No

dateswere attachedto the Constitutionor the legislation. And,second, referencewas made"tothe

historical and legal rights oftheovemmentoftheRepublic ofthe Philippines". No referencethat

ledme to believethat we were dealingwitha claimof someantiquity. Nowhere was anyreference

made to what is now saidby the Philippinesto be the controlling element - the so-called cession

bythe Sultanateof Suluas late as 1962.

8.The other documentby which1was guidedis the onethat 1hold in my hands now. It is a

copy of an official publication ofthe Governmentof the Philippines. It is entitled: "PhilippineClaim to NorthBomeo; Volume 1". The book was printed by the Bureau of Printing, Manila, in

1963. It is referredto in the Malaysian observationsat page 2, footnote2, andwas depositedwith

the Court when thoseobservationswerefiledon 2 Maythis year.

9. The opening documentin it is an excerpt fiom President Macapagal'sState of the Nation

message to the Congress ofthe Philippineson 28 January 1963. Itappears in your blue folder as

tab 3. Itbeginsby saying:

"The most importantaction taken in the field of foreign relations in the past
year was the officia1 filing on June22,1962, with the United Kingdom of the
Philippines claim of sovereignty, jurisdiction and proprietaryownership over North
Bomeo as successorin interestofthe Sultan ofSulu."

10.But asthe President's statementproceeds to make clear,the claim did notreally restupon

the 1962cessionby Sulu. President Macapagalcontinued(andthis is important):

"Contrary to allegationsin some political quarters, this was not a precipitate
action. We have personally studiedthis claimover a period of years. While serving
in the DepartmentofForeign Affairsin 1946,upona studyof this claimin comection
with our successful negotiation for the reacquisition of the Turtle Islands, we
advocatedthe filingofthis claim."

1 interject, thatwas 16 years before theSulu cessionwas advancedas the basis of the Philippine

claim. 1 continue withthePresident's statement:

"In 1948,whileservingin the Philippines Embassyin WashingtonDC we went
over the claim with an Arnericanexpert in Anglo-saxon law in George Washington
University who sustainedthe viewthatthis is avalid claim."

Thiswas in 1948.

"Whenwe served in the Congress of the Philippines,we successfully authored

and sponsored in 1950, a resolution for the filing of this claim. Upon becoming
President of the Philippines, actingon the conviction thatthis was not only a valid
claim but that its presentationwas demandedby the national interest, itbecame our
inescapableduty to act on the bipartisan resolutionof the House of Representatives of
April24, 1962that the claimbe filednowornever."

1 emphasize "or never". And the 1950resolution to which 1have just referred is tab 13 in the

Philippine folderhandedto the Courton25 June.

11.1must ask to be forgiven,Mr.President, forhaving taken this statement,as well as the

material accompanying it in the officia1Philippines volume, as evidence of a firm Philippine

conviction priorto the so-calledcessionof 1962that ithad a claimto North Bomeo. Whatis more,

for al1the importancenow given by the Philippinesto the so-called 1962 cession,we haveyet tosee a copy of this document. It hasnot beenprintedin the many officia1documentsaccompanying

thePhilippinespublication.
**
12. Mr. President, if any apology is needed for touching again upon the merits of the

Philippine claim atthis late stage of thehearing,1respectfullytender it. But the Court will fully
i
understand why 1do so. It is to back up to the hilt my contention that the Philippines claimis

manifestly unsustainableand fiaught with inconsistency. The Court should, 1respectfülly submit,

be most cautious lestit be seento be acceptingas a valid object of the PhilippinesApplication the

preservation of "so-called historicaland legal rights" that have, for al1 practical purposes, no

identifiablebasis whatsoever.

13. And this consideration is the more compelling because once one has disposed of the

pretence that the Philippines did notbelieve that it had a claimntil 1962,one comesback to the

factthat between 1946and 1962the Philippines could haveassertedits position in this Courtbut it

did not do so. Counselfor the Philippineshasmadeno referenceto this aspect of the matter. Nor,

1may add in passing, is the major uncertaintyregarding the dates at which the Philippines claim

came intoexistencethe only exampleof seriousinconsistencyby which the Philippineapproachto

the questionofNorthBomeo is flawed. On4 August 1977,the then President of the Philippines,at

a meeting of ASEANHeads of State, solemnly affirmedwith al1the authority attachingto his high

office,that the Philippineswould betaking definitesteps to eliminatethe claim ofthe Philippines

to Sabah. Permit me to read the following relevant passage fiom the statement which appearsin

your blue folderattab 4:

"As a last observation and as the last point of faith may 1 fürther state that
perhaps it is timeto remember that likeany cooperative endeavour, ASEANrequires
sacrifice for every gainand advantageand that each and every nation mustcontribute
to that pool of sacrificeto make ASEANa success. Before ASEAN can look to the
outside world for equity, forjusticeand faimess we must establish order, faimess and
justice amongst ourselves. As a contribution, therefore, 1Sayin earnest to the future
of ASEAN, 1wish to announcethat theGovemmentofthe Republicof the Philippines

is thereforetaking definite steps to eliminateone of the burdens of ASEAN- the
claim ofthe PhilippinesRepublicto Sabah. It is our hopethatthis will be a permanent
contributionto the unity,strengthandprosperityof al1of ASEAN."

14.Well, regrettably,this pledge appearsnot to havebeen fulfilled. What was promisedon

4 August 1977 has been reversed by the Application filedon 13March2001. 1cannot conclude

without referring to the cavalier manner in which the Philippines has sought to dispose of theimportantfact that whenNorth Bomeo joinedthe Federationof Malaysia thiswas a specific and

deliberateexerciseof the right of self-determinationby the people of that country. Theact of the

Secretary-General of the United Nations in confirming thatact of self-determinationcannot be

dismissed (as the Philippines is seeking to do) by calling it simply a "confirmationby the

international community of Malaysia's political identityI"t. was the internationalal of approval

put upon the solution ofthe specific problemof the future government of the people ofNorth

Borneo. It excludedthe sovereignty ofany other country. Itcannot be regarded as something

"irrelevant". Self-determination is a fact which determinessovereignty- whether or not it is

sornethingto which theoriginalsovereign consents. It is the fact out ofwhichthenew sovereignîy

arisesandevenmy latefather(towhomProf. Magallonawasgoodenoughto refer)wouldnothave

said otherwise. Itis inconceivablethat any weight shouldbe attached to the ambitionsof the

absent heirsof an ancient ruler in contradictionof the clearlyexpressedand long-established and

recognizedwill ofthepeople.

15.As 1approachmy conclusion,1amboundto ask: what are the limitsto interventionif

the Court accepts the present Applicationof the Philippines? There is a real danger thatif the

Courtwereto acceptthe Philippines thesis,the scopeof Article62 wouldhave been construedso

widely that it could embrace even matters that fa11within Article63, and recourseto the latter

Article would become unnecessary. In so far as allegedlyrelevant treaties areconcemed, aState

couldpresent its viewsunder Article62 withoutthe need to become a party. Whythen shouldit

resortto Article63and becomeboundbythe substantivejudgmentthatwould follow?

16. Generally speaking, the basic condition of consent that underlies the exercise of

jurisdictionby the Courtwouldbe significantly eroded.Partiesto special agreementswould fear

that their careful identificationof the question dividing them, andtheir willingnessto see that

question, and no other, settled as between them, could be hstrated by some unforeseen

interventionrelatingto a marginal and possibly irrelevant issue. Apprehensive about such a risk,

States would be bound to assess carefully whether their interests would be better servedby

recourse to the Court with a generously construed possibility oifntervention; or by ad hoc

arbitrationwithnorisk of intervention. 17.On that brief note of concemed enquiry1bring my response to an end. Mr.President,1

wouldbe grateful if you would now cal1upon H.E. Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad,Agent of the

Governmentof Malaysia,brieflyto concludeMalaysia'scase.

Le PRESIDENT : Je vous remercie, Monsieur le professeur. 1 now give the floor to

H.E.Tan SriAbdulKadirMohamad,AgentofMalaysia.

Mr.MOHAMAD: Mr.President,distinguished Membersof the Court,

1. In my opening remarks on Tuesday, 1had respectfully requestedthe Court to deny the

Philippines requestto intervenein order to enablethe Courtto deal with, in due course,the merits

of the bilateral dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia without any distraction by a third party

making a claim which is separate and distinctfiom the question of sovereignty over Ligitanand

Sipadan.

2. We have al1heard this week the pleadings ofthe Agent and counsel for the Philippines

which were, for a great part, an undisguised attempt todistract the Court fiom the real issue at

hand. The Courthad asked the Parties to appear before itthis week in order that the Court could

hear the arguments for and against the Philippine Applicationfor permission to intervene in the

case conceming Sovereigny over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia),not to

listento an expositionof thePhilippineclaim toSabah.

3. If this week's performanceof the Philippineteamwere any guide,1ventureto predictthat

there will be a repeat performanceof more of the same if the Court were to allowthe Philippines

requestto intervene atthe stageof the examination ofthe merits of thecase between Malaysiaand

Indonesiathat isbefore the Court. That, 1believe,the Courtwishesto avoid.

4. May 1 therefore respectfully urge the Court to deny the Philippines the undeserved

privilege of anyfurther participationin this matter, and reject its request to intervenein this case.

After all, by its own admission,the Philippinesdoes not haveany territorialinterest on the islands

ofLigitan and Sipadan,which,1might repeat, arethe onlysubject-matterofthe present case.

5. Mr. President, before ending my remarks, allow me to point out very briefly to one

disturbing distortion of my statement on Tuesday. Refening to Malaysia, Prof.Reisman accused

itsAgent of "evenannouncingin open court thatits ownpositionwas non-negotiable"(CR200113,p. 12, para. 4).But as you have heard me saying and as recorded in the verbatim record

(CR200112,p. 44,para. 20) Malaysia stated"Thefuture ofthe peopleof Sabahis non-negotiable."

6. Mr. President,distinguishedMembersof the Court, thedelegationof Malaysia has valued

greatly the opportunity to appear before the Court to explain Malaysia's opposition to the

Philippines Applicationfor permission to intervenein the case betweenMalaysia and Indonesia.

would like to thankthe Court for having so patientlyheard our pleadings. 1concludeby formally

making our submissionthat the Court should reject thePhilippine Application. Thankyou very

much.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you verymuch. Je vousremercie, Monsieur Kadir. Cecimet un

terme à la deuxièmesériede plaidoiries pour la Malaisie. La Cour prend acte des conclusions

finalesdont vous avez donnélecture aunom de laMalaisie, commeelle l'a faitce matin pour les

conclusions finales présentéespar M. Wirajuda, agent de l'Indonésie, et hierpour celles des

Philippines présentéesar M.Bello.

Ceci nous amène à la fin de cette série d'audiences consacréesà la requête à fin

d'interventionprésentéepar la Républiquedes Philippines en l'affaire relativea Souveraineté

sur PulauLigitan et Pulau Sipadan (Indonésie/Malaisie).Je tiens à adresser mes remerciements

aux agents, conseilset avocatspour laprécieuse assistancequ'ils ont bien voulàlaCouretce,

très heureusement,ansle temps qui leur avat tassigné.Je les remercie égalemenptour l'espt e

courtoisieetde respectmutueldontils ont faitpreuvetoutaulong de ces audiences.

Conformément à la pratique,je prierai lesagents de reàtla disposition de la Cour pour

tous renseignements complémentaires donetllepourraitavoirbesoin. Souscetteréserve,je déclare

maintenant close laprocédure oraleconsacréeà la requêteàfin d'intervention desPhilippinesen

l'affaire relativeaSouverainetésurPulauLigitanetPulauSipadan(Indonésie/Malaisie).

La Cour va maintenant seretirer pour délibérer.Les agents des Parties, ainsi que celui des

Philippines, serontavisésen tempsutile de la datequelle la Courrendra sa décision.

La Courn'étantsaisie d'aucuneautre questionaujourd'hui, l'audienceest levée.

Laséanceest levéeà II h 35.