Non-Corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2007/26
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THHEAGUE LAAYE
YEAR 2007
Public sitting
held on Thursday 15 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 jeudi 15 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 and I give
the floor immediately to Sir Elihu Lauterpacht. You have the floor, Sir.
Sir Elihu LAUTERPACHT:
PULAU BATU PUTEH
GREAT BRITAIN HAD NO INTENTION TO ACQUIRE SOVEREIGNTY
(continued)
Britain’s own standards for evidencing its claims to territory
1. Mr.President, Members of the Court, when the Court rose yesterday I had just begun to
consider the element of intention in Britain’s conduct towards Pulau Batu Puteh. I was proposing to
do so by reference to Singapore’s own statement of the ingredients of the intention element.
2. Did Britain at any time manifest an intntion to acquire sovereignty over Pulau Batu
Puteh?
3. Did Britain take any overt action to implement such intention?
4. Did Britain make that intention known to other States?
5. My submission was that the answer to these questions is No.
6. Permit me to begin by recalling the practices followed by Britain in evidencing its
intention to acquire sovereignty over foreign places.
7. I have already mentioned the academic study by Keller, Lissitzyn and Mann on
TheCreation of Rights of Sovereignty through Symbolic Acts, 1400-1800 . I have also spoken of
Crawfurd’s report of 1824 when he wrote of his conduct in relation to the three islands within
10 miles of Singapore ⎯ Pulau Ubin, Rabbit and Coney Islands.
8. The importance attached to an explic it assertion of sovereignt y persisted and was
confirmed by the fact that in 1889 the Law Officers of the Crown approved a Form of Proclamation
of an Annexation which contained an express proclamation of the vesting of full sovereignty over a - 13 -
claimed island in the name of Her Majesty th e Queen. Such a proclamation would contain
1
language such as the following , which you see now on the screen:
“I have it in command from Her Majesty Queen Victoria... to assert the
sovereign rights of Her Majesty over... [t he name of the islands],... the same
having been... taken possession of by Her Majesty with the consent of the local
Chief or Chiefs thereof. Now, therefor e, I... [that is, the person making the
proclamation] do hereby proclaim and declar e to all men that, from and after the date
of these presents, the full sovereignty of th e island . . . vests . . . in Her Majesty
Queen Victoria.”
That was a form established in 1889 but reflecting previous British practice.
9. The British position in this respect is c onsistent, as can be seen from a more recent
example, the formality of Britain’s annexation of the island ⎯ it is called an island, it is really just
a rock ⎯ of Rockall in 1955. Rockall is a distant an d small place, 265 miles west of Ireland. The
2
plaque that was then fixed on the island is in your folder at tab 94 :
“By authority of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God . . . Head
of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and in accordance with Her Majesty’s
instructions dated the 14th day of Septembe r, 1955, a landing was effected this day
upon this island of Rockall from HMS Vidal. The Union flag was hoisted and
possession of the island was taken in the name of Her Majesty. [Signed]
R. H. Connell, Captain, HMS Vidal, 18 September 1955.”
10. At this point, I need do no more than look more closely at the legal effect of the eventual
selection by Britain of Pulau Batu Puteh as the s ite for the lighthouse. How did Britain, in the
period 1847to1851, which Singapore itself has identified as crucial, comply with its own
standards and manifest an intention to acquire sovereignty over, or annex, Pulau Batu Puteh?
11. The somewhat intricate correspondence that passed between the Governor in Singapore,
the Government of India and the authorities in London about the possible location of the proposed
lighthouse in the years 1842 and 1844 has just been reviewed by Professor Kohen. In it we look in
vain for any indication of the thought on the part of Britain that it might annex to itself whatever
3
location might be chosen for the light. Even the extract in Annex 93 to the Singapore Memorial
taken from a despatch by the Governor of Singa pore to the Governor-General in Bengal, of
28 November 1844, which states that the Temenggong has willingly consented to cede it ⎯ that is,
1
See the text as printed in McNair’s International Law Opinions, Vol. I (1956), pp. 294-295. See judges’ folder,
tab 94.
2
See judges’ folder, tab 94.
3MS, Vol. 3, Ann. 93. - 14 -
the location ⎯ “gratuitously” does not appear to respond to any request by Britain for a cession of
territory. Nor was this idea ever repeated in subsequent correspondence. Evidently, no importance
was attached to this fleeting reference. And, by itself, it cannot evidence any declared intention by
Britain to acquire sovereignty over the locati on. Nor does the language actually used by the
Temenggong in his reply on 25 November 1844 4 lend itself to interpretation as an affirmative reply
to a request for a grant of sovereign rights even if such a request had been made, for which, I
repeat, there is no evidence.
12. The same is true of the correspondence be tween the same parties that took place in 1845
and 1846.
13. It is significant also that at just about the time that work was to begin on the lighthouse,
the Governor of the Straits Settlements was made aware that the acquisition of territory in his
region would involve “steps for obtaining formal possession”. This appears from the letter to the
Governor dated 19September 1846 from the Official Secretary to the Gove rnment of India in
relation to the acquisition of the island of Labuan off the coast of Borneo 5. Three months later, by
a Treaty of Friendship with the Sultan of Borneo , Britain obtained the cession “in full sovereignty
6
and property” of the island of Labuan, following which a formal flag-raising took place . Is this
not what might have been expected had GovernorButterworth thought that Britain had acquired
title to Pulau Batu Puteh?
14. When, on 30 September 1846, the Governor of Singapore recommended to the Directors
7
of the East India Company the building of the Horsburgh light on Pulau Batu Puteh , nothing was
then said evincing any intention that sovereignty should be acquired over the island.
15. The Singapore Memorial makes much of th e fact that overall control of the project from
8
the early days was assumed by the Governor . But that is not an issue in the case. The question is
not whether Britain controlled or financed the c onstruction of the lighthouse, but whether British
activity openly revealed an intention to claim the isla nd. It is on this question that attention must
4MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 45.
5
CMM, Vol. 3, Ann. 16.
6
CMM, Vol. 3, Ann. 17.
7MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 53.
8MS, Vol. 1, p. 65. - 15 -
be focused. It is an issue properly raised by Singapore itself, but never satisfactorily answered by
it. As will presently be shown, there was never any expression of such an intention, either
internally or externally; and the Singapore pretence that there was cannot be sustained.
16. What does Singapore offer? We have it in Mr. Brownlie’s speech last week 9. In effect,
he says, there does not have to be any specific indication of intention, no overt indication, no
precise communication of intention to any other State. It is sufficient, so he asserts, to look at what
Britain actually did, and from that examination, extract or extrapolate what can only be a notional
intention sufficient to satisfy the requirements of intention that Singapore has itself laid down as
necessary.
17. The theme is presented repeatedly in Mr.Brownlie’s speech and I need only give one
instance of it. Referring to Malaysia’s insistence that there was not a single manifestation of the
intention of the Crown to acquire sovereignty in the material period 10, he then continues:
“[T]his is an extravagant position. Th e entire pattern of the decisions and
activities of the British Crown constitutes the evidence of an intention to acquire
sovereignty. [The entire pattern.] The analysis of Malaysia rests upon an entirely
artificial dichotomy between the taking of control of territory and the intention to
acquire sovereignty.
The key point is the assessment of the evidence as a whole. In the result, the
physical and administrative ac11ons of the officials of the British Crown form a part of
the evidence of intention.”
18. So, let us scrutinize more closely the so-called evidence as a whole.
19. Let us pass to the critical years 1847 to 1851 and look at each of those years. We shall
see that in each of them nothing was done that indicates an intention to acquire sovereignty over
Pulau Batu Puteh. Attention was focussed exclusively on the construction of the lighthouse.
20. First, 1847: on 24February 1847 the Court of Directors of the East India Company
communicated to the Governor-General of India its approval of the choice of Pulau Batu Puteh as
the site for the lighthouse. As can be seen from the first paragraph of the letter 12, no distinction
9CR 2007/21, pp. 34-69.
10
Ibid., p. 52.
11
Ibid., p. 53, paras. 88-89.
12MS, Vol., 2, Ann. 18, p. 149. See judges’ folder, tab 95. - 16 -
was drawn between the territorial status of Peak Rock and Pulau Batu Puteh. Apparently, they
were regarded as indistinguishable in this respect.
21. Two months later, on 24 April 1847, the Secretary of the Government of India wrote to
the Secretary of the Government of Bengal 13 forwarding copies of three despatches saying that “the
Honourable Court have sanctioned the proposal for the construction of the lighthouse at Pulau Batu
Puteh”, expressing “their concurrence with the local authorities and with the Government of India
in approving the site of the PedraBranca over Peak Rock...” Again, it has to be noted that no
distinction is drawn between the territorial status of PeakRock and Pulau Batu Puteh. Still we
have no evidence of any intention to acquire sovereignty over the location of the lighthouse.
22. In the course of the months that followed Thomson, the Government Surveyor of
Singapore, pursued negotiations with the Chinese contractors and, in his letter of 9 July 1847 to the
Resident Councillor, Singapore, Thomson gives the first ⎯ the first ⎯indication of any physical
activity in relation to Pulau Batu Puteh 14. I use the word any overt physical activity. He
accompanied the contractor to the spot in the steamer Hooghly. He proposed the building of small
brick pillars in October. Thomson’s visit must ha ve taken place some time before July 1847. But
there is no suggestion of acquisition of title to the island.
23. On 22 July 1847 the Governor reported from Penang that conditions on Pulau Batu Puteh
would lead to expenses considerably in excess of the estimate originally furnished and that he
15
would visit the spot after his return to Singapore . But that is not evidence of an intention to claim
sovereignty over the island.
24. As reported by Thomson, brick pillars we re fixed on various parts of the island on
16
1 November 1847 to test the force of the waves . And that brings us to the end of 1847. No sign,
as yet, of any intention by Britain to annex the island.
25. We now pass to 1848.
13MS, Vol. 2, Ann. 19, p. 159.
14
MS, Vol. 2, Ann. 21, p. 169.
15MS, Vol. 2, Ann. 22, p. 178.
16See Thomson’s Account, MS, Vol. 4, Ann. 61, pp. 490-491. - 17 -
26. The only thing that appears to have happe ned then was that Thomson returned to the
island on 1 March 17to find that the brick pillars had been swept away. Accordingly, he decided
that the lighthouse should be constructed of granite and he prepared plans accordingly.
T2ho.mson’s Account, which is the fullest narrative of what happened in these critical
years, contains nothing more regarding the year 1848. And the same is true for 1849, except that
on 14 December 1849 Thomson was informed that the East India Company had approved his
18
plans . So, as he then noted, “t he early part of the year ⎯ that is now 1850 ⎯ was devoted to
making preparations for the coming season”. On 6 March 1850 he proceeded to the island, but
because the monsoon had not entirely subsided he s oon returned to Singapore. On 1 April he left
Singapore, having been preceded by a few days by his principal assistant. However, adverse
weather conditions led them temporarily to retreat to PointRomania; but they returned to the
island on 11April. The details and difficulties of the construction work are all set out in
Thomson’s Account. They make fascinating reading, but are not relevant to the assessment of
what, if anything, Britain did to manifest an in tention to acquire title to the island. The only
governmental role in the work was the intermittent presence of a British gunboat to take station as
19
“a tender to our operations” . But the British character of this presence was offset by the arrival of
a Dutch gunboat from Rhio and a Dutch offer to keep two gunboats on the station as long as the
work was in progress. The offer was accepted and in due course acknowledged by Thomson in his
Account.
28. At last, on 24May 1850, it being Queen Victoria’s birthday, the foundation stone was
laid20. It is not necessary to repeat here the details of that occasion. The Governor was present, as
was the Master of the LodgeZetland in the East , Mr.Davidson, with the office bearers of the
Lodge, who had been “requested to perform the ceremony of laying the foundation stone with
Masonic honours”. Note: “Masonic honours” ⎯ no mention of any formal assertion of British
sovereignty. A copper plate was placed in an aperture cut into the rock. A copy of this is at tab 35
1Ibid., p. 492.
18
Ibid., p. 505.
19
Ibid., p. 526.
2Ibid., p. 530. - 18 -
in your folders. But, as you can see, it contains no reference to the possibility that the island was
British. Nor did the articles deposited under th e rock include, as one might otherwise have
expected, any document formerly asserting or reflecting British title over the island. This would, of
course, have been the occasion for a manifestation of British intention to acquire the island. It was
not taken. Nine days later the Temenggong visite d the rock, accompanied by 30 of his followers.
Thomson described him as “the most powerful native chief in these parts, allied to British
21
interests” . Singapore has not told us why the Temenggo ng’s visit cannot equally be construed as
a demonstration by him of his title to the island. That possibility is perfectly open on the
documents.
29. But the construction work proceeded ra pidly until mid-October when the north-east
monsoon set in and work had to be suspended.
30. So now we come to 1851 ⎯ the last of the five years claimed by Singapore as being
crucial.
31. Work was resumed at the end of March. The Singapore Memorial contends that the
cutting of rain channels on Pulau Batu Pute h in May 1851 was an operation which “clearly
22
assumed a lawful and permanent use and possession of Pedra Branca as a whole” . It requires
some imagination to see the cutting of rain channels as in any way connected with the intention to
take lawful possession of the island or as demonstrating an intention to annex it. But, in any case,
the operation did not in itself overtly signify an intention to claim title to the island. It was no more
than an aspect of the construction of the lighthouse. The workmen needed water in which to wash,
that was what Thomson said. On 8 July the Resident Councillor arrived with a party and “minutely
inspected all the works and on his departure at noon, he was pleased to express his approval of the
building and all other operations” 23. But there is no record of his having said or done anything
indicative of an intention to acquire title. He might at least have said to Thomson: “Nice bit of
annexation that, old chap!” ⎯ but if he did, Thomson does not record it.
21
Ibid., p. 533.
22
MS, p. 69.
23MS, Vol. 4, Ann. 61, p. 551. - 19 -
32. On 24 September, when the lighthouse was due to come into operation, the Government
issued a Notice to Mariners. Of this act, th e Singapore Memorial says, entirely without any
supporting reasons:
“This document was based on a datum th at the island on which the lighthouse
stands is British and forms part of Singapor e. It was issued by Colonel Butterworth,
24
the most senior British official based in Singapore.”
The only accurate element in this assertion is the fact that the Notice was issued by the Governor of
Singapore. But this did not show any sign of tr eating the island as British. It was not, and could
not be, anything more than a necessary opening step in the operation of the lighthouse required by
good lighthouse practice.
33. On 27 September 1851 the Governor of the Straits Settlements, accompanied by the
Recorder of the Straits Settlements, the commander of the troops and the principal merchants of
Singapore, arrived at 1o’clock, minutely inspected the light and re-embarked at 4o’clock “after
expressing themselves in highly favourable terms regarding all the works and the arrangements.” 25.
But apparently they said nothing that could be r ecorded by Thomson as evidence of an intention to
treat the rock as British territory. Nor was the occasion accompanied by any proclamation or
declaration, whether official or otherwise.
34. Thomson finished writing his Account on 15 December 1851 26. He recorded the
placement of a tablet on the wall of the visitors’ room 27: Professor Cohen has already shown you
this. It contains no suggestion that the rock was British territory.
35. This brings me to the end of the chronology of events from 1847 through 1851, as
recorded by Thomson’s Account. It can be supplemented by refe rence to the Governor’s letter of
report of 1November1851. This date is at the end of the four-year period which Singapore now
advances as being the one during which Britain acquire d title to Pulau Batu Puteh. In it, in this
report, the Governor speaks of “the distant positio n of Pedra Branca, an Isolated Rock detached
40 miles from Singapore, at the entrance of the China Sea.” 28. There, if anywhere, one might have
24MS, p. 73.
25
Ibid., p. 71.
26
MS, Vol. 4, Ann. 61, p. 557.
27See judges’ folder, tab 69.
28MS, Vol. 3, Ann. 58, p. 454. - 20 -
expected the Governor to have said that he had annexed the “isolated rock” for the British Crown.
Instead, he says nothing ⎯ his emphasis is solely on the charact er of the rock “detached 40 miles
from Singapore”. The same comment may be made about the other docum ents annexed to the
Singapore Memorial relating to the commissioning of the lighthouse; likewise about the Preambles
29
to the two India Acts of 1852 and 1854 . If the island had been thought of as having become
British territory, one would have expected the extend ed recitals to those acts to have made some
mention of the fact. There is simply nothing that suggests or reveals an intention on the part of
Britain to claim sovereign title to Pulau Batu Puteh. It is true that the task of construction of the
lighthouse was carried out by the Singapore authorities. But that in itself, in the circumstances, did
not manifest an intention to treat the island as British territory.
36. And so we reach the end of this review of the events of1847 to1851 ⎯ the period
within which Singapore now invites the Court to hold that Britain manifested an intention to claim
the island. This is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, simply not so. The elements of the task
propounded by Singapore itself and which I read at the start of this speech are not satisfied.
37. There is no evidence of intention to acquire sovereignty.
38. It follows that there is no evidence of a permanent intention to do so.
39. It follows further that there is no evidence of any overt action to implement the quite
clearly non-existent intention.
40. And finally, it follows also that there is no evidence that Britain made its non-existent
intention manifest to other States.
41. The conclusion expressed by Singapore, fo r example in paragraph 5.91 of its Memorial,
is simply unsustainable. Let me read that conclusion:
“The entire episode involving the selection of Pedra Branca as a site for a
lighthouse, the preparation for its construction, the persistent official visits, the
ceremonial laying of the foundation stone and the final commission of the lighthouse,
provides unequivocal evidence of the will of the British Crown to annex
Pedra Branca.”
The conclusion of this sentence can only be read as a complete fiction, a reflection of wishful
thinking, the optimistic product of a highly imaginative approach. It cannot be accepted.
29
MM, Vol. 3, Anns. 84 and 85. - 21 -
42. Towards the end of his speech Mr.Brow nlie introduced an expression with which we
have not previously been familiar in the pleadings of this case ⎯ the expression “public works”. It
was repeated several times, as if it mattered. If I understand him correctly, he equates the
accumulation of “public works” with an indication of an intention on the part of Britain to acquire
title to the territory. One can conveniently find these “public works” listed in paragraph 13 of his
speech, ten items in all ⎯ choosing Pedra Branca as the site of the lighthouse, choosing the name
of the light, planning of the construction work, fundi ng of the construction work, visits of officials
in the course of construction, logistical support provided by government vessels, protection
provided by gunboats, provision of lighthouse equipm ent and tools, conclusion of the construction
contract and, lastly, deciding on the specifications and estimates for the construction.
43. These are, of course, and obviously so, the steps that needed to be taken to proceed with
the construction of the light. With the possible exception of the first two, they describe exactly
what would have had to be done if it had been possi ble in those days to hire a private contracting
firm to plan and undertake the whole work. However, the fact that they were done by the
Government does not mean that individually or in total they manifested an intention to claim the
underlying territory.
44. What Singapore does is to turn these ite ms into a single process of evolution seemingly
evincing a government intent to acquire title to the territory. But the conclusion thus drawn is an
extensive ⎯ indeed, imaginative ⎯ extrapolation from a series of facts that taken at face value
amount to a description of exactly what had to be done to build the lighthouse. Malaysia does not
deny that Britain built the light. But Malaysia cannot find anything in this process which reflects a
co-existing intention ⎯ a silent intention ⎯ on the part of Britain to assert title to the territory.
The remarkable fact is that nowhere in the documentation of that period is a word to be found
indicative of the possession of such an intention by Britain.
45. Nor did the internal Dutch document, fo llowed subsequently by the posting of Dutch
gunboats near the island, amount to, as they call it, a “recognition” of British title just because the
island was spoken of as being within “British territory”, their words or that is the word of the
translation, an expression that is properly construed, as being within the British sphere of influence. - 22 -
46. There are two additional points that I should make now, though a full answer to the
Singapore case would require many more.
47. First, Singapore has frequently mentioned that the construction of the lighthouse was
“funded” by the British Government. This is not correct. In a minute of 30September 1846 the
Governor noted, in relation to the cost of an ir on lighthouse estimated to be rupees30,000, that
rupees17,458 had already been subscribed. It was the subscription of the Hong Kong and other
merchants and bankers that was the basis of the whole Horsburgh lighthouse initiative. The
government initially provided the balance but only until such time as it could recoup its advances
by the collection of lighthouse dues ⎯ a somewhat better security than has more recently been had
by the providers of sub-prime mortgages.
48. Second point: Singapore has cited the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in
the Pitcairn Island case in support of a proposition that “a formal act of acquisition is not required.
It is the intention of the Crown gathered fro m its own acts and surrounding acts that determines
whether a territory has been acquired for English law purposes.” 30 The observations of a court of
such high authority cannot be lightly treated. But the important point to note is that the facts of the
Pitcairn Island case are very different to those in the present case. And the general observation
remains valid: that the intention of the Crown is to be gathered from its own acts and surrounding
circumstances. But when, as you look at the facts th at I have recited, I venture to submit that you
will find it difficult to find the intention that Singapore now seeks to draw from those acts.
49. As I have just shown, the acts of the British Government and the surrounding
circumstances as presented by Singapore simply do not add up to the evidence of an intention to
claim the island. It is impossible to escape from the question: why did the Crown never say it was
annexing the island, notwithstanding the many o ccasions on which it could have reasonably have
done so? The answer is simple. The Crown never contemplated and therefore never intended such
an acquisition.
Mr.President, that brings me to the end of this first contribution for the morning. I thank
you very much.
30
Ibid., p. 47. - 23 -
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Sir Elihu, for your speech. Before
giving the floor to the next speaker, I omitted to say that Judgead hoc Rao, for reasons duly
communicated to me, was unable to be here this mo rning, but he will join us after the break. You
have the floor, Professor Schrijver.
Mr. SCHRIJVER:
M IDDLE R OCKS AND SOUTH L EDGE
1. Thank you, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court, on behalf of the
Government of Malaysia I now have the privilege of addressing the claims of Singapore to
sovereignty over the other two features, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
2. As the Attorney-General of Malaysia has explained, it was as late as 1993 that Singapore
suddenly, for the first time, advanced the proposition that its claim to sovereignty over Pulau Batu
31
Puteh also extends to Midd le Rocks and South Ledge . Ever since, Singapore has asserted that
PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge form a distinct group of maritime features and one single
32
geographical group, with one common fate and even one common destiny of sovereignty . The
purpose of my presentation is to demonstrate that these assertions have no merit and that, on the
contrary, sovereignty over the two features belongs to Malaysia.
Characteristics
3. Mr. President, allow me to say a few words on the characteristics of the two features.
Middle Rocks and South Ledge are maritime features located at 0.6 and 2.2nautical miles
respectively from PBP and 8.0 and 7.9 nautical m iles respectively from the Malaysian mainland at
Tanjung Penyusoh, also known in our proceedings as Point Romania. All these features are within
easy sailing distance for the Malaysian fishermen from the mainland. By contrast, Singapore’s
nearest coast is 25.6nautical miles from Middle Rocks and 25nautical miles from South Ledge.
You can find the graphic on this also under tab 96 of your folder.
31
CR 2007/24, pp. 31-32, para. 14.
3See MS, pp.181-184, paras. 9.9-9.17; CMS, pp. 212-213, paras. 8.18-8.20; RS, pp. 265-272, paras. 10.6-10.17. - 24 -
4. Middle Rocks consists of several rocks that are permanently above water and stand 0.6 to
1.2 m high. South Ledge is a low-tide elevation consisting of three features. The northernmost one
is 2.1 m above water at low tide. The other two are always under water.
5. As I will demonstrate later, PBP, Mi ddle Rocks and South Ledge are separated by
navigational channels, they do not have similar structures and they do not stand on a single raised
section of the sea-bed. However, what they have in common is that each of them is situated within
Malaysian territorial waters.
Malaysia’s original title over Middle Rocks and South Ledge
6. As to Malaysia’s original title, Middle Ro cks and South Ledge, lying close to the Johor
coast, have been part of Johor since time immemorial . Located as they were in the strategic Straits
of Singapore they belonged to the extensive, an cient Johor Sultanate, which we discussed over the
past few days, and which extended to the lands on both sides of the Straits.
7. The conclusion of the 1824 Anglo-Dutch Treaty did not affect the status of Middle Rocks
and South Ledge. They remained within the Britis h sphere of influence as established by that
Treaty. Nor were the two features included in Johor’s cession of Singapore to the English East
India Company of the same year. This cession in the Crawfurd Treaty was explicitly limited to a
10-geographical-mile limit from the mainland of Singapore.
8. It is of course true that, being relatively minor features, little attention was paid to Middle
Rocks and South Ledge. But this, Mr. President, was because they were considered as belonging to
a wider range of islands appertaining to Johor. As demonstrated in the Andaya expert opinion 33, as
34
well as in two affidavits , traditional fishermen from Johor have been fishing the inshore waters
around these features for as long as accounts and records show. Contrary to what Singapore may
35
claim , before and after independence Johor and subsequently Malaysia also exercised sovereignty
over them, obviously within the limits imposed by their character. This is evidenced by their
inclusion within the outer limit of the Malaysian territorial waters drawn by
33
Andaya opinion, RM, App. 1.
34CMM, Vol. 2, Anns. 5-6.
35CR 2007/23, p. 48, para 2; see also MS, paras. 9.18-9.33, pp. 184-190; CMS, pp. 209-211, paras.8.12-8.17;
RS, pp. 271-272, para. 10.16. - 25 -
CommodoreThanabalasingam in 1968 on Admiralty Chart2403 of 1936 and also by their
inclusion in the area for which oil concessions were granted and by their designation of the waters
36
under the Fisheries Act 1985 .
9. On 14 February 1980, when Singapore claimed sovereignty over PBP for the first time, no
reference was made to Middle Rocks and South Ledg e. It was not until 6 February 1993 (13 years
later), during consultations between Malaysia and Singapore over PBP, that Singapore claimed
sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge fo r the first time. Evidently, Singapore’s late
claim with respect to these two features is primarily motivated by a desire to enhance the claim to
Pulau Batu Puteh.
10. In order to substantiate its claim to Middle Rocks and South Ledge, Singapore advanced
the argument that PBP, Middle Rocks and South Le dge form a single group of maritime features:
during its first round Singapore referred to “the indivisible group” 37 or “the same island group” 38.
And our colleague Professor Pellet even went as far as to suggest that “the ‘archipelago’ formed by
Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks constitute a unit and, therefore, South Ledge is within their joint
territorial sea” 39. Mr.President, the problem with this proposition is, however, that these three
features cannot be described as a group, let alone as a collective unity with common characteristics.
Consequently, for the moment, I do not consider it re levant to take the Court’s time to delve into
the issue of the concept of archipelagic waters as employed under the United Nations Law of the
Sea Convention, in particular Article 46 on the use of terms. Let us await the second round to see
where Singapore’s imagination leads it.
11. In deciding whether a collection of islands , rocks and low-tide elevations form a single
group, the chief criteria are: first, their spatia l relationship; and second, the conviction of their
original discoverers or subsequent users that they form a group, evidenced amongst other things, by
the use of a single name for the group.
36
See judges’ folder, tab 97.
37
CR 2007/20, p. 18, para. 10.
38CR 2007/20, p. 22, para. 31.
39CR 2007/23, p. 52, para. 13. - 26 -
12. During its first round, Singapore advanced a series of arguments underpinning its
proposition that the fate of the three features is necessarily linked 4. At the end of his pleadings on
this topic, ProfessorPellet summarized the following elements that purport to corroborate this
conclusion. Professor Pellet mentioned:
⎯ their proximity;
⎯ the geomorphology;
⎯ the toponomy;
⎯ the location of the three features;
⎯ the cartography;
⎯ the common treatment in pilots and nautical instructions; and
⎯ the impossibility of distinguishing the effectivités with respect to the three features 41.
I will address each of these arguments in turn.
The proximity argument
13. Singapore claims that Middle Rocks and South Ledge belong to it by virtue of their
proximity to PBP: they are “minor maritime features lying within the territorial waters of Pedra
Branca” 42.
14. It can be recalled that arguments similarly relying on proximity were advanced by Eritrea
in the arbitration proceedings with Yemen. B asing itself on the so-called “leapfrogging” methods
of determining the baseline of the territorial sea, Eritrea enunciated the rather ingenious theory that,
since the territorial sea may extend from a baselin e drawn to include an y islands within the
territorial sea, the baseline can therefore lawfully be extended to include an entire chain, or a group
43
of islands, where there is no gap between the islands of more than 12 miles .
15. Responding to this theory in the (First Phase) Award, the Arbitral Tribunal noted that the
difficulty with leapfrogging in th at case was that it begged the very question at issue before the
40
CR 2007/23, p. 48, para. 2.
41
CR 2007/23, p. 53, para. 16.
42MS, p. 180, para. 9.7.
43Eritrea/Yemen, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the proceedings (Territorial Sovereignty and
Scope of the Dispute), 9 Oct. 1998, 114 ILR 1, p. 123, para. 473. - 27 -
Tribunal: to which coastal State do these islands belong? The Tribunal stated that there is a strong
presumption that islands within the coastal belt be long to the coastal State, unless there is a fully
established case to the contrary (as, for ex ample, in the case of the Channel Islands, Minquiers and
Ecrehos). However, the Eritrea/Yemen Tribunal observed that:
“there is no like presumption outside the co astal belt, where the ownership of the
islands is plainly at issue. The ownership over adjacent islands undoubtedly generates
a right to a corresponding territorial sea, but merely extending the territorial sea
beyond the permitted coastal belt, cannot of itsel f generate sovereignty over islands so
encompassed. And even if there were a presumption of coastal-state sovereignty over
islands falling within the twelve-mile territorial sea of a coastal-belt island, it would be
no mor44than a presumption, capable of being rebutted by evidence of a superior
title.”
Similar reasoning, Mr.President, must apply to the present case. The mere extending of the
territorial sea from PBP cannot in itself generate sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
16. It should also be recalled that th is Court clearly pronounced in the recent Nicaragua v.
Honduras Judgment that “proximity as such is not necessarily determinative of legal title”
(Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Ni caragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, 8 October 2007, p. 45, para. 161). The Court rejected
Nicaragua’s argument that the islands in dispute were closer to Edinburgh Cay, which belongs to
Nicaragua. While not relying on adjacency in reaching its findings, this Court observed that, in any
event, the islands in dispute were in fact clos er to the coast of Hondur as than to the coast of
45
Nicaragua . Similarly in the present case, PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge lie closer to the
coast of Malaysia than to that of Singapore.
Geomorphology
17. Singapore also argues that the three features have the same geomorphological and
geological characteristics 46. However, Singapore fails to make clear whether such characteristics
are restricted to the three features only or extend north to the Romania Islands and/or south to
Pulau Bintan. Already in 1870 ⎯ the reference is in our pleadings ⎯ it was known that the three
44
Ibidem, pp. 123-124, para. 474.
45
See ibidem, p. 46, para. 164.
4MS, p.183, para.9.16, pp.195-196, paras.9.46-9.47; CMS, pp.203-205, paras.8.6-8.7; RS, p.270,
para. 10.13. - 28 -
features were separated by navigational channels and did not stand on one single-raised section of
47
the sea-bed . For that matter, Singapore’s claim that the rock type of the three features is more or
less the same 48 ⎯ Mr. President, that does not say very much. The same rock type can be found in
a number of islands, stretching from the coast of Johor across the Straits to Pulau Bintan in
Indonesia. One thing is certain: geologically, th e three features do not share such characteristics
with the island of Singapore. However, Johor does.
Toponomy, single name
18. As to toponomy, in its assertions, Singapore draws attention to the location of these
49
features between the Middle and the South Channels and the description of their names . But the
fact that South Ledge is south of PBP and Midd le Rocks is between PBP and South Ledge, as you
can now see on the screen, that does not in itself justify the view that these features should be
identified as a group. You will recall that Professor Koh could not show you the three features in
one graphic, because South Ledge was outside, as he said, the photograph’s frame 50. And the
uncomfortable fact for Singapore remains indeed th at the three features, with one exception, have
never been named as a group. The very fact that the features are proximate to one another does not
mean that they form part of a single group.
Location and the dependency argument
19. In its Memorial, Singapore argues that Middle Rocks and South Ledge are both “mere
dependencies of Pedra Branca” 51. Singapore’s position is that “[w]hoever owns Pedra Branca
owns Middle Rocks and South Ledge, which are dependencies of the island of Pedra Branca and
52
form with the latter a single group of maritime features” . In support of its position, Singapore
heavily relies on the El Salvador/Honduras case, where a Chamber of this Court treated the smaller
island of Meanguerita as a dependency of the larger island of Meanguera, on the basis of the
47
See CMM, p. 78, para. 154.
48
MS, p. 183, para. 9.16.
49
CR 2007/23, p. 53, para. 16; CMS, p. 208, para. 8.9 (d).
50CR 2007/20, p. 18, para. 9.
51MS, p. 180, para. 9.8, and p. 198, para. 9.52 (a).
52
MS, p. 180, para. 9.7. See also CR 2007/20, p. 18, para. 10. - 29 -
former’s smaller size, the proximity to the larg er island, and the fact that it was uninhabited ( Land,
Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening ), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1992 , p.570, para.356). However, the analogy is misguided. Singapore has
overlooked an important aspect of that case ⎯ which the Chamber did not fail to mention ⎯
namely that:
“Throughout the argument before the Chamber the islands of Meanguera and
Meanguerita were treated by both Parties as constituting a single insular unity; neither
Party, in its final submissions, claimed a separate treatment for each of the two
islands.” (Ibidem.)
As evident from the wording of the Special Agreement in this present case, the Court has been
requested to pronounce on the sovereignty of PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge respectively,
and not on the sovereignty of the three features as a unit. This is also in contrast with the
Minquiers and Ecrehos case, where the Court was requested ⎯ and I quote from the Agreement ⎯
“to decide in general to which Party sovereignty over each group as a whole belongs, without
determining in detail the facts relating to the particular units of wh ich the groups consist”
(Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom) , Judgment , I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 53).
Mr.President, the Special Agreement in the pr esent case requests the Court to determine the
sovereignty over each of the three features separately. And this is reflected in the use of “belongs”,
the single form, and not “belong”, the plural form.
Navigation
20. With respect to navigation, Singapore contends that PBP, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge are not separated by navigable channels 5. This is simply incorrect .4
21. In reality, Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle Rocks are two separate groups of rocks divided
by a navigable channel 970m, that is 0.53nauti cal miles, wide, and at least 10.1m deep. Ships
with a draft of about 7.0m can navigate between Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle Rocks. Between
South Ledge and Middle Rocks there is an expan se of water of about 3,000m wide, that is
1.6nautical miles, and a depth of generally more than 20m. There is a patch of shallower water
53
CR 2007/23, pp. 49-50, paras. 6-8; RS, p. 270, para. 10.13; CMS, pp. 205-206, para. 8.8.
5See report of Captain (rtd.) Goh Siew Chong, RM, Vol. 1, App. III. - 30 -
55
with a depth of 18.3 m about 1,000 m north of South Ledge . Avoiding this patch, however, ships
with a draft of 17m can easily navigate betw een Middle Rocks and South Ledge. Singapore’s
claim that the sea-bed features between Pulau Batu Puteh and Middle Rocks, with a deepest point
of 32 m, and between Middle Rocks and South Ledge, with a deepest point of 36 m, are “extremely
shallow” is misleading. Any expe rienced captain will confirm that de pths of 32 to 36 m in coastal
waters are considered quite deep.
22. And it is not correct, as Professor Pellet suggested, that merely “small intrepid boats can
56
venture there at their risk and peril” . And he stated that for that reason there is “only a limited
interest for navigation” 57. However, the real reason for the li mited navigation interest between the
two features is that the route through these channe ls is considerably longer than the usual route
through the Middle Channel. Moreover, the fact that the channels can accommodate ships with a
draft up to 17 m means that they are not only open to Professor Pellet’s petits bateaux 58.
23. Singapore suggests that the fact that th e main navigational route in the area, Middle
Channel, is broader and deeper than the cha nnels between PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
somehow supports the proposition that the three features are not distinct 59. But such a conclusion
does not follow at all. The depth and breadth of the Middle Channel is irrelevant to the distinct
character of the three features. As Captain Goh states in his evidence, what matters is whether the
channels between PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge are navigable, which they are. They are
able to support traffic by vessels of a significant draft.
Cartography
24. As the historical record presented in Malaysia’s written pleadings shows, no evidence
has been found in legal instruments, on charts or in documents that the three features have ever
been referred to as a group. Nor have they been given a collective name such as the “Pedra Branca
55See judges’ folders, tab 98.
56
CR 2007/23, p. 50, para. 8.
57
Ibidem.
58Ibidem.
59CMS, p. 204, para. 8.7 (b). - 31 -
Rocks” or the “Horsburgh Rocks”, with one ex ception of Pedra Branca and Middle Rocks being
referred to colloquially as the “Horsburgh Group” in 1958 6.
25. The fact that this was not done in the present case testifies to the consistent view of
mariners and others that the features were separate and distinct.
Pilots and nautical instructions
26. All three features have been long known a nd during the days of sail they were identified
as a danger to shipping which should be avoided by sailing well to the north or to the south. Once
engine-driven vessels started plying these waters, th ey were able to navigate between the features,
61
which were small and separated by channels of varying but sufficient depths .
27. Singapore argued that “Malaysia cannot produce the least pilot or the least nautical
instruction showing the existence of a navigable ch annel in this location: it only exists in the
imagination ⎯ somewhat biased imagination ⎯ of CaptainGoh” 62, of Singapore. However,
Mr.President, among other documents, Malaysia would like to refer the Court to the Pilot
Instructions for Singapore Strait North Eastern approach which states “passage between Middle
Rocks and South Ledge is possible at LW (low water) provided both are plainly visible”.
Mr. President, if possible at low water, passage is easy at high water 63. The document concerned
can be found at tab 99 of your folder.
28. In sum, there is no doubt that the three f eatures are separated by navigable channels.
Indeed, all the available evidence ⎯ geomorphological, hydrographic, navigational, historical ⎯
all indicates that these features are properly regarded as distinct maritime features rather than as
constituent parts of one single island group.
29. Apart from this list of ProfessorPellet, I would also like to address a few remaining
arguments by Singapore, put forward in its written proceedings.
60
See CMS, p. 207, para. 8.9 (b); RS, p. 268, para. 10.11 (b).
61
See MM, para. 293.
62CR 2007/23, p. 50, para. 8.
63British Admiralty Sailing Directions, Malacca Strait and West Coast of Sumatra Pilot (NP 44, 6th ed., 1987,
p. 217). See judges’ folder, tab 99. - 32 -
No separate appropriation argument
30. That is, first of all, the no separate appropriation argument. In its written pleadings,
Singapore argues that Middle Rocks and South Ledg e have not been “independently appropriated
64
by any state” . The facts are, however, different. Middle Rocks and South Ledge have always
been under the sovereignty of Johor and subsequently Malaysia. Britain never advanced any claim
and not even a request with respect to these two features. In the entire file of correspondence
during the period 1844-1851, so meticulously analysed by my colleagues Kohen and SirEli, not
one single reference to and not one single sign of interest in Middle Rocks and South Ledge can be
found. Small wonder that Singapore is silent on this point.
31. Mr President, when the Arbitral Tribunal in the Beagle Channel case considered whether
there was any ground upon which it could and should divide a group of islands, it observed:
“Since its terms of reference require it to decide in accordance with
international law, a division would have to be based on a difference of a juridical
character between the situation of one of the islands as compared with that of the other
two.” 65
In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that th e British acted only with respect to the particular
location of PBP by requesting a licence to construc t and operate a lighthouse on the island. The
fact that the formal request by the British and the ensuing permission from the Sultan and the
Temenggong related to PBP ⎯ and to PBP only! ⎯ is clearly a “difference of a juridical
character”, to paraphrase the Beagle Channel case, that requires from the Court a separate
treatment of PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge.
The common destiny of sovereignty argument
32. As to the other argument put forward by Singapore relating to a common destiny of
sovereignty: Well, relying on its erroneous assumption that the three features constitute a group,
Singapore relies on the principle pursuant to whic h the islands other than the main one should
follow the fate of the latter. In Singapore’s view, “sovereignty over both Middle Rocks and South
Ledge belongs to Singapore by virtue of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca” 66.
6MS, p. 180, para. 9.7.
65
Beagle Channel Arbitration (Argentina v. Chile), Award, 18 February 1977, 52 ILR 97, p. 169, para. 83.
6CR 2007/20, p. 23, para. 31. - 33 -
33. Mr. President, this could be interpreted as an invitation to apply in international law the
adage “the accessory follows the principal”. But it is doubtful whether a principle of this kind
exists in international law ( Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and
Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001; joint dissenting opinion of
Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva and Koroma, p. 166, paras. 61-62).
34. As the single Arbitrator KingVictor Emanuel of Italy observed in the 1904 British
Guiana boundary case between Brazil and Great Britain,
“the effective possession of a part of a region... cannot confer a right to the
acquisition of the whole of a region which, either owing to its size or to its physica
l
67
configuration, cannot be deemed to be a single organic whole de facto” .
35. As the preceding paragraphs demonstrat ed, the three features cannot be deemed de facto
a single organic whole, precisely because of their physical configuration, which characterizes them
as separate maritime features.
36. Even if the Court were nevertheless inc lined to find that the three islands constitute a
group, this does not necessarily imply that, because of the fact that PBP may belong to Singapore,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge should ipso facto fall under Singapore’s sovereignty as well. The
sovereignty over the islands must, in any event, be considered separately. As observed by the
Arbitral Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen Award of 1998 in the First Phase:
“It would be wrong to assume that they [the islands] must together go to one
Party or the other. In this extent the Tribunal rejects the Yemen theory that all the
68
islands in the group must in principle share a common destiny of sovereignty.”
37. At the end of the day, arguments b ased on the concept of “common destiny of
sovereignty” were also not accepted by this Court in the Qatar v. Bahrain case, as the argument of
Bahrain that it had sovereignty ove r the island of Janan as part of the Hawar Islands was clearly
rejected (Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Qu estions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 90-91, paras. 164-165).
38. If a single group of maritime features were to be at all distinguished, Mr.President,
Members of the Court, it would constitute Middle Rocks and South Ledge. South Ledge lies
67
Award of His Majesty the King of Italy with regard to the Boundary between the Colony of British Guiana and
the United States of Brazil, Rome, 6 June 1904, XI United Nations, RIAA 11, pp. 21-22.
6Eritrea/Yemen, Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the First Stage of the ProceediTerritorial Sovereignty
and Scope of the Dispute), 9 October 1998, 114 ILR 1, p. 129, para. 491. - 34 -
1.7nautical miles from Middle Rocks and 2.2nautical miles from PBP. This means that the
low-tide elevation called South Ledge would attach to Middle Rocks rather than to PBP, for the
simple reason that it is located within the territo rial sea appertaining to Middle Rocks. As this
Court observed in the Qatar v. Bahrain case in 2001: “a coastal State has sovereignty over
low-tide elevations which are situated within its territorial sea, since it has sovereignty over the
territorial sea itself (ibid., p. 101, para. 204).
Conclusion
39. In conclusion, Mr.President, Members of th e Court. We are dealing here with a claim
that suddenly came to the fore more than a dozen years after the critical date.
40. However one looks at PBP, Middle Rocks and South Ledge ⎯ whether through the
prisms of geology, geomorphology, hydrogr aphy, navigation or international law ⎯, they are and
remain three separate and distinct maritime features. Toponomy, the proximity of the features one
to another, and other dimensions that ProfessorPellet discussed cannot alter this assessment.
Singapore cannot assert sovereignty over Middle Rock s and South Ledge by simply tacking on in
passing an addendum to its 1980 claim to sovereignt y over PBP. It must demonstrate sovereignty
in respect of each feature individually. This it has manifestly failed to do.
41. Mr President, Members of the Court, thank you for your kind attention on the analysis of
the legal situation with respect to these two features. Could I now ask you to call upon my
colleague Sir Elihu Lauterpacht to continue Malaysia’s presentation. Thank you.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I thank you, Professor Schrijver, for your speech
and call on Sir Elihu Lauterpacht to take the floor.
Sir Elihu LAUTERPACHT: Mr.President and Members of the Court, I am sorry that the
circumstances of the case have led to my being imposed on you for a second time today. But you
will, I am sure, be relieved to hear that you will not hear from me further this week. - 35 -
B RITISH PRACTICE CONCERNING PBP
The nature of Britain’s actions as lighthouse operators
1. The task to which I now turn is to respond to the Singapore arguments regarding the effect
of the administration of the lighthouse by Britain during the period from the commencement of the
operations of the lighthouse in 1851 until 1965 when Singapore became independent. I do so with
the greatest reluctance. And that is not because I do not enjoy addressing you, it is the firm
conviction of Malaysia that once it has b een shown that Pulau Batu Puteh was not terra nullius in
1847 and belonged to Johor, Britain’s conduct ther eafter cannot properly be taken into account. It
should therefore not be necessary to examine that conduct. I apologize for having repeated this
quite fundamental point so many times. There are, however, certain passages in Mr.Bundy’s
69
speech on 8 November that suggest he may not share this view . On the one hand, he quite
properly acknowledges that “an argument... predicated on the notion of prescription... has no
70
role to play in the present case” . But on the other hand, in the neighbouring paragraphs
Mr.Bundy indulges in some verbal gymnastics that may perhaps be intended to give the
impression that, notwithstanding the exclusion of pr escription, there is still some way in which the
Court can override Johor’s title on the basis of Britain ’s post-1851 conduct. Th is is what he does:
he starts from a hint at the opening of paragraph 67 of the compte rendu that the title to Pulau Batu
Puteh might somehow be indeterminate in 1851. He then goes on to say: “even if that situation
existed, title today would still vest in Singapor e by virtue of its subsequent conduct on the
island . . . In the event that the effectivitdoes not co-exist with any legal title, it must invariably
be taken into consideration.” And then he continues,
“In such a case the Court would be faced by the same kind of situation it
confronted in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case, the Indonesia/Malaysia case, the recent
Nicaragua v. Honduras case, . . . the Eritrea/Yemen case... where the issue of
sovereignty was decided on the basis of wh ich party could show the better title based
on sovereign acts undertaken on the disputed territory à titre de souverain.”
The present case, however, is not in the same category as those cases. In none of them was the
starting-point of the examination of the conduct of the parties a pre-existing determination (as
Malaysia contends there must be in this case) that one of them had a clear title and the other did not
69
CR 2007/22, pp. 28-29.
7Ibid., p. 29, para. 69. - 36 -
rely on prescription. The Minquiers case was a straightforward dispute as to which of the two
parties had achieved title, neither of them being acknowledged to have had a prior title; the same
was true of the other cases mentioned by Mr.Bundy. Here the position is quite different; the
starting-point of Singapore’s post 1851 efforts must be the acceptance of Johor’s prior title.
Singapore may disagree, but this is emphatically not a case about competing effectivités ⎯ nor one
in which Johor’s title to the island, if found to ex ist in 1847, “might somehow be indeterminate in
1851”. So I repeat ⎯ I apologize once more ⎯ that the discussion into which I shall now enter is
strictly speaking irrelevant.
2. Singapore contends that during this peri od Britain performed acts on and in relation to
Pulau Batu Puteh which confirmed and maintained the title already established by Britain by its
activities during the years 1847 to 1851.
3. Once again it has to be said by way of introduction that nothing that happened after 1851
could confer title on Britain if it had not acqui red title by 1851. Singapore acknowledges this.
Accordingly, it is not strictly n ecessary to return to this topic agai n. But by reason of Singapore’s
repeated emphasis on these facts, Malaysia believes that it should address at least some of them.
The evidence that I will now reh earse will demonstrate that Britain’s activity in relation to the
Horsburgh lighthouse and Pulau Batu Puteh afte r 1851 was purely operational; it did not reflect
any intention to acquire sovereignty nor was it effective to do so. It was just what one would
expect from a responsible lighthouse operator.
4. I will focus on a number of specific areas. The first will be the British practice in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries concerning th e establishment and administration of lighthouses
generally. This demonstrates that Britain establis hed navigational aids on the territory of other
States without any intention thereby of acquiring so vereignty over the locations concerned. This
will lead me, secondly, to recall briefly the juri sprudence on lighthouses. This fully accords with
State practice and confirms that the administration of lighthouses is not a determinant of
sovereignty. I will then turn, thirdly, to the Straits Lights system in the Straits of Singapore and
Malacca as another example of British practice invol ving only administration and not sovereignty.
This will involve a consideration of Britain’s conduct specifically related to the Horsburgh
lighthouse, with a view to demonstrating that the British acts were no more than administrative or - 37 -
operational in nature. Lastly, I shall revert to the correspondence of 1953 as confirming that
Britain did not consider that Pulau Batu Puteh was subject to its sovereignty.
1. British practice in the nineteenth century regarding the administration of overseas
lighthouses 71
5. So I start with British practice in the nine teenth century regarding the administration of
lighthouses outside British territory. There is a considerable body of State practice demonstrating
that there is a distinction between sovereignty over territory and the routine administration of a
lighthouse. This distinction was a prominent feat ure of British practice from the mid-nineteenth to
the mid-twentieth centuries and even continues today. British practice in the construction and
administration of lighthouses around the world neve r constituted, and was never considered by
Britain as amounting to, a taking of lawful possession of territory on which the lighthouse was
situated for the purpose of establishing sovereignty.
6. In this connection, it is helpful to appr eciate the motivation of Britain when establishing
navigational lights. The key objective was to secure the safety of navigation for the promotion of
Britain’s commercial and imperial activities. Britain was not concerned to acquire tiny islets, rocks
or other portions of territory on which the lighthouses might be constructed. Malaysia’s
Counter-Memorial explores British practice in dept h, so today I will only summarize it. Of the
many examples of British practice, I will mention only one of the most significant, in what is now
72
simply called the Gulf . In 1911 Britain took control of the aids to navigation in the Gulf and the
Government of India undertook the task of admi nistering these lights. The British and Indian
Governments shared the costs of administering them. Together they established important lights in
the Gulf including those on Tumb Island, on Quoin or Didamar Island, which is on the territory of
73
the Sultan of Muscat, now Oman, as well as the Muscat Beacon, which is off the coast of Oman ,
and you can see them all on the screen in front of you. By the late 1940s, there were 31aids to
navigation, some of which were constructed by the British or Indian Governments with the
permission of local rulers, while in other cases no su ch permission seems to have been given. In
71Generally ⎯ CMM, Chap. 6
72
CMM, paras. 216-217; 221-227.
73See judges’ folder, tab 100. - 38 -
1947 control of the administration and financing of the Gulf lights was tr ansferred to the British
Government alone. In 1950 responsibility for th e lights was transferred to a non-profit company
incorporated under English law. In 1966 its name was changed to the Middle East Navigation Aids
Service (MENAS). MENAS continues to administer lighthouses and other aids to navigation on
the territories of Kuwait, the United Arab Emirat es and Qatar. But there is no suggestion of
acquisition of British sovereignty in those places.
7. When the Omani Government indicated that it wished to assume control over the aids to
navigation situated on its territory, there was no doubt that it was entitled to do so, even though
those lights had been, in many cases, constructe d, owned and operated by MENAS. Ownership
and control of the lights were transferred to Oman and MENAS was compensated.
8. A further example of Britain administering a lighthouse on the territory of another State is
provided by Britain’s responsibility for the administration and maintenance of Sombrero lighthouse
74
in Anguilla between 1984 to 2001 .
9. Britain is not the only country to have administered lighthouses without claiming
sovereignty. The Cape Spartel lighthouse was established by a treaty of 1865 which set up an
International Commission to administer the light house on the territory of the Sultan of Morocco.
Likewise, the Republic of Ireland, acting through the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the statutory
lighthouse authority of the Republic of Ireland, admi nisters aids to navigation in Northern Ireland,
75
which remains part of the United Kingdom .
10. Singapore has sought to distinguish ex amples such as these from Pulau Batu Puteh
because they involved the grant of permission by the local sovereign to the administering authority.
As you have heard from Professor Kohen, such pe rmission was granted in the case of Pulau Batu
Puteh by the Sultan and Temunggong of Johor in 18 44. As these examples illustrate, what Britain
did in respect of Pulau Batu Puteh, that is constructing and administering a lighthouse with the
permission of the local rulers, was completely in line with its practice concerning lighthouses
74
CMM, para. 219. See further, CMM, Vol 2, Ann. 1, para. 19. See reference to Gibraltar, paras. 20-22.
75CMM, para.218. This is an example of aids to navi gation situated in one State being administered by the
authority of another State. - 39 -
elsewhere. British concern was with maritime sa fety and commerce, not with the acquisition of
sovereignty.
Mr. President, at your convenience I could pause.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I think this might be a convenient moment to
have a short break. We will resume after the break.
Sir Elihu LAUTERPACHT: Thank you, Mr. President.
The Court adjourned from 11.20 a.m. to 11.35 a.m.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Please be seated. Would you continue please,
Sir Elihu.
Sir Elihu LAUTERPACHT:
2. Jurisprudence on administration of navigational aids 76
11. Mr. President, Members of the Court, at this point, I turn to recall the various references
by this Court to the question of lighthouses.
12. The judgments of the Permanent Court in the Lighthouses case between France and
Greece and the Lighthouses in Crete and Samos can only be read as affirming the view that
administration of lighthouses has no bearing on sovereignty over the underlying territory 77.
78
Likewise, in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case the principle that underlay the Court’s view was
that conduct in the administration of a lighthouse could not, without more, be taken as evidence of
79
sovereignty. This principle was echoed by the Arbitral Tribunal in the Eritrea/Yemen case .
13. In order to counter this trend in the jurisprudence Singapore advances the Qatar v.
Bahrain case where the Court has observed that the construction of navigational aids can be legally
relevant in the case of very small islands. The C ourt’s conclusion does not contradict its previous
jurisprudence. The construction of aids to naviga tion may be relevant to questions of sovereignty
76
CMM, paras. 228-237.
77
CMM, para. 228.
78I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 47.
7940 ILM 900 (2001), paras. 221, 226, 328, 510. - 40 -
in cases where there is no other basis of title and the construction and administration of navigation
aids evidence the intention of the State concerned to act à titre de souverain. This conclusion is
also confirmed by the Indonesia/Malaysia case. Both Parties advanced effectivités to support their
claims. As regards Malaysia’s reliance on its conduct in respect of the maintenance of the
lighthouses, the Court recalled the passage in the judgment in the Qatar v. Bahrain case, which
was prefaced with the observation that “the construction and operation of lighthouses and
80
navigational aids are not normally considered manifestations of State authority” . The Court
expressly relied on its reasoning in the Minquiers and Ecrehos case.
14. These judicial observations are consistent with State ⎯ and particularly British ⎯
practice which I have just mentioned. The general rule is that conduct associated with the
administration of a lighthouse does not, without mo re, serve to establish sovereignty. As I have
already said, such conduct will only be relevant if it discloses an intention to acquire title, not
simply ownership of the lighthouse and its associat ed facilities, but specifically to the territory on
which the lighthouse is located. Such an intentio n will not itself be sufficient in circumstances in
which title to the territory already lies with another State which has shown no intention of
abandoning it.
3. Straits Lights System 81
15. So, I must now recall the Straits Lights System which included the Horsburgh lighthouse
as a further indication that Singapore’s role in relation to the Horsburgh light was purely
administrative.
16. Britain established the Straits Lights whic h developed into a system of lighthouses and
navigational aids in the Straits of Singapore and Malacca in the period 1850 to 1946. By 1912,
13 lighthouses had been established as part of this system 82, including the Horsburgh light. Here is
a map on the screen, which appears at tab 6 of your folders, which displays the Straits Lights. By
83
1938 the number of lighthouses, light beacons, light buoys and light ships had reached 65 .
8Judgment of 17 December 2002, para. 147.
81
CMM, Chap. 7.
8CMM, paras. 298, 322.
8CMM, para. 323. - 41 -
17. Management of the Straits Lights System was vested in the Governor of the Straits
Settlements in Singapore. Like Horsburgh light, the other lights comprising the Straits Lights did
not all fall within the territory of the Straits Se ttlements or of Singapore. Examples of this were
Cape Rachado lighthouse situated on the territory of Malacca, the Pulau Pisang lighthouse situated
on the territory of Johor and the Screw Pile lighthouse, later known as One Fathom Bank
84
lighthouse, situated on a bank in the St raits of Malacca then in the high seas . To operate the
Straits Lights System, each lighthouse was assigned to a “station” responsible for its operations.
The system as a whole was run from Singapore. Although Singapore was assigned a number of
lights, in respect of only some of these did Britain have sovereignty over the territory on which the
lighthouses were constructed. For the others it did not 85.
18. Malaysia’s pleadings provide a compre hensive analysis of the relevant pieces of
86
legislation that relate to the Straits Lights and I will today only provide a brief overview. The
Straits Lights System was initiated with the 1852 Indian Act which defrayed the costs of the
Horsburgh light. The preamble of that Act provides that “it may hereafter be deemed expedient to
87
establish other Lights or beacons in the Straits of Malacca, or elsewhere near thereto . . .” .
19. The 1852 Act was replaced by the 1854 Act which made provision for defraying the
costs not only of Horsburgh but also of “a Floating Light established in the Straits of Malacca . . .
and for the establishment and maintenance of such further Lights in or near the said Straits as may
be deemed expedient”. It declared that these lights “shall be called ‘The Straits Lights’” 88.
20. The Straits Lights System was referred to as such in legislation and documents between
1854 and 1946. In 1912 an Ordinanc e, which repealed in part the 1854 Act, clearly affirmed the
existence of the Straits Lights System and abolished the levying of light tolls on vessels putting into
89
Singapore harbour . The motivation for this latter change was that the Straits Settlements
Legislative Council considered the burden of the light tolls were making the British ports in the
84CMM, para. 320.
85
CMM, para. 324.
86
CMM, paras. 306-324.
87MM Ann. 84; CMM, para. 306.
88MM, Ann. 85; CMM, para. 307.
89MM, Ann. 90; CMM, paras. 309-312. - 42 -
region less competitive than the rival Dutch ports. The now-increased costs of maintaining the
system were to be shared by the Colony of Singapore and the Governments of the Federated Malay
States. The latter contributed a disproportionately large amount to these costs. When explaining
the need for the contribution, the Chief Secretary of the Federal Council of the Federated Malay
States stated that the Colonial Government had the expertise in administering and maintaining the
lights and it was best that the Federation of Malaya contributed only financially to the lights system
90
despite the fact that the lights fell within its territory . The clear distinction ⎯ the clear
distinction ⎯ between sovereignty and administration was implicit in his reasoning.
21. A further 1915 Straits Settlements Ordinance provided for the collection of lights dues by
the Straits Settlements for lights that were indisputably located on non-Straits Settlements
91
territory .
22. In 1946, with the dissolution of the Straits Settlements and the establishment of
Singapore as a separate colony, the Straits Lights Syst em ceased to be administered by the Straits
Settlements. The operation of each lighthouse continued to rest with the station that had previously
been responsible for it. At no point did these and subsequent developments alter the status of the
territory on which the lights in question were based. After 1946 both Singapore and the Malayan
Union reintroduced the levying of light dues as the means of funding the maintenance of lights and
92
both established Light Dues Boards .
23. It was commonly acknowledged, not simply by the Federated Malay States but also by
the British representatives, that the maintenance a nd administration of a lighthouse by the Colony
of the Straits Settlements had no bearing on the sovereignty of the territory on which the lighthouse
was situated. Rather, this administration was rooted in the Straits Settlements’ expertise.
24. The arrangements under the Straits Lights System proceeded without regard to questions
of sovereignty over the territory on which the various lighthouses that formed part of the Straits
Lights System were constructed. The fact that a lighthouse was managed by the Governor of the
Straits Settlements as part of the Straits Lights System had no bearing on the sovereignty over the
90
CMM, paras. 313-314.
91
CMM, para. 318.
92CMM, para. 319. - 43 -
territory on which the lighthouse was situated; nor were such lighthouses administered as part of
the territory of Singapore. Practice in the establishment of both the Straits Lights System and other
lighthouses around the world confirms that the construction and administration of lighthouses
neither constituted a taking of possession of the un derlying territory for purposes of sovereignty
nor, as such, a display of State sovereignty.
93
4. PulauPisang
25. The severability of the administration of a lighthouse and the question of sovereignty
over the underlying terrain is well illustrated by the position of the Pulau Pisang lighthouse. This is
administered by Singapore but is indisputably located on Malaysia’s territory. Singapore does not
question Malaysia’s sovereignty over Pulau Pisang.
26. It is an island located 7nautical miles off the west coast of Johor in the Straits of
Malacca. The Straits Lights System provided the framework for Singapore’s role as administrator
of the lighthouse. It was built as part of the Stra its Lights System in 1885 on a plot of land granted
by Johor to the Government of the Straits Settlements. This grant was confirmed by an
indenture ⎯ that is a private law instrument ⎯ of 6 October 1900 which was required to delineate
the area of the island which was the subject of th e grant and to distinguish it from the remaining
area of the island. Pulau Batu Puteh did not re quire such an indenture because its small size
obviated any need to distinguish between the area made available for the lighthouse and any other
area on the island.
27. The similarities between Pulau Pisang and Horsburgh lighthouses are striking:
⎯ both were part of the Straits Lights system;
⎯ both were administered by the Singapore “station” as part of the System, although they were
not situated in Singapore territory;
⎯ both were constructed by the British on land that was part of Johor pursuant to permission
granted by Johor for the construction of the lighthouse.
28. Singapore attempts to mask these similar ities by stating that each island had a different
legal and factual history and was subject to entirely different lega l régimes. Malaysia is not
93
CMM, paras. 304-305. RM, paras. 319-323. - 44 -
claiming that the situations were identical. But Singapore cannot disguise the fact that in all
relevant respects the situations are the same and that there are two lighthouses administered by the
Singapore Port Authority which are both on Johor terr itory. This illustrates clearly the distinction
between sovereignty over an area and the administration of a lighthouse.
29. The physical differences between the Pulau Pisang light and the Horsburgh light should
be appreciated 94. On the screen is a map of Pulau Pisang. Superimposed on it, on the same scale,
is a map of Pulau Batu Puteh: you can hardly see it, it is right there in the middle. As can
immediately be seen, there is no comparison between them. Pulau Batu Puteh is to Pulau Pisang as
the nail of a little finger is to the hand as a whole.
30. And that is the reason why the flying of the flag at Pulau Pisang was so different from
the flying of the flag at Pulau Batu Puteh. The fl ying of the flag at Pulau Pisang was seen by local
people as an assertion of authority over a substantia l piece of Johor territory and they wanted it
removed. The flying of the flag over the Horsburgh light was no more than an indication that the
lighthouse was operated by Britain. It was entirely in keeping with the flying of the Malaysian flag
over the Malaysian naval base at Woodlands Base in Singapore and with the flying of the British
flag over the leased area of Hong Kong.
5. Operational nature of Britain’s actions in relation to Pulau Batu Puteh
31. I turn next, Mr. President, to emphasize further the point that Britain’s actions in relation
to Pulau Batu Puteh are all connected to the administration of the lighthouse and do not
demonstrate any entitlement to sovereignty.
No British legislation incorporated Pulau Ba tu Puteh into the Colony of the Straits
Settlements
32. Singapore relies heavily on the argument th at both it, and Britain, enacted a series of
laws relating to Pulau Batu Puteh, including measures to defray the costs of establishing and
maintaining Horsburgh light, and that such legi slation is clearly a sovereign act undertaken à titre
de souverain. I will only address the legislation passed prior to 1963. ProfessorCrawford will
presently deal with the legislation passed subsequently by Singapore.
94
See judges’ folder, tab 101. - 45 -
33. I should mention first that no item of legi slation ever refers to Pulau Batu Puteh in
isolation. A majority of the references are to Horsburgh lighthouse or, if Pulau Batu Puteh is
mentioned, it is associated with the Horsburgh lighthouse or, alternatively, it appears in the
expression “the lighthouse on Pulau Batu Puteh”.
34. Singapore relies on the 1852 and 1854 Acts passed by the Governor-General of India in
Council concerning the levying and collection of light dues. The 1852 Act states:
“Tigeht-house on Pedra Branca aforesaid shall be called ‘The Horsburgh
Light’ and the said Light-House, and the appurtenances thereunto belonging or
occupied for the purposes thereof, and all fi xtures, apparatus, and furniture belonging
thereto, shall become the property of, and ab solutely vest in, the East India Company
95
and their successors.” (Emphasis added.)
The 1854 Act contains an almost identical provision . The language of the section is clear. It
plainly focuses on ownership and control of the lighthouse and its appurtenances as a matter of
private law rather than on sovereignty over the island as a matter of intern ational law. Singapore
claims that Pulau Batu Puteh itself was the subject of the measures in question. Pulau Batu Puteh
is obviously not the subject, the subject of the sentence is clear: “the Lighthouse on Pedra
Branca” 96.
35. Singapore claims that this is a straightfo rward example of territorial legislation expressly
concerned with Pedra Branca and that the Governme nt of India assumed the power to legislate on
the status of Horsburgh lighthouse precisely because it considered Pulau Batu Puteh to be British
territory. One may ask: if this was the assumption of the Government of India, why was it not
expressed? This is especially so if, as Singapore ar gues, the Government believes that the island,
having been a terra nullius, had recently been acquired. But in truth, as I explained on Tuesday,
the legal basis of the 1852 Act is not territorial sovereignty, but the power to exercise jurisdiction
extra-territorially in foreign places recognized in the 1843 Foreign Jurisdiction Act.
36. Mr.Bundy has addressed the subject of the Straits Lights System. The 1852 and
1854 Acts were not assertions of legislative author ity over Pulau Batu Puteh as such. They were,
rather, legislation essential to the operation of the Straits Lights as a whole. It was also a common
feature of British practice not to retain title to lighthouses. In effect, Section 1 of the 1852 Act was
95
MM, Ann. 84; CMM, para. 348.
9CMM, para. 348. - 46 -
simply an indication that the Governments of Singapore and India would not in the future claim
title to the lighthouse. Moreover, as I have al ready explained, the1 852 and 1854Acts were
adopted in the exercise of the power acknowle dged by the United Kingdom Parliament in 1843 to
legislate extraterritorially.
37. The significance of the 1843 Act cannot be disregarded or underestimated. Its existence
is the complete answer to the Singapore contention that the subsequent statutes were adopted in the
exercise of territorial sovereignty. The 1843 Act provided in Section I quite clearly that
“it shall be lawful for Her Majesty to . . . exercise . . . any Power of Jurisdiction which
Her Majesty now hath or may at any time he reafter have within any country or place
out of Her Majesty’s Dominions, in the same and as ample a manner as if Her Majesty
had acquire97such Power of Jurisdiction by the Cession or Conquest of the
Territory” .
In other words, this provision recognized that st atutes might be enacted by Britain, or under the
authority of Britain, that might have effect in te rritory over which Britain was not sovereign and so
could not be regarded as an assertion of sovereignty over that territory.
98
38. Singapore then prays in aid the legislation regarding the light dues . As to these, it
should be noted that the words “navigational aids in the waters of the colony” that appear in
Section6 of the 1957Ordinance were replaced by Section4 of the 1958Ordinance by the words
“lighthouses, buoys, beacons and other navigational aids in Singapore including those at Pedra
Branca (Horsburgh) and Pulau Pisang”. Why this amendment? It must surely indicate that Pedra
Branca (Horsburgh) and Pulau Pisang, although admini stered by Singapore, did not fall within the
“waters of the Colony” of Singapore. If they did, and if they were thought of as doing so, there
99
would have been no reason to make such an amendment .
Administration only of the lighthouse
39. Of course, Britain performed a number of activities that related to the operation of the
Horsburgh lighthouse. It provided maintenance and improvements to the light, issued Notices to
Mariners, exercised jurisdiction over the lighthouse personnel, collected meteorological
97
See judges’ folder, tab 37.
98
CMM, paras. 6.52-6.58.
99CMM, para. 352. - 47 -
information and flew the British marine ensign. Singapore says that these acts were the “exercise
of State functions on Pedra Branca”. However, none of them can properly be classified as conduct
à titre de souverain. These acts were specific to the lighthouse and were carried out as part of
Britain’s role as operator of the lighthouse and in accordance with its role in the Straits Lights
System. Experts from Trinity House 100 ⎯ which, as you know, is a British organization with
101
worldwide responsibilities in the administration of lights ⎯ and MENAS attest to these
activities performed by Britain as being the normal conduct of a lighthouse operator.
ProfessorCrawford will address in detail the acts of Singapore which it claims to be à titre de
souverain and will demonstrate that these activities are overwhelmingly the actions of a lighthouse
operator, nothing more.
40. But to demonstrate this point, I will examine in more detail the two instances of the
conduct that Singapore claims to be conduct à titre de souverain : Notices to Mariners and the
investigation into navigational hazards and shipwrecks.
(i) Notices to Mariners
41. Now, first as to Notices to Mariners: th e first Notice was issued by Britain in 1851 and
102
provided details of the commissioning of the Horsburgh lighthouse ; the second was in 1887 and
103
dealt with the installation of new lighting equipment and the date of removal of a shipwreck .
42. Professionals in lighthouse management ha ve indicated that such Notices are frequently
issued by lighthouse authorities. As a matter of course, Trinity House, MENAS, the
Commissioners of Irish Lights, among other lighth ouse authorities, issue Notices to Mariners.
Trinity House considers the issui ng of such Notices to be necessary for the proper discharge of its
104
statutory duty as a lighthouse authority . Also, as CaptainGlass and Mr.Brewer state in their
affidavits:
“There is an implicit obligation under SOLAS [International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea] Chapter V to advise mariners of the provision of new marks or
10Captain Glass and Mr. Brewer. Report, CMM, Ann. 1.
101
Commander Christmas. CMM, Ann. 2.
102
MS, Ann. 56.
10MS, Ann. 72.
10CMM, Ann. 1, para. 26. - 48 -
changes to the position or characteristics of existing marks. Failure to issue Notices to
Mariners in respect of any changes to navigational marks or a navigational hazard of
which an authority was aware would be 105ligent and could expose a lighthouse
operator to a major liability risk.”
(ii) Investigation of navigational hazards and shipwrecks
43. I go now to the investigation of naviga tional hazards and shipwrecks. Singapore also
claims that it demonstrated its sovereign authority over Pulau Ba tu Puteh by investigating and
reporting on maritime accidents. Britain carried out two investigations, one in 1920 and then the
next in 1963.
44. In 1920, a Court of Investigation was est ablished to investigate the collision between a
British and a Dutch vessel some 1½ miles north of Pulau Batu Puteh 10. But the record of the
Court of Investigation does not specify the basi s on which it was convened and only provided that
it was an investigation into the circumstances of the collision involving a British ship at sea in
which there was a question about the propriety of the conduct of the Master. In other words, the
investigation did not depend on proximity to Pulau Batu Puteh or the application of Pulau Batu
Puteh legislation.
45. Next, Singapore cites the running agroun d on Pulau Batu Puteh of a British registered
107
cargo vessel, The Woodburn , in 1963 . The Master Attendant of Singapore investigated the
incident, as did a Court of Investigation 108. Singapore claims that the establishment of the Court of
Investigation was on the basis that the incident occurred “on or near the coast of Singapore”.
However, the Merchant Shipping Ordinance that is relevant provides other grounds on which the
investigation can be undertaken that are not linke d with proximity to Singapore. Singapore then
109
tries to meet this point by quoting from a case called The Fulham ⎯ one heard in the British
High Court ⎯ to the effect that the words “near th e coast” cannot be read as “covering a place
20miles off the coast” 110. However, Singapore fails to inform this Court that the case was
10CMM, Ann. 1, para. 26.
106
MS, Ann. 78; CMM, para. 457.
107
CMM, para. 458.
10MS, Ann. 78.
10[1898] P206 (High Court of England and Wales).
11RS, para. 4.165. - 49 -
appealed to the Court of Appeal, which stated that it was unnecessary to determine the meaning of
the words “near the coast” despite these words being “much debated at the bar” 111. So one does
not rely on that case either.
46. Additionally, in order to demonstrate that the Merchant Shipping Ordinance was used by
Britain beyond a 20-mile distance from its coast, I should mention the Court of Investigation into
the stranding of the British steamship, The China, on Perim Island where the proceedings were held
112
in March 1883 . Perim is an island located off the coast of Yemen, more than 20 nautical miles
from the coast of the then British colony of Aden, where the proceedings were held. It is definitely
not “on or near the coast” of, in the words of the Ordinance, Britain or one of its colonies 11.
47. The reports into these two investigations do not indicate the jurisdictional basis for the
establishment of the Courts of Investigation. Because the Merchant Shipping Ordinance provides a
number of grounds for the exercise of jurisdiction we are not entitled to assume, though Singapore
does, that jurisdiction is in any way connected to the proximity of any specific set of rocks, not
mentioned in the case papers. In particular Si ngapore has produced no evidence of any incident
that could only have been investigated on the b asis of proximity to Pulau Batu Puteh, nor has it
shown any actual reference to the island as a basis for jurisdiction in these, or any other, cases.
The 1861 incidents show that there were no juri sdictional changes after the construction of
114
the lighthouse
48. I turn now to a number of incidents involving fishermen in the early 1860s. These make
it perfectly plain that Britain did not believe it had jurisdiction in the waters surrounding Pulau
Batu Puteh. These incidents involved Chinese fi shermen resident in Singapore and Malay subjects
of Johor. Some related to the payment of licences fo r fishing; others to violence inflicted against
the fishermen.
49. As to the licences, a Johor pass was i ssued by the Temunggong giving permission “to
catch fish in the Johore territory”. It appears th at British subjects were being required to take out
11[1899] P 251 (Court of Appeal); 1899 WL 11769 (CA).
112
See judges’ folder, tab 102.
11See judges’ folder, tab 103.
11RM, paras. 269-277. - 50 -
permits to fish, even though they rarely proceeded 10miles beyond Singapore Island. The
Secretary of State for India made it clear on 9 January 1862 “that the prevention of persons from
fishing within ten miles of the British shores is a direct interference with the rights of the British
115
Government” . He continued: “ColonelCavenagh has accordingly been directed to make the
Tumongong understand that he will not be allowed to demand payment for Licences from any
persons who fish within British limits only.” This letter and others like it contain no indication that
Britain claimed any waters beyond the 10-mile belt around Singapore, as would have been the case
had Britain then regarded Pulau Batu Puteh as belonging to it and generating its own belt of
territorial waters.
50. The fact that Britain considered that it had no jurisdiction in the waters of Pulau Batu
Puteh is confirmed by an incident that took pl ace in 1861 near SungaiRingit on the Johor coast.
Mr. Bundy has presented a detailed picture of this case but Malaysia sees it somewhat differently.
Fish caught by British subjects “in the ne ighbourhood of Pedra Branca Lighthouse” were
confiscated by a Malayan village head. Gove rnorCavenagh wrote, on 15May 1861, to the
Temunggong regarding the incident “in our friend’ s territory” and describing it as “the serious
molestation to which they have been subjected whilst pursuing their ordinary avocation in the
116
neighbourhood of the Pedro Branco Light House” . Note the words: “in our friend’s territory”.
The words, when read with the mention of “t he neighbourhood of the Pe dro Branco Light House”
suggest that the Governor was not claiming the waters within 3 miles of the island as being British.
And it is within these waters that the fishing is mo st likely to have taken place. We know that fish
117
congregate in large quantities around the rock.
51. As an indication of Britain’s understanding of the limits of its jurisdiction, the
Governor’s letter may be compared with one that he wrote to the Temunggong only two weeks
previously, on 4 May 1861. This referred to an incident which occurred “in the neighbourhood of
11CMM, para. 117. CMM, Ann. 24, p15.
116
CMM, Ann. 24, pp. 17-20.
11CMM, Vol. 1, para. 526. - 51 -
118
Punjurin, about six miles from Changie” , which is within the 10mile limit referred to in the
1824 Crawfurd Treaty. The Governor stated:
“I deem it right to point out to my friend that the Sea in which the above
offences were committed being within the lim it prescribed by Article 11 of the Treaty
of the 2ndAugust1824, the fishermen were within British waters, and consequently
none of my friend’s subjects could in any way have been justified in interfering with
them.” 119
52. The contrast between this letter and the one I first mentioned makes it clear that the
British authorities were conscious of their rights in their treaty waters. No doubt, if they had
considered Pulau Batu Puteh to be British, the Governor would have couched his protest in more
specific terms.
53. I should add that, though decried by the other side, the affidavits of local fishermen
included in Malaysia’s pleadings confirm that they regularly use the waters around Pulau Batu
Puteh and have done so for generations. This has already been mentioned by
120
Ambassador Noor Farida .
6. The 1953 letter
54. So, it will be convenient at this point on ce again for me to turn to the well-known “1953
letter”, to discuss again the nature and effect of that letter. This has been described by Singapore as
an act “of particular importance”, and again as a “formal disclaimer of title” and as “crucial”.
Those are big words for a small letter.
55. Permit me to begin by making one rather basic point. The Court should bear in mind that
prior to the Singapore letter of 12June1953 121 there were only two possibilities regarding
Singapore’s sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. Ei ther Singapore had sovereignty, acquired over a
century earlier, or it did not have sovereignty. If Singapore had sovereignty, then the Malaysian
reply of 21 September 1953 has no relevance to the question of title. The letter could not confer on
Singapore a sovereignty that it already possessed.
11CMM, Ann. 24, pp. 17.
119
CMM, Ann. 24, pp. 17.
12CMM, paras. 516 532.
12MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 67. - 52 -
56. If, on the other hand, Singapore did not possess sovereignt y over Pulau Batu Puteh in
June 1953, then Singapore is effectively treating the Malaysian September 1953 letter as its root of
title. This would imply that nothing that Britain or Singapore had done in the preceding century
had been effective to reflect or establish title and that it is only the Malaysian reply of
September 1953 that effectively created Singapore’s title. And bear in mind the opening adjectives
by which that letter is described: “of particular importance”, a “formal disclaimer of title” and as
“crucial”.
57. As to the last possibility ⎯ that the letter might be treated as a root of title ⎯ this verges
on the absurd. The Court only needs to be reminded that a cession of territory, which on this
analysis is how this letter must effectively be viewed, can hardly be achieved by a letter written by
even an Acting Secretary of a Government in reply to a question posed by a junior official of
another Government, albeit on behalf of the Colonial Secretary, Singapore.
58. Faced by this dilemma, of either asserti ng that it had a good title before 1953 and that
therefore the letter serves no purpose, or that it did not have a good prior title and that the letter is
therefore the basis of its claim, Singapore has understandably chosen a middle course: the letter is
a confirmation of a pre-existing title. But even so, according to Singapore, it is of “crucial
importance”. Why it should be so important remains to be seen. So let us scrutinize the episode
more closely.
59. We must start from the Singapore lette r of 12 June 1953 to “The British Adviser,
Johore”. The “British Adviser”, it may be noted in passing, did not have authority to respond to
this kind of question. Only a copy was sent to the Chief Secretary in Kuala Lumpur. When a reply
was forthcoming it came from the Acting State Secretary.
60. But let us look at the words of the Singapore letter, which is in tab 104 in your folder and
should now be on the screen before you. The first paragraph does no more than “ask for
information”. It refers to the presence of the li ghthouse by stating that it “was built in 1850 by the
Colony Government who have maintained it ever si nce”. No mention is made of the many acts of
sovereignty which Singapore now claims were asso ciated with its presence on the rock; only the
fact that “the Colony Government... have maintained it ever since”. Added to this is the
observation that this “‘no doubt’ confers some ri ghts and obligations on the Colony”. Note the - 53 -
words “no doubt” rather than “undoubtedly” ⎯ a rather hesitant and uncertain approach to the
matter. Note also: “some rights”, not “sovereign rights”.
61. The letter continues with an allusion to the situation on Pulau Pisang, in respect of which
the Singapore letter said: “it has been possible to trace an indenture” showing that “part” of the
island was granted to the Crown for the purpose of building a lighthouse 122. This was evidently a
document of a private law character, not a treaty. And the letter acknowledges that “there was no
abrogation of the sovereignty of Johor”. The paragr aph concludes: “The st atus of Pisang is quite
123
clear.”
62. The next paragraph of the letter begins by stating that “it is desired to clarify the status of
Pedra Branca” and four possibilities are mentioned: a lease, a grant, a cession or a disposition in
124
any other way . There is no specific suggestion here that the status of Pedra Branca was that of a
part of the colony of Singapore. Again, it is to be noted, there is no assertion of any existing claim
by Singapore to sovereignty over the rock ⎯ only an allusion to the mere possibility, amongst
others, of a grant or a cession.
63. Now let us look at the reply: the Acting State Secretary’s letter of 21 September 1953 125
(tab105). He did no more than “inform [Singa pore] that the Johor Government does not claim
ownership of Pedra Branca”. Again, we must note the important words: “does not claim
ownership” ⎯ a private law concept, not sovereignty. It carries the implication that someone else,
presumably Singapore, could claim “ownership” in a manner comparable to the “grant” obtained
by the Crown in respect of the land on which Pulau Pisang lighthouse was built.
64. So what does Singapore build upon this exchange of letters? It is said to be a
confirmation of a sovereign title already possessed by Singapore. If so, it accords strangely with
the terms in which the Colonial Secretary of Singapore commented on the reply on
13 October 1953: “On the strength of this [that is the reply from Johor], the Attorney-General [that
126
is of Singapore] agreed that we can claim it as Singapore territory.” That observation looks to
12See judges’ folder, tab 104.
123
MS, Vol. 6, Ann. 93.
124
See judges’ folders, tab 104.
12MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 69. See judges’ folder, tab 105.
12MS, Vol. 6, Ann. 97. - 54 -
the future. As to the past, it merely reflects Singapore’s uncertainty regarding its title prior to 1953.
Certainly, it contains no indication of so explicit a confirmation. Singapore argues 127that
“ownership” and “sovereignty” are “in this particular context . . . indistinguishable”. It invokes the
frequent use in the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitral Award of the word “ownership” to mean sovereignty.
There can be no doubt there of the equation in that specific context be tween “ownership” and
“sovereignty”. But this is not the position here as is evident from examination of the footnote
references in the Reply of Singapore. One of th em may, however, be recalled as having particular
pertinence here. The Reply of Singapore refers to paragraph510 of the Award in the
Eritrea/Yemen case 12. This says:
“It will be clear from the history of the Red Sea Lighthouse . .. that, although,
or perhaps even because, lighthouses were so important for nineteenth and
early-twentieth-century navigation, a government could be asked to take
responsibility, or even volunteer to be res ponsible for them, without necessarily either
seeming to claim sovereignty over the site or acquiring it.”
65. If the Johor reply had been intended to be a “formal disclaimer” it is easy to think of the
language in which it could have been expressed, but certainly not the short letter from the Acting
Secretary. The word “formal” much used by Singapore is just a word used to puff up the
significance of the letter.
66. As to the letter creating an estoppel, the C ourt is familiar with the concept. The Court
has accepted that to have the legal effect of an estoppel, the party invoking it must show that it has
relied and acted upon the asserted fact in some manner. As stated in the El Salvador/Honduras
129
case . Here, there is no evidence of such reliance. When one looks at Singapore’s list of its
activities pursued in relation to Pu lau Batu Puteh, one cannot find any change in that course of
conduct between the period prior to September 1953 and the period after that date. It is
unnecessary to rehearse the details. Singa pore has admitted as much in its Reply 130. After stating
that Malaysia has made the point that there was no change in Singapore’s conduct and that it
continued to act as it had done before, Singapore said:
12RS, fn. 593.
128
114 ILR, at p. 135.
12I.C.J. Reports 1990, p. 118, para. 63.
13RS, para. 7.16. - 55 -
“This is certainly true. Singapore had no reason to change its behaviour ⎯ she
had continuously acted à titre de souverain vis-à-vis the island after her acquisition of
title in 1847-1851, and Johor’s disclaime r only reinforced the position. A fortiori,
Singapore continued to act as such after th e 1953 disclaimer, including by peacefully
maintaining and administering the lighthouse and by using the island for various other
purposes.”
Mr. President, that brings me to the end of wh at I wish to say to the Court on the subject of
the 1953 letter and this part of the case, and I now respectfully ask you to call upon my colleague,
Professor Crawford.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you very much, SirElihu, for your
statement. I now call Professor Crawford. You have the floor.
CMRA. WFORD:
S INGAPORE ’S SUBSEQUENT PRACTICE
Introduction
1. Mr. President, Members of the Court, Sir E lihu has just addressed Britain’s activities after
1851 and has shown that they related to the operation of the lighthouse or involved activities
incidental to that operation ⎯ things which operators of a substantial lighthouse on a major
shipping route will normally do. I will examin e the Republic of Singapore’s conduct after its
separation from Malaysia in 1965, responding to Mr. Bundy’s presentation last week.
2. My presentation will be in three parts. I will first examine Singapore’s conduct in relation
to Horsburgh lighthouse, which it claims to be conduct à titre de souverain. Secondly, I will turn
to Singapore’s non-lighthouse conduct which it clai ms is relevant to s overeignty over PBP.
Thirdly, I will look at various statements made about PBP by Singapore or Singapore officials
before the critical date evident in the period after 1965. What the evidence shows is that
Singapore’s activities in respect of PBP before the critical date were the normal activities of a
lighthouse operator. As to non-lighthouse conduct there were only a few items, none unequivocal
and none calling for the sort of protest that Thaila nd was held to have been required to make when
presented with the Annex1 map in the Temple case ( Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v.
Thailand), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 6). Moreover throughout the relevant period - 56 -
Singapore continued to represent in its laws and official publications that PBP was not in Singapore
waters and was not a Singapore island. Given these representations, Malaysia had no reason to
scrutinize Singapore’s conduct in any minute interr ogatory way. Overall, a study of Singapore’s
own conduct in the relevant period leaves the situation as it was ⎯ with nothing capable of
displacing a title that already existed. I turn then to the first part of the speech.
Part I: Singapore’s conduct in relation to Horsburgh lighthouse
3. Mr.President, Members of the Court, Singapore has systematically conflated routine
conduct in the administration of the lighthouse a nd conduct that can properly be characterized as
à titre de souverain. Let me demonstrate this ⎯ and I apologize in advance for the tedium implicit
in the method of an item-by-item presentation. So, me after Sir Eli, tedium after tedium ⎯ best I
can do!
(i) Enacting legislation relating to PBP and Horsburgh lighthouse
4. The first claim advanced by Singapore is that it enacted a series of laws relating to PBP .
Sir Eli has addressed the few laws enacted by Britain which related to ownership of the lighthouse.
5. After 1965 Singapore passed two Acts which it claims to be evidence of conduct à titre de
souverain. The first was the Singapore Light Duties Act of 1969, which is tab 106 in your folder.
Singapore relies on the definition of “Singapore” which reads:
“the Republic of Singapore shall be deemed to include the Island of Singapore and all
islands and places which on the 2nd day of June, 1959, 131 were administered as part of
Singapore and all territorial waters adjacent thereto” (emphasis added).
Section 7 sets out the duties of the newly-constituted Singapore Light Dues Board. It states:
“It shall be the duty of the Board to aid the safe navigation of ships by
providing and maintaining, as the Board considers necessary, lighthouses, buoys,
beacons and other navigational aids in Singapore and the approaches thereto, at Pedra
Branca (Horsburgh), at Pulau Pisang and at such other places as the Board may think
fit.”32
6. This places the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang lighthouses in a special category relative to
aids in Singapore. Specifically referencing these lighthouses means that the legislation would not
have otherwise covered them. It would have been unnecessary if the Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang
131
MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 112, Sect. 2. See judges’ folder, tab 106.
13Ibid., Sect. 7. - 57 -
lighthouses were located “in Singapore” as defined by the legislation. This interpretation is
supported by the earlier ordinances referred to by Sir Elihu, which make this distinction, as well as
by the fact that Horsburgh lighthouse is coupled with Pulau Pisang lighthouse, which is also within
Malaysia’s territory. It follows as the night the day, Mr.President, that PBP, like Pulau Pisang,
was not “administered as part of Singapore” in 1959 or in 1969, according to Singapore’s own
legislation.
7. It is important to place this legislation in the context of the Straits Lights System. The
1969Act provided the legislative basis in the ne wly independent Republic of Singapore for it to
manage the five lighthouses under its administration. The legislation reflects the intention to
maintain the status quo of the Straits Lights System : some of the lighthouses fell within Singapore
and others, by name, Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang, did not.
8. The second piece of legislation which Singapore relies on is the Prot
ected Places (No. 10)
Order 1991. As to this Order, Mr.President, I am reminded of counsel’s situation whenever a
piece of evidence comes in that is too late, far t oo late in date: Where were you when I needed
you? The Protected Places (No. 10) Order 1991 w as enacted more than a decade after the critical
date. It is significant in only one way: this is the first piece of legislation since 1851 that
specifically treats PBP as being within Singapore ⎯ the very first. My second item on the list.
(ii) Claims concerning the maintenance and improvement of the lighthouse
9. You have heard Singapore belabour th e activities concerning the maintenance and
improvement of the lighthouse, these activities being said to represent concrete examples of State
authority.
10. Every activity described by Singapore is that which would be undertaken by any operator
of a lighthouse as part of its administrative responsibility. Professionals in the field of lighthouse
management attest to the administrative character of Singapore’s activities. In Volume2 of its
Counter-Memorial, Malaysia presented substantial expert testimony about the management of
lighthouses. Again, Singapore has presented no expert testimony in its Reply but has chosen to
rely on assertion. Where is the lighthouse pr ofessional, for example, CaptainDouglas Glass of
Trinity House, who says, on behalf of Singapore, that changing the bulbs, polishing the reflectors - 58 -
and checking the rain gauge strengthens the soverei gnty of Singapore? To this question, in the
words of Lewis Carroll, “answer came there none” from Singapore. There was no evidence
whatever about lighthouse practice: and this, Mr .President, was not because Malaysia had eaten
all the lighthouse experts in the world, as happened to the oysters in “The Walrus and the
Carpenter” 133, from which I have quoted.
11. Captain Glass and Mr.Brewer make it clear that the list provided by Singapore is
entirely in keeping with the normal conduct of a lighthouse operator. They say:
“Tihesprovements ⎯ the extension of living accommodation, the repair and
strengthening of the pier, the fitting of a radio telephone, repainting, the installation of
boat davits, dihedral radar reflectors and a radio beacon ⎯ are all in keeping with
those undertaken from time to time by any competent lighthouse operator. The
modernisation of the station, with the in stallation of an electric optic, new cooling
systems and so134 panels, is an integr al part of the evolution of lighthouse
technology.”
Captain Glass and Mr. Brewer observe that the inst allation of the Vessel Traffic Service equipment
and the construction of helicopter landing facilities are common. These conclusions are confirmed,
in general terms, in the report by Commander Christmas and in the Note by Rear-Admiral Leclair.
12. Singapore argues that the fact that th ese were ordinary tasks that any lighthouse
administrator would undertake “does not detract from their sovereign nature in this case”. But this
is simply circular, like much of Singapore’s reasoning in this case. For example, we heard from
Mr. Brownlie ⎯ I paraphrase: Pedra Branca was terra nullius because we acquired it by
occupation, and we acquired it by occupation because it was terra nullius. Mr. Bundy’s circularity
was slightly different: We acquired soverei gnty by administering the lighthouse, and our
administration of the lighthouse was an act à titre de souverain because we had sovereignty. First,
we have the roller coaster which mostly goes dow n and never up. And now, we have the vicious
circle that never ends!
13Lewis Carroll, “The Walrus and the Carpenter”
“But answer came there none ⎯
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.”
CarrLo.ll, Through the Looking Glass (1872), available on http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/walrus.html.
13CMM, Vol. 2, Ann. 1, para. 56. - 59 -
13. The material submitted by Singapore in support of its claims underlines Malaysia’s point.
The Annual Reports of the Marine Department of the Straits Settlements and the Colony of
Singapore, like the legislation, refer to the Sing apore Group of Lighthouses, which Singapore
administered under the Straits Lights System. It is clear from these documents that the activities
undertaken, before and after independence, to ad minister and maintain the lighthouse on territory
that belonged to Singapore, and on territory which did not, were the same: no distinction was
made. I turn to my third item in the list.
(iii) Issue of Notices to Mariners regarding PBP
14. There was only one occasion in the relevant period when Singapore issued a Notice to
135
Mariners. This was in 1981 and related to the stranding of a vessel . The first point to make is
that it is after the critical date. The two Notices issued by Britain in 1851 and 1887 were examined
by Sir Elihu and the same point applies equally to Singapore’s Notice.
15. Singapore’s supporting records show that the Master Attendant of the Singapore
Shipping Office published Notices in respect of wa ters over which Singapore had no territorial
jurisdiction, and quite properly so 136. And that, I am afraid is all I will say about Notices to
Mariners unless the Court calls on me for more.
(iv) Exercise of jurisdiction over personnel on the island and the maintenance of order
16. Singapore claims that it exercised jurisdic tion in a territorial sovereign capacity over
personnel on the island and maintained order amongs t them. It relies on the Merchant Shipping
Ordinance of 1928 and later editions, as well as su ccessive editions of the Standing Orders and
Instructions, issued in respect of lighthouses, which address the conduct of lighthouse keepers,
access to lighthouses, the flying of flags and other matters. Whilst most of these occurred in the
British period, for convenience I will address them together.
17. I would make three points. First, the sections Singapore refers to in the Merchant
Shipping Ordinances are general and relate to misconduct by any person employed in any
lighthouse. If the lighthouse operator at Pulau Pisang gets drunk and throws bottles at the local
135
MS, Ann. 150. See also RS, para. 4.104.
13MS, Ann. 82. - 60 -
people, he will be committing an offence under those Ordinances ⎯ not, Mr. President, that I
would for a moment suggest he would do such a thing. These provisions are not specific to
Horsburgh lighthouse and do not refer to it by name.
18. Second, the Standing Orders and Instructions ⎯ Lighthouses are also of general
application. They cover all the lighthouses for which Singapore is responsible. It explicitly refers
to all the lighthouses administered by Singapore and lists Horsburgh lighthouse alongside Pulau
Pisang lighthouse, and quite properly so.
19. Third, the evidence of Captain Glass and Mr. Brewer attest to the fact that such acts were
purely administrative in character 137. The Trinity House Lighthouse Service Regulations are
138
similar in content to the Singapore Standing Orders . Trinity House is not a sovereign entity.
This is not conduct à titre de souverain.
(v) Collecting meteorological information
20. Singapore claims that the use of Ho rsburgh lighthouse for meteorological purposes was
conduct à titre de souverain. But the collection of meteorological data is routinely undertaken by
lighthouse operators and has nothing to so with sovereignty. It is an undertaking specified in
SOLAS 139. This is confirmed in the IALA Navguide 140, ⎯ references will be found in the text. It
141 142
is confirmed by Rear-Admiral Leclair , by Captain Glass, by MrB . rewer , and
Commander Christmas 14. A crowd of witnesses, you might say. The reasons for this are both the
location of lighthouses, often on rocks or islands or remote points along the shore, and the
importance of reliable meteorological information for the purposes of marine navigational safety.
21. In light of these facts, pointed out in our written pleadings, Singapore’s argument shifts.
It now points to the Summary of Observations in the years 1959 and 1966 published by,
respectively, the Malayan Meteorological Service and Meteorological Services, Malaysia and
13CMM, Ann. 1, paras. 38-39.
138
CMM, Ann. 1 (Annex 4 of the Report).
139
Regulation 5.
140
CMM, Ann. 53, para. 3.5.1.3.
14CMM, Ann. 3, Answer 4.
14CMM, Ann. 1, paras. 27-29.
143
CMM, Ann. 12, paras. 8.8-8.9. - 61 -
Singapore. It says that they describe th e rain station on PBP as being in Singapore 14. What the
documents say is that Horsburgh lighthouse is a Singapore rainfall station. Well, it was.
Sultan Shoal and Raffles lighthouses are also listed as Singapore rainfall stations. Singapore points
to the sub-clause in the first sente nce of the Summary of Observations ⎯ just the point where you
would look for an acknowledgment of sovereignty ⎯ saying that there are “29 rainfall stations in
Singapore”. It observes that Singapore rainfall st ations were omitted from the 1967 observations
by the Malaysian Meteorological Service. No point in observing them twice. According to
145
Singapore, together these two facts are a “recognition of Pedra Branca’s sovereign status” .
Mr.President, Members of the Court, condemned to lengthy residence in The Hague, you may
think that the weather is an important matter but it is not that important! Rainfall gauge is collected
by neighbour, the idea that that amounts to an ac knowledgment of British or any other sovereignty
is fanciful.
Flying the Singapore marine ensign
22. Singapore claims that flying the Singa pore marine ensign was a sovereign act. The
British marine ensign was flown on Horsburgh lighthouse for more than a century. This was
replaced in 1953 with the marine ensign of the Colo ny of Singapore and later by the marine ensign
of the Republic of Singapore. As far as we are aware, neither the Union Jack, the Union Flag as it
is sometimes called, nor Singapore’s national flag has ever been flown from Horsburgh lighthouse.
23. The essential point is that the flying of the marine ensign above a lighthouse is not an act
à titre de souverain. The flying of flags and the use of national emblems by one State on the
territory of another State or on territory havi ng an international status – is commonplace.
A fortiori, the flying of ensigns by lighthouse authorities is a routine matter. Ensigns are not marks
of sovereignty but of nationality and are principa lly flown by ships. Trinity House has its own
ensign. Captain Glass and Mr.Brewer indicate th at little significance attaches to the flying of
ensigns above a lighthouse. There is no a ppreciation amongst the professional lighthouse
144
CR 2007/23, p. 19, para. 42 (Bundy).
14CR 2007/22, p. 22, para. 47 (Bundy). - 62 -
community, which is mostly made up of national authorities, that the flying of an ensign above a
lighthouse has any bearing on sovereignty.
T2he. Temple of Preah Vihear case is distinguishable. The Siamese Prince’s visit to the
temple was of a quasi-official character and there wa s a failure to react to the flying of the French
national flag. Singapore draws an analogy be tween this event and the situation where
Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam landed on PBP in 1962. Well, Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam is
a distinguished man but he is not a Siamese prince. He was on the island only for a short time, and
this was not anything like an official visit. Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam has given evidence
that, as a naval officer, he understood the flying of the ensign only as an indication that Singapore
146
managed the lighthouse and that it had nothing to do with the sovereignty of PBP . That was a
reasonable view.
25. Finally, Singapore complains of the divergence in approach taken by Malaysia in relation
to the flying of the Singapore marine ensign on Pulau Pisang lighthouse as compared with
Horsburgh lighthouse. The issue of flying the flag above Pulau Pisang arose due to a specific
complaint by the Youth Movement of the Un ited Malays National Organization in 1968 147. In
response to this potential political issue Malaysia requested Singapore to remove its ensign.
Malaysia did not regard the flying of the ensi gn over Pulau Pisang as a mark of sovereignty – and
no more did Singapore; it did not claim soverei gnty over Pulau Pisang. Rather it was a matter of
domestic political sensitivity and it was sorted ou t between the two States. It was not an
acknowledgment of sovereignty in relation to an issue not under dispute, far removed from the
location.
(vii) Control of access to the island, official visits and granting permission for surveys
26. Singapore contends that it controlled a nd authorized access to the island by personnel
from Singapore and other States. It also claimed that it issued permits to Malaysian official
wishing to visit the island to conduct scientific surveys; that it denied Malaysian personnel access
to PBP; and that it gave permission to Malaysia and other States to enter the waters around PBP.
146
CMM, Ann. 4, para 35.
14CMM, Ann. 40. - 63 -
Singapore mischaracterizes its control over the lighthouse as control over the island. Captain Glass
and Mr.Brewer make it very clear that c ontrol over access to a lighthouse facility and its
surrounding waters, including for purposes of technical and scientific surveys, is routine practice in
lighthouse administration and part of the normal responsibilities of any lighthouse operator 148.
Commander Christmas similarly states: “All lighthouse authorities are responsible for the security
of, and access to, the lighthouses operated by them, as well as any activity by personnel within
149
them.”
27. Singapore relies on the Standing Orders and Instructions of 1961 and 1974 which
regulate the conduct of lighthouse keepers. Such Or ders are normal practice. The Orders here are
not specific to Horsburgh lighthouse, they are generic instructions which apply to the conduct of
lighthouse personnel in all the lighthouses for which Singapore is responsible.
28. Second, Singapore states that due to the many requests to visit PBP the Master Attendant
was obliged to establish a logbook in 1946. It characterizes the logbook as evidence of Singapore’s
control over PBP. The material provided by Singapore in support of this claim is insubstantial and
the requests to visit PBP are in fact requests to visit the lighthouse. The claim that the
MasterAttendant established rules “due to the numbe r of applications that were received to visit
the lighthouse” is overstated: the document annexe d in support of this claim regards “Visits to
150
Lighthouses by Staff and family or friends onboard the m.v ‘Berkas’” and focuses on visits to
lighthouses in general, not to Horsburgh lighthouse in particular.
29. Additionally, the logbook of visits shows that the vast number of entries related to
routine inspection and maintenance visits associ ated with the normal operation and upkeep of the
lighthouse and associated facilities. Singapore places much emphasis on the fact that Singaporean
dignitaries attended the lighthouse, but this is not surprising. As observed in the Glass-Brewer
report, which refers to Trinity House lighthou ses, it was common for Trinity House personnel to
conduct inspections of the lighthouses for which they were responsible and that they were
148
CMM, Ann. 1, paras. 49-50.
14CMM, Ann. 2, para. 8.7.
15MS, Ann. 104 . - 64 -
151
“accompanied by dignitaries” . Mr. President, Members of the Cour t, even a dignitary is entitled
to a day out at a lighthouse.
30. Singapore contends that foreigners includi ng Malaysian officials who wished to visit the
island were obliged to obtain permits and it cites four examples covering this substantial period.
31. The first example was the 1974 visit of a joint hydrographic research team to the
Rumenia Channel. It consisted of members from Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia and Singapore and
took place over a seven- to eight-week period. The annexed material shows that a few of these
officers wished “to stay at Horsburgh lighthouse for tidal observations” 15. While Malaysian
officials stayed in the lighthouse, permission had been sought for and granted to members of the
joint survey team and not specifically the Mala ysian members. Permission was not required to
access the island, but to stay in the lighthouse.
32. The second example was a Note of 9 May 1978 requesting clearance for a Malaysian
government vessel to enter Singapore territorial waters and conduct an inspection of tide gauges 153.
The Note then lists 13 co-ordinates. It refers to both Horsburgh Lighthouse Station and Pulau
Pisang Station. Areas listed in that list fall within the territorial waters of Malaysia, Indonesia and
Singapore. The Note does not state that PBP falls within Singapore’s territorial waters.
33. Third, Singapore contends that it controlled access by foreign parties to territorial waters
around PBP and that this was a form of recognition of Singapore’s territorial sovereignty 154. There
is no evidence regarding foreign parties at larg e, only exchanges with one private company,
RegisLtd., between May and July 1981 regarding a salvage survey in an area “about 6-10 miles
north-east of Horsburgh Light” 15, and therefore outside Singapore territorial waters on any view.
The request by Regis Ltd. referred to the territorial waters “of the islet on which Horsburgh Light
156
House stands”, an evident circumlocution . But there are three short answers to this complaint in
any event. First, the whole incident occurred after the critical date. Secondly, Malaysia was
15CMM, Ann. 1, para. 39.
152
MS, Anns. 112-121.
153
MS, Ann. 137.
15CR 2007/23, p. 19, para. 41 (Bundy).
15MS, Ann. 151.
15MS, Ann. 152. - 65 -
unaware of the correspondence and was not in a pos ition to respond to it. Third, recognition of
sovereignty is not a matter achieved by private par ties. Mr. President, Members of the Court, you
will be relieved to hear that that ends my list. It does not, unfortunately, end my presentation. Let
me turn to:
Part II: non-lighthouse related conduct of Singapore
34. The conduct I have just taken you throug h all related to the operation of the lighthouse,
or of lighthouses generally. The non-lighthou se related conduct which Singapore relies on is
extremely limited. While Singapore claims these activities to be à titre de souverain, there is still
no evidence of a connection between them and sovereignty over PBP.
(i) Naval patrols
35. Singapore claims that its naval patrols are acts undertaken à titre de souverain with
respect to PBP.
36. In fact the Royal Malaysian Navy enga ged in naval patrols in the waters around PBP
from 1957 including during the period of confrontation. Isolated instances of naval patrols by the
Singapore Navy, after its formation in April 1975, are insufficient to undermine the
long-established pattern of Royal Malaysian Navy patrols in this area. Professor Schrijver will deal
with this point further tomorrow.
37. Singapore places much weight on the Operating Instructions issued in 1975 concerning
157
its F5 patrols . You will remember the image of this on the screen. In fact, some of the
co-ordinates provided in these Instructions would have taken the patrols within 1-1½ miles of the
Johor coast and adjacent Malaysian islands such as Pulau Lima and Pulau Pemanggil. Singapore’s
reasoning would imply that it also possessed sovereignty over the Johor coast. In fact the patrol
areas were not limited to the area 3miles from PBP. They were referable to the protection of
navigation and immigration control in relation to Singapore itself at a time of significant movement
of boat peoples, not to sovereignty over PBP.
157
MS, Ann. 123. - 66 -
(ii) Installation of military equipment
38. The second point is the installation of military equipment. Singapore claims that military
communications equipment was installed by it in 1977. As the Agent has stated, Malaysia was not
aware of this until the receipt of Singapore’s Memorial. Evidently a lighthouse can operate
navigational radar for perfectly proper radar and lighthouse purposes. Malaysia did not know at the
time that the radar was for other purposes entirely, if indeed that was the case.
(iii) Claims concerning investigation of navigational hazards and shipwrecks
39. I turn to the third point ⎯ the investigation of navigatio nal hazards and shipwrecks.
Singapore claims that it exercised sovereign aut hority over PBP by investigating and reporting on
maritime hazards and shipwrecks within PBP’s territorial waters. SirEli has dealt with the 1920
and 1963 investigations. Britain’s investigations had nothing to do with sovereignty over PBP, as
he showed.
40. In fact, despite Singapore’s heavy reliance on this argument, it carried out only one
investigation prior to the crystallization of the dispute in February1980. This concerned the
grounding of the merchant vessel Yu Seung Ho on 16November1979. An investigator was
appointed under the Merchant Shipping Act in early December to investigate the grounding at
Horsburgh 15. The Merchant Shipping Act provides other grounds on which investigation can be
159
undertaken that are not linked to the incident occurring in Singapore waters . And in terms of
Singapore legislation it did not occur in Singapore wa ters. There is nothing in the record of the
incident, either in the request or the report, that e xplains the basis of the investigation. In fact, the
incident occurred only 600m east of the lighthouse and it is entirely in line with Singapore’s
position as the lighthouse authority to investigate the incident, as attested in the Glass-Brewer
report and affirmed by Admiral LeClair.
41. All the other examples of investigations that Singapore gives were well after the critical
date. Notwithstanding this, in each of the fi ve incidents that Singapore cites between 1985 and
1998 there is a clear connection with Singapore and it is not surprising that it undertook the
investigations. In two cases, the ships were regist ered in Singapore. In four cases, the ships were
158
MS, Vol. VI, Ann. 139.
15CR 2007/22, p. 26, para. 59 (Bundy). - 67 -
dry-docked in Singapore for repairs. In all cases, the ships had just departed from Singapore after
taking on cargo, and the ship contacted the Singapore Port Authority after the incident, either to
request assistance or, in one case, to indicate that it would be returning to Singapore under its own
steam. None of these investigations had anything to do with sovereignty over PBP.
(iv) Investigation of accidental death in waters around PBP
42. The fourth point ⎯ investigation of an accidental death or accidental deaths in waters
around the lighthouse. Singapore claims that the St ate Coroner’s enquiry into the very unfortunate
death of three members of the Singapore armed forces when their naval vessel capsized off PBP in
1980 constituted conduct à titre de souverain.
43. This incident occurred after the disput e had crystallized. In any event, it is a
well-established principle of international law th at warships have absolute immunity from the
jurisdiction of a foreign States in whose waters they are found. Imm unity of warships was
expressly affirmed in Article 22, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone and in Article 32 of UNCLOS. The most that a coastal State could lawfully do in
this circumstance would be to require the warship “to leave the territorial sea immediately”. Thus,
the jurisdiction to investigate the deaths on th is naval vessel rested with the Singapore State
Coroner, not because of PBP, but because of the status of the crew. The current coronial
investigation would quite properly have been held wherever that ship had sunk.
(v) Sea reclamation plans
44. Finally, I refer to the fifth point⎯ sea reclamation plans. Singapore relies on claimed
reclamation plans of 1978 as demonstrating its sovereignty over PBP. The Court will have become
aware that in the period between 1977 and 1980, thin gs were going on, parties were reconsidering
their position, and that is when the dispute broke ou t. I shall say some more about the conduct of
the Parties in that crucial period tomorrow. In one Singapore newspaper, of 27 January 1978, the
details of which are not specific and which only refer to shore protection works at the Horsburgh
lighthouse 160, there was a reference to reclamation. The advertisement is at tab107 of your
160
MS, Ann. 135, p. 1065. - 68 -
folders ⎯ it was very small, as you can see. The reference to “Reclamation and shore protection
works at Horsburgh Lighthouse” takes up four lines. It is about one-tenth of the space of this
advertisement on this one day. The details of the reclamation plans were secret, as Singapore’s
161
documentation shows . Singapore further claims that it had considered reclamation projects
around PBP in 1973 and then again in 1974. It has not produced any evidence that its
considerations were made public, and of cour se, no reclamation occurred, this was simply
planning. Malaysia could not have had, and did not have, any knowl edge of them and none of this
constituted conduct of which Malaysia would have been required to protest.
(vi)Otherconduct
45. A final compendious category is other conduc t. Singapore also claims that several other
acts were undertaken à titre de souverain with respect to PBP. These include: the ferrying on navy
boats of Singapore dignitaries; the evacuation of an injured contractor and of a distressed
Singapore fisherman by navy boats; the response of a navy boat to aid a Singapore boat being
robbed. These incidents either directly involv ed the lighthouse because they involved people on
the lighthouse or they involved people from Singapore. Again, they had nothing to do with PBP as
an island. How else would dignitaries visit the lighthouse or Singaporeans be rescued?
Mr. President, I need to go on to deal with Singapore’s representations as to its territory but
this section will take rather more time than we have available and I think the Court, after all of that
detail, the minute examination of minutiae, deserves an early minute.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: I think we can go on.
Mr. CRAWFORD: If the Court is prepared, but I am afraid I would like to take this section
as a whole. It will take me about ten minutes.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting-President: Yes.
Mr. CRAWFORD: Thank you.
161
Ibid., pp. 1066 et seq. - 69 -
Part III: Singapore’s representations as to its territory
46. Mr.President, Members of the Court, this meagre miscellany of minutiae in which for
30minutes I have engaged your attention ⎯ if engage is not too strong a word ⎯ is to be
contrasted with a much more impressive fact . In the period between 1965 and 1980, Singapore’s
own representations of PBP never placed it within Singapore. PBP was treated as somewhere else,
which of course it was. I will list five items of conduct.
(i) J. A. L. Pavitt’s appreciation
47. The first is Pavitt’s appreciation. Pav itt was for many years the Director of Marine,
Singapore and the author of a book First Pharos of the Eastern Seas: Horsburgh Lighthouse ,
published in 1966 by the Singapore Light Dues Board. For those Members of the Court who enjoy
books about lighthouses ⎯ I infer it may be a minority ⎯ it is quite a good read. But one passage
is of particular interest. Referring to the responsibility of the Singapore Light Dues Board ⎯ you
do not have to read the book, but read this passage ⎯ it reads (tab 108):
“The Board, formed by statute in 1957, is responsible for the provision and
upkeep of all ship navigational aids in Si ngapore waters, and for the outlying stations
at Pedra Branca (Horsburgh) in the South China Sea and Pulau Pisang in the Malacca
Strait. Within Singapore waters, the Bo ard maintains Raffles, Sultan Shoal and
Fullerton Lighthouses.” 162
Evidently Pavitt thought that Horsburgh lighthous e did not fall within Singapore’s territorial
waters. He draws a clear distinction between ship navigational aids “in Singapore waters” and
those at the “outlying stations” of Horsburgh and Pulau Pisang. He refers to both of them as
“outlying stations”. He excludes Horsburgh lig hthouse from the statement “Within Singapore
waters, the Board maintains” and then lists the three lighthouses.
48. Singapore argues that Pavitt’s reference to “Singapore waters” “simply refers to the
waters around the Island of Singapore”. It goes on to suggest that Horsburgh lighthouse and Pulau
Pisang lighthouse were distinguished as “outlying st ations”, simply for convenience. In its oral
pleadings it simply says that Pavitt says nothing to suggest that PBP did not belong to Singapore 163.
This contradicts the plain meaning of the words. In my experience of Directors of Marine they are
plain men who call a spade a spade and a hawser a hawser. Anyway, Pavitt spoke plainly:
162
MM, Ann. 74. See judges’ folder, tab 108.
16CR 2007/22, pp. 35-36, para. 93 (Bundy). - 70 -
“The Board... is responsible for the provision and upkeep of all ship
navigational aids in Singapore waters , and for the outlying stations at Pedra Branca
(Horsburgh) in the South China Sea and Pulau Pisang in the Malacca Strait. Within
Singapore waters, the Board maintains [the other three lighthouses].” (Emphasis
added.)
As I read it, he did not think that Pedra Branca or Pulau Pisang were within Singapore waters. This
seems to me to follow from his words.
49. Singapore relies on a 1967 letter from D. T. Brown, who says “I have been advised that
the waters within 3miles of Horsburgh lighthou se may be considered to be Singapore territorial
waters.” 164 We do not know who advised Brown, the c ontext in which the letter was written, nor
whether he was offering a definitive view about th e status of the waters around PBP. Anyway, the
letter was not published by the Singapore Light Dues Board, unlike Pavitt’s book.
50. Pavitt was a noted authority on the activities of the Singapore Light Dues Board,
including those concerning Horsburgh lighthouse ⎯ who better to know the status of the
lighthouse? He is clear: Pulau Pisang and Horsburgh lighthouses were not within Singapore
waters but only administered by the Singapore “Station”.
51. Exactly the same distinction is drawn in the Singapore legislation, the light dues
legislation of 1969, to which I have referred you.
(ii) Singapore’s mapping practice and listing of its islands
52. The second point: Singapore’s mapping practice and the listing of its islands.
Singapore’s representation of its territorial extent by a very small State, very conscious of its
territorial sovereignty in maps a nd in other descriptions of its terri tory, is entirely consistent with
Pavitt’s understanding that PBP was not a Singapor ean island. There are no maps of Singapore
which show PBP as part of Singapore before the critical date, not one map in 130 years. Ms Nevill
will explain Singapore’s mapping practice in her debut tomorrow.
53. Similarly, Singapore never listed PBP in the detailed lists of islands compiled for the
Annual Report of the Rural Board of Singapor e between 1953 and 1956, and in its government
publication, Singapore Facts and Pictures. Singapore Facts and Pictures has been published each
year or so since the 1960s. Each edition includes a map of Singapore and a list of its 54islands,
164
CMS, Ann. 42. - 71 -
including reef islands and tiny uninhab ited islands even smaller than PBP ⎯ you could not even
play football on them ⎯ such as Pulau Biola and Pulau Satumu and Pulau Ular, which is two thirds
165
the size of PBP; you could probably play handball! . An example of the list from the
1972 Singapore Facts and Pictures is included in tab 109.
54. In short, Singapore was assiduous in listing its reefs, islands and rocks within its waters,
including the very smallest rocks ⎯ every skerrick over which it had sovereignty. But PBP was
166
never included in the list of Singapore islands until 1992, 12 years after the critical date . Where
were you, list, when I needed you?
55. Singapore responds that the Rural Board publication is irrelevant and that the publication
Singapore Facts and Pictures had nothing to do with the legal defin ition of PBP. It was, after all,
they say, published by the Department of Culture. Well, one department is as good as another. In
any event, it was consistent behaviour of the Depa rtment of Culture. According to Singapore, it
was a tourist publication irrelevant to PBP because it did not have any tourist facilities 167. But we
are not aware that each of the 50 or so islands th at were listed, all had tourist facilities. Those
smaller than PBP can be presumed not to have had them. More to the point, Singapore’s argument
masks the fact that Singapore cannot refer to any lists of islands published under the government
imprimatur which did include PBP.
(iii) Singapore’s territorial waters practice
56. Singapore’s territorial waters practice has been completely inconsistent with its asserted
belief in sovereignty over PBP. Singapore has ne ver enacted legislation extending its territorial
waters beyond 3nautical miles. It did not delimit the area of PBP in its 1973Territorial Waters
Agreement with Indonesia even though PBP and Bintang in Indonesia lie opposite and require
territorial sea delimitation if PB P belongs to Singapore. Singapore now claims this was a partial
168
delimitation only . But this is not what the Agreement says. There is no proviso. There is no
reference to any areas which remain to be delimited between the two Parties. You would have
16Singapore Facts and Pictures, 1972; MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 79.
166
Singapore Facts and Pictures, 1992; MM, Vol. 3, Ann. 83.
16CR 2007/22, p. 35, para. 91 (Bundy).
16E.g., CR 2007/20, p. 32, para. 35 (Chao). - 72 -
expected such a proviso in the case of a partial delimitation, and it appears in the case of other
partial delimitations in the region.
57. Similarly, it would also have been consistent with Singapore’s view of its sovereignty
over PBP to object to the 1969Indonesia/Malaysia Continental Shelf Agreement, which would
affect its possible continental shelf. Singapore did not.
Conclusion
58. Mr.President, Members of the Court, Singapore is the administrator of Horsburgh
lighthouse and nothing more. Britain’s and Singa pore’s activities in respect of the lighthouse did
not and do not amount to conduct à titre de souverain. You have heard that the experts in
lighthouse practice conclude that the activities relied on by Singapore, prior to the crystallization of
the dispute, are either acts required of a lighthouse administrator or acts that may be categorized as
falling within the usual practice of a lighthouse administrator. This conclusion is supported by the
history of the Straits Lights System and the similar treatment of the Pulau Pisang lighthouse,
administered by Singapore on Malaysian territory. It is significant that there is, prior to the critical
date, no evidence of a publicly manifested intention to assert sovereignty over PBP by either
Britain or Singapore. This is confirmed by Pavi tt’s statement, and by the other material I have
cited. In the face of all this material, the title to PBP at the critical date ⎯ and therefore also at
today’s date ⎯ lies with the State which had sovereignty over it in 1965, which, as we have
demonstrated, was Malaysia.
Fu9rt.her ⎯ and in the face of this material ⎯ Singapore’s claim that the conduct on the
169
island went completely unopposed by Malaysia is not to the point . There was no open conduct
à titre de souverain to be opposed. Singapore’s conduct was at all times consistent with that of a
lighthouse administrator and littoral State, neighbou ring State, in the Singapore Straits. In the
former capacity, as a lighthouse administrator, Johor had consented to the establishment and
operation of the lighthouse. As to the latter, littora l State, the activity was in general not referable
to the lighthouse, as such at all, but to the or dinary management of navigation and to Singapore’s
169
CR 2007/22, p. 12, para. 2; p. 13, para. 3 (Bundy). - 73 -
own affairs in the Straits. In neither capacity was there anything specifically territorial about PBP
for Malaysia to protest to.
Mr.President, Members of the Court, thank you for your patient attention. Mr.President,
thank you for the extra five minutes. This concludes Malaysia’s presentation this morning.
The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you, ProfessorCrawford, for your
speech. This brings to an end this morning’ s sitting. We will rise now and meet tomorrow
at 10 o’clock.
The Court rose at 1.10 p.m.
___________
Public sitting held on Thursday 15 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)