Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2007/20
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2007
Public sitting
held on Tuesday 6 November 2007, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace,
Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President, presiding
in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore)
________________
VERBATIM RECORD
________________
ANNÉE 2007
Audience publique
tenue le mardi 6 novembre 2007, à 10 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président,
faisant fonction de président
en l’affaire relative à la Souveraineté sur Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks et South Ledge
(Malaisie/Singapour)
____________________
COMPTE RENDU
____________________ - 2 -
Present: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President
Judges Ranjeva
Shi
Koroma
Parra-Aranguren
Buergenthal
Owada
Simma
Tomka
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Skotnikov
Judges ad hoc Dugard
Sreenivasa Rao
Registrar Couvreur
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 3 -
Présents : M. Al-Khasawneh, vice-président, faisant fonction de président en l’affaire
RaMjev.
Shi
Koroma
Parra-Aranguren
Buergenthal
Owada
Simma
Tomka
Abraham
Keith
Sepúlveda-Amor
Bennouna
Sjoteiskov,
Dugard.
Sreenivasa Rao, juges ad hoc
Cgoefferr,
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ - 4 -
The Government of Malaysia is represented by:
H.E.Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, Ambassado r-at-Large, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of
Malaysia, Adviser for Foreign Affairs to the Prime Minister,
as Agent;
H.E. Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, Ambassador of Malaysia to the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
H.E. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,
Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney-General of Malaysia,
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C., Honorary Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit inte rnational, member of the Permanent Court of
Arbitration,
Mr.James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of
Cambridge, member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr.Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, Professor of Public In ternational Law, Leiden University, associate
member of the Institut de droit international,
Mr. Marcelo G. Kohen, Professor of International La w, Graduate Institute of International Studies,
Geneva, associate member of the Institut de droit international,
Ms Penelope Nevill, college lecturer, Downing College, University of Cambridge,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Datuk Azailiza Mohd Ahad, Head of Interna tional Affairs Division, Chambers of the
Attorney-General of Malaysia,
Datin Almalena Sharmila Johan Thambu, Deputy Head 1, International Affairs Division, Chambers
of the Attorney-General of Malaysia,
MsSuraya Harun, Senior Federal Counsel, Inte rnational Affairs Division, Chambers of the
Attorney-General of Malaysia,
Mr. Mohd Normusni Mustapa Albakri, Federal Coun sel, International Affairs Division, Chambers
of the Attorney-General of Malaysia,
Mr. Faezul Adzra Tan Sri Gani Patail, Federal C ounsel, International Affairs Division, Chambers
of the Attorney-General of Malaysia,
MsMichelle Bradfield, Research Fellow, Lauterpach t Centre for International Law, University of
Cambridge, Solicitor (Australia),
Coausnsel; - 5 -
Le Gouvernement de la Malaisie est représenté par :
S. Exc.M. Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamad, ambass adeur en mission extrao rdinaire, ministère des
affaires étrangères de la Malaisie, conseille r auprès du premier ministre pour les affaires
étrangères,
comme agent ;
S. Exc.Mme Dato’ Noor Farida Ariffin, ambassadeur de la Malaisie auprès du Royaume des
Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
S. Exc. M. Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar, ministre des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,
M. Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail, Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, C.B.E., Q.C., professeur honorai re de droit international à l’Université de
Cambridge, membre de l’Institut de droit inte rnational, membre de la Cour permanente
d’arbitrage,
M. James Crawford, S.C., F.B.A., professeur de dr oit international à l’Université de Cambridge,
titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre de l’Institut de droit international,
M. Nicolaas Jan Schrijver, professeur de droit international public à l’Université de Leyde, membre
associé de l’Institut de droit international, membre de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage,
M. Marcelo G. Kohen, professeur de droit interna tional à l’Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationales de Genève, membre associé de l’Institut de droit international,
Mme Penelope Nevill, chargée de cours au Downing College de l’Université de Cambridge,
comme conseils et avocats ;
Datuk Azailiza Mohd Ahad, chef du département des affaires internationales, cabinet de
l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
Mme Datin Almalena Sharmila Johan Thambu, pr emière adjointe au chef du département des
affaires internationales, cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
Mme Suraya Harun, conseiller fédéral principal au département des affaires internationales, cabinet
de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
M. Mohd Normusni Mustapa Albakri, conse iller fédéral au départ ement des affaires
internationales, cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
M. Faezul Adzra Tan Sri Gani Patail, conseiller fédéral au département des affaires internationales,
cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
Mme Michelle Bradfield, Research Fellow au Lauterpacht Research Center for International Law
de l’Université de Cambridge, Solicitor (Australie),
comme conseils ; - 6 -
Dato’ Haji Abd. Ghaffar bin Abdullah, Deputy State Secretary of Johor (Administration),
Mr.Abd. Rahim Hussin, Under-Secretary, Maritime Security Policy Division, National Security
Council, Department of the Prime Minister of Malaysia,
Mr.Raja Aznam Nazrin, Under-Secretary, Adjudi cation and Arbitration, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Malaysia,
Capt. Sahak Omar, Director General, Department of Hydrography, Royal Malaysian Navy,
Mr. Tuan Haji Obet bin Tawil, Deputy Director 1, Land and Mines Office of Johor,
Dr.Hajah Samsiah Muhamad, Director of Acqui sition, Documentation and Audiovisual Centre,
National Archives,
Cdr. Samsuddin Yusoff, State Officer 1, Department of Hydrography, Royal Malaysian Navy,
Mr.Roslee Mat Yusof, Director of Marine, Nort hern Region, Marine Department Peninsular
Malaysia,
Mr.Azmi Zainuddin, Minister-Counsellor, Embassy of Malaysia in the Kingdom of the
Netherlands,
Ms Sarah Albakri Devadason, Principal Assistant Secretary, Adjudication and Arbitration Division,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,
Mr. Mohamad Razdan Jamil, Special Officer to the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,
MsHaznah Md. Hashim, Principal Assistant Secr etary, Adjudication and Arbitration Division,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia,
as Advisers;
Professor Dato’ DrS. haharil Talib, Head of Special Research Unit, Chambers of the
Attorney-General of Malaysia,
as Consultant;
Mr.Tan Ah Bah, Director of Survey (Boundary Affairs Section), Department of Survey and
Mapping,
Professor Dr.Sharifah Mastura Syed Abdullah, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and
Humanities, National University of Malaysia,
Professor Dr. Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud, Director of the Institute for Malaysian and International
Studies, National University of Malaysia,
Mr. Ahmad Aznan bin Zakaria, Principal Assistant Director of Survey (Boundary Affairs Section),
Department of Survey and Mapping, - 7 -
M. Dato’Haji Abd. Ghaffar bin Abdullah, secrétaire d’Etat adjoint du Johor (administration),
M. Abd. Rahim Hussin, sous-secrétaire au département de la politique de sécurité maritime, conseil
de la sécurité nationale, services du premier ministre de la Malaisie,
M. Raja Aznam Nazrin, sous-secrétaire au département de la justice et de l’arbitrage, ministère des
affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,
Le capitaine Sahak Omar, directeur général du service hydrographique de la marine royale
malaisienne,
M. Tuan Haji Obet bin Tawil, premier directeu r adjoint du bureau du territoire et des mines du
Johor,
M. Hajah Samsiah Muhamad, directeur des acquisitions, centre de documen tation audiovisuel des
archives nationales,
Le commandant Samsuddin Yusoff, premier officier d’état-major du service hydrographique de la
marine royale malaisienne,
M. Roslee Mat Yusof, directeur de la marine pour la région septentriona le, département de la
marine de la Malaisie péninsulaire,
M. Azmi Zainuddin, ministre conseiller à l’ambassade de la Malaisie au Royaume des Pays-Bas,
Mme Sarah Albakri Devadason, secrétaire adjointe pr incipale au département de la justice et de
l’arbitrage, ministère des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,
M. Mohamad Razdan Jamil, assistant spécial du ministre des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,
Mme Haznah Md. Hashim, secrétaire adjointe prin cipale au département de la justice et de
l’arbitrage, ministère des affaires étrangères de la Malaisie,
comme conseillers ;
M. Dato’ Shaharil Talib, professeur, directeur du service des études spéciales du cabinet de
l’Attorney-General de la Malaisie,
comme consultant ;
M. Tan Ah Bah, directeur de la topographie, ser vice des frontières, département de la topographie
et de la cartographie,
Mme Sharifah Mastura Syed Abdullah, professeur, doyenne de la faculté des sciences sociales et
humaines de l’Université nationale de la Malaisie,
M. Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud, professeur, directeur de l’Institut d’études malaisiennes et
internationales de l’Université nationale de la Malaisie,
M. Ahmad Aznan bin Zakaria, directeur adjoint pr incipal de la topographie, service des frontières,
département de la topographie et de la cartographie, - 8 -
Mr.Hasnan bin Hussin, Senior Technical Assist ant (Boundary Affairs Section), Department of
Survey and Mapping,
as Technical Advisers.
The Government of the Republic of Singapore is represented by:
H.E. Mr. Tommy Koh, Ambassador-at-Large, Mini stry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Singapore, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore,
as Agent;
H.E. Mr. Anil Kumar s/o N T Nayar, Ambassador of the Republic of Singapore to the Kingdom of
the Netherlands,
as Co-Agent;
H.E. Mr. S. Jayakumar, Deputy Prime Minister, Co -ordinating Minister for National Security and
Minister for Law, Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore,
Mr. Chan Sek Keong, Chief Justice of the Republic of Singapore,
Mr. Chao Hick Tin, Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., member of the English Bar, Chairman of the United
Nations International Law Commission, Emeritus Chichele Professor of Public International
Law, University of Oxford, member of the Institu t de droit international, Distinguished Fellow,
All Souls College, Oxford,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor at the University of Paris X-Nanterre, member and former Chairman of
the United Nations International Law Commission, associate member of the Institut de droit
international,
Mr. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, member of the New York Bar,
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,
Ms Loretta Malintoppi, avocat à la Cour d’ap pel de Paris, member of the Rome Bar,
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. S. Tiwari, Principal Senior State Counsel, Ch ambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic
of Singapore,
Mr. Lionel Yee, Senior State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic of
Singapore,
Mr. Tan Ken Hwee, Senior Assistant Registrar, Supreme Court of Singapore
,
Mr. Pang Khang Chau, Deputy Senior State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the
Republic of Singapore,
Mr. Daren Tang, State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic of Singapore, - 9 -
M.Hasnanbin Hussin, assistant technique principal du service des frontières, département de la
topographie et de la cartographie,
comme conseillers techniques.
Le Gouvernement de la République de Singapour est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Tommy Koh, ambassadeur en mission ex traordinaire (ministère des affaires étrangères
de la République de Singapour), professeur de droit à l’Université nationale de Singapour,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Anil Kumar s/o N T Nayar, ambas sadeur de la République de Singapour auprès du
Royaume des Pays-Bas,
comme coagent ;
S. Exc. M. S. Jayakumar, vice-premier ministre, mini stre coordinateur pour la sécurité nationale et
ministre de la justice, professeur de droit à l’Université nationale de Singapour,
M. Chan Sek Keong, Chief Justice de la République de Singapour,
M. Chao Hick Tin, Attorney-General de la République de Singapour,
M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A., membre du barreau d’Angleterre, président de la
Commission du droit international des Nations Un ies, professeur émérite de droit international
public (chaire Chichele) à l’Univer sité d’Oxford, membre de l’In stitut de droit international,
Distinguished Fellow au All Souls College d’Oxford,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l’Université de ParisX-Nanterre, membre et ancien président de la
Commission du droit international des Nations Unies, membre associé de l'Institut de droit
international,
M. Rodman R. Bundy, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de New York, cabinet
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,
Mme Loretta Malintoppi, avocat à la Cour d’appel de Paris, membre du barreau de Rome, cabinet
Frere Cholmeley/Eversheds, Paris,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. S. Tiwari, Principal Senior State Counsel au cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la République de
Singapour,
M. Lionel Yee, Senior State Counsel au cabinet de l’ Attorney-General de la République de
Singapour,
M. Tan Ken Hwee, premier greffier adjoint de la Cour suprême de Singapour,
M. Pang Khang Chau, Deputy Senior State Counsel au cabinet de l’ Attorney-General de la
République de Singapour,
M. Daren Tang, State Counsel au cabinet de l’Attorney-General de la République de Singapour, - 10 -
Mr. Ong Chin Heng, State Counsel, Chambers of the Attorney-General of the Republic of
Singapore,
Mr. Daniel Müller, Researcher at the Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), University
of Paris X-Nanterre,
as Counsel;
Mr. Parry Oei, Chief Hydrographer, Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore,
Ms Foo Chi Hsia, Deputy Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Singapore,
Mr. Philip Ong, Assistant Director, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Singapore,
Ms Yvonne Elizabeth Chee, Second Secretary (Political), Embassy of the Republic of Singapore in
the Netherlands,
Ms Wu Ye-Min, Country Officer, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Singapore,
as Advisers. - 11 -
M. Ong Chin Heng, State Counsel au cabinet de l’ Attorney-General de la République de
Singapour,
M. Daniel Müller, chercheur au centre de droit in ternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), Université de
Paris X-Nanterre
comme conseils ;
M. Parry Oei, hydrographe en chef de l’autorité maritime et portuaire de Singapour,
Mme Foo Chi Hsia, directeur adjoint au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République de
Singapour,
M. Philip Ong, sous-directeur au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République de Singapour,
Mme Yvonne Elizabeth Chee, deuxième secrétaire (affaires politiques) à l’ambassade de la
République de Singapour aux Pays-Bas,
Mme Wu Ye-Min, chargée de mission au ministère des affaires étrangères de la République de
Singapour,
cocomnseillers. - 12 -
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Please be seated. The sitting is open.
The Court now meets to hear the oral argum ents of the Parties in the case concerning
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore).
Let me begin by noting that in September 2003, before her election as President of the Court,
JudgeHiggins, referring to Article17, paragr aph2, of the Statute, recused herself from
participating in the present case. It therefore falls to me as Vice-President of the Court, pursuant to
Article 13 of the Rules of Court, to exercise the functions of the presidency in this case.
Since the Court does not include upon the Bench a judge of the nationality of either of the
Parties, both have availed themselves of the right, under Article 31, paragraph 2, of the Statute, to
choose a judge ad hoc . Malaysia chose Mr.ChristopherJ ohn RobertDugard and Singapore,
Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju.
Article 20 of the Statute provides that “[e]very Member of the Court shall, before taking up
his duties, make a solemn declaration in open court that he will exercise his powers impartially and
conscientiously”. Pursuant to Article 31, paragraph 6, of the Statute, that same provision applies to
judges ad hoc. Notwithstanding the fact that Mr.Dugard has already served as judge ad hoc and
has made a solemn declaration in a previous case, Article8, paragraph3, of the Rules of Court
requires that he make a further solemn declaration in the present case.
In accordance with custom, I shall first say a few words about the career and qualifications
of each judge ad hoc before inviting him to make his solemn declaration.
Mr.ChristopherDugard, of South African nationality, is Professor Emeritus at the
University of the Witwatersrand, and Honorary Pr ofessor at the University of Pretoria and the
University of West Cape, and was until recently Professor of Public International Law at Leiden
University. He has also acted as Director of the Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law
at the University of Cambridge. In tande m with his outstanding academic achievements,
Mr.Dugard has greatly contributed to the work of a number of international fora in the field of
international law and human rights. He is a member of the Institut de droit international, a member
of the International Law Commission and its Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection. He is
also Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Hu man Rights Council. Mr. Dugard has in addition - 13 -
and as I just mentioned served as a judge ad hoc at this Court in the case concerning Armed
Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Rwanda).
Mr. Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju, of Indian nationality, has held numerous academic
appointments, including positions at the Michigan University School of Law and the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars. He was a long-standing member of the International Law
Commission, and has held several distingui shed appointments in that Commission.
Mr.SreenivasaRao has in addition enjoyed an eminent career at the Indian Ministry of External
Affairs and has served as Legal Adviser to the Pe rmanent Mission of India to the United Nations.
Among other illustrious appointments, he has b een President of the Asian-African Legal
Consultative Organization. Mr.SreenivasaRao has also appeared before this Court as counsel to
the Indian Government in the case concerning Aerial Incident of 10August 1999 (Pakistan v.
India).
In accordance with the order of precedence established by Article7, paragraph3, of the
Rules of Court, I shall first invite Mr.Dugard to make the solemn declaration prescribed by the
Statute, and I would request all those present to rise.
Mr. DUGARD: “I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise my powers as
judge honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously.”
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you. I shall now invite
Mr. Sreenivasa Rao to make the solemn declaration prescribed by the Statute.
Mr. SREENIVASA RAO: “I solemnly declare that I will perform my duties and exercise
my powers as judge honourably, faithfully, impartially and conscientiously.” Thank you.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you both. Please be seated. I take note
of the solemn declarations made by Mr.Dugard and Mr.Sreenivasa Rao Pemmaraju and declare - 14 -
them duly installed as judges ad hoc in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore).
*
I shall now recall the principal steps of the procedure so far followed in this case.
The proceedings were instituted on 24July 2003 through the notifica tion by Malaysia and
Singapore of a Special Agreement to submit to the Court a dispute between them concerning
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
Pursuant to Article40, paragraph3, of the St atute of the Court, all States entitled to appear
before the Court were notified of the Special Agreement.
By an Order dated 1September2003, the Presi dent of the Court, having regard to the
provisions of the Special Agreement concerni ng the written pleadings, fixed 25March2004 and
25 January 2005 as the respective time-limits for the filing by each of the Parties of a Memorial and
a Counter-Memorial. Those pleadings were duly filed within the time-limits so prescribed.
By an Order dated 1 February 2005, the C ourt fixed 25 November 2005 as the time-limit for
the filing by each of the Parties of a Reply. T hose pleadings were duly filed within the time-limit
so prescribed.
In view of the fact that the Special Agreem ent provided for the possible filing of a fourth
pleading by each of the Parties, by a joint lette r dated 23January2006, the Parties informed the
Court that they had agreed that it was not necessar y to exchange Rejoinders. The Court, having
regard to the said letter, decided that no furt her written pleadings were necessary and that the
written proceedings in the case were thus closed.
The question of the order in which the Parti es should be heard during the oral proceedings
was discussed by the Court at the request of the Parties. By letters dated 22 September 2006, the
latter were informed that the Court had decided that Singapore should be heard first, followed by
Malaysia, it being understood that the decision di d not imply that one Party would be seen as an
applicant and the other Party as a respondent, and was without prejudice to any question of the
burden of proof. - 15 -
In accordance with Article54, paragraph1, of the Rules of Court, the Court fixed Tuesday
6November2007 as the date for the opening of the hearings and adopted a timetable for them.
The Registrar informed the Parties accordingly by letters of 2 October 2006.
On 21August2007, the Agent of Singapore provided the Registry with a new document
which his Government wished to produce under Article 56 of the Rules of Court. The Co-Agent of
Malaysia subsequently informed the Court that Malaysia did not object to the production of the
new document by Singapore on condition that Malaysia’s comments on the document produced by
Singapore would also be admitted into the record. The Registrar, on 11 October 2007, informed
the Parties that the Court had decided to authorize the production of the document requested by
Singapore. In accordance with Article56, para graph3, of the Rules of Court, the document
containing the comments of Malaysia on Singapore’ s new document was equally added to the case
file.
*
Having ascertained the views of the Parties, the Court decided, pursuant to Article53,
paragraph 2, of its Rules, that copies of the pl eadings and the documents annexed would be made
accessible to the public on the opening of the oral proceedings. Further, in accordance with the
Court’s practice, the pleadings without their a nnexes will be put on the Court’s website as from
today.
I note the presence at the hearing of the Ag ents, counsel and advocates of both Parties,
whom I am pleased to welcome.
In accordance with the arrangements on the orga nization of the procedure which have been
decided by the Court, the hearings will comprise a first and a second round of oral argument. The
first round of oral argument will begin today and will close on Friday 16November2007. The
second round of oral argument will begin on Mo nday 19 November 2007 and will close on Friday
23 November 2007.
* - 16 -
I shall now give the floor to ProfessorTomm y Koh, Agent of the Republic of Singapore.
Your Excellency, you have the floor.
Mr. KOH:
1. Mr. President and Members of the Court.
2. I have the great honour to appear before you as the Agent of Singapore. Since this is the
first case involving Singapore in the International Court of Justice, I would like to begin by saying
a few words about my country’s policy on internatio nal law, on the rule of law and on the peaceful
settlement of disputes.
3. Singapore attaches great importance to international law and we have always sought to
conduct ourselves in conformity with it. We have worked with other like-minded States to
strengthen the rule of law in the world. We belie ve in the peaceful settlement of disputes. We
believe that States should seek to resolve thei r differences by consulta tions, negotiations and
mediation. When a dispute cannot be resolved by those means, we believe that, instead of allowing
the dispute to adversely affect the overall bilatera l relationship of the two countries concerned, it is
preferable to refer a dispute to a binding third party procedure, namely, to arbitration or
adjudication. It is for this reason that Singapore and Malaysia have agreed to submit our dispute to
this honourable Court.
4. I would now like to extend my fraternal greetings and my respect to the Agent of
Malaysia, Tan Sri Abdul Kadir Mohamed, who is an old friend, to the Co-Agent, the much admired
Ambassador Noor Farida Ariffin, to the distinguished Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
another friend, and to the other learned members of their team.
5. But now Mr. President, I would now like to introduce the members of my team. They are:
my Co-Agent, Ambassador Anil Kumar Nayar; the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law,
ProfessorS.ayakumar; the Chief Justice of Singapore, MrC . han Sek Keong; the
Attorney-General, Mr.Chao Hick Tin; Mr.Ian Brownlie, Q.C.; Professor Alain Pellet;
Mr. Rodman Bundy; and Ms Loretta Malintoppi. Professor Jayakumar was previously Dean of the
Faculty of Law at the National University of Singapore. He has been involved in Singapore’s - 17 -
research on the Pedra Branca issue, ever since 1979, when Malaysia first published a map asserting
her claim to the island.
6. I would like now to explain the presen ce of the Chief Justice of Singapore in our
delegation. Mr.Chan Sek Keong was Singapore’s Attorney-General for 14years, a position he
relinquished in April last year when he was a ppointed as the Chief Justice of Singapore. He
became involved in this case begi nning in 1993, with the first ser ies of bilateral consultations
between Singapore and Malaysia. After the Special Agreement was submitted to this Court,
Mr. Chan led the legal team in preparing our writte n pleadings. In view of the pivotal role which
he has played in overseeing Singapore’s preparat ions for this case, when he was appointed
ChiefJustice, the Singapore Parliament was info rmed that he had agreed, at the Government’s
request, to continue with this role until the case has been decided by this Court.
The subject-matter of the dispute
7. Mr.President and Members of the Cour t, this case concerns sovereignty over three
maritime features ⎯ a main island called “Pedra Branca” and two subsidiary features called
“Middle Rocks” and “South Ledge”. According to Article 2 of the Special Agreement:
“The Court is requested to determine whether sovereignty over:
(a) Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh;
(b) MiddleRocks;
(c) SouthLedge,
belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore.”
Pedra Branca means “White Rock” in the Portugue se language. The phrase “Pulau Batu Puteh”
means “White Rock Island” in the Malay langua ge. The name “Pulau Batu Puteh”, has only
recently appeared in maps of the region and is the name by which my Malaysian friends refer to the
island today. For the purpose of Singapore’s oral presentations, we will be referring to the island
as “Pedra Branca”, the name by which it has b een known since the Portuguese started mapping the
region in the sixteenth century.
8. The location of the three features in di spute can be seen in the map now shown on the
screen. This map is No.2 in the Singapore Me morial, and it can also be found in the judges’ - 18 -
folders at tab 1. It shows the three features lying strategically at the eastern entrance to the Strait of
Singapore. About 900 ships daily pass through the Strait of Singapore, making it one of the busiest
straits in the world.
9. I would now like to show the Court a photograph of Pedra Branca, with the lighthouse
painted in black and white, the helipad and other fi xtures on it. This is inserted at tab2 of the
judges’ folders. Middle Rocks are in the background. South Ledge cannot be seen in this
photograph because it is outside the photograph’s fram e, and it is located about two nautical miles
south-west of Pedra Branca. Moreover, it is entirely submerged at high tide.
10. Mr. President and Members of the Court, it is our submission that sovereignty over Pedra
Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to Singapore.
⎯ Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore because th e British colonial government in Singapore
acquired sovereignty over the island, by taki ng possession of the island more than 150years
ago to build a lighthouse. Over the years, Si ngapore has consistently maintained its title over
Pedra Branca by the continuous, open and effective display of State authority on the island and
within its territorial waters.
⎯ Middle Rocks belongs to Singapore because it forms an indivisible group with Pedra Branca.
It has never been independently appropriated, and, lying within Pedra Branca’s territorial sea,
Middle Rocks necessarily belongs to the State which has sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
⎯ South Ledge belongs to Singapore because it is a low-tide elevation located within the
territorial sea generated by Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks.
11. The three features lie about 25nautical miles from Singapore and between seven and
eight nautical miles from the Malaysian coast. I sh ould emphasize that during the relevant period,
the applicable width of the territorial sea was thr ee miles. Malaysia extended its territorial sea to
12 miles in 1969, long after Singapore had acquired title to the three features.
12. Before 1979, Malaysia had never laid clai m to any of these three features. In 1979, for
the first time, Malaysia publishe d a map purporting to place Pedra Branca within the Malaysian
territorial sea, giving rise to the present dispute. The dispute has been an irritant in the bilateral
relations between our two countries. After almost 28years, we are very pleased that the dispute - 19 -
will finally be brought to an end. And I am very happy to inform the Court that the two Parties
have agreed to accept and to abide by the judgment of this Court.
The Parties to the dispute
13. Mr.President and Members of the Cour t, Singapore and Malaysia are two friendly
neighbours in south-east Asia. The map now shown on the screen is a general map of south-east
Asia. This map can be found at tab 3 of the judge s’ folders. You can see that Malaysia comprises
two parts: West Malaysia and East Malaysia. East Malaysia occupies the northern part of the
island of Borneo, while West Malaysia forms part of the Asian mainland, occupying the Malay
Peninsula. Singapore is the island coloured orange — the national colour of the Netherlands! — at
the southern tip of the Peninsula. The locati on of Pedra Branca is shown by a red arrow on this
map, at the entrance to the Singapore Strait in th e South China Sea. This is the spot where,
160 years ago, the British colonial government decided to build a lighthouse.
14. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Singapore is a former British colony. For the
purpose of this case, Singapore is the successor in title to Great Britain. From 1826 to 1946
Singapore was part of a political unit called the “S traits Settlements”, which also included Penang
and Malacca. The Straits Settlements was, at all times, a British colony. Before 1867, the Straits
Settlements was subordinate to the Government of British India which was, in turn, accountable to
London. In 1946, the Straits Settlements was di ssolved, and Singapore became a Crown colony in
its own right. In 1963, Singapore merged with the Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of
Malaysia. Two years later, Singapore separated from Malaysia and became an independent and
sovereign State.
15. I should add here that, although Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia for two
years, the two Parties’ written pleadings agree that nothing turns on this point. It is not disputed
that every single piece of territory which Singa pore brought into the Federation in 1963 was taken
out of the Federation in 1965.
16. Mr. President and Members of the Court, Malaysia is a federation of 13 States. The State
nearest to Singapore and to Pedra Branca is the State of Johor. Prior to 1957, Johor was a separate
political entity, with its own international le gal personality. Although from 1948 to 1957 Johor - 20 -
was part of a political entity known as the “Federation of Malaya”, this federation was just a
grouping, a mixed grouping of colonies and Malay States under the protection of the British. Johor
remained a sovereign State until the British grante d independence to the Federation of Malaya in
1957. On that date Johor ceased to be an inde pendent sovereign State and became a constituent
State of the independent Federation of Malaya. As noted pr eviously, the Federation of Malaya
became the Federation of Malaysia in 1963. For the purpose of this case, Malaysia is the successor
to the State of Johor. The last two slides which I have shown, have been enclosed in tab 4 of the
judges’ folders.
17. At this point Mr. President, I would like to explain a usage of terminology which applies
throughout Singapore’s oral presentations. Alth ough Malaysia was formed only in 1963 and
Singapore became an independent State only in 1965, many of the events which we will be
discussing in these oral proceedings took place long before those dates. To avoid unnecessary
repetition, we will sometimes simply refer to “Malaysia” or to “Singapore” when discussing those
past events, even though the conduct in question was undertaken by their respective predecessors.
18. Mr. President and Members of the Court, Singapore and Malaysia are closely linked, not
only by geography, but also in terms of history, culture and economics. For a brief period of two
years, we were even part of the same country. Today, economic, cultural and family ties remain
strong.
19. For example, Malaysia is Singapore’s largest trading partner and Singapore is Malaysia’s
second largest trading partner. Cultural ties are strong because the two countries share many
commonalities of language, of ethnicity and of religion.
20. These close historical and political ties do not, however, alter the fact that the officials of
the two countries have been vigilant in exercisi ng exclusive jurisdiction over areas in which they
consider to be under the sovereignty of their r espective country. The reason why I emphasize this
point is that a key feature of this case is the constant stream of Singapore’s acts of administration in
relation to Pedra Branca, contrasted with the complete absence of Malaysian effectivités on Pedra
Branca or within its territorial waters, and with Ma laysia’s silence in the face of all these State
activities of Singapore. Such silence on the part of Malaysia is significant, and must be taken to
mean that Malaysia never regarded Pedra Branca as her territory. - 21 -
Outline of Singapore’s case
21. Mr.President and Members of the Court, I will now outline the main elements of
Singapore’s case both on the facts and on the law.
22. Singapore’s title to Pedra Branca is based upon the taking of lawful possession of the
island by the British authorities in Singapore during the period 1847 to 1851. Malaysia claims that,
prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was under the soverei gnty of Johor. However, there is absolutely no
evidence to support Malaysia’s claim. Mr. Preside nt, the truth is that, prior to 1847, Pedra Branca
was terra nullius , and had never been the subject of a prior claim, or any manifestation of
sovereignty by any sovereign entity.
23. Mr. President, the lawful taking of po ssession of Pedra Branca by the British during the
period of 1847 to 1851 was effected by a series of official actions. These actions began with the
first landing of an agent of the British Crown in 18 47 and culminated with the official inauguration
of the lighthouse in 1851.
24. The whole pattern of activities and offici al acts undertaken by agents of the British
Crown during this period ⎯ 1847 to 1851 ⎯ constituted a clear and unequivocal manifestation of
the intention to claim sovereignty over Pedra Bran ca. These actions were peaceful and public, and
elicited no opposition from any power.
25. Mr. President, Malaysia claims that the British sought permission from Johor to build the
Horsburgh lighthouse, but she has not provided any evidence to support this contention.
26. There was no doubt in the minds of cont emporary observers that the British Crown had
acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca during that period. At the foundation stone laying
ceremony for the Horsburgh lighthouse, held on 24 May 1850, Pedra Branca was described as a
dependency of Singapore in the presence of the Governor of the Straits Settlements ⎯ the most
senior British official in Singapore ⎯ as well as other British and foreign officials. This attribution
of sovereignty, which was wide ly reported in the local newspapers, elicited no response from any
quarters. In particular, it elicited no protest from the Johor authorities. Indeed, in November 1850,
the Government of the Netherlands East Indies in Batavia expressly recognized British sovereignty
over Pedra Branca by referring to the construction of the lighthouse on Pedra Branca as being “on
British territory”. - 22 -
27. After 1851, the United Kingdom and, subsequently, Singapore, confirmed and
maintained the title that had been acquired over Pedra Branca by the continuous, open and effective
display of State authority on Pedra Branca as a whole and within its territorial waters. These
activities were wide ranging, comprising both lighthouse and non-lighthouse activities suitable to
the nature of the territory concerned and, most importantly, were undertaken à titre de souverain.
All of them have been fully documented in Singapore’s written pleadings.
28. For over 130 years, from 1847 until 1979, when Malaysia first advanced a claim to the
island, Singapore’s effective administration and control of Pedra Branca went unopposed by
Malaysia or her predecessor in interest, Johor , and was recognized by third States and other
nationals.
29. Mr. President, not only did Malaysia not protest the taking of lawful possession of Pedra
Branca by the British Crown in 1847-1851, she never objected to any of the official State actions
that Singapore undertook on Pedra Branca until well af ter 1980. In fact, Malaysia has, by her own
conduct, recognized Singapore’s sovereignty over th e island. In 1953, when Johor was still an
indisputably sovereign State, Johor officially declared that she did not claim ownership over
PedraBranca. Mr. President, this disclaimer is binding on Malaysia. In addition, the highest
national mapping authority of Malaysia publishe d a series of four maps, from 1962 to 1975,
specifically attributing Pedra Branca to Singapore.
30. The evidence shows that the two Parties have been remarkably consistent in their
conduct in relation to Pedra Branca. On the one hand, Singapore has, for more than 150years,
acted in a manner entirely consistent with her s overeignty over Pedra Branca. On the other hand,
prior to Malaysia’s claim in 1979, Malaysia ne ver once intimated that she possessed title to Pedra
Branca and never once carried out any sovereign act on or in relation to Pedra Branca. Instead, as I
have said, Malaysia officially disclaimed ownershi p over the island in 1953, issued official maps
which depicted Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore, and remained silent in the face of
Singapore’s continuous administration and control of the island.
31. Mr. President and Members of the Court, with respect to Middle Rocks and South Ledge,
both features lie within Pedra Branca’s territorial waters. Middle Rocks, lying 0.6nautical miles
from Pedra Branca, is part of the same island group as Pedra Branca, while South Ledge is a - 23 -
low-tide elevation incapable of independent appr opriation. Therefore, sovereignty over both
Middle Rocks and South Ledge belongs to Singapor e by virtue of Singapore’s sovereignty over
Pedra Branca.
32. Mr.President and Members of the Court, each of the points which Ihave made will be
elaborated upon by my colleagues over the next four days. To assist the Court in following our
subsequent presentations, allow me to outline the sequence of our presentations. You can also find
the order immediately after the index in the judges’ folders.
33. After my statement, the Attorney-Gener al, Mr.Chao will speak on the geographical
setting and the background of the dispute.
34. Following Mr.Chao, Chief Justice Ch an, followed by ProfessorPellet, will rebut
Malaysia’s claim of an original historical title.
35. Tomorrow, we will turn our attention to Singapore’s positive case, beginning with
Professor Pellet who will explain that Singapore’s acquisition of Pedra Branca did not involve any
form of permission or consent from Johor. He will be followed by Mr. Brownlie who will explain
the process by which Singapore acquired title to Pedr a Branca. Mr. Bundy will then explain how
Singapore has maintained its title through the con tinuous exercise of State authority on and in
relation to Pedra Branca.
36. He will be followed by Ms Malintoppi who will, by contrast, discuss Malaysia’s absence
of effectivités. ProfessorPellet will then elaborate on Malaysia’s recogn ition of Singapore’s
sovereignty over Pedra Branca. After Professor Pellet, Mr.Bundy will discuss the system of
lighthouses in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore, also known as the “Straits Lights System”.
37. Professor Pellet will then discuss the im portant exchange of correspondence in 1953
through which the Johor Government expr essly and unconditionally disclaimed title to
PedraBranca. Following ProfessorPellet’s presentation, MsMalintoppi will speak on the
significance of maps and third State recognition. Professor Pellet will then return to deal with
Middle Rocks and South Ledge. The Deputy Prime Minister, Professor Jayakumar, will then end
Singapore’s first round of presentations with a concluding statement. - 24 -
38. Mr.President and Members of the Court, that brings my presentation to a close. I
apologize for my voice. May I respectfully request you now to call upon the Attorney-General of
Singapore, Mr. Chao, to continue with Singapore’s presentation.
39. Thank you very much.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, ProfessorKoh, for your statement
and, as you suggested, I call now on the Attorney -General of Singapore, Mr.Chao, to make his
statement.
CMHr. O:
G EOGRAPHICAL SETTING AND BACKGROUND OF THE DISPUTE
1. Thank you, Mr.President. My presentation this morning will be in three parts. First, I
will describe the physical and geographical setting of Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge. In the second part of my presentation, I will provide an outline of certain key events
relevant to the case. And in the final part of my presentation, I will recall the developments leading
up to the dispute and its submission before this Court.
The physical and geographical setting
2. Mr.President and Members of the Court, Pedra Branca is an island with a few rock
outcroppings. It is 137m long, with an average width of about 60m. As can be seen in the
photograph on the screen, the most prominent obj ect on the island is the lighthouse. This
lighthouse is named “Horsburgh lighthouse”, after the hydrographer to the British East India
Company, James Horsburgh. This was the first light house to be built by the British in the region.
The lighthouse tower you see in this photograph is the original structure, completed in 1851.
3. Structures ancillary to the lighthouse have existed for as long as the lighthouse itself. This
1851 painting of Pedra Branca just after the completion of the lighthouse shows a jetty also having
been built on the island. More structures have been built by the Singapore Government and its
predecessors since then. On the island today, the building around the base of the lighthouse is the
living quarters for the lighthouse crew. This building includes a kitchen, storerooms, sleeping
quarters and a water desalination plant. It was not part of the original construction. It was added in - 25 -
1948 by the British colonial government in Singapore. The living quarters of the crew were
originally located within the lighthouse tower itself. This was to allow the lighthouse crew to
better defend themselves against pirate attacks. In the mid-nineteenth century, piracy was rampant
in the vicinity.
4. To the left, you can see a helicopter landing pad. This was built by Singapore in 1992.
Between the helipad and the lighthouse, there is a ra dar tower. This was installed by Singapore in
1989. It is used for the Vessel Traffic Information System, opera ted by the Maritime and Port
Authority of Singapore, to keep track of the 900-over ships which traverse the Singapore Strait and
pass by Pedra Branca every day.
5. All the buildings and facilities on the island were built and operated by the Singapore
Government, without seeking approval from any other powers.
6. As the photographs show, Singapore has made very full use of the island, adding various
structures to it over the years. From time to time, suggestions to reclaim additional land around the
island to increase the usable space were made by Singapore officials. The documentary record
shows that this idea was mooted in 1972, was given serious consideration in 1973 and 1974 and
1
was discussed again in 1978 when a public tender was called by the Singapore Government for
2
reclamation works on the island and three bids were received .
7. In stark contrast to the crowded, built- up island you see in the previous photograph, this
was what Pedra Branca looked like before the Britis h. It was a barren island with no inhabitants,
no buildings and no vegetation. Acce ss to the island was greatly restricted for almost half the year
because of the north-east monsoon. There is no evidence that the island had ever been occupied or
claimed by anyone before the arrival of the British.
8. At this point, I would like to introduce th e Court to an important British Admiralty chart.
This is Admiralty chart2403. The chart is en titled “Singapore Strait”, but it also covers an
additional area beyond either end of the Strait. This is the chart reproduced by Malaysia in large
format and folded into the back pocket of her Counter-Memorial. Malaysia explained that she did
so because she anticipates that the chart will be u seful to the Court as a general orientation map of
1
RS, pp. 168-169, para. 4.180.
2MS, Ann. 135. - 26 -
3
Pedra Branca and its surrounding area . For the same reason, we have included a copy of this chart
in the front pocket of the judges’ folder.
9. As the chart shows, Pedra Branca, Middl e Rocks and South Ledge are located at the
eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait. I will sp eak more about the geography of the eastern
entrance in a moment. For now, I would like to use this chart to introduce the position of Middle
Rocks. Like Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks are also made of granite. Besides being located only
0.6nautical miles from each other, Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks are also located on a single
raised section of the sea-bed. This is evident from the extract of British Admiralty chart2403
shown on the screen. Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks are both located on the same blue-tinted
section of the chart, surrounded by a dotted line. In hydrographic charts, this dotted line is known
as a “danger line”. It means that the area enclos ed within the dotted line is hazardous, and ships
should avoid sailing into or across that area.
10. This close physical relationship between Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks is confirmed
by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office sailing directions which describe MiddleRocks as
lying “on the south-western edge of the bank on which Pedra Branca lies” 4. Pedra Branca and
Middle Rocks have also been collectively referred to as the “Horsburgh Group” by
Commander Kennedy in a famous study on international straits which he prepared for the purposes
5
of the 1958 United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea .
11. Before taking the Admiralty Chart off the scr een, I would like to point out that there are
two recognized navigational channels in the vici nity of Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge. One is called South Channel and it separat es the three features from Indonesia. The other
is called Middle Channel and it separates them from Malaysia. The main shipping channel in this
vicinity is Middle Channel.
12. I turn now to South Ledge, which lies 2.1 nautical miles to the south of Pedra Branca.
This is a photograph of South Ledge, taken at low tide. In the photograph, you can see the
3
CMM, p. 98, para. 200.
4
MS, Ann. 79.
5CMS, Ann. 37. - 27 -
wreckage of a vessel which ran aground on the feature in 1996 6. The photograph shows two
persons on South Ledge, which allows us to gauge the size of the feature. South Ledge is also
formed of granite. Malaysia and Singapore both agree that South Ledge is a low-tide elevation.
13. Let me now move away from the physical description of the three features to examine
the general geographical setting. Displayed on th e screen is the general map of south-east Asia
referred to earlier by our Agent. The position of Pedra Branca is shown on the map. Pedra Branca
lies at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait, at the point where the strait opens up into the
South China Sea.
14. Since the earliest days of European contact with the region, the Straits of Malacca and
Singapore has been the most important shipping ro ute linking the Far East to Europe. Almost all
vessels heading from the west towa rds China, Japan and other parts of east Asia, and vice versa,
will pass through the Straits of Malacca and Si ngapore. Today, the Straits of Malacca and
Singapore remains one of the busiest shipping routes in the world and the most important in the
region.
15. As this larger scale sketch-map shows, Pedra Branca lies right in the middle of the
eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait, and is not associated with either mainland. It is
7.6 nautical miles from the Indonesian island of Bi ntan and 7.7 nautical miles from the Malaysian
mainland. The nearest Malaysian island is 6.8 na utical miles away. This island is called Pulau
Mungging. It is part of the Romania group of islands, a group which also includes Peak Rock, a
feature which Professor Pellet and Mr. Brownlie will refer to in their presentations tomorrow. As
the map shows, the Romania islands are all clus tered around Point Romania, with none of them
lying more than 2 nautical miles from the mainland. Pedra Branca is not part of the Romania group
of islands and has never been regarded as part of the group. References in historical documents to
the “Romania Islands” do not include Pedra Branca.
16. Mr.President and Members of the Court, before I proceed to the second part of my
presentation, I would like at this juncture to conc lude this survey of the geographical setting with
four observations:
6
MS, p. 121, para. 6.82 (d). - 28 -
⎯ Firstly, Pedra Branca is a small island which has be en made use of by Singapore in a wide
variety of ways. From an empty barren island in 1847, Singapore has built up Pedra Branca as
its exclusive domain, with various Singapore-constructed structures gradually taking up all
usable space on the island over the course of 160 years of Singapore’s administration.
⎯ Secondly, Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge all lie within 3 nautical miles of each
other. The three features are located more than 6nautical miles away from the nearest
Malaysian territory.
⎯ Thirdly, Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are isolated features lying in the middle
of the eastern entrance of the Singapore Straits. They are not associated with either the
Malaysian coast or the Indonesian coast.
⎯ Fourthly, the Parties are in agreement that Middle Rocks are islands while South Ledge is a
low-tide elevation. Middle Rocks and Pedra Br anca are part of a single rock formation,
connected by a submerged bank. Middle Rocks and Pedra Branca have been treated and
described as a group in the relevant literature.
Chronology of key events relevant to the case
17. Mr. President and Members of the Court, I come now to the second part of my
presentation. In this section, I will relate some of the events relevant to the case. The purpose is
not to list every significant event. Instead, I w ill highlight certain key milestones in the political
history of the parties and key developments wh ich are pertinent to the case, paying particular
attention to those involving express statements made by either Party. This chronology will provide
the background and context for the next few days’ presentations. A summary of it can be found at
tab 5 in the judges’ folder, together with some of the documents I will be referring to shortly.
18. The story began 160 years ago, when the British colonial government in Singapore
decided to build a lighthouse on Pedra Branca. The British Government took possession of the
island in 1847 and actual construction of the lighthouse began in 1850. The lighthouse, together
with its ancillary structures, was completed the fo llowing year. There is no doubt that, by the time
the lighthouse was completed, Britain had acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca. - 29 -
19. As mentioned by our Agent, Pedra Br anca was already described as a dependency of
Singapore at the lighthouse foundation stone ceremony held in May 1850 in the presence of the
7
British Governor . In November that year, Pedra Branca wa s again described, this time in official
8
Dutch correspondence, as “British territory” .
20. The lighthouse was inaugurated in October 1851. Two months later, in 1852, the
Government of India passed a law which vested the lighthouse and its appurtenances in the East
India Company 9. In 1854, the 1852 legislation was replaced by another piece of legislation which
10
reiterated the vesting of the property in the East India Company . As Mr.Bundy will explain
later, the laws of 1852 and 1854 could only be passed if the Government of India considered Pedra
Branca as British territory.
21. After acquiring sovereignty over Pedra Branca, the Singapore Government undertook a
full range of administrative activities on the is land and in its waters. These activities are
documented in Singapore’s written pleadings and will be dealt with by Mr. Bundy.
In22. 1861, about 10 years after the completion of the Horsburgh lighthouse, an exchange of
correspondence took place between the Singapore G overnment and Johor Government over some
conflicts between Singapore fishermen and Johor fishermen. This series of correspondence
showed that Singapore Government officials as well as private individuals had the clear
11
understanding that Johor did not have jurisdiction and authority over Pedra Branca and its waters .
In23. 1886, the Singapore Government constructed a lighthouse on an island called “Pulau
Pisang”. That island belonged to Johor and, consequently, the lighthouse was constructed with
Johor’s permission. The position of Pulau Pisang is now shown on the map on the screen. It is
located along the Straits of Malacca, off the west coast of Johor. It is the only lighthouse operated
by the Singapore Government on Malaysian te rritory. As Mr.Bundy will explain in his
presentation on the “Straits Lights System”, the contrast between Malaysia’s treatment of Pulau
7
MS, Ann. 45.
8
RS, Ann. 8.
MS, Ann. 59.
1MS, Ann. 62.
1CMS, pp. 70-71, paras.4.61-4.62. This correspondence is fully discussed in Appendix B of the Reply of
Singapore. - 30 -
Pisang and Pedra Branca shows very clearly that Malaysia had never regarded Pedra Branca as
Malaysian territory.
I24. 1900, Johor regularized the arrangement for Pulau Pisang lighthouse by issuing a
12
formal grant of the land fo r the lighthouse to Singapore . In contrast, no attempt has ever been
made by Johor to issue a formal grant for the lighthouse on Pedra Branca.
I25. 1927, Singapore and Johor entered into an agreement to draw a territorial sea
boundary in the Johor Strait 13. This is the stretch of water which separates Johor from the main
island of Singapore. The agreed boundary followed the deep water channel within the Johor Strait.
The 1927 Agreement was supplemented in 1995 by an agreement between Singapore and Malaysia
to fix the boundary in the Johor Strait by reference to a set of geographical co-ordinates. Neither
the 1927 Agreement nor the 1995 Agreement concerned Pedra Branca.
I26. 1948, Singapore created a regular naval force called the “Malayan Naval Force”,
14
which the Singapore Government renamed the “Royal Malayan Navy” in 1952 . In that same
year, the Chief Surveyor of Singapore expressed the opinion in internal correspondence that
Singapore was entitled to claim a 3-mile territorial sea around Pedra Branca 15.
I27. 1953, in response to an enquiry from Singapore, the Johor Government stated
unequivocally that “the Johore Government does not claim ownership of Pedra Branca” 16. This
letter will be the subject of Professor Pellet’s subsequent presentation.
In8. 1957, the Federation of Malaya became an independent nation. In 1958, the
Singapore Government transferred control of the Royal Malayan Navy to the Federation of Malaya.
After the transfer, the Royal Malayan Navy conti nued to provide for the joint naval defence of
Singapore and the Federation and its vessels con tinued to be based in Singapore until 1997.
Singapore also continued to maintain its own na val volunteer reserve, while Britain continued to
base its Pacific Fleet in Singapore until the 1970s 1.
12MM, Ann. 89.
13MM, Ann. 12.
14
RS, pp. 175-176, para. 5.11.
15
MS, Ann. 91.
16RS, Ann. 96.
17RS, pp. 177-180, paras. 5.11-5.13; CMM, p. 249, para. 536. - 31 -
In29. 1958, the Singapore Master Attendant, who was the head of the Singapore Marine
Department, stated in a memorandum discussing proposals to amend the Light Dues Ordinance that
Pedra Branca was Singapore territory 18.
In30. 1962, the Federation of Malaya published two official maps which attributed Pedra
19
Branca to Singapore . This will be discussed by Ms Malintoppi on Friday.
In1. 1963, Singapore, together with two other British territories, merged with the
Federation of Malaya to form the Federation of Malaysia. In 1965, Singapore left the Federation.
20
In the same year, Malaysia published another official map attributing Pedra Branca to Singapore .
In32. 1966, the Director of the Singapore Govern ment’s Marine Depa rtment published a
21
book on the history of the Horsburgh lighthouse entitled “First Pharos of the Eastern Sea” . In the
following year, the Marine Department stated in an official memorandum to the Singapore Ministry
of Foreign Affairs that the waters within 3m iles of Pedra Branca may be considered Singapore
22
territorial waters .
In33. 1968, Malaysia protested against the flying of the Singapore flag on Pulau Pisang.
Singapore promptly removed the flag from Pulau Pi sang. In contrast, Malaysia did not protest
23
against the flying of the Singapore flag on Pedra Branca .
In34. 1969, Malaysia extended her territorial sea from 3miles to 12miles 24. In that same
25
year, Malaysia and Indonesia signed a continental shelf boundary treaty . Significantly, Malaysia
did not use Pedra Branca as a ba se point for the purpose of this treaty. On the contrary, the
boundary line in this treaty carefully avoided any intrusion into Pedra Branca’s territorial waters 26.
1RS, Ann. 24.
1CMS, maps 26 and 27.
2CMS, map 28.
21
MM, Ann. 111.
22
CMS, Ann. 42.
23
MS, p. 109, para. 6.53.
2MM, p. 123, para. 279.
2MM, Ann. 16.
26
CMS, p. 173, paras. 6.93-6.94. - 32 -
27
In35. 1970, Malaysia and Indonesia conclude d a territorial sea boundary treaty . This
treaty covered only the Strait of Malacca. Ther e was no attempt by Malaysia and Indonesia to
agree on a territorial sea boundary in the vicinity of Pedra Branca. In 1973, Singapore and
28
Indonesia concluded a territorial sea boundary treaty . This partial delimitation did not concern
Pedra Branca.
In36. 1974, the Singapore Marine Department stated in official internal correspondence that
29
Pedra Branca was Singapore territory and was entitled to a territorial sea .
37. In that same year, Malaysia once again published an official map attributing Pedra
Branca to Singapore 30.
In38. 1975, there were three significant events. Firstly, the last British naval units withdrew
from Singapore in September and, in the same month, the Singapore navy formally established a
patrol sector in the vicinity of Pedra Branca 31. Secondly, in a briefing Note prepared for the
Singapore Minister of State for Communications, the Hydrographer of the Port of Singapore
Authority stated that Pedra Branca was entitled to it s own territorial waters. He also noted that
“territorial waters in its vicinity has not ye t been agreed upon between Indonesia, Malaysia and
32
Singapore” . Thirdly, Malaysia, on its part, published yet another official map attributing Pedra
Branca to Singapore 33.
In39. 1978, two Malaysian surveyors attempted to land on Pedra Branca. They left the
34
island when directed by the lighthouse keeper to do so . The Malaysian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs took this matter up in passing with th e Singapore High Commission to Malaysia at a
meeting in April1978. At that meeting, the Ma laysian official also claimed that Pedra Branca
2MM, Ann. 17.
2MM, Ann. 18.
29
RS, Ann. 44.
30
CMS, map 30.
31
MS, pp. 115-116, para. 6.70.
3RS, Ann. 46.
3MM, map 41.
34
MS, p. 112, para. 6.63. - 33 -
belonged to Malaysia. The Singapore official at the meeting responded unequivocally that Pedra
35
Branca belonged to Singapore .
Emergence of Malaysia’s claim
40. Mr.President and Members of the Court, as the foregoing narrative shows, from 1847
right up till 1978 ⎯ a period of more than 130 years ⎯ the conduct of the Parties was remarkably
consistent. Singapore consistently performed various acts of State authority in relation to Pedra
Branca, and Singapore officials consistently expressed the view, on many occasions, that Pedra
Branca was under Singapore’s sovereignty. Malays ian officials were, on the other hand, equally
consistent in acknowledging and r ecognizing Singapore’s title to Pedra Branca. It was not until
1978 that we begin to see Malaysia taking the first tentative steps towards making a claim to Pedra
Branca. And it was only in 1979 that Malaysia ma de a formal claim to the island through the
publication of its map entitled Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia 3.
41. On the day the map was published, the Singapore High Commissioner to Malaysia was
summoned to meet with a senior official of the Mi nistry of Foreign Affairs at Kuala Lumpur. At
that meeting, the Malaysian official read out a typewritten official statement concerning the
publication of the 1979 map. He did not extend a copy of the statement to the Singapore High
Commissioner. He did not even provide the High Commissioner with a copy of the 1979 map.
Instead, the High Commissioner was told to buy his own copy of the map from the Map Sales
Office. Nor did the Malaysian official come straig ht to the point about Pedra Branca. It was only
after he had put aside his typewritten statemen t and answered a few questions from the High
Commissioner that he admitted that, in the case of Singapore, Pedra Branca was affected by the
map 37.
42. Singapore was, of course, quite surprised by Malaysia’s attempt to claim Pedra Branca,
given Singapore’s long-standing, unopposed title, Johor’s unconditional disclaimer of title in 1953
and Malaysia’s repeated publication of official maps attributing Pedra Branca to Singapore.
Singapore studied the Malaysian map carefully. As it turned out, Malaysia had also made
3RS, pp. 154-155, para. 4.146; RS, Ann. 51.
36
MM, map 44.
3MS, pp. 22-24, para. 4.5 - 34 -
unjustified territorial sea claims against Singapore at the two ends of the Johor Strait. These claims
were marked as point 20 and point 23 in the extract of the 1979 map now shown on screen. These
two points created sharp slivers cutting into Singapore’s territorial sea at the eastern and western
ends of the Johor Strait, departing markedly fro m the general direction of the agreed boundary
between the two countries in the Johor Strait. In February 1980, Singapore issued a diplomatic
Note which protested against not only Malaysia’s claim to Pedra Branca, but also Malaysia’s claim
38
in relation to point 20 and point 23 . This diplomatic Note of protest may be found at tab 6 in the
judges’ folder.
43. Three months later, in May 1980, there was a meeting between the Prime Ministers of
Malaysia and Singapore. At the end of the mee ting, the two Prime Ministers held a joint press
conference. At the press conference, the Malaysian Prime Minister answered some questions
concerning Malaysia’s claim to Pedra Branca. An audio recording of the Malaysian Prime
Minister’s answer, in the form of a compact disc, has been included in the back pocket of
Singapore’s Reply. With the Court’s permission, I would like to play this three-and-half-minute
recording for the Court. The transcript of the recording can be found at tab7 in the judges’
39
folder . The person answering the question in the recording is the Malaysian Prime Minister.
[RecorS dtnrgts]
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, my name is McHill with the Asian Wall Street Journal.
A: Which one? Are you referring to the Singapore Prime Minister?
Q: I will take either one with this question. (Laughter in background) One of the
things which is obviously not mentioned in the joint statement is the current
discussions about the possession of a series of islands that Malaysia has claimed on a
recently produced map. I was wondering if there was any discussion of that between
you two and if so, what was the import of that discussion?
A: Well, as we have explained . . . I thi nk . . . when the map was published . . . and I
think this is normal practice in the countri es publishing the maps . . . and this does not
mean to say that countries affected or c ountries which have got claims on the islands
or areas which are included in the map published by Malaysia . . . (pause) . . . should
not bring any to the attention of Malaysia. But we have always taken the stand...
and, of course, this is uni lateral action on the part of Malaysia in publishing the map
and you don’t solve problems and claim. .. and take possession of islands, areas
38
MS, Ann. 144.
39
RS, Ann. 54. - 35 -
which are included in the map when other countries say that they equally have a claim
to the area.
As regards Singapore, I think this is especially in connection with the Batu
Puteh . . . (pause) . . . Pulau Batu Puteh . . . Branca . . . (pause)... Pedra Branca, on
which there is the lighthouse by the name of Horsburgh, and I have mentioned this to
Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, saying that we have re ceived your note with regard to the island
and let’s talk. And this is the question of producing . . . I think Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is
aware . . . this is a question of going back into whatever documents there are, to prove
who, to which nation, to which country th is island really belong in the light of
whatever documents may be available. And I think Mr. Lee Kuan Yew says...
(pause) . . . he has got . . . (pause) . . . some documents. We are also looking into the
question because this is not very clear to us with regard to this island and we include
that in the... (sudden pause)... If there are any evidences to that effect, we are
willing and prepared to settle this thing peacefully, amicably.
Q: It has been claimed in some circles that the purpose of claiming the Horsburgh
Lighthouse was to give you a bargaining card to allow you to throw that away and
wind up with possession of the other group of isla nds. Is this part of the Malaysian
strategy?
A: We don’t work that way. (Laughter in background)
Q: Mr. Prime Minister, everybody works that way.
A: (Pause) . . . I . . . I don’t work that way. (Laughter in background)
Q: O.K.
[Recording ends]
44. As we will have heard, at the end of his long answer, the Malaysian Prime Minister said:
“We are also looking into the question because this is not very clear to us with regard to this
island . . .” He then started to explain why Malaysia included Pedra Branca in the map, but stopped
himself abruptly in mid-sentence. Regardless of what it was that he stopped himself from saying, it
is clear that the Malaysian Prime Minister had publicly admitted that the question of sovereignty
40
over Pedra Branca was “not very clear” to Malaysia . Coming so soon after the publication of the
1979 map and Singapore’s protest, a statement of this nature is surely significant.
45. The position in 1980 was therefore as follows. Malaysia had staked a very late claim to
Pedra Branca in the face of more than 130year s of Singapore sovereignty over the island, which
Malaysia had never previously opposed but had, on the contrary, recognized on several occasions.
And even at that late hour, the Malaysian Government was still unsure of its claim.
40
RS, pp. 183-184, para. 5.21; RS Ann. 54. - 36 -
46. Mr.President and Members of the Court, the rest, as they say, is history. In
December1981, the Prime Ministers of the two countries agreed that the dispute should be
resolved through consultations on the basis of a formal exchange of documents. After repeated
reminders from Singapore, the exchange finally took place in 1992. This was followed by bilateral
consultations between officials in 1993 and 1994. When it became clear that the dispute could not
be resolved through consultations, Singapore proposed that the dispute be submitted to the
International Court of Justice, and Malaysia ag reed. The Parties began negotiating the Special
Agreement, the text of which was finalized by 1998. The Special Agreement was signed in 2003
41
and notified to this Court later that year.
47. That concludes my presentation. I would like to thank you for your patience and
attention. Mr. President, unless you find it convenient to take a break at this point, may I ask you
to call upon Mr. Chan to continue with Singapore’s presentation. Thank you.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I th ank you, Mr. Chao. Indeed, this is a
convenient time to break for ten minutes. Upon resuming, we will listen to Mr. Chan.
The Court adjourned from 11.35 to 11.50 a.m.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Please be seated. I now call on Mr. Chan. You
have the floor.
CMHr. N:
H ISTORICAL SETTING
Introduction
1. Mr. President and Members of the Court, fo r the rest of this morning, Professor Pellet and
I will address Malaysia’s claim that Johor had an original title to Pedra Branca. The purpose of my
presentation is to describe the historical setting and to explain why the historical context, when
properly understood, in no way supports Malaysia’s claim. Professor Pellet will also, inter alia,
41
MS, pp. 25-26, paras. 4.8-4.10. - 37 -
examine the documents that Malaysia has produced and show that none of them supports
Malaysia’s claim.
2. I wish to begin by clarifying the name “Johor” which has been used extensively by the
Parties in their pleadings. I would like to point ou t that in the period relevant to Malaysia’s claim,
there were two different political entities in the re gion that were called “Johor”. The historian,
Carl Trocki, has explained the difference in his book entitled Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs
and the Development of Johor and Singapore. In writing this book, Trocki was given full access to
42
the Johor royal archives . Malaysia accepts Professor Trocki’s study as an authoritative work on
the history of Johor 4. An extract from this book is in the judg es’ folder at tab 8. In this extract,
Professor Trocki writes:
“The term ‘Johor’ is used by historians to refer to two different states ⎯ an old
one and a new one. Old Johor was the maritime Malay empire that succeeded
Malacca. It began in 1512 when the defeated Sultan of Malacca established a capital
on the Johor River, and gradually disintegrated in the eighteenth century... Modern
Johor occupies the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula and is one of the eleven states
44
of the Federation of Malaysia. It dates from the mid-nineteenth century... ”
(Emphasis added.)
3. It is important to bear in mind, as noted by ProfessorTrocki, that “Old Johor” began in
1512 and disintegrated in the eighteenth century, and “modern Johor” dates from the
mid-nineteenth century. Old Johor has been referred to by other names, such as,
“Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate”, “Riau-Johor”, “Sultanate of Johor” and “Kingdom of Johor”.
Singapore’s written pleadings refer to old Johor as the “Johor-Riau-Lingga Sultanate”, but for the
purpose of my presentation, I will simply use the term old Johor or the Johor Sultanate. I will also
refer to the later entity as modern Johor ― or new Johor ― or the State of Johor. However,
Malaysia has in her pleadings referred to old Johor and new Johor by the same name, namely,
“Sultanate of Johor”.
42
See Trocki C., Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore
1784-1885 (1979), pp. xiv, 242-243.
43
See RM, p. 35, note 146.
4Trocki C., supra note 1, p. 1. - 38 -
Part I. Overview of Malaysia’s claim to original title over Pedra Branca
4. Allow me to begin by giving an overvie w of Malaysia’s claim to Pedra Branca.
Malaysia’s claim is based on two main propositions. The first is that Pedra Branca belonged to old
Johor. The second is that Pedra Branca became part of new Johor. The first proposition is not
supported by any evidence. The second proposition is therefore irrelevant, but nevertheless I will
show that Pedra Branca did not become part of new Johor by transmission or in any other manner.
5. Malaysia has attempted to establish the first proposition by relying on geography, that is to
say, location and proximity. She argues that Pedra Branca is situated in “the centre of the region
45
that constituted the Sultanate of Johor” and has pointed out that it is possible to see Pedra Branca
46
from the Johor coast . Except for these vague assertions, she has produced no evidence whatever
that the Johor Sultanate ever claimed or exercised any acts of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
6. Malaysia has produced a few historical documents as evidence. Professor Pellet will show
later that they are not relevant, and that whatever indirect inferences Malaysia attempts to draw
from these documents are totally misconceived. Ma laysia also relies on unspecified private acts of
fishing and piracy in the area near Pedra Br anca, at unknown times, by people who were not
necessarily subjects of Johor. ProfessorPellet will also explain later that these activities cannot
constitute evidence of title.
7. Pedra Branca was a barren, rocky and uninh abited island. The fact is, until the British
took possession of Pedra Branca to build Horsburgh lighthouse, no one else, including local rulers,
had any interest in claiming it as territory. It is therefore not surprising that, across the period
spanning more than 300 years from 1512, there is not a shred of evidence that the Johor Sultanate
had claimed ownership of the island or that it had been attributed to the Sultanate. In the end,
Malaysia is reduced to asserting that “fro m time immemorial Pedra Branca was under the
sovereignty of the Sultanate of Johor” 47 and that “Johor held sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh in
48
the context of its title to a wider range of islands” . These vague and barren assertions only serve
to show that Malaysia really has no evidence that Pedra Branca was ever part of the Sultanate.
45CMM, p. 11, para. 19.
46
RM, p. 198, para. 420.
47CMM, p.13, para. 21.
48MM, p.37, para. 75. - 39 -
8. Malaysia has, furthermore, glossed over two inconvenient facts which undermine her
claim to an original title. The first fact is that the Sultanate’s territorial extent was largely unstable
and uncertain during the Sultanate’s existence. Sir Richard Winstedt, an acknowledged expert on
the history of Johor, has summarized this point in his book A History of Johore in these words:
“From her foundation down to the XIXth century the kingdom of Johor was in a precarious
49
state.”
Contrary to this historical fact, Malaysia ha s attempted to portray the Johor Sultanate as a
stable kingdom whose territorial extent remained the same throughout all phases of its history.
9. The second fact that Malaysia has glossed over is that a traditional Malay sultanate, such
as old Johor, had a different conception of sovereignty from that of a modern territorial State. In a
Malay sultanate, sovereignty was based on the allegiance of subjects and not on the control of land.
It was only at the end of the nineteenth century th at this concept began to evolve into the modern
concept of territorial sovereignty. For this r eason, old Johor did not and could not have clear
boundaries. This fact presents a very serious obst acle in the way of Malaysia’s attempt to prove
that Pedra Branca was part of old Johor. Malaysia has not surmounted it.
Part II. History of the Johor Sultanate 1512-1824
10. Mr. President and Members of the Court, allow me now to provide a brief account of the
relevant historical setting and show how the firs t inconvenient fact undermines Malaysia’s first
proposition that Pedra Branca was part of old Johor. As Singapore has given a full account of the
50
history of the Johor Sultanate in her written pleadings , I will only focus on the key facts relevant
to Malaysia’s claim.
11. The Johor Sultanate began in 1512 with the fall of the Malacca Sultanate to the
Portuguese. The defeated Sultan, MahmudI, fled from Malacca and established a new capital
along the Johor River, from which the sultanate took its name. The capital of the sultanate would
later shift to Riau and then finally to Lingga, thus giving rise to the name “Johor-Riau-Lingga
Sultanate”.
49
Winstedt R. O., A History of Johore (1932, reprinted 1992), p. 1.
5See CMS, App. A. - 40 -
The first period: 1512 to 1641
12. For the purpose of my presentation, the hist ory of the Johor Sultanate can be divided,
roughly, into four periods. The first period, is from 1512 to 1641. During this period old Johor
was constantly harried by the Portuguese and th e Kingdom of Aceh (a Malay kingdom in northern
51
Sumatra) . Malaysia’s history consultant, Professor Andaya, recorded that Johor’s capital was
sacked 15 times between 1518 and 1623 52. There is no evidence that the Sultanate claimed or
exercised authority over Pedra Branca during the first period.
The second period: 1641 to 1699
13. The second period, from 1641 to 1699, began wh en, in 1641, the Dutch, in alliance with
Johor, drove the Portuguese out of Malacca. This alliance changed its political fortunes and this
period was one when the power and influence of Johor was at its height. Yet, there is also no
evidence that the Sultanate claimed or exerci sed any authority over Pedra Branca during this
second period. In any event, the Sultanate was soon weakened by internal conflicts and began to
decline rapidly during the final years of the re ign of SultanMahmudII (1685-1699). Concerning
these years, Professor Andaya has written: “In just two years [1697 to 1699] Johor had changed
from the acknowledged leading entrepot in the Malay world to a small backwater port.” 53
The third period: 1699 to 1784
14. In 1699 SultanMahmudII was assassinated by his leading nobles. This marked the
beginning of the third period, lasting from 1699 to 1784. The death of Sultan Mahmud II without
an heir led to a period of internal strife and instability, during which many vassals broke away from
the Johor Sultanate. Stability within the Sultanate was only regained more than 20years later,
when it began to prosper again. However, the pr osperity was short-lived. By 1784, the Sultan,
54
having been defeated by the Dutch, had to si gn a treaty making himself a vassal of the Dutch .
Concerning this treaty, Winstedt has written in his book A History of Johore : “The Sultan and
chiefs acknowledged that the kingdom and port had become by right of war the property of the
51CMS, p. 244, App. A, para. 3.
52
See Andaya L., The Kingdom of Johor, 1641-1728 (1975), p. 23.
53Ibid., p. 184.
54Winstedt R. O., supra note 8, p. 74. - 41 -
55
Dutch, which the Malays would hold as a fief under certain conditions.”
(Emphasis in original.)
Winstedt also wrote: “Naturally during all these years the old mainland kingdom of Johor had sunk
into insignificance.” 56
There is also no evidence that the Sultanate claimed or exercised sovereignty over Pedra
Branca during this third period.
The fourth period: 1784 to 1824
15. The 1784 Treaty marked the beginning of the fourth and final period in the history of the
Johor Sultanate. In 1787, the Sultan drove the Dutc h out of his capital, Riau, but he himself was
driven out later that year. He was not allowed to return to Riau until 1795. Commenting on this
period, Andaya wrote: “The catastrophic events of these years, when the Malay ruler exercised
little authority and the economy was moribund, ended any hopes that Riau might once again
assume its former position in the Malay world.” 57 Singapore has referred to similar opinions of
58
other reputable historians in her written pleadings . Even the official 1949 Annual Report
published by the Government of the State of Johor noted that by the beginning of the nineteenth
59
century “the old empire was in a state of dissolution” . This was the political condition of the
Sultanate in 1819 when the British arrived in Singa pore, and on the eve of the signing of the
Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824.
Malaysia’s treatment of the historical setting
16. Mr.President and Members of the Court, allow me now to highlight Malaysia’s
treatment of the historical setting in her written pleadings.
17. First, Malaysia’s historical account has simply ignored the political condition of the
Johor Sultanate during the greater part of the 300 years of its existence. Malaysia has focused on
the second period from 1641 to 1699 and has highlighted two Dutch internal letters 60 from that
55Ibid.
56
Winstedt R. O., supra note 8, p. 75.
57
Andaya B. W. and Andaya L., A History of Malaysia (2nd ed., 2001), p. 109.
58See Turnbull C. M., A History of Singapore, 1819-1975 (1977), p. 9, reproduced at MS, p. 15, para. 3.3.
59See State of Johore Annual Report for 1949 (written by DatoWanIdrisbinIbrahim, Ag. MentriBesar [i.e.,
Chief Minister], Johore, printed by the Government Printing Department, Johore), p. 57. (CMS, Vol. 3, Ann. 32.)
60MM, pp. 38-39, paras. 78-79. - 42 -
period to show the extent of the Sultanate in the seventeenth century. From these two letters,
Malaysia takes a big leap in logic by asserting that “[t]he general extent of the Sultanate of Johor
was much the same at the beginning of the nineteenth century” 61. These two letters were not
62
concerned with territory but with trade . Hence, they do not prove the territorial extent of the
Sultanate in the seventeenth century, much less at the beginning of the nineteenth century.
18. Malaysia has ignored the first and third periods and most of the fourth period of the
history of the Sultanate. She has ignored the last 150 years of the Sultanate’s history leading to its
dissolution. She has wrongly portrayed the Sulta nate as powerful and unchanging throughout its
existence when the historical evidence shows the contrary.
19. Secondly, Malaysia’s exorbitant conclusion from two irrelevant events in the seventeenth
century shows the profound weakness in her claim that the Johor Sultanate ever had an original title
to Pedra Branca. By the time she filed her Count er-Memorial, Malaysia realized she was staring
into an evidentiary void, and this caused her to advance an argument that Pedra Branca was part of
the Sultanate from time immemorial 63. This is no more than clutching at straws. The burden
remains at all times on Malaysia to produce specific proof that old Johor had sovereignty over
Pedra Branca and carried out acts of a sovereign nature on or over the island. Malaysia has
produced no evidence whatever in this regard. Mr. President and Members of the Court, Malaysia
cannot avoid this burden of proof by simply asserting immemorial possession.
Part III. Malaysia’s failure to consider the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty
20. Allow me now to elaborate on the second inconvenient fact that Malaysia has glossed
over, namely the traditional Malay concept of sove reignty. This concept undermines Malaysia’s
claim to an original title. It is based mainly on control over people , and not control over territory.
Traditional Malay sovereignty is people-centric and not territory-centric. This is authoritatively
stated by ProfessorAnthonyMilner of the Aust ralian National University in his book entitled
Kerajaan: Malay Political Culture on the Eve of Colonial Rule. I will read out an extract from the
book, which I have included in the judges’ folder at tab 10:
6MM, p. 39, para. 80.
62
See CMS, p. 47, para. 4.18.
6CMM, pp. 12-13, para. 21. - 43 -
“ Just as the Malay state lacked governmental or legal structures, so it differed
from Western states in its geographical definition. Territorial borders were often
unknown: a Sultan of Trengganu, for instance, admitted to an English enquirer in
1875 that it was not known ‘where the Trengganu boundary ran’. The actual location
of the Malay state, in fact, appears to have been a matter of relatively little
64
importance.” (Emphasis in original.)
21. Similarly, Professor Nicholas Tarling, an expert on south-east Asian history, has also
written:
“The idea that the ambit of a state was geographically fixed was rarely accepted.
What counted in Southeast Asia, sparse in population, was allegiance. Whom, rather
than what, did the state comprise? . . . What concerned a ruler was the people not the
65
place.” (Emphasis added.)
Singapore has, in her Counter-Memorial, referred to these quotations and similar views of other
66
experts on Malay history and political culture . They are unanimous on this point.
22. Malaysia is fully aware of this concept. She relied on it in the Sipadan/Ligitan case.
There, she filed a study by ProfessorVincent Houben on the Malay sultana te of Bulungan, in
which he quoted Milner’s passage with approval. After Singapore had pointed this out in her
Counter-Memorial 67, Malaysia filed a new opinion from Professor Houben to make, basically, two
points:
⎯ first, Malay sultanates did exercise control over territory ⎯ but Singapore has never denied this
and has in fact said so in her pleadings, and
⎯ secondly, Bulungan could not be equated with old Johor in terms of power and territorial
reach 68⎯ but Singapore has never asserted that it could be.
More importantly, ProfessorHouben did not disp ute that the traditional Malay concept of
69
sovereignty was people-centric and not territory-centric .
23. In her Reply, Malaysia has also put in a report by ProfessorAndaya 70, who, of course,
71
accepts the nature of the traditional Malay sovereignty . In fact, ProfessorAndaya has also
written in 2001 as follows:
64Milner, A. C., Kerajaan: Malay Political Culture on the Eve of Colonial Rule (1982), p. 8.
65Tarling N., Nation and States in Southeast Asia (1998), p. 47.
66
CMS, pp. 18-21, paras. 3.4-3.8.
67
CMS, p. 20, para. 3.6.
68RM, p. 222-223 ; App. II, paras. 7-8.
69RM, p. 224; App. II, para. 13.
70RM, App. I. - 44 -
“ While Malays conceived of a ruler’s aut hority in terms of his control over
people and resources, the British related it to control over land. As Malay rulers were
progressively drawn under the British umbrella, there was normally a period of
sometimes painful negotiation by which colonial administra72rs established the
territorial boundaries between neighbouring states.” (Emphasis added,)
It was only in the late nineteenth century when the Malay States progressively came under British
administration that the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty gradually evolved into the modern
concept of territorial sovereignty.
Implications of the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty for Malaysia’s case
24. Mr.President and Members of the Court, allow me to make clear that it is not
Singapore’s case that the traditional Malay concept of sovereignty means that a Malay sultanate
had no territory. What it means is that the only reliable way to determine whether a particular
territory belonged to a ruler is to find out whether the inhabitants pledged allegiance to that ruler.
In her Counter-Memorial, Singapore has referred to two such instances directly applicable to Johor.
The first is a letter written to the Government of India by the Resident of Singapore,
JohnCrawfurd, regarding the claim of the Te menggong, the local ruler of mainland Johor, to
certain islands. Even though other rulers di d not dispute the Temenggong’s claim, Crawfurd
explained that the claim was “more satisfactorily ascertained by the voluntary and cheerful
73
allegiance yielded to him by the inhabitants” . In 1849, a British official called Thomson ⎯ the
same Thomson who supervised the construction of Horsburgh lighthouse ⎯ undertook a survey of
the east coast of Pahang, Johor and adjacent islands. He found that the ownership of some of these
islands was uncertain, and that he was only able to determine whether they belonged to Pahang or
74
Johor by asking the inhabitants whom they owed allegiance to .
25. Secondly, the concept also means that it was difficult to determine with accuracy the
territorial extent of the Johor Sultanate at any time. In this connection, I wish to point out that
during the drafting of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, the negotiators decided to replace the phrase “any of
71
RM, pp. 209 – 210; App. I, paras. B2 – B6. See also Andaya L., Writing a History of Brunei in Barrington B.
(ed.), Empires, Imperialism and Southeast Asia: E ssays in Honour of Nicholas Tarling (1997), p. 201, reproduced at
CMS p. 18, para 3.4.
72
Andaya B. W. & Andaya L., supra note 16, p. 204.
73
CMS, p. 22, para. 3.9 (a).
74CMS, p. 22, para. 3.9 (b). - 45 -
the remaining of the islands belonging to the ancient kingdom of Johor” with the phrase “any of the
75
other islands South of the Straights of Singapore” . The reason for the change was that the
negotiators agreed that: “no one could claim to be able to define the limits of the ancient Sultanate
76
of Johore with any degree of certainty” .
26. This would certainly be the case with rega rd to barren, isolated and uninhabited islands,
such as Pedra Branca. Therefore, unless Malaysia can produce clear evidence of a direct claim to
or the actual exercise of sovereign authority over Pedra Branca, any attempt to argue that the island
belonged to old Johor is totally devoid of merit. It is not enough for Malaysia to plead geography
or immemorial possession to prove original title. Malaysia must produce concrete evidence of
specific acts of sovereign authority by old Johor on or over Pedra Branca. Malaysia has provided
no such evidence. In contrast, Singapore has adduced sufficient evidence to show that no one,
including the Malay rulers, thought that Pedra Branca belonged to old Johor.
27. To conclude my submission on Malaysia’s first proposition, Malaysia has not proved,
nor is there any evidence that Pedra Branca ever belonged to old Johor.
Part IV. The effect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824
28. Let me now turn to Malaysia’s second proposition ⎯ that Pedra Branca became part of
new Johor. Malaysia tries to prove this proposition by arguing that the effect of the Anglo-Dutch
Treaty was to split the Johor Sultanate into two parts and to place Pedra Branca in the northern part
within the British sphere of influence, thus allocating it to new Johor. This is a misinterpretation of
the Treaty.
Origins and context of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824
29. To make good Singapore’s point, it is necessary to discuss the origins of the
Anglo-Dutch Treaty. The origins can be traced back to two events ⎯ the French conquest of the
Netherlands in 1795, and the death of Sultan Ma hmudIII of Johor in 1812, leaving a succession
dispute between his two sons, Hussein and Abdul Rahman. In 1795, Britain took control of the
75
Irwin G., Nineteenth Century Borneo: A Study in Diplomatic Rivalr(1955), p. 66. (CMS, Vol.3, Ann.36,
p. 344).
7Ibid., p. 67, citing a note from Major Elout, adviser to the Dutch Colonial Minister. - 46 -
Dutch colonial possessions in the east to deny th em to the French. When war ended in 1814,
Britain agreed to return these possessions to the Dutch. A number of disputes arose between the
British and the Dutch regarding the British occ upation of these possessions. These disputes led to
the negotiations which culminated in the signing of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty.
30. In 1818, the Dutch resumed control of Malacca and Riau, the two most important ports in
the region. Britain needed to establish another trading station along the Straits of Malacca and
Singapore. The British official assigned to do this, SirThomasRaffles, landed in Singapore in
January 1819. He met the local chief, called th e “Temenggong”, who explained that, as an official
of the Johor Sultanate, he needed his Sultan’s approval for Raffles to establish a trading station.
But as the Sultan, Abdul Rahman, was under Dutch control, Raffles could not get his consent.
However, Raffles knew that the Johor throne was di sputed by his elder brother, Hussein. Raffles
enticed Hussein to come to Singapore with a promise to install him as Sultan. When Hussein
arrived in Singapore in February 1819, Raffles installed him as Sultan of Johor. On the same day,
Hussein signed an agreement to allow Britain to set up a trading station in Singapore.
31. Raffles’s action resulted in the Johor Sulta nate having two nominal rulers, one living in
Lingga under Dutch protection, a nd the other living in Singapore under British protection. The
Dutch disputed the legitimacy of the British presence in Singapore. This dispute was also resolved
by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty, with the Dutch withdrawing their objections.
32. The Treaty settled the parties’ territorial di sputes by providing for a mutual exchange of
possessions north and south of the Straits of Ma lacca and Singapore. This resulted in British
possessions being concentrated to the north of th e Straits, and the Dutch possessions concentrated
to the south. The Treaty also prohibited the British from establishing themselves south of the
Straits and the Dutch from establishing themselves on the Malay Peninsula. This was done to
avoid future commercial conflicts between their respective subjects. These provisions effectively
divided the region into two spheres of influence. - 47 -
Malaysia’s arguments concerning the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824
33. I will now address Malaysia’s arguments on the effect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. On
77
screen now is Insert 6 of Malaysia’s Memorial . Malaysia proceeds by imagining that the Treaty
drew “a line of demarcation”— these are Malaysia’s words— in the Singapore Strait from
“Carimon... to Bintan” and placed Pedra Branca north of this line in the British sphere of
influence 78. When this line is traced along the areas imaginatively shaded by Malaysia, you will
see that it conveniently places Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge north of the line.
That is Malaysia’s argument. With respect, all th at Malaysia has done is to imagine a non-existent
line in order to show an imaginary transmission of an imaginary original title.
34. Mr. President and Members of the Court, if there were such a demarcation line running
through the Singapore Strait, the line would have run north, as shown on screen, instead of south of
Pedra Branca for two reasons: first, Pedra Branca where it lies is not associated with either Johor
or Bintan, and second, the island is nearer to the coast of Bintan than to the coast of Johor. That
would have been the logical and natural way to draw the line. This shows the artificial and
self-serving nature of Malaysia’s imaginary line. No less an authority than Winstedt has written
that the Anglo-Dutch Treaty “allotted to Great Br itain the Malay peninsula and to Holland all the
79
islands lying to starboard of East Indiamen voyaging to China . . .” . The expression “starboard”
means “the right-hand side”. As Pedra Branca, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are starboard of
vessels sailing towards China, they all lie south, rather than north, of Malaysia’s imaginary line.
35. The fact is that the Anglo-Dutch Treaty did not contemplate any demarcation line. This
is clear from the negotiating history of the Treaty. An earlier draft of the Treaty inserted an article
providing for a demarcation line. But this artic le was omitted when the text of the Treaty was
80
finalized .
36. The text of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty also confirms that there is no line. On screen now
81
are the texts of Articles X and XII of the Treaty . Article X excludes the Dutch from “any part of
77
MM, p. 23, Insert 6.
78
CMM, p. 22, para. 35.
79Winstedt R.O., Malaya and Its History (4th ed., 1956), pp. 62.
80Irwin G., supra note 34, pp. 62–63.
81Treaty between His Britanick Majesty and the King of the Netherlands, Respecting Territory and Commerce in
the East Indies, dated 17 Mar 1824, Arts. X and XII (MM, Vol. 2, Ann. 5). - 48 -
the Peninsula of Malacca”, that is the Malay Peninsula, while Article XII excludes the British from
“any of the islands South of the Straights of Singapore”. There is no provision excluding either
State from any part of the straits or any islands within the Strait. In other words, the Treaty did not
divide up the Strait between the two Powers. The width of the entire Strait was left open for access
by both States, as was intended.
37. The understanding of the Dutch is very clear. So is that of the British, as I will explain
shortly. In an internal Note of the Dutch Ministry of Colonies dated 15October 1858, it was
explained that: “The definitive article 12 evidently reflects this concern, as this is adopted into the
82
treaty, with reference to the Straits of Singapore as the dividing line. ” (Emphasis added.) This
Note expressly describes the whole of the Straits of Singapore as the dividing line.
38. The disposition of the islets lying within the Straits was not specifically addressed by the
Treaty, but was worked out subsequently over the ye ars as a matter of State practice. This point is
clearly illustrated in the correspondence date d 1October 1824 and 4March 1825 between the
Resident of Singapore, John Crawfurd, and the Gove rnment of India where they both agreed that
the cession of all the islands within ten miles fro m the coast of Singapore did not breach the terms
83
of the Treaty . Copies of these two letters are found in the judges’ folder at tab 12. The Treaty
did not divide up the waters of the Straits of Ma lacca and Singapore. It was not until 1969 that the
maritime boundary was agreed between Malaysia a nd Indonesia in the Straits of Malacca, and not
until 1973 that a boundary in the Singapore Strait was agreed between Singapore and Indonesia.
39. In addition to using an artificial demarcation line to pr ove succession of title, Malaysia
has also misinterpreted the effect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty in the breaking up of the Johor
Sultanate. Malaysia’s Memorial describes the division of the Sultanate as follows:
“For the effect of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty was to split ‘the ancient kingdom of
Johore’ into two parts. One, the Sultanate of Johor, remained based in the southern
part of Malay Peninsula and came within th e British sphere. The other, the Sultanate
of Riau-Lingga, was 84thin the Dutch sphe re of influence and was to the south of
Singapore Strait.”
82
CMS, Vol. 2, Ann. 18.
83See letter from Crawfurd J. (Resident of Singapore)Swinton G. (Secretary to Government in India) dated
1October 1824, CMS, Vol. 2, Ann.4, and letter from Government of Indi a to Crawfurd J. dated 4March 1825, RM,
Vol. 2, Ann. 3.
84MM, p. 24, para. 51. - 49 -
In this passage, Malaysia claims that new Johor , and not Riau-Lingga, was the continuator of the
Johor Sultanate.
40. Singapore disagrees. Malaysia’s claim is contradicted by no less an authority than
Sir Richard Winstedt, who wrote in his book, Malaya and Its History:
“ To the Johore Sultanate was left only the Riau archipelago , while the two
greatest Malay chiefs of the broken empire were cut off at Pahang and Johore from
the overlord in the Riau area , and soon made themselves independent Sultans.” 85
(Emphasis added.)
Windstedt makes it clear that the Riau archipelago, that is, Riau-Lingga, was the continuator of the
Johor Sultanate, and not new Johor. Winstedt further explains that the Johor Sultanate was split
into three parts, not two. On the Malay Peninsula, two new States emerged ⎯ Pahang and new
Johor.
41. Malaysia hopes that, by presenting new J ohor as the continuator of old Johor, she can
avoid the burden of showing how old Johor’s alleged title to Pe dra Branca was transmitted to
Malaysia. Since new Johor was a breakaway fragment, and not the continuator of old Johor, it is
incumbent on Malaysia to produce clear evidence not only to show when and how title to Pedra
Branca first came to be vested in old Johor, but al so to show how the island came to be transmitted
to new Johor. It is respectfully submitted that Malaysia has failed to do both.
Sultan Abdul Rahman’s donation of 1825
42. Mr.President and Members of the Court, allow me now to direct your attention to
another piece of evidence that also undermines comple tely Malaysia’s theory of title transmission.
The practical effect of the Treaty on the Johor Su ltanate was that Sultan Abdul Rahman could no
longer exert any power over his mainland territory of Johor and Pahang. On the advice of the
Dutch, he accepted the political reality and, in 1825, formalized the division by donating mainland
86
Johor and Pahang to his brother, Sultan Hussein .
43. The terms of the donation are highly signi ficant. They specified how much and which
parts of the Sultanate’s territory were being dona ted by Sultan Abdul Rahman to SultanHussein.
8585
Winstedt R.O., supra note 38, pp. 62–63.
8CMS, p. 34, paras. 3.31-3.32. - 50 -
A copy of the translated text of the letter is in the judges’ folder at tab 13. I will read out the
extract shown on screen:
“Your Brother [Abdul Rahman] sends you [H ussein] this letter . . . to give you
notice of the conclusion of a treaty between His Majesty the King of the Netherlands
and His Majesty the King of Great Britain, whereby the division of the lands of Johor,
Pahang, Riau and Lingga is stipulated. Th e parts of the lands assigned to you, My
Brother, I donate to you with complete satisfaction, and sincere affection . . .
You are already familiar with the borders of our respective empires. But in
order to make the matter clear and transp arent, Your Brother wishes through this
friendly letter to provide a detailed description.
Your territory, thus, extends over J ohor and Pahang on the mainland or on the
Malay Peninsula. The territory of Your Brother [Abdul Rahman] extends out over the
islands of Lingga, Bintan, Galang, Bulan, Ka rimon and all other islands. Whatsoever
may be in the sea, this is the territory of Your Brother, and whatever is situated on the
mainland is yours. On the basis of these premises, I earnestly beseech you that your
notables, the Bendahara of Pahang and Temenggong... will not in the slightest
concern themselves with the islands that belong to your Brother.” 87
It is clear from this letter that “[w]hatsoever ma y be in the sea” is the territory of SultanAbdul
Rahman, and “whatever is situated on the mainla nd” is the territory of SultanHussein. The
donation letter shows that Malaysia’s theory that Pedra Branca was allocated to Sultan Hussein as a
result of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty is plainly wrong.
Part V. Developments in peninsular Johor after 1824
44. I come now to the last part of my pr esentation, which concerns political developments
after 1825 in peninsular Johor, which w as under the control of the Temenggong.
Professor Houben, in his report, has described th e Temenggong’s territorial domains as consisting
of “a ring of islands in the northwestern part of the Riau Archipelago and included Singapore and a
portion of the Johor coastline” 88. Professor Houben’s source of in formation is Carl Trocki’s 1975
doctoral thesis on the Temenggongs of Johor. Trocki’s thesis contains a map which shows the
domains of the Temenggongs between 1818 and 1823. This same map is reproduced in Trocki’s
book, The Prince of Pirates, which I referred to earlier . This map, now shown on screen, and
87
Letter from Sultan Abdul Rahman to Sultan Hussein dated 25 June 1825 (CMS, Vol. 2, Ann. 5).
8RM, pp. 227-228, App. II, para. 28. - 51 -
found in the judges’ folder at tab 14, shows that Pedra Branca did not fall within the Temenggong’s
89
domains .
45. Sultan Hussein, the nominal ruler of peninsular Johor, died in 1835, leaving a
ten-year-old son, Ali, as his heir. For political reasons, the British refused to recognize Ali as
Sultan. In 1855, the British brokered a settlement between Ali and the Temenggong, by which the
Temenggong recognized Ali as Sultan and agreed to pay him a certain sum of money, in return for
which Ali, as Sultan, signed a Treaty of Friendship and A lliance and ceded to the Temenggong
“full sovereignty and absolute property” over “the whole of the territory of Johore within the
Malayan Peninsula and its dependencies , with the exception of the Kassang territory” 90. This
Treaty marked the formal establishment of modern Johor or the State of Johor, which later became
part of Malaysia.
46. I ask the Court to note the terms of the tr eaty. Pedra Branca is certainly not “within the
Malayan Peninsula”. It is an isolated feature in the sea 7.7 nautical miles from the Johor mainland.
Furthermore, in 1855, Pedra Branca could not ha ve been a dependency of mainland Johor since
SultanAbdul Rahman had omitted all islands in the sea from his donation to SultanHussein. It
follows that whether or not Pedra Branca ever belonged to the Johor Sultanate, it never became part
of the State of Johor. What Hussein did not have, his heir, Ali, could not give ⎯ nemo dat quod
non habet.
47. Finally, let me complete this part of my presentation by referring to an incident that
occurred in 1861, sixyears after the signing of the 1855 Treaty. The Governor of Singapore had
sought an explanation from the Temenggong on a complaint made by some fishermen from
Singapore that they had been harassed by subjects of Johor while fishing near Pedra Branca. The
Governor requested that the offenders be puni shed. The Temenggong did not assert that he had
jurisdiction or authority over Pedra Branca or its wa ters. Instead, he replied to the Governor to
8See Trocki C., The Temenggongs of Johor , 1784-1885 (1975), Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, p.71;
Trocki C., Prince of Pirates: The Temenggongs and the Development of Johor and Singapore 1784-1885 (1979),
supra note 1, p. 46, reproduced as CMS, Insert 4.
9Treaty of Friendship and Alliance between His Highness Sultan Alli Iskander Shah bin Sultan Hussain
Mahomed Shah and His Highness Datu Tumungong Dai ng Ibrahim bin Abdul Rahman Sri Maharajah dated
10 March 1855, Art. I. (MM, Vol. 2, Ann. 7). - 52 -
explain that the incident happened somewhere else, within threemiles off Johor. This episode is
fully analysed in Appendix B in Singapore’s Reply.
Conclusion
48. Mr. President and Members of the Court, allow me now to end my presentation with the
following remarks. In a Malay sultanate ⎯ the Johor Sultanate included ⎯ sovereignty was based
on control of people rather than control of territo ry. This means that the Johor Sultanate did not
have clearly defined boundaries and it was difficult to determine with accuracy the territorial extent
of the Sultanate at any time. Since Malaysia has claimed an original title to Pedra Branca, she must
produce clear evidence of such a title. Malaysia has not done so. There is no evidence that
PedraBranca belonged to the Johor Sultanate at any point in its history and certainly not at the
beginning of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, for reasons I have mentioned, Pedra Branca did
not become part of new Johor after 1824, and therefore never became part of Malaysia.
I wish to thank you for your attention. Ma y I now invite you to call on ProfessorPellet to
continue with Singapore’s presentations in the first round.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank the Chief Justice of Singapore, Mr. Chan
for the statement and call on Professor Pellet.
M. PELLET : Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le président.
JOHOR N ’AVAIT AUCUN TITRE SUR PEDRA BRANCA ET N ’A PAS DONNÉ
SA PERMISSION À LA CONSTRUCTION DU PHARE
1. Monsieur le président, Messieurs les juges, on a coutume de dire que la preuve d’un fait
négatif, d’un «non-événement», est tellement difficile qu’elle en est «diabolique» ⎯ probatio
diabolica. C’est une double preuve négative qu’il m’appartient d’administrer ce matin ou cet
après-midi, puisque je suis appelé à montrer
⎯ d’une part, qu’au moment où la Grande-Breta gne a pris possession de Pedra Branca, Johor
n’avait aucun titre sur cette île ;
⎯ d’autre part, et ceci découle de cela, que le temenggong de Johor n’a pas donné à cette prise de
possession la moindre autorisation. - 53 -
2. Sans forfanterie, il me semble, Monsieur le président, que la mission est moins impossible
qu’il peut penser. En ce qui concerne le premie r de ces éléments, la Malaisie semble oublier que
«la charge de … prouver [les faits et allégations qui fondent les prétentions respectives des Parties]
incombe évidemment à la Partie qui les affirme ou les avance» ( Temple de Préah Vihéar
(Cambodge c.Thaïlande), fond, arrêt , C.I.J. Recueil 1962, p.16); c’est donc à la Malaisie de
montrer que Johor pouvait faire état d’un titre quelconque sur Pedra Branca, or elle n’a rien fait de
tel. Quant à la «permission» (et je mets le mo t entre guillemets), la construction malaisienne est
tellement artificielle qu’elle en est presque risibe. Monsieur le président, bien entendu, je ne
prononcerai pas toute cette longue plaidoirie aujour d’hui, je pense que comme demain nous serons
relativement larges en temps, je pourrais raisonnablement m’arrêter assez vite autour de 13 heures.
I.L’ABSENCE DE TITRE DE JOHOR SUR P EDRA B RANCA
3. Monsieur le président, nos amis malais iens ont une conception assez singulière de la
charge de la preuve en droit international ou général, et devant votre haute juridiction en
particulier… Je ne caricature pas en disant que, selon eux, c’est à Singapour seule qu’il
appartiendrait de démontrer que Johor n’avait pas de titre sur Pedra Branca au moment de la prise
de possession de l’île par la Gra nde-Bretagne. Pour leur part ⎯ et M. Chan Sek Keong y a insisté
91
tout à l’heure ⎯, ils se bornent à affirmer une «possession immémoriale» dont ils ne donnent
aucune preuve, ni même aucun commencement, aucune amorce de preuve. Ils n’invoquent aucun
texte, aucun acte, aucun comportement qui établirait un tel titre ou y ferait allusion; ils semblent
poser une sorte de présomption d’appartenance que ne conforment ni les règles du droit
international général applicables ni la conception de la souveraineté territoriale qui prévalait dans la
région à l’époque. Au demeurant, je le souligne d’emblée en paraphrasant la Cour dans l’affaire
des Minquiers et Ecréhous , «[c]e qui…a une importance décisive, ce ne sont pas des
présomptions indirectes déduites d’événements du moyen âge, mais les preuves se rapportant
directement à la possession» ( Minquiers et Ecréhous (France/Royaume-Uni), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1953, p. 57) de Pedra Branca.
91
Cf. Contre-mémoire de la Malaisie (CMM), p. 12-13, par. 21. - 54 -
4. Je reviendrai demain sur ce point après avoir passé en revue les quelques documents dont
la Partie malaisienne croit pouvoir déduire la reconnaissance de son prétendu titre originel.
A. L’absence de document probant établissant l’existence d’un titre originel
de Johor sur Pedra Branca
5. Monsieur le président, mis à part ceux relatifs à la «permission» qu’auraient donnée le
sultan et le temenggong de Johor à la construction du phare ⎯ sur laquelle je reviendrai aussi — la
Malaisie a mentionné dans ses écritures quelqu es documents hétéroclites qui établiraient
l’existence du titre originel sur PedraBranca dont elle se prévaut. Trois (trois seulement) d’entre
eux, que j’examinerai d’abord, la mentionnent expressément et un seul (un seulement), fort peu
probant, fait état de la souveraineté de Johor, tandis que la Partie malaisienne fait dire à tous les
autres (qui ne sont d’ailleurs pas nombreux) des c hoses qu’ils ne disent en aucune manière. Il en
va de même des prétendues «confirmations subséquentes» qu’invoque également la Malaisie.
6. Je reviendrai brièvement sur chacun de ces quelques documents, moins pour en montrer
l’absence de valeur probante si on les considère individuellement ⎯ Singapour a déjà établie dans
ses écritures largement que cette valeur est extrêmement limitée— que pour confirmer que,
globalement, ils ne donnent, à l’évidence, pas même l’illusion d’un commencem ent de preuve d’un
titre historique quelconque.
1. Les documents qui mentionneraient expressément Pedra Branca
7. Après des années de recherches, que l’on peut penser soigneuses et opiniâtres, la Malaisie
a exhumé UN document ⎯un seul Monsieur le président ⎯qui paraît tenir pour acquis la
souveraineté de Johor ⎯du Johor «moderne» ⎯sur Pedra Branca. Il s’agit d’un article du
92
Singapore Free Press daté du 25 mai 1843 . Cet article sans titre (pompeusement appelé
«rapport» (report) par la Malaisie 93 ⎯ appellation sur laquelle je revi endrai dans un instant) porte
sur des actes de piraterie dans les environs immédiats de Singapour («Acts of piracy in the
immediate neighbourhood of Singapore»). Il y est indiqué que les pirates trouvent refuge dans des
endroits comme «Pulo Tinghie, Batu Puteh, Point Ro mania, etc.» en droit qui «are all within the
92
Mémoire de la Malaisie (MM), vol. 3, annexe 40.
93Cf. MM, p. 47, par. 95. - 55 -
territories of our beloved ally and pensionary, th e Sultan of Johore, or rather the Tomungong of
Johore, for he is the real Sovereign».
8. La Malaisie affirme que le Singapore Free Press est un journal sérieux et digne de foi 94.
C’est sans doute le cas lorsqu’il s’agit d’informa tions factuelles ; mais, en l’espèce, nous sommes
en présence non pas d’une telle information factuelle, mais d’un simple commentaire qui ne
rapporte pas un fait, mais qui fait état de l’opinion subjective de son auteur. Il est du reste plus que
douteux que l’auteur anonyme d’un article, portant en outre sur un sujet tout différent, fût une
autorité très fiable en matière d’attribution de so uveraineté. Cela est d’autant plus improbable que
l’erreur faite sur Pedra Branca est répétée en ce qui concerne «Pulo Tinghie» qui, à l’époque, ne
relevait certainement pas du temenggong de Johor comme Singapour l’a montré de façon précise
dans son contre-mémoire 95.
9. En tout état de cause, comme la Cour l’a rappelé dans l’affaire Nicaragua, elle est tenue
d’accueillir de tels articles «avec beaucoup de prudence, même quand ils paraiss[ent] répondre à
une norme d’objectivité élevée. Elle [la Cour] les considère non pas comme la preuve des faits [ou
des titres], mais comme des éléments qui pe uvent contribuer, dans certaines conditions, à
corroborer leur existence, à titre d’indices vena nt s’ajouter à d’autres moyens de preuve» ( Activités
militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre cel ui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique),
fond, arrêt , C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p.40, par.62.). Les informations puisées dans la presse ne
peuvent donc être prises en considération que si ⎯et c’est un élément d’une importance cruciale
pour l’évaluation de leur force probante ⎯ elles se révèlent «d’une cohérence et d’une concordance
totales en ce qui concerne les principaux faits et circonstances de l’affaire ( Personnel diplomatique
et consulaire des Etats-Unis à Téhéran, arrêt, C.I.J.Recueil1980 , p.10, par.13)» ( Activités
armées sur le territoire du Congo (République démocratique du Congo c.Ouganda), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 2005, p.204, par.68). Le document invoqué par la Malaisie ne satisfait évidement
aucunement à ces exigences et ne pèse pas lourd face à l’ensemble des éléments qui permettent
d’affirmer avec certitude que Pedra Branca ne releva it pas de la souveraineté de Johor au moment
où les Britanniques en ont pris possession :
94
Cf. réplique de la Malaisie (RM), p. 46-47, par. 100.
95Contre-mémoire de Singapour (CMS), p. 59-60, par. 4.39 et note 132. - 56 -
⎯ en premier lieu, sa valeur probante est fort douteuse étant donné qu’il n’indique ni la source de
l’information ni même le nom de son auteur ( ibid. ; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au
Nicaragua et contre celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d’Amérique), fond, arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 40, par. 62) ;
⎯ en second lieu et surtout, il s’agit de l’ unique document, toutes catégories confondues (traités,
actes officiels, décisions de justice, Œuvres doctrinales, articles de presse), l’ unique document
qui pourrait apporter un semblant d’appui à la th èse à la Malaisie parmi tous ceux sur lesquels
celle-ci tente de s’appuyer.
10. Il est vrai que la Malaisie a aussi invoqué deux autres documents qui mentionnent
PedraBranca et qu’elle en déduit, contre toute raison, qu’ils confirmeraient l’existence de ce titre
«immémorial».
Projection 1 —Traduction anglaise produite pa r la Malaisie et traduction anglaise avec
corrections de la lettre du 1 eravril 1655 adressée au gouverneur général et au conseil de la
Compagnie néerlandaise des Indes orientales à Batavia par le gouverneur Thijssen de
Melaka, VOC 1209 (MM, annexe 22) (dossier des plaidoiries, onglet n 15) o
11. Tel serait le cas d’une lettre du gouverneur néerlandais de Malacca au conseil de la
er
Compagnie néerlandaise des Indes orientales à Batavia, en date du 1 avril 1655. Selon la
traduction anglaise de cette lettre fournie par la Partie malaisienne, celle-ci se lirait ainsi :
«in the future, at least two yachts must cruise to the south of Singapore Straits under
the Hook of Barbukit and in the vicinity of Pedra Branca (in order that they [the
Chinese junks] do not enter [the Johor River]) and therefore make certain that they are
brought here [Melaka] or to Batavia. As we have seen often, unless the Johor ruler is
greatly attracted to this idea, without his command we dare not put this into effect. We
therefor96faithfully await your order and command as to how far we should pursue
this…»
Je me permets, Messieurs les juges, d’attirer vot re attention tout spécialement sur l’expression
«without his command» ⎯ «sans son ordre» ⎯ que la Malaisie a jugé bon d’introduire dans la
traduction anglaise préparée par ses soins. Le pronom «son» («his») donne à penser que les
Hollandais n’auraient pas osé prendre la mesure en visagée sans que le souverain de l’ancien Johor
donne un ordre en ce sens. Mais ceci ne fait aucun sens ! Pourquoi diable le souverain du Johor
donnerait-il aux Hollandais l’ordre d’éloigner des bateaux de commerce de son pays ?
96Voir MM, vol. 3, annexe 22 (traducti on du texte original néerlandais par la Malaisie); les italiques sont de
nous. - 57 -
12. Pour tenter de résoudre cette énigme, nous a vons décidé de regarder de plus près le texte
néerlandais original afin de résoudre ce mystère. Je ne parle pas le néerlandais, Monsieur le
président, mais les locuteurs néerlandophones que nous avons consultés sont catégoriques : le texte
original dit en néerlandais «buyten expres bevel»; il doit être traduit par «en l’absence d’ordre
exprès» ou «en l’absence d’un ordre exprès» («without express command» or «without an express
command»), mais en tout cas pas «sans son ordre exprès». Le pronom «son» (his) très
opportunément ajouté par la Malaisie ne figure pas dans le texte original. Ce pronom possessif, s’il
devait se rapporter au souverain de l’ancien Johor , serait d’ailleurs totalement incongru dans cet
extrait compte tenu du contexte. Et, en partic ulier, de la phrase suivante, dans laquelle le
gouverneur ajoute : «Nous attendons donc loyalement vos ordres et instructions, pour savoir quelles
suites donner à cette affaire…» ⎯«vos ordres et instructions», «your order and command»,
Monsieur le président, c’est-à-dire les ordres du conseil de la Compagnie néerlandaise des Indes
orientales, pas ceux du souverain de l’ancien Johor !
[Fin de la projection 1.]
13. Selon l’expert consulté par la Partie ma laisienne, le professeur Andaya, historien de son
état, cet incident (et un autre, qui date, lui, de 1662)97 prouveraient «that VOC [i.e. the Netherlands
98
East India Company] recognized the waters in the Singapore Straits as belonging to Johor» . Pour
sa part, la Malaisie interprète ces phrases co mme montrant que «Johor’s concern was…the
maintenance of its sovereign rights in its own ma ritime territories, which included the waters and
islands mentioned in the Governor’s letter, i.e. «the Hook of Barbukit and in the vicinity of Pedra
99
Branca»…» . C’est aller un peu vite en besogne. Que, à cette époque, l’ancien Johor fût une
puissance maritime avec laquelle les Hollandais devaie nt composer ou voulaient composer est une
chose ; mais que l’on puisse en déduire que le dé troit de Singapour lui «appartenait» ou qu’il avait
des «droits souverains» sur ces eaux et ces îles en est une autre.
14. D’abord, les textes en question ne disent rien de tel : ils reflètent la rivalité commerciale
entre Johor et les Hollandais, mais ne concerne nt nullement l’étendue territoriale de Johor.
97Voir MM, annexe 21.
98
RM, appendice I, opinion du professeur Leonard Andaya, p. 210, par. B.7.
99RM, p. 32, par. 70. - 58 -
Ensuite, il est assez extr aordinaire d’interpréter cette co rrespondance interne à la Compagnie
néerlandaise des Indes orientales comme reconnaissan t la souveraineté de l’ancien Johor sur les
mers du sud. Surtout lorsque l’on sait que, précisément à cette époque, cette même Compagnie des
100
Indes néerlandaise contestait véhéme ntement, par Grotius interposé , la mare clausum dont
Selden s’était fait le champion au nom de l’Angleterre 101. A vrai dire, tout ce que l’on peut déduire
de ces épisodes est que le gouverneur hollandais de Malacca était conscient des vŒux de Batavia
d’entretenir des relations amicales avec Johor et de le ménager en tant qu’allié. Il se montrait donc
soucieux de ne pas agir au détriment des intérêts de Johor sans l’aval exprès de sa hiérarchie, qui se
trouvait à Batavia. Mais l’on ne peut pas en tirer la conclusion que les îles inhabitées de la région
appartenaient toutes à Johor; pas davantage que l’ on ne pourrait déduire de la maîtrise des mers
européennes ⎯ avant ⎯ que tous les espaces maritimes et les îles inhabitées qui s’y trouvaient
relevaient de cette puissance. Et je ne peux m’empêcher de penser, Monsieur le président, à cet
égard, au passage de votre récent arrêt dans l’affaire Nicaragua c. Honduras dans lequel vous avez
relevé que :
«A la différence du territoire terrestre, pour lequel les limites administratives
entre les différentes provinces [de l’Empire colonial espagnol] étaient plus ou moins
clairement démarquées, il est manifeste qu’il n’existait aucune délimitation nette
s’agissant des îles en général. Il semble d’autant plus en avoir été ainsi pour les îles en
question, lesquelles devaient être très peu peuplées, voire pas du tout, et ne
possédaient pour ainsi dire pas de ressources naturelles en dehors des ressources
halieutiques de la zone maritime alentour.» ( Différend territorial et maritime entre le
Nicaragua et le Honduras dans la mer des Caraïbes (Nicaragua c. Honduras), arrêt
du 8 octobre 2007, par. 162.)
Projection 2 ⎯ Dessins montrant Pedra Branca (1. Peinture de Pedra Branca, in
J. T. Thomson, Account of toe HorsburgheLight-house (MS, vol. 4, annexe 61, p. 503) (dossier
de plaidoiries, onglet n 16) ; 2. 4 de couverture, J. Hall-Jones, The Horsburgh Lighthouse,
1995 ; 3. Peinture de J. T. Thomson représentant Pedra Branca (1850) (MS, image 13)
15. Le troisième et dernier document qu’invoque la Malaisie à l’appui de son soi-disant titre
originel, et qui mentionnerait nommément Pedr a Branca est l’invraisemblable compte rendu
de1833 d’un mystérieux envoyé vietnamien à Batavia dont la savoureuse (prétendue) description
de notre île mérite d’être citée. Sous le titre «Le port de Pedra Branca», il écrit :
100Mare liberum sive de jure quod Batavis competit ad Indicana commercia dissertatio , Lugduni Batavorum, ex
officina Ludovici Elzevirii, 1609 et reproduction par Ca rnegie Endowment for Intern ational Peace, New York, 1951,
p. 68.
101Mare clavsvm seu de dominio maris libri dvo Mare claucum seu de dominio maris libri duo, Leiden, 1636. - 59 -
«Le port de Pedra Branca, ou de la «Pierre blanche» (Bach Thach Cang) , est
entouré de montagnes. Un grand rocher blan c émerge au milieu des flots. De loin, il
apparaît scintillant, d’où le nom donné au por t. De chaque côté, les pentes sont
couvertes de forêts et les habitations se su ccèdent jusqu’au chenal de Singapour. Les
huttes faites de roseaux, de nipa (duyên) et de bambou apparaissent sur les falaises
sombres, dans la verdure des arbres. C’est un paysage apaisant.» 102
16. Comme vous pouvez le constater en regard ant les photographies projetées derrière moi,
Messieurs les juges, la description de Phan Huy Le ⎯c’est le nom de l’auteur ⎯ n’a strictement
rien à voir avec «notre» «pierre blanche», un nom fort répandu dans la région comme Singapour l’a
montré dans sa réplique 103: pas de port, pas de pentes, pas de forêt, pas de bambou et, à vrai dire,
pas le moindre arbre; et j’ai du mal à voir dans cette petite île battue par les flots et le vent un
«paysage apaisant»... En réalité, le texte vietna mien n’utilise nullement l’appellation «Pedra
Branca». Il emploie le nom vietnamien «Bach Thach Cang» qui signifie littéralement «port de la
pierre blanche». C’est l’auteur de la versi on française de 1994 qui a traduit ceci par «Pedra
104
Branca». Au surplus ⎯ et Singapour l’a aussi expliqué ⎯, la Malaisie a, opportunément, traduit
le mot «est» qui figure dans la traduction française et l’original sino-vietnamien 105par «sud» qui,
sans doute, sert mieux sa thèse…
[Fin de la projection 2.]
17. On comprend, Monsieur le président, que la Malaisie se soit gardée de revenir sur cette
«preuve» de son titre dans sa réplique. Mais le simple fait qu’elle en ait fait grand cas dans son
contre-mémoire montre à quel point elle est en peine de trouver la moindre trace du titre dont elle
se prévaut. Faute de documents mentionnant Pedra Branca par son nom, force lui est de se rabattre
sur d’autres qui concernent la région dans son ensemble et d’échafauder une théorie de la
souveraineté territoriale qui ne cadre ni avec la c onception que s’en faisaient les habitants malais
avant l’arrivée des Européens, ni avec les principes élémentaires du droit international général.
Monsieur le président, je souhaitais initialeme nt présenter maintenant ces autres documents
invoqués par la Malaisie, mais il me faudrait pour cela un bon quart d’heure. Je pense que vous
102Claudine Salmon et Ta Trong Hiep (éd.), Phan Huy Le ⎯ Un émissaire vietnamien à Batavia, récit sommaire
d’un voyage en mer, Paris, Association Archipel, 1994, p. 46 ; CMM, vol. 3, annexe 9, p. 46 (note de bas de page omise).
103
Voir réplique de Singapour (RS), p.20, par. 2.30-2.31.
104
Ibid., p. 21, par. 2.32.
105Voir CMM, vol. 3, annexe 9, p. 46. - 60 -
préférerez un déjeuner bien mérité plutôt que de me subir pendant tout ce temps. Je pense donc
sage de m’arrêter là. Je vous remercie en vous souhaitant un bon appétit.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you very much. We will stop here and
resume tomorrow at 10 o’clock.
The Court rose at 1.05 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Tuesday 6 November 2007, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Vice-President Al-Khasawneh, Acting President, presiding in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)