This electronic version of Malaysia's Pleadingsis provided as a
courtesy. The printedversionof Malaysia's Pleadings submitted tthe
International Court of Justice (ICJ) shall remain asthe authentic
version.
CopyrightO GovernmentofMalaysia.
Allrightsreserved.
Information or data containedherein shall not be reproducedwithout the
writtenpermissionof theGovernment of Malaysia. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 htrodactiort
A. Points of agreemetnddisagreement
B. Theroleofegectiva itdtse criticaldate
C. ThesmctureofthisCounter-Mdal
PARTL 'FEE 'ITI'LEINVOKED BY THE PARTIES
Chapter 2 Malaysia'sOriginalTitle
Introduction
A. PulauBatuPutehwasnotterraaullius
B. TheBritish taking ofpossesnfSingaporeand
Labuanconfirmsthatislandswithin 10geographical
milesfromthecoastwerenottma nullius
C. ForSingapore,historystartsin 1819
D. The1824Anglo-Dutch TreatyconfirmedJohor'stitle
E. ContinuedsovereignofJohoroverPulauBatuPuteh
wasnotaffectedbytheCrawfhdTreaty
F. PulauBatuPutehwasneveradependencyofSingapore
G. Conclusions
Chapter 3 Singapore'sPurported '(TakingofPossession9'
A, Theoriginaltitleallegedby Singapore
B. Britainnever"tookpossession"oflauBatuPuteh
C. Therewasnointentiontoacquiresovereignly
D. LighthouseactivitiesandtheBritishpractice
oftakingofpossession
E. ActsinvokedbySingaporearenotrelevant
foratakingofpossession
Theprocess of selectnfPulau Batuuteh
(i) asthesiteforHorsburghLighthouse
(ii) Thealleged'%kingofpossession"of
Pulau BatuPutehin 1847orsubsequently
(iii) Activityofgunboatsandontrolofpublic
orderintheregion"
(iv) Visitsof Britishofficialsarenotevidence
of sovereignovertheisland (v) Otheractivity duritheprocessof
constructionofthe lighthouse 125-128
(vi) Thedisplayofa flag 129-133
(vii) The"lackof oppositiofiomotherPowers 134
F. Singapore's Memoriparovidesmer evidencethat
theJohor permission incluPulauBatuPuteh 135-141
G. Conclusion 142
Chapter4 TheThreeFeaturesdonot formoneIslandGroup 143-164
In&oduction 143
A. CanPulauBatuPuteh, Middle RocksandSouth
Ledgebe identifieasoneislandgroup? 144-154
B. hIiddleRocks andSouthLedgehave always been
partofJohor 155-162
C. Conclusions 163-164
PARTIL THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OF THEPARTIES
165-200
Chapter 5 TheSubsequentConduct oftheParties:AnOverview
Introduction 165-174
A. ThescopeofPart IIandsmary ofconclusions 175-179
B. General anpreliminaryobservations 180-200
(i) Singapore'casebasedon theimportance
ofHorsburghLighthouse 181-194
(E) The legalframewormu questionsof
evidence 195-198
(iii) EvidenceadducedbyMalaysiainsupport
oftheclaimsinthisPart 199-200
Chapter6 TheLawandPractice ConcerningLighthouses 201-297
Introduction 201-204
k Imperialinteresitntheco~ctionand
administratioflighthouses 205-212
B. Theconstructionand administratoflighthouses
213-237
byauthoritiesoththanoftheterritorialState
(i) Statepractice 213-220
TheMiddleEastNavigationAids
(ii)
Service(MENAS) 221-227
(iii) Thecharacteroflighthouseadministmtion:
legal evaluations 228-237 C. Commonusage and practicie ntheadministration
oflighthouses
(i) Theinternational legal framework
(ii) Usage andpracticeinlighthouseadministration
(a) Conductrequiredinconsequence
oftheresponsibilitytoprovidean
.aidtonavigation
(b) Otherconductassociatedwiththe
provisionofanaidtonavigation
(1) Theinvestigation ofmarine
hazardsandthepublication
ofNoticestoMarinersandother
warnings
(2) Theregulation of personnel and
activitiesassociatedwiththe
lighthouse
(3) The addingtolighthousesof
additionalstructuresandfacilities
(c) Other common elementsof practiicn e
theadministration of lighthouses
(1) The collectionoflightdues
(2) The sitingofVTStowerson
lighthouses
(3) Common non-lightusesof
lighthouses
(4) Permissiontoundertalce
scientificandtechnicalsurveys
(5) Controlofaccessto lighthouses
andtheirassociatedfacilities
(6) Theflyingofensignsorflagson
lighthouses
D. Conclusions
Chapter 7 The Straits'Lights System
Introduction
A. Backgroundissues
(i) Theconstitutionapl ositionof Singaporeand
the StraitsSettlements
(ii) PulauPisanglighthouseandthestatusofthe
territoryonwhichitstands
iii B. TheStraits' LightSsystem
(i) Theexistenceofthe Straits' Lightsystem
anditslegislativeEramework
Lightswhich formed part otfe Straits'Lights
(ii)
System
(iii) PermissionfromMalayRulersforconstruction
and administrationof lights
(iv) Theadministrationot fheStraits' Lights
(v) Theadministration oftheStraits' Ligh&er 1946
C. Conclusions
Chapter8 ConductClaimedbySingaporetobe b titrdesouwain
Introduction
A. Claimsconcerningenactinglegislationrelati og
PedraBrancaandtheHorsburgh Lighthouse
B. Claimsconcerning themaintenanceand improvement
ofthelighthouseandbuildingandupgradingajetty
(i) General observations
(ii) Post-critical date conduct
(iii) NoticestoMariners
C. Claimsconcerningexerciso efjurisdiction over
personnel othe islandand the maintenance
of order
D. Claimsconcerningcollectingmeteorological
information
E. Claimsconcerning flyingthe SingaporeMarine
Ensig~i
(i) Singapore's relianontheTempleCase
(ii) FlyingtheSingaporeMarineEnsigo nn
HorsburghLighthouseisnot an act
h titrde sowerain
(iii) Thealleged contrat iththePulauPisang
Lighthouse
F. Claimsconcerningcontro olfaccessto the island,
officialvisitsandgrantingpermissionfor surveys
(i) Preliminaryobservations
(ii) Measures regulatingthe conduoctlighthouse
personnel
(iii) Visitstothelighthouse,thelogbook anvisits
recordedtherein
(iv) Permissioninrespectof technicalandscientific
surveys (v) Permission givetoforeignerstooperatein
PulauBatu Puteh'sterritorialwaters
G. Navalpatrolsandtheinstallationomilitary
communicationsequipmentonPedB raranca
H. Claimsconcerninginvestigationfnavigational
hazardsand shipwrecks
I. Claimsconcerningtheinvestigationof accidental
deathinthewaters ofPedraBranca
J. Claimsconcerningseareclamationplans
K Conclusions
Chapter 9 Malaysian ConductSupportiv oefitsClaimto Sovereignty
Introduction
A. Generalobservations
(i) HistoricalinteractionbetweenMalaysia
andSingaporeandthe characterof
PulauBatuPuteh
(ii) Cooperationinthe SingaporStraitsinthe
fieldof maritime safandrelatedmatters
(iii) The scopeofMalaysianconduct
B. The1953 correspondence
C. Conductconfirmatory ofMalaysia 'tsle
(i) Use ofPulauBatuPutehwatersby Johor
fishermen
(ii) RoyalMalaysianNavyPatrolsinthewaters
around PulauBatuPuteh
D. Conclusions
Chapter 10 TheMaritimeContext
A. Singapore'snew claimtojurisdictionithe
South Chin Saeascomparedwithits
delimitationpractice
B. Malaysia'spractice
C. Thepositionofthird States
D. Singapore'srelianceon certainMalaysianmaps
E. Conclusion
summary
MapsSectlon:Maps1-17
Submissions
ListofAnnexes Chapter1
INTRODUCTION
A. Points ofagreementanddisagreement
1. TheCourt willhave observed fromaperusal ofthe Parties'Memorials
that there aresomeimportant points oafgreementbetween them. Thus it is
agreedthat:
(a) So far as the presentdispute is concerned, Malaysiaand
Singaporeare respectively successorsto the legal position of
Johor, ontheonehand, andofGreat BritaininrightofSingapore,
ontheotherhand.'
(b) Johor was asubstantialkingdomoriginallylocated north and
south ofthe SingaporeStrait,with whichthe Britishand other
powersconductedpoliticalrelations.'
(c) Before the CrawfUrdTreaty of 1824, Johor's sovereignty
extendedto Singaporeisland itselg and other islandsin and
around thecoast,whetheror notthese were within 3 nautical
miies (hereaftem) ofke mainiand.'
(d) Bythe CrawfbrdTreaty,Johorcededsingaporeislandandother
islandswithin 10 nm to GreatBritain,but that Treaty did not
result in a cessionofPulauBatuPutehPedraBranca(hereafter
PBP)?
(e) HorsburghLight was constructedand operateadsa lighthousefor
the purposes of assisting mariners,and continued to be so
operatedwhenthepresentdisputebrokeout,in 1980;
I
2 SeeSM, paras1.5-1.MM, para~67-71,190-206.
3 SeeSM, paras3.2-3.MM,paras.37-47,61-67.
4 SeeSM, paras3.2-3.3;MN,aras77-84.
5 SeeSM, para.3.5,5.5,5.30-5.31,5.86 M-5,8aras.2,2.
SeeSM, paras..30-5.31, 6.4;MM,paras114,117,180. (f) TheParties also agree thatthis isthecriticaldateforthe purposes
ofthiscase.6
2. In its MemorialMalaysia has shown that PBP, whichhas been
internationallyell-knownsincethe 16~ century,wasnot tewa nullib uutwas
partoftheKingdomof oho o r.alaysiahas alsoshownthatthe Governor of
Singaporesought Johor'spermissionfor the construction ofa lighthousein
honourofJames~orsburgh,~ thathedidsoata timewhen PBP was oneofthe
preferredspotsunderconsiderationforthe locationofthe lighthouse,andthat
permissionwasduly given? Thesubsequent constructioa nndoperationofthe
lighthousewas never accompanied by any publicclaim by GreatBritainto
sovereignty.1°The lighthouse was inaugurated with a Masonicceremony.
Neitherthe Governor northe EastIndiaCompanyever proclaimedthe island
as ~ritish." In the more thanonehundredyearsthat followed,GreatBritain
never asserted or exercised sovereigno ver the island or the surrounding
waters; itneverlistedor showedthe islandas belongingto singapore.12All
Great Britaindidwas operate thelighthouse,andthe sameistrueofSingapore,
untilfor the first timeit formallyasserteda claimto sovereignty overPBPin
responseto theMalaysianmapof 1979.13Themereoperationof a lighthouse
onterritory belonginto another Statedoesnotgive sovereignty, andfortiori
it does not doso if the processis inaugurated wittheconsent ofthelatter
State.
3, For itspart Singaporeholds that Great BritainacquiredPBP by "a
taking oflawfbl possession"in the period 1847-1851 .l4 The subsequent
operationofthe lighthouse constitutedi,n itsview,an "effectiveandpeaceful
SeeSM, pares..24.8,6.9; Mpara.15.
MM, para.4-98.
MM, paras18-137.
MM, pares.10-16.
MM, paras.1-164.
MM, paras152-156.
MM, para219-244.
MM, para267,283.
SM,para.5.5.exerciseof State authority"which "canfirmed andmaintainedthe titlegained
intheperiod 1847 to1851 ".I5
4. Singapore'stheory faces major obstacles. The phrase "a taking of
lawfblpossession"isa complete equivocationS . tatesmay"possess" territory
inthe senseof lawfiillyusing itforspecific purpose(e.g.,a communications
station or a lighthouse)without taking,assertingor acquiringsovereignty,
indeedwithout engagingin anyconduct 2 titredesouverainat all. Malaysia
has never suggested that theconstructionandoperationof the lighthousewas
unlawful.Indeed,theTemenggongwho (withthe Sultan)hadconsented to its
beingbuilt spenttimeobservingits con~truction.'Lawfilnessisnotthepoint
andisnotindispute. Ratherthe question isinwhatcapacitydidGreatBritain
construct and operattehe lighthouse?Itsconductat the timeindicated clearly
that it did so not witha viewto acquiringterritorialsovereigntybut witha
specific viewto assistingnavigationinthe public interest." Thatwastrueof
manyotherlights operatedunderBritish auspicesi,ntheregionandelsewhere,
at the timeand subsequently.'*At nostageinthe yearspriorto Singapore's
independence fiomBritainin 1963didthecharacterofBritish conduct change.
At no stageduringthis lengthy period did Britaip nubliclyassertsovereignty
over PBP. Nor didSingaporeactanydifferentlyinperioduntil 1980 whenthe
dispute brokeout. In thosecircumstances the locationof sovereigntyremains
unchanged;itremains withthe sovereign whosc eonsentwassoughtinorderto
establishthe lighthouse.
5. Admittedly, ifa remote islandisterranulliusinthe senseexplainedby
the Courtin the WesternSaharaopinion,lgthe continuedoperation ofa
lighthouse could supporatclaimto sovereignty.Butitcouldonly doso ifthe
operatingState actuallyperformedother actsconsistentwith sucha claim -
IS Ibid.
'' SeeMM,par& 148.
" SeeMM,paras.107-117,andfurther Chapt3relow.
Seefurthebelow ,haptersand7.
I9 WesternSahma,ICJ Reports1975,p.12atp.39(para.79).e.g. assertinga territorial seaand continentalshelf, includingthe islandon
mapsinsuchawayastoimplya claimtosovereignty,etc. Butthispossibility
isexcluded here.PBPwasnota remote,unknownisland;it hadbeenknown
for centuries;it waspart ofthe Malayworld;its waterswerefishedbyMalay
fishermen;Malaypilots used it fornavigationalpurposes;it was on almost
every map.Singaporedoesnotargue(atleast, notinsomanywords)thatPBP
was tewanulliusin 1844;' andsubsequently GreaB t rltainperformedno acts
whatsoever implying a claimto sovereignty overPBP based onoccupationor
anyothergeneraltitleof sovereignty.It sought prior permission to operate a
lighthouseandthatisall iteverdid. Andthe same istrueofSingapore,atleast
until1980andtoasubstantial extene tvenafterthat.
6. If Singapore doesnot claim a title basedon occupation inthe legal
sense ofthat term, i.e. occupationof tewa nullius,nor doesit rely on other
recognisedmodesofacquisition. Singaporedoes no claimthattheislandwas
ceded insovereigntyatany time.Itdoesnot relyonacquisitiveprescription (if
sucha doctrine existsin internationallaw, whichis doubtf~l~~)I .n the Case
concerning theLandandMaritimeBoundary behveenCameroon andNigeria,
the Court turned itsface against theinvasionof hybrid concepts such as
"historicalconsolidation ofitleyinthelawofterritorial~overeignty,~ t~ereby
stressingtheneedtomaintainthebasicelementsofthat law. Singapore'sterm
"lawful possession"is a similarhybrid,and similarlyit begsthe questionof
title. Iftitleto PBPwaswithJohorin 1844,nothingthathas happened since
hasdisplacedthattitle.
7. In its Memorial, Singapore glosses over thedifficultieswhich its
"takingof lawfulpossession"theory presents.It failsto deal(exceptbriefly
20 WesterSnahara CJReports1975,p.12at p.39(para79).
See SM, para,3.3,and see furtherbelowparagraphs16-21 for an analysisof
''ngapore's positnthisregard.
Cf.Case concerninKasikiliBedu Isand (BotswanaLWam IbJR),port1999,
g 1045,Judgmentofp10October2002,paras.5,70.and in passir18~) withthe correspondencebetweenBritain and Johorin 1844
which laid down the legal basis forthe constructionof a lighthouseon Johor
territory?4 It failsto explainhow the term ''taking of lawfup lossession"
relatestoestablished concepto sfthelawofacquisitionofterritory. Itdoesnot
account for the absence of Singapore maps showing the island as
~in~a~orean:~ of Singapore laws treatingit as singaporeag6 orof anyaction
assertingmaritime zonesaroundthe islandor protestingrelevant Malaysian
conductinthat regard. In short,in itspleadingso far Singaporehas failedto
stateacoherentlegalbasisfor its claim of sovereignty.
B. The roleofeffectivittrs andthe critical date
8. Singaporeseeksto remedythisdeficiencyin a number of ways.TWO
of these require somepreliminarycomment.
9. First, Singapore attaches weightto the well-knowndictum of the
Chamberin the BurkinaFaso/MaZicase on the roleof eflectiivitds.As.the
Chamber said:
"Where the act corresponds exactlyto law, where effective
administrationis additionalto the utipossidetisjuris, the only
IUlGUL CJJGbCbYbLPAD LW\VVLIL&LIIUnr wmr.r.vrmvr the rioht ----.-I-l
from a legaltitle. Wherethe actdoes notcorres'pond to the
law,where theterritorywhichis the subjectof the disputeis
effectively administeredby a State other than theone
possessingthe legal title, preferenceshould begiven to.the
holder of the title.Intheeventthat theefectivitkdoesnotco-
exist with any legal title,it must invariablybe taken into
consideration.""
24 SM,para. 5.41,andseefurtherbelow,paragraphs136-141.
Accordingly,apartfrom noting that Singaporheasnot produced theoriginalletterof
requestto the Sultan andtheemenggong,Malaysia doesnotneed to addto the analysisof
the correspondenceetoutin MM,Chapter 6.
The firstsuch map (in fact a sketch)was i1992, SingaporeFactsand Pictures,
1992,1,178. SeeMM,para, 212 andMMAnnex71.
26 Thefirstsuchlaw was theProtectedPlaces(No. 10)Order 1991. SeeSM,para. 6.25
and SM Annex178.
" CaseConcerning theFrontierDispute(BurkinaF'o/RepublicofMali), ICJ Reports
1986, p.554at pp.586-7(para,63),citedinSM, paras.6.95,7.21.Malaysiafully accepts theChamber'sanalysis. Aboveall inthis passagethe
Chamberemphasizedthat the attributionof title to territoryis alwaysand
necessarilya legal matter,a juridical processin which the idea oftitle is
foremost. Sovereignty doe nsotarisefrommerecontrol,irrespectiveoftitleor
of the circumstancesin whichcontrolwas obtained.Yet Singaporeseeksto
disjoinits"effectiveadminiskitionofthe lighthouse" from anc yonsideration
oftitle. Moreoverthe e#ectivit&snwhichit relies--especiallyinthesenseof
efectivitbs going beyond the operationof the lighthouse-are limited in
characterand occurred exclusivelyafterthe critical date;indeedthey mostly
occurredafterthe partieshad agreedin principleto referthe disputeto the
Court.
10. Thiscallsfora second preliminary commentontheroleofthecritical
dateinterritorialdisputes. Althoughtheparties agreeonthecriticaldate(see
paragraph 1above),Singapore ignoretshe implications ofthatagreement. It
arguesthat it canrelyon eflectivitboccurringafterthe criticaldate." But it
can only do so if and to the extentthe acts in question areof the same
character,are a continuation of the same conduct havin tge same legal
contextand consequencesand goingback to theperiod beforethe dispute
arose. Yetthe only conductcarried outby Singapore(and Great Britain)
before 1980wastheadministrationotfhelighthouse,which wasnotconduct C?
titrede souverain.The factis that thoseactsonwhich Singapore nowrelies
(theexclusion offishermen,forexample)were performedwith theintentionto
improvetheir case, and they werfeirmly rejectedby Malaysia. If anything,
such acts showthe weaknessesof Singapore'sclaimsbasedon eflectivitbs;
theycertainlydonotshowitsstrength.For example,Singapore's sketcm h ap
of 1992 isthefirstmappublishedbySingaporeshowing PBPasbelongingto
Singapore. Thisis evidencenotof sovereigntybeforethe critical datebutof
the attempttoassertitafterwards.
28 SM, pm. 6.9.1l. The Courttook a quite differentapproachto that of Singaporein
dealingwith the Sipadan and Ligitan case. It was onlyafter rejectingboth
parties' claims of title-Indonesia's based otnhe 1891 Anglo-Dutch
onv vent io Mn;^laysia'sbasedonthe Great Britain-United States Treatof
1930~~-thatit approachedthe issueof effectivitdas such.31As to this the
Court observedthat
"it cannottakeintoconsideration acthavingtaken placeafter
the dateon whichthe disputebetween thePartiescrystallized
unless such actarea normalcontinuation ofprioractsand are
not undertaken forthe purposeof improvingthe legalposition
of the Partywhichreliesonthem. ..TheCourtwill, therefore
primarily, analysthe efectivitdswhichdate fromthe period
before1969,the year inwhichthe Partiesasserted conflicting
claimstoLigitanand~i~adan."~~
This had the effect of excludingentirely from considerationsubstantial
activitiesof Malaysia (e.g. the developmen otf tourism onSipadan)which
weresubsequentto1969andwhichwere not"a normalcontinuationof prior
acts".
12. Inthepresent case, once Malaysiaha dsemonstrated-as ithasdone-
that there wasnoact of anykindperformedby Singapore before 198 0titre
de souverain,thenitfollowsthatall evidenceofpost-1980 egectivitdmustbe
entirely excluded from consideration. Such conductis by its very nature
distinctanddifferentfromthatwhichpreceded it.
C. ThestructureofthisCounter-Memorial
13. It isrespecfilly suggested thattheCourt faces two essential questions
inthe presentcase:
SeetheJudgmentof17December2002p,aras. 9-52.
30 Ibid.paras.108-124.
" Seeibid.para.127.
Ibid.para.135. First, who hadsovereignty ovePBP,MiddleRocks andSouthLedge
inthe yearsimmediatelyfollowing the inauguration ofthe lighthouse,
andonwhatbasis?
Second, has anythinghappenedsincethat time to changethat legal
situation?
It shouldbe stressed that the Parties themsagreethat the answerto the
secondquestionis: no. Wherethey disagreeis on the answerto the first
question,as alreadynoted. In other words,this case concernsthe issueof
originaltitle tothethreefeatures. Nonetheless,manycasesin whichthe
essential question is onof title, somethingneeds to be said about the
subsequent practice of the Parties-in particular soas to confirm the
correctness ofa negative answto the secondquestion,as wellastorespond
to the thoroughly misleading accoubty Singapore ofits alleged sovereign
eflectivitki.
14. ThisCounter-Memoriailsdividedintotwoparts, whichcorrespondto
the two questions identified above. In Part I, Malaysia will showthat
Singapore'sclaim based on a purported "taking of possession" didnot
producea transfer oftitleto Great Britain,butthat title to thethreefeatures
remained withJohorafter1851. InPart II , alaysiawill shothat(contrary
to Singapore's contentionsthe subsequent conductof the Parties didnot
changethis situationbut rather confirmethe limitedbasis foringapore's
continueduseofPBPasasitefora lighthouse. PARTI
THE TITLESINVOKEDBY THE PARTIES
Chapter2
MALAYSIA'SORIGINALTITLE
Ci
Introduction
15. ChapterI11of Singapore'sMemorialclaimsto address the"historical
background" butdoes so in an extraordinarilyselecandepartial way.
Apparently,in the view of Singapore,historyfor the entire Malay region
beginswiththe building of a British factoryaporein1819;forPBPit
startsonlywith theconstruction ofthe HorsburghLighthousein 1841.185
Suchaviewdisregardsthefollowingsix importetlementsofthecase:
Firs PBt. couldat norelevanttime in the historicalperiod under
discussionbe regardasterrnulliu(SectionA);
Second,this isconfirmedbythe eventsleadingto the acquisitionof
Bririsn sovereignty overofner isiands in the region, inciuciing
Singaporeitselfin 1824andtheIslandofLabuan inthesameperiodas
theconstructionofHorsburghLighthouseectionB);
Third,thehistory ofJohor, which soundedseveral centurprior
totheestablishmenofSingapore,annotbeneglectedSectionC);
Fourth, itisremarkablethat, evenfortheperiodafter 1819,Singapore
neglects aajordevelopment withprofoundpoliticalimportancein
the region,.e. the conclusion ofthe Anglo-DutchTreaty of1824,
whichhadclearimplicationfortitleto PBPectioD); Fifth,the Crawhrd Treatyof 1824 didnotalter the statusofPBPbut,
on the contrary,confirmedthe prior andcontinuedsovereignty of
Johorovertheisland (SectionE);
Sixth,PBP wasnever a"deppedency"ofSingapore(Section F).
These issuesare dealt.within turn in this Chapter,andthe actualhistorical
materialiscontrastedwithSingapore'spresentation.
A. PulauBatuPutehwasnotterra nullitcs
16. One may wonderwhy Singapore,in its Memorial,decided not to
expresslyarguethat PBPwasterra nullius.It claimsthatin 1844 it"lawfblly"
tookpossessionof PBP.~~ASthe International Couro tf Justiceobservedin
theWesternSaharaAdvisory Opinion:
"The expression 'terra nullius' was a legal term of art
employed in connectionwith 'occupation',as one of the
accepted legal methods of acquiring sovereignty o vrerritory.
'Occupation' being legally an origim nalans of peaceably
acquiring sovereigntyovetrerritory otherwise than by cession
or succession, it was a cardinal conditionof a valid
'occupation' that the territory shouldbe term mllius - a
territory belongingto no-one - atthe timeoftheact allegedto
constitute the 'occupation'... In the view of the Court,
therefore, a...determinationthatWesternSaharawasa 'terra
nullius'atthetimeof colonization by Spain wouldbe possible
only if it were established thatat that time the territory
belongedto no-one in the sense that it was then opento
acquisition throughthelegalprocessof'~cccu~ation~."~~
33
34 See,e.g.,SM,para.5.5.
descriptionsofeaconceptof ferra nulliuscanbe foundin thedecisionof thePermanent
Court of InternationaJlusticehe LegaStatusof EasternGreenlandcase (Norwayv.
Denmark),PCIJ,SerieAIB,No.53(5 April1933)atpp.44,63. .17. Inapplyingthis concepo tftewanulliustheCourtmadea findingwith
respect tothe Western Sahara which is equally relevant tthe islandsin and
aroundtheStraitofSingapore,includingPBP:
"Whateverdifferencesofopiniontheremayhavebeenamong
jurists, the State practice of therelevant periodindicates that
territoriesinhabitedby tribes orpeopleshavinga social and
political organizationwere not regardedas terrae nullius.It
showsthat in the case of such territoriesthe acquisition of
territorywas not generallyconsideredas effected unilaterally
through 'occupation'of terra nulliusby ori ina5 title but
throughagreementsconcluded with local rulers,"
18, Similar observationson the link between native rulersand their
territorycanbefoundasearlyastheIslandof PalmasArbitation,inwhichthe
sole arbitrator, Judge Huber, determinedthat this disputedisland was
"successively apartoftwoofthenativeStatesoftheIslandof Sangi(Talautse
~sles)".~~
19. EvidentlyPBPwasnottewa nullius.Theislandis clearlysituatedin
the centre of the regionthat constitutedthe Sultanate ofJohor, whichwas
indisputably a sovereign Stata e, demonstratedinthe Malaysian~emorial.3~
Long before the constructionof Horsburgh LighthouseP , BP was a well-
knowngeographicalfeature." It appearsbyname on the earliestmaps, even
beforethedesignationof singapore?' Portuguesebooksreferredto theisland
("PedraBranca")as being widelyused bythe native population as earlyas
1552.JoiiodeBarros(1496-1570)w , howasafactorfortheEastIndiesHouse
WesternSaharaAdvisoryOpinion,ICJReports 19,.6,atp.39(para. 80).
36 IslandofPalmasCase(Netherlandsv. U.S.A.),(1928) 2RIAA831,at p. 867.Judge
Huberobserved: "Thesnative Stateswerefiom1677onwardsconnectewiththeEastIndia
Company,andthereby withtheNetherlands,bycontractsofsuzerainty,whichconferred upon
the suzerain,suchpowersas wouldjustify his considervassalStateas a part of his
territory."Ibid.
37 MM, paras.61-67.
38 Seealso SM, par..5:"PedraBrancahasbeen known tomarinersforcenturies."
39 E.g.MM,Map Atlas, Maps1,2,3; SM,para.2.5.SeealsMM, para. 306.Tothese
earlymaps of the areacan be added a Portumapsef 1650by ArrnandoCortesBo,on
whichPBPismarked and named "Pedrarancal':sMap 2 inthe MapsSectionattheendof
thisvolumefollowingpage 273.and was commissionedby the King of Portugalto write a history of the
PortugueseintheEast Indies,reported:
"D.JorgelefiMalaccawithMoorpilots, whohadnotice of this
route[tothe Moluccasthrough Borneo]. Makin his wayclose
to the coast,..hkenteredthe Strait ofSingapore, whichas the
widthof a canonshotandis so shallow thaninseveral partsit
does not have thedepthof sixfathom,and hasmanycrossed
shoals. Here hefoundthatthe coastcurved somewhats,othatit
wasnecessaryto useintelligenceinorder tonavigate.Arriving
at one islandthat iscalledWhiteRock ['PedraBranca'],which
isvery much in demand bythepilotsof thoseparts, hemadehis
way tothe islandthat peopleof the landcallPulugaia,which
meansElephant'sisland,becauseof the image showedby its
20. The Dutch alsoreferredto theisland inspecific sailing directions of
the late 16~ centurdl while referenceswere made to PBP in diplomatic
exchangesonpiracyconFolbetweentheDutchandthesovereignof Johoras
earlyas 1655P2 ~uriig the periodoftheconstructionofthe lighthousePBP
was identifiedin the SingaporeFree Press of 25 May I843 as an island
"withintheterritories of ourwell belovedally andpensionary,the Sultanof
Johore,orratheroftheTomungongofJohore,forheisthereal ~overei~n.'*~
21. Withall duerespectto the learnedreviewof the principlesgoverning
acquisitionof territoryin the middleand late 19" century in Singapore's
~emorial,~~ this remains something oa fn academicexercisebecausePBP
could not at any relevanttime be consideredas tewa nuZZius and hence
susceptibleto acquisitionrough~occupation T.hereisnothingtodemonstrate
thatJohorhadlost itstitlesincethereis noevidencethatatany timeit hadthe
J. de Banos, Asia de JoHoak Bmos. Dosfeitque OSportuguesesflzeram no
descobrimente cpriiuiszados marese terrasdo Oriente(Asia,by JoiIode Bmos. Facts
Orient)(Lisbo1552;6Prd.,Lisbon,1946)56(translation provdy Malaysia): originalof the
Portuguese texitnAnnexes,3,Annex7(emphasisadded).
41 SM,para2.5,note8.
42 SeeMM ,ara.78,
SeeMM ,ara95,andMMAnnex40.
41 SM,vol.l,Chapte5,sectionXI.C,pp.81-86.intention of ceding,let alone abandoningits sovereignty overthe island.
Rather it is the case that from time immemorialPBP was under the
sovereignty ofthe Sultanateof Johor.Itssituation issimilartothatdepictedin
theMeeraugeArbitration:
"La possession imrn6morialeest celle qui dure depuis Si
longtempsqu'il est impossible defoumir la preuve d'une
situationdifferenteet qu'aucunepersonnene se souvientd'en
avoirentenduparler".4s
B. TheBritish taking of possessionofSingaporeand Labuan
confirmsthatislands within 10 geographicalmilesfromthecoastwere
notterranullius
22. The cession of Singapore by Johorthroughthe Crawfird Treatyof
1824included the cession of"adjacentseas,straitsandislets,to the extentof
ten geographicalmiles" fromthe coast of the main Island of ~in~a~ore.~~
Evidently,thisshowsthatsuchfeatureswere notconsideredtobetewanullius
but thatthey were previously underthe sovereigntyof the cedingauthority,
the Sultanateof Johor. This was equallytrue forPBP,situatedas it is less
than 10geographical mileo sffthecoast ofJohor,asitwasforthosemaritime
featureswithina 10-mileradius fromSingapore.
23. TheviewthatPBP could not havebeenconsideredtewanulliusatthe
timeoftheconstruction of the lighthouse is supportb edthe series'of events
relating to the taking of possession ofthe island of Labuan and its
dependenciesby Britain in 1846. This (at thetime uninhabited)islandis
situated lessthanI0 milesoffthenorth-westcoastofBorneo. Possessing coal
45 "Possessionimmemorialis thatwhichhas lasted for a long time thatit is
impossibleto provideevidencadifferent situanndof whichanybodyrecallshaving
heardtalk"(translationby MalaysMeeraugeArbitralAward (Galicia/Hungary),1902,
N.R.T .,dSeries, vol.111,p. 71 (for theoriginaltextin German);Frenchtext in (1906)8
46ILC (2" ser.)p. 162atp.207.
Art.I1of theTreatyof FriendandAlliancebetween the Honourable the English
East IndiCompany,andthe Sultanandthe Temenggongof Johore,2 August1824MM
Annex6.SeealsoMM,paras.54-56.resources,itwasconsidered a convenient stopping-offpla fcr passingships.
In 1843,the rulers of Brunei expressedthe desire toconcludea treaty of
fi-iendshiwiththe Britishwith thepurpose,interalia, of combatingpiracy
andfosteringtrade.Inreturn,they offeredtocedetheislandofLabuan:
"The Sultan, andthe RajahMuda Hassim,desire to gain the
friendshipandaidoftheQueen of Englandf,orthesuppression
ofpiracy, andtheencouragemena tndextensionoftrade;and to
assistin forwarding theseobjects, theyare willing.tocede,to
the Queenof England,the Islandof Labuan, andks isllbs,on
such terms as may hereafter be arranged by any person
appointedbyHer~ajesty."~
24. On 31 March1845JamesBrooke,the Britishagent to the Sultan and
the Rajahof Borneo, reported that thecession of Labuan had alreadybeen
agreed.Thecessionwasconfirmedbya formalTreaty of Friendshipbetween
Britain andthe Sultan ofBorneo,concludedon 18December 1846, whereby
"HisHighness theSultanherebycedesinfullsovereigntyand propertytoHer
Majestythe Queenof GreatBritainand Ireland,Her heirs and successors
forever the Island of Labuan and its dependencies,the islets .adjacent
theret~."~ThereupontheBritish took formap lossessionofthe island, which
includedthe hoistingof the UnionJack. A furtherTreaty of Friendship and
Commercewasconcludedon 27May1847witha viewto encouragingtrade
and putting an endto piracy.Of particularimportanceis ArticleX of this
Treaty whichdetails the territoriecededto Britainby the Sultanof Borneo.
TherelevantpartofArticle Xreads:
"...HisHighnesstheSultanhereby confirmsthecessionalready
spontaneouslymadeby him in 1845' of the Islandof Labuan,
situatbdon the north-west coast oB f orneo,togetherwith the
adjace'nitsletsofKuraman,LittleRusakan,Great RusakanD , a-
at,and Malankasan, and all thestraits,islets, andseas situated
47
-This documen wtastransmittetdo theBritish GovernmebnytCaptainSirEdward
BelcheR.N.,C.B.See VoyagesoftheHMSSamarang durintgheyears1843-46;Employed
Commissionerosfthe Admiraly, l.1848,pp.176-177:Annexevs, 3,Annexf10.Lords
48 Textin J. de V. Allen,A.J. Stockwe1nd L.R.Wright(eds.),A Collectiof
Treatiesand OrherDocumentsAffectingtheSfaresofMalay1761-196 3,l.11p.399:
Annexes,ol.3,Annex17. half-way between thefore-mentioned islets anhemainlandof
Borneo.Likewisethe distanceof 10geographicalmiles fiom
the Island of Labuanto thewestwardandnorthward, and fiom
thenearestpoint half-waybetweenthe isletof Malankasanand
themainlandofBorneo,ina linerunningnorthtill it intersects
a lineextendedfromwest to eastfroma point 10milesto the
northwards ofthe northernextremity ofthe Islandof Labuan,
to be possessedin perpetuity andin fill sovereigntyby Her
BritannicMajestyand Her successors; andin orderto avoid
occasions of differencewhich mightotherwise arise, His
Highness theSultanengages notto make anysimilar cession,
either of anislandorofanysettlementonthemainland,inpart
of his dominions,to any other nation, or to the subjects or
citizens thereof, without the consent of Her Britannic
~ajesty.?*'
25. A comparisonof the formal cession andtaking of possessionof
Labuanin 1846andthealleged"taking oflawfulpossession"ofPBPin 1847
leadstoa number of conclusions:
First ofall, as in the case of thecessionof Singapore itself,a treaty
instrument was employed to effect the British acquisition of
sovereigntyoverthe islandofLabuan, andthe treaty was followed by
a formalceremonyinvolvingtheproclamationof sovereignty andthe
raising of theUnionJack:there was no doubtabout theintent ofeither
partytothetransaction;
e Second, both the Crawfird Treaty of 2 August 1824 relating to
Singaporeand the Treaty ofFriendship and commerce between
Borneo (Bruneia )nd Ereat Britainof27May 1847relatingto Labuan
detailthecessioninspecificgeographical terms;
o Third,thereis a clearreferencein bothtreaties toa ten geographical
mile limitwhichclearlydemonstratesthat the territoriallimits ofthe
coastalsultanatesextended beyond 3nm;
49 Text in J, dV, AllenA.J.Stockwe lnd L.R.Wright(eds.), Collectioof
Treaties andOtherDocuments Affectingetates of Malaysia1761-1963,XIl,.404:
Annexes,vol.3, Annex21. Fourth,boththe Crawfurd Treaty andthe FriendshipTreatybetween
Brunei and GreatBritain spell out in considerable detailthe seas,
straits and adjacentislandswithinthe specifiedareas to which the
respectivecessionsapply. Asregards Labuant,his is illustratedon.the
oppositepage (Insertl).''
26. The contrastbetweenthe specificactsof seekingpermission forand
the actualconstructionof HorsburghLighthousefiom 1847-1 851 aridthose
associatedwithBritishacquisitionofsovereigntyover islands suchas Labuan
willbepursuedfurtherinChapter 3 ofthisCounter-MemorialA , tthisstageit
canalreadybe concluded thatislandswithinten geographicam l ilesfiomthe
coastinthisregionwerenotconsidered terranullius.This applieas muchto
PBP, Middle Rocksand South Ledge and the isIets and rocks around
SingaporeasitdoestoLabuanandtheislets and rocks arouni t.
C. ForSingapore,historystartsin P819
27. Singapore's theoryoftakingoflawfulpossessionofPBPin 1847-1 851
ignoresalmost entirelythe historyof the region. Fortunately,for present
purposesthehistoryisquitestraightforwardand,easilyascertainable.It canbe
summarised asfollows.
The extentof the Singaporecessionis illustratedMM,Ip. 25. of 28. Forcenturies the Straitof Singapore has beena major transit passage
for trade fromEuropeto JapanandChina. Hencet,hefiee andsafenavigation
ofthe Straitwas ofmajor concern,andthe successiveforeign powers in the
region,the Portuguese,the Dutchand the British, workedclosely with the
SultanateofJohortomake itassecureaspossible,
29. The Sultanateof Johor wasestablishedby SultanMahmud.in 1512,
followingthe capture ofMalaccaby the Portuguesein 1511.5' From the
beginningof the 17' centurythe Sultanof Johorentered intoformaIand
friendlyrelationswiththe Dutch EastIndiesCompany. At the time of the
Dutchcaptureof the Portuguese vessel Catarinain 1604on the shore of
Johor, HugoGrotiusidentified Johor asa Sultanate which 'Torlonghad been
considereda sovereign principality"?2
30. In the 17' and 18' centuries,the Sultanof Johor and the Dutch
concludedvarious treatiesbywhichtheyjointlysoughtto counterbalance the
power of the Portugueseas well as the Acehnese. As a result of their
combinedforces, Malacca felilnto Dutchhandsin 1641. In a priorkaty it
had beenagreedthat theDutchwouldtake possessionof thetown and the
Sultan of Johor would take possession of the surroundingterrit0ry.5~
Furthermore,an alliance was formed againsttheir common enemies,
particularlthePortugueseandtheSpanish.Thiswasconfmed ina seriesof
subsequent treatiesw, hich providedfor continuingpeace and .f?iendshipas
wellastrade arrangementseS4
'
See R.O.WinstedtA, HIstoryofJohore (1365-1941(KualaLurnpur ., alaysian
, S2anchoftheRoyal Asiatic Society, r2,r.1992),p.14.
53 Windstedtn,ote51p.43.
54 See A.L. Andaya,The Kingdom ofJohore 1641-1728(KualaLumpur:Oxford
UniversityPress,975);thetextsofsomeofthesetreaties(tef 1685, 168and1713)are
annexedin this book.SeealsoE. Netsche~e NederlandersInDjohor en Siak(Batavia,
1870).31. Meanwhile, Johor itself opened a seaport at Riau, which soon
flourishedasa majorcommercialcentre through which manyshipspassed.In
the 17' and 18' centuries Johorwasthus ableto become aquite significant
maritimeforce in and aroundthe Straitof Singapore(see Insert 2 on the
preceding page).55TheDutchviewedthestrengthofJohorasa safeguard for
peacehl tradeinthe Straitandas a counterweightto.theincreasing influence
oftheBritishintheMalayregionfromthe late 18' century.s6
32. Singapore's Memorial correctly reports th bat 1819 "...the
Temenggong,whose fief was Johor,Singaporeand neighbouring islands,
enjoyedan increasingmeasure ofindependenceW.'T 'his'is confirmed by no
less an authority thanthe founderof Singapore, Sir StamforRdaffles,in his
"Notes relating to the Various Subjects of British rule in the Eastern
Archipelago".Heobserved:
"Withthe exceptionof Java theMoluccas andthe Philippines,
nearlythe wholeof the NativeStatesof the Archipelagomay
be considered independent, The European Settleme ontsthe
Coasts of Sumatraand Borneoare confinedto Commercial. .
objects,and theinteriorof theselarge islandsh, avenever felt'
the effectsof European interference A. large portionof their
Coasts and the wholeof the smallerislanh aswell m the
States onthe MalayPeninsulaare exclusively underNative
~uthorit~."~
Obviously,Raffles is .here referringto the authorityof the Sultan and
Temenggongof Johor.He wrotethesknotesin 1823, i.e. duringthe period
1819-1824 when the British and the Dutch were involved in. lengthy
negotiationsto make specificterritorial arrangementfsor the region. They
agreedthat'theentire passageofthe Straitof Singaporewouldfall within the
British sphere of influence.
56 SeealsMM, Insert11,p.36.
R. VOS,entlJanus,MerchanPt rince.TheVOCandtheTightropofDiplomacy in
theMalayWorld,1740-1800(Leiden:KITLVPress,1993),PaI1& 111.
University Press, 1). 9. The second editionof thisHistory@Singapore,1819-
1988,publishedin 1989,contanidentical observaatp. 8.
Annexes,ol.3, Ann'ex8(emphasisadded). D. The 1824Anglo-DutchTreaty confirmedJohor'stitle
33. During the French occupationof the Netherlands (1795-1813t)he
British took temporary contro olf Dutch possessions, includinMalacca.
Earlierin 1786theEnglish East India Compan hadtaken controlofPenang
and foundedthe settlement of Georgetowtn hat sameyear. In 1814the two
powers concluded a generalconventionwhich restored Dutch sovereigntyover
its coloniesinvarious continents, includ~sia.'' TheBritish were anxious
to maintain a presencentheMalay regioninordertopreservetheirinfluence
and tosecuretheChinaroute andcommercein theregion. Duringtheperiod
1819-1824Great Britainand the Netherlandswere engagedin protracted
negotiationsona demarcationotfheirspheresofinfluenceinthisregion.
When negotiations hadjust started, Sir StamfordRafflessecured a
34.
British factory in Singapore throughan agreement with Sultan Hussain
Muhammedconcludedon 30 January 1819.~~ Shortly afterwards,on 6
February 1819, a further Treatoyf Friendshipand Alliance was concluded
betweentheEnglishEast IndiaCompany andthe Sultan andTemenggong of
Johor by which "The Port of Singaporeis to be consideredunder the
immediate protection andsubject to the regulations of the British
a~thorities."'~'.
35. In subsequent yeartsheDutchclaimedthat theBritish should evacuate
Singapore because it was part Jofhorandits establishmentinfiirigedon the
rightsof the truesovereign of Johor, ultanAbdu'r Rahmanw , ho resided in
Lingga under Dutch protection an wdhohad not consented tothe cessionof
ConventiobetweeGreatBritainandtheNetherlaselatitotheDutc holonies,
London,3August1814,MMAnnex1.
SeeMM, paras.5-46.
61 Ibid.TextinMMAnnex 3.~in~a~ore.~H ~owever,the Dutchultimatelyacceptedthe establishment of
Singaporeaspartofagive-and-take procets sdefinetherespectivespheresof
influenceinthe region,Forthispurposeanimaginary lineofdemarcationwas
drawn fromPulauCarimon, througP h. Pemping BesarP,. BelakingPadang
and P. Batarnto P. Bintan. Thisline is reflecinthemapofRiauinthe
extensive 8-sheeMt apoftheDutchEast Indiesissuedby orderof theKing,
whichis Map 1 intheMapsection inthisvolume.63PBPis clearlyto the
northofthe lii~e,spartoftheterritoryofJohorandwithintheBritish sphere
of influence.
36. Apart fiom recognisingthe British control of ingapore,the other
immediateeffects of the 1824 Anglo-DutchTreatywere the cessionof
Malaccato the English East India Company and the relinquishingof any
Dutchclaimsto possessions and territorial clats thenorthof theislands
alongthesouthern shoreotfheStraitofSingapore.Inreturn,theBritishwould
not clairn'an"IslandssouthoftheStraights of~inga~ore".~T~husthe island
of Singapore,that part of the Sultanate of Johor situaon the Malayan
peninsula andallislandswithitheStrait fell cleayithinthe~ritiihsphere
of influence.Inthisway,theTreaty of 1824 betweenGreat Britainandthe
Netherlands confmed the continuingtitle of Johorto all islandsand other
maritimefeaturesintheStrait of Singapore,
37. This factis confirmebythefollowing reporm t adebya Vietnamese
envoyto Bataviain 1833:
Foradetailedreviewof thenegotiationss,eeN.Tarling,Anhivalrinthe
MalayWorld1780-1824(Cambridge,962)chs4-5.
63 See below,p277,and for an enlargementof the relevant'area,p. 278. For an
assessment otfhe effectoftheTreatyof 1824onthedivisionoftheMalayworld,seeB.W.
Andaya& L.Y.Andaya,A HistoryofMalays(Houndmills/Bas inge.,o00e,pp.
645-128.
Art.XI oftheAnglo-Dutch Trey:MAnnexS. "The station oPedraBranca.
The stationofPedra Branca, oo rf 'WhiteRock'is surrounded
by mountains. A bigwhiterock emergesin the middleof the
waves. Fromafar,it appearsto be sparkling, hence the name
given tothe port. On both sides the slopes arecoveredby
forestsandthe houses follow one another unttile channel of
Singapore. Huts madb eyreedandbamboocometo light over
thedark cliffs, amidstthegreenness ofthe trees. Itisa calming
Iandscape.To the south,once past Lingga archipelago o,ne
turns to take themaritimerouteto Malakaand PinangIsland.
To the west, after leavingthe TanjungBurung heights,one
turnsand is ledto the Strait.Whenon%arrivesat'the portof
Riau,oneentersDutchterritory,whichcontinuesuntil Kelapa.
Bothontheoutward and thereturnjourneysonepasses through
thisportthatconstitutethe'avant-posteo9fthat
Thisreportshowsclearlythat theVietnamese envoy was well a'warethatthe
islandof PedraBranca/Pulau BatuPutehwas tothenorthofwhere oneenters
theDutchterritoryatRiauandtheLinggaarchipalego.
38. A cornerstoneof 19'century British policin the Malayregionwas
the recognitionof thecontinuing right ofhe Sultanate ofJohor, from 1824
underBritishprotection,to exercise sovereignyver itsdominions,including
its islandsin the Strait of Singapore.This is exemplifiedby numerouscts,
inciuaing tine Crawr?lraTreaty of i824, the permission TO consimct a
lighthousein 1844 andthe Johor Treatyof 1885 relatingto the relationsof
"HerMajesty'sGovernmentof the Straits Settlementwith the Government of
theIndependentStateof oh ore".^^
Translation proviedMalaysia froPhanHzryChzi,Undmissairvietnamien
Batavia, kcilsommaid'unvoyageenmer,traduittprcSsent6arPhanHuyLe,Claudine
Salmon& Ta TrongKiep(Paris:Association Archip,94)p. 46 (origtextin Sino-
Vietnameset,ranslatediooderVietnamesaendFrench): nnexe, ol.3,Annex9.
66 SeeMM,para.64,MMAnnex 10. E. Continuedsovereignty ofJohor overPulauBatuPutehwasnot
affectedbytheCrawfurdTreaty
In its MemorialSingaporeneglects entirelythe 1824Anglo-Dutch
39.
Conventiond, espiteitsclearrelevancetothiscase. Andit haschosentomake
only cursoryreferenceto anotheressential treaty,therawfbrdTreaty of
1824. Whenthe two colonial powershad resolvedtheir differencesin the
Malay regionas reviewed above,mattersrelatingto Singaporepropercould
thenbeaddressed. On 2 August1824,the EnglishEast India Companyand
the Sultan and Temenggono gf Johor concluded newTreaty of Friendship
and ~lliance.~~ This treaty, commonlyknown as the Crawfurd Treaty,
includedan unambiguous provision relatin o the cessionof the island of
SingaporetotheCompany.Thekeyphrase relatingto the geographicalextent
ofthecessionis includedinArticle1.Itreads:
"...the Islandof Singapore, situinthe Straitsof Malacca,
together withthe adjacentseas,straitsand islets,to theextent
of ten geographicalmiles f,om the coast of the said main
Islandof~in~a~ore".~'
40. Obviously,Johor could not have ceded the territory of Singapore
Islandand islets situated withten geographical(i.e.nautical)milesto the
English EastIndia Company if Johodridnothavetitletoit. Andthe factthat
it hada title whichit was capableof ceding shothatthe Johor title to the
areabefore 1824 included bothBPand sovereignty over Singapore P.BPis
situated lessthanten geographical milsffthe coast of mainlaJohor (7.7
nm)andmoiethanten geographical miles from the coast ofSingapore(25.5
nm).
41. Singapore acknowledges thatthe CrawfurdTreaty precluded any
assertionof titleto islandsbeyondthosewithinthe 10geographicalmilelimit
67
SeeMM,paras.54-56,MMAnnex6.
MM Annex 6(emphasisdded).of ~in~a~ore.~B'ut itfailstoappreciatethe geographiclxtentofthecession
inthe Cramrd Treaty. Fromthe specificphraseused-"to the extent often
geographicalmiles"-it clearly followsthat thiswas notan area which the
English Ekt. India Companyor Singapore could enlarge unilaterally. This
interpretations supportedby other articlesofthe Treaty: Artic11sand TV
stipulatethat acertainconsideratiwouldhaveto bepaidbytheCompanyto
theSultan andTemenggong forthe cession?'
42. Singapore accepts thatthe cession ofSingaporeby the Sultan and
Temenggong of Johor wae sffectedbythe CrawfurdTreaty. However,what
Singaporefails toappreciateis thatthis importantconstitutivedocument on
the establishmentof Singaporealso confirmsformalBritishrecognition of
prior and continuing sovereigntoyf the Sultanateof Johor over all other
islands in and aroundthe Strait of Singapore. For the CrawfiudTreaty
provides,in unequivocalterms,thatthe cession is confinedto .theisland of
Singaporeitself and the area, includingseas, straits andislets, withinten
geographical miles of the ain islandof Singapore.Title to other territories
and seaareasremainswhereitwas,namelyintheSultanateofJohor.
69 SeeSM,para.5.5.
70
MMAnnex6. F. PulauBatuPuteh was neveradependency ofSingapore
43. Inseveral placesinitsMemorial,SingaporeportrayP sBPas one of its
"dependencies"?' The expression"dependency"is a rather vagueterm and
nota termofart. Asthe Halsbury'sLawsof England observewithrespectto
"dependency"and "dependent te&itory":
"Theseare words of notechnicalmeaning;theyare widerand
usually vaguer than'coIony'.Theyreferto a country,province
orterritorywhichissubjecttothecontrol ofthe governmentof
a state or country ofwhich itis not an integral part;such
controlneednot extendbeyondresponsibilityforthe conduct
oftheexternalrelationsofthedependency."72
Singapore'sMemorialusesthe phrase"Singapore and its dependencies"in a
verylooseway,withoutprovidinganyspecificdefinition.
44. But eventhis looseand vagueterm, chosenby Singapore,refutes its
case. The fact is that the territof Singaporewasdescribedin greatdetail
ona numberofoccations, using thephrase "Singapore ani dtsDependencies",
and on none of these occasions was PBP treated as one of Singapore's
dependencies.
45, ArticleXIVoftheCrawfurdTreatyof 1824refersto anyrightortitle
of the EastIndia Company to "the oocupationor possessionof the Islandof
Singaporeand its dependencies,as hbove-rnenti~ned'? ~his clearlyrefers
backto thephrasein Article I1onWe adjacent seas,straits andislets,to the
extentof ten geographicalmiles,fromthe coastof the saidmain Islandof
Singapore."These dependenciesare also referredto inArticle1ofthe 1927
Johore-SingaporeTerritorialWaters Agreemena tndaredepictedonthe Map
' SeeSM,paras.3.7,3.9,9.14-9.15,etseq.
72 SeeHalsbur'SLawsof~n~land(4' edn.,London,1974),vol.p.321,para.802.
Toequivalentffect,sibid(2003 reissue)v,o1.6,p.414. 02.7
MMAnnex5(emphasis added).attachedto it.74In essence, the Agreement confirmte hdeCrawfurdTreaty of
1824and the territorialsituationresultingtherefiom,apart fiom retroceding
certainareastoJohor.
46. In addition,therearea significantnumberof unilateral instrumentsof
Singapore, suchas acts,orders, announcements an constitutionaldocuments
adoptedbothshortlybefore andafterindependencet,hatdescribeindetailthe
extentof singapore?' Throughoutits history, andfor all kindsof purposes,
the relevant authoritiehavealways described the territoryof Singaporeina
consistent, precisanddetailedmanner.Before 1992,PBPhadnotoncebeen
specificallyreferredto by Singaporeas an "island,an area or dependency"
belonging to singaporg6 as it now puts it in its Memorial. All the
geographicalentitiesof thisnature described as belongintgo Singapore were
necessarily limitedto thosewithinthe 10-milelimitaroundit establishedby
the CrawfurdTreaty of1824.
47. In sum, there isno evidence whatsoever to suggest thatPBP was
regardedas comingwithinthe scopeof sucha broadphrase"island,areaof
dependency". Numeroufs ormalandinformaldescriptionsof theterritory of
Singaporeexist fiomthe 19' and20' centuries?' Nonemakesany reference
toPBP.
48. It must thus be concluded thatat no relevanttime was PBP terra
nullius.The Straitof Singaporeandthe islands,includingrocks,andlowtide
elevationsin and around it,have frequentlybeen the subjectof territorial
74 Straits SettlematndJohoreTerritorl atersAgreement,19Octobe1r927MM
Annex12.See MM,paras.190-192andfortheMapattachedto thisAgreementsee MM,
Inser17,p.89.
75 SeeMM,Chapter 7.
76 Cf.MM,para. 212.
77 SeeMM,Chapter 7.regulation; throughout, BP has remained without interruptio wnithin the
dominionoftheSultanateof Johoa rndMalaysia.
49. For a properunderstandingofthe historicalbackgroundof the dispute
one cannotoverlookthe pre-1819 history in the region, especially the
evolutionof the SultanatofJohor. Before1824this Sultanate existed North
and South of the Strait of Singapor.eandincluded allislands and other
maritimefeaturesinandinthevicinity oftheStraitof Singapore.
50. Originaltitle over this well-knownfeaturein the perennially busy
Strait of Singapore has alwaysbeen with the Sultanateof Johor. This is
confirmedby both the Anglo-Dutch Convention of 182 and the Crawfurd
Treaty of1824---importanltegalinstruments-neitherof whichreceivesmore
than scantattention from SingapornitsMemorial.
51. Until 1980PBPwasnot oncereferredtobya Singaporean authorityas
belongingto Singapore.It doesnot comewithinthe scopeofthe expression
"Singaporeand its dependencies", me dependenciesof Singapore have
alwaysbeencarefully described and consistentllimitedto the 10-milelimit
of SingaporeIsland,both before and after the independenceof Singapore.
Evidently,PBPwas not part ofit. Chapter3
SINGAPORE'S PURPORTED "T G OPPOSSESSION"
A. The originaltitleallegedbySingapore
52. Singaporeclaims sovereigntyover PBP onthe basis of what is
presentedasa "takingof lawful possession" otfe islandby GreatBritainat
thetimeoftheconstructI.n ofthe lighthouse.Accordingto itsMemorial,
'"~in~apor&' claim is notbasedon theTreaty of Cessionof
1824.That.Treatydealtonly withthemainislandof Singapore
andits immediate vicinity.t did notextendto the areamoyd
Pedra.Brmca.Instead,Singapore'scase is that the eventsof
184'7to 1851 (to be elaborated in due course)onstituted a
takingof lawful possessionof Pedra Brancaby agentsof the
British Crown.in the years thatfollowed,the BritishCrown,
and subsequently,Singapore, continuallyexercised acts of
Stateauthority in respect ofedraBranca.This effectiveand
peaceful exerciseof State authority confirmdnd maintained
the title gainedin the perio1847 to 1851 by the taking of
lawfulpossessionon behalfofthe
53. Thus, accordingto Singapore,acts leadingto the constructionand
operation of the iiorsburgh Lighthousebeiween is47 anci i85i can be
considered as a taking of possession allowingtheir auth~r to acquire
soyereigntyoverPBP. Conductby Singaporeor its predecessor inthe years
that followedis presentedas a confirmati~rozf whet is calledan "ofiginal
title",andasamaintenam@ of
54. Singaporethus claims tohave acquiredsovereignty overPBP in the
period 1847-1851. Malaysia rejectsthatclaimonthe basis thatthe holder of
sovereigntyofthe islandat thattime wasJohor, whichdidnomore thangrant
permissionfor theconstruction of tlighthouse.Accordingly,the maintask
79 SM,para.5,,5(emphasisinoriginal).SeealsoSM,paras5.101,5.103.
"Singaporehas continuously engin acts of State authoritywhichconfii her
originaltitle to PedraBranca"(SM,para.7.5).of the Court is to determinewhetherthe British Governmentsomehow
establishedsovereigntyoverPBPby constructingthe lighthouse orwhether,
onthecontrary,Johor'ssovereigntyremainedunaffected by thatconstruction.
55. This Chapterwillexmine the argument putforwardby Singaporein
itsMemorial asthebasisof itsclaim.It willshowthat:
(1) there was no taking of possessionof PBP at the time of the
constructionofthelighthouse;
the activityleadingtothe erectionandoperation ofthe lighthousewas
(2)
not inanyway conducted withthe intentionof acquiringsovereignty;
and
(3) the constructionof the lighthouse went aheadon the basis of the
permission grantedbythe sovereignofthe island, Johor,forthis sole
purpose.
B. Britainnever'&toop kosses~ion"ofPulauBatuPuteh
56. Singaporeclaimstohavean"originaltitley'overPBP;it claimsthatits
"king of lawfulpossession"was the way inwhich this sovereigntywas
established,although itdidnotdefinePBPasbeing tewa nulli~satthetime of
the constructionofthe lighthouse.As demonstratedinthe previous Chapter,
PBP was at that time underthe sovereigntyof Johor. Leavingaside this
fhndamentalobstacleto Singapore's pretence o anoriginal titleonthe basis
of a meretaking of possession,this Chapter will shothe lack of material
foundationforthealleged"takingof possession ofPedraBrancabytheBritish
Crown".
57. Singapore's Memorial includes extensive doctrinal quotations
regardingthe acquisitionof territorialsovereigntyin the secondhalf of the
19' century.'' In spiteof this, Singapeoesnotprovidea singledefinition
SM,pm. 5.108.ofthe centrallegalgroundof itsclaim;the taking of possession B.elowisan
extractfromawellknownworkonoccupationpublished inthe 19' century:
"La prise de possessionest la preuvecertainequ'unEtat veut
acqudrirun tewitoriuwrnullius.. L'Etatmontrepar la'prisede
possessionqu'il veut e'tablisa souverainetd... La prisede
possession, avons-nousdit, sert h prouver I'intentionbien
certaine d'un Etat d'dtablir sa souverainetdsur un certain
tenitoire. E11ea aussi un autre objet: furer d'une maniere
preciselemomentauquels'estrdalisdecetteintention.""
58. In the present case, neither of the aims that define a takingof
possessionaccordingto this definitionis present. As will be seen, the
construction of the lighthouse neither entaila endy intention to acquire
sovereignty overa tewa nullius,andnor did theBritish authoritiesallegedly
responsiblefor such"takingof possession"fixthemomentat whichthiswas
accomplished.
59. As to the aim of "futerd'unmanihreprdcisele momentauquel s'est
rt5alide cette intenti~n"~attentionneeds to be drawn to the inconsistent
mannerinwhich Singapore has presented whaits calledthe "takingof 1awfi.d
possession"of PBPby GreatBritain. The Singapore Memoriag livesat least
fourdifferen&t tes indir.51wtt.le&!_F'Ct~kjnnfp~g_~t.lfsj ~nci1vt.ld_-
60. In some paragraphs,the takingof possessionis presentedas having
occurredin 1847." This yearisevenmentionedasthetime ofthe occupation
81 "The takingof possessionis conclusive evidencet State seeks to acquirea
territoriumnullius...The State demonstratesthetakingof possessionthat it seeksto
establishits sovereignty.stated,the taof possessionserves the purposeof proving'a
State'sirm intention to establishits sovereigntyover a particular territory.It also serves
another purpose:that of fixingpreciselythe time at whichthis intentionwas expressed"
(translationMalaysia)G. JBze,hrdethkoriqueetpratiquesurI'occupacommemqen
d'acqdrir lesterritoriesenclroitinternationa(lParis,V. Giard214-21s(emphasis
82original)
"Singaporetooklawful possessofPedra Brancain 1847andacquiredsovereignty
1847forthe purpose ofbuildingrsbourghLighthouse"(SM,para.4.1);"Singapor.andancain
herpredecessorsintitle havepeacefullyexercisedsovereignauthorityover Peafterranca
takinglawfulpossession oftheislandin 1847",ara.7.1).ofthe islandmaI3notherparagraphs, 1847 appears simplyastheyearinwhich
thetaking of possessionbegan.84Inanotherparagraphit wasthe selectionof
PBP forthe buildingofthe lighthouse(thatisto say, before1847)that fulfils
thisfunction?' Finally,inother paragraphsthetakingof possessionwas said
to be aprocess undertaken between 1847 and 185 the ''finalacts" of the
"process"beingtheinspectionofthelighthouseonce itwasconstr~cted.~'
61. Thisis the first timeinthehistoryofterritorial litigathat ataking
ofpossessi oofan islandis presentedas a complex act lastingat leastfour
yearsandwithouta singlemanifestationduringthatperiodof the intentionto
acquire sovereignty.Indeed,the takingof possessionis the fust actionby
whichoneState "rt5duiBsadispositionle territoireenquestion".88Aseriesof
,actsoftakingofpossession couldbeconceivedincasesoflargeterritoriesora
groupof islands. Thiswasthe caseinthetakingof possession of Singapore
by John Crawfurdwhichtook placebetween 4 and 8 August 1825. The
BritishResidenttook formal possession of the Islandof Singaporeand its
dependencies, plantingthe Union Jack and fuinga 21-gunsalutein different
partsof the new settlement,including isIetshavingcharacteristicssimilarto
PBP.~~ASwas demonstratedinthe MalaysianMemorial,Britishpracticein
taking possession of territory wfsrmal, documented anu dnequivocalas m
assertionofsovereignty?'
83 "In 1847,the British colonial governmenitn Singapore occupiedthe island and
proceedtobuildthelighthouseonitnamed'HorsburghLighthouse"'(SM, para.2.6).
4 "The process of taking lawful possessionof Pedra Brancafor the purposeof
constructingand maintaininga ligbseeganin 1847"(SM,5.92).
85 ''Theselection ofPedra Brancaas the site forbuilding ofthe lighthousewith.the
authorizationof the British Crown constituted aclassic taking of possession
souverai(SM,para.5.103).
SeeparticularlySM,para.5.5,quotedabove.
SM, paras. 5.84, 5,101,5.112.But SM para. 5.103 seems contradictory,since it
mentionsthe selectionof Pedra Brancaas the site for.the lighthouseaking of
possessiononthe onehand, andtheyears 184astheperiodinwhichtheBritishCrown
acquiredtitle overontheother.
ClippertonIslandCase(Mexlco/France,932) 6RGDP p. 129at p. 132;English
translJ.H.MOOT2),oticeoftheIndlanArchipelago and Adjacent Counteingapore,
1837),pp.269-73.
MM,paras.157-164.62. Accordingtothe SingaporeMemorial:
"The literaturerequiresan intentionto acquiresovereignty,a
permanent intention to do so,andovert actionto implementthe
intentionandto makethe intentiontoacquire manifest to other
Malaysia agrees. Unfortunately fo Sringapore,none.of this occurred with
regardto the British Government vis-d-visPBP? As will tie demonstrated
below,Great Britainhadnottheslightestintentionofacquiringsovereignty*
either permanentlyor otherwiseand consequentlythere was :;no action
implementing ormanifestingsuch intention toother States. .' I. ii*;
I
C. Therewasnointentiontoacquiresovereignty
63. As Singapore recognises ,hatisessential forthetakingofpossession
to establish sovereigntyis the physicalactof taking possession couplew dith
the intentionto do so. ItsMemorial, howevers,eparatesthesetwo elements,
distinguishingthe takingof possession from the intentionto do so as if they
aretwodifferentgroundsof title.92TheWig of possessionrequiresboththe
effective apprehension of theterritory(corpus)together withthe intentionto
acquire sovereignty (animus) T.hey are two elements ofthe same act,
respectively theob-iectiveandthe subiectiveelements. ThePermanentCourt
of InternationaJlusticeputitthisway:
"... a claimto sovereigntybased not upon someparticularact
or.title suchas a treatyof cessionbut merelyuponcontinued
displayofauthority, involvetswoelementseachofwhichmust
be shownto exist:the intention andwill to act as sovereign,
andsomeactualexerciseor displayofsuch authority."93
64. Inthepresent case,there isnothingto indicate an "intentionand willto
act as sovereign". As to the displayof authority, ifthis existed at all itwas
91 SM,pka. 5.109.
92 SM,para.5.102.
93 LegalStatus@EasternGreenlandPCIJ SerieAB No 53 (1933),.pp.45-46. See
alsoWesfernSahara,advisoryopinionICJReports1975,p.43 (para.92)Sovereign@over
PulnuLigitanandPulauSipadan(Indonesia/MalaysiaJudgment ,CJReports2002, p. 682
(para.134).limitedtothe activitiesonthelighthouseorancillarythereto and was based on
thepermissiongranted'bythe sovereignJ ,ohor.
65. The subjectiveelement, animus, does not always havethe same
purpose.It may vary, leadingto differentconsequences,In somecases,the
intentionisto acquiresovereignty,inotherstoacquire property, in yet others
to be the administratoror custodianeither of territory orof immovable
propertywithoutbeing eithersovereignorowner. For thisreasontheelement
of intentionisessentialinordertodeterminethelegal significanceofphysical
acts performedwithregardto territory. As Salomon pointedout inthe lgth
century:
"~'8tatpeutetrepropridtairec ,ommeunsimpleparticulier,soit
dansles limitesde sonpropreterritoire,soiten dehorsde ces
limites. D'autre part, l'occupationest la fois un mode
d'acquisitionde la souverainetdetunmoded'acquisition de la
propridtd.En sorteque lY8tat,6tantBla fois me personnedu
droitinternationalet me personnedudroitprive5p ,eutacqudrir
par occupation, suivantles cas, soit la souverainett5s ,oit la
propridtd."94 .
66. Significantly,noneofthe various formalitiesundertakein nthe course
oftheconstructionofthe lighthouseorafteritscompletion-the laying ofthe
foundationstoneby a Masonicceremony,the mountingof the plate in the
visitors'room,the inaugurationofthe lighthouse,the notificationto theEast
India Companyt,he publication of theNoticetoMariners,thepassingofActs
Nos. V1and XI11in respectof the lighthouseoperations-manifested any
intention toacquiresovereignty,eitherexplicitlyorimplicitly.Theaccount of
the ceremonyof the layingof the foundationstone appearingin the Straits
Time and Singapore Journal of Commercereferred to "the Horsburgh
94 "TheStatecanbe anowner,like aprivateindividual, eiwrithin the limsf its
own territororbeyondthoselimits.Moreovero,ccupatiois atthe same time a modof
acquisitiof sovereigntyandamodeof acquisitionof ownershipI.n this'way,fhe State,
beingatthesametime a subjecotfinternatillwandasubjectofprivatelaw,canacquire
byoccupation eithsrvereigntorownership, dependiongthe circumstances" (translation
by Malaysia):Ch. Salomon, L'occupationdes territoiressans maftre.Etude de droit
inlernallona(lPaA. Giard,1889),p. 13.Testimonial,or Lighthouse forall ~ations"?~This is an unlikelyway of
describingalighthouse whose construction supposedly representth edtaking
ofexclusivepossessionoftheislandonbehalfoftheBritishCrown.
67. Onthecontrary,theformalities listed abovreevealonlyanintentionon
the part of the East India Companyto own the lighthouse. Of particular
importance isAct No. V1of 1852,declaringthat theHorsburgh Lighthouse
"shallbecomethe propertyof,andabsolutely vestin,theEast IndiaCompany
and their successors"and that "[tlhe management andcontrol of the said
"HorsburghLight-Houseand the keeperthereof,and of everythingrelating
thereto,ishereby vestedintheGovernoroftheStraits~ettlements"?~ActNo.
XI11 of 1854merelyconfirmedthis?' Neither Actasserts orreflects aclaim
tosovereignty over PBP.
68. Singapore's assertion that the Notice to Marinersof 24 September
1851"was basedona datum:thatthe island onwhichthe lighthouse stands is
British andformspart ofsingapore'"'is notsupportedbyeitherthe wording
of theNoticeitself or anyotherevidence. Onthecontrary,it is not specified
in any contemporary documentatioe ni,ther explicitlyor implicitly, that
was or had becomeBritish territory. The fact that Governor Butterworth
signedthe firstNotice ofthe beginningof the operationof the lighthouseis
not in itself evidence of sovereignty overBP. Quitesimply,the authority
responsible forthe lighthouse proudly announced the constructionand
characteristicsofHorsburghLighthousetothoseintendedtotake advantage of
it,i.e.the marinersof"All Nations".
69. Allthe evidencefurnishedbythe Singapore Memorias limply.goesto
provethe existenceof ananimusdominiinrespectofthe lighthouse,i.e.,the
intentionto be its owner. There is not a single pieceof evidence ofany
28 May 1850(emphasis added), otidSM,para.5.56.
96 MM,para.169;SM,paras6 . .12,6.13.
97 SM, para6.20.
98 SM,para 5..88."intentionandwill"of theBritish Governmentto actwiththe aimofacqufig
sovereigntyover theisland,i.e.,to actB titrede souverain withregardto the
territory. This is also trueofthe Singapore Governmenftor anytime before
the criticaldate.
70. The onlyreferenceinthe Singapore Memoriatlhat could possiblybe
construedotherwise isthe passagefromthe speechof theWorshipful Master
ofthe Lodge"ZetlandintheEast",M. Davidson,at th. ..emonylayingthe
foundationstone'that"this:Rocki~a d.epgn .d.enq$?'."As notedalready, the
1..
temiCcdependencyd "oesnot:necessarily'@nt& "l:oyereignty".'~A ~11of Johor
could havebeen'viewedas'a"dependency",since it was under the protection
of the BritishCrownand withinits sphere of.influence. The Temenggong
himselcinhislettergrantingpermission fortheconstruction of thelighthouse,
states that "our dependenceis whollyon theEnglish~overnment"."' Mr
Davidsonwas a merchant,lo2so was b$ no means aware of matters of
territorial title, andhe had no official function in the Government.
Significantly, Governor Butterworth,whotook the floor afterMr.Davidson,
did notmakeanyreferencetomattersofsovereignty. Nor did he speak either
ofa takingofpossessionoroccupationoftheisland.Thiswouldhavebeen an
appropriateoccasion onwhichto aaffirrthe incorporation of anotherpieceof
territoryinto theColonyhadthe real intention underlyintg he constructionof
the lighthouse beenthe acquisitionof sovereignty overthe island. If one
follows Singapore's lineof reasoning,it seemsodd,to saythe least,thatthis
alleged intentionwasnot manifested inanywayonsuchanoccasion,oratany
othertime.
99 SM,pm. 5.58.
loo Seeabove, paragrap43.
l'' MM,para.122.
'02 A partneof Messrs.A.L.Johnston and Co. un1863:seeCharlesBurtonBurMey,
AnecdotalHistory of Old Timesin Singapore(Singapore:Fraser and Neave Ltd., n.d.,
reprintedbythe University of Malaya Ps,ualaLumpur, 1965)vol.1,pp.202, 232;vol.
2,p.457.71. Thereis further evidence oftheimelevanceoftheWorshipfulMaster's
words in the reporton the ceremonysent by Governor Butterworthto the
Governmentof Bengal. Itcontainsno referenceat all to anjl acquisitionof
sovereigntyor to the island becoming a "dependencyof Singapore". Rather,
the report is limited to the statementthat the ceremonyc 'oncerned ?he fist
stone.. .with masonichonours".'03
72. Hencethe evidence advanced by both Memorialslead; to the sam6 .
conclusion:the intention oftheBritish Crown wan sot to acquiresovereignty
over PBPbut onlytoconstructalighthousethere and tohave ownership ofit.
D. Lighthouseactivitiea sndtheBritish practice oftakingof
possession
73. TheSingaporeMemorialrecognisesthattherewasnoforinaltakingof
possessionof PBP on behalf of .t.e British Crown, arguingthat "[iln the
circumstances, no particular formalitieswere called The
circumstances onwhich'itrelies are that PBP is a small and uninhabited'
island. Singapore's ta~tic'ex~lainw shyitsMemorialinsistsonthe expression
"taking of ZawJirl posses~ion't~ o replacethe traditional'Yormaltaking of .
mennnnn;,-)) .rnnrlG.., +h'D4t:nh fl~rrn-ma-+ an.-at~1nrlL.,n+hn-n D.ttln.~rfi.l
~VUYWPPIUII ,UYWU UJ LIIWUIICIUAIUVVWIIUALUIIL uu WUIL uu uj WUAVLJ. uwb 8urrrw
presenceon the islandis not in dispute, Whatit is essentialto determine is
whether underthe particular circumstances of thc ease therewasa taking of
possession of PBP inordertoestablishBritishsovereignty overit.
Io3 SM, pqa.5.59.
'04 SM, pm. 5.90.74. Singaporebases its claimthat there is no requirementof particular
formalities for taking possession on a sole doctrinal quotation which
supposedlyexplainsBritish constitutional practice and mentiAnstarcticaas
an example.'05 Yet itisanofficial presentation of enitedKingdombefore
this Court that provides the clearest denialof that assertion. In its
Applications instituting proceedingasgainst Argentina and Chile in the
AntarcticaCases,theBritish Governmenitnvokedseveral examples of whaitt
considered to betakingsof possession.It mentionsthatCaptainJamesCook
landed on SouthGeorgiaintheFalkland IslandGroupand"took possession of
itormallyinthe nameof KingGeorge111"t ,hatCaptainW.Smith revisited
the South Shetland Islandsin October 1819,"plantedthe Britishflag and
formallytook possessionofthegroupinthenameofKingGeorge111"t,hatE,
Bransfield,R.N. landed on King George Island"andtook possessionformaIZy
inthe nameof King George W", and landed later othemosteasterlyisland
of the group"takingpossessionformallyin the King'sname",that Captain
George Poweflllanded onthe largest of the South OrkneyIslands on 7
December 1821 and "took possession of itformallyin the name of King
George
75. Inthe caseof PBP,the British authoritieseveractedinthat manner.
At no timedid theymake anydeclarationformallytaking possession of the
islandinthenameofthe Crown;assertthat theisland belonged tothe Crown,
or plant the Union Jack,or salutethe Union Jackby gun or by holding a
paradeorsingingthenational anthem.
76. In itsMemorial,Malaysiaprovided exampleo sf actualcasesoftaking
ofpossessionof islandsonbehalf oftheBritishCrownwhichoccurredinthe
'OS SM, para.5.90, citingSir K. Roberts-WC,ommomvealtahndColonialLaw
(London,Steven& Sons,1966)pp. 107-108.Infactthepassagequoted bySingapise
concernetodistinguiactsofannexatinhichaccompansyettlementc,onquorcession
fromthosewhichstandalone.Roberts-Wrawyas not sayingthatBritishsovereigntyis
acquired without nanifested intention o.Clearlyactsofannexation wiutore
'06manICYPleadings, ntmcticCases(UnitedKingdov.Argentina, nitedKingdov.
Chile)(1956,m. 69, pp.11-12 (emphaisdded).period fiom 1775to 1886. They demonstrate that the British practice of
taking of possessionincludedcertain formalitieswhich were theconcrete
manifestation ofthe intentionto acquire sovereignt,ndthat thesepractices
extendedto small, isolatedandor uninhabitedislands akin to PBP. The
firther examplesprovidedbelowconfirmthattheformaltakingofpossession
of small uninhabitedislands, includingrocks, followed by some public
declarationof British sovereignty, as standard practice. This is also true
even with regard to isletsandrockscloseto territories alreadyunderBritish
sovereignty.
An exampleof the latteris the takingof possessionof Morant Cays
77.
near Jamaicaon 12October 1862. CommanderWilliamJohn Ward took
possession of Morant Cays in the name of Her Britannic Majesty and
produceda certificate toconfirmhe had done so. Later, theGovernorof
Jamaica, Edward Eyre, issued a Proclamationannouncingthe taking of
possessionin the nameof the Queenon 23 February1863.'07The Morant
Caysconsistof four small coralislets. Their altitudeis5m andthe nearest
territoryto them lies at 60 km. Locatedat 17.439N,75.90°W,they are
uninhabitedand areseasonallyvisitedby fi~hermen.'~~
mn
to. Anuiher irnpurwi exampie of the takingof possessionof terriiory
whichcan be compared withPBPis that ofLabuan,mentionedabove.loPIt
concernsthe taking of possessionon behalf of theBritish Crown ofan
uninhabitedislandin the sameregion andin the sameyearof the purported
Yakingof possession"of PBP. CaptainMundyof EiMSIris took formal
possessionof the islandof Labuan,followinginstructionsfrom the Naval
Commanderin Chiefof Her Majesty's NavalForcesin India and the China
Seas, Rear Admiral Sir Thoma Csochrane.Theaccount byThomas Churchof
thetakingof possession readassfollows:
'07 63BFSP pp.797-798;14Hertslpp.828-829.
Io8 See United Nations Environmental Programm(UeNEP) Island Directory:
http:llislands.uneu.cWlSP.htm.
'09 Seeabove,paragraph3-25. "LABUAN,itsdependenciesand islets a,renowpart and parcel
of theBritish dominionsT .heEnglish flag was formallyhoisted
on the 18' December [l8471,withduehonolirand ceremony,
in the presence of the Bornean Chiefs and numberless
~ala~s.'' ~O
The SultanhadofferedLabuanto GreatBritaininAugust1843. The British.
Admiralty then instructed Commander Bethuneto examineLabuanfor the
purposeof a possibletakingof possession."' DifferentBritish Government
departments-both in Londonand in the StraitsSettlements-were involved
andwereconsulted before an action such as the incorporationof a territory
into theBritishEmpirewastaken.' l2 On 19September1846,the Omciating
Secretaryto theGovernmentofIndia addressed to the Governorofthe Straits
Settlementsa copyof a letter conveying HerMajesty'scommandthat the
British Admiralin the Eastern Seasbe directedto take steps for obtaining
formal possession of ~abuan.''~It was after theconclusionofthe Treatyof
FriendshipandAlliancewiththe Sultan of Borneo (Bruneo i)f 18December
1846that theisland wastakeninpossessiononbehalfofthe BritishCrown.
This act was followed byother formalities, includingcommunications
!
bec :enth. .vernmentof IndiaandGovernor~uttenvorth."~
'l0 PapersRelatingtoBorneoandtheProceedings atSmak ofJamesBrook, Esq.,
Now Her MaJ'esty'Csommissione,rndConsul-Genera tl theSultanandthe Independent
ChiefsofBorneo(3*series,London:Robson,Levey,andFranklin,1847),p. 111.
"l Letterof1November1844,inAllen,J. deV, Stockwell, .J.andWright,.R .eds),
A Collectfonof 7'reatiand otherDocumentA s fectingtheStatesofMalqvsla1761-1963
(London,OceanaPublicationInc.,vo11,1981),pp.394-398:Annexes,vol. 3,Annex12,
l'' In particularthe Colonialandthe ForeignOffices,the formerhaving raisedsome
objections againstthe occupationof Labuan,therdsof the Admiralty,the Treasury,
amongstothers,swellq former officialsknowitgeregion, sucasMr.Crawfkd.Seethe
correspondence containen Colonial Officefile CO14411,June 1846:Annexes,vo1.3,
Annex15.
"bnexes, vol.3,Annex16.
[l4 Seeletterof 2 January1847fromthe Officiating Secretao the Governmentof
Indiatothe GovernooftheStraits Settlementasndletterof20 January1847from Governor
ButterworttoG.A.Bushby,SecretarytotheGovernmeno tfIndia:Annexes,vol3,Annexes
18and19.79. The contrastbetweena genuineact of takingof possession, suchas
that in the caseof Labuan, withthe conduct leadingto the constructionof
HorsburghLighthouseon PBPis clear. It is alsoworthnoting that themain
personalitiesinvolvedinthe takingofpossession of Labuan werthe sameas
thoseinvolvedintheconstructionofthe lighthouseon PBP.Captain Belcher
hadrecommendedPeak RockoverPBPfor the construction ofthelighthouse,
AdmiralCochranerecommended that the lighthoube built onPBPinstead
.
of Peak Rock, GovernorButterworthplayed a key role during the whole
process,ThornasChurch translatedthe Sultan'sandTemenggong'slettersof
permissionof 1844and was theofficial indirectcommunication with J.T.
Thomson,the architectofthe lighthouse.Thesepersons knewverywellhow
to proceedin order to takepossession ofan islandon behalfof the British
Crown.TheydidsointhecaseofLabuanbutnot inthe caseofPBP.
80. The example ofthe Cocos(Keeling) Islandsis also importantforthe
reasons developedbelow.The islands were uninhabited unti1l826,whenthe
Clunies-Ross family, British citizens, settldem with immigrantMalay
labour.The Cocos(Keeling)Islands wereonlyannexedtotheCrownin 1857.
The Proclamationof 31 March1857 details the takingof possessionas
follows:
"WHEREAS, inpursuanceof Her Majesty's pleasurem , y
Lords Commissioners ofthe Admilty have required and
directedmetotakepossessionoftheseIslands,calledCocos,in
HerMajesty'sname,withtheusual formalities:
I do, therefore, declarethatfiom henceforththese Islands,
called the Cocos Islands, including the Northern Island,
otherwise calledNorth Keeling Island,are a part of Her
Britannic Majesty'possessions,and thatthey have beenthis
day formallyannexedto thedominionsof Her MostGracious
MajestyQueen Victoria bythe customaryactof displayingthe
Union Flag of Englandon a staff erected on the principal
island, andrecognisedby a royal salute fiom Her Britannic
Majesty's ShipJuno, inthe presenceof the inhabitantsof the
Settlementandaguardofhonourfiomthesaidship. Givenunder my hand at the Cocos Islands,this 31''day of
March, 1857.""5
81. This proclamationis but one exampleof the constant practice
regardingactsof takingof possession otferritory. The autrtressesthat he
accomplished"the usual formalities", including the "customary act of
displayingthe UnionFlag", Even in cases of the takingof possessionby
privateBritish subjects, tat leastplantedtheBritishflagandfollowed with
a formal proclamation thatthe tedtory in questionbelongedto the British
crown.Il6 The onlyplgusibleexplanationwhyBritishofficialauthoritiesdid
not carry out theseformalities.ii respect of PBP, despite havingrnultipIe
occasionsto do so (on the firstlandingof J.T. Thomson,the layingof the
foundation stonet,he inaugurationofthe lighthouse,etc.) isthat there was no
intentionto acquiresovereignty over locationput at theirdisposalby the
actual sovereign for teoleandexpress purpose of constructiaglighthouse.
Itisalsoclearthat,incontrasttorealcasesoftakingofpossession,therewere
no instructionsat allrom the BritishGovernmentor fjromthe East India
CompanytotakepossessionofPBPonbehalfoftheBritishCrown.
82. Another example ofa formaltakingof possessionis thatwhichtook
placeon 3 October 1825 whenthe King of Sherbroand the Queenof Ya
Comba cededtheir territoriesto Great Britain. The Proclamationof the
Governor-Generao lf SierraLeone states:
'Wowthereforebe it knownto allwhomit mayconcern,that
possessionof the saidkingdomshas been by us taken in the
nameandon behalfofHisMajesty,andthatthesame,byvirtue
of the powersin us vested,are constitutedan integralpart of
the colonyof SierraLeone, andaretherebybecomesubjectto
thenavigationandother laws ofthemothercountryandofthe
saidco~ony.""~
'l65 17Hertslefpp.1196-1197.
see H.A.Smith,GreatBritain andtheLawqfNations(LonP.SK.ing& Son,
1935),p.28.
[l7 14Hertslpp.950-951.Further examples will be mentioned below when dealing with the
incorporation of territorieto a givenBritish Colony and the display ofthe
Britishflaginactsof takingof possession.'18
-,.'
83. Inanattempttoconcealtheweaknessoftheargumentofthe'Wing of
Iawfwlpossession",Singaporepretendsthatthe formalitiesinvolvedintaking
possession ofterritoryarethose ofanact of'amexation. Its Memorialstates,
on the onehand,that inthe caseof PBP"the formalityof annexation[was]
superfluous"and, on the otherhand,,thatthe processof construction ofthe
lighthouse "provides unequivocalevidenceof thewillofthe BritishCrown to
annex Pedra ~ranca~'."~If Singapore's contentioi ns correctlyunderstood,
there wasno annexationbut only "the will to annex" PBP by the British
Crown. In fact, as is clear fromthe pleadingsof both Parties, there was
neithertheformer northelatter.
84, The term "annexation" has beenused in different contextsand with
differentmeanings.AccordingtoLord McNair,
"[tlhiswordishardlyatermof art, andisperhaps used more by
administrators andpoliticiansthanbylawyers.It is mainlyused
to denote the ofRciaI act whereby a State signifies its
acquisitionof territorywhichithas conqueredand hasacquired
by subjugation, or which has previously beenunder its
protection or administration.It is less frequentlyand less
justifiablyemployedto denotetheofficial actwherebya State
signifiesits occupationoftewa nulli~s."'~~
Il9 Seebelow,paragraph8s7-89.
120 SM,para.5.91(emphasiasdded).
LordMcNair, InternationLaw Opinions(CambridgeC , UP,1956),volI,p.285,
fn.1.85. The description of annexatiotnhat approaches thepresentcase most
closelyisthatgivenby T.J Lawrence,whowrotethat
"effective international occupation ims ade up of two
inseparableelements,-annexatioandsettlement.Bytheformal
act of annexation theannexingstate notifies its intention of
henceforth re ardingthe annexedterritory as a part of its
dominion ^".'^
86. Annexationcan alsorefer to aformal legislative measuroefficially
incorporatingthe territorywithinthe sovereigntyof the State. As will be
shown below, in British practice the term was used to refer to the
incorporationof a territory in a particular colonialunit of the Empire.
Singapore seems to denythat alegislative actwas necessary.Thereasonfor
this becomes apparenw t hen one noticesthat the only legislative formality
accomplished bytheBritish Governmenitnrespect ofPBPwastheIndianAct
No.VIof 1852,which merelydeclared thatthe lighthouseon PedraBranca
"shall becomethe propertyof,and absolutely vesitn,theEastIndiaCompany
and their successorsa~d said nothingwith regardto sovereignty overthe
islandit~e1f.l~~
87. Irrespective theterminology employedi,thas beenshownthatthere
wasnotaking of possession ofPBPonbehalfoftheBritishCrown. Astothe
second meaning of '"exation" mentionedintheprecedingparagraph, what
is clear is that, even withouany further act of annexation,a legislative
measureto establishthe authority responsibforthe islandwould havebeen
necessaryat some stage. Thjs was the constant practicein the case of
,
incorpoqtion of territory intothe British Empire, regardlessof its size,
remoteokssor lack ofinhabitants. Antarctica,the exampe given in the
I
Singapore~emori~1,'~ again offersB strikingillustration.By RoyalLetters
I l
''l T.J.Lawrence, hePrinciplesc$Intfrnarlaw(LondonM, acMiIla,895)p.
147(emphasinoriginal).
Seebelow,paragrap3s47-349.
SM, para5.90.
44Patent of21 July 1908 the Governor ofthe FalklandIslandswas appointed
Governor of Graham'sLand andthe Antarctic islands,constitutingthemas
Dependenciesof the FalklandIslands. According to the BritishApplication
institutingthe proceedings,GreatBritain's titleto the islandsand territories
ofthe Dependencieswasthusformally confirmed and definedbythe issueof
theLettersPatentof 1908 and 1917".124
88. Therearenumerousother examplesof smailsllandsthatwere formally
incorporated under Britissovereignty. Amongst them are those ofIchaboe
and PenguinIslands. Afterdulytaking possession of them onbehalfof the
Queenon 21 June 1861 and 5 May 1866 respectively,the Governorof the
Colonyof the Cape ofGood Hope issued a ProclamationdeclaringIchaboe
and PenguinIslandsto be annexedto thatColony on 16July 1866. British
LettersPatentappointingtheGovernoroftheCapeofGoodHopeasGovernor
of those "islands,islets,and rocks"and authorisingtheir annexationto the
Colony ofthe Capeof GoodHopewere issued on 27 February 1867. But
even this formalitywas not consideredsufficient:'tvhereas doubts having
beenentertained touchingthelegalityofthe saidannexation[bytheGovernor
of the Cape]",the Ichaboeand PenguinIslandsAct. 1874 was adopted,in
order to regularisethe situation.This documentationalso shows that the
LegislativeCouncilofthe Colony should haveparticipatedin this processof
annexation, andthattheBritishGovernment should havebeennotified andits
finaldecisionrequired.12'Ichaboeis a smallislandof 6.5ha, about 1.5km
offshore,48 km north of thetown of LUderikin ~arnibia."~ The Penguin
Islandsare composed ofHollandsbird, MercuryL ,ong Island, Seal Island,
PenguinIsland, Halifax, Possession, AlbatroRsock,Pomona, Plum-Pudding
andRoast BeeforSinclair'sisland andalsolieoffshoreofNamibia.
Iz4 ICJPleadings, Antarcaases(UnitedKingdomv.Argentina, Unidingdom v.
Chile)(1956, ara.17,p. 16.Forthetextofthe saten,eeibid.,AnnexI,39.
67BFSPpp.554-557,I121-1124.
126 AvianDemography Unit,Departmenotf StatisticalSciences,Universityof Cape
Town: httu:Nweb.uct.ac.za/de~ts/statsladu~ichaboe.htm89. Otherexamplesofthe inclusionof islandsor otherterritorieswithina
Colony, Dominionor Protectorate already undeB r ritish rule includethe
following:
m By LettersPatentof 30 May 1872,the Queenappointedthe
Governor of theColonyof Queensland to be Governorof all
the islandslyingandbeingwithin 60milesofthe coastofthis
colony.By a Proclamationof 22 August 1872,the Governor
annexedthoseislandstothe ~olon~.'"
LettersPatentof 10October1878appointedthe Governorof
the Colony of Queenslantd o be Governorof certainislandsin
the TorresStraits, authorisinthe Governorof Queenslandto
declare thoseislands annexedand forming partof his Colony
onceitsLegislature hadpasseda lawprovidingfor this.'28
m. LettersPatent of17December 1880declared:
'?heIslandofRotumah and its dependenciest,hatis
to say,all islands, rocks, reea,ndfisheries lying
betweenthe 12Oandthe 15"of south latitudeand
betweenthe 175'and 180"of eastlongitudefrom
the meridianof Greenwichshall henceforthform
part ofourdominions.
2.AndwedoherebyiiutherauthorizeourGovernor
forthe timebeingof oursaid ColonyofFiji,bythe
same or anyother Proclamation unde hris handand
the Publicsealof our saidColony,to declarethat,
fiom andafter a dayto bethereinnamed,the said
Islandof Rotumahand its dependencies, as above
described,shallbeannexedto andformpartof our
saidColonyofFiji; andwe dothereby declarethat,
on andafterthedaysotobenamed,the saidIsland
of Rotumah andits said dependencies shallform
partof oursaidColonyofFiji, andshall be sub'ect
to thelawsfiomtimeto timeinforcetherein"." 9'
65BFSP pp.1214-1215.
12' 70BFSPpp. 262-263,543-545.
71BFSP p.130. A Declarationof 3 August 1885states that "It is hereby
declaredthattheIslandof Trobriand, aswell as all islandsthat
are nearNewGuinea that are south of the 8~ parallel of south
latitude, areincluded withinthe said Protectorate [of New
~uinea]".'~~
A Proclamationof Captain ReginaldG.O. Tupper of HMS
Pylades of 28 September1901states: "I, ReginaldGodfrey
Way Tupper,do hoistthe British flag,showing therebythat
the jurisdiction of the Resident commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner ofthe Gibertand Ellice IslandsProtectorate is
extendedtoOceanIsland, otherwise ~aano~a~'.'~'
The Proclamationannexing the territory of Transkei and
GriqualandEastto theColonyoftheCapeofGood Hopeof 15
September1 879.'32
TheProclamationdecIaringthe Territoryof theTransvaaltobe
for ever an integral portionof Her Majesty'sDominionsin
133 .
South Africa of 15September1879.
o The Proclamation forthe annexation ofthe Province of
GriqualandWestto theColonyoftheCapeofGoodHopeof 15
October1880.'~~
0 The Proclamation annexint ghe XesibeCountryto that portion .
ofthe Colonyof theCapeofGoodHope knownasGriqualand
Eastof25 October 1886.13'
90. Matters relatedto acquisitionof sovereignty were communicateb dy
the colonialauthoritiesto the British Governmentin London. The same
appliedwith regardto internalcommunications betweendifferentoffices of
130 76 BFSP p.421.In 1888the ProtectorateofNew Guineawas declaredpartofHer
Majesty's Dominions:eProclamationof4 Septembe1888,79BFSP p.883.
''l 23Hertslep. 1200.
70BFSPpp.1253-1255.
13' 70BFSPpp. 1255-1258.
134 71BFSPp.300.
13' 77BFSPpp.953-954.the Government. As seep nreviously,theForeignOfficewasinformed of any
incorporationofterritorytotheBritish Empireandhaditssay. It was.forthe
GovernmentinLondontotakethefinal decision onacquisitionofsovereignty.
Actsof takingof possession wereperformedfollowinginstructionsfiomthe
British Governmentor were subjetcottheapproval of that Government.
91. The examplesabove show howformal and scrupulous the British
Government wasin mattersof acquiring sovereigntyoverterritory. If it had
wantedto extend BritishsovereigntyoverPBP,it wouldcertainly havetaken
the appropriatemeasures firstto incorporate the island under British
sovereigntyandlatertoconfirmbylegislationtheBritish authorityresponsible
for it. Nothingof this sortoccurredwithregardto PBP. Indeed,thereis no
trace of any exchangeeven envisagingthe possibility ofacquisitionof
sovereignty overPBP. Therewasnot onesingleact bythe Governor ofthe
StraitsSettlements,the legislatureofthe Colony,the East IndiaCompanyor
Her BritannicMajesty's Governmenatn , nexing, incorporatin,r otherwise
indicatingthatPBPhadcome underBritish sovereignty andthat itwouldbe
partoftheColony oftheStrait Settlements oarnyotherBritishadministrative
unit. The British practice concerningthe taking of possessionand the
incorporationofterritoriestotheBritishCrown,aswellastheBritishpractice
concerningadministratioonflighthouses(discussed in Chaptersand7)show
in a clearmannerthat Britainhad no intentionto acquire sovereigntyover
PBPanddidnotacquiresovereigntyover it.
92. In its Memorial, Malaysiagave two examples of takings of
possession-the Cocos(Keeling)Islands and Christmas IsIand-because they
concerned islandswhich the British Governmentdetermined would be
administeredby the Colonyof the StraitsSettlements,the sameunit that,
accordingto Singapore, established British sovereignty ovPerP. Letters
Patentof 1 February 1886 and8 January 1900 appointedtheGovernorofthe
StraitsSettlementsas Governorof respectivelythe Cocos (Keeling) Islands
and ChristmasIsland, and authorisedthe transfer of those islandsto theColonyof theStraits~ettlements.'~T ~hispracticeclearly indicatesthatinthe
case of incorporation of newterritories into the Colony of the Straits
Settlements, formal legislativaectswere requiredto performit. As setoutin
the MalaysianMemorial,PBPwasneverdealtwithinthisway,forthesimple
reasonthatitwas never considered Britishterritory.
E. ActsinvokedbySingaporeare not relevanftoratakingof
possession
93. Singaporeclaimsto havetaken "lawfulpossession" ofPBP on the
groundsthat the decisionto buildthe lighthousewas taken by the British
Crown andthat the entireprocess ofplanning,choiceof siteandconstruction
was subjectto the controland approval ofthe BritishGovernmentand its
representatives.
94. This sectionwill examine whether the relevantacts leadingto the
construction ofthelighthousecanbeconsidered,individuallyorasawhole,as
a takingof possessionandthereforeabasisforSingapore's claim.
13'
MM,para. 60,and particularlypara162-163.PreviouslyLette Prstent o10
September 1878hadannexedtheCocos (KeelingIslandstotheIslandofCeylon. Adoptein
ordertoperfect the annexaof those islands,ktters Patentprovidedthat:
calledthe North Keeling Island, situated ndianOcean, inlatitudee
12"s'south, and longitu96"53'east,were, on th31''day of March,
1857,duly taken possession offor us, and on our behalf;and whereas
doubtsare entertained touching the leyf the said annexationof the
said Cocos orKeelingIslandsbyProclamat,ndit is expedientthatsuch
doubts shouldbe removed;andwhereasit is further expthatthesaid
Cocosor Keeling Islands (hereinafter calledcosIslands)shouldbe
annexedto andform part of the Colonyof our Islandof Ceylon andits
dependencies,and that the affairsof the Cocos Islands shoulbe
administeredbyaGovernor."
70BFSPp. 1273. ) me processofselectionofPulauBatuPutehasthesiteforthe
Horsburgh Lighthouse
95. SingaporeinfersthattheCourt of Directorsfthe East India Company
originatedthe ideaof building a lighthousenPBP. This is quite incorrect.
Theidea tobuilda lighthousewas theprivate initiativeofertainmerchantsin
Cantonto commemorate the lifeand achievements of JamesHorsburgh,as
demonstrated inthe Malaysian ~emorial,'~~Infact,the East India Company
twicerejectedthe proposalto buildthe lighthouse. TheCourt of Directors
onlyactedin response.torepeated requestsythemerchar~ts.'~~
96. Similarly,Singapore'sassertionthat theCourt ofDirectorsoftheEast
India Company decidedonthe nameof thelighthousein 1849is incorre~t~'~~
Whilethe EastIndiaCompany concurred witth hename"Horsburgh",it was
the privatemerchantswho thoughtof commemorating the name of James
Horsburghby building a ~ighthouse.'~~Singaporeis simply attemptingto
dissociatethe constructionof the lighthouseon PBP f?omall the previous
initiativesto honour JamesHorsburgh which mention "~edraBrancayy asone
ofthespotseligiblefor theconstructionofalighthouse.
.
97. A groupof Bombay merchants went evenfurtherby requesting that
"Horsburgh" beusedasthenameforthelighthouse.Bylettertothe Secretary
of theChamberof CommerceinSingapore,theBombaymerchants made this
a conditionof their financialsupport:..webegto acquaintyou thatwe are
willingto placethe abovesum(ie 4308Rupees collected in Bombay)at the
l"
MM,paras.107-109;SM,paras.5.18,5.19,5.60-5.61.
SeeletterfromH.T.Prinsep,SecretotheGovernmenotf Indiato S.G.Bonham,
GovernorofPrinceof WalesIsland,SingaandMalacca,13November X839;letterfrom
(Annexes,ol.3,Annexes11and 13respectively)a,ndletterfromG.A.Bushby,Setoetary
the GovernmeonftBengal,toS.G.Bonha31August1842(MMAnnex39).
PM,para.5.45.
I4O SeeMMAnnex30.disposalofthe SingaporeCommittee, undetrheprovisothat the Lighthouse in
question shallbecalled'The Horsburgh ~ighthouse'".'~'
98. It isalso incorreto statethatthe construction workwasfinancedby
the East India Company. As specified on the plate unveiled at the
inaugurationon 15 October 1851, "TKEHORSBURGHLIGHTHOUSEis
raisedbythe enterprizeof British Merchantsndbythe liberalaidof theEast
India ~om~an~".'~~ Money was collected by merchants from different
nations.'43TheCourtofDirectorsoftheEast India Company wasreluctantto
advancehds and referredto the funding deficitthat the Companywould
cover forthe construction ofthe lighthouseasa "loan".'44In a letterto the
Governor Generai lnCouncil,the Secretaryto theGovernmentof India, G.A.
Bushby,indicated that:
"We readily admitthe propriety of affording all possible
facilitiesto navigationin the Straits of Singaporeand the
entranceto the Chiia Seas... We are howeveropposedupon
principleto the appropriationof any further sum, however
small fromthe general revenuesof India for purposeswhich
apply with equal advantageto all shippingfrequenting the
StraitsofMalacca & China Seas & wethinkthatthe additional
fundsrequiredfor the construction & maintenanceof a light
house near Singaporeshould accordingto thepracticeof other
parts ofthe world beraised at the expenseof the shipping
interestforwhosespecialbenefititisdesigned."!"
99. This position, takenwhen Peak Rock was the spot provisionally
designatedforthe lighthouse,was reiterated oncePBPwas finally chosenas
the location. In a letterfrom.A.Bushbyto F.J.Halliday,Secretaryto the
GovernmentofBengal,hesays:
14'
Letterfromtheremaining membeorfsa commiFof merchantfsormedin 1837to
the Secretayf theSingapoChamber ofCommerce of22 January1846: nnexes,vol3,
Annex14.
14' MM,para.153;SM, para5.86.
tiyhipeIagoandEmternAsia376(1852),p496,SMuAmex61.hthom6, ournalofthe Indian
SM,pm. 5.27.
14' Undated,enclosurein letterfromUnder Secreoyf Bengalto GovernorW. J.
Butterworth,0May 1847:Annexes, ol.3,Anne20(emphasisdded). "His Honor will perceive that the Hon'ble Court have
sanctionedthe proposal and have expresse tdeirconcurrence
withthe local authoritiand withthe Governmentof India in
approvingthe siteofthe PedraBrancaoverPeakRock onthe
outer Romania Island.., The Hon'ble Court consider it
objectionable that thegeneral resources of Indiashould be
charged withanyexpense forsuchan object, andtheysuggest
the levyof certain ratesof duty on shippingas Light House
dues, in order toreimbursethe Govtfor moniesthat may be
advancedby itforthe construction of the Light House andto
meet paymentforthecurrent expenses ofthe~uilding".'~~
This oppositionby the Court of Directorsto anypubl'icspendingon the
lighthouseis inconsistentwith Singapore'argumentthat public financingis
evidence oftheintentiontoacquireterritorialsovereignty.
100. The fact that "[tlhe process of selection was pursuedby the
representatives otheBritishGovernmentexclusively"'4h 7asno consequence
for the dispute. That the Iighthousewas constructedby the East India
Company through the Straits SettlementsColony is not disputed. As
demonstrated,the finat selectionof PBP as the site for the lighthousehad
nothingto dowith concerns about s~vereignty.'~~hechoice ofBarn Island
asthe locationfor thelighthousewas rejectedbecause ofthereluctanceofthe
Court ofDirectors toimpose any pord t utiesonvesselscallingat Singapore
andPeakRockwasrejectedfornavigationalreasons.
101. There was aconsistentpatternof conductby the Britishauthorities
regardingthe construction of lighthousein zones falling outsideSingapore
territory. It involvedtwo elementsfirst, to obtain Johor's authorisation and
second, not to establish sovereignty over the territory upon whichthe
lighthouse was constructedT . his is truewithregardto the four lighthouses
constructedor envisagedto be constructedby the Britishauthoritiesoutside
14'
Dated24April1847:SM Annex19.
14' SM, para5.33.
l" MM, paras.107-117.the ten-mile limitof Singapor: BP,CapeRachado, Pulau PisangandPulau
AU~.'~'
102. Asdemonstrated intheMalaysian Memorialt,he authorisationgranted
by Johor to constructthe lighthouseextended to any place "near Point
Romania.. .or any spotdeemedeligible".'50
(ii) Thealleged "takingof possession" ofPulauBatu Putehin
1847orsubsequently
103. The point at issue here is not whoconstructedthe lighthouse and
operated itbutwhetherthis constructionan beconsideredasanactoftaking
of possession ofthe island. There isno questionthat HorsburghLighthouse
was constructedby the East IndiaCompanyand that it belongedto it.
Understandably,this constructionwas carriedout and supervisedby British
authorities. The questionat issueiswhetherthe constructionwasconducted
withthe intentiontoacquire sovereigntyoverBP.
104. Similarly,the fact that PBP was finally choseans the site for the
construction ofthe lighthouseis not, as such, evidenceof an intentionto
acquire sovereigntyover it, As demonstr~t~ drthe M~leysian h4emnr!n!,
amongstthe placesenvisagedforthat constructionwere islandsfallingboth
within andoutsideSingapore, andwithin andoutside oho or. '^e'evidence
submittedby bothPartiesshowsthat thethe decisiononthebestspot for the
lighthousewasbasedonthesafetyofnavigation andfinancialconsiderations,
andnotissuesofsovereignty.
105. Singapore'sattemptsto attribute asovereignqualityto the enterprise
ofJ.T.Thornson, Governmen Sturveyorat Singapore,duringtheconstruction
of the Horsburgh Lighthouse is contradiotebdy the facts. In particular,
''O Seefurthebelowparagraph35.
Is' MM,pam.110-117.Thomson receivedremunerationfor the construction ofthe lighthouse
independently ofhis salaryas Government ~urve~or.'~~
106. WhatispresentedbySingapore aseitherthebeginningof theWing of
possessionof PBP,or the completed act of "taking of lawfblpossession"in
1847, was &thing more than Thornson's vistiot study3hefeasibilityof the
constructionofthe lighthouseandplaceseven brick pillartsotestthe strength
ofthe waves.153 Leavingasidethat theseactsneitherconstituteda materialact
of seizureof the islandnor demonstrated the slightest intentio n acquire
sovereignty,it shouldbe notedthat ThomsonalsovisitedPeakRock forthe
same purpose of assessing its feasibilityfor constructingthe lighthouse.
Evidently,this visit couldnotbe construedas atakingofpossession(oreven
thebeginning of it),eakRockbelongingindisputably to oho or.'*^
107. Further evidencethat mere landing doesnot constitute takingof
possessionis affordedbythe SingaporeMemorial,whenit mentions thatin
1819"SirStarnfordRaffleslandedin Singaporeto establish a tradingstation
thereonbehalfoftheEnglishEastIndia ~orn~any".'~A ~siswellknown,this
landingwas notconsidered as a taking of possessionand the East India
Companydid notacquiresovereigntyat thattime. Furthermore,it required
the authorisationof the sovereignof the territory,Johor,to establishthe
trading station.Is6 The conductpursued withregardto the erection of a
lighthouseonPBPwasthe same. 'The striking difference ishat Iater, when
the East India Company wantet do establishsovereigntyover Singaporeand
its dependencies,it concludeda treatyof cessionwithJohor. In the caseof
PBP,therewasno suchintentionandconsequently notreaty of cession.
-
Is2 SMAnnex 27.
SM ,aras5.49,5.95.
SM,pm. 5.36-5.38.
l" SM,para3.3.
MM, paras45-46. Acttvity of gunboatsand "controlof public order in the
(iii)
region"
108. The activity ofgunboatsor the presence ofguns does not in itself
constitute a manifestationof sovereignty. When Peak Rock, an island
indisputablyunderJohor sovereigntyw , as considered as the eligible sitefor
the lighthouse, Captain Belcherand J.T Thomsonenvisagedthe construction
ofa towerwitha gun there,inordertoprotectthelighthouseagainstpirates.'57
Equally, J.T. Thomsonreckonedon the possibilityof a gunboat for the
protectionoftheoperations "fromthecommencement to thefinishing"of the
construction ofthe lighthouseonPeak ~0ck.l'~Oncethe construction of the
lighthouse began on PBP, two gunboatswere assigned, one for the
accommodationof Mr. Thomson andthe other "for procuringwater and
provisions from Pt Romania andSingaporeand for the carriage of work
.59 Thomsoneven proposed "keepingthe 'Charlotte' stationea dt Point
Romania",a place indisputably undeJ rohor'ssovereignty,"to put outto the
".
,' rockas opportunityoffered".160In no way didthese activitiesmanifest the
;i exerciseofsovereign functions.Notably,thegunboat used PoinR t omania for
.p.curingwater andprovisions.'61
i :. .
t....I 'i
-109. Thepresenceandactivity ofthegunboat isalsoexplained as protection
. .
%f Britishpropertyand an application ofthe CrawfbrdTreatyby whichthe
parties agreedto fight piracy. It has been demonstrated thatthe Johor
authoritiesalso undertookto fightpiracyin those regions and thatin many
cases the British and Johorauthoritiesacted together. The Malaysian
Memorial givesthe example ofa commonescortof a craft"beyondPedra
Branca",consistingof one British gunboatand four of the Temenggong's
boats.162It must be recalled thatGovernorButterworthpresenteda swordto
Is' SMAnnexes 11,12.
Is' SMAnnex12.
''O SMAnnex34.
LetterfromJ.T.Thornson to ResidentCouncillorChurch,2 November1850,SM
"'nex47.
SeeJ.T.ThomsonA , ccountoftheHorsburghLighthous pe,408,SMAnnex61.
l'' MM,para. 142.theTemenggongasa testimonyto hisservicesinthe suppressionofpiracy.163
British personnelftenwentto otherareasbelongingto Johor,a StateBilling
withinBritain'ssphereof influenceunderthe 182Ang lt.-~uTtcaty. This
activityin nowayaffectedJohor'sterritorial sovereigi,tas not intended
to extend theterritorialscope:~i;i~a~ore,ndnor did it produceany such
result.
110. Whatis presentedby Singapore asthe maintenanceby J.T.Thomson
of "public order" on PBP was nothingbut the control of the builders'
performanceoftheircontractual engagementa sndthe exerciseof the normal
authority ofthe master architect or engineer oa f construction work.
Singapore providesno evidencethat Thomson"had general authorityto
maintainpublicorderinthe vicinity".'64Theone incident relatin support
ofthe contentionin itsMemorialconcernedthe wishof the commanderand
crewof the Nancyto leavetheserviceand returnto Singapore.Thedecision
ofThomsontowait untilthearrival ofthe Hooghlyinsteadshowsthathewas
not invested withany public authority.As stateinhisAccount,Thomson
requestedthe CaptainoftheHooghly toplace his gunnerandsomeofhiscrew
in charge of theNancy"until the ordersof the ResidentCouncillorwere
obtainedastothe disposal othe mutineer^^','^'
111. Significantlyt,heBritish authoritiesenvisagedastgeTemenggong
to establisha village inPointRomaniaundera local authorfor thepurpose
ofprovidingassistanceto the light-keep"ina caseofemergency".'66 They
discardedthe ideaof the establishmentof a British navalstationin the same
place because,mongst otherreasons,thiswouldhaverequiredthepermission
of Johor, since Pot omania "belongsto theSovereignofJohore,wherethe
British possessno legalrisdiction".'~'Singapore's Memorial misconstrues
'13' MM, pm. 143.
'64 SM,pare..79.
Ib5 CompareSM, para7.79withThornsonA'ccounoftheHorsburgLighthouse,.
424,M Annex61.
'" MM,pm. 146.
MM, pm. 146-1a47nAnnex 59SM, para5.99anAnnex 48.this eventwhenit indicates that"[nlo suchquestionwasraisedinrelationto
Pedra ~ranca'','~~ First,at no timedid thequestionof the construction ofa
navalstationonPBP arise. Second t, e only permanent construction buiotn
the island was the lighthouse, for which Johor had already granted
authorisation. Third,if it wasfor the Temenggongto establisha stationin
PointRomaniatoprotectthelight-keepers andbringthemassistancein caseof
emergency,then therecognisedauthorityto "controlpublic order'' wasJohor
andnotthe StraitsSettlements.
112. Furthermore,the Temenggongcontinuedto control fishing in the
neighbourhoodof PBP after the constructionof Horsburgh Lighthouse,
grantinglicencesandexercising criminajlurisdiction in Johor's waters.The
British authoritieswereawareofthis andcontinuedto limittheirjurisdiction
to theextentoftengeographicalmiles of SingaporeIslanda ,sprovidedbythe
Crawkrd Treaty. Atnotimethere was anyattempttoextend Britishmaritime
jurisdictionaround PBPafterthe constructionof the lighthouse. The record
concerningcertain incidentswhichoccurredtenyears aftertheconstructionof
Horsburgh Lighthouseconfirm tsis.
113. Fishinglicencesgrantedby the Temenggongwere calleda "Johore
Pass". Theystatedthat:
"This permission is grantedby His Highnessthe Tumongong,
Sree Maharajahof Johore,unto [followsthe nq of the
holder], to catch fish in the Johore Territory uriithfout]
molestation orhindrang'fromanybody;he isnotpermittedto
put downhis nets closerthat fiftyfathomsfrom my i(elong,
otherwisehe willbe &ized'withouthesitation. This'passyill
standfor six
114. Discussingthe expression"to catchfish in the JohoreTenitory",R.
Macpherson, Resident Councillo at Singapore, requestedthe opinion of the
'" Annexto theletterfromR.MacphersonR, esidentCouncilat Singaporet,oM.
Protheroe, fficiatingSecretto the Governorf the Straits' Settl2t,May 1861,
enclosed inthecorrespondefromtheGovernmenotfBengaltotheSecretaryof State for
India, Januar1862,Colonial Officfeil27315 :nnexes,vol3,Annex24,p.15.Straits'SettlementGovernmena tsto theextentofTemenggong'js urisdiction
asfollows:
"Thequestionnaturallayrisestowhat extentsea-wargloesthe
JohoreGovernmenc tlaimjurisdiction,and upon whatuthority
is suchclaimgrounded. By treaty thewholeof theIslands
within ten miles of Singapore are ceded to the English
Government,and amongthose Islandsas well as alongthe
coastof Singaporethe inhabitantsof Johore,incommonwith
all,whetherresidentsornon-residentunder ourflag, havefull
libertyto fish, Evengrantingthen that thisassumptionof
jurisdictiononthepartof theTumongong is defensiblte h,ere
shouldatleastbeareciprocity ofoodOffices."
TheResident Councillo orfSingapore endebyraisingthequestion"whether
HisHighnesst,heTumongong exercisessuchjupisdfctioavertheSeawhich
dividesSingaporefiom Johoreastoentitlehimto prohibit oufrishermen&om
exercisingtheirvocationwithouta passunderhis~eal".'~~Thereference to.
"theSeawhichdivides Singaporfe rom Johore"clearlyreferstotheextension
oftheten-milelimitromSingapore Island,
115, The origin of this discussionwas a numberof separateincidents
involvingChinese fishermen residen it Singaporeon the one side, and
Panghaloos(local chiefs dependointheTemenggongo )rMalayssubjectsof
Johoron the other. Thesewere recordedin government correspondencein
1861-1862a , decadeafterthe inauguration f orsburghLighthouse. Some
occurred within10 geographic miles of Singapore Islando,thers outside.
Some relatedto the paymentof licences for fishingo ,thers to violence
inflictedagainst theishermen. All showthat themaritimejurisdictionof
Singapore was notalteredbythe construction otfhe lighthouseonBP and
thattheBritish authorities continodclaimastheir wateronlythosewithin
ten geographical miles from SingaporeIsland, in accordance withthe
CrawfirrdTreaty.
Ibid.(emphassdded).l 16. A letterfromColonelCavenaghG
, overnorof Prince ofWalesIsland,
Singapore and Malacca,to theSecretaryto theGovernmentof IndiaForeign
Departmentof 17July 1861 complained that the Temenggong requiredfees
for fishingwithinthe ten geographic miles. Governor Cavenagh mta hdee
followinganalysis:"it wouldappear that,in additionto being illegally
compelledto submitto the exactionsof the Tumongong'sfollowers,our
subjectsare requiredto takeout a passand paya fee to HisHighnessfor
permissionto fishwithinthe limits of our ownjurisdiction;it istruethatthe
JohoreTerritoriesare alone specified in the permit, but,as the fishermen
rarely proceedbeyondten miles from Changie point,the extremity of
Singapore Islandt,here canbe little doubtthatit is intended to apply to their
ordinaryfishing placesy'.Discussing the questionof exerciseofjurisdiction,
Governor Cavenagh went on to state that "in the event of thecauseof
complaint having originate upontheSeawithinten miles ofSingaporet ,he
chargeiscognizable bythe Britishand nottheJohore a~thorities"."~
117. In a letterto SirCharlesWood,Her Majesty's Secretaryof Statefor
India,of 9January1862,thefollowinganalysiswas made:
"4. ColonelCavenaghis of opinionthat the Tumongong has
been in the habitof realizing an illegalrevenueby requiring
DllLlJllDUUJCFLS LW .UG WUL PErIlllWLW 11SI1.I11UlG-LIGGIISGS,
indeed,theJohore Territorieo snlyarespecified, buitt isknown
that the fishermenrarely proceedten miles beyond the
extremityof Singapore Island.
5. Wehaveinformed Colonel Cavenatg hatthe preventionof
persons fkomfishingwithintenmilesof the Britishshoresisa
directinterference withthe rightsof theBritishGovernment;
that the previous supineneso sf BritishOflticersto whichis
attributedthis assumptionof authorityon the part of the
Tumongong doen sot affordanyvalidreasonforwaivingthose
rights;butthatonthecontrary,it is allthe morenecessary to
insistuponthe justclaimsof Governmentn , owthatthey are
distinctlyquestionedand invaded, antd heir invasionmadethe
cover for violenceand oppression. Colonel Cavenag hhas
accordinglybeendirectedto maketheTumongongunderstand
"l Ibid. that he will notbe allowedto demand paymenf tor Licences
fiomanypersonswhofishwithin Britishlimitsonly."'72
118. Thisletter provides evidence ohe clear understanding otfhe British
governmentastothe extentof itsmaritimejurisdiction iheregion-and this
at a timewhen Britainhad (accordingto Singapore)definitively acquired
l
sovereigntyoverPBP. Infactthe British authoritiesfthe timeproceededon
the basisthatBritishjurisdiction was,limitedtotengeographicmilesiomthe
main island of Singapore,as providedby the CrawfhrdTreaty. This is
confirmedby numerousreferences tothe ten-milelimitin the exchangeof
lettersmotivatedby those incidents, andby the fact thatwhat was finally
requiredoftheTemenggongwas thatheceasedemandinglicencesforthe area
within the ten miles from Singapore Islandand that he prosecute those
suspectedofviolence against fishermen resideinntSingaporeif this violence
was committedinJohor's jurisdictioni,.e.,outsidetheten-mile1i~nit.l~he
construction ofHorsburghLighthouseon PBPwas not taken intoaccount,
despitethefactthat thewatersaround PBPwereanotablefishingground.
119. In oneoftheincidents, sevenChinesefishermenresidentinSingapore
related that theyvena t fishinginone Sampanneartothe~edroBrancoLight
House,andontheirwaybacka Malay,wellknowntobetheheadofa village
nearto that overwhich Nong Besaris headman, came off withthreeothers
andforciblyattempted totakeallthefishes". Asaresult,two ofthefishermen
were severely injured. In a letter to the Temenggongof 15 May 1861,
GovernorCavenaghsaysthat:
"WITH referenceto ourformercommunication No.227dated
4~ instant,to our friend,onthematter of injuries sustaidyb
Britishsubjectsfromresidentsinour@iendJtserritolywenow
enclose,for our Send's information, copyof a Petitionfrom
several Chinese fishermen complaining of the serious
molestation to which thheyavebeen subjectedwhilstpursuing
In Ibid.
May 1861,17eMayh1861oande18eMaye1861,enclosedin the correspondeniom the
GovernmenofBengaltotheSecretaofStateforIndi, Januar1862C,olonialOffifile
CO 27315Annexes,ol3,Annex 24, pp.17-20 their ordinaryavocationin the neighbourhood of the Pedro
Branco Light House. We trustthat our friend,in additionto
punishing these offenders by whom the Petitioners were
attackedand two of their partywounded,will adopt suitable
measuresfortheprevention of suci hllegalactsinfuture."174
120. Althoughtheattackdid notitself occurinthewatersoffPBP, butclose
to SungaiRengiton theJohorcoast,the incidentis neverthelessrelevantfor
the following reasons.First,the Governorofthe Straits' Settlementdsid not
makeanyreference toBritish waters while speakingabouttheactivity ofthe
fishermen"in the neighbourhood of Pedro Branc LightHouse". According
to Singapore's theory, the fishermencastch, seizbyJohorsubjects,should
have beenconsideredasobtainedinBritishwaters,butthereisnosuggestion
of this ideain the correspondence.Second,the Governordidnot distinguish
between the location ofthe fishermen's 'Lordinaryavocationy'and their
"molestation" by personsfiomJohor. Third,he includedthe incidentunder
the rubric of "injuries sustaindy the Britishsubjectsfiom residents in our
fiend's territory",that is, Johor,and definedit as having occurred"in the
neighbourhoodof Pedro Branco Light House". Fourth, the complaint
addressedtotheTemenggong and theexchangethat followedonlyconcerned
the violence committed againstthe Chinese fishermen, not the questionof
licencefeespaidbythem. Thisis a strikingfact, takingintoaccountthatthe
fishermen's memoria tl Singapore's Resident Councillor indicatteat''their
fishingground hasalways beena littlebeyondPuloPikongandthis side of
Pedro Branco; your Memorialisftm s dingthe levies exactediomthembythe
Malays quite ~nbearable".'~~ In the Governor'sletter to the Temenggong,
nothingwas said aboutlicences,in clear contrastto the actiontakenwhen
incidents occurredwithin10 geographical milesfromSingaporeIsland,when
the Britishauthorities.deniedthe Temenggonghad any right tolevy license
fees.
'74 Ibid.(emphassdded).
'" Ibid.121. Indeed,the onlyjurisdictional isseaisedby the Britishauthorities
wasthe levyingof feesforfishingwithinthetengeographicam l ile area.A
discussion followebdetweentheBritishGovernment antd heTemenggong on
thispoint becausethelatterconsiderethat hisjurisdiction ovetrhe maritime
arm was notlimitedbytheCrawfurT dreaty,bywhichhehadonlycededthe
islands,notthe water^. "^aving asidethispoint (whichdoesnotconcern
PBP),the disputeshowshowstrictthe Temenggong'i snterpretation wasn
respectofmattersrelatedtocession of sovereigntndjurisdiction.
122. The:discussion provides another example theffactthatPBPhasbeen
always considereda place"nearPoint Romaniay('andtherefore, coveredby
the permission given by Johor to construct thelighthouse). Indeedt, e
incident occurredlosetoSungaiRengit, which istheclosestvillageto Point
Romania,beingsituateda little further wesotnJohor'scoast. In 1862t,he
Governorof the StraitsSettlements defined this as "the neighbourhoodof
PedraBrancaLightHouse".
(iv) VisitsofBritishoflctals arenotevihnce ofsovereigntyover
theisland
Nearly all the visits Singaporelists in its Memorialof Straits
123.
Settlements'officials tothe islandduringthe construction fhe lighthouse
weremadeby J.T.Thomsont ,hearchitectofthelighthouse.Othervisitswere
conductedwith the sole purposeof inspectingthe constructionof the
lighthouse.The "oficial visits"afterthe constructionthe lighthouseare
presentedasthe "finalactsintheprocessof takinglawfblpossessionof the
ro~k"."~ ASis mentionedby Thomsonhimself,the purposeof these visits
wasto inspectthe ~ighthouse!'~ It isonlyto beexpectedthat theownersof
the lighthousewould controlthe progressof die work and inspectthe
outcome.Nothingelsecan be'inferre&omsuch inspections.
17'
SeetheletterfromtheGovernmenotfBengatotheSecretaofStatforIndiaof
'"anuaSM,paras..81-5.84.
17' AccountoftheHorsburghLighthous, 48,SMAnnex61.124. In particular these visitcsannotbe invokedas manifestations of
sovereignty.Thesameconclusion was reache bythe CourtintheMinquiers
and EcrehosCasewhenit considered the visitsmadeby the FrenchPrime
Ministerand the FrenchAir Ministerto the Miquiers in 1938to inspect
buoying:
"TheCourt doesnot findthatthefacts, invoked bythe French
Governmenta ,resufficientto showthatFrance has a valititle
to the Minquiers.As to theabove-mentioned acts fiom the
nineteenth and twentieth centuriinesparticular,. such acts
[which include thosevisits] cm hardly be consideredas
sufficientevidenceoftheintentioofthatGovernmenttoact as
sovereignovertheislets; nor are thosectsofsucha character
that they can be consideredas involving amanifestationof
Stateauthorityinrespectofthei~lets.""~
(v) Other activity during the process of construction of the
lighthouse
125. Thecuttingofrain channels inordertoobtainfieshwateronanisland
lackingit,l8'far fiOmbeinga signof possessionas Singaporeclaims,is
merely a normal activity ancilla toythe constructionof the lighthouse,
without anysbearingon the questionof sovereignty. Permissiofor the
constructionofthelighthouseextended to allnecessarymeasuresrelatedtoit.
126. Similarly,the Noticeto Marinersissuedon the completion of the
lighthousesimplyprovided informatiotn o marinersabout thenew aid to
navigationin the area and did notmentionanyissue relatedto sovereignty
over PBP.'" Itisanormalactivitycarried outbytheauthorityresponsible for
a lighthousea,swillbeexplainedinChapter6 below.'82
MlnquierandEcrehoscaseICJReport81953,p.47atp.71. Thecaseisdiscussed
furthebelow,peragrap229-231.
IB0 SM, para.5.80.
''l Seebelowparagraph2s60-263.127. That Thomson's activities for the construction ofthe lighthousein
1847-1848werenotperceivedas involvingactsofsovereignty isalsoevident
fkomthe 1849Map drawnbyThomson himself.PBPdoesnotappearonthe
map as part of Singapore, although the map itself is entitled"Map of
SingaporeIsland andits ~e~endencies". '3
128. Notably, J.T. Thomson in his long Account on the Horsburgh
Lighthousedid not mentione ,ither expresslor by inference,that the British
Crown acquired sovereigntyover PBP through the constructionof the
lighthouse. Thomson constantly referrt ed"BatuPuteh"(or "Batu Putih")
when hedescribedhow the Malays working on the constructionof the
lighthouse or engaged inactivityinthe vicinity ofthe island referto it.lM
ReferringtotheTemenggong's presenceonPBPwith 30 ofhis followersafter
construction work onthelighthousehadstarted,headdedthat"Heisthemost
powefil native chief in theseparts, allied to British interest~".'~~t is
difficulto imaginethat,hadThomson'sfirstarrivalonthe islandin 1847,or
the end of the constructionof the lighthousein 1851,or indeedthe whole
process between 1847-1 851, meant acquisition of sovereigntb yy Britain,
Thomson would nothave mentionedit at all, either inhis Account or
elsewhere.
(vi) Thedisplayofaflag
129. As set out above, in actual cases of taking of possession by Great
Britainofdifferentkindsof territories, includigninhabitedislands,a formal
raising oftheBritish flag,i.e.,theUnionJack, wasinvolved.Thisformality-
accompanied byothers-was explicitly recorded, either in the legal
instruments relateto the actoftaking possessioni,.e.the proclamation, r in
the reports oftheeventmadelater to'therelevant authorities.Thereisnotone
singlereportedcase inwhichthe flag displayedas partof the actof Wig
possession was aMarineEnsign.
'" MM,MapAtlas,MapNo.8(emphasis added).
Accountoffhe HorsburgLighthouse,p.378,410,416,485,486:SM Annex 61,
479,Ibid.,p.430,Annex61(emphasis added).130.. A number of cases of raisingthe British flag have already been
mentioned. Further examplesfollow:
On 23 January 1765, Commodore Byron went on shore at
Saunders Island'"wherethe UnionJack beingerectedon ahigh
staffand spread,theCommodore took possessionoftheHarbor
and all theneighboringIslandsfor His MajestyKing George
III., his Heirs and Successors,by the name of Falkland's
Islands.Whenthe Colorshere spread,a salutewasfiredfrom
the
a On 2 March 1815, British sovereignty over the Kandy
provincesin Ceylonwas established:"The British Flag was
thenforthefirsttimehoi~ted".'~'
a In his noteto the BuenosAires'Commanderin the Falkland
Islandsof2 Januar 18y33, CaptainOnslowdeclared:"It ismy
intentionto hoist, to-morrow morningt,he NationalFlag of
GreatBritainon shore".lB8
On 24 May 1842,Lieutenant Lapidge took possession of the
islandofBulama.Hisproclamation of thetakingof possession
readsasfollows:
"I, Lieutenant Charles Horace Lapidge,
commandingHer Majesty's brig Pantaloon,
havethe distinguished honouri,nthe name,and
on the behalf of her MostGracious Majesty
Queen Victoria by the grace of God, of the
UnitedKingdomof GreatBritainand Ireland,
Queen, Defenderof the Faith, &C., &C.,do
herebytake formal possession of this Islandof
Bulamaonthis 24' dayof May, inthe yearof
ourLord 1842, and intoken of havingdoneso,I
plant the Union Flag of Great Britain.and
Ireland.GodsavetheQueen."
20BFSPpp. 344-345.
l'' 2BFSPp. 840.
20BFSPp. 1197. InhisreporttohissuperiorsLieutenant apidgeexplained:
--
"I immediately hoistetdhe Union,and at the
instant Her Majesty's bPantaloondisplayed
Britishnsibs at her mast head witha royal
salute, the party of seamen and marines
presentems, andtheofficers
In the ceremonyof thetaking of possession o fe islandof
Lagos on 1August1861:
"the Proclamation..was read,and the British -.--
flag unfhrled,and salutedwith 21 gurigthe
national anthesung.byabandofchildren from
the Missionary Schools...nd concluded with
dinner'onboardthe~romethezrs".'~~
e On12 Marc h 878,BritaintookpossessioofWalvis BayT . he
Proclamationmds asfollows:
"I, Richwd Cossantins:Dyer, the officer in
commandof HerMqjesty'sship Ihtry, at
present lyinat anchoroffthe said settlement,
do,inthe nameof Her said Britannic Majesty,
QueenVictoria,take possessioof thesaidport
orsettlement oWalfischBay,togetherwiththe
territory hereinafter described ndfined,in
token whereofI havethisdayhoistedtheBritish
Ragoverthesaid port,settlemenandterritory,
andI doproclaim,declare,andmake known that
the sovereignty and dominion of Her said
Britannic Majesty shablle andthe same are
hereby declaredoverthe saidport,settlement,
and territoryof Walfischbay;andI do further
proclaim,decIare,andmake known thatthesaid
territoryofWalfisch Basotaken possession of
by me asaforesaidshallbe boundedasfolllows:
thatistosay, onthesouthbya linefrom apoint
on the coast15milessouth of PelicanPointto
ScheppmansdoPf o;n the east by a line from
Scheppmansdor to theRooibank,includingthe
Plateau,and thenceto 10milesinlandfromthe
mouthoftheSwakopRiver;onthenorthbythe
31BFSP p458.
' 52BFSPp. 180. las1t0miles of thecourseof the saidSwakop
~iver."'~'
0 A telegraph sentby the Viceroyof India to the Earl of
Kimberleyofll December1884 informedthatthe"Britishflag
[was] hoisteonMushakhandIvatIslands.Tajourraoccupied
bytheFrench,butnot declareofficially",Thenotification
theUnder-SecretaryfState forMia totheUnder-Secretayf
State fororeijpAffairsof 17December1884r, eportedthe
M~~.~~~
0 The Act of taking of possessionof St. LuciaBay of 18
December1884 reds asfollows:
"I, WILLMM JOHNMOOREL , ieutenantand
Commanderof Her Britannic Wjesty's ship
Goshauk,havethisdayhoistedtheBritishflag
on theshoresof St. Lucia Bain rightof the
Treatymadeby Panda,Chiefand Kingof the
Zulunation,on the5~ dayof October,in the
yearofOurLord1843 andI havethisdaytaken
possessionof the saidterritoryin the nameof
HerMostGraciousMajesty Queen Victoriaof
the Unite Kdingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland,EmpressofIndia,."'~~
captainof HMSCmline, whenhetookformal possession of
FanningIslandin the PacificOceanon 15March1888" :in
tokenthereofI donowhoisttheBritishag".'94
o TheCaptainoftheCarolineissuedanidenticalproclamation
takingpossessionof ChristmasIslandine:PacificOceanon
17Match1888 andPenrhynIslandinthePacificOceanon22
March1888.'95
19'
69BFSPp.1177,
19' 75BFSPpp.607-608.
194 79BFSPp.1325.
Ibid.,pp,13261327. 131. None of thisoccurredonPBPin 1847,in 1851or at any othertime.
Indeed,theUnionJack has neverflownoverPBP.
132. In his letter to ResidentCouncillor Church of20 July 1851,J.T.
Thomsoncarefullydetailedall the requirements forthe operation ofthe
lighthouseandancillary activities,such asteoroIogicaolbservations.When
referringto the flagto be hoisted,.Thomson pointed ou hat "TheLight
houseflag I presumeisdifferentfromthenationalone."'" Asthe Singapore
Memorialacknowledgesi ,twasthe Marine Ensign thatwasflown andnotthe
Union Jack. Accordingto Singapore's Memoriatlh , e use of the Marine
Ensignwas common British practice.But Singapore doesnot explainto
whichkind of practiceit isreferring:whetherit wasthe takingofpossession
or the maintenanceof Iighthouses, The national flag usuallydesignates
territorialsovereignty.TheMinistry of Information,omunications andthe
Arts of Singapore, describing the nationallag, considersthat"The national
flag is Singapore'smost visible symbol of statehood, symbolisingour
s~vereignty".'~~ This is not thecase for the MarineEnsign,which isnot
designedto symbolise acquisition of sovereignty. Thomsonacknowledged
this,by sayingthatthe "lighthouseflagy'is "differentfiomthenationalone".
Onthe contrary,it is commonpracticethatthe MarineEnsignindicatesthe
national designation of vessels and installations, but not territorial
so~ereignty.'~~
133. In addition,the onlyevidenceprovidedby Singaporeofthe raisingof
, the MarineEnsignover PBP is a singledrawing.lg9There is not a single
record, nota singlefficialcommunicatio~ fiomButterworthtotheEastIndia
Company, nora singlechronicle'inthe press thatmentionsthat aflagofany
kindwasraised-nor, afortio that,itwas salutedinanyway. Thisis allin
strikingcontrastto the realcasesof taking ofpossessionof whr"cIi.~d&mp~es
Ig6 SMAM~X 54.
Ig7 hft~:/lw.mit8.~v.sp/Dre~sroom/~ress~040103.html.
''13 Seealsobelow,Chapte5.
Ig9 SM,image15,oppositp.74. have been given above. Moreovc er,ntrary towhat isstatedby Singapore,
there wasnoflagof anykid flying overPBP in 1~47.2~T ~heonlythingthat
J.T.ThomsonplantedonPBPinNovember 1847 werethe seven brick pillars
totestthestrengthofthe waves?O1
(vii) The"lack ofopposition "fro mtherPowers
,+. 134. Singapore remarks that "[tlheris norecordof any oppositionto the
';. British takingof possessionof PedraBranca"norany"protestor reservation
?'I
ofrights"?02Ithasbeen shown thattherewasno formalor informal taking of
...
possessionof PBPonbehalfoftheBritishCrownat all. Consequently, there
was nothingto protestandno needto make anyreservationof rights. Johor
notonly didnotprotest againsttheconstructionofthe lighthouse;it gavethe
British authoritiesthe required permissionto do it. As explainedabove,
activitiesnecessaryfor the constructionof the lighthouse,such as supply
vesselmovementsandpatrollingbyBritish gunboats, were covered eitherby
that authorisation ryprevious agreementsbetweetn heEastIndiaCompany
andJohor.
F. Singapore'sMemorialprovidesfurtherevidencethattheJohor
permission included PulauBatuPuteh
135. In its MemorialMalaysia demonstratetd hat the authorisationgranted
byJohorto constructthe lighthouseincludedPBPand thatthis authorisation
didnot amountto a cessionofterritorialsovereignty.This emerges fi-omthe
ordinary meaningof the terms of the lettersof permission writtenby the
Sultan and Temenggontg oGovernor Butterworthof25November1844,from
theircontextand fiomtheir object andpurpose,and wascorroboratedbythe
subsequentconduco tftheparties?03Indeed,theSingaporeMemorial supplies
SM, para..12.
SM,para.5.49.
SM,para.5.99.
'03 MM,paras.118-150.even more evidencethat PBP is a place "near Point ~orngania"~d
consequentlcovemdbythepermission givenbytheSultanandTemenggong
totheBritishauthorittoconstructthelighthouse.
136. In its account of the constructionof the HorsburghLighthouse
Singaporemakeseveryefforttoavoidthecrucial ftorthis case-namely,
the authorisationgiven to GovernorButterworthby the Sultan md
Temenggong ofJohor.
137. InSingapore's emorialt,he onlyreferento theexchange~letters
betweenGovernorButterworthand the Sultanand Temenggongof Johor
concerningthe authorisatfortheconshwdion~fthe lighthousem to be
foundinpmgtaphs 5.20aaw5 d.41. Theformer is onanindmt reference.
It refersto the letterof GovernorButterto F. Cde, Secretmyto the
&vepreraaenotf India,of 28 Novembe15314.4,ngaporeassertth&P&
Rock"hadbelongedtothebj& andtheTemenggong ofJohof'butthisisa
plainmiquot6ltio.ni:n ht theletterstipulatesth~t"Thiispartofthe
Territoriesof the &j& ooho ore" ?he^1merwentonto statethatboth
authoritiesof Johor"havewillinglyconsentecede it gratuitouto€he
EastIndh Company".'The cessionChvernorBulWworthrefarretowas nd
m cession of sovereigi,ncetheSultamidTemenggong'lsettersonlyrefer
tothearuthopiati~o;oons$aahtelighthouse.
138. The otherrefsrencebySingaporinitsMemorialto theexehmgeof
letterbetweenGovernorButterwortmdtheJohorauthoriflessaysthat'Yhe
request of pemission addressed to the Tmenggong C&yGovernor
Butterworthto buildalighthouseon a ppslrtimoc..:pst%aveindieat4
thatthechosensitewasPeak~ock"? Thisis.y,'$p&ulationandit isin
clear conttQldictioQ the.i;.tTe.mrnggoggsmmbiguous mm to
, ,.. . I
ButterwosOhr'esquest:"I havedulymcei+my Mend's~oaaunmiation md
SeetheuotatiospiloinSM,pm. 2.16.
'OS C$ SM,para. .0ithM,Annex13.
SM,pm. 5.41.understand theContents.Myfriend is desirou sferectinga LightHouse near
Point ~omania".~" SinceMalaysiahas notfoundButterworth'sletterand
Singapore has not produced iteither,theTemenggong'a snswerhishes the .
only availableindicationasto theextentofthe permission requested I. was
for the erectionof alighthouse near Point RomaniaT .hereis no basis for
presuming,as Singapore doest,hatthe requestwas limited to PeakRock.
Thereisnobasisforanypresumption thatButterworth requested a cessioonf
sovereignty either.
139. Noris Singapore's depictionth ofTemenggong'lsettersupportedby
itsownevidence.InitsAnnex 93,Singapore'M s emoriarleproduces AnnexB
oftheletterfrom ?D ~i&&n, 6; behalfofthe Singapore Coloni alecretary,
tothe British Advise orfJohor, date'l2June1953.Annex B is presentedas
an "Extract from a dispatchbytheGovernorof Singaporeto theGovernor-
Generalin Bengal, 28.11.1844". It containsthe abovementioned phrase
("ThisRock is partof the Territoriesof the Rajahof Johore''),withthe
important additioinhandwriting of "[i.e.BedrrBaranca]" betweenthewords
"ThisRock"and"ispartoftheterritories ofthe Rajahof ~ohore"?OI ~nfrpct,
Butterworth's letterreferredto PeakRock,sincethis wasthe sitethat was
preferredforthe locationof the lighthouseatthetimethe letterwaswritten
(althoughPBP had beenenvisaged before and was frnallychosenlater).
Howevert,he 1953reproduction ofButterworth'lsetterbySingapore wit hat
important addition shows conclusive tlat,in 1953,Singaporewasperfectly
awarethat the permission'&@ted '& Johor to constructthe lighthouse
included PBP,andthatthisislahd"is <ar otf the territorof Johore". The
.-.
1953letteralsoshowsthatthe basison whichSingapore inquired abotu hte
.' . 1
statusoftheislandonly related tothe.k& '..i..,Treatyandthepermission of
Johor.Therewasnota singlereferknc6t6& , %king oflawfulpossession of
. .
PedraBranca". : . .
,.
l.',,.'
-, .r
207 SMAnnex 13(thetranscriptifp. 105isnoaccurateM, M,para.122and MM
Annex45.
SMAnnex 93.140. As Butterworth himself explain todMriG.A.Bushby,the Secretary
oftheGovernment oI fndia,intheletteribf'August 1846 ',?hewhole ofthe
detailsforthecaseofLight Housesassetforthinmyletterunderdatethe28'
November 1844w , ith referenceto its being erectedon PeakRockwillbe
equallyapplicableto the newposition[Pedra~ranca]"?'~The letterof 28
November1844includedasannexestheauthorisations of theSultan andthe
Temenggong.Moreover,theexchangeoflettersbetweenthe Governmeno tf
IndiaandtheMarineDepartmeni tn1846with regardtotherequesttosendan
ironlighthouse£iomEnglandincludesthereportsthatPedraBrancahas been
approved asthe positionfor erectingthe HorsburghLighthouseand it too
containsthepermissionlettersofthe Sultananthe~ernen~~on~?"
141. Hence, it is beyonddoubt that the permission grantedby Johor
extended, andwasbelieved bytheBritish authoritioextend,toPBP.
G. Conclusion
142. ThisChapterdemonstratetshat:
The acts performedin relationto the constructionof the
(a)
lighthouseclearlydifferfromthe consistent Britispractice
concerningformaltaking of possessionon behalf of the
Crown;
(b) Theseacts'donotconstit aumtanifestatiof thewillofthe
BritishCrowntoacquiresovereignty;
(c) Taken eitherindividuallyor as a whole,theseacts are not
sufficientoestablishsovereignty;
(d) Atnotime was thereatakingofpossession oPf BP;
20' MM, para.134, andMMAnnex 51.In it8Memorial, Singaporeoducean
inaccuratransoriptofthisdocumentI.nstof"thewholeofthedetailsfor thecaseof
LightHouses..*,ingaporteranscr"sthewholeoftheDetailsforthecareoHousen
(emphasiasdded,SM Annex16).Thisinaccuracyanbe$eenfromthe.signedletterof
GovernorButterworhate26 August1846asfound iTAB S1ofCompIeteDocumentsf
CertainAnnexesContained intheMdaysianMemorialfiledwiththeCourton 25 March
2004. MM,para.136& MMAnnex 54. .. S+ (e) A fortiotrhieewas no annexationor incorporation ofPBP
into the BritishColonyofthe StraitsSettlemeor anywhere
else;
Onthecontrary,theconstructionofthelighthouseinPBP was
(f)
performed withthe authorisation ofthe recognised sovereign
oftheterritory, Johor;
(g) Singapore's Memorial affords hrther evidence that the
authorisationextendedtoPBP;
Consequentlyt,hepurported originatlitleof Singapbasedonthe'Yatakiong
lawhl possession of PedBranca"hasnobasisandmustberejected. Chapter 4
THETmE FEATURES DONOTFORMONE: ISLAND
GROUP
Introduction
143. This Chaptw considersthe propositionasserted in Singapore's
Memorial thatPBP, MiddleRocksandSouthLedge,whicharethesubject of
this case,form a distinct groupof maritimefeatures and one single
geographicalroup?" Obviouslyt,his ispart of Singapor'fforttoenlarge
its Stateterritasmuch aspossible.
A. Can PolauBatuPuteh,MiddleRocks andSouthLedge be identified
asoneislandgroup?
144. The commonmeaning ofthe concept ofa group is: "Two or
more.. .thinstandingorpositioned close togeter asto forma collective
unity" or an "ensemblede choses,..formantun tout et defini par une
caractdristiqucommune"?12However,it is questionable whether these
definitionswould allowthe three featuresto be describedas a group,
particularlyon the criterionof whetherthey forma collectiveunitywith
common characteristics.
145. Singapore'Memorial statestimeand agaithat PedraBranca,Middle
Rocks andSouth Ledge forma single group of maritime features.213
However,Singapore provideo snly one pieceof evidencethat the three
features havbeenidentifiedby marinersasa group. That isSM Map 5,
SeeSM,vol.1chapt11sectio11&ChapteIX.
TheShorterOgord EngllshDicNona(Oxford,2002),vol5'1ed., cd-mm;
Encyclopddenhrerseeouse. L'IntdgrVUEF,2003,cd-rom).
'l3 SM,paras..14,2.15,2.16,2,17,9.7,9.8,9.14,9.34. whichwas produced byLaurieandW: ,..ein1799.~'~ Itisa small-scale chart
showing a linedrawn.aroundPBPand as manyas nineblack dots,someof
which mightreferto MiddleRocksandSouthLedge. Shadingwithintheline
.. .
. indicates shoalwater:The questionarises:'hbs+ prodativeis thisevidenceto
support Singapore's claim thatthe three featuresform one single distinct
146.
Curiously,the textprintedonthis chart dealsonly withthe discovery
ofElmore'sChannel southofPBP. There isno mentioninthe textofdangers
lyingsouth ofPBP. Indeed, Elrnorefoundno "...rocks,breakersorshoals.. ."
southofPBP,whichappearedto offera saferpassagethan thattothenorthof
.' .
PBP.
147. Map 6 intheSingaporeMemorialisalso offeredasproofthatthe three
featuresforma Thischartis on a largerscalethanthe Laurieand
Whittle chart.ItwaspublishedbyNorieandisdated1831. South Ledgeand
PBP are showh and named and Middle Rocksare shown but notnamed.
There is no line drawn mound these featuresto indicatethat they form a
collectivedanger.
148. InChapter IX ofitsMemorial,Singaporereturns at somelengthto the
issue of the three featuresforminga group. Attention is drawnto their
locationbetweenthe Middle and SouthChannelsand the fact thatthe three
features havethe same geomorphologicaland geologicalcharacteristi~s.~'~
However,Singaporefails to make clear whe*er such characteristicsare
restrictedto the three featuresonlyor extendnorthto the Romania Islands
andor southtoPulauBintan.
'l4
'l5 Map S,entitled'TheStraofSingapore"1,799,SM,MapS,afterp.14.
SM,Map5,afterp.14.titled"APlanofthe StrofSingaporefromthe latet urveys,831,
'l6 SM,para.9.16.149. In deciding whether a collectionof islands, rocks and low-tide
elevations form an insular group,the chief criteriaare their spatial
relationshipsand the conviction oftheir originaldiscoverers orsubsequent
users that they form agroup,evidencedin particularby the use of a single
namefor thegroup. Thereare examplesof islandgroupsto the north and
south of the three featuresunder review. To the north liesMalaysia's
RomaniaGroupand to the south lieIndonesia'sKepulauan[Archipelago]
Riauand Kepulauan Lingga.No evidence hasbeen found in Singapore's
Memorialthat acollectivename was ever applietd o PBP,MiddleRocks and
SouthLedge.
150. A reviewof chartspublishedafterthatof Laurie andWhittlein 1799
revealsthat(a)SouthLedge and Middle Rocks were identifia eterthat date;
(b) theywerenevergiven acollectivename suchas PedraBrancaRocks or
Horsburgh Rocks,and (c) by 1851 detailed soundings betweet nhe three
featureshadbeenmade andcharted.'"
151. A chartproduceclby WilliamHeatheranddated 1803'locates features
southeastandsouthwestof PBPby aplussign (+).'l81t"is'reproducetsMap
3 in this ~ounter-~eriibrial~~T~'~.the6 featuresiie riot'surroundedby a
singleline.~bi.sbur~h.;'8'd~char 'tseeMap4) indicatesfeaturessoutheast
hd southwestof PBP by'a hadh mark'(#). The southeastfeaturesare
describedas"lowledges abovewater". Thesouthwestfeaturesaredescribed
as "nearlyeven with the waters edge, by Capt. Galloways accountof his
passageto theSouthwardof PedroBranco". Nordoes this charthave aline
surroundingthethreefeatures.
152. Norie'schart of 1815 (Map5) shows"PedroBlanco"and the two
other featureintheircorrect location.South Ledgeiscalled GallowaysRock
andMiddle Rocks are either calledor describedas LowRocks. Shoaling is
"' SeeMM,Insert16,p.63.
2'8 BritiLibrarMap Collectiom,aps.c.12.fl.
2'9 Themaps arlocatedatthe endofthisvol,ollowinpage273.only shown arounGdalloways Rock anhethre featureswenot surrounded
bya line.
153. Thename South Ledg heasreplaced GallowaRsockinNorie's1831
chart (Map 6), togetherwith the notation"Coveredat flood". Some
soundingsinthevicinity ofthethree featsave changed.The namin gf
the featurwascompleted in 1851whenThomsonnamedMiddleRockson
his"Chartof thevicinity ofthersburghLighthouseandadjacentMalayan
h oast".' ^oearlieruse ofthe nameMiddle Rock sasbeenfound. This
chart,which providehethreenamesthathavepersisted, waslsothefirstto
record manysoundingsbetweenPBP andMiddleRocksand between Middle
Rocks and Southedge.
154, It couldbe arguedthatthefact thatSouth Leis southoPBP and
Middle RocksliebetweenPBP andSouthLedgejustifies theviewthat these
features were identifiedroup. Howeveirt,remainsthecasethatthethree
featureshave neverbeennamedas agroup. It isalsothe casethat by 1870
Findlaywas advising that a chaelithdepthsto20fathomsand awidthof
1.5nrnlaybetween SoutLhedgeand Middlo~ocks."' By nowitwasknown
thattheywere sepamtedhyn~~ig~-tin_cn.l.anz=e! didP,=?@td C= =E::
single-raissectionofthesea-bed.Singapore'claim22hat therockcolour
ofthethreefeaturesismoreor lessthesammot alterthfac teathe yo
notconstituteongeologicalnit.
'l' SeeMM, Insert1663.
A.G.Findla, directfor thenavigaofthIndirArch&elaandthecomt
&ChinaSM,pm.,9.16.HolmeLaurie, ondo,870)p.302. B. MiddleRocksandSouthLedgehavealways beenpartofJohor
155, In its Memorial Singapore arguetsconsiderabllengththatMiddle
Rocksand SouthLedgeare both "meredependencies of Pedra Bmca"'.
Singapore's positiois that "[wlhoeverownsPedraBrancaowns Middb
Rocksand South Ledge, whic aredependencieosftheislandofPedraBranca
and form withthe latter a singroup ofmaritimefeatures"F3 Evidently9
Singaporeseekstoenlargeitsterritorclaimasmuchaspossible,
156. The situation.inthe presentcaseis fUndamentayifferentfiomthe
oneof theislandsof Meanguera andMeanguerita which werecomsiderdby
theChamberinthe Land,Island andMmitimeFrontierDispgtebetween El
SalvadorandHonduras. At sheChamber observed:
''Throughouthe argumentbeforethe Chamberthe islandsof
Meanguera and Meangueri wteretreatedby bothPartiesas
constituting a sininsularunity;neitherParty9in its final
submissions,laimeda separate treatmeforeachof thetwo
islands."24
Thissituatiocontrastssharplywitthepresent dispueirnhichMalaysiaand
Singaporetak eiametrically opposediewson thewaythese threefeatures
mustbetreatedbythe~ourt?~~
157, Singapore arguethatMiddleRocks and SoutL hedgehavenotbeen
"independentlyappropriatedby any ~bte"?~~ As mviewedabove, for
unknownreasons Singaporemakn esreferenctothe Anglto-DutcThreatyof
17March 1824and onlyscantreferencetotheCrawfPlrTdreatyof thesame
year. In Chapter2 it isexplained thattheeffectof theAnglo-DuTreaty
wasto dividetheancient SultanatefJohorintotwo parts.Theislands and
othermaritimefeaturessouthof theStraitofSingaporewerto bewithinthe
SM,para.9.7.
ICJReport1992p.351atp.570(pa. 56).
Cf.MM,Chapter8andSM,ChapterX.
SM,pm. 9.7.
79 Dutchsphereof influence, while thatpartofthe SultanateofJohorsituatedon
the MalayPeninsula and neighbourinig slands,includingrocksand lowtide
elevations,wouldbe withinthe British sphereof influence. Singaporecould
remaininBritish handsandtheDutchwouldnolongerseekto exertinfluence
withinandtothenorthoftheStraitof ~in~a~ore.'~~
158. Similarly, Singapore fails to refer in this context to the Crawhrd
Treatyof 1824. The range of islets,rocksand low-tideelevations,andeven
thestraitsandthe seas,lyingwithintengeographicalmiles aroundthe Island
of Singapore were carefully described inthe CrawfirdTreaty. Therecanbe
nodoubtthat the threefeatures werenot partofthe cessionof Singaporeby
Johoras they lie well beyondthe limitof ten geographicalmiles fromthe
Islandof singapore?" Apparently, itis Singapore'sviewthat when Johor
expressly cedesits sovereignty overrocks andlowtide elevationswithin ten
geographical milesto Great Britain, thesemaritime features are lawfully
disposedofbytheirsovereign,butwhenJohordoesnotcedesimilarfeatures
locatedat the same distance fromits coast,thentheyare not "independently
appropriatedbyanyState",Johorincluded.However,as a matteroffactPBP,
MiddleRocks and South Ledge formed paro tfthe Sultanateof Johor, before
andafter 1824.
L .. .
159. Singapore's Memoria allso ignoresthe cdnsistentMita$di&i!practice
of considering bothMiddle Rocks and South Ledge as lying within its
''sbvdr6ignty when dealingbith 'nithitimjeu''i-iidict', exemplifiedin the
" follo+,,jng ' .'j'.
'the ~e&r cjf~roktilgtitiond&ti 16 ~ily 1968bythe''Chi'k of
the Royal Malaysian~av~,'~o~odore ~hanabalask~am,
showingMalaysianterritorialwaters;
o thePetroleumConckssion of 1968;
227
SeeMM,paras. 54573andseefurtheCr haptrabove.
80 o the Malaysianterritorialwatersmapof 1979 and its reprint of
1984, and
o the 1985Fisheries~ct.2~'
In none of thesecases did Singapore protest againstthe inclusionof both
features,evenontheoccasions whenit protestedagainsttheinclusion ofPBP
onthe 1979 and 1984 maps issued byMalaysiain 1980 and 1989.
160. Furthermore,the MalaysianMemorialdetails evidence showing that
permission was givebnytheSultan andTemenggong of Johorforconstruction
ofa lighthouse"...at anyspotdeemed PBPwassuch aspotand
was selectedafter lengthy consideration of various alternatives. t that
time-and stilltoday-the featureknownasMiddleRockswasJohorterritory
aswell. Theselectionand useof PBPdid not include Middle Rocks.
161. Singaporeaccurately describesSouthLedgeas a low-tideelevation
lying 2.2nrnfiom~Bp.2~~ Suchan elevation is definediAnrticle13(1)ofthe
1982 Lawofthe Sea Convention(towhjckbothSingaporeand Malaysia are
partjle;g~,a wturallyformedareaokjandwhichis surrounded by andabove
water at low tide but submergedat high.tideU. Such elevations donot
autonomouslygenerate a territorial sea, unlessthey are wholly orpartly
situatedwithintheterritorialseaof themainlandoranisland. Singaporethen
interprets varioarbitralandjudicialdecisionsto assert that acoastalstate
hassovereignty overlow-tideelevations situatewithinits territorialwaters.
Obviously, South Ledge isnot within the territorial watersof Singapore,
situatedas it is nmfiomSingapore.ForthatreasonSingaporeargues that
"there can be no doubt that South Ledge belongs to Singapore, asa
consequence of hersovereigntyoverPedra ~ranca"?~~
229 SeeMM, paras. 68-285,295.
"O SeeMM,paras.118-137.
SeeSM,paras..4,9,29.
232 Ibidpm. 9.42.'162. However,the weaknessinthisargumentis thatSouthLedge lies1.7
nmfiomMiddleRocksand2.2 nm fromPBP.'~~ Thismeansthatthelow-tide
elevation called South Ledw gouldattach to MiddlR e ocks ratherthan to
PBP. If a singlegroupof maritime featurecsouldat allbe distinguished, it
wouldconstituteMiddlR eocksand South Ledge.
C. Conclusions
163, MiddleRocksand South Ledge l,ingcloseto the Johorcoast,have
beenpart ofJohorsincetimeimmemorialT . hisas confirmedbythe 1824
Anglo-Dutch Convention andtheCrawfiud Treatyof 1824.
164. MiddleRocksand South Ledga eredistinctandseparatefiomPBP.
The three featureshave neverbeen named as a groupand have distinct
geologioalandgeomorphological characteristic Ssi.ngapore"discovery"in
1993thatthe three featureconstitute a"group"and itslateclaimto Middle
Rocksand South . Ledgecannotbe substantiated and is merely an effortto
'I
enlargeitsterritorial clasmuchaspossible.
SeeMM, Inset 1p.128. PART Ill
THE SUBSEQUENT CONDUCT OFTHE PARTIES
THE SUBSEQUENT CORDUCT OFTHE PARTIES:
m 0wEgmBFtr
Introduction
165. PartI of this Counter-Memorialddressesthe titles invokedby
Malaysia and SingaporespectivetoPBP, Thelegalbasisofeachclaimis
clear. Malaysia'saimrestson JohororiginaltitlePBP, MiddleRocks
and SouthLedge andMalaysia'ssuccessionthereto. no timedid Johor,
eitherby act orby omissi,lienateitssovereigoverthethreefeatures,
includingbythepermissiongrantebythe SultanandTemenggongof Johor
in 1844 to the British authoritiesfor the constructionof Horsburgh
Lighthouse.
166. Singapore advances an opposing therya,t the events1847 to
1''.
185.., constitutatakingoflawfblpossessiofPedraBrancabyagentsof
theBritish Singapore'sasethushingescriticallyonthenotionof
"a takingof lawfblpossession"-titlethatsomehowemergedover thecome
of the constructionof the lighthouse-vestingsovereignty inthe British
Crown,and Singapore's subsequentsuccessereto.
167. Havingthus laid outits clah to title,Singaporegoes on tocontend
that,sinc1851,BritainandthenSingapoexercisecp"continuou,penand
U4 SM,pm. 5.5.Sealsopm5.101.
83peacefuldisplayof State authority ... over Pedra ~ranca",~~activities that
"wereallundertaken h tifredeso~verain".~I tcontinues,inChapter V1 of its
Memorial,to enumeratealonglist of practice that it contendsisconfirmatory
of its original title.This rangesrom"enactinglegislationrelatingto Pedra
Brancaand Horsburgh Lighthouse"to L'coIlectinmgeteorological information"
andthe"building andupgradingof ajetty onPedraBranca" to"investigating
incidentsof accidental deatnthewatersof Pedra ~ranca"?~~InChapter V11
of its Memorial,Singapore goeson to contendthat Malaysia has somehow
recognised Singapore's sovereignty oveP rBP. In chapter V111 of its
Memorial,SingaporeallegesthatJohorexpresslydisclaimetd itletoPBP.
168. This elaboratediscussion of practice notwithstanding, Singapo ire
evidentlycautiousaboutrelyingonpracticeasa self-standing basis ofclaim -
for goodreason, as will become evident. Its discussionproceeds with
measured ambiguity.For example, addressint ghe "legalsignificanceof the
lighthouseintheseproceedings",Singaporestates that
"thebasisofthetitleadvancedbySingaporeisnotpremisedon
therole of lighthouseassevidenceof Stateactivity ...However,
in the present case,the takingof lam1 possession ofPedra
Branca for the purpose ofconstructiriga lighthouseand its
appurtenances, and maintainin ge installationoia permanent
basis, constitutes an independenatnd self-sufficientbasis of,,
tit~e.'~'. :.
thii caseis'the takingof lawfulpos~ession" duringtheperiod1847to 185 1.
The relevanceof subsequ&tconductis lessdear. Singaporeacknowledges \,
that practice concerning lighthouse is not evidenceof State activity. It
nevertheless suggeststhat the taking of possessionfor purposes of the
constructionandmaintenanceof HorsburghLighthouseon a permanentbasis
is an independentand self-sufficient basis of title, The equivocationin
236 SM,para.6.7..
"' SM,para.6.6.
SM,para.5.101.Singapore's approachis never clarified. As with other elements of
Singapore'scase - the questionwhetherPBPwas tewa nullius in 1844,the
omissionof anyrelianceonan acceptedmodeof acquisitionof territory,the
failureto discusstheJohor permissionlettersof 1844-the difficultyissimply
elided.
170. Issues relatintothesubsequentconductofthePartiesareaddressedin
theChaptersthatfollow. Giventhe equivocation inthis aspectofSingapore's
argument, the mattew r illhaveto be addressed in some detail. The implicit
propositionrelieduponthroughoutbySingaporeisthatconductundertakenby
the administrator ofHorsburghLighthouse isto be equatedwithconduct d
titrede souverain as'regardsP'BP. ?'hereis aconsistent conflationofthetwo
inSingapore'sMemorial.Theyaresimplyequated byimplication,leavingthe
Courtto addresswhat arn6'. .., ;.fundamentalgap in the evidenceat the
heart of Singapore'csase. " * -'.
.,!'.;;:*..
171. Thereis anothdr~i31~~~~''t& hWaswell. It is that theconductrelied
upon,bySingaporeinitscapacityasadministratorof Horsburgh Lighthouseis
advancedinisolationfromtherealitiesbothof practice relating to lighthouses
in generalandthe arrangements ofthe Straits'Lightssysteminparticular,of
which Horsburgh Lighthouse was a part. TheCourtis thusinvited simply to
lookat Singapore'sconductinrespect ofHorsburghLighthouse withoua tny
regardto its contextandto proceed onthe untested assumption that this is
suficient tosustainaclaimtotitle to theunderlyingterritory.
172. As will be shownin the following Chapterst ,hese,arefundamental
omissionsinSingapore'scase. Conduct undertaken inthe adhT6istrationofa
lighthouse cannot simplybeconflatedto conduct dtitre de sbzcverain.There
is nonecessarylinkbetweenthem. If sucha linkis alleged, theburdenison
the proponentto provethe assertion. Singapore doen sot even address the
point. There is, furthermore,a long-standing and widely held appreciation,
evidencedin the decisions of international tribunals, includingth is CourtandthePermanentCourtbeforeit, aswellas in Statepractice,that conduct
relatingto lighthoushas specialfeatureswhich meanthat itisnotareliable
indicatorof sovereignty. JudgevanEysinga addressed thisexpresslyin his
concurring opinion ithe Lighthomesin CreteandSamos case beforethe
PermanentCourtin 1937(andnojudge in that case expresseda contrary
opinion).Hisanalysiswasechoedbythe present Court intheMirquiers and
EcrehosCase in 1953. It was echoed again in the maritime delimitation
AwardoftheArbitralTribunalintheEritredYemen Caseof 1998.2~' It finds
widersupportinStatepracticeconcerning individual lighthouses (suachthe
CapeRace Lighthouse in Medoundlandor theCapeSpartelLighthousein
Morocco); lighthousesintheRedSea (where theprincipallighthousesarestill
administeredbytheUnitedKingdomandother geographicalld yistantStates);
inthe ArabianlPersianGulf(wherethe principal lighthouseareadministered
bytheMiddle EastNavigation AidS service(MENAS)withoutregardto the
sovereigntyof theterritory onwhichtheyare located);inthepracticeofthe
Corpomtion ofTrinityHouse (a charitablecorporatioestablishedin 1514in
Londonwhichcontinuesto administerlighthousesarountd heworld),aswell
asinotherir1stances.2~~
173. Beyond this, the Straits' Lights system o,f which Horsburgh
Lighthousewas a part, had specialfatures all of itsown which directly
challenge the assertion that Singapore's administrationof Horsburgh
Lighthouse is inanywayrelevanttothe question oftitleto PBP.~' Threeof
theoriginal13lighthouses managedbythe StraitsSettlementsas partof the
Straits'Lightssystem weresituaatdnterritory tht asnotatthetimepartof
theterritoryof the StraitsSettlements.Tenof theseoriginal13lighthouses
weresituatedinterritorythatisnowpartofMalaysia.Theadministration of
theselighthousesbytheStraitsSettlementshad no bearingonthesovereignty
239
ThisjurisprudeiseaddreskrtherinChapterbelow.
ThispractiisaddressfurtherChapte6rbelow.
Thiswaa addressein MM,paw, 222-234It is discusferthein Chapte7
below.of the territoryon whichthe lighthousewere situated. This territory-
includingPBP-was neveradministered aspartoftheterritoryofSingapore,
174. Aswillbe apparentfaomthereviewinChapters6 and7 below,this
practice relatgothesitingandadministrationof lighthousessacommon
feature ofBritishpracticefiomthe mid-19'to the mid-20' centuries,with
important vestiges ofit continuingto the present day. Singapore's
equivocation about relyionitspracticeinthe administratinfHorsburgh
Lighthousein supportof its claimto sovereigntyis thus understandable.
Thereisnobasis in.@ntemporarByritishpracticeregarding lighthowshich
can sustain Singapore'slaim. All of thispractice isdirectlyat oddswith
Singapore'sproposif9nthat the constructinndmaintenanceof Horsburgh
Lighthousesomehow-constitute "a takingof lawfulpossession*f PBPfor
purposes of sovereignty.
A. The scope of art11~ndsummary ofco~cl~sfoaas
175. AgainstthisbackgroundP ,artlofthisCouaater-Memori parloceeas
follows. Chapter6 addresses the law and practice concerning lightiuses
general. The conclusiotnsatemergefromthisreviewsupportthefollowing
propositions:
Thereare manyexamples, both historiclandcontemporary,f
lighthousesaround the world which are administeredby
authorities,whetherpublic or private, other than by the
authoritiesof the Stateon whoseterritoryhe lighthouseis
located.
m
This was a particularfeatureof British practiceregardiig
lighthousesin the periodfiom the mid-19~to the mid-20~
centuries.
Thispracticerunsdirectly countetrthe propositionthatthe
constructionand maintenanceof a lighthouse constitutda taking of lawful possession"of the territory on which the
lighthousewas situatefdor purposes of sovereignty.
a While the administration ofa lighthousemay coexist with
sovereignty overthe territory on which the lighthousein
located,thiswill not necessarbethecase.
Thereis an extensivebody of uniform practiceby lighthouse
authoritiesaroundthe world,whether governmentao l r non-
governmentalc,oncerningtheadministrationof lighthouses.
This practice reflectsthe general conduct that would be
undertakenby any operatorof a lighthouseas part of its
administrativeresponsibility.
e This practiceneither hingeson the sovereigntof the territory
on which the lighthouse is situated nor is in any way
determinative of it.
176. Chapter 7 addressesin fivther detail the specialcharacterof the
Straits' Lights system. heconclusionsthatemergefromthis review support
the followingpropositions:
e The Straits'Lights system,of which HorsburghLighthouse
was a part, was a system of lighthouses and other aids to
navigationput in place by the British in the Malacca and
SingaporeStraits in the period fromthe mid-19' to the mid-
2othcenturiesin the interestsof safeguardingshippinginthese
waters.
Anumberof lighthouseswhichwerepartoftheStraits'Lights
system were constructedon territory other thanthat of the
Straitsettlementseventhoughtheywereadministeredbythe
relevantauthoritiesof the StraitsSettlements,n some cases
fromSingapore.
a
The administrationof a lighthouseby the Straits Settlements
authoritiesfromSingaporehad no bearing onthe sovereigntyof
theterritoryonwhichthelighthousewassituated. * The continued administrationtoday by Singapore of a
lighthousewhich formed partof the Straits' Lightssystem
cannotwithoutmorebe regardedas evidenceof Singapore's
sovereigntyover the territory on which the lighthouse is
located.
177. Againstthis backgroundt,heCounter-Memoriag loesonto address,in
Chapter8, the conductclaimedby Singaporeto be rititre de souverainor
otherwise saidto be supportiveof Singapore'scase and, in Chapter 9,
conductbyMaIaysiaconsistentwithitsoriginaltitle. Asregards Singapore's
conduct, the conclusion that stands out from this review is that,
overwhelminglyt,hepractice citedbySingaporeconcernsitsadministrationof
HorsburghLighthousewhich has nothing whatever to do with sovereignty
overPBP. InthelimitedinstancesinwhichSingaporeadvancesmorg eeneral
conduct,this is insufficienttosustainits claim,beingeitherinconclusive or
subsequentto the criticaldate ofthis dispute andevidentlyself-servingin
character.
178. Chapter9 addressesthe suggestionsby Singapore thatMalaysia
somehowrecognisedSingapore'ssovereignty over PBP or that it disclaimed
titleto the island.eithercontentionhas anysubstance. The Chapter also
addressestwoadditional elementsof Malaysia conduct: (a)the useof waters
aroundPBPastraditional fishing watersfor fishermenfromsouth-eastJohor,
notablyfromthefishingvillage ofSungaiRengit adjacenttoPBPontheJohor
coast;and (b) Royal Malaysian Naval (RMN) patrolsin the watersaround
PBPand related Rh4Nconduct. Thecentral proposition to emergefiomthis
review is that, bothat the level of privatepracticeand perception(Johor
fishermen) andat the level of State practice and perceptionP ,BP was
consistentlyregardedas part of Malaysianterritory. Given the physical
characteristicsof PBP (ie, that there is nothingon itotherthan Horsburgh
Lighthouse),and Singapore's administratioonf the lighthouse,Malaysian
conduct undertakeninappreciatiothatPBPwas part of Malaysia hasspecialweight:unlikethatof Singapore,it cannotbe explainedbyreferencetoany
other considerations.
179. FinallyinPart 11Chapter10addresses the maritime context, notably
the delimitation practices Mfalaysia,Singapore andother Statesin the
SingaporeStraitsandthe SouthChina Sea. Thispracticeis consistent with
and supportivofMalaysia's sovereign oyerPBP.
B. Generalandpreliminaryobservations
180. Beforeturningto address theseissues, anumberof generaland
preliminaryobservationsrelevtaontthesucceeding Chaptersustemade.
( Singapore'scase bared on the importance of Horsburgh
Lighthouse
181. Singapore openistscase withplea. Initsdescriptioofthephysical
settingof the case,it observesthat "Pedrarancaysposition rightin the
middleof theStraitsof.Singaporeas it opens intoheSouth China Seahas
made it a seriousnavigationalhazardon an important international trade
route.'a2 It goeson to saythat "[tloday,more than 150years later,the
significancof PedraBranca has not dimini~hed.''~~n concludeswiththe
observationthattheSingaporeStraitiscrucialto Singapore's economic well-
beingandthat "[alsPedraBrancacommands theentireeastern approacothe
Straits,thecontinued ability of Singatreexerciseher sovereignrritorial
rights over Pedra Branca and its surrounding watie srsof the utmost
importanceto b in gap ore.)'^
182. This themeruns throughout Singapore's ca tse,sameproposition,
formulated only slightlydifferently,forming the basis for Singapore's
SM,para..6,
SM,pm. 2.8.
SM,pm. 2.9.discussionofitsconductinrespect ofHorsburgLighthouseinChapter V1 of
its~emorial.2~'
183. To avoid any risk ocfonfbsionin the lightof these statements,it
shouldbeemphasised whatthis caseisandis notabout. This caseconcerns
sovereignty--overPBP, MiddleRocksandSouthLedge-and thatalone. It
doesnot concern Singapore's ownership rights over Horsburgh Lighthouse.
Permissionfor the construction ofrsburghLighthousewas givento the
Britishauthoritiesby the Sultanand Temenggongof Johor .i1844. That
permissionwaspredicatedonthe acknowledgemen ttat itwas importantto
ensurethesafetyof navigation theSingapore Straitandthat,at thattime,it
wasthe Britishauthoritiesand thoseactingthroughthemwho,giventheir
shipping interessndexpertise,werbestplacedtosecurethis.
184. It is important thatthis point is clearly appreciated.An unspoken
element of Singapore'c sase is the scare tactic of implyingthat the
consequences otfhe affhnationof Malaysia's sovereignty over PwBould
be, first,to endangerthe safetyof marine navigatihe Singapore Strait
and,second,to undermineSingapore'seconomic position. Neithrontention
has any foundation. alaysia,asoneoftheprincipallittoralStofboththe
SouthChina Seaandthe SingaporeStraitisintimatelyconcerneoensurethe
safetyofmarine navigationnthesewaters. Indeed, alaysiaand Singapore,
onoccasionwiththeadded involvemen otf otherStates(suchasIndonesand
Japan)cooperate closelon all aspects ofmarinenavigationinthe Malacca
and Singapore Straits, including VesselTraffic Services (VTS) and
internationalsea lanes and associatedactivitysuch joint hydrographic
surveys ofthe area, It isthusentirelysleadingto implythat Malaysia's
interestin the safetyof marine navigatiis somehowless than thatof
Singaporeorthatthe affirmation Malaysia'ssovereignty overBPwould
somehow undermine thatsafety.
245 SM, pm.6.2.185. Beyond this, Singapore's observationo sn this matter require two
furthermore general observations. Firs the constructionby Singaporein
recentyears (sincethe critical date ofthisdispute)of variousfacilities to the
lighthouse (suchas the helipadand VTlS coupled with(a) the
installation of military communications equipment in the lighthouseby
~in~a~ore:~' (b)the exclusionof Malaysia fishermenfiomtheirtraditional
fishing watersaroundPBP, and(c)the constantpresenceof a highly visible
Singaporeannaval presencein the waters around PBP,has raised serious
concernsfor Malaysia aboutSingapore'suse of the lighthousefor non-light
purposes.Theenlargement of the facilities attachtdthelighthousesincethe
criticaldateofthe dispute, without consultation wthalaysiaor explanation
and apparently,as Malaysianow learns,for non-light purposes, has risked
aggravatingandextending thedispute.
186. Second,while HorsburghLighthouse continues to be importantas a
key navigational aidfor shipping in the Singapore Strait,the tenor of
Singapore's Memoriao lnthis pointrisks obscuringa growingrealitywhich
suggeststhat the Courtshouldbe especiallyhesitant aboutsimply accepting
Singapore's extrapolation oftsconductasregardsthe lighthouseforpurposes
ofitsclaimto sovereignty.
187. For many centuries lighthouses,light beaconsand other aids to
navigationassumedgreatimportance. A review ofAHistory0fLighthozase.v
publishedin 1971estimated thenumberoflighthousesinexistencearoundthe
worldatthatpointasinexcessof 50,000?~~
246 See, e.g.,the photograph followin102in SMand thecorresponding textat
SM, para 6.32The VTIStowerand helipadwere addedby Singaporein 1989and 1992
"'spectivelyi,.e.,well afterthecriticaldateinthisdispute.
SeeSM,paras.6,72etseq.SingaporecontensSM,para.6.75)thatthe installation
of the military communicationesquipmentwasiedout openly.This wasnot, however,
notifiedto Malaysiaandthere isno waythatMalaysiacouldhavebeenaware ofit.Malaysia
has neither opportunitr eans ofinspectingSingapore'asctivityatthe lighthousewithout
theseinstallations-which weresubsequentto thecriticaldate of thisdispute-was onreceipt
ofSingapore's Memorial.
248 P.Beaver,AHistoryoftighthouses(PeterDaLtds,ondon,1971)xi.188. There is no doubt that,fiom the mid-lgthcentury,when Horsburgh
Lighthousewasbuilt,and eversince,the light fiomHorsburghhascontinued
toperformanimportantserviceinaid ofmarinesafetyinthe Singapore Strait.
But, some perspective iscalledfor. A recentreviewof Canadian practice
regardinglighthouses, in the contextof a more general study under the
auspicesof the InternationalAssociation ofMarineAidsto Navigationand
LighthouseAuthorities(IALA),indicated thatarounda third of Canadian
lighthouses wereno longer centralto the safety of navigationand were
suitable for disposalfor alternativeuse?49 The Canadian coastlineis the
longestin the world and has one of themostextensive systemsof marine
navigationlights anywhere.
189. The factisthatlighthousesarebeginningto assume lessimportanceas
t
anaidtonavigationinthe faceoftechnologicaldevelopments, suc asGlobal
PositioningSystems(GPS);whichare accurate,relativelycheapand readily
availabletomarine navigators.Thepointwasmade bytheCanadianRegional
Director,oast'Guard Maritiniesinthefollowingterms:
"The divestiture of lighthouses signalsa new era in our
maritime life. The etnergehceof GPS'(Global Positioning
System) has given the mariner fiee access to a highly
sophisticated and accuratey ,et easyto use and affordable
navigational aidthat is makingmanylightsand othermarine
navigationaidsobsolete. Thissuperiortechnology is themost
significant development in navigationsincethe the of radio
pioneers, radar,and the heydayof lighthousesa century ago.
As novel technologies succeed traditional methods of
navigation, maritime authoritien seed to strike a balance in
programdeliveryby coordinatingandensuringan acceptable
transitionfiomthe 'old' tothe'new'.'N0
249 J.L.Wilson,"Lighthouse Alternive-Canada'Esast Coast Experien(0"01),
paperpresenteattheXVthIALAConference M, arc2002.Copiesofthisandotherpapers
mentioneinthisChapterillbefiledwiththeRegistrar.
250 Ibid.,p.141.190. In similarvein,thisrapidgrowthin alternativeaidsto navigation.led
twootherexperienced lighthouseadministratao nrsmarine navigatioe nxperts
to speculateabouw t hether traditionaalidsto navigation,suchas lighthouses,
wouldbecome redundana tltogetherin the foreseeablefuture.251Wile the
answerto thisquestiontodayis still"no",thereis neverthelessa commonly
heldappreciation intheprofessional lighthousecommunity that,especiallyfor
large, relatively sophisticatseda-goingvesselsthat ply the world's major
traderoutes (such as the Singapore Strait), lighthousaere steadily assuming
less significance.Thepoint wasaddressedin the recent, andauthoritative,
IALA publicationAids to Navigation Guide ("Navguide", 2001), in the
following terms:
"Theimportance oa f visual aidto navigationmaywell change
over time. There may be occasions where shipping
requirementschange to such an extent thatthe light of a
prominent lighthous structurecan sensiblybedown-graded to
Category2or 3.'"52
"The adventof more sophisticated radio and satellite-based,
wider area.positioningsystems,unconventional vesselsand
high speed craft, has resultedin the 1983 IMO resolution
[establishing accuracy standard fsr maritime navigation]
!nsiag gn_n?re!evnnr.e~~W3
191, There are two reasons for highlightin tgese developmentsin the
context ofthepresentproceedings. Singapore's claimsabout thecritical
""
P. Christma& J. Taylor,"TheFuture ofTraditionalAidsto NavigatWig", a
paperpresentedat theVthIALAConference, March2002.The authorswereat the he
respectivelythe Directorof Operationsand NavigationalRequirements,and the Chief
Executiveof the NorthernLighthouseBoard in Scotland.The abstract,of their paper
summarisesthepositionasfollows:(;Itisgenerallythatat someindeterminastagein
thefuture, the plof mostof thetraditionaldstoNavigation] probabyill havebeen
board systems.I"bi42.ingsatellitebasedradio-navigsystemsandthe associatedon-
252 IALA,Al& to NavtgatfoGuide(Navguide 4' edn,December200I),para.3.5,2.
Category 1refersto "~'Jighthouseasnd beaconsconsideredto be of primaeynavigational
significance" (emphasiisn the original);categoryrsto "[l]ighthousesand beacons
consideredtobe ofnavigatiolignificance;ategory3refersto "[l]ighthandbeacons
consideredto have lessnavigationalsignificancethan either Ca1eor 2". Relevant
extractsfromtheauguideareinAnnexes,vol.3,Annex53.
Ibid.,par2.1.2.2.role ofHorsburghLighthouseto Singapore's owneconomic well-being must
bekeptinperspective.Singaporenodoubt pushesthepoint asitsconductin
respect of PBP since 1851is in realityexclusiveIyconductin respect of
HorsburghLighthouse rather than in respectof the island. Intimationsof
crisis,were the Courtto decidein favourof Malaysiansovereignty,are thus
simply a device to conflateSingapore'sconduct in administrationof the
lighthousewith conductd titredesouverain.
192. Second,these developmentsare importantfor anotherreasonwhich
goes more directlyto a numberof Singapore'sspecificclaimswhich are
addressedin Chapter 8 of thisCounter-Memorial.One consequence of the
development of marine navigational aids hbaesento emphasisethenon-light
uses of lighthouses,both traditionalnon-lightuses as well as other more
contemporary initiatives. The questiownas exploredina 1998 IALAstudy
intothirdpartyaccessto navigationalsites forthe IALAAdvisoryPanelon
the Preservation of Historic Lighthouseshichwas investigating alternative
usesof lighthousesand other aids tonavigation. On the basisof responses
fromawide range ofIALA membersI,ALAconcludedthat:
"the predominant [non-aids to navigation]applications[of
lighthouses]werefor thecollectionofmeteorological dat(i.e.
weather,wind speed and direction,tidaYcwent data and for
telecommunicationisnstallations.'"
193. As describedinthe IALA~avg~ide:~t~ raditionalandothercommon
non-lightusesoflighthousesinclude:
e coastwatchorcoastguardfunctions;
VTSfunctions;
baseforaudible(fog)signals;
• collectionofmeteorological andceanographicdata,
a radioand~telecommu~iicatio fncsilities;
Ibid.,pp. 198-199,par10.1.7The releyantextractfromthe Navguideis in
Annexes,vol.3,Annex53.
Ibidp.73,para.3.5.1.3. 0 touristfacilities.
194. Against the background of these traditional non-light uses of
lighthouses, Singapore ims assivelyoverstatingits claimto sovereignty over
PBP based on its post-1851practicein respectof the lighthouse. Allof
Singapore's conducs tince this point has hinged onits administration of
HorsburghLighthouse. It simplyreflectsits position and responsibility as
administrator othelighthouse.
(ig Thelegalfiamework andquestions ofevidence
195. In Chapter7 of itsMemorial,Malaysia addressed the legalframework
for consideringthe conduct oftheParties. Inthe lightof Malaysia's original
title to PBP andSingapore'sclaimthat its conduct subsequent to 1851is
somehow confirmatory of its theoryof"a takingof la*l possession",the
basic principles relevatt thislegalframework meritbrief restatement,
196. In itsJudgmentinthe FrontierLandCase,the Court emphasised that
the weightto be given to conduct reliedupon in supportof a claim to
sovereigntyhadtobedeterminedinthelightofthecomplexarrangementts hat
operatedin respectoftheterritory in question. TheCourtwent on furtherto
notethatactsofa routineandadministrative characterwould beinsufficientto
displace sovereignty already previously estab~ished?'~In the Clipperton
Islandcase,the ArbitralTribunalemphasisedthe absenceof any animusby
Franceto abandonthe islandasanimportant elemeni tnupholdingtheFrench
claimto title.257
197. Theseprinciplesare relevantto the presentcase. Malaysia's titleto
PBP,MiddleRocks and SouthLedgehingeson Johor'soriginal titleto the
256 CaseConcerningSovereigntyverCertainFrontierLandICJReports1959p.209
atp.229.
ArbitralAwardon theSu&ectof theD@erenceRelativeto theSovereignty over
CIippeHonIsland(1932)2AJIL 390atp.394.features. Neither Johor nor alaysia has everhadany intentionto abandon
thattitle.
198. Whendeterminingtheweighttobegiventotheconduct reliedupon by
Singaporeinsupportof itsclaim,the Courtshould properlhave regard tothe
closeandcomplex interaction betweenJohorandthe StraitsSettlements,and
Malaysia andSingapore, especiallyas regards the provision of aids to
navigationin the Malaccaand Singapore Straits. As in theFrontierLand
Case, inwhichroutineandadministrativeactsbytheNetherlandsinrespect of
theterritoryinquestioncould not displaBelgiansovereignty,soalsointhis
case routineandadministrativactsbySingapore h itscapacityasoperatorof
HorsburghLighthouse cannot displace Malaysiansovereignty overPBP,
especiallywhenthese actsareconsequentuponthepermission granted bythe
territorialsovereign.
(iii) Evidenceadduced byMalaysiainsupportof theclaimsinthis ,
Part
199, A number of documentsare annexedto this Counter-Memorialas
evidence supportintheargumentsadvancedinthe followingChaptersinthis
Part, Theyare:
1. Conduct Forming Part of the Normal Administrative
Responsibilities afLighthouseOperatorandSingapore'sClaims
in Respect ofthe Horsburgh LighthouseandPulauBatuPuteh,
Report by Captain Duncan Glass and Mr David Brewer,
respectively,Directorof NavigationalRequirementsand former
Director of Administration,inityHouse,London;
2. TheHistory andWorking ofthe Midde East NavigationAids
Service ("MENAS'? andRelatedIssues,Reportby Commander
Peter John Christmas, RoyaN l avy (Retired), former General
Manager of MENAS,andbeforethatDirectorof Operationsand
Navigational Requirements of thN eorthernLighthouse Board,
Scotland; , 3. NoteonLighthousesandTheirFunctions,byRear-Admiral
(retired)Jean-CharlLeclair,onbehalfof IALA;
4. Affidavit of Rear Admiral(retired) Dato' Karalasingarn
~hanabalasin~arn,former Chief,of the Royal .Malaysian
Navy;
5, Affidavit of Idris Bin Yusof, fisherman, from Sungai
Rengit, Johor;
6. Affidavit of SabanBin Ahmad,fisherman,fiom Sungai
Rengit,Johor.
200. A numberof mapsare reproducedas part of this Counter-Memorial.
Theseareaddressed asappropriateinthe courseof argument in Part Iof the
Counter-Memorial and in Chapter10below. One map warrantsparticular
referenceat this point, and is foldedn large format inthe sleeveto this
volume. It is British Admiralty Chat403,Singapore Strait,1936, published
undertheauthorityof theAdmiraltyhydrographer,Rear AdmiralJ.A. Edgell.
The chart is reproduceinreducedformasMap25oftheMap Atlas(vol.4)
toMalaysia's MemorialI .t isreproducedinitsoriginal largeformataspartof
this Counter-Memorial asdetail not otherwise readilyapparent fiom the
reduced versionwillberelevanttoAnnexes 5and6concerningthetraditional
fishingrights of Johor fishermenin the watersof PBP. It is also directly
relevantto the evidenceofRear AdmiralThanabalasingam (vol.2,Annex4).
Giventhe provenanceanddetail of thechart,Malaysiaanticipatesthat itwill
alsobe useh1to the Courtas amoregeneral orientationmapof PBPand its
surroundingarea. Chapter 6
THE LAW AND PRACTICECONCERNING
LIGHTHOUSES
201.,,InitsMemorial, Malaysia addressthde distinctbetween ownership
af lighthousesandsovereignty ovetrerritory?58This Chapter expanspon
that: analysis, addressingthe considerablebody of State practice and
jurisprud&ce that shed light on the special features of lighthouse
administration.As willbe shown,there aremanyexamplesof lighthouses
constructedon the territoryof one State but administerdy some other
authority.Thisbeingthecase,conductintheadministration of a lighthouse
cannot,intheabsenceofotherfactors, beakenasevidenceofsovereignty,
202. Significantlyt,he pracdescribedinthisChapteralsoshowsthatthe
constructionandloradministrationof lighthousesby Britainin waterways
aroundthe worldin the periodfromthe mid-19'to the mid-20' centuries
never constitutea,ndwasnever regardebdyBritainasconstitutin,ataking
oflawful possession"ftheterritoryon whichthelighthouse was situfor
purposes of sovereignty.Singapore'sassertionson this point as regards
HorsburghLighthouse havneo foundation whatevinrthe British practice of
theday.
203. This Chapter alsoaddressesthe extensivebody of practiceby
lighthouseauthoritiesaround the world, whethegrovernmentalor non-
governmental, concerning tadministratioof lighthouses.Such practice,
which neither hingeson the sovereigntyof the territoryon which the
lighthousissituatednorisinany waydeterminativefit,reflectsthe general
29B MM, paras165-176.conductthatwould beundertaken byanyoperatorofa lighthouseaspartofits
administrativeresponsibilities.
204, In particular,this Chapter illustrates thepointsby reference tothe
practiceof lighthouse administrationn the Red Sea, in the Arabian/Persian
Gulf;by TrinityHouse, andin a numberof other cases involving individual
lighthouses. As will be shown, the constructionand administrationof
lighthousesaroundtheworld,especiallyduringtheperiod ftomthemid-19~to
the mid-20~ centuries, combined imperialinterest and the commercial
objectivesof private undertakings operatinugnderan imperialmantle. The
practice of Britain, France andother EuropeanStates during this period
focused onthe objectiveof securingmaritime safetyand was driven by ,
commercialneedandthe interests of internationa nlavigation,ratherthanby
concernstoacquire tiny isletsr,ocksorotherportionsof territoonwhichthe
lighthousesweretobeconstructed.
A. Imperial interesitntheconstruction and administrationof
lighthouses
205. The historical importance of li&thouses in secwingthe%fee "f
navigationwastoucheduponin Chapter5 above. Scholarly works, suca hs
those byPatrickBeaver,AHistoryofLighthouses (1971)andJohnNash,Sea
M&: .TheirHistory and Development(1985) explore the historical
dimensionof the question in detail, includingboth cooperativeventures
between States as well as private initiativesin the constfllctionand
administrationof lighthouses.nenotable example of suchcooperationatthe
levelof privateenterprisewhich developed into Stateinvolvement isthat of
the WanseaticLeague,the leagueof merchantassociationsof the citiesof
Northern Germany and the Baltic,duringthe periodfkomaround 1250to
1550.~~~Motivatedby the dangers of navigatingalong the coastlinesof
London,19851,h.111.ash,Seamarks:TheiHistorandDevelopment(StanfordMaritime,northern Europe duringthisperiod,the merchantsofthe citiesof theLeague,
throughcommon endeavourb ,eganto establish beaconsand seamarksto aid
navigation. This wascomplementedover time by public initiativesin
Denmark,theGerman States andTheNetherlands.
206. Inparallelwith thesedevelopmeht's.ttheeast,HenryVIIIofEngland
granted a Royal Charter establishingThe Corporationof Trinity House
("TrinityHouse")in 1514as the pilotage authorityresponsibferestablishing
seamarkson land and, in due course, formarkingchannelsof navigation.
Trinity House, as a non-governmentalstatutory corporation, remains
responsiblefortheadministration of lighthousesinEngland and Wales today
aswell asbeing responsiblfeortheadministrationand maintenance o various
lighthousesandotheraidstonavigationaroundthe worldmm
207. Untilthe 19~century, lighbteacons remained largelinprivate hands,
Evensubsequenttothisperiod,the construction of lighthouse wsas frequently
financedby privatesubscription-in some casesby lottery.26' Significant
innovationsinlighthousetechnologyand constructiontechnique csameduring
this period notably fiom Franceand Britain. By the 1840s,engineering
advances began to allow the construction of lighthouse in previously
impossible 1ocations.2~~
260 FurthebackgrounidnformationnTrinityHouseis givenintheReportof Captain
DuncanGlasa sndMrDavidBrewerA: nnexes,vol.2,Annex1.
261 See,e.g.,P.Beaver,AHistory LighthousesPeterDavies,Londo1971),p.82,
refemngtothefinancinoftheconstructinflighthouseisnNewYorkandelsewherinthe
UnitedStates.
Z62 See,e.g.,ibid.,9.. 208. Theseadvances inengineering,coupledwitth hegrowth incommercial
shipping,resultedinthe 19' centurybecoming"thegolden ageof lighthouse
buildingall overthe ASthe volumeof commercialshipping
increased, lighthouses, originally establisheand maintained by
philanthropists,ecamethe subjectof speculationas "[tlhe ownershipof a
light onabusyshippinglanecould secura ehugeincome[fromlight
209. One lighthouse constructedduringthisperiodofthemid-19"century,
virtuallyatthe same timeasHorsburgh Lighthousw e,asthatat CapeRacein
Newfoundland in 1856,"acylindricaclast-irontowerperched ontheedgeofa
CHEF 8,7 feet abovethe sea."65 It is illustrativeof widerBritishpractice
regardinglighthousesataroundthistime.Beavernotesofthis lighthouse that,
"[tlheresultofajoint effort etweentheNewfoundland andthe
British Governmentist,wasmaintained bythelatterwholevied
a dueofone-sixteenth of a pennypertonon all vesselspassing
thelight. Somefiftyyearslaterthelighthousewas handeo dver
tothe Canadian Governmew ntho abolishedhelight-d~es.''66
210. At the time of the constructionof Cape Race Lighthouse,
Newfoundland was a self-governing Colonyof Great Britainin whichthe
constructionof a lighthousenditsadministrationrequire he consentofthe
Legisiativ~uthorltyofthe ~olon~."' Theadministration of thelighthouse
byBritain was thusconsequent upontheconsentof theLegislativeAuthority
ofNewfoundland. Inthelightofthesubsequenr tefusalbyNewfoundland to
take overthe maintenance ofthe lighthouse Ikon Britain,ownershipand
administrationof the lighthouse was transferredkomBritain toCanadaby
Britishand Canadian Actspassedin 1886. The transfervestedthe landon
"' Ibid.,p.7.
' Ibid.,pp.17-18.
"' Ibid.,p.43.
Beaver, Historyoflighthouses63.
,267. ...The wnsentof the Legislative AsseolfytheNewfoundlanColonyfor the
constnictio?theCapeRace Lighthousiessrecitedin the firstprearnprara.of the
(Britis) apeaceLighthousAect,1886,anAct''toprovidehetransferotheDominion
ofCanadaofthe LighthousaetCapRace ,ewfoundlanda, ditsappurtenance"94Vict.
c.13)Theauthorityof the Colontadecline responsibiliftoyrtheadministnf the
lighthousereferrtointhe fifprmbularpm. ofthisAct:Annexes,ol. 3,Annex26,whichthe lighthouse was built" ,andall dwellings,buildings,ponds, signals,
andapparatusconnected therewith, ana dll otherlandandall rightsof water
and other rights heretofore used and enjoyedtherewith andall the other
appurtenances thereof; foarll the estateand interestherein"in Canada. In
acceptingthetransferofthe lighthouse and the attendant responsibility fitrs
maintenance,theGovernmentofCanada observed that "thesaid lighthouse is
indispen..ble to the safety ofCanadianvesselsand others navigatingthe
~orth4i1&tic,toandfiom~anada~~.~~'
211. ,:cape Race Lighthousewas built on the territoryof Newfoundland.
Between1856and 1886,the lighthousewasadministeredby Britainwith the
consent of Newfoundland. Subsequentto 1886, the lighthouse was
administered byCanada. Newfoundlanb decameaprovinceofCanadaonlyin
1949. Cape Race Lighthouseis an exampleof a lighthousewhich was
administered sequentiallb yy the authorities of two States, neithorf which
wastheterritorialState.
212. As this example illustrates, althoughthe construction and
administration of lighthouses was usuala lymatterfor the State on whose
territorythe lighthouse wasto be located,thiswasnot alwaysthe case. The
pointwas addressedby Judgevan Eysingain his concurring opinion in the
Lighthousesin Crete and Samoscase before the Permanent Court of
InternationalJustice i1937:
"The administration of lighthouses isa servicewhichin most
Statesbelongstotheirdomesticjurisdiction.
Butthere are casesinwhich,onthe onehand,lighthousesare
imperatively demanded in the interest of international
navigation,while, onthe other hand, the State in whose
territorythe lighthousewouldhaveto be operated, is notin a
positionto providefor itsadministration andmaintenance.As
a result of this situation, it sometimes happens thatthe
-
ActoftheGovernmen otfCanadar,espectithe transfrfthe LighthousaetCape
Race,Newfoundland a,nditsappurtenanceo,theDominionof Canada1886(theCanadian
CapeRace Act, 49 Vict.,0.20):Annexes,vo3,Annex27. SeealsoAnActin aidof the
ImperiaAl ct providifor theLighthousatCapeRaceandits appurtenances 1,886 (the
NewfoundlanC dapeRaceAct,49Vict.,c.4):Annexes,ol.3,Annex28. MaritimePowers cometo an agreement withthe territorial
State in regardto the operating ofa lighthouse. A classic
example isthe lightonCapeSparteIwhichmarkstheentrance
to the Mediterranean for ships comingfromthe Atlantic;the
operation of that light was regulatedunder a Convention
concludedat Tangiersin 1865betweenthe MaritimePowers
andMorocco.
The case of the lighthouses inthe OttomanEmpire offers
certain analogies. It was after the CrimeanWar, whenthe
navies of theWesternPowershad hadampleoccasionto note
the lackofanadequate lighting system onthe Ottomancoasts,
thatan internationacommissionwasappointedtoconsider the
problem, The Turkish lighthouse service datfeom 1856; and
it was in 1860 thatMM, Collas and Michalundertookthe
service in virtue of the concessionary contractof August
8fh/20'ofthat year.
The Iighthouseservice coversthe whole ofthe Ottoman
Empire, exceptin so' faras certainparts ofthat Empireare
exceptedfiomit. Herewehave a caseofan 'Imperialinterest'
which was primarily a matter of concern to international
shipping. The Powers,and especiallyGreatBritain,gave the
Sultanmanyproofsof theirkeen and persistent interest itnhe
matter, andon more thanone occasionmadeit the subjectof
diplomatic representations. his international interest sot
governedby any regulation,but the Sultan recognised that it
was an internationalinteretfavery realcharacter.."i269
269
LighlhouseinCreteandSamos,PCU Reports,SeriA/B No.71(1937),pp.23-4
(separaepinionofJudgvan Eysinga). B. Theconstruction andadministration oflighthousesbyauthorities
otherthanoftheterritorialState
(i) Statepractice
213. As Judge van Eysinga'sOpinion affirms, the constructionand
administration ofighthouses wasfrequentlyundertakenby bodies, whether
publicor private,othertha nhose ofthe territorialsovereign. A review of
practicedisclosesthree broad categories ofsuch bodies:(a) authorities
establishedby treaty, (b) private companies or undertakings,and (c)
authoritiesof a State otherthanthe territorialsovereign. In eachcase,the
construction andtor the administrationof the lighthouse took place
independently of any questiontitletotheterritoryonwhichthelighthouse
was loc~tedmd hadnobearingonquestionsof sovereignty.
214. A notableexampleinthefirstcategory-an authorityestablished by
treaty havingresponsibilityfor the establishmentnd administrationof a
lighthouseintheinterests ofStatesother thantheState onwhose territory the
lighthousesits-was the CapeSpartelLighthouse Internationa Clommission
referredto byJudgevm EysingainLjghthouses in CreteandSamos.Bythe
Cage SpartelConvention of31May1865,theInternationaC l ommissionwas
createdto administerthelighthouse undethe"sovereigntyandownershipof
the Sultanof ~orocco".~~~ The CapeSpartel Conventio nas supplemented
bya related agreemen otf 1892whichestablisheda semaphore signasltation,
alsoatCape Spartelu,ndertheadministratioonftheCorporationofLloyd'sof
London(the CapeSpartelSemaphore ~~reement).~~' Managementof the
CapeSpartellighthousewas onlytransferredbackto Morocco,theterritorial
270 ConventionbetweeGreatBritain, Austria, BelS, ain,The United States,
Prance,taly,theNetherla, ortugal,andSweden, onthe onepart, andMorocthe on
otherart,relativetotheEstablishmenatndMainofa Lighthouon CapeSparte,1
May1865,S5 BFSP 16.
Theselandother similararrangementsconcerningthe administrationof aids to
navigationare addressed inC,J.Colombos,TheInternatl aw of the Sea ed.,
LongmansL, ondon,1967),pp.337-338,sovereign, o31 March1958pursuanttoaProtocoltothe 1865 Convention of
thatdate?72
215. Anexamplein the secondcategory-a private company havinglong-
term responsibilityfor the administrationof lighthouses-was that of the
Frenchfirm Collas & Nichel, knownas the Administration gt?nt?rale'es
Pharesde l'Empire~ttoman,"~ whoseconcessions with theOttomanEmpire
fortheadministration of various lighthouwserein issueinthe Lighthouses
Care Between FranceandGreeceandtheLighthouses in CreteandSamos
case before the Permanent Court of Internation aulstice.2~~The same
companywas grantedlong-termconcessionsto construct and administe ar
seriesoflighthousesintheRedSeaandinthe ArabiantPersian~ulf.~~'
216. A furtherexample ofa companyadministering lighthousesonforeign
tenitoy-one whichcontinuestoday-is the MiddleEastNavigation Aids
Service (MENAS). MENASbegan life in 1950as a non-profit-making
company,the PersianGulfLighting Service (PGLS),changingits nameto
MENASin 1966. ThehistoryandworkingsofMENASareaddressedinmore
detail belowandinthe ReportbyCommandeP r eterohnChristmas, formerly
ManagingDirectorof MFiNASw , hichis annexedhereto. MENAS'sorigins
inBritishandIndian practiceintheGulfintheearly 20' centurythrowslight
on the parallel practicb.y Britain inthe Malaccaand SingaporeSlraitsin
establishinoftheStraits'Lightssystem?76
217, An examplein the third category-lighthousesadministeredby the
authoritiesof a State otherhanthe Stateof territorialsovereignty-is the
"' Protocol relatogtheManagemenoftheCapeSpartel ight,31Mar1958,320
UNTS 105.
'" Thenameof the companiygiven slighyifferenintheMaritime elimitation
Awardof theArbitratinribunailntheritreav. Yemencase9October1998;40ILM
274(2001)pm. 202.
LighthousCareBetweenFranceaPtdGreece,PClJReports, eriAB3 No. 62
(1934);tghthousis CretandSmnos ,CIJReports,eriAA3 No.71(1937).
Eritreav.Yeme, wardof9Octobe1998,40ILM 900(2001),para200.
ReportyCommande Preter Jonhristmaf,rmer&neralManageo rfMENAS:
Annexesv,ol2,Annex2.UnitedKingdom's administratio of variousRed Sea lighthouses following
thefailureofthe Convention concerningtheMaintenanceof Certai Lnightsof
1930 under whichthe administration otfhe lighthouses would havb eeen
undertaken bytheFrenchfirm Collas & ~ichel?~~Afurther example osfuch
practiceisBritain's assertionfcontrolovertheexistinglighthouses and aids
to navigationin the ArabianIPersian Gulf in 1911. Britain operated and
managedthe lighthouses and aidsto navigationin the areaandconstructed
new ones until 1950 when the Persian Gulf LighS t ervice(subsequently
MENAS)wascreated.Theadministration otfheselights waspe~ormedby
the Government of India andthe costs weresharedbetweenthe British and
IndianGovernments.
218. Acurrentexampleofaidsto navigation situateid ntheterritoryofone
State but administeredby the authorityof another State are the aids to
navigation inNorthernIrelandwhichareadministered bytheCommissioners
ofIrishLights,the statutory lighthouse authorittoefRepublicofIreland;278
TheCommissionero sfIrishLightsistheGeneralLighthouseAuthorf iyrthe
whole ofIreland, includinN gorthern Ireland. Itnhis function,it worksin
closeconsultationwiththe General LighthouseAuthorities responsiblte heor
provisionof aidsto navigationin UnitedKingdomwaters,namely,Trinity
HouseandtheCommissionero sf Northern Lighthouse (stherwiseknownas
the NorthernLighthouse Board). Thearrangements in respec otf Northern
Irelanddate back to the Lighthouses (IrelandA)ct of 1810 (W), which
transferredto the Port Dublin ~o$orationallpowers,dutiesandfunbtions
relatingto thecontroloflighthouses'koundthe coast ofIrel-a'.ThePortof
Dublin Corporatiownas renamed theCommissionero sf Irish Lighin 1867.
The responsibilities anfunctionsof the Commissioners.,arsegw"iisaidsto
277 Erltreavye me^,wardof9October1998,40ILM900(2001),para. 1etseq.
278 SeefurthetheReportby CaptaiDuncanGlassandMr David Brewe (vol2,
Annexl), para.18,SeealsotheNoteLighthousesndTheirFunctionby RearAdmiral
(retired) Jean-Charlesr,nbehalfofIALA(vol.2,Anne3),Answer1,andtheReport
byCommander Christ(mvoals.2,Annexpara.8.2fi4.navigation forallof Ireland, includingNortherneland,continued following
Isishindependenci en 11922."~
219, TrinityMouse,a United Kingdom corporation withcharitable status
whichisnotapublicauthority, has alsoadministereda nu~nbeorflighthouses
and other aids to navigation around the world, includingon non-United
Kingdom territoryasinthecaseoftheSombrero Lighthousein~n~uilla)?~~
220. 'Theexamplesabove-Cape Spartel lighthouse,the lights inthe
Persian Gulfbetween 191 1 and 1950,and the Northern Irishlights-are
farther illusbrationsof British practice regardinthe administrationof
lighthouses andotheraidsto navigation inthe 19~and early2othcenturies.
The focuswasonpractical arrangemenfto srmaritime safety ithoutregardto
questionsof the sovereigntyof the territory on whichthe lights were
~ocatesl?~'Such arrangements continu teday. They supportthe wider
propositionthatthe constructionandmaintenance of Horsburgh Lighthouse
cannot have beenintendedtoconstitute'$atakingoflad1 possession" ofthe
underlyingterritoryforp,urposesf sovereignta,sSingaporenowcontends.
fitl TheMdde Eat Nmigah'ooA nidrService@OU?ASJ
221. Reference has alreadybeen madeto MENASas an exampleof an
authority incorporateinoneStatewhichowns andoperateslighthouses and
other&ids to navigationontheterritoryof otherStates. Theorigins, history
andworkingsof MENASareaddressedindetailintheReportby Commander
Christmas involume2, Annex 2.
"* Thehistory and preftunctionoftheCommissiosfIrishLightsisgivenonits
inkmetsite:httD://www.cil.id,
'" "Thiis addressedmorefully in theReportbyCaptainDGlassanMr David
Braver:Annexes,vol.Annex1,paras.-7.
28' The point is raddrein the Reportby Captain Glass MrBrewerin the
followingterms:..hereare alsoimportantexceptionstothegeneralrule[thatthemajority
oflighthousesareoperateabgovernment departmotf therelevantsovereignState ora
publicnderbkerof the State],notably emagromthe Britishcolonialperiod,e.g.the
Canal,aswellAasin particulcasesof individual lighthousessasthe Sombrerothe Suez
Lighthouse innguilla and the Gibraltarlighthouse."Glass-BrewerReport, para. 14:
Annexes,vol.2,Annexl,222. Followingthediscoveryof oilat Masjid-I-SuleimainnPersiainMay
1908andtheexpansion oftheOttomanEmpire intowhat in soweastern Saudi
Arabia, Britaitookcontrolof suchaidsto navigation as therewerein the
ArabianfPersianGulfin 1911. TheGovernmeno tf India, the clost ritish
territoryfromwhichsuchanoperation could bebased,undertookthe taskof
administering theselights.TheBritish andIndianGovernments sharet he
costs of administerinthe lights,usinga fundknownas the PersianGulf
LightingServiceFund.
223. In 1913,followingthe decisionby WinstonChurchill,thenthe First
Lordof the Admiralty,thattheBritish Fleet wouldchangefiomcoalto oil
power,the BritishGovernmenttook a controllinginteres thenAnglo-Persian
OilCompany.Italsosetaboutmarkingthemajor marine hazard istheGulf.
Important lights establishedtieGulfbytheBritishorIndian Governments
duringthe period 1913 to 1950includedthoseon TunbIsland(westof the
entranceto theStraitsofHormuz),QuoinorDidarnaIr sland (at the entrance
ofthe StraitsofHorrnuzontheterritoryoftheSultanofMuscat,now Oman),
andonSirAbu Nu'airIsland (off tcoastofShaqiah)a ,swellasthe Muscat
Beacon(offthecoastof man)?^^ Other lightsinthe.Gulfadministeredby
theIndian Governmentdurin tgeperiod1913to 1950but aboutwhich les is
knowninclude various buoysand floatsoffthe coastof Bahrainand inthe ,
Shatta1Arabwaterway.283 By the late1940s,therewere 31 suchaidsto
navigation unde treadministrationof thIndianGovernmeni tnthe Gulf.As
Commander Christmas'sReport indicates, someof these lights were
constructedbytheBritishorIndian Governmentswit thepermission oflocal
rulers.Inothercases,no suchpermission seemstohavebeen given.
ReporbtyCommanderChristmas,par. .3:Annex, ol.2,Annex2.
'03 Ibid.,para.4.4.224. AftertheFirstWorld Wara ,dministratiooftheGulf lightsremained
withtheIndian Government,being undertakenfiomabase inBombay. From
1925, this wasfundedby the collection of ligdtues,the authorityfor the
collection osuch duesbeing vestedin theBasrahPortDirectoratein Iraq.
Thissituation remained virtualychanged untiler theSecondWorld War
when, withtherapid expansioninthe demand foroil, it becamepparentthat
manymoreaidstonavigation wouldberequired intheGulf.
225. Following Indian independen ce1947,andthe IndianGovernment's
unwillingnessto continue responsibilityfor the maintenanceand
administrationotfeGulflights, control headministratioanndfinancingof
these lights was transferrefkomthe Indian Governmentto the British
Government, restingwith the British Ministry of TransportS.ubsequent
initiativesby Britain tohand over responsibility tre maintenanceand
administratioof the Gulflightsto the littoral Stain whosewaters they
werelocatedmetwith protests fkomusers. As a result,on thesuggestionof
wht was by this timecalledthe Anglo-Iranian Oil Company,the British
Government transferredresponsibility fhe lightson12 January 1950to a
non-profit-makingcompanyincorporated underEnglish law knownas the' .
~er:sian"Gulf'LightinService(PGLS), Its name waschangedin 1966 to
MENAS. -AS remainsa not-for-profitorporation registereds aUK
charity. It Continu6to ownand administer lighthouse and otheraidsto
navigation situatedntheterritoryofKuwait,theUnitedArab Emirates and
Qatar. It hasalsoconstructea numberof additional lightnthe.region, in
mostcaseswiththeformalpermission oftheState concerned, althoughoine
ortwocasesonthebasisofmore informal ac~e~tance.2~~
226. Twoconclusions maybe drawn,First,Britain'scontrolovertheaids
tonavigationintheGulfintheperiod 1911to 1950 wasmotivatedbyimperial
interestsandconcernsta securethe safety of shipiga strategiwaterway.
There isno suggestion thathis assumptionof controloverexistingaidsto
Ibid.,pa4.5.navigationintheGulf,andtheconstruction and administrationnoewlights,
wasintendedto constitutea takingof possessioftheterritoryon whichthe
lightswerelocatedforthe purposes of sovereigntyI. manycases - aswas
the situationwithHorsburghLighthouse- permissionwassoughtfrom local
rulers fortheconstructionotfhelights.casesinwhichthereisnoevidence
ofpermission, subsequentpractice regardtiese lightsdisclossohint ofa
suggestionthat eitherBritainor India considerethat they had sovereign
rights ovetheterritoryonwhichthelights were situated.
227. Second, the fact thatBritain andIndia adopted legislative or
administrativemeasuresdirectedat the managementof the Gulflights -
including concerning thcolfectionof lightdues- did notimplythat their
administration of the lights constitutedng of possessionof, or an
acquisition of sovereigntyovth, territoryonwhichthelightswere located.
Forexamplewhenthe OmaniGovernment indicatetd hatit wishedto assume
controlovertheaidstonavigation situatednitsterritory,therewasnodoubt
thattheywere entitletodo so notwithstandinthat theselightshad, many
cases,beenconstructed,ndhadbeenownedandoperated,by &AS for
considerableperiods. Followingnegotiationsbetween Oman and MENAS,
ownershipandcontrolofthe lights was transferreoOman withtheOrnani
Government compensatin MgENASforthecostsof lights originallpyrovided,
(iii) Thecharacterolfighthousadministration:legal evaluations
228. The consistent legal evaluatioo nf the character of lighthouse
administrationand its relevance to the determinationof questionsof
sovereigntechoesthepracticeof States. Judgevan Eysinga'sobservations,
quoted in paragraph212 above,reflectthis understanding. Whilthese
elementswere not explicitly addresseythe PermanentCourtin eitherthe
LighthousesCaseBetween Franca endGreeceor theLighthouses in Crete
and Samos case, both judgments implicitlyaffirm the view that the
Ibid.,para.3.5.administratioof lighthouseshas no bearingon sovereignty.The Coll&s
MicheIconcessions survivethe extinction of Ottomasovereigntyandthe
emergence in itsplaceof Greektitle to theterritoryonwhichthe lighthouses
were located.
229. A similarevaluation wasgivenby this Courtin the Minqulersand
Ecrehos~use.2'~ThereFrance contendethat:
"since1861it has assumed thesolecharge ofthelightingand
buoyingof the Minquiers formore than 75 years, without
havingencounteredany objection from the UnitedKingdom
Government.Thebuoyswere placed outsidethe reefsof the
groupandpurportedtoaidnavigation toand fromFrench ports
and protect shippingagainst the dangerousreefs of the
Miquiers. In 1888a Frenchmission,appointedto makea
hydrographic surveoyf the islets, eredrovisional beacons
onseveralofthemto facilitatetsurvey.
The French Government ha aslsorelied onthe fact thatthe
FrenchPrimeMinister andtheAirMinisterin 1938travelledto
the Minquiersin orderto inspect thebuoying,and that a
Frenchmanin 1939erected ahouseononeoftheislets wit h
subsidyfromtheMayorofGranville.Ithasfmallyreferredto
certainrecenthydro-electric projecthre installatoftidal
powerplantsintheBa ofMont-Saint Michel at nderegionof
the Minquiersislets.
The Court concluded:
"TheCourtdoesnotfindthatthe fact sn,okedbytheFrench
Government, aresuscient to showthatFrame hasavalid title
to the Minquiers. As to the above-mentionedctsfrom the
nineteenthandtwentieth centuries inarticular,including the
buoyingoutsidethereefsofthe group,suchactscanhardlybe
considered as sufficientevidenceof the intentionof that
Government to actas sovereign ovetrhe islets;nor arethose
acts of such a character thatthey can be consideredas
a manifestationofStateauthorityin respectof the
287 Ibid, 70-71,rehoCase(France/iJnKdingdomICJReports1953,p.47.
Ibid.,p.71. 230. Theprinciplethatunderlaythe Court's view inthiscase-that conduct
in the administration f lighthouse couldnot,withoutmore,be takenas
evidenceofsovereignty-wasechoedbythe ArbitralTribunalintheEritreav.
Yemen case.TheTribunalstated:
"Bytheoutbreak of the SecondWorldWaritmaybesaidthat
the maintenance ofthe [Red Sea] lightsis seen as a non-
sovereignactandthere isagreement thattheunderlyingtitleto
theislands concernewdasleftinabeyance...
As in 1930,the managerial rolo ef the United Kingdom had
nothingto do with the issueof title to the islands;nor did
management even placethe UnitedKingdom in a favourable
positionforwhenthetitleissue cametoberesolved...
Theoperation or maintenance of lighthou asesnavigational
aids is normalIy connectedto the preservationof safe
navigation, and notnormallytakenas a test of sovereignty.
Maintenanceon these islandsof lighthousesby British and
Italian companiesand authoritiesgaverise to no sovereign
claimsorconclusions...
The traditionalimportance ofboth[theJabal al-Tayarndthe
Zubayr groupsof Islands] has been that they hav been
lighthouse islands (the Zubayr light woasCentrePeak,the
southemost islet of the group). It will be clearfiom the
history oftheRed Sealighthouses(see ChapterV1above)that,
although, or perhaps even because, lighthouses wereso
importanftornineteenthand earlytwentiethcenturynavigation,
a government could be askedto takeresponsibilityor even
volunteertoberesponsible fotrhem, withountecessarileither
seemingto claim sovereigntoyverthesiteoracquiringit. The
practical question was not one o of nership,but rather of
whichgovernmenw t as willin,rmight be persuaded t, take
on the responsibility,and sometimesthe cost, if not
permanently thenatleastforaseason."289
23l. Singapore advancetsheQatarv.Bahrain caseto counterthistrendin
S thejurispr~dence?~~ In thatcase, the Courta,ddressingBahrainiclaimsto
sovereigntyovetrheislandofQit'atJaradah o,bservethattheconstructionof
289 Eritreav. Yemen,Awarof 9 October1998, 40ILM900 (2001),paras.221,226,
328,s 10.
SM, pma.6.96.navigationalids canbe legallyrelevantinthe caseofverysmalli~lands?~'
Ratherthantakingthe lawina different directionasSingaporesubmits),the
Court's observatiocnonfirmsits earlierjurisprudence, the Minquiers &
Ecrehoscase,the Court wasconcernedwith the sufficiencyof evidence
concerningtheestablishmentand'administrationfnavigationalidstosustain
a claimtotitle. Notwithstanding thhterewas nocompetingevidenceofthis
kind fiom the United Kingdomt,he Courtrejecteda claim basedin this
evidence.The sameistruefortheEritveav.Yemen case, inwhichtheArbitral
Tribunalwasconcerned withtheweighttobeattachedtotheadministration of
lighthousesin the specialcircumstancesof the Red Sea lights. Again,it
affirmedthe principlethat evidence ofthe administratioof a lighthouse
wouldnotnormallygiverisetosovereignclaims or conclusions.
232. IntheQatar v.Bahraincase,thequestionoftitletoQit'atJaradahwas
addressedby the Courtin the context ofits delimitationof the maritime
boundary betweetnhetwo states?" Qit'atJaradahwasnotanislandtowhich
thepartieshadattachedspecialimportance beyondthe questionof maritime
delimitation.
233. The principal focus ofargent concerninsQit'at Jamd* wrrs
whetheritwa. to beregardedas anisland(asBahraincontended)orwhetherit ,
was simplya IOW tideelevationwhich couldnotbeappropriatedforpurposes
of maritimedelimitationasQatar~ontended)?'~Qatarofferednoevidenceof
conductinrespectofQit'at Jaradah,relying ononthe contentionthatit was
situatedinthe partofthe territorseawhichbelongedto Qatar. Incontrast,
Bahrain citedvarious formsof conduct relevantto Qit'ataradah,viz. "the
erection oa beacon,the orderinofa drillingofanartesianwellt,hegranting
ofanoil concessiona,ndthelicensingoffishtraps.'aM
CaseConcerninMaritimeDelimitation derritorl uestioBetweenQatar
andBahrain(Qatarv.Bahrain, 6Marc2001,ara197.
19' Ibidparas. 66-174.
193 Ibidpara.191.
19' Ibidpara196.234. The Court first concludedthat Qit'at Jaradah was indeed anisland.
Giventhatconclusionandthe arguments thathadbeenadvanceditwasbound
to followthattheCourtwouldaccept Bahraini conduc atsdispositiveoftitl-
therewas nopriorQatarititleand norQatariconduct of anykid relevantto
the island,Inassessingthe Bahraini conduct,theCourtthusconcluded:
"Certaintypes of activitiesinvokedby Bahrain suchasthe
drilling of artesian wells would, taken by themselves, be
consideredcontroversial asactsperformedb titredesomerain.
Theconstruction of navigationalaido s, theotherhand, canbe
legally relevantinthe case ofverysmallislands. Inthepresent
case, taking into account the size of Qit'at Jaradah, the
activities carried outby Bahrain on that island must be
consideredsufficientto supportBahraii's claim that it has
sovereigntyoverit.'"'
Read in context,and againstthe backgroundof earlierjurisprudence,this
observation underscoretshe pointthat the construction ofaidsto navigation
may berelevantto questionso . f sovereigntyin caseswherethere is no other
basisoftitleandtheconstructionandadministrationofthe aidsto navigation
evidencetheintentionofthe Stateconcernedto act b titredesomerain.But
there is no indicationthat the Court intendedto set aside its own earlier
jurisprudenceorthatof the various arbitral tribunals.
235. This conclusionis supportedby the Court'sjudgment inthe Ligitan
and Sipadancase. Inthatcase,bothPartiesadvancedeflectivitds inrespectof
the islandsin support of their claims. Malaysr ieliedinteraliaon the fact
that the colonyof North Borneohad constructedlighthouses onthe islands
which Malaysia hadsubsequently maintained.296
236. The Courtfirstaddressedtheweightto be givento the conductrelied
uponby Indonesiaand concluded thattheseactivitiesdidnot constituteactsh
Ibidpara.197.
296 SovereignOverPulauLigitanandPulauSipadan(Indonesia/MalayslaJu,dgment
of 1December 2002,para.12etseq.
115titrede sou~erain.~~'It movedthen to assessthe conductrelied uponby
Malaysia,whichincludedthemaintenance ofthelighthouses as wellasother
elementsof practicein respectof the islands, concludintg hat Malaysia's
conductdidamountto conduct dti&edesouverain. As regardsMalaysia's
relianceon its conductin respectof the lighthouses,the Court recallethe
passagein its Judgment in the Qatar v. Bahrain case. It nevertheless
expressiyprefacedthis with the observationthat "the construction and
operationof lighthousesand navigationalaids arenot normallyconsidered
manifestationsof State authority"explicitlyrelyingon its reasoningn the
MinquiersandEcrehos~ase.2~'
237. Thisjurisprudence is clearandis consistentwiththe broad sweep of
Statepractice.Conductintheadministration oa flighthousedoesnot, without
more,constitute sufficientevidence fothe determination of sovereigntyI.
particular, suchconductwill only be relevantif it disclosesan mimw
occupundin , otsimpIyinrespectoftheIighthouse anditsassociatedfacilities,
butspecificallof theterritoryon whichthelighthouseislocated. Ananimzis
occupandiwill notitselfbe sufficientin circumstancesin whichtitle tothe
territoryalreadyvestsinanotherStateandthereisno evidence of anintention
onits parttoabandonitstitle.
Ibid.,par137-141.
Ibid, ara147. C. Commonusageandpracticeinthe administratioo nflighthouses
238. Singaporearguets hat,evenifthe administrationfa lighthouse isnot
inandof itself evidence ofsoveregntya, rangeof activitiescarried outby it
fromthelighthouse doprovide such evidence.29I9nassessingthisclaim,itis
usefblto describe certain elemeno tsf commonusageand practicein the
administrationof lighthouses.ThisreviewdrawsontheReportsbyCaptain
GlassandMr Brewer (Annex 1)andCommander Christmas (Annex 2), the
NotebyRear-Admiral Leclairon behalfofIALA(Annex 3),aswellasother
instrumentsand documents, notably, Chapter V of the International
Conventionfor theSafety of Life at Sea,1974 SOLA AS w),i^haddresses
the safetyof navigation,ndtheauthoritativeavguide publishedbyLALA?~'
(i, The internationalegaZjFamework
239. Article24(2)of the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea, 1982
requiresa coastal State to give appropriate publicity to any dangerto
navigation,of whichit hasknowledge n itsterritorial sea.Articles43and
44, which address transpitassagein straitsusedforinternationalavigation,
provide:
"Article43
Navigational ansdafetyaih andother improvemena ndthe
prevention, reductionndcontrolofpollution
UserStatesandStatesborderinga straitshouldby agreement
cooperate:
in the establishmentand maintenance in a strait of
necessary navigationaandsafetyaidsor other improvements
inaid of internationnlavigation; and
(b) for the prevention, reductionnd controlof pollution
fromships,
299 SM,par& 6.6Singapore'specificclaimsinrespectofeach of theitemsitrelieson
areaddressedindividuanChapterbelow.
InternationalConventiohreoafetyofLifeSea,1974,asamended(notablas
regards Chaptr, in 2000,therevisedchapter having entered ice1 July2002):
1184UNTS 277.
'O' IALAIAid toNavigationGuid(NavguIde4' edn,December2001);extractsin
Annexes,vol.,Annex53. Article44
DutiesofStatesbordering straits
Statesborderingstraits shallnot hampertransitpassageand
shallgiveappropriatepublicityto anydangerto navigationor
overflightwithin or overthe strait of which they have
knowledge.Thereshallbenosuspension oftransitpassage."
240. Theseprovisionsrequire States to cooperate in ensurinhe safetyof
navigationby establishingand maintaining aids to navigation. They also
imposean obligationon Statesto notifyothers ofhazardsto navigation of
whichthey have knowledge.Theseresponsibilities form the core of the
current international legal regime concern tiegprovisionof navigational
aids?''
241. Aconsiderably more detailed regimetf hoersafetyofnavigationis set
outinChapter V,asamended,of SOL AS? T'^isaddressessuch mattersas
icepatrol services,earchand rescue,hipsyroutingandreporting systems ,e
manning andmaintenanceof ships, carriage requiremenfto sr shipborne
navigationalsystems, bridgeisibiIity,steeringgearand danger messagesA.
numberof these provisiona sreconcerned specifically witthe provisionof
navigationalaids, navigational warnings and more generally with the
responsibility of lighthouse operators.articular Regulation4sand 13of
Chapter Vpr~vide:~"
Each Contracting Governme shtalltakeallstepsnecessaryto
ensurethat,when intelligence oafnydangers is receivedkom
whateverreliablesource,it shallbe promptly broughtto the
knowledgeof those concerned andcommunicated to other
interesteGovernments.*
SeetheIALANote,Answer1:Annexes, vo.,Annex3,
'03 SOLAShas its origins an international confereeld in London i1914
convenedto addressaspects of safetyof life at seafollowinggf theTitanicin
1912,Sincethen there haveeen four SOLASconventions,the most recent being the
conventioof1974asamended,whichenteredinto forcein1980.
SOLASChapterV, See fhther Glass-BreweRepor tara.8:Annexes,vol.2,
Annex 1;ChristmasReport,pa8.1Annexes,vol2,Annex2;IALA Note,AnswersI& 3:
Annexes, vo.,Annex3.*Refer to the Guidance on the IMO/IHO World-Wide
NavigationalWarningService adoptedbythe Organisationby
resolutionA.706(17),asamended.
Remlation13-Establishmentand operation of aidsto
navigation
1. Each Contracting~overnmentundertakestoprovide,as
it deemspracticaland necessaryeither individuallyor in co-
operation with other ContractinGgovernments,such aids to
navigationasthevolumeofthe trafficjustifiesandthe degree
ofriskrequires.
2. In order to obtainthe greatestpossibleuniformityin
aidsto navigation,ContractingGovernmentu sndertaketo take
intoaccounttheinternationalrecommendations md guidelines*
whenestablishingsuch aids.
3. Contracting Governments undertakteo arrange for
information relatinto aidsto navigationto be made available
to all concerned. Changes in the transmissionsof position-
fixingsystemswhich couldadverselyaffecttheperformance of
receiversfittedinships shallbe avoidedasfaras possibleand
only be effectedafter timely and adequatenotice has been
promulgated.
*Referto the appropriaterecommendations and guidelinesof
LQLA andSNICirc.107 -MaritimeBuoyageSystem."
Under Chapter VofSOLASContractingGovernmentsalsoundertake:
m toencouragethecollection,examinationanddisseminationof
meteorologicaldatabyships(Regulation 5);
0 in cooperation,to warn ships of various meteorological
hazardsandtopublishvarious meteorologicalinformationand
bulletins(Regulation5);
m to cooperate in the collection and compilation of
hydrographical data adequateto the requirementsof safe
navigation(Regulation9);
e to promulgatenoticesto marinersinorderthatnauticalcharts
and publicationsarekeptuptodate (Regulation9); 0 to mange for the establishmentof VesselTraffic Services
("VTS")wherethe volumeof traffk justifies suchservices
(Regulation12).
243.
MalaysiaandSingapore arepartiestobothUNCLOS and SOLAS.
244. Three points are relevantfor present purposes. ,&g, these are
standard-setting instrumenttsat constitutea yardstickforthe assessment of
best practice.
245. Second,noneoftheprovisionscitedlimittheresponsibilitieo sf States
byreferenceto mattersarisingwithintheirterritory.Thisis in keeping with
thewiderpractice concerninglighthouses described abovew ihiocusedon
the safeguardingof shipping irrespectiveof questions of territorial
sovereignty. The responsibilityof States to warn of navigationalor
meteorologicalhazards,or to publish hydrographicalinformation,or to
establish VesseTl rafficServices,or to publish Notices to Mariners,is a
responsibilitthat doesnot derive hrn sovereignty overlittoralterritoryin
question butfroma wider duty to warnofdangers and toensurethesafetyof
internationalnavigation. AthseGlass-BreweR r eportputsit:
'ThewordingofRegulation13[ofSOLAS]ontheprovisionof
marineaidstonavigationisdeliberately broad,avoidingissues
concerningtheownershipof property andterritoriarights!"05
The same pointis made byRear-Admiral Leclair,on behalfof IALA,with
specificreferencetoPBP. Referringto Regulation13of SOLASChapterV,
heobserves:
"[Regulation 131 means that a coastal State has the
responsibilityo markdangerssuch as islands anthatthiscan
be done in co-operatiow nith other States. Therefore,cases
such asthat of Pulau Batu Puteh are provided for in
international conventionbsut within theframeworkof co-
operationbetweenStates. International co-operation,s such,
Glass-BreweRrepor,ar^B:Annexesvol.2,Annex1. hasno effectonthe statusofthe lighthouseand itssurrounding
area;'O6
246. Third, these framework instruments reflecta wider and long-
established practice concerning the provision and administrao tifaids to
navigation. CommanderChristmas notes, for example, thaM t ENASys
operatesin the Gulf largelyas a result of"customand practice,following
decades of informal cooperation withthe various Statesin the
Drawingon his experienceboth at MENASand the Northern Lighthouse
Board,he refers to "best practiceyi'n the provision of navigationaa lids?08
CaptainGlassandMrBrewer likewise talk in termsof "conductthat forms
part ofthenormaladministrativeresponsibilitie ofa lighthouseoperator"and
"thegeneral conductthaw t ouldbeundertakenbyanyoperatorofa lighthouse
as part of its administrativere~~onsibility".~~~ Both Glass-Brewerand
Christmastalkintermsof usestowhichlighthouseshave "traditionally" been
put, referringto commonpracticesin the administration of lighthouse osver
many years?'0 The IALANavguiderefers to "several common themes"
across"a wide range ofIALA members" concerningthe alternativeusesof
lighthouses and other aito navigation.31'
(ii) Usageandpractice inlighthousa edministration
247. Threebroadareas of practicecan be discernedintheadministrationof
lighthouses:(a) conductthat is requiredof a lighthouse operatoras a direct
consequenceof itsprincipalresponsibilityto provideanaidtonavigation; (b)
conductthat is required ofor commonlyundertakenbya lighthouse operator
associated withits provisionof an aidto navigation;and (c) othercommon
elementsof practice. Theseare addressed in twn below. The tellingfactor
that emergesfromthisreviewisthat,subjectto twoexceptions(navalpatrols
IALANote,Answer 1;Annexesv, ol.2,Annex3.
'07 Christmas Repoprta,ra,Annexesv, ol.2,Annex2.
308 Ibid.,para.8.2,
309 Glass-Brewereport,aras. ,40Annexes,vol.2,Annex1.
"' Christmas Repoprta,ra.8.8;Glass-Brreport,ara.27.
'" IALA,Aldrto NavigatioGuide(jyuvgui de)edn,December2001), p. 198:
Annexes,vol.3,Annex53.and sea reclamationwhich, for reasons that will be explained,are not
otherwisedispositiveof Singapore's casee),verysingleitemof conducton
whichSingaporereliesis conductthatis eitherrequiredoftheadministering
authorityof a lighthouse or is conduct routinely undertabkyelighthouse
administratorsspart oftheperformance oftheirfunctions.Specificallwhat
is claimedbySingapore tobeconduct h titrdesomerain inrespect ofPBPis
the same conductthatisa featureof Singapore's practicnrelationto other
lighthousesundeirtsadministration, includino,rexample,the PulauPisang
lighthouse, hich is indisputablysituaedMalaysian territory.
(a) Conduct reauired in conseauenceof the responsibilitvto
providean aidtonavigation
248. Theprincipal responsibilityf a lighthouse operatoirs to providean
aid to navigation for ships which will usually hn aveconnectionto the
territoryonwhichthelighthouseisbuilt.
TheIALANavguidedescribesa lighthouse as:
249.
"a conspicuousstructure(visual mark)on land,closeto the
shorelineorinthewater;
thatactssadaymark,and;
provides aplatformfnr a marine eigzlllcg !!g!!!
witharangeofupto 25 nauticalmiles.
m other.aidsto navigationor audible signals oor
nearthelighthouse"?l2
Thepurposeof lighthousea sndotherbeacons is identifies:
"oneormoreofthefollowing na~i~ationalfunctions:~'~
markalandfallposition;
0 mark an obstructiooradanger;
e indicatethe lateral limitsof a channel or navigable
waterway;
Q indicateaturningpointorajunctioninawaterway;
Q
mark the entranceof a Traffic Separation Scheme
(?SS);
0 form partofaleading(range) line;
3'3 Ibidd.ra. .5.(.emphasadded). o markanarea;
e providea referencefor marinersto take a bearing or
lineof position (LOP)."
250. For purposes of ensuring a sufficientand uniform standardin the
provisionand operationof aids to navigation,the Navguideaddressesthe
"reliability"and "availability"of a light, andother criteria relatedto the
performanceof a light,inconsiderabledetai1?14Subjectsaddressedinclude
the planning anddesignofaidsto technicalelements relatingto
the provision of a light (light sources,the rhythmic characterof lights,
1urninosity),3~po~wersupplies~"the operationandmanagementof lightsby
lighthouseand navigatioa nuthorities3" andperformance indicator^.^'^
251. Theseelements ofthe operation, reliability and availabilityof a light
addressconductthat is required-whether explicitlyby law or simply as a
matter of customand best practice--ofa lighthouse authority as a direct
consequenceof its responsibilities concernint ghe provisionof an aid to
navigation. QuotingRegulation 13of SOLAS ChapterV,the IALA Navguide
comments:
''Tosatisq the obligationsof Regulation13,the contracting
governmenthas tomakeassessmentson:
0 whether or notto provideparticulartypes of aids to
navigation;
o thetype,numberand locationof aidstonavigation;
'l4 The"reliability"of a lightis definedas ''theprobabilitythatan aidto navigation,
when it is available, performs a specified functionfaiultureunder conditfor a
specifiedtime" (ibid.,ra.11.1.2.1)The "availability"of a light is definedas "the
probabilitythat an aid to navigationor systemis performingits specifiedat anyion
randomlychosentime"(ibid.para.11.1.2.2T.he"availability"of a light"is theprincipal
measure of performance determinebdy IALA" (ibid.,para.3.5.2).Issues concerning
reliability, availabilitayndother criteria relatedmanceofa lightareaddressedin
detailthroughoutthevgraide.
'l5 Ibid.,ch.9.
3'6 Ibid.,section3.4.
3'7 Ibid.,ch.7.
'l8 Ibid.,ch.10.
Ibid.,ch.11.TheNavgufdealso goesinto detailon other matters relato the
provisionof navigationalaids, suchasVesselTrafficServices")andradionavigation
systems,swellassupplementing this in somecasesby otherspecialistmanuals(e.g.,the
IALAVesselTr&c ServicesMad-2002). whatinformation servicea srenecessaryto adequately
informthemariner.yy320
252. It will be recalldd,in the languageof the Glass-Brewer Reportt,hat
"[tlhewordingofRegulation 13 onthe provisionof marineaidsto navigation
is deliberatelybroad,avoiding issuesconcerningthe ownership ofproperty
andterritorialrights."32'
253. Addressingthe scope ofMENAS'sresponsibilitiesin managingthe
Gulflights, CommandeC r hristmas notesthat its responsibilitiestwofold,
the operation ofa light (whetherit is working)and the maintenance ofthe
lightandthe fabric ofitsstructure?" Addressintg he"normalresponsibilities ,
of a lighthouse operatory',Commander Christmas describes what he
characterisesas"bestpractice"inthefollowingterms:
"Thefirstresponsibilityof a lighthouse authority shoulb de to
ensurethat the rightaidstonavigationareprovided intheright
places aroundthecoast. ThiswillinvolveknowIedgeoftraffic
patterns,cargoes carried and any particularly environmentally
sensitive areasof coast-line,sothat afullriskanalysiscan be
carriedout.., .
.Thesecondresponsibilityistoensure thatthe aids provided by
thelighthouse authority itself are operatcorrectly."323
254. CaptainGlass.andMrBrewer,drawingontheir experienceat Trinity
House andIALA,echothisassessment:
"Theduty of a lighthouse operato r whetherasan arm ofthe
Stateor an independenb tody - isto provideand maintainaids
to navigation to assist the safety ofnavigation. While
maintenance methodsand standardsmay vary amongthe
internationalcommunityof lighthouseoperators - asevidenced
by work in the technical committees of LALA - the need to
maintainthe lighthouse structureasndancillary equipmena tnd
LALAA , ldrtNavigatioGuide(Nayguide 4' edn,December2001),para.9.1.2.2:
32'exesGlass-Brewereportp, m. 8:Annexes,vol.2,Anne1.
'" Christmas Reporp,m 6.1:Annexesvol.2,Annex2.
3a3 Ibid.,pm, 8.8.5 to keepthe visual,audibleandelectronicsystemsfunctioning
correctly, remains teame.$1324"
255. They furtherobservethat:
"...improvements - the extensionofliving accommodation , e
repair and strengtheningof the pier, the fitting of a radio
telephone, repaintingt,he installation of boat davidihedral
radar reflectorsand a radio beacon- are all in keepingwith
those undertaken from time to time by any competent
lighthouse operator. The modernisatio onthestation,withthe
installationof an electricoptic,newcoolingsystemsand solar
integral part of the evolution of lighthouse
256. It followsfromthe precedingthat certainconduct"formspart of the
normal administrativeresponsibilities ofa lighthouseoperator"326 and is
required of all lighthouse operatorsas a direct consequence of their
responsibilities concerninthe provision andmaintenance ofthe light, This
conductwillinclude:
a
theprovision ofthelight;
m ensuring the adequacy and sufficiency o'f the light in the
prevailing circumstances;
m the operation andmaintenanceof the light and associated
measuresnecessarytoensureitsreliabilityandavailability;
m the on-going maintenance , odernisation andimprovementof
the lighthouse structurei,ts associatedfacilitiesand ancillary
equipmentinkeepingwithevolvingstandardsandpractice;
m the operationandmaintenanceof otheraidsto navigation,and
their associated visible, audible and electronic systems,
providedfromthelighthouse.
324
Glass-Brewereport, ar43:Annexes,ol.2,Annex1.
''' Ibid.,para.56.
"' Ibid.,pa3.. (b) Other conduct associated with the t~rovisionof an aid to
navigation
257. In addition, otherconduct,closelyassociatedwiththe provisionof a
light,iscommonly undertakeb nylighthouse operators. Referenc heasalready
beenmadetothedutytoco-operateinthe provisionofaidsto navigation, and
the dutythe publicise dangers tonavigation, found in UNCLOSand SOLAS.
These duties do nothinge on sovereignty, or indeed on any specific
connectiontotheterritoryinquestion.Whiletheseduties formallyengagethe
responsibilityofa Stateratherthana lighthouse operator, thea yreelemenkiof
theconductthatisusually undertaken bya lighthouse authority.Forexample
LALA,formed in 1957, is "a non-government,non-profitmaking,technical
associationthat provides a frameworkfor aids to navigation authorities,
manufacturersand consultants".327
258. Three elements of conduct wamt particular comment: (i)the
investigationofmarinehazardsandthepublicationofNoticestoMariners and
other similarhazardwarnings,(ii) the regulation of personneland activities
associatedwiththelighthouse,and (iii)theaddingto lighthouses of additional
structuresandfacilities.
(1) Theinvestigation ofmarine hazardsandthepublicatioq
ofNoticestoMarinersandotherwarnings
259. The investigation of marine hazardsandthe publication of Noticet so
Mariners and other similar warningsof hazards are closely related.
Referencing SOLASChapterV, Regulation4, which requires dangersto
navigationto be publicised,the IALA Navguidegroups the information
subjectto thisrequirement .. .'
"intothreebasiccategories:
327
IALA, AidFto NavigationGuide(Naguide) (4"edn,December 2001). par&1.1:
for theprovision, maintenan anedoperationof marineaids to navigationb)eotherible
organisations, enciandserviceconcernewdith aidsonavigatioandrelatematters,c)
manufacturer anddistributorosf marineaidsto navigation equipment organisations
providingservicesandsupport therton,d(d)ashonorarmembersi,ndividuals whhoave
madeanimportan ctontributootnLA'w sork. o informationaboutplanned changess ,uchas:
,. dredging, surveying,pipandcablelaying;
- changesto anexisting aid otfhe establishment
- changestotrafficarrangements;
commercialmaritim activities;
W shorttermevents(navalexercises, yacht races,
etc.).
o information about navigationu al-planned events,
suchas:
thefailureto[sic]aidstonavigation;
- marine incidents (groundings, collisions,
wrecksetc.);
searchandrescueactivities.
0 new information arising from survey work or
previouslyundiscovered hazards."328
260. Addressingthe responsibilitisflighthouseoperatorsinrespect of the
investigatioofmarine hazardsC , aptainGlassandMrBrewerobserve:
"A lighthouse authorityouldbe likelyto reviewandsurvey
navigational hazardss,uchas wrecks,shoals andsandbanks,
and markany dangerto navigationcausedby suchhazards.
Who takes responsibility forthe investigation ofmarine
casualtieswilldependonthestatusofthevesselinvolvedinthe
incident. Incases in whichthe State in whose watersthe
incident occurs undertaktese investigationt,helag Stateof
the vessel involved would be expectedto cooperate in the
investigation, although it may also carry out its own
investigationin more serious cases.In manycountries,the
distinctiobetweenlighthouse authoritieandthecoastguardor
departmentresponsible for marine investigations is blurared,
they tend to operateas separate sections withitn he same
government administration.In such cases, therefore,the
authority responsible ftreadministration olfighthouseswill
also be responsible for the investigation of marine
casualti~s.''~~~
261. On the subjectof Noticesto Mariners,the Glass-BrewerReport
observesthat 'TrinityHouse,in common with other lighthouse authorities
Ibid.,par10.3.1.
329 Glass-BreweRrepor,ara.3:Annexesvol.2,AnnexI.
127(such as MENAS and the Commissionersof Irish Lights), issues such
~otices."~~'Itgoesontostate:
"Notices are issuedinrespectof changesto aidsto navigation,
including the establishmen otf new marks,the discontinuance
of marking requirementst,he taking possessionof wrecks,and
marking hazards and changes to their characteristicsor
position. ...There is an implicit obligation under SOLAS
ChapterVto advise marinersof theprovisianofnew marks or
changesto the position orcharacteristicsof existingmarks.
Failureto issueNoticesto Marinersin respectof anychanges
to navigational marks or a navigational hazardof which an
authority wasawarewouldbe negligent andcould expose a
lighthouse operatorto major liability risks. Trinity House
considerstheissuingofNoticestoMarinersto benecessary for
the proper discharge ofits statuto d uytyas a lighthouse
authorityand to protect the[GeneralLighthouseFund fiom
which itis financed]fromunnecessaryfinancialrisk.'331
262. This appreciationof the responsibilities ofa lighthouse operator is
echoedin theReportby CommanderChristmas:
"Since 1976,IMZNAS has carriedouttheroleofSub-AreaCo-
ordinator forIMO Sea Area IX, reportingto Pakistanfor the
Gulf Area. In this capacity,MENASalso issuesNAVTEX
messagesto advise vesselsin the area of any dangersto
navigation andalso relaysdistressmessages. mNAS also
uwmrrrrra.:UMI LYULLGGSiu iviainers.rlnese hctions arenot;
necessarily partof the role of a lighthouseauthority and
MENASdoes not carry themout for the'whole of the Gulf.
However, in common withMENAS,many other lighthouse
authorities, sucasTrinityHouse andtheNorthern Lighthouse
-Board,issueN; oticesto~ariners.?~,v ....
263. Likewise,Rear-AdmiralLeclair,on behalf ofIALA,observes that
"[l]ighthouseoperatorsmay have a role as regards investigation of marine
hazards as witnessesor if the functioning of the aid to navigation isat
stake."333As regards Notices to Mariners,he references the obligations in
Regulations4and 13ofSOLASChapterVandnotes:
330 Ibid.,par25.
332 Ibid.,par. 6.
333 ChristmasRepor p,m 9.1Annexes ,ol2,Annex2.
LALA Note,Answer6:Annexes ,ol.2,Annex3. "The publication of information onnavigation safety is
coordinated by means of the World-Wide Navigational
WarningServicethat wasestablishedjointly by the WIOand
the IHO(InternationalHydrographicOrganisation)in 1977.
The World-WideNavigational Service is administered through
. 16 NAVAREAS.EachNAVAREAhas an Area Coordinator
whois responsibleforcollectinginformation,analysingit,and
transmittingNAVAREAWarningsby dedicated meansof
communication.PulauBatuPutehiswithintheNAVAREAXI
coordinatedby~a~an."~~~
264. Theparticular significance ohiselementisthat itunderlinesthat the
issuing of warnings of dangersto navigationhas no connection with
sovereignty overthe territoryin question. Singapore,as the administering
authority of Horsburgh Lighthouse, has certa risponsibilitiesin respect of
such matters. The coordinationand issuingof NAVAIGA warnings in
respectof the watersaround PBPcomeswithinthe broader responsibility of
Japan, as the coordinatorof NAVAREAXI, within which the island is
located.
(2) The regulation ofpersonneland activitiesassociated
withthe li&thouse
265. Turningto theregulation of activitandof personnelonor associated
withtheoperationofthelighthouse,thisalsofallswithinthescopeofconduct
that is required of,or commonly undertaken by, lighthouseoperatorsin
consequenceoftheirresponsibilitiesassociatedwiththeprovisionofthelight.
The pointismadeinthe clearestoftermsbyCommander Christmas:
"All lighthouseauthorities areresponsiblefor the securityof;
andaccessto,the lighthousesoperatedbythem, aswellas any
activity by personnelwithin them. Only criminal activity
would attract outside authoritiesand then usually in
cooperation withthelighthouse
Ibid.,Answe3.
ChristmaRs epor, ara.8.7:Annex,ol.2,Anne2.266. Captainelass andM Brewerechothisassessment:
"A lighthouse administratowrould normally havecomplete
responsibilityfor the conductof its personnel andthe
performanceof their duties in their lighthouses. As the
Keepers were generally a uniformed service, a service
disciplinaryregimewould beadministeredb .y the lighthouse
authority- usually followinhatofthemerchantnavy.
WhenTrinityHouselighthouses were manned,the Keepers
operated under Service Regulations governingvirtually
everythingfiomtheiraccommodation (whic whasrent free as
a servicetenancy),to theirconductand,of course,themanual
operationof the aidsto navigation.Regularvisitswere made
by engineeringstaffanddistrictsuperintendents.n addition,
the Elder Brethrenof Trinity House carried out periodic
inspections ofthe stations, sometimes accompanieb dy
dignitaries,inordertodischartheirstatutory
267. The significance of these factorsfor present purposeis threefold.
First, the authorityresponsibl.or the administrationof a lighthousewill
generally bresponsiblefor regulating conduct dpersonnelon orassociated
with the lighthouse. . Second, implicitly,this exerciseof regulatory
responsibilitmay taketheformofmeasures putinplacebythe Statewhose
authority is responsibforthe administratioof thelighthouse. Third,the
exercise of this regulatory responsibility hanso necessary link to the
sovereigntyoftheterritoryon whichthelighthouseislocated.It is a simply a
feature of the "conduct that forms part of the normal administrative
responsibilitisfa lighthousoperator",
(3) Theaddingto lighthousesof additionalstructuresand
facilities
268. Adding additional structuresdfacilitiesisalso acommonfeatureof
lighthouseadmini~tration?~I'nimportant elementst,ispractice islinkedto
the responsibilitiesof the ligh$ouse operator for the operation and
maintenanceof the lighthouseas an aid to navigationsufficientto the
oircumstanceisn whichitfunctions.
Glass-Bre Rweerr, ara.8-39:Annexe, ol.2,Anne1.
337 LALANote,Answer7:Annexes,vol.2,Ann3.
130269. An important elemen otfthisaspectoflighthouse operation tisefact
thattoday anincreasing numbeo rf lighthoussreunmanned.Thisistrueof
HorsburghLighthouse,the operationof whichwasautomatedin 1988using
solarpower. The servicingandmaintenance of the facilitiesonunmanned
lighthousesmust be undertakeb nyperiodic visits, iththepossibility alof
ad hoc visitswhenthis is required forrepairs orotherurgentneed. The
practicalsignificancofthis isaddressedyCommandeC r hristmas:
"In orderto carryoutdefect rectificationnd,indeed, general
maintenanceof aids tonavigation, mosa tuthoritieshave a
numberofspecial-to-task shipa sswellascontract helicopters,
availableonacontinuous basis.'938
Captain GlassandMrBreweraddressthepointinmoredetail:
"As well as automationandmodernisation usina gdvancesin
technology, lighthousedevelopmc ent monly includes:
a theerectionofhelidecksontopofoffshorelighthouse
towers orthe construction ofhelipadswhere land
permits,
a conversiontosolarpower,
theconditioningofbuildings,
the additionof differentialGPS [Global Positioning
System]equipment.
These developmentscan be seen in various ways it he
mqjorityof TrinityHouse Lighthouses e,.g., Hanois,Smalls,
Eddystone,SouthStack,FameIsland,CasquetsandLongstone.
Licencesarecommonly granteb dylighthouseauthoritietosite
third party communications mastr s,darsand transponders.
Thisis lessso wherethe landorbuildingsare leaseholdsince
the permission ofthe landlordis required andquestionsof
rentalandthecommerciav lalue ofthe sitebecome anissue.'"39
271. Asthisreview showsc,ertainactivitiesare eitherroutinely requiredf
lighthouseoperatorsorcommonly undertake bythemas partoftheirwider
responsibilitiassociatedw, iththe provisionof a light. Theseincludethe
investigation of marinhazards,thepublicationofwarningsofsuchhazards,
'" Glass-Brewereport,ara.4-36:Annexes,ol2,Annex 1.theregulationofconductand personnea lssociated withthelighthouse, anthe
addition ofstructures and facilitiesto the lighthouseassociated with its
operation and maintenance. This practice is a feature of lighthouse
administrationaround theworld,whetherthe lighthouseadministratoris an
authority oftheterritorialStateornot.
(c) Othercommonelements ofpractice in the adminis&+atio onf
lighthouses
272. There are otherimportantelementsof practicewhichare a common
feature of lighthouseadministration. The reason for distinguishing these
elements from those discussed inthe precedingsections is that they are
discretionaryincharacterand,although closelylinkedwiththe operation ofa
lighthouse,arenot necessarilyconnecteddirectlytotheprovisionofthelight.
Theevidence neverthelessshowsthattheyarewidespread gndlong-standing
inthefieldoflighthouseadministration.
273. Elementsofcommonpracticethatcan beidentifiedfor purposesofthe
present discussioinclude:
thecollectionoflightdues;
s thesiiing of iTStowers;
a non-lightusesof lighthouses;
0 the requirement ofpermissionforthe undertakingof scientificand
technicalsurveys;
0 controlof accessto lighthousesandtheir associated facilitiand
thekeepingoflog books; and
* theflyingofensignsonlighthouses.
274. Eachof theseelementsisaddressed'in Chapter8belowinresponseto
Singapore'sspecificclaims. It isneverthelessusefulatthispointtounderline
thegeneralityofthepractice. (1) Thecollectionoflightdues
275. The collecfionof lightdues has historicallybeen a commonway in
whichthe constructionandmaintenanceof lighthouses hasbeenfunded. As
the volumeof commercial shipping increased,the ownership ofa lighton a
busyshippinglanecouldsecure asignificantincome fromthe collectionof
lightdues.340In other cases,the collection of light dus as and remainsa
commonwayoffundingtheoperationofa lighthouse.CommanderChristmas
notes,for example,that "[iln 1923,the British Government decidet hat, to
ease the financialburdenof administeringthe Gulf lighthouses, lightdues
shouldbeintroduced",withthecollectionoflightduesstartingin 1925.~~H ' e
notes firtherthatthecollectionoflight duescontinuedafterthecreation ofthe
PersianGulf Lighting Service, subsequentlyENAS,"fromanyshipentering
theGulfregion and involveid ncargo distrib~tion".~Significantly,however:
"[tlhere is no clear or establishedlegal basisfor such dues
beingcollectedby MENASbut very few shipping companies
refise to pay (althoughthere aresome). Mostacknowledge
that, if MENASdid not provide the servicesthat it does,
probablynootherbody
276. Looking beyond the practice ofMENAS,CommanderChristmasalso
notesthat the General Lighthouse Authorities responsible fthe provision
andmaintenanceof aidsto navigationin the watersof the United Kingdom
andtheRepublic ofIreland-namely, TrinityHouse,theNorthern Lighthouse
BoardandtheCommissioners of IrishLights-are financedfromthe General
LighthouseFund"which derivesits income mainly fiomlightduescollected
fiom commercial shipping which caa llt United Kingdomand Republicof
Irelandports".344
277. ThejnformalarrangementswhichcharacteriseMENAS'Sactivitiesin
this area apart,an important element associatediththe collectionof light
340
'" P.Beaver,AHistov cfLighthou(LondoPne,tDavies1,971),pp.17-18.
Christmasepor t,ra2.5:nnexesv,ol.,Annex2.
'42 Ibidpm. 3.2.
344 Ibid.,para,8.2, fn 4.dues is the legislativeor administrativewework under whichthis takes
place. As will be addressedin the following Chapter,this is particularly
evidentin respect of the collectionof light duesfiom shippingusingthe
MalaccaandSingaporeStraits,whichwasundertakenpursuanttoa constantly
revisedand updatedlegislativeframework from as early as1852. Thisagain
underlinesthesuigenerischaracter oftheadministratiooflighthousesandits
detachmentfiom questionsofsovereignty.
278. Lightdues collected fiomcommercialshippingcalIingat Republicof
Irelandports pursuantto Irish legislationepaid into a fundunder United
Kingdomadministrationand which in part financesthe GeneralLighthouse
Authorities responsiblefor the provisionof aids to navigation in United
Kingdomwaters. Light dues collected fromcommercialshipping callingat
UnitedKingdomportspursuantto United Kingdom legislationare paidinto a
fund which in part financesthe GeneralLighthouseAuthority which is
responsiblefortheprovisionof aidsto navigationinthe Republicof Ireland.
Light dues - or NavigationDues, or Navdues,asthey are now known -
collectedfiom commercial shipping in the Gulffund1WENASa , charitable
corporation incorporatedunder English law which owns and operates
lighthouseson the territoryof Kuwait,Qatarandthe UnitedArab Emirates.
Qatarisnoteven represented ontheBoardofGovernorsof MENAS.
(2) ThesitingofVTStowersonlighthouses
279. Asregardsthe sitingofWS towerson lighthouses, theGlass-Brewer
Report observesthatVTS "isgenerallyconsided anaidtonavigationandthe
sitingof suchantennaon lighthousesis cornhionlyundertakenby lighthouse
administrat~rs.'~~Theassessmentisechoedh . theIALANuvguide: "it isnot
.. .
uncommonforlighthouses,inparticular,to be,usedfor otherpurposesthat can
345
Glass-Brewereport, ara,37.A "VesselTraEcServi'isdefinedin tIALA
Vesse TrqfJSecrvicesanual,200as:"aserviceimplementedyaCompetenAtuthority,
designed to improhesafetyof vesseltraffitoptvjtecttheenvironmet he service
shouldhavethe capabilityto interactwith thetrafficandretootrafficsituations
developinin the VTSarea"- IALA,Vesse lidc ServicM eanual,2002,para.1.2:
Annexesv,o1., nnex54.include: ...VTS fi~nctions".~~T ~here are todayabout 500 VesselTraffc
Servicesoperationalworldwide.
(3) Common non-lighu tsesof1ie;hthouses
280. In additionto VTS functionsj,ust addressed,theNavgui doetesother
commonnon-light usesas: coastwatchor coastguard functions, as a base for
audible(fog) signals,thecollectionofmeteorologicaland oceanographd iata,
radio andtelecommunicationsfacilitie an,dtourista~ilities.3~'
281. The widespread use of lighthouses for non-light purposesby
lighthouseadministratorsis confirmedbyRear-Admiral Leclair,on behalfof
IALA,by CommanderChristmas,and by CaptainGlass and M Brewer,
Rear-Admiral Leclairobserves:
"Lighthousesare often used for otherpurposesthan aids to
navigation.Thepredominantapplicationsareforthecollection
of meteorological and hydrological data and for
telecommunication installations. More recently, in the
frameworkofamovetopreservethehistoric andculturalvalue
of lighthouses,their use as a tourist attraction has been
developed.''4B
282, CommanderChristmao sbserves:
"There are severaluses to which lighthouse structureshave
traditionallybeen put over the years, besidesthe primary
purposeofdisplayingthelight.Theseinclude:
m as a day-mark,fornavigation during daylight (thereis
a descriptivecolumnintheAdmiralty ListofLightsfor
thestructure,colour,heightetc);
m thesitingofDGPSantennae;349
m thesitingofAISantennaetso
346 : LALA A,idtoNavigationGuide(Navguide(4'edn,December2001),para.3.5.1.3:
Annexes,vol3,Annex53.
348 Ibid.
349 IALANote,Answer4:Annexesv , ol.2,Annex3.
Differential Gloalsitioning SysT.hisusestheGPSsignaltoproduceamore
350urateositionthanS.
Automatic Identificaonstem.Thisis asystemwhereby shipsp'ositions(and
otherinformatioaretransmitteautomaticalynddisplayedin othershipsand/orshore
stations. e thesitingofRACONS;~~'
0
thesitingofradarapparatus;
thesitingofradioantennae;
the collectionof meteorological data. This can be
done either automatically,by remote monitoringof
fittedequipment,orbyverbal reporting if a lighthouse
ismanned;
ifmanned,for assistinginsearchand rescue;
asavisitorattraction.
The only additional uses to which MENAS lighthouse
structureshavebeen putareasa day-mark andforthesitingof
RACONs. Additionaluses to which the United Kingdom
lighthouseauthoritiesputtheir lighthouse structures includeas
a day-mark; the siting of DGPS antennae,AIS antennae,
RACONs, radar apparatusand radio antennae; andthe
collectionof meteoroIogicaldata. Someare also used as a
visitorattra~tion.'~~~
283. Captain GlassandMrBrewer observe:
"Lighthouses have traditionally, ovte re years, been used for
non-light purposes. The automation.and modernisationof
lighthouses, combined with an increasingawarenessof the
historic significancof manyof the structures,has also ledto
an upsurgeinthealternative useofthesurplus accommodation
thatisnolonger required forresident lighthouskeeepers...
Apart f?omtheir corefunctionas aids to navigation,other
~.UUILI~IIrlurl-ilgnusesof iighihouseproper&haveinciuaed:
meteorological observation andrecording stations
(formerlycarriedout by lighthouse keepersand now
automatedwithdatatransmitted byremote link);
coastguardlookouts;
' antennaandtransponderlocations;
militaryoutposts;
e wildlifesanctuaries.
Thislist of traditional on-lightuseshasnow'beenextendedto
commonly include:
holiday cottages;
visitor attractions;
museums;
''I RAdarbeaCONs.These are triggerebya rada pulsetocreata vectoron a radar
screen,emanating frotheKACON'sposition. Theyareused,.e.g.,to differenabuoy, '.'
U onwhicha RACON maybefwed,fromavesselonradar.
'' ChristmasReportpm. 8.8-8.9:Annexes,voI.2,Anne2. i.+, * youthhostels;
* fieldstudycentres;
m restaurants and public houses;
e guest houses;
e shops;
specialist libraries;
* medialocations -forfilp mroductions;
informationcentres.
Thecommonthemeis to secure alternativeusesthat willhelp
to fundthe conservationand maintenanc ofthe stationsforthe
accessandenjoymentoffuture generations."353
284. Thefollowingconclusionm s ay be drawn. theuseof lighthouses
for non-light purposeshas beena featurefor decades. Second,this is true
regardless ofthe profile ofthe lighthouse administras a publicor private
bodyand regardlessofquestionsofsovereignty ovet rheterritoryonwhich the
lighthouse is situated. Third, the siting of communicationsand radar
equipmentand the collection of meteorologicailnformationare common
practices.
(4) Permissiontoundertakescientificandtechnical surveys
285. The questionwhether permissionforthe undertakingof scientificand
technical surveyinthevicinityofalighthouse is requirediomthelighthouse
administratoris addressedby CaptainGlassand MrBrewerinthe following
terms:
"Scientific and technical surveys may have the effect of
interferingwith the effective and reliable operationof a
lighthouse. To this end, it is common practice among
lighthouseoperatortso requirethatpermissionissoughtbefore
anysuchactivitiesarecarriedoninthevicinityofa lighthouse.
For exakple, TrinityHousedoesnot allow any visitortso its
lighthousesunless accompanied by the lighthouseattendant
whois responsiblefotrhe securityofthestation-includingthe
settingand un-settingof alarms and communications to the
OperationsControlCentrein Harwich. Permission to visit a
particular station- whether in respect of Trinity House
personnelor otherwise - is at the discretion ofthe regional
353 Glass-Brewereport,aras.7-29:Annexe, ol.2,Annex1. maintenance manager oT frinityHouse whomaydenyaccessif
maintenance or other essentiw alorksareinprogress.'954
Control of accessto lighthouses andtheir associated
(5) facilities
286. As noted by CommanderChristmas, "lighthouse authorities are
responsiblefor the securityof, and accessto, the lighthousesoperatedby
them".355 ThepointisenlargedintheGlass-Brewer Reportas foflows:
"Secureaccessto the siteof a lighthouse andthe controlof
visitors is invariablythe responsibility ofthe operator of a
lighthouse. Notices similarto those on the gates of Trinity
Houselighthousesarequitecommon,declaringthepremisesto
be private property andwarning of dangers, in order to
maintain security and reduce the risk of liability to
287. The point is underlinedby the Dinity House LighthouseSewice
Regulationswhich addressthe duties and responsibilitiesof lighthouse
keepersand conduct associated with the operationof the lighthouse. This
states that"[v~isitorshallnotbepermittedwithout prior permission from the
Trinity Houseat the followingstations", and proceed to specifya listwhich
e'. includesall unwatchedand semi-watchedlights and a further 15 or so
i;fincir;a!igheIcnges.1; th::cage of g!! !@G*cusgs ,cc.ss ~sr;rp.-~-&ed
"at the discretionof theKeeper-in-Charge".The Regulationsfbther speciQ
that no person may inspect any part of the lighthouse unattendedby a
lighthousekeeper?57 In keepingwiththesearrangements,the Glass-Brewer
Reportnotesthat"it iscommonpracticetohavea logbook to recordvisitsto
-
354 Ibid.,para.50.
355 ChristmaRseport, ar8.7:Annexesv,ol. 2,Annex2.
356 Glass-BreweRreport,ara.49:Annexes, ol2,Annex1.
TrinityHousLighthous eervicRegulationsP,amphlet11, egulatio62-Visitors:
Annex4attachedtoAnnex1,Annexesv , ol.2.
Glass-BreweRreport, ar58:Annexesv, oI.2,Annex1. Theflyingofensignsorflagson1ip;hthouses
(6)
288. Finally, theflying of ensigns on lighthouses mustbe addressed.
Singaporemakes muchofthisin itsMemorial and itsspecificcontentionsare
addressedin Chapter 8 below. But the flyingof ensigns,or in somecases
flags,raises wider issueswhic,ar. conveniently addressed at this point. A
numberofobservationsarerequired.
289. First.the particularstatusof "ensigns"as opposedto flags,must be
noted. Unlikenationalflagswhichare typicallyflown abovelandterritory,
ensignsare not marks of sovereigntybut rather of nationality. As Rear-
AdmiralLeclairnotes: ''
"AMarineEnsignis typicallyusedbyships (military and civil)
to identifytheirnationality.Everyshipmusthavea nationality
and fly her national ensign. The dimensioan nsd, sometimes,
the design oftheMarine Ensigndifferfiomflagsused fornon-
marineactivities. But oftenashore, buildings in relation with
marineactivitiesflyaMarine~nsi~n.'"'~
290. It is notuncommonfor lighthouse authoritietso fly a MarineEnsign
abovea lighthouse.ThisalsoexplainsMalaysia'p sracticeovermanyyearsof
flyingitsNaval Ensign aboveitsWoodlandsNavaB l asein~in~a~ore?~'
291. The same general point is made in the Glass-Brewer Reportv ,iz,
"Ensignsare colourswhich are principallyworn by ships - as generally
designatedbytheFlag ~tate."~'
292. Second,the Glass-BrewerReport notes that"[l]ighthouseauthorities
oftenhavetheirown adaptionofthe 'RedEnsign'[i.e.,themerchantshipping
ensign]of their The TrinityHouse Ensign,for example,is an
adaptionoftheUnited Kingdom RedEnsign.
359
IALANote,Answer 5A : nnexes, ol.Annex3.
See the Affidavitof Rear-AdmirThanabalasingampa,ra.35: Annexes,vol. 2,
36'ex4.
'" Ibid.-BreweRreport, ar.0:Annexesv, o2.Annex1.293. Third, whileit is notuncommonfor lighthouseauthoritiesto flytheir
Ensignsabovetheirlighthouses,suchpractice isnotuniform,especiallytoday
when very many lighthouses are unmanned. Trinity House and'the
Commissionersof Irish Lights continue to fly their Ensigns above the
lighthousesthatthey operateonspecial occasions "asamatteroftraditionand
prideinthe service".363CommanderChristmasnotes,incontrast,that flags
of anykindarenot flownabove MENASlighthouses.36E 4nquiriesundertaken
byCaptainGlassand MrBreweronthepoint among a cross-sectionof IALA
membersdisclosedno uniformity of practice regardintg he flying of either
flagsor ~nsi~ns.~~'
294. Fourth,there is a commonunderstandingthat the flyingof either a
MarineEnsign ora flag of someotherkindabovea lighthouse hasno special
significanceforquestionsof sovereignty. Rear-AdmiraL l eclairobservesthat
"[tlhe use ofa Marine Ensign above a lighthouse hasno special significance
for mariners".366CaptainGlassand MrBrewer note oftheir enquiries that
there is"no appreciation,however,thatthe flyingofEnsignsorflags above a
lighthouse has any bearingon ~overeignty''?~T ~heygo onto comment that
the mariner's response to the flyingof a flag or ensignabove a lighthouse
wouldbe:
"Generally,if the Ensign ofa lighthouse authority was flown
above a lighthouseit would be understood by a mariner or
lighthouse operatoras identifyingthe lighthouse authority,.g.
Trinity House. If a flag flown abovea lighthousewas a
national flag,itwouldbe understood byamarinerorlighthouse
operatoras signifyingthe country entrusted withthe operation
ofthe
295. Commander Christmas endorsets his assessment andadds a further
consideration:
364 Ibid.,para1.
Christmas eport, ar. .1:Annexe,ol.2,Annex2.
366 IALANote,Answerr5:Annexes, vol2.,Annex3.Annex1.
367 GlasbBreweRr eport, ar.1:Annexesv, ol.2,Anne1.
368 Ibid.,pm 32. '"Thesignificanceof anyflagflown abovea lighthousewould
be two-fold:
o the flag wouldalmost certainlyindicatefrom which
State the operating organisationowed' itsexistence.
The British Lighthouse Authorities' flags, whiacre
still flown above some lighthouseson some
occassions,have a UnionFlag as part of the design,
whilemostcountriesflythenationalflag;
a the flag would almost certainly indicatethat the
lighthousewas manned.The absence ofa flagwould
not in itself,however,indicatethatthe lighthousewas
notmanned."369
296. Fifth,the salient points to emerge from the precedingwhich are
supportedbytheevidenceare:
*
there is nouniformpractice regardingthe flyingof Ensignsor
flagsabovelighthouses,
o thereisnonethelessacommonappreciationthattheflyingofan
Ensignoraflag abovea lighthouse:
- wouldnot beunderstoodas having anybearingon the
sovereignty ofthe territoryon whichthe lighthouse was
situated,
-
ifanationalflag,itwouldbeunde'rstood as indicatinthe
nationalityofthelighthouseauthority,
- if a corporateorauthority Ensig,t wouldbeunderstood
asindicatingtheidentityofthelighthouseoperator,
- itwouldprobablysigniQthatthelighthousewas manned.
D, Conelusions
297. The broadconclusionsthat emerge fromthe preceding review of the
law andpractice relatitolighthousesare follows:
(a) Therearenumerous examples, botc hontemporaneous withthe
construction ofHorsburghLighthouseand inthe periodsince
369
Christmas eport,para.7.2:Annevol.2Annex2.
141 then, of the constructionand administration oflighthousesby
States and other entitiesotherthan the authortfthe Stateon
whose territorythe lighthouseis located. Thiswasa particular
featureof Britishpractice regardinglighthousesh the period
from themid-lga to themid-20"centuries.
(b) Britishpracticefkomthemid-lga tothemid-2oacenturiesruns
directly counter to thepropositionthat the constructionand
maintenanceof a lighthouseconstituted,or hadthe intentionof
constituting,"a taking ofawkl possession"of theterritoryon
whichthe lighthousewas situatedfor purposesof sovereignty,
oramanifestationordisplayofsovereignty.
(c) While the administration ofa lighthousemay coexist with
sovereignty over the territory on which the lighthouse is
located,this will not necessarilybe the case. Indeed,it is
commonly accepted - including in the jurisprudence of
internationaltribunals thatthe administrationof a lighthouse
cannot,withoutmore,beregardedasevidenceofsovereignty.
(d) There isanextensivebody.ofpracticebylighthouseauthorities
aroundthe world, whether governmental or non-governmental,
concerningtheadministrationof lighthouses.
!
(e) Thisbodyofpracticereflectsthe generalconductthatwouldbe
undertakenby any operatorof a lighthouseas partof its
administrativresponsibility.
(Q Thispractice neither hingeosn the sovereigntyof theterritory
on which the lighthouse is situated nor is in any way
determinativeofit.
(g) Insofaras conductis undertakenby a lighthouse operatorin
fulfilmentof its responsibilityin respectof the administration
of a lighthouse, tsafortiori irrelevanttothedeterminationof
questionsofsovereignty. Chapter7
THESTRAITS'LIGHTS SYSTEM
Introduction
298. Against the backgroundof general practicesummarisedin the
precedingChapter,this Chapter addressetshe Straits' Lightsstem.370This
was asystemoflighthousesandotheraidstonavigationthatwere established
in the Straits of Singaporeand Malacca in the period 1850-1946 and
administeredfrom the StraitsSettlements. In the period l850 to 1912, 13
lighthouses were establisheads part of this system, including Horsburgh,
Raffles, Pulau Pisang, Cape Rachado and One FathomBank. These
developments alongthe coasts of what are now Malaysia and Singapore
correspondcloselyto parallel initiatiby Britainelsewherein theworldat
the same time. Jus ts the constructionand administrationof lighthouses
duringthisperiod elsewhereconstitutedneitheratakingofpossession"ofthe
territoryon whichthe lighthousesweresituatedfor purposes of sovereignty
nora "continuous displaoyf Statesovereignty",soaIsothe establishmenand
administrationof the Straits' Lights wsot regardedas determinative othe
sovereigntyoftheunderlyingterritory.
A. Background issues
299. Before turningto an examinationof these matters,two preliminary
issues germaneto the followingreview mustbe briefly recalled:(1) the
constitutional position of Singaporndthe Straits Settlementinthe period
between1825-1946andafter 1 946;371and (2)PulauPisangLighthouseand
thestatusof the territoyn whichitstands.
370
37' ThisreviewsupplementtshediscussioninMM,pa222-234.
SeealsoMM,paras .7-60, 189-218. '(i) The constitutionalposition of Singaporeand the Straits
Settlements
300. Followingthe Anglo-Dutchand CrawfurdTreaties of 1824, John
~rawhrd;''theBritishResident,wasinstructed to takeformalpossessionofthe
Islandof sinhaporeand its dependencies. This he didin 1825. In 1826,the
EnglishEast IndiaCompanyunitedPenang,ProvinceWellesley,Malacca,and
Singapore..underthe name of the Straits ~ettlements.~" The East India
Companygovernedthe SettlementsuntiltheActforthe BetterGovernmentof
India1858vestedthem in the British ~rown.~" There isno suggestionthat
thisAct purportedto changethestatusofanyterritory.
301. Bothby legislation before1858,notablybyActsof 1852and 1854,374
andthereafterbyactionin implementationof these Acts until 186 m7,asures
weretakento defiaythecostsoftheStraits' Lightssysteminthe nameofthe
GovernorGenerao lfIndiainCouncil.
302. ByActsof 1866and1 867,37the Straits Settlementsceasedto forma
part of the British possessionsin India underthe Governmentof the said
Governor-General in Council",andtheirgovernment was vested, witheffect;
fiom l April 1867,in the Governorin Council ofthe Straits
Despitethis,fkom1867until 1912thecollectionoftollsorlightduestodefiay
thecostsofthe Straits' Lights systemwas basedontheActof 1854passedby
the GovernorGeneralof India in Council. LRgislative and other measures
concerningthe administrationof the Straits' Lights system were adoptedby
the Governorof the StraitsSettlementin Council inthe periodfi-om1912to
-- --
372 SeefurtheMN, p.29,Insert9.
373 An Act forthBetterGovernmenotfIndia1858(2& 22Vict.,0.106).
374 MMAnnexes84and85.
' AnActtoprovidefor theGovernmenotftheStraiSettlements866(29& 30Vict.,
c.115)An Acttoprovideforthe ExecutiofncertPowersbytheGovernorin Counciland
Officersawfbliyactingas Lieutenant-GoverirstheStraitsSettlements1867 &3031
Vict.).
376 AnActto providefor theExecutioof certainPowersbytheGovernoinCouncil
andOfficerslawhllyactingasLieutenant-GovernionrtsheSSettlements 18630 & 31
Vict.).1946, althougha significantproportionof the fundingof the Straits'Lights
duringthisperiodwasbornebytheFederated Malay
303. Withthe dissolution ofthe Colonyof the StraitsSettlements,andthe
establishmentin 1946 oftheColonyof Singaporeand theMalayanUnion,the
Straits'Lights system ceasedto be administeredas a single system, The
establishment of Singaporaend Malaya did not, however,call intoquestion
existingarrangements forthe administration othe lightsthat formedpartof
the Straits'Lights system. Lighthouseasndother aidsto navigationthathad
previouslybeenadministeredfromSingaporecontinued tobe so administered,
whateverthe statusof the teitory on which they were situated. Straits'
Lights previously administeref drom elsewherein the Straits Settlements
which, after 1946, became part ofthe Malayan Union,continuedto be
administeredbyMalaya.
(ii) PuluuPisanglighthouseand the status of the temitoryon
whichitstandr
304. Pulau Pisang Lighthouseis addressedin Malaysia's Memoriaa lnd
needs only brief comment here?78 The lighthouse is administered by
Singaporetodayandhasbeensince itsestablishmentin 1886, It is,however,
indisputably situaton territorythat waspartof Johorand is todaypartof
Malaysia. Singapore doen sotchallenge this.Thebasisofthe arrangements
was the grantby Johorin 1885 of a plot of landto the Government ofthe
StraitsSettlementsfor the constructandmaintenance of a lighthouse.This
grantwas confirmedbyanIndentureof 6 October 1900.
305. ThearrangementsinrespectofPulauPisangLighthouse,aswithother
lighthouseswhich were part of the Straits' Lights systems,tand as clear
evidence ofthe fact that there was no necessarycoincidencebetweenthe
17' SeealsoMM, paras.23-224.
MM, para.33andMM Annex89.administration lighthouses that formeartofthe systemandthe sovereignty
oftheterritoryon whichthelighthousesweresituated.
B. TheStraits'Lightssystem
) Theexistenceof theStraits'Lightssystem andits legislative
ftamework
306. The existence ofthe Straits'Lights systemis cle4y evidenced from
legislativeandother texts, including some citedheSingapore~emorial.3~~
The preamble ofthe 'Act of 1852for defrayingthe costs of Horsburgh
Lighthouse,provides interalia:
"...whereas the East India Companyagreed to build such
Light-House, and toadvance certain sumsof money to
completethe same,on conditionthat the saidsumsof money
wererepaidto thembythe levy.ofa toll onShipsenteringthe
harbourof Singapore;Andwhereasthe saidLight-Househas
beenbuiltby the East IndiaCompany, and it is desirablethat
the expenseof buildingthe same,and of maintaininga Light
thereon,shouldbedefrayed out ofthemoniesarising fromsuch
toll; And whereas it mayhereafterbe deemed expedientto
establishotherLightsor beaconsintheStraitsofMaZ.acca o,r
elsewherenearthereto...'980
307. ThepointemergesmoreclearlyfromtheActof 1854,whichrepealed
the 1852 Act and madeprovision for dehying the costs not only of
HorsburghLighthousebut alsoof "a Floating Light establishei dn the Straits
of MaIacca,to the West of Singapore,and for the establishmentand
maintenanceof such furtherLights in or near the said Straits as may be
deemed e~~edient~~?S ~'ction111ofthisAct provides:
'me lightmaintainedat the Horsburgh Light-House a,nd the
said FloatingLight established as aforesaida,nd such other
light or lights as shall be establishedby the East India
Companyin lieuof suchFloatingLight,or inadditionthereto,
379
See,e.gSM, para.6.21.
ActNo.XIII of 185MMAnnexdd85.MMAnnex 84.
146 inorneartothe Straitsof Malacca or Singaporse h,allbecalled
'TheStraits'Lights."'
308. Between 1854 and 1946, the Straits' Lightswere referred to
genericallyin various legislativand other measures and document osf the
StraitsSettlements.Forexample,introducingthe firstreadingofwhat wasto
become Ordinance No.XXVIof 1910, amending the 1854Act,the Attorney
General, as a member ofthe Legislative Council otfhe StraitsSettlements,
stated:
'Sir, I beg to movethe firstreadingof this billto amend,in
respectof onesection,Indian ActXI11 of 1854,which provides
for the collectionof light-tollsin respectof lighthousesand
lightsin the neighbourhood ofthe Colony,referredto in the
Act of 1854 asthe Straits~i~hts."~~~
309. The nextsignificantpieceof legislation concerningthe Straits'Lights
was OrdinanceNo. XVIIof 1912 which repealed paro tsf the 1854Actand
made newprovisionfor the maintenanceof the Straits' ~i~hts.~~~ ASthe
statement by the Attorney-Generalin the Straits Settlement Legislative
Councilinthecourse of debate aboutthe Billindicates,thequestionbeforethe
Councilwaswhetherthelights should continuteo be hnded by a light tollor
whether the maintenancecosts shouldbe taken over by the relevant
governments. The motivatingconcern was whethet rhe costs ofthe lighttoll
weremakingthe "British"portsintheregionlesscompetitivethan the"rival
Dutchports".384 TheAttorney-Generasltatedtheissuesasfollows:
"Sir, the desirabilityof abolishingthe LightDues whichare
levied upon vessels enteringand leaving the ports of this
Colonyand are imposedunderthe IndianAct of 1854 wasI
thinkfirstraisedonthe secondreadingof the LightTollsAct
AmendmentOrdinanceof 1910, andI referto that Ordinance
'" Light-TollsAct AmendmentBill, 1910, Statementby the Attorney-General:
Annexes,vol.3, Annex30.TheLightTolls ActAmendment Ordinan 1c9e10repeaand
re lacedsectionofthe1854Act concerninertaiexemptionfsromlight-tolls.
'" PrdininaNce.XVIIof 1911torepealin parItnActNo.XIIIof l854andtomake
newprovisiofor the maintenaoftheLight-houssftheStraitofMalacca,3December
1912:MM Annex90.
384 Seethestatementnsecond readioftheLight-TollsActmendmenB till,1910 by
MrDarbishire:nnexes, ol3,Annex31. because I think the principle wasthere pointed out by the
hon'bleMr. FORT upon whichthe Councilcan properlybe
askedto approveofthisbill,the purposeofwhichisto abolish
these dues.
I shallreadwhat Mr. FORTput forwardin that regard:'The
Act which this bill proposesto amendis an Act which was
broughtinandpassedmanyyearsago forthemaintenanceand
constructionof lighthousesin this part of the world. Now,
thereis a gooddealto be said onbothsidesofthe questionas
to whetherIighthousesshould bemaintainedat the expenseof
the Government or whether they shoulb de maintainedby a
levyon the shipswhich havethe use of those lights. Onthe
whole I am inclined to think that it is better that the
Government should bear the expenso ef supporting the
lighthouses, andforthisreason,thatit is inevitablethat a large
number of ships which have the advantage of using the
lighthousecannotbemadetopay.'
Of course,the hon'ble and learned member was referringto
those shipswhich passin the nightto someotherport, They
havehadtheadvantageofthelightsbutthey donotcometothe
port andthey escape, sowe arereally taxing vesselws hichare
making useofourp~m."385
310. The Bill to which the Attorney-General was speaking was
subsequentlypassedas OrdinanceNo.XVIIof 1912. It repealedinpartthe
1854Act and abolishedthe levying of lighttolls on vessels putting into
Singapore harbour.386
311. TheOrdinance hasa numberof significant features. First,it affirms
the existenceofa systemofStraits'Lights,viz.:
"4. The light maintainedat the HorsburghLight-houseand
allsuchother lightsorbeaconsas arenoworshallhbreafterbe
maintainedby the Governmeritin or near to the Straits of *
~i~h.ms387in~a~ore.shalals,heret_. ..I *called'TheStraits'
385 Statemenbythe Attorney-Generoal thereadingof theLight-HouBill, 1912:
Annexes,vol.3,Annex32.
SeeMM,paras.223-226.The OrdinancereproducedinMMAnnex 90.
'" Ordinanceo. XVIIof 1912S.4:MMAnnex 90.
148312. Second,it recordsthat, withthe abolitionof light tolls,the costsof
maintainingthe Straits' Lightssystemwas to be sharedby the Colonyof
SingaporeandtheGovernments otfheFederatedMalay States,viz.:
"Wl3EREASwith the view of abolishingthe tolls leviable
undertheprovisionsofIndianAct No.XIIIof 1854uponships
departingfromor enteringthe ports harboursor roadsteadsof
the Colony an arrangement hasbeen made between the
Governments ofthe FederatedMalay Statesand the Colony
whereby theGovernmentof the Federated MalayStateshas
agreed to contributeto the cost of maintainingthe Straits
lights."388
313. In fact thefinancialburdenontheFederated MalayStatespursuantto
thisarrangementwas considerable. For examptlh e, total costofmaintaining
the 15Straits' Lightinexistencein 1914wasrecordedas$41,020.52.~~T ~he
minutes ofthemeetings ofthe Federal Council otfheFederatedMalayStates
on 8 July 1913recorda "special appropriationo"fa sumof$20,000tomeeta
share of the costof maintainingthe One-Fathom Bank and Cape Rachado
Lighthouses.Asthisamountwas significantly greate hanthe $5,725.92that
is recordedas the cost of maintainingthese two lighthousesin 1914,this
contributionby the Federated MalayStates effectivelyamounted to a
contributiontothe'b~istfmaintainingthesystemofStraits'Lightsasawhole.
The explanation&en .by theChief Secretary ofthe Federal Council ofthe
Federated Malay StatpsattheJuly1913meetingisasfollows:
"This is quite anewdepartureso far as the FederatedMalay
StatesGovernmentis concerned. Inthe past,these twolight-
houses, which are off the coast of this country,have been
entirelymaintainedby the ColonialGovernment. Up till the
endof last yeartheColonial Governmen dterived revenuefrom
collectingduesfromships passing upand downthe Straitsto
defray thecostofmaintaining themb ,uta newpolicyhasbeen
decideduponintheColony.Ithasbeendecidedto abolishthe
light dues altogether, thereby conferring considerable benefit
on all shippingpassing throughthe Straits. I think it is an
international obligation that each countyouldbearthe cost
of maintaininalllightsconsiderednecessary onitscoasts,and
Ithinktherecan hardlybeany question nowthatwe shouldnot
388 - -
389 MM,para.224.SeealsMM2,Annexes65,66.nex 90. be doing our dutyif we did not come forwardand offer to
maintainthesetwo very useful light-houses.
SolongastheColonial Governmentwere reapin tgebenefitof
the light duesitwasonlyright thattheyshouldmaintain them,
but now, as they are givingup the dues, it is hardlyfair to
expectthemto continuemaintainingthen. Therefore,subject
totheapproval of Councilw , eproposetoassumeresponsibility
for these two light-houseosffthe coastsof SelangorandNegri
Sembilan,respectively. Therewere two coursesopento us.
Onewas to actually assumethe responsibilityfor maintaining
thelights,toprovide crewsand providefortheirrelief andkeep -.
upthe lights themselves.It wouldbe rather difficultfor us to
do this at once because light-houser sequired [sic]constant
expert attendancea,ndinSingaporetheyhaveanofficialwhose
dutyit isto lookafterlight-housesandseethateverythingis in,.
properorder.
It wasaccordingly decided that insteadofactuallytransferring
the maintenanceof the lights we should let the Colonial
Government go on maintainingthe lights,asthey havedonein
the pastina veryefficientcondition,andto contributetowards
the cost of them. It was decided, subjectto the approvalof
Council,tooffer asumof$20,000a year. I thinkthisisa very
fair amount,but at the same timewe reserveto ourselvesto
takeoverthetwolights."390
314. Thebasic assumption was evidentl hat the merefactthat theColony
of the StraitsSettlements administered the lighthousesin question didnot
mean kai iihad titieto the-territoron wnichthe iighfnousesweresiruareci.
The Straits Settlements administered the Straits' LighEsas a matter of
convenience, becausie thadthe @&ssaryexpertiseto do so.
315. The position of Horsburgh Lighthouse requirec somment in this
context;.HorsburghLighthouse, like Pulau PisangLighthouse, was situatedon
the territory ofJohor. Johor was :qotone of the FederatedMalaystates.Jgl
While itis notclearwhether~oho9,:ade anycontributiontothemaintenance
of Horsburgh andPulau Pisang.Lighthouses,this does not obscure the
findmental pointthatemergesi?omthe precedingextract. Itwascommonly
>:.S
.-...
States,Sinutes otfheMeetof8S~u1yr1913,B8:FMMAnnex65.cilof theFederateMalay
39' MM,para. 198.
.:. acknowledged,not simplyby the FederatedMalay States but also by the
British representative^ t,at'^the maintenance and administration of a
lighthousebytheColonyoftheStraits'settlement hadnonecessary bearing on
the sovereigntyof the territoryon which the lighthousewas situated but,
rather,wasdictatedbytheColony'sexpertise.
3 16. .Third,theformulationof section sand5ofOrdinanceNo.XVIIleave
littleroom for~doubtthat theinterestinHorsburghLighthousewithwhichthe
StraitsSettlementswas concernedwasa privatetawinterestofownershipand
control and not an interestof sovereignty. Sections 3 and 5 provideas
follows:
"3. The light-houseknownas the Horsburgh Light-house
situateon the Islandrockcalled Pedra Branca at the eastern
entranceofthe StraitsofSingaporeand allotherlight-housesas
are now establishedin or near to the Straitsof Malacca or
Singaporetogetherwith theappurtenancesthereofandall the
fixturesapparatusandfurniture belonging theretoshallremain
thepropertyof and beabsolutelyvested in theGovernment."
"5.--(1) The management and controlofthe Horsburgh Light-
iiouseandotherlight-houses establishedinorneartotheStraits
of.,Malaccaor Singaporeas aforesaidand ofthe StraitsLights
shallremain vestedinandbemaintainedbythe Government.
(2) No tolls shallbe paidfor any ofthe StraitsLightsin
respect of any vessel enteringor departing f?om my port
harbouror roaddtegdof the Colonywhethersuch vessel has
passed or woukbpass anyof the said lightsor not but all
necessary sums ofmoneyrequiredto pay the Costof their
. ~ . , maintenance shall aftertakinginto accountthe amountof any
.- .;contributionpaidtowardssuchcostbythe Governmentof the
FederatedMalayStatesbe providedfor outof the revenuesof
; tfil;,~olony.'~~~
... .
ii2i:;<i; : I . .,.
. ..
..,.'. .:4.
.f,.,,,'.,' .
.: , : ..
ThosepresentattheFederaC l ouncilmeetingatwhich thestatemenb tytheChief
Secretarywas made included the (British) HonouR raebieentsof Perak,SelangorN , egri
Sembilan andPahanga ,swellasthe HonourabL legalAdviser: MinutesoftheMeetingof 8
July1913, p.1:MMAnnex65,
393 MM, Annex 90.317. That these sections addresoswnershipin privatelaw rather than
sovereigntyunder internationallaw is confirmedbythrec onsiderations.
First,thisreading accos iththeplainand ordinarymeaninogfthewordsof
the sections. Second, itaccordswith similarlanguageused in legislation
concerned withthe administratiof lighthousesiontherpartsof the world
whichdid not involvethe acquisitionor transferof sovereign rights. One
exampleofthis istheBritishandCanadianlegislatioof 1886concerningthe
transfer of ownership and controo lf the Cape Race Lighthouse
Newfoundland from ~htain to Canada,which wascast in similarterms?94
Third, itaccordswiththe understanding expresbytheChief Secretaryof
the Federal Councilof the FederatedalayStatesquotedabove andthe
contributiobythoseStatestothemaintenanceofthe Straits' Lights.
318. Afcvther OrdinanceoftheStraitsSeqlements,n1915,toauthorisethe
collectionof dues for Lighthouses establisheby Act of the Imperial
Parliament,illustratesrrtherthat themeasures tak,ncludinglegislation,
forthemaintenanceof lighthousinsterritoriescomingwithBritishimperial
purview wereneitherbasedonnor determinativoefquestionsofsovereignty.
Thus,the ImperialLightDuesOrdinance1915, whichfinallyrepealedthe
IndianAct XI1 1f 1854in itsentirety, provii,nsection3,that"[a]lldues
forthe lightsonthe GreatBassesandLittleBasses Rock searthe coastof
Ceylon"and, in section 4, that"[a]11dues for the lighton the islandon
Miii~oy'~w,eretobecollectedintheStraitSettlements.Bysection11ofthe
Ordinancet,heduessocollected whereto "be disposed ofnsuch manneras
HisMajesty's Principal SecretorfyStatefor theColoniesmay,omtimeto
time,direct,''" Noneoftheseterritories partoftheStraitsSettlements.
394 Seeparagrap2s9-11above.
OrdinanNco.XVIIof191Annexesvol3,Annex34.319. Bythe StraitsSettlements(Repeal)Act 1946, provisiowasmade' for
the repeal ofthe StraitsSettlementAct 1866andthedissolutionofthe Straits
Settlementsas a singlecolony. By the Singapore Colony Ordeirn Council
1946, Singapore was establishedas a separate colony.396 With these
developments,theStraits' Lightseasedtobeadministeredasa singlesystem.
Lightspreviously administerefdromSingapore continued to be administered
fromtheColonywithoutprejudice to thesovereigntyoftheterritoryonwhich
they were located. Lights previously administered from elsewhere itnhe
Straits Settlementwere subsequentlyadministeredby Malaya. At no point
did these and subsequent developmentaslter the status of the territoryon
whichthelightsinquestionwerebased.
(ii) Lightswhichformedpart of the Straits' Lightssystem
320. Act No. XI1 of 1854,whichfirst defined Straits' Lights, refertd
two lights,HorsburghLighthouseandtheFloatingLightat2%Fathom Bank.
By the time of the Reporton theStraits Settlements Durinthe Year1857-
1858,''three MarinNe avigationLights underthe Straits'Government" were
noted,viz.,Horsburgh Lighthouse R,affles Lighthouse, anthe 2%Fathom
BankFloating ~ight.3" ByJuly 1883a, papertobelaid beforetheLegislative
Councilof the StraitsSettlements identifi8 lightsas part of the Straits'
Lights system,viz.,Horsburgh LighthousR,afflesLighthouse, MalaccLaight
(a harbour light),Cape RaehadoLighthouse, Singapore Ligh(ta harbour
light), the Screw Pilegh'&&se(also known as the One FathomBank
Lighthouse),Pulau UndanLighthouse,and the FormosaLight Vessel. It
Mher referredto enquiriesrespecting"the establishment ofa light-houseat
PulauPisangandtheremovalofthelight-vesselnowstationedattheFormosa
Banktothe Sultan ~hoal''.~~~
397 MM Annex 92.
ReportontheAdministratoftheStraits SettlemtsuringtYear1857-58,p.
16:Annexes,vol.3,Annex22.
Governor6July1883:Annexesv,ol.3,Annex25.cilbyCommand ofHisExcellencthe321. Bythe timeofa 19September1893letterfromthe Straits Settlements
totheColonialOfficeinLondon,thenumberofStraits'Lightshadrisento 12
(withsome changesin the lightspreviouslynoted), viz.,. Muka Head,-Fort
Cornwallis,Pulau Rirnau, One Fathom Bank(or ScrewPile), CapeRachado,
Harbour Light, Pulau Undan,Pulau Pisang,Raffles Light,'Ajax'Light-ship,
Singapore Harbour Lighta,nd Horsburgh,Light. The letterfurtherrequested
permission"to improvethe existingfacilities byconstructinganewlighthouse
onSultanShoalnear ~in~a~ore".~~~
322. Atthe pointof the 1912Ordinance abolishing light duetsh ,e number
of Straits'Lightshadrisento 13,againreflectingchangesinthe composition
since theearlierlists. These lights, togetherththedatesonwhich theywere
bj
built, were givenasfollows:
"Station ... WhenBuilt
HorsburghLight, Singapore 1850
FortCanningLightD , o. 1903
RafflesLight,Do. 1856
PulauPisangLight,Do. 1886
Sultan.Shoa1 Light,Do. 1896
Pulau UndanLight,Malacca 1880
CapeRachadoLight,Do. 1863
TT--- - mr?-*.Ln-ht,Do. r or1
nZLruuu rlgUL,VU. OUl
PulauRimauLight,Penang 1884
HarbourLightD , o. 1884
MukaHeadLight,Do. 1883
TanjongHantu Light,Do. 1901'*0°
323. These 13 lights, constructedbetween 1850 and 1901, may
conveniently bedescribedasthe original StraitsL 'ights. By 1938,thenumber
Ig9 Letter froWilliamMaxwell,Governorof theStraitsSettlementst,othe Colonial
Office,19September1893:Annexes,vol3,Annex29.
400 .StraiSettlementslueBookfor theYear1912,pp.V2-V3:Annexes,vol.3,Annex
33.Thenotationfollowingthenameof eachlightis tothestation whwasresponsiblfor
theadministratiofeach light.Thenotati"Do."is"ditto".of"lighthouses,light beacons, light buoys and ligshtipsylisted inthe Straits
Settlements BlueBookforthe yearhadreached 65.4''
324. Significantly, at various points throughout this period and
subsequently, referenceis made in the Annual Reports for the Marine
Departmentof theStraitsSettlements,andsubsequently of Singapore,to"the
Singapore group of lighthouses".The Annual Reporo t f1931 notes theseas
"comprisingHorsburgh light, Rafflelsight,Sultan Shoallight and PuloPisang
TheAnnualReportfor 1948 addsFortCanningLighthouseto this
list?03 The description"Singapore Groupof Lighthouses"refers to the
principallighthouses administeredfrom Singapore, notto lighthousessituated
on Singapore territory.This is evidentfiom two considerations. First,the
Straits SettlementsBlueBooksrecordeach lighthouseby referenceto the
"station"whichwas responsibleforitsadministration.As notedinthe table
set out above, Singaporeis recorded as the station responsible forthe
administrationof eachofthe fivelighthousescharacterisea ds the"Singapore
Groupof Lighthouses". Second q,uiteapartfiomthe referenceto Worsburgh
Lighthouse,this readingof the phraseis confirmedbythe inclusionamongst
the SingaporeGroupofLighthousesof Pulau PisangLighthouse.
(iii) Permission fiom Malay rulers for constructionand
administrationoflights
325. Of the 13 original Straits' Lights lighthouses notebdove,fourwere
locatedon territorythat was notpart ofthe StraitsSettlements-Horsburgh,
PulauPisang,CapeRachado andOneFathomBank(or ScrewPile). Inthe
caseof each oftheselighthouses, permissiofn iomthe localMalayRulerfor
theconstruction andtoradministrationotfhelighthouseisapparent.
40'
StraitsSettlemen, lueBookfor the Year1938,pp.978-985:Annexes,vol. 3,
4"nex36.
AnnualReportfortheMarineDepartmenSt,trdtsSettiementsf,orYear1931, p.
403Annexes,vol.3, Annex35.
Annexes,vol.3, Annex37. the MarineDepartmen,ingaporef,or the Year1948,p. 10:326. Thepermission from Johorin respectof HorsburghLighthouseneeds
nofurther discussion. Referencehas also alreab deen madetothepermission
byJohorin 1885, confirmedbytheIndentureof 1900, forthe constructionof
thePulau PisangLighthouse.
327. As regards CapeRachadoLighthouse, permissionfor itsconstruction
tookthe formof a Proclamationby Raja Juma'at,the rulerof the Selangor
Stateof Lukut,of 23 August1860, whichmade over "tothe Governmentof
the~ueenof England,CapeRachado",providedthat:
"the English Governmend to covenantand agreeto buildand
keepa Lighthouseforthe benefitof all nations in relation of
their shipsor boatsuponthe said Cape Rachado (commonly
called Tanjong Tuan) and in the event of the English
Governmentfailing to abidebythe said agreement,then,ani dn
such case,thecessionuponmyparttobenullandvoid.'**
This Proclamation was subsequently give tne imprimaturof the Sultanof
Selangor ina lettertothe Governorof the StraitsSettlementson26November
1860?05
328. The scopeof this "cession"of Cape Rachadoto Britainin 1860was
authoritatively clarifidythe statementbySir Ekiward LewisBrockman,the
Znier"Secretaryof theFederaiCounciiof theFederate6iviaiayStates,iniuiy
1913.Asregardsboththe CapeRachadoand OneFathomBank Lighthouses,
he affmed thatitwasopentotheFederated Malay States"toactually assume
the responsibilitformaintainingthe lights"andthat"we reserveto ourselves
to take overthe two lights"?06 It is quite clear, thereforet,hat evenin the
mindsof British officials, hat hadbeengivenin 1860wasa grant oflandand
associated permission for the construction and operation oaflighthouseat
CapeRachado, not acessionof sovereignty.
404
Britain23August1860:Annexes,vol3,Annex23.gardintheCessionof CapeRachadoto
405 MMAnnex 62.
406 Seeabove,paragraph13. Theadministrationo tfeStraits' Lights
(iv)
329. The StraitsSettlementsBlueBooksrecordnext toeach lighthouse the
Straits Settlementstationto whichthey wereallocatedand from which they
were administered.In the caseofthe 13 originalStraits'Lights,the relevant
stationswereas
Horsburgh Light Singapore
FortCanning Light Singapore
RafflesLight Singapore
PulauPisangLight Singapore
SultanShoalLight Singapore
PulauUndanLight Malacca
Malacca
CapeRachadoLight
One-Fathom BankLight Malacca
Harbour Light Malacca
PulauRimauLight Penang
Harbour Light Penang
MukaHeadLight Penang
TanjongHantuLight Penang
330. Onthedissolution oftheColonyofthe Straits Settlementsin 1946and
the establishment othe Colonyof Singaporeand the MalayanUnion,the
administrationof the various fighthouses anlights which comprisedthe
Straits'Lightssystemcontinuedto rest withthe station thathad previously
beenresponsibleforthem. Thesedevelopments did not,however,bringabout
any changein the pre-existingstatusof the territoryon which the various
lighthouseswere located. Thusa,fter1946, ofthe 13original StraiLights,
Singapore continuedto bethe "station"responsiblefor the administrationof
Horsburgh,Fort Canning,Raffles, PulaPisangandSultan ShoalLighthouses.
Ofthese,boththe Horsburgh and Pulau PisangLighthouseswere locatedon
Johor territorywhich,in 1946, becamepart @Ethe territoryof the Malayan
Union. Correspondinglyt,he MalayanUnionassumed responsibility fo the
continued administration ohe remaining 8 lighthousesthat had previously
been managedfromtheMalaccaandPenangstations.
407 StraitsSettlemslueBookfor theYear191pp.V2-V3: Annexevol3, Annex
33. (V) Theadministrationofthe Straits'Lights@er 1946
331. In the period after1946, both Singaporeand the Malayan Union
(subsequently the Federation oMf alaya,thereafter, Malaysia) took stso
maintainthe sound administratioof the Straits' Lights fr hich they were
responsible. In bothcases, thedecisionas takento reintroducethe levying
of light duessthemeansof fundingthemaintenance ofthelights. Thust,he
Federationof Malayaenactedthe Federation LightDues Ordinance 1953,
whichestablisheda LightDues,Boardand providedfor the paymentof a11
dues collected pursuantto the Ordinanceinto a Light DuesFund to be
administeredbytheBoard.
332. Singapore, similarly,nactedaLight DuesOrdinancein 1957. This
also establisheda LightDues Boardand aLightDuesFund. ThisOrdinance
wasamendedbythe LightDues (AmendmentO ) rdinance1958 and was later
repealedand re-enactedwith amendments bythe Singapore Light Dues Act
1969. Othermeasureswere taken subsequently.
333. The Singapore light dues legislation was discussed in detail in
Malaysia's~emorial?~~Anyadditional commena tt thispointisunnecessary,
BliiasSingapore purportsto makesomething ofthis legislationy it mabe
helpfblto recallthe salientconclusionsonthis issueas setout in Malaysia's
Memorial:
The SingaporeLight Dues (Amendment)Ordinance 1958
acknowledgesthatHorsburghLighthouse was notpartof the
territoryof theColonyof Singapore.ThisfoIIowsbothfiom
the express terms of the Ordinancaend fiom the common
treatmentintheOrdinance ofthePuIauPisangandHorsburgh
~ighthouses?'~
MM, paras246-256.
409 SeeSM, para6.23-6.25.
4'0 MM, paras.248-250. a This appreciation is affirmed by the express termsof the
SingaporeLight DueA s ct1969?11
e Thislegislation is particularly significant for present purposes
as it is special legislationwhich addresses Singapore's
administrationof lighthousesin the Straits of Malacca and
Singapore specifically?12
e This legislation isalso particularly importants it straddles
Singapore's transitiofnromcolonialstatusto participationin
theFederation of Malaysitaoindependence astheRepublicof
singapore?13
334. It mayalsobehelpfulto recallthat thisretidingofthe Singaporelight
dues legislation correspondw siththe viewof J.A.L.Pavitt,for manyyears
Singapore'sDirectorofMarine,thatHorsburghLighthousedidnot form part
of singapore?14
C. Conclusions
335. Thegeneral conclusiont shatemergefromthepreceding review are as
follows:
(a) British practiceintheestablishmentandadministration of the
Straits'Lightssystemfiom 1850to 1946corresponds closely
to British practice elsewherein the world duringthe same
period.
Practiceinrespect of boththe Straits'Lights systemandother
(b)
lighthousesaroundthe world confirmthat the construction
andadministrationof lighthousesneither constitutea dtaking
of possession ofthe territoryon whichthe lighthouseswere
4" MM, p~xas.51-254.
4'2 MM,para.255.
413 MM,para2 . 56.
4'4 MM,paras.257-263. situatedforpurposesof sovereigntynor,assuch,a display of
Statesovereignty.
(c) This conclusiondrawsparticular support,in the case of the
Straits'Lights,mmthefollowing facts:
0 the arrangementsin respect ofthe PulauPisang,Cape
RachadoandOneFathomBank Lighthouses(as well
asthoseinrespectofHorsburghLighthouse);
0 the cost sharing arrangementsa ,nd the appreciation
thatunderpinned them, inrespectoftheStraits'Lights
aftertheenactmentof the 1912Ordinanceabolishing
lightdues;
0 the expressfocus,in the 1912Ordinance,on private
law concepts of ownershia pnd controlratherthanon
sovereigntyasamatter of internationallaw;.
e the termsof the 1915 Ordinancew , hich providedfor
the collection of lighduesbythe Straits Settlements
in respectof lights thatwere indisputablylocatedon
non-StraitsSettlementsterritory.
On the dissolutionof the Straits Settlementsin 1946andthe
(d)
establishmentof the Colonyof Singaporeand the Malayan
Union, the administration of particular Straits' Lights
continuedto beundertakenby the "stations"that had been
responsible fortheir administrationpritor1946.
(e) This practice after1946did not affect any changein the
sovereign status ofthe territory on which the particular
lighthouseswere located.
336. In Chapter V1 of its Memorial, Singapore advanced conduct
undertaken in its capacity as administrator of Horsburgh Lighthous in
isolation fromthe realitiesbothof practicerelating tolighthousesin general
andthe sui generisarrangementsofthe Straits'Lightssystem in particular, of
which HorsburghLighthousewas a part. Thesignificanceof this widercontextforthepresentcaseis cogentlystated byCaptain GlassandMrBrewer
intheirReport:
"In the case of the Horsburgh Lighthouse t,he roleperformed
by the Maritimeand Port Authority of Singaporemight be
comparedto that of MENAS. Indeed,we understandthatthe
Horsburgh Lighthouse was one o af number of lighthouses
establishedby the British alongthe Malacca and Singapore
StraitsandadministeredfiomSingapore.Thiswouldmakethe
analogywith MENASstrongerstill. In the Gulf,MENASis
responsible for allmattersrelatingto the aidsto navigation
whichit ownsoroperates, includint gheprovisionofNoticesto
Mariners. It raises itsrevenuefiom navigationdues. It does
not, however, assume anyterritorial rightsin undertaking its
roleforthe provisionof aidsto navigation(save in respectof
the express donation of land for its Bahrain base of
~~erations).'"'~
415 Glass-Brewereport, ara.17:Annexe,ol.2,Anne1. Chapter S
CONDUCT CL D BY SINGAPORE TO BE
A TITM DESOUVEWN
Introduction
337. Referringto aNoticetoMarinersissuedbytheGovernorofthe Straits
Settlementson 24 September1851to markthe completion ofHorsburgh
Lighthouse, Singapore contentsat thisasin effect thebeginning ofthe
continuous, open and peaceful display of Stateauthority exercised by
Singaporeand her predecessors over PedraBranca followingits lad1
possessionbythe United~in~dorn".~'It goesonto referto the"exerciseof
Stateactivitiesover PedraBranca"and contendsthat"[alpart f?omtaking
possessionof Pedra Branca and building andperatingthe lighthouse,the
Singaporeauthoritiesandtheirpredecessorshaveadministered and controlled
PedraBranca in awide-rangingnumberof w@'~" There follows alist of
nofewer than13 forms of conduct hichSingaporepraysinaidof itsclaimto
suvGrt;lgnby.
338. Pursuing the theme, Singapore contendsthat "the exercise of
sovereignty..relatednotsimplyto the lighthouse,but alsoto the islandasa
whole as well as to its territorialwatersand encompassed numernon-
lighthousea~tivities"?'~It contendsthat this activityis evidencebothof its
sovereigntyand of its continued intentto actas sovereign?" In contrast,it
contendsthat Malaysia hasnever acted as sovereign,that Johor expressly
416 SM,para.6.4.
4'7 SM,para.6(emphasisdded).
4'8 SM,para.6.41.
419 SM,para. .96-1.1.disclaimed sovereignty and that Malaysia has recognised Singapore's
sovereigntyovetrhe
339. This Chapter respondsto these claims concerning the conduct of
The claimsconcerning Malaysia's condua cte addressed in
Singapore.
Chapter9below. The essentialproposition concerninS gingapore's conducits
straightforwardt:hereisnothing-not a singleitem-in theconducton which
SingaporereliesthatiscapableofsustainingSingapore's claim to sovereignty.
Overwhelminglyt,he conductcitedby Singapore"formspart of the general
conductthatwouldbeundertakenbyanyoperatorofa lighthouseaspart-gfits
administrativere~~onsibility"?~T' his isthe viewof those whoare expertin
thefieldoflighthousemanagement antd heprovisionof aidstonavigation.In
whatever way Singapore attemptto s present thisconduct,it doesnotrise to
thelevelof conduct h titrdesouverain.In theisolatedinstancesinwhichthe
conduct citedbySingaporegoesbeyond generalconductintheadministration
of a lighthouse, ittakes placeafter thecriticaldate and ismanifestlyself-
servingin the context.of this dispute. There isnothing, therefore,in the
conduct reliedonbySingapore,thatsupportsSingapore's case.
340. Before addressing Singaporec 'laims directly, itis usefulto recall
thoseelementsof Singapore's conduc wthichundermine itsanalysisandthe
apparentcoherence ofthe positionthat it nowputs forward. There arethe
instrumentsto which Singapore was aparty, as well as its own internal
measures and documentw s,hichdefine Singapore'tserritorialreach butomit
all referenceto PBP. They include(a) the Straits Settlemena tnd Johore
Territorial Waters Agreement, 1927:~ (b) the Singapore Police
420
42' SM,Chapters 11andVIII.
MM,paras.190-192,220-221.nnexesvol2,Annex 1..
164Commissioner's Curfew (Johor Setraits) (Singapore)Order 19.48:~and (c)
successive annuavl olumesofthe officialSingaporeFactsand Figures which
go intoexhaustive detailon the islandsthatfallwithinSingapore'sterritorial
waters.424This conductincludes:the practice ofthe StraitsSettlementsin
respectof the administrationof the Straits'Lights,which confirmsthat the
administrationof Iighthouseswasnever regarded as a mark of ~overeignty;~"
the appreciationof Singapore'sownDirector ofMarine aboutthe statusof
Horsburgh ~i~hthouse;~~ Singapore'spost-1946lightdues legislation,which
straddles the period of Singapore'schanging constitutional statusand
evidencesSingapore'sunderstandingthroughoutthis time that Horsburgh
Lighthousewasnot within Singapore's sovereignty,42 andthe 1973territorial
sea delimitation agreemenb tetweenIndonesiaand Singapore,the terms of
whichsupporttheconclusionthatSingaporedid notatthetime considerthatit
hadsovereigntyover PBP?~*
341. Against this background,the question is not simply whetherthe
conduct on which Singaporenow relies is capable ofsustaining(in the
abstract) someclaim to title. It is whether thisconduct (a) is capableof
constitutingconduct d titre de souverainy& (b) is sufficientto offsetthe
inference against sovereigntw y hich derivesfrom Singapore's inconsistent
practice just noted, (c) is sufficientto displaceMalaysiansovereignty
basedon Johor'soriginal titleto the island andits consent tothe useof the
islandasaspotfor thelocation of a lighthouse.
423 MM,paras. 194197.
424 MM, paras. 07-218.
42' MM,pwas.222-226,andseeChapte7 r above.
426 MM,paras2 . 27-234,257-263.
427 MM,paras2 .46-256.
428 MM,paras2 . 64-266.OnthiselementseefurChapter10below. It is necessaryto consider Singapore's claims concerning conduct
342.
systematically.Forthesepurposes,the itemisedlistof conduct in paragraph
6.6ofSingapore's Memorialwib lletakenasastartingpoint.
A. Claimsconcerning enactinglegislation relatintgoPedra Branca
andHorsburgh ~i~hthoase~'~
343. Singaporeclaimsthat it, anditspredecessors,enacteda seriesoflaws
relatingto Pedra Branca,includingmeasuretsodefraythecostsofestablishing
andmaintaining Horsburgh Lighthouse.It further arguesthat thesemeasures
were open andnotorious and did not elicitanyprotestfkomMalaysia. The
specific measures citedby Singapore and on whicih tsdiscussion principally
focuses include AcN t o.V1 of 1852.i.d.Ac.tNo;XI11 of 1854,passedbythe
GovernorGeneralofIndiainCouncilconcerningthe levyingandcollectionof
light dues, anSingapore'sLight Dues Ordinance 1957, Lig Dhtes(Repeal)
Act1973andProtectedPlaces(No. 10).Order,.991.430
344. This list of measures is interestinfor whatit omits, Althougha
passingfootnotereferenceis madeto the StraitsSettlements' Light-Houses
Ordinance1912,whichrepealedthe 1854ActonwhichSingaporerelies, there
isnodiscussion whatever otfhismeasure.Aswillbe re~alled,4t'e express
terms of the 1912 Ordinancet ,he dis2%ssionleading up to it, and its
consequences, notablyinthe formoftheEignificantfmancialcontributionby
the Federated MalayStatesto the maintenanceof the Straits'Lights, are
highlypertinentto thepresentcase andcontradictthepositionthat Singapore
nowseeksto present. The sameis &e of the omissionof anyreferenceby
Singaporeto its LightDues(Amendment) Ordinance 1958and itsLightDues
Act 1969, both of which,bytheirterms,constitute compelling evidencethat
429 SM,para6..6(a),
430 SM,paras.6.10-6.26.
43' Seeabove,paragraph09Seealso,MM, paras.23-226.
166HorsburghLighthouse did not fall withitn heterritoryof theColony,andlater
theRepublic,of ~in~apore?~~
345. Giventheseomissions,thepicturethat Singaporepurportsto paintby
referenceto "legislationrelatingtoPedra BrancaandHorsburghLighthouse"
isbothpartial andmisleading.
346. Beyondthis, the conducton which Singaporedoes rely requiresa
numberofcomments.
347. First,it is notable that,in its discussionof the 1852and 1854Acts
concerning light dues, Singapom reakes no mention atalloftheStraits'L , ights
systemand the practice,stretchingfrom 1852 throughto 1946and beyond,
concerningtheadministration of theselights. Singapore opensthisdiscussion
with the words "[tlhe exerciseof legislativeauthorityover Pedra Branca
beganon 30 January1852whenthe GovernmentofIndiaenactedActNo.VI
of 1852"'~~B ~utthis is wrong, as anydiscussionofthe wider contextof the
administrationof the Straits'Lights wouldhave shown. It was not the
exerciseof legislative authority oveP redra Brancathat began in 1852 but
rather the legislative provisionfor maintenanceand administrationof the
Straits'Lights, of which HorsburghLighthousewas an important part.
Singapore's claim tha ttismeasurewas "clearly anexerciseofjurisdiction 6
fifredeso~verain'*~ i~unsustainable.Thepracdceofthe British,Indianand
StraitsSettlements gover'nmen.i.nmakingprovisionforthe maintenanceand
adminish .ti.i.o;,r<.:thousesingeneralandthe Straits'Lightsinparticularis
diametricdil$oppds&.$ .. .-tecontentionthat this practicewas intendedto
' ' . . I
constitutea taking of possession ofthe territoryon which the particular
lighthouses werelocatedfor purposesof sovereignty.The pointhasalready
been filly exploredinChapter 3 and7above.
432
SeeMM, paras.46-256,andhrtherabove,pmgaph 333.
433 SM, para.6.11.
434 SM, pm. 6.16.348. Second,Singaporereliesonthe 1852 and 1854 Actsin support ofthe
contentionthat"the 1852 and 1854 Acts formally vestedtitleover Horsburgh
Lighthouse and its appurtenancesin the British Crown for internal
constitutionalpurposes"~3s The reference hereto "internal constitutional
purposes" ismisleadingand no doubt designed to conveythe impressionof
conduct h titrdesouverain.Thisisnotthecase. Onthecontrary,quiteapart
from the wider StraitsyLights context ofthe legislation, referenceto the
expresstermsof the legislationcannot sustatne implication. Thus, sectioIn
ofthe 1852 Actprovides:
'"TheLight-Houseon Pedra Brancaaforesaidshall be called
'TheHorsburghLight-House,' ant he said Light-House,and
the appurtenances thereunto belongingor occupied for the
purposes thereof;andall the fixtures, apparatus, afbrniture
belongingthereto, shabllecomethe propertyof,and absolutely
vestin,theEastIndiaCompanyandtheirsuccessors.'*36
349. The language is straightforwardI.t clearlyfocuseson ownership and
controlof the lighthouseand its appurtenancesas a matter of privatelaw
ratherthanonsovereigntyovet rheislandasamatterofinternationallaw. The
same istrue of section I1of the 1854 Act,whichis cast in almostidentical
350, Third,it shouldberecalledthat theadoptionof legislation concerning
the transfer of private law rights ofownershipin lighthouses and their
appurtenances,and providingfor the maintenanceand administration of
lighthouses,wasand remainsa commonfeatureofBritish practice. Thusf,or
example,a detailed elaboratioof the appurtenancesandrelated elements of
propertyandotherinterestsofthe CapeRace Lighthouse inNewfoundlandis .
found.inthe BritishandCanadian legislatioonf 1886 concerningthe transfer
of ownership rights of thisghthouse?38Thesame istrue inthe caseof the
lights situatedin Ireland (btheRepublicof IrelandandNorthern Ireland).
SM,para6,.22.
436 MMAnnex84.
438 MMAnnex85.
Seeabove,paragraph209-21,andAnnexesv,ol3,Annexe2 s6-28.It is British legislation that profsr the collectionand administrationof
light dues.in respect of these lights notwithstandinthat the lights are
maintained operateby the Commissionersof IrishLights,the statutory
authorityoftheRepublicofireland."'
351. Fourth,mentionhasalreadybeenmade oftheomission,inSingapore's
referenceto itslight dues legislation,of any discussionof its Light Dues
(Amendment)Ordinance 1958and its Light Dues Act1969. These are
material omissionsbecause,by their teiins, these instruments indicattehat
Singaporewas not ofthe view, either as,theColonyor as the Republicof
Singapore,that HorsburghLighthousefell withinits territorialwaters. The
onlyexplanationfor thisassessmentisthat Singaporedid not considerthat it
hadtitle toBP.
352. Beyondthis, Singapore'sclaim that its 1957 and 1973 legislation
concerninglightduesisconduct dtitd resoweraincannotbe sustained.The
practice overthe previous150yearsconcerningthe maintenanceof Straits'
Lights contradicts Singapore's suggestithat legislation in respect of light
dueswasdeterminative ofthe sovereignstatusof the territoryon whichany
particular lighthouswaslocated. The termsofthe 1912 Ordinanceandthe
conduct relating thereto, cited above, illustrate the point.w Wider
international practicein respect of lightsdues, including by the Straits
Settlementsin respect of light dueslevied onlightsthat had no territorial
connectionwith the Straits Settlements, furtherundermines Singapore's
~ontention.~~A'snotedbyCaptainGlassandMrBrewer:
"...Singapore refersto tol-s lightdues- imposedon ships
calling at Singapore harbour. It is commonplacefor the
fundingoflighthousestotake theformofthe collectionof light
dues, sometimes alsoknownas navigationdues. As boththe
practiceofMENASandtheGeneral Lighthouse Fun d which
appliestotheupkeepofboth United Kingdom an Rdepublicof
439 Seeabove,paragraph18.SeealsoGlass-Brewreport, ara.18:Annexes,vol.2,
Annex 1.
44' Seeabove,paragrah09,andMM, paras. 23-226.
Seemer above,paragrap3h18ontheImperial ightsDuesOrdina1915. Irelandlightsand is administeredby the UnitedKingdomon
thebasisof duescollectionfromcommercial vessels callingat
bothUnitedKingdomand Republicof Ireland ports - shows, ,
the collection, administrationndapplicationof lightdueshas
no necessaryconnectionwiththe Statein whoseterritorythe
lightsarelocated.InthecaseoftheHorsburghLighthouse t, e
tollsinquestionwereevidentlytodefraythecostof the upkeep
of the lighthouse rather than for the maintenance or
development oftheisland.'*'
353. .FifS ting,apore'srelianceon itsProtected Places (No1.0)Order1991
cannotbe reliedon insupportof itsclaimto sovereigntyover PBP. It is not
simplythat thismeasure post-datet she critical date othis dispute,although
this isthe case. It isthat,atthistime,Malaysia andSingaporewereactively
engagedindetailednegotiations in an attemptto resolvethe dispute. Evenif
the languageof the Ordercould supportthe interpretationwhich Singapore
places onit, the Order is an entirely self-serving instrument enactedby
Singaporein an attempt to createsome e#ectivitdon whichit couldrelyto
bolsteritscIaim. The merefact of themeasure suggests that Singaporewas
casting aroundforwaysinwhichtoadvanceitsclaimbyreferencetoconduct
intheabsenceofany otherreliable practice.
442
Glass-Brewereport, ara55:Annexes, ol2,Annex 1. B. Claims concerningthe maintenanceand improvement ofthe
lighthouseand buildingand upgrading ajetty443
354. Under a general heading addressing the maintenance, improvement
and staffingof HorsburghLighthouse and other facilities onedraBranca,
Singaporereferstoa seriesofactivitiesundertaken fro1883throughto 1996
insupportof its claitotitle. Theseinc~ude:~
* a 1883 Government notification inviting tenders for the
strengtheningof thejetty servicing Horsburgh Lighthouse and
theconstructionofa smalllandingstageat the lighthouse;
a 1902 Government notification inviting tenders for the
provisionofnewgirdersatHorsburghLighthouse;
* the installationof new lighting equipmentn the lighthousein
1887andthepublication ofNoticetsoMarinersto thiseffect;
theupgradingofthelightatHorsburghin 1966;
continuous maintenanceof HorsburghLighthouse fkcilities
including:
enlargementof theliving quarterin 1948;
strengthening ofthe pierandthe installationoa radio
telephonein 1950;
- repainting,whitewashingand othreerpairsin 1951;
- authorisationto flythe SingaporeMarine Ensignat all
SingaporeMarineDepartmentEstablishments in 1952;
fittingofboat davitsin 1952;
-
installationofdihedralreflectoin 1959;
- installationofaradiobeaconin 1962;
installationof a new electric-powereoptic and light
source,andtheadditionofanalternatorroom,in 1966;
443 SM,para6..6(b)an(e).
444 SM,paras..28-6.34. m general repairandrepaintingin1967;
W
further generalrepairsndrepaintingin 1971;
0 responsibility for the staffing of the lighthouse and the
maintenanceofpersonnelonthe island todo so;
o firther improvementsto the lighthouse in 1988 includingthe
mounting of solarpanels and the installation ofa remote
monitoring system;
W the installationof .radar in 1989 linkedto a VesselTraffic
Information sy&& :VTISyy)(which is part of the VTS
system); :!.
the constructionof helicopterlandinfagcilitiesin 1992;and
W afurtherupgradetothe lightin1996.
(i) Generalobservations
At firstsight,this appearsto be an impressive listof conduct. It is,
355.
however,all smoke andmirrors (or,as it concernsa lighthouse, light,and
mirrors). Whenplacedin perspectiveit advances Singapore's case not one
iota. The reasonsfor thishingebothonthe character ofthe conductrelied
upon and, once again, on the appreciationthat comes from significant
omissionsin Singapore'sreviewofthe materialthat it annexes in support of
its claim.
356. Against the backgroundof the review of general practice in the
administrationof lighthousesandthe specificpractice inthe administrationof
the Straits' Lightsset out in the precedingChapters,the characterof the
conduct relied upon by Singapore as"general conduct that would be
undertaken by any operatorof a lighthouseas part of its administrative
responsibility" will e readilypparent.445 Before turningto the omissionsin
Singapore'sreviewof the materialon which itrelies, it is usefbl to have
445 Glass-BreweRreport, ar40:Annexes,vol.2,Annex 1.
172regardto themore detailedassessment:of thisconduct giveninthe Report by
;.?.L:
Captain Glassand MrBrewer.They$serve:
.....
"Thedutyof a lighthouseopeiator - whether as an armof the
State oran independentbody - isto provideand maintainaids
to navigation to assist the safety of navigation. While
maintenance methods and standardm say vary amongthe
internationalcommunityof lighthouse operator s asevidenced
by work in the technicalcommitteesof IALA - the need to
maintainthe lighthousestructures.ndancillaryequipmentand
to keepthe visual,audibleand electronic systems functioning
correctly, remainshesame.
Today,a lighthouseis a platformfora multitude of automated
systems, combining equipmen for thetransmissionof visual
and audible signalswith more sophisticated radionavigation
systems. The powergenerationsystems,boat and helicopter
landingfacilities,all form partof the necessary supporting
infrastructurefor the effectiveoperation ofthe lighthouse. In
the case of TriniHouse,almostalloffshore'rock'lighthouses
have these facilities, including EddystoneB , ishop Rock,
HanoisandSmalls,aswellas islandstationssuchas Casquets,
Flatholm,Skerries,Skokhoimand South
357. Addressingthe specific conductcited by Singapore relatingto the
maintenance andimprovementof the facilitiesat HorsburghLighthouse,
Captain Glass and MrBrewerfhrtherobserve:447
"Forcenturies,boatlandings andjettieshavebeenconstructed
and maintainedat lighthousesto facilitate easeof access.
Today, a combinationof helicopter and boat landings -
includingjetties- providethe necessary optionsfor access.
Examples of such practice canbe seen at ~riGty House
lighthousessuch as Casquets, FlatholmR , ound Island and
Godrevy.
In paragraphs6.30and6.31of its Memorial,Singapore refers
tovariousinstancesofconduct concerning themaintenanceand
improvements offacilitiesattheHorsburghLighthouse. These
improvements - the extensionof living accommodation,the
repair and strengthening ofthe pier, the fittingof a radio
telephone,repainting,the installationof boat davits, dihedral
radarreflectorsand a radio beacon - are all in keepingwith
those undertaken from time to time by any competent
Glass-Brewer epor, aras.43-44:Annexes,vol.2,Ann1.
Ibid.paras47,56-57. lighthouseoperator.Themodernisation ofthe station, withthe
installationof an electric optic,newcooling systems solar
panels, is an integral part of the evolution of lighthouse
technology.
Paragraph 6.32 of Singapore's Memoriarlefers to its
installationof radaronthe islandforpurposesofthe operation
of a VesselTrafficInformationSystem('VTIS';also VTS).
As we havealreadyobserved, LQLA regardsVessel Trafic
Servicesto be an aid to navigationand the sitiig of VTS
equipmentandfacilitiesonlighthousesiscommon."'
358. This assessmentis echoed, in general terms, in the Report by
CommanderChristmas and in the Note by Rear-Admiral Leclair. The
combinedobservationsbyprofessionalsinthefieldoflighthouse management
attestto theadministraticharacterofsuchconductas:
o theconstructionof helicopter landifgcilities;448
o theinstallationoradarandVesselTraffic
o the building and upgrading of a jetty to service a
lighthouse;450
o thegeneral maintenancoeflighthousefa~ilities.~~'
Thisisnotconduct dti&e desoweradn.
359. Compelling evidence agains tte h titredesouveraincharacterof this
conduct also comes &omthe very materialthat Singaporeannexes to its
Memorial insupportof itsclaim. Thusinparagraph6.30,Singaporerefersto
the AnnualReportsof the MarineDepartmentof the StraitsSettlementsand
the Colonyof Singapore,and it attaches25 pages of extractsffom these
reportscoveringthe years 1937, 1938,1939,1948,1950,1951,1952,1959,
1962,1966,1967and 197 1. Aclosereviewofthismaterialdisclosesrepeated
referencesto "the Singapore Group of Lighthousesyy t, e list including
Ibidp.,ras.34-35;Christmaeport,para.8.6:Annexes,vol.2, Annex2; IALA
449e,Antrl'ass-Breerepor, ara.6-37Annexe vol2,Annex1.
450 Ibidpara.47,
4" Christm Resort, ara.6.3:Annex, ol.2, An2.xreferenceto both the Horsburgh andPulauPisang~i~hthouses.4~~ As was
addressed in detail in the preceding Chapter, the Singapore Group of
Lighthouses refersto those lighthouseswhichwerepartof the Straits'Lights
systemandwhichwere administered fkomthe Singapore"stati0n".4~~ In this
context referenceto Horsburgh Lighthouse amongtsh tis groupcannotinany
waybetakenas anindication of Singaporesovereigntyov PerP.
360. In the same material, repeated refereniemadeto themaintenance,
repairsand improvementsundertakenby Singaporein respectof the other
lighthousesinthe SingaporeGroup of Lighthouses, includitn ogPulau Pisang
Lighthouse.Theworksreferredto areof exactlythe samekindas Singapore
claimsto be irtitre de souveraiin respect of Horsburgh LighthouseT . he
inclusionof Pulau Pisanginthe listis compellingevidence thatthe worksin
question neitherhinged on norconstituted evidence of sovereigntyoverthe
territoryon whichthe lighthouses werelocated. By way of illustration,the
AnnualReportfor 1950 containsthefollowingitem:
"Thefollowingrepairsa ,lterationsandadditions, were effected
at the Lighthouses duringthe year:- The pier foundations at
Horsburgh which had been damaged byheavy seas were
repaired and strengthened, anadradio telephone was installed
at this light; three concrete water twsereerectedat Raffles
iightto repiacethe originaisteeitankswhichhaddeteriorated
throughage; minor improvementsto the arrangementsof the
crews' quarters were effecteat PulauPisang. It is hopedto
instal radio-telephonyat all the seawardlighthouses during
195 1.'*54
452 See SM Annex 82, pp. 712, 714, 716, 718, 720, 722, 724. Although without
characterisithemas the "SingaporeGroupof Lighthouse, ndsubjectto one change,
references to thfeivenamedlighthousesmanagedfromSingaporearealsofoundat pp.727,
729.
454 Seeabove,paragrap330.
SMAnnex82,p.720(emphasis added).. The 1951 AnnualReportthen records asfollows:
"Repaintingand whitewashingwas carriedout at Horsburgh
and FortCanning,and maintenance repairs were effectea dt
Horsburgh,Raffles, Sultan ShoaalndPulauPisang.
Radio-telephonewasinstalled duringtheyearatRaffles, Sultan
Shoal andPulau Pisang, thus completinginstallationat all
seawardlighthouses.'9455
The 1952AnnualReportrecords:
"Generalmaintenancewas carrieo dutbytheMarinesectionof
the Public WorksDepartment,and considerable workon the
buildings, pier androadapproachwas doneat Pulau Pisang.
Boats' davits were fittedt thislighthouseandalsoat Raffles
and~orsbur~h.'*~~
The 1966AnnualReportrecords:
"Lighthouses.- PulauPisangLighthouse - Re-decorationand
repairs werecarried outanda newconcretewater storagt eank
of 4,000gallonscapacity was builtto supplementIheexisting
water supply..
HorsburghLighthouse - On the eveningof 30' Aprilthe new
elect,9457ly operated optiand machinerywas brought into
use...
The 1967 AnnualReportrecords:
LLLighthouses
ModernisationofPulauPisangLighthouse
... Installationof a new optic was carried outby Marine
DepartmentandL .gdb,Dues Boardstaff.
4's
456 SM Annex82,p.722(emphasisdded).
4'7 SM Annex82,p.724(emphasisdded).
SMAnnex 82,p.731.
176 Generalrepairsto Horsburgh Lighthouse
The four yearlygb,neralrepairs and repaintingto Horsburgh
Lighthouse were carried out and completed on21''August,
1967.'*"
361. Singapore's Annex 82alsorefersto the factthat Singapore continued
formanyyearsto collectlightduesforlightswithwhichit hadabsolutelyno
territoriallink,includingtheBahamas,Basses and ~inico~?~'
362. This material also attests to the view of the Singapore Marine
Department thatthe waters around HorsburghLighthouse wereMalayan
ratherthan Singaporean,Thus,theAnnualReportfor 1950notes:
"At the request of the Fisheries Departmentt,he lighthouse
keepers ofthe four seaward lighthouses worsburgh, Pulau
Pisang, Sultan Shoal and Raffles]have,, sinceApril 1949,
collected daily samplesof, sea water for the purpose of
investigatingthe salinityofMalayanwatersand,bycorrelating
thiswithweather conditions ovearperiodoftwoorthreeyears,
predictingtheabundanceof certain specie osffish.'A60
The explanationfor thislies in the factthat the seaward lighthouses are all
recorded inthe Singapore Marine DepartmeA ntnnualReportsas beingmore
than 10milesfrom ~in~a~ore?.'' I.'rheferenceto "Malayanwaters" -h the
Singapore Marine . ~e~,art&nt;s Annual Report for 1950 is an
acknowle ..g...LeM,.&.&ngapo mrer,e than 125 years after theCrawfurd
Treaty,oftheterritoriallimitsofSingaporeasestablishedinthatTreaty.
458 SMAnnex82,p.733(emphasis added).
SMAnnex82, pp.720,722.
SM Annex82,p.720 (emphasis added).
461 See, e.g., the 1950 AnnualReport,whichnotes thedistancesof the seaward
lighthousesromSingaporeas:Horsburgh33%miles, Raffles0%miles,SultanShoal13%
miles,and PulauPisang43% miles.FortCanningwas thenamegiven tothe lighthouse
previouslreferretoasthe SingapoearbourLighthouse:MAnnex 82,p.720. .$ ' .:
(ii) Post-criticaldate,conduct . . . - 3 .U I ' , .(
363. Underthe generalheading of niaintenanceand improvement ofthe
lighthouse,Singaporealsorefersto anumber of items of conduct which took
placewellafterthe,critical . $dateinthis dispute. In particular,it refersto the
automationof the lighthousein 1988,~~ the installation ofradarlinkedto a
VTISin 1989,"~ the construction ofhelicopterlandingfacilitiesin 1 992P64
andafirtherupgradeofthe lightin 1996."~'
364. Fourcommentsmay bemadeinrespect ofthis conduct.First, at the
timeof this conduct,the disputebetween Malaysia and Singapore over PBP
hadveryclearlycrystallized,so this isnot conduct on which Singapore can
rely. Second, allthe conductcitedbySingaporeisgeneral conductthatwould
be undertakenby any operator ofa lighthouse:it is not conduct 6 titre de
souverain.Third, Malaysiadidinfact protestto Singaporeaboutthe aspects
of this conductwhichitwasaware of?66FourthJasregardstheVTIS andits
related facilities, singapore installedthese without any consultationwith
Malaysia. This is directly contrary to the best-practiceguidelinesissuedby
IALAinrespectofVesselTrafficServiceswhichprovidethat:
"In straitsused for internatfonalnavigation,a VTSAuthority
cannotrestrictor impedethe innocent passage of vessels. In
these instances a state should endeavourto enter into
agreementswith neighbouring statesor other maritime nations
to.agreeon standardsofconduct forvesselsoperatingin these
waters. Thesestandardsmayinclude provisions for voluntary
participationina VTS.'"~~
462 SM,para.6.3 1.
463 SM,para.6.32.
SM,para.6.32.
465 SM,para.6.32.
466
See, e.g.,thefollowingDiplomaticNotesfromtheMinistryof ForeignAffairsof
Malaysia totheHigh Commissioo nftheRepublic of SingaporeN:o. EC 60/&9,14July1989
andEC 46/91,11November 1991c,oncerning theVTIS installatiandtheconstruction of
467helipadrespectively: Annexevs,l.3,Annexes50,51,
LALA ,esse lrqfJiSetvicesMamal, 2002,p. 31:Annexes,vol.3, Annex54.365. In recognitionof the dutyto cooperatein respectof maritimesafety
issues,"6Indonesia,MalaysiaandSingapore submitted ajoint proposalto the
IMO's Sub-Committeeon Safety of Navigation in April 1997 on the
establishmentofaMandatory ShipReportinS gystemintheStraitsofMalacca
andSingaporeknownas STRAIT RE P.es^'ore-basedfacilitiesidentified
in the proposalto supportthis systemincludedVTS facilitiesin Indonesia,
Malaysiaand Singaporeas well as 14 other "remotestations", of which
HorsburghLighthousewas one. No reference was made to issues of
sovereigntyin respectofany of thesestations. Thisjoint proposalconfirms
thatmaritime safety initiatives are proplyadewithout regardo questions
of territorialsovereignty. Malaysiasommitmentto maritime safetyin the
relevant waters properly tookthe form of cooperative arrangementws ith
Indonesia and Singapore, as the two other interested littoral States,
notwithstandingthe disputewithSingaporeovertitletoPBP. Thisconductis
demonstrativeof Malaysian interestnthesewaters,and isnot illustrativeof
whatSingaporetriestodismissasMalaysian ind~erence?~~
(iii) NoticestoMariners
366. The materialin Annex82 of Singapore's Memorial referre tdabove
also goestoanaspect of Singapore's practice regardhge issuingofNotices
to Mariners- matter referredto bySingaporeina number of places?7'It is
convenienttoaddressallthese referenceatonce.
367. Boththe Glass-Brewer andChristmas Reports indicathattheissuing
of Noticesto Marinersis frequentlyundertakenby lighthouseauthorities?72
Thus, for exampleT, rinity~ouse?~~MEN A he?^Commissioners of Irish
468 Seeabove,paragraph2s39-242.
469 DOC.NAV4313151, 7April1997:Annexes,3,Annex52.
47"~, para.7.6.
47' See,e.g.,SM,paras.5.15,6.3,6.80,6.81.
472 Glass-Brewer Reprta,r. 5-26;Christs epor, ara.9.1.
474 j~tto://www.menas.ordnotice.htmlmariners.uk/~i~hts~~a'swellasotherlighthouse authorities issNeoticesto Marinersasa
matterof course. For examplei,n the 12 monthsfrom October 2003 to
October 2004 TrinityHouse issuedapproximate l5 Notices. MENASissues
individualNoticesas well as a monthlysummarywhich ihcludesdetailsof
mobileoil rig positions. As Commander Christmas noteisn his Report,
MENASalso issuesNAV'IEXmessages,i.e.,messagessent outbyradioasan
immediatemeans of notifying shippingof dangersto navigationPV6 An
explanatorynote to theMENASmonthlysummaryof Notices describesthe
provenanceofthe informationcontainedtherei inthefollowingterms:
"MENAS ~otices to Mariners promulgate allnavigational
informationof a permanentor semi-permanenn taturereceived
from GovernmentalNautical AuthoritiesP ,orts and Harbour
Authorities,Oil Companies and others enga9ed in off-shore
operations, Ships' Mastersdothersour~es.~
368. As the Glass-Brewer Report notes a,nd as is immediatelyapparent
fromeventhe most cursory review of Noticesto Marinersissuedby Trinity
House, MENASandothers
"Noticesareissuedinrespectofchangesto aidsto navigation,
includingthe establishmentof newmarks,the discontinuance
of marking requirementst, e takingpossessionof.wrecks,and
marking hazards and changesto their characteristics or
position.'*78
369. An importantreasoh% fromthe perspectiveof a lighthouseor other
associatedauthority,to issue Noticesto Marinersis explainedin theGlass-
BrewerReportinthefollowingterms:
l
475 http://www.cil.ie/
477 E.g.M,ENASSummmyar9.ofMonthlyNoticesto Mariners, Edin3/04, 1 April
2004,.7:Annexes,vol3Annex55.
478 Glass-Brewereport, ara.26:Annex, ol.2,AM~1. "There is an implicit obligationunderSOLASChapterV to
advisemariners ofthe provision ofnewmarksor changesto
the positionor characteristicsof existingmarks. Failure to
issue Noticesto Mariners in respect of any changes to
navigational marks ora navigationalhazard of which an
autIioititywas aware would be negligentand could expose a
!fgf$houseoperatorto major liability risks. Trinity House
considersthe issuingofNoticestoMarinersto benecessaryfor
the proper discharge ofits statutory dutyas a lighthouse
authorityand to protectthe [GeneralLighthouseFund] from
unnecessaryfinanciarlisk.'*"
;; 370. As the practice concerningthe issuingof Notices to Marinersby
. ..MENASshows, the issuing of suchNotices,and the provenanceof the
l< information, contained therein, han so necessarylink to sovereigntyover
%.y:8 t.
"%j.,*territofy. *:; ,
371. The material in Annex 82 of Singapore'sMemorialillustratesthis
pointdirectlyinthe caseof Singapore.Thus,the 1937 AnnualReportofthe
Marine Department ofthe Straits Settlementsrecords that the Master
Attendantofthe SingaporeShippinO g fficepublished "38 NoticestoMariners
concerningMalaya"duringthat year?" As this affirms, Singapore had an
established practice of issuing Noticesto Marinersin respectof watersover
whichSingaporehadnoterritorialjurisdiction.
479 Ibid.
480 SM Annex 82, p.712. C. Claimsconcerning exercise ofjurisdictionoverpersonnel on the
islandandthemaintenance oforder4"
372. Singaporeclaims that ithas"legislated fot rhe maintenanceof peace
and goodorderonPedra Brancaand @as]regulatedthe activitiesofpersonnel
stationedthere even to the extent of exercising criminajlurisdiction over
them".482In supportof this claim,Singaporecites variousrevisionsof a
MerchantShippingOrdinance of 1928andsuccessiveeditionsofthe Standing
Ordersand Instructions issuedin respectof lighthouses whichaddress the
conductof lighthousekeepers,access tolighthouses,the flyingof flags,and
othermatters.
373. Thispoint is entirely insubstantial and cne addressed very briefly.
Threepointsmay be made. First, the varioussections towhich Singapore
refersof its Merchant Shipping legislation,fiom 1936to 1985,are general
provisionsrelatingto misconductbyany person employed in any lighthouse.
The provisionsdo not address ~orsbur;ghLighthousenor even make any
mentionof it. Second,the StandingOrders & Inshuctions- Lighthomesto
which Singaporerefers (in their 1961and 1974reformulations)are also
documentsofgeneral application relevantto Singapore'sadministrationofthe
lighthousesfor which it was responsible. Thust,hey referexplicitlyto the
Horsburgh, Pulau Pisang,Raffles, SultanShoaland Fullerton Lighthouses.
The reference here to Pulau Pisang Lighthouse alongside Horsburgh
Lighthouseagain showsthat theseOrders arenotbasedonconsiderationsof
territorial sovereignty butn the normaladministrativeresponsibilitiesof a
lighthouseauthority. Indeed,n examinationoftheOrdersdisclosesjust how
routinetheyare,addressingsuchmattersastheconductof lighthousekeepers,
shoreleave,visitors,rationsand store,heuseof refigerators,etc. Thiid,the
administrative character,oth of these documentsand of the exerciseof
regulatorycontrolbythe administrator oaf lighthouseoveritspersonneland
48' SM,para ..6(c).
482 SM,'para6..35theiractivities,isaffirmedintheevidence of CaptainGlassandMrBrewerin
the followingterms:483
"A lighthouse administrator would normallyhave complete
responsibility forthe conduct of its personnel andthe
performanceof their duties in their lighthouses. As the
ISeepers were generally a uniformed service,a service
disciplinaryregime would beadministeredby the lighthouse
authority- usuallyfollowingthatof the merchann t avy.
WhenTrinity House lighthousew s ere manned,the Keepers
operated under Service Regulations governing virtually
everythingfromtheiraccommodation (whichwas rentfiee - as
a servicetenancy),to their conductand,of course,the manual
operationofthe aidsto navigation. Regulav risits weremade
by engineeringstaffand districtsuperintendents.In addition,
the Elder Brethrenof Trinity Housecarried out periodic
inspections of the stations, sometimesaccompanied by
dignitaries,inordertodischargetheirstatutoryduty.
The act of regulatinthe activitiesof personnelinrelationto a
lighthouseisvery muchinkeepingwiththeroleofalighthouse
authority,whetheror not it is a State body. Forexample,
TrinityHousemaintainsa set of Service Regulations which
provide a detailed framework of rules for the conduct,
standardsand workexpected ofits lighthousekeepers. This
formed the basis for anydisciplinaryaction, A copy of
Pamphlet III of the Trinity House Lighthouse Service
Regulations, which addressed these matters, is attachedat
Annex 4."'
374. An examination of Pamphle t11 of the Trinity House Lighthouse
ServiceRegulations annexedto the Glass-Brewer~e~ort~'~ shows that it
covers substantiallythe same ground as that covered by the Singapore
StandingOrders. There isno suggestionthat service regulationsof this type
either hingeon or are in any way determinative of the sovereigntyof the
territoryonwhichalighthouseislocated.
483 Glass-Brewereport, ara38-39,45Annexes,vol2,Annex 1.
484 SeeAnnex4oftheReport:Annexes,vol.2,Annex1. D. Claimsconcerningcolle@ngmeteorologicalinformation485
375. Underthegeneral heading ofactivitiesrelatedto theislandasa whole,
Singaporeadvancet sheuse ofHorsburgh Lighthouse asa meteorologicaldata
collectionstationinsupportofits~laim.4'~
376. Once again,thiscan beaddressedvery briefly.Theuseof lighthouses
forthecollection of meteorologicaldata is not conductitredesouverain.It
is amongstthe most commonplace of activities routinely undertakb ey
lighthouseoperators.Thereasons forthisareboththelocationof lighthouses,
oftenon rocks or islandsat sea or remotepointsalongthe shore, andthe
importanceof reliablemeteorologicalinformationforthe purposesof marine
navigationa1safety. In this regard, it may be recalled that Chapter V,
Regulation 5 of SOLAS expressly requires Contracting Governmentto s
encouragethe collectionof meteorological databy shipsand,in cooperation
with other ContractingGovernmentst ,o warnshipsofmeteorologicalhazards
andtopublishmeteorological information?"
377. The routine characterof the collectionof meteorologicaldata as a
traditional non-lighftunctionof lighthouseadministrationisattestedto bythe
IALA ~av~ide~'' Rear-Admiral eclair :"aptainGlassandMr~rewer?
andCommander~hristmas?~'AsnotedinChapter6,theuse of lighthouses
forthesepurposes hasbeena comnionfeature of lighthouseadministration for
decades,if not longer. Further, itis a featureof lighthouse administration
regardlessoftheprofileof the lighthouseauthority aspublic orprivatebody
and regardlessof questions ofthe sovereignty ofthe territoryon which the
lighthouseis situated. Contraryto Singapore's claimt,his practice is
fundamentallyassociated with Singapore'p sosition as administrator of
485 SM,pm. 6.6(d).
486 SM,paras6. .42-6.46.
488 Seeabove,paragrah42.
Seeabove,paragrah93,andtheExtractinAmexes,vol3,Annex53.
4" Seeabove,paragrah81.
490 Seeabove,paragrah83.
49' Seeabove,paragrah82.HorsburghLighthouseand has nothingto do withthe underlying sovereign
statusof PBP. Itcannot sustain Singaporeclaimtotitleoverthe island.
E. Claimsconcerningflyingthe SingaporeMarine ~nsi~n~~~
378. Singapore claims thatthe British MarineEnsign was flown above
HorsburghLighthouse formorethanacentury andthatthiswasreplaced,first
by the Marine Ensignof theColony ofSingaporein 1953 and thenby the
Marine Ensign of the Republic of Singapore in 1965.4'~It refers to the
Judgmentof the Courtin the TempleCasein supportof the propositionthat
"nationalemblems suchas the one flownat PedraBrancaare indications of
sovereignty">94Singaporefurther refersto its 1974 Standing Ordersand
InstructionstoLighthousePersonnelwhichaddressesthe flyingofensigns. A
numberofblack and white anc dolour photographsarepresented showingthe
MarineEnsignflyingover the lighthouse. Singapore contends that"[tlhe
flyingof the SingaporeEnsign onPedra Brancawas openand notoriousyet
elicitednoprotestfrom ~alaysia">~'ItcontraststhiswithMalaysia's protest
overthe flying oftheSingaporeMarineEnsign over PulauPisangLighthouse.
In that contextit arguesthat theallegedfailure toprotestthe flying of the
Ensign aboveHorsburgh Lighthouse i "sespecially~ignificant"~~~
0) Singapore 'sreliance otheTemplecase
379. A preliminary observationon this aspect of Singapore'sclaim is
required. The significance ofthe flyingof flagsor the display ofnational
emblemsinterritorialdisputeshinges onthe conductin questionbeingopen
andnotoriousand demanding ofa reaction:it isnot,inthe abstract, evidence
of sovereignty.Thisisamplyillustratedbythefactthat the flying flagsand
theuse ofnationalemblemsbyoneState ontheterritoryofanother State-or
492 SM,para.6.60.
494 SM,paras.6.47-6.53.
SM,para.6.48AlsoS,M,paras.7.10-7.12.
496 SM,para.6.52
SM,paras.7.10-7.esp.7.13.on territory having an internationsatlatus-is commonplace and, indeed i,n
certain casesis specificallyprovidedfor by internationalconventionsand in
othersoccursasa matterofpractice.
380. For example,the Vienna Convention on DiplomaticRelations,1961,
providesthatthe flagand emblem of the sending Statm eaybe used onthe
premisesofthemission, including theresidenceof theheadofmissionandon
his or hermeans of transport?g7 Similarly,the Vienna Conventionon
ConsularRelations, 1963, provide that thesendingStatehasthe rightto use
its national flagand coat-of-armsin the receiving State,tofly the flag at
consularposts,at the residence of theheadoftheconsular postand on hisor
her meansof transport?98 Parallel practice,at the level of custom, is
particularlyevidentin the fieldof navaland other military bases.Thus, for
example,it is commonpractice for thenationalflagor naval ensign ofthe
"sending"Stateto be flownabovea naval base situated in foreignterritory.
Forexample,Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingam th,e formerChief ofthe Royal
Malaysian Navy,attests to the MalaysianNaval Ensignbeing flown
consistentlyfordecadesabovetheRoyalMalaysianNavalBaseat W'oodlands
in ~in~a~ore?~~ Rear-AdmiralLeclair similarly observesthat it is common
for marineensignsto beflownabovebuildingsonshorewhich are associated
with marine activities.s00
381. In the abstract, therefore,he flying of the flag ofone State on the
territoryof anotherhasnobearingonsovereignty.Therelevant questiona sre
(a) whetherthe flying of a flag or other display -ofnationalemblemsis
intendedasanact h titrd esomerain, (b)whether,inthecircumstances,it is
capableof constitutingnacth titredesowerain,and(c) whethertheconduct
isopen andnotoriousanddemandingofareaction.
4" ViennaConventionon DiplomatiRelations10 April1961,500 UNTS 95, Art.
20(3).
498 Vienna Conventionon ConsulaRr elation,4April 1963,596 UNTS 261, Art.
4991)-(3).
'" AffidavitoRear-Admiral Thanabalas iaga.5:Annexes,vol2,Annex4.
IALANote , nswer5:Annexe vs,l2,Annex3.382. The TempleCase, relieduponby Singapore,illustratesthepointwell.
Inthat case,the issue aroseinthe contextof a visitpaidto thePreahVihear
templein 1930 by PrinceDamrong,formerly Minister of theInteriorandat
that timePresident oftheRoyalInstituteof Siam.The issuewas addressed by
theCourtinthefollowingterms:
"The visit waspart of an archaeologicaltour made by the
Princewiththe permissionof theKingof Siam,and it clearly
had a quasi-official character. Whetnhe Princearrived at
PreahVihear,he was officially received there by the French
Residentfor the adjoiningCambodian provinceo ,n behalfof
theResident Superior, witthheFrench flagflying. ThePrince
could not possibly have failetd o see the implicationsof a
receptionof thischaracter.A cleareraffirmationoftitleonthe
French Indo-Chineseside can scarcely be imagined. It
demandedareacti~n.'~~'
Thus thereceptionof thePrinceon a quasi-official occasiow nas intendedto
be an affirmation of title.It tookplacein sucha mannerthat hemusthave
seen itsimplications,ndit demandeda reaction.
383. In the presentcase,for thereasons givenbelow,flying theSingapore
Marine Ensign above HorsburghLighthousewas not an act ci titrea%
souverain; indeed it was noteven capable of being so. However, even
sissiiiiiici'rgiier~iitt suoiziraoiwas tzapabic:01 evidencingsov~reigniy,
Singapore's claimis flawed onitsfactsfortworeasons.
501
Caseconcerningthe TemplofPreahVihear(Cambodia v.Thailand)CJ Reports
1962p.6 atp.30.384. Fir sin,aporepresentsno evidenceat all to suggest thatflyingthe
ensign in this case was intendedas an act ci titre de sowerain. The
documentary evidence Singapoa educespointstothe flyingoftheensignas
a routine matterof lighthouse administration,ats a manifest displof
sovereignty demandingraeaction?omMalaysia.
385. Second,it is importantthat the Courtshould havean accurateviewof
the"openand notorious"character ofthe conduct that Singapeeliesupon.
Horsburgh.Lighthouseis almost 100 feet high. The Singapore Marine
Ensign-shown inmages 19 and 20 followingpage 108 of Singapore's
Memorial-is remarkably similatro the Johor Stateflag(seesert3 onthe
.
oppositepage). Thebackgroundagainst whichthe largelydarkblue ensignis
to beseenisblack. Asthe photographsin Singapore'sMemorialillustrate,it
is noteasyto seea flagflyingaboveorsburghLighthouseat all,let aloneto
identifythat flagas the SingaporeMarineEnsign. The point is clearom
Images 3,4 and 16inSingapore's~emorial.~~~InImages 3and4,whichare
recenthigh qualitycolour photographof the lighthousetaken aerially and
froma short distance, iits notpossibleto seetheensignat all. In Image16,
which isan enlargedhighquality photograpofthewhole facilitytakenfiom
relativeIycloseup and at a heightcorrespondingalmost with teop ofthe
VTIS tower, it is virtually impossiblto make out the ensign (but for
Singapore's annotationn the photograph pointinit out). Evenif it were"
possibleto discern aflag,itis quiteimpossibletontifjrwhat flagorensign
itis. It isncifultosuggestthattheflyingoftheensign, evenif ittook place
on a regularbasis, wasan "open andnotorious"mark of sovereignty.The
contrastwiththe quasi-officialvisitof the Thai Princeto a disputed temple,
theFrench fricoloflying,isobvious.
Thesefollowpp.10and102,respectively,of Singapore's Memorial.
189 (ii) FlyingtheSingaporeMarineEnsigo nnHorsburgh Lighthouse
isnotanact 5 titrede souverain
386. Butquite apartfromthesefactual issuest,heessentialpointisthat the
flying of theSingaporeMarineEnsignaboveHorsburghLighthouse isnot an
acth titre de so~verain.~~U ~nlike nationalflagsflownon landterritory,
ensignsare not marksof sovereigntybut of nationality. They areworn
principallyby ships.504"Every ship must have a nationalityand fly her
nationalensign".s0STypically,thedimensionsandthedesignof ensignsdiffer
fromflagsusedfornon-marineactivities,50a 6lthough ensignsmayincorporate
elementsof,oreventheentire,nationalflagasa ofitsdesign.
387. Ensigns take various formsA. sCaptain GlassandMrBrewerobserve,
the ensignsauthorisedto be wornby Britishshipsarethe Red Ensign (worn
bymerchantshipping),the WhiteEnsign(wornbytheRoyal Navy), and the
Blue Ensign(wornby ships belongingto certainpublicauthorities and by
some members ofthe ~ommonwealth).~~~ They note alsothat lighthouse
authoritiesoften havtheir own ensigni:nthecaseofTrinity House, this is an
adaptionof the BritishRed ~nsi~n.5'~Colour prints ofthe Trinity House
ensignsare attachedasAnnex 3 oftheGlass-Brewer Report.
388. AstheGlass-BreweR r eport alsoindicates,thereisnouniformpractice
concerningthe flyingof ensigns or flags abovelighthouses.Thisis a matter
.determined by each lighthouse authority separatelyin' their Service
Regulations. Trinity HousaeddressesthematterinsomedetailinPamphlet I
of its ServiceRegulations,Flags and 7'heirUses(Annex5 of the Glass-
Brewer Report).Theprovisionson flyingensignsinthe Singapore Standing
Orders & Instructionsmirror, ina muchabbreviatedform,the Trinity House
provisions.
Seealsoabove,paragraph2s88-296.
'OS IALANote,Answer5.Also,UNCLOS1982,Art.91.Annex 1,
IALANote,Answer5:Annexes,vol.2,Annex3.
Glass-Brewereport,ara.30:Annexes,vol.2,AnnexI.
Ibid.389. Trinity Houseand the otherGeneralLighthouse Authorities of the
United Kingdom and the Republic ofIrelandused, as a matterof common
practice,to fly their ensigns above thelighthouses theyoperated. Today
Trinity Houseflies its ensignon lighthouseson specialoccasionswhenthey
aremannedOsoT 9his doesnot signifythe sovereignstatus ofthe territoryon
whichthe lighthouseissituated.
390. The enquiriesmadeof a cross-sectionof IALAmembersby Captain
Glassand MrBrewerindicatesthat little,if any,significance attacheto the
flying ofensignsabove a lighthouse. In particular,ere is no appreciation
amongstthe professional lighthouse community, whiic shmostly made up of
national authoritiest,hat the flying ofan ensignabovea lighthousehas any
bearingon sovereignty. The evidenceof CaptainGlass and MrBrewer,
CommanderChristmasand Rear-Admiral Leclai iratoneonthispoint,asthe
followingextractsshow:
"Generally,if theEnsignof a lighthouse authoritwas flown
above a lighthouseit wouldbe understoodby a mariner or
lighthouseoperatoras identiQingthe lighthouseauthority,e.g.
Trinity House. If a flag flown above a lighthouse wasa
national flag,t ouldbeunderstood by a marinerorlighthouse
operatoras signifyingthe countrentrustedwiththe operation
ofthelighthouse."510
"Pamphlet I of the Trinity House Lighthouse Service
Regulationscontainsthe detailed instructions issdyTrinity
House toLighthouseKeepers onthe flyingofflags..,Much of
this isself-explanatoandgivesthe backgroundto the use of
the Trinity HouseEnsign, whichis still flownat our main
depots,althoughless so at lighthouses- due to de-manning.
TrinityHouseLighthousesbeartheCorporation's crest. Whilst
this maybe regardedas a signof ownershipor possession of
theproperty, itcannot,quiteclearly, beregardedasa symbol of
sovereigntyas the ownershipand operation oflighthousesby
Trinity House does not necessarily correspond to the
sovereigntyoftheStateonwhichthelighthouseissit~ated."~"
Ibid.
'l0 Ibid para.32.
Ibid para.48. "Thesignificance ofany flagflownabove alighthousewould
betwo-fold:
o the flag would almost certainly indicate frow mhich
State the operatingorganisation owedits existence.
The British Lighthouse Authorities' flags, wha ire
still flownabove some lighthouseo snsomeoccasions,
have a UnionFlag as part of the design,while most
countriesflythenationalflag;
0 the flag would almost certainlyindicate that the
lighthousewasmanned.Theabsenceof a flagwould
not in itself, however, indicathat the lighthousewas
notmanned."512
"Theuseof a MarineEnsignabovea lighthousehas no special
significanceformariners. Generally it,cannotbe identifiedby
shipscrossingoffshoredueto its sizeandthedistance."513
391. Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingarnecho teis viewliom the perspective
ofa navalofficer:
"I am not an expert onlighthouses,but,to a naval officer,the
flyingof the SingaporeMarine Ensigno ,r eventhe Singapore
Naval Ensign, above the[Horsburgh]lighthouse wouldbe
understoodas indicatingonly that Singapore managed the
lighthouse,not thatithadsovereignty over theislandon which
the lighthousestood."514
392. It follows fromthis that no significance canattach to flying the
SingaporeMarineEnsignabove HorsburghLighthouse.Theflying ofensigns
bylighthouseauthoritiesabove the lighthousesforwhichthey are responsible
is a routine matter. There is no appreciation, amongstthe professional
lighthouse community t,hatlying,flagsorensigns abovelighthouseshasany
bearingonsovereignty.
ChristmaRs eport,para.7.2:Annexes,., Annex2.
'l3 IALANote,Answer5:Annexes, vol. 2, Anne3x.
'l4 Affidavitof Rear-Admiral Thanabalasipaar,.35:Annexes,vol. 2,Ann4.
192 . . (iii) Thealleged contrastwitthhePulau PisangLighthouse
393. Singapore makesmuchof what it allegesto be divergentMalaysian
practicein respectof HorsburghLighthouseby comparisonto that regarding
PulauPisangLighthouse.It ismistakenonthispoint.
394. PulauPisangis a Malaysianisland. Singaporeoperatesthe lighthouse
whichwasbuilttherein 1886. The islandis muchlargerthan PBP andhas a
residentMalaysian population.
395. The fact that Singapore was flyingits MarineEnsignabove Pulau
PisangLighthousewasthe subjectof specific complaintbytheYouth Wingof
the United Malays National Organisation dated 28 May 1968 in a letter
addressedto the PermanentSecretaryof the MalaysianMinistry ofForeign
~ffairs.''' As the matter threatened tbecomea domesticpoliticalissue,
Malaysia raisedthe issue with Singaporeand, followinga meeting on 6
September 1968,Singaporeagreedthat theensign wouldno longerbe flown
abovethelighthouse.
396. It mustbe emphasisedthat Malaysia didnot regardthe flyingof the
Singapore Marine Ensign above Pulau Pisang Lighthouseas a mark of
sovereignty: sovereigntwy as not and is not in dispute with respect tothe
island, includinthatpartof it onwhichthelighthouseis located.Theflying
of the ensign abovethe lighthousewasraised withSingapore inviewofthe
domesticpolitical sensitivitiewhichitrisked givingrise.
397. The flying of the Singapore MarineEnsign above Horsburgh
Lighthouse became an issue enpassantin 1978 inthe contextof discussions
between Malaysia and Singapore about a join htydrographic surveyfor
purposesof "demarcatingthe international boundary betweeSningaporeand
'l5
Annexes,vol.3Annex40.Malaysia"along the Straitsof oho or." I^ the course of thediscussions,
Malaysiaraised the questionof Singapore's rehsal to allow a Malaysian
surveyteam toland onPBP,indicatingthatthe islandbelongedto Malaysia.
Thistook placeat a bilateral meetingin Wisma Putra(Ministryof Foreign
Affairs,Malaysia)on 13 April 1978. Inthe course of this meeting,the
Malaysianrepresentativealsoraisedthe questionofthe Singaporeflagbeing
flown onHorsburgh LighthouseT . heSingaporerepresentative respondtedat
Singapore regardedthe islands theirs. Aninternal Malaysiafilenoteofthe
meetingrecorded theexchangeasfollows:
"I alsoraisedwithKishorethequestionof Singaporeflagbeing
flown on the Hofsburgh[sic] Lighthouse andthe rehsal of
Singaporeauthoritietsoallow a Malaysian Surveyteatmo land
on PulauBatu Putehon whichthe Lighthouseis situated. I
expressed concern attheSingaporeactionastheislandbelongs
to Malaysia. Kishore respondeb dy saying that Singapore
regards'theislandastheirsandtheyhaveincontrovertible proof
supportedby legaldocunlentsto backtheirclaimto theisland.
He saidthat havingcome toknowabout theproposalby the
Malaysian navy to undertake a survey around Horsburgh
Lighthouse, Singaporeimmediatelyundertook a thorosu tghy
and researchon the ownershipof the island ofBatu Puteh
which is of vital importanceto Singapore. The studywas
completedabout 3 or4 monthsagoand fromthe study it was
establishedbeyond any doubtthat the island belongedto
Singaporebytreatvameement.Sin a orehasinitspossession
theoriginalcopy ofthisagreement."'
398. Inthe light of thisclaimbySingapore tohave"incontrovertiblproof
supported by legal documents", including the "original copy of this
agreement7'-which,it may be observed, has never been produced-the
MalaysianMinistry ofForeignAffairs setin train a reviewof the matter.
Malaysia's considerepdosition,inthelightofthis closerreview, tooktheform
of itsaffirmationof title to PBPwith the publication ofthe 1979map.
Singapore'sprotestatthismapinFebruary1980crystallised thedispute.
'l6 Note from the Ministry ofForeignAffairs of Malaythe SingaporeHigh
commission,EC 1/78,13Janua1978: Annexesv,3Annex44.
CommissionandPAS (Principal Assistant Secretary)asstiao13"April, 1978atHigh 399. To summarise:Malaysia firstraised the matterof the flyingof the
S
Singapore Marine Ensign above HorsburgL highthouse with Singaporie nthe
context of wider discussionbsetweenthe twoStatesin 1978 concerningajoint
hydrographicsurvey. When itdidsoit believedthatthispoint couldbe easily
addressed, asinthecaseofPulau Pisang. Malaysia's enquiry was metbyan
assertion of sovereigntyverthe islandbySingaporeonthebasis ofwhatwas
saidto be incontrovertibleproofinthe formof a "treatyagreement". Inthe
lightof Singapore'sclaim,Malaysia adopted thr eeasonable response that it
shouldinvestigate the mattem r oreclosely beforetakingfurtheraction. The
dispute crystallised shortly thereaferiththe publicationof Malaysia'smap
in1979 andSingapore'sprotestthereto.
F. Claimsconcerningcontrolof accessto theisland,officialvisitsand
grantingpermissionfor surveys518
400. Singapore advances a numberof related claims hingino gn itscontrol
overaccesstoHorsburgh LighthouseI.nparticular,it assertsthatithas:
controlledand, where appropriate, authorisedaccess to the
island by personnel from Singaporeas well as from other
States, includingala~sia;~'~
a
issued permitsto Malaysianofficials wishingto visitthe island
toconduct scientificurveys;520
deniedaccess byMalaysian personne tl PBP;~~'
Wisma Putra(Ministryof Foreign Affairs, Malaysia),I4 April 1978 (emphasisadded):
Annexes, vol.3,Annex45.
'ls SM,para.6.6(g),(&)(i).
'l9 SM,paras.6.546.59.
SM,paras.6.60-6.62,7.31-7.32.
52' SM,para.6.63. e given permissionto Malaysia, in response to Malaysian
requests, to undertake activitiesin Singaporean territorial
watersaround PBP;~~~
given permissionto foreignpartiesto operatein the waters
aroundthe island.S23
(0 Preliminary observations
401. Beforeaddressing theparticularitemsof conductto which Singapore
refers,two preliminary observationarerequired. Firstthe character ofPBP
cannot beignoredin this discussion. Singaporaedvancksitsclaimsas if the
islandwas inhabited andhad somethingon it other thanthe lighthouse for
whichSingaporealone is responsible. On this basis, Singapore implicitly
seeks to characteriscontrol over accessas conduct whichis relativeto the
islandrather thansimply as conductthat is relative tothe lighthouse. As it
doesthroughoutits discussionofconduct, Singapors eimply conflates routine
conductinthe administration of the lighthouseandconductthat canproperly
becharacterisedas dtitr desouverain.
402. second:,controloveraccesstoa lighthousefacility anidts surrounding
waters,includingfor purposesof technicaland scientificsurveys,is routine
practicein lighthouse administrationndpartofthenormalresponsibilitiesof
anylighthouseoperator, Captain Glass and MrBrewerdescribe the general ,
practiceinrespectofsuch mattersasfollows:
"Secureaccess to the site ofa lighthous,andthe controlof
'visitors isinvariablythe responsibilityof the operatorof a
lighthouse. Notices simila tr those on the gates ofTrinity
Houselighthousesare quite common,declaringthepremisesto
be private property and warnino gf dangers, in order to
maintainsecurityandreducetheriskof liabilitytotrespassers.
a..
Scientific and technical surveys may have the effect of
interfering withthe effective and reliable operation of a
SM,para.7.34.
SM, paras6.65-6.67,7.33-7.34.
196 lighthouse. To this end, it is common practice among
lighthouseoperatorsto requirethatpermissionis sought before
any such activitiearecarriedoninthevicinity ofa lighthouse.
For example, Trinity House doen sot allowany visitorsto its
lighthousesunless accompaniedby the lighthouse attendant
whois responsiblefor thesecurityof the statio- includingthe
settingand un-settingof alarmsand communicationsto the
Operations ControlCentrein Harwich. Permission to visita
particular station- whether in respect of Trinity House
personnelor otherwise - is at the discretionof the regional
maintenance manageo rf TrinityHousewhomaydeny accessif
maintenanceorotheressential works are inprogress."524
403. This view is echoed by Commander Christmas:"All lighthouse
authoritiesare responsible forthe securityof, andaccess to,the lighthouses
operatedbythem,aswellasany activitybypersonnel within them."525
(ii) Measuresregulatingtheconductoflighthousepersonnel
404. Turning to theparticularclaimsadvancedby Singapore, itfirst refers
to its1961 and 1974StandingOrders & Instructionsregulatingtheconductof
lighthouse keepers.526Asthis elementhas already been addressedinresponse
to otherclaimsmadeby Singapore, it sufficea stthispointsimplyto observe'
thereforethat the drawingup of regulations ofthiskindis normal practicein
lighthouse administration. Moreove tr,e Instructionsto which Singapore
refers are generic instructionswhich apply tothe conduct of lighthouse
personnelinall thelighthousesforwhich Singapore isresponsible. Theyare
notmeasuresspecific toHorsburgh Lighthouse. In particula tr,ey regulate
the conduct ofpersonne altthelighthousesonPulauPisangandelsewhere,
525 Glass-BreweReport,paras.49-50:Annexes,vol.2, Annex1.
Christmas Reportara8.7:Annexes,vol.2, Annex2.
SM, para6.54.
197 (iii) Visits tothe lighthouse,the logbookand visits recorded
therein
405. Singaporenextreferstorequestssubmittet do"theMaster Attendano t f
Singaporeto visit PedraBranca"andattaches arepresentativesample of such
requestsinillustrationof its controveracce~s.5~I~tkrther statesthat:
"due to the number of applicationtshat werereceivedto visit
the lighthouse,theMaster Attendanw t asobligedto establisha
set of rulesrelating tosuch visits,thusfurther demonstrating
Singapore'scontrol overtheisland."528
406. Singaporenotesthaa t logbook waskeptatHorsburghLighthousefrom
1946 and contends thatits entries reveal literally hundreds of visitsby
Singaporeofficials to the island without interferenceor objection fiom
~alaysia.~~~ It characterisesthelogbook andthe entriesthereinasevidenceof
YY530
Singapore's"controloverPedraBranca .
407. The materialannexedto Singapore'sMemorialin support ofthese
contentionsis remarkably insubstantial,nnocase amounting to anythingthat
evenapproaches conduct h titre desouverain.Singapore's contentiona slso
overstatethematerialonwhichitrelies. Anexaminationofthe representative
sampleof requests"to visit PedraBranca" in Annex 105of Singapore's
Memorialshows thatwhat was actually requesteid n eachof the four cases
citedwas a visit to the"Horsburgh Lighthouse"O . f coursethese requests
were properly made to the Master Attendantof the Port of Singapore
Authorityasthe operatorofthelighthouse.Thepoint hasalreadybeenmade
that controlof access to a lighthouse andits associated facilities and
surroundingarea isacommonfeatureof lighthouse administration.
527
SM,para. 6.55&Annex 105.
SM, para.6.5& Annex 104.
SM,paras.6.56-6.59.
SM,para.6.59.408. Next,thereare the rulessaid tohavebeenestablishedby the Master
Attendant"dueto the numberof applicationsthatwerereceivedto visit the
lighthouse".Thepleadingisclearin its implication, namely t, at therulesin
question wereestablishedby the Master Attendantin respect of visitsto
Horsburgh Lighthousb eecauseof the largenumberofapplicationsto visitthis
lighthouse.
409. The document annexed to Singapore'spleadingshowsno suchthing.
The documentin question-Amex 104 of Singapore's Memorial, dated 6
May 1961-records a "Visitto Lighthousesby Staff and familyor friends
onboardthem.v.'Berkas"'.As thisindicates,the focusof the documenits on
visitsto lighthousesin general,not to HorsburghLighthousein particular.
Indeed,there is no mention of Horsburgh Lighthouseinthe document. The
document addresse" spermissionto visitthevarious lighthousesythestaffof
this department", It does not even riseto the level of rules ofgeneral
application.It isastaffdirective whichismorelikelytohave addressed visits
bythe staffofthe Portof Singapore Authoritty o the Rafflesor Sultan Shoal
Lighthousesthan visitsto Horsburgh Lighthouseg ,iven that Rafflesand
Sultan Shoalwerea gooddeal closerto Singaporethan Horsburghandwere
somethingofa tourist attraction.
410. Then there isthe logbookof visits. As the Glass-Brewer Report
observes, "lilt is commonpracticeto have a log bookto record visitsto
lighthouses".53'In facta close examination of the almost500 entriesinthe
logbookinthe 40year period itcovers (16November1946-18August1986)
shows that the vast numberof entries refer to routine inspection and
maintenance visits associated witthhe normal operationand upkeep of the
lighthouseand its associated facilities.There areunexplainedgaps in the
logbook.Forexample,there are no entries atallfor the fouryearperiodfrom
July 1979 to August 1983, notwithstandin tgat the lighthouse wasstill
mannedatthispointandwould havebeensuppliedand serviced regularly.
Glass-BreweReportpara.58Annexe sol2,Annex 1.
199411. Of variousvisits recordeinthelogbookbynavaIpersonnel,onlytwo
appearnotto havebeen relatedin somewayto hydrographicsurveys. The
first of these was a visit by an unidentifiable Admiralty official on18
November1952"forthe purposeofexaminingthe structureas to itspossible
[undecipherablef]or Naval Singapore refersto this entry
specificallyin support ofits case, seekingno doubtto implythat it is an
example of a visitto theisland whichhadjwe imperii purposes?33 However
Singaporehadnonavyof itsown atthispoint. The Singapore navy wasonly
"officiallyormedon 1 April 1975"?~~ ASthe Affidavit ofRear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam attestst ,he maritime defenceof both the Colony of
Singaporeand theFederationofMalayawasundertakenatthis time(in 1952)
bytheBritish RoyalNavy,withthe overwhelming majorityoftherecruits of
the MaiaySectionof theRoyalNavycomingfiom oh or.^ I^^fact,the date
of the visit in question,18 November 1952,is three months after Britain
establishedtheMalayan NavaF lorce. GiventhattheidentityoftheAdmiralty
officialwhovisitedthe island unclear, iitspossiblethat Singaporeis quoting
asanexample of its controolftheisland'conduct whicihsinrealitythatofan
official oftheMalayanNaval Force. Atthevery least,theconductinquestion
wouldhavebeenof a British officiaa lctingin the courseof Britain'snaval
responsibilitiforbothSingaporeandMalaya,
412. Thesecond non-hydrographic naval ent rythe logbookis thatof 4
March 1965in respectof thevisitby HMSMarytonwhich"landedto take
prisoner- ~ndon?".~~~ ASis evident,this was a visit by a British, not a
Singaporean,naval vessel. No ot ly didSingaporestillnothave anavy ofits
ownbutthis visitoccurredduringtheperiodinwhich Singapore was partof
theFederation of Malaysia, Onc again,therefore,thisentrycannot berelied
uponasevidenceinsupportofSingapore's claim.
532 Logbookp, 19. .
534 SM,,para.6.70.
AffidavitofRear-AdmirTlhanabalasingp,ra11:Annexes,vol.2,Annex4.
Logbook,p.72.413. Nearly allthe other"oEcia1"visits recordedin the logbookrelateto
the lighthouse and associated facilities andlor to the collection of
meteorological data. AI1of these visitsare consistent withcommonpractice
in the administrationof lighthouses, Moreover as regards visits for
meteorologicaland telecommunications purposes, until 1965at the earliest,
thesematters were addressed ona cooperative pan-Malayan-Singapob rasis.
Visitsto the lighthouseforthesepurposescannotbe'characterised asvisitsby
Singaporeanpersonnel.
414. Of other visits recorded in the logbook,none appearto disclose
anything that supports Singapore's claim to sovereignty. Horsburgh
Lighthouse isan importantaidtonavigation operated underthe responsibility
of Singapore.It isnot surprising that, fiomtimeto time, Singapore officials
visitedthe facilityand weregranted accessbythe resident lighthouse keeper
inaccordancewithhis instructions. As theGlass-BrewerReportnotes,inthe
case of TrinityHouselighthouses,it was not uncommon for TrinityHouse
personnelto conduct inspectionsof the lighthouses forwhich they were
responsible"accompaniedby dignitarie~".'~'
415, Finally, Singpaore presentasn applicationto visitPBP"by a member
oftheAmericanPiscatorial Society tostudythemigratoryhabits offish".538It
is notablethat this is a requestfor permissionby a private individualw, hile
visitinghisparentsinSingapore,tovisittheislandto tagsomefish. Theletter
of request makes it abundantlyclear that the applicantis writing to the
Chairmanof the Singapore LighD t ues Boardas it is the Light DuesBoard
that is responsible fothe lighthouse.Forexample, th&ipplicantemphasises
:-t.:
that he "will stay completely clearof the lighthousGiand not hinder the
personnelthere in any way". Given Singapore's iesponsibilityfor the
lighthouse, andthe writer's locatioinn Singapore,the questionmaybeasked
whereelse theapplicantmightreasonablyhavedirectedhis correspondence.
538 Glass-BreweRreport, ar39:Annexesv, ol.2~dex 1.
SM,para.6.59& Annex 117.In any event,the unsolicited(and isolated) letter ofa privateindividualis
hardlyasolid basisonwhichtofoundaclaim ofconducthtitredesouverain.
(iv) Permissioninrespectoftechnical ansdcientificsurveys
416. Singaporenextcontendsthat "whenMalaysianofficialswishedtovisit
the islandto conduct scientificsurveys,they werealso obligedto obtain
permitsfiom therelevant Singapora~thorities"?~It citesthree examplein
support of its contention(:i)a visitbyMalaysianpersonnelas part ofajoint
hydrographicsurvey in 1974, (ii) an inspectionof tide gauges by the
Malaysianvessel MCI ' edomanin May-June1978,and (iii) a visit in April
1978bymembersof the Survey DepartmentoW f est~ala~sia?' Singapore
also contendsthat, evenafter 1979, "Malaysiaontinuedto seekpermission
fiom Singaporeto enter the watersaround Pedraranca"andcitesinsupport
correspondenceconcernina gfeasibility stuforelectricalpowertransferby
underwatercablefrom Sarawakto Peninsular~alaysia.~~*Not only do the
examplescited not support Singapore's casetSingapore'sdiscussionofthe
materialwhich itannexes is actively misleading.
417. The 1974visitconcernedajointhydrographic survey inthe Rumenia
Channel.The surveyteamwascomposedofmembersfiomMalaysia,Japan,
IndonesiaandSingapore. Thesurvey tookplaceovera sevento eightweek
period.
418. The correspondence annexed to Singapore'sMemorialshowsthat a
few officers fiom the joint survey team wished "to stayat Horsburgh
Lighthousefortidalobservation^ Th?^r^levantofficialfiomthe Singapore
HydrographicDepartmentthereforewroteto theCommandingOfficerof the
surveyvessel,D Perantau,and requested;in genericterms, the names,
540 SM,paras.6.61-6.63.Seealso,ibid...31-7.32.
54' SM, para.7.33-7.34;
SM Annex 121p.1029(emphasisadded).passportnumbers,nationalities anddurationof stay at ~orsbur~h.'~~The
responsefollowedgivingthenamesandtheotherrequested inf~rmation?~~
419. Itsohappensthati,ntheend,themembersofthejointsurveyteam that
wishedto stay in the lighthouse wereMalaysiannationals. This cannot
obscurethefact,however,thatpermissionwassoughtandgrantedtomembers
ofajoint surveyteamto stayatthelighthouse.Thishadnothiigwhateverto
do withaccessto.the islandbut simplywiththe useof the facilitiesof the
lighthouseitself. As the evidenceof Captain Glass and Brewer, and of
CommandeC r hristmas,attest, isis standardpractioraccessto lighthouse
facilitiesaroundtheworld.Ithas nothintodowithsovereignty oveP rBP.
420. An examination ofthematerial relevantto the tidegauges inspection
of May-June1978shows thatSingapore'srelianceonthiselementis equally
mispIacedanditsdiscussionofitmisleading.
421, By a note dated 9 May 1978,the Malaysian High Commissionin
Singapore wrote to the Ministry of Foreign Affairf Singaporeto request
clearance"for the MalaysianGovernmentvessel MV 'Pedoman'to enter
Singapore territorial waternd conductan inspection ofTide ~auges"?~~
The notecontinued:"The HighCommission has the honourto informthe
Ministrythatthe MV 'Pedoman's' movements willbe as follows..." This
wasfollowedby 13itemised coordinate for theperiod9May1978to 2 June
1978.Thesecondoftheseentriesrefers tothe"Horsburgh Lt.HouseStation".
The last ofthese entriesrefersto "PulauPi,sang Documents
relating to further inspections undertakea nt four monthly intervals
thereafter-in October-Novembe1 r978 andMarch 1979-disclose similar
infor~nation?~~
543 SM Annex120 ,.1027.
544 SM Annex122 ,.1031.
546" SM Annex137 ,.1083.
547 SM Annex137 ,p1083-1084.
Annexes,ol3,Annex46. S ;I'
422. Ineach case,the"stations"listed inthecorrespondenceconcernintghe
movementsof theMVPedomanincludedareaswhichfellwithintheterritorial
waters of Malaysia, Indonesiaand Singapore. In no case was there.any
specific designatioof PBP as falling,within Singapore'territorialwaters.
This conduct doesnot ig:any way support the contention for which it is
advanced.
A .
423. These 1974and 1978 requestsby Malaysiafor permission forjoint
surveyteam membersto visit HorsburghLighthouseare not in any way
unusual. As Singapore's evidence confirms, it is standard procedurefor
anyone goingto Horsburgh Lighthouse, whether Singaporeanor nationals
fromthirdStates,to seekpermission from thePortof Singapore Authorityto
visit the lighthouse. Forexample,the letter of 8 July 1976 from the
Hydrographic Department ofthePort ofSingaporeAuthority to theS)ng;spore
Navyin responseto itsrequestto installVHFand HF systemsinHorsburgh
Lighthouse states:"[tlhis departmentwill have to be informed of any
personnelproceedingto Horsburgh ~i~hthouse"?~'Similarly,Article9 of
Singapore's1974 StandingOrder & Instructionsto Lighthouse Personnel
statesthat"Lightkeepersare instructedto see thatno visitorsare allowedto
landorstayatlighthouseswithoua t validermit".549
424. As regardsthe April 1978landingon PBP by two membersof the
Survey Department of West Malaysia,the correspondenceannexed by
Singaporeinrespect ofthisitem readsasfollows:
"Our Lightkeeper, Mr Lee Lai Nam, repeated that two
gentlemenwho claimedto be from the SurveyDepartment,
WestMalaysia,landedat Horsburgh Lighthousien mid April
1978. Their purpose was to carry out triangulation
observations.
MrLee Lai Nam politelyinformedthem that he couldnot
allowthemto remainat thelighthouseunless priorpermission
had been obtainedfromthis office. Thetwo gentlementhen
leftbythetugboat'Tunda'.
S4B PM Annex119. The action*ofMr Lee was strictly in accordance with the
standingordersissuedto 1.ighthoeersonnel."550
425. This correspondence illustratesthree points. First, it shows that
Malaysian officiawereinthehabit ofusingPBPasa triangulation point for
purposesof trigonometricalsurveys. Second,it indicatesthat thepointof
difficultysurroundingthisvisit,suchthatwas,was accesstothe lighthouse,
notthelandingonthe island.Third,the actionsof the lightkeersexplained
by reference to the Standing Ordersthat governedhis conduct-i.e., by
reference to administrativemeasures-not by reference to any claim or
understandingby the relevant Singaporofficialsthat the islandfell within
Singapore's sovereignty.
426. Finally,Singaporecontends that,evenafter 1979,Malaysia continued
to seekpermissionfromSingaporeto enterthewaters aroundPBP andrefers
insupporttotwo lettersfromthe MalaysianHighCommissioninSingaporeto
the SingaporeMinistryof Foreign Affairs,dated 28 January 1980 and 26
March 1980, concerninga feasibilitystudy to be conducted concerning
electricalpower transferby underwatercable from Sarawakto Peninsular
Malaysia and requesting permissionto undertake part of that studyin
Singapore waters. Singapore content dsat the watersin questionwerethe
watersaround PBP.~''
427. Once again,theevidencepresented bySingapore does not supporits
case. Theletterdated.28January1980fromtheMalaysian HighCommission
enclosesthe "DrafiTerms of Reference for the HydrographicSurveyof the
SubmarineHVDCCableRouteBetweenPeninsularMalaysiaandthe Stateof
~arawak".~~T ~heseDrafi Terms of Referencme akeno mention ofPBPorof
Horsburgh Lighthouse butreferto a surveyto "selectthe alternativesurvey
mutes forthe interconnectionbetween the westerntip of Serawakand the
SM Annex136p,.1081.
SM,para7.34.
SM Annex143p,.1096.southerntip ofPeninsularMalaysiaand thesubmarine landing sites".ss3The
covering letter fiom the Malaysian HighCommissionstates "I would
appreciateif early approvalcouldbe grantedbyyour Governments ,ince the
aboveprojectwillcovers [sic]alsoyouiterritorialwater.554
428. It isnotclearwhethertheapproval that wasbeingsought was for the
terms ofreference, whichwereattachedin draftform,or for the feasibility
study. Either wayt,he letterandtheattachedraftterns ofreferencemake no
mentionof PBP,nordothey alludetoitinanyway.
429. The letter of28 January 1980 was followedup by the letterof 26
March 1980. This attached amap showingthe likely pointwhere thesaid
surveywouldtakeplace. Thisshows a linefrom'sarawakto southernJohor
whichis annotated "D.C. SubmarineCable". Singaporeattachesthatmapas
Map 11 in its Memorial(afterp. 154) and contendsthat, as "thereare no
territorial watersbetweenSarawak and PeninsulaM r alaysia,except for the
watersaroundPedra Branea",the referenceto ''Singapore territorial waters
was obviouslytothewatersaroundPedraBranca $.ss5
430. There area numberof difficultieswith Singapore's hypothesisF,irst.
the lettero26 March 1980 to whichthe mapis attacheddoesnot referto
Singaporeterritorialwaters. Thletter describthemap simplyas"showing
* .
thelikelypointwherethe saidsurveywould take place". The lettergoesonto
requestclearancefromSingapore"forourconsultanttoconductpower market
surveyin Singaporewithyour government agencieass soonas possible."556
Asisapparent from this,thepointwasnotthatthecablebetween Sarawak and
Peninsular Malaysiawouldrunthroughterritorialwatersaround PBP (itdid
not),stilllessthathesewaters were statetobeSingaporean(they werenot).
Rather the point was that the project survey wouldalso examine the
SMAnnex 143,p.1096para.2.1.
554 SMAnnex 143,p.1095.
SM,paw.7.34.
""M Annex145,p.1101.possibilities of onward transfer of electricpolwerto Singapore. Thisis
confirmedby internalMalaysian.correspondence of 4 March 1980 which
records that:
"theappointed Consultant hab seenrequested todetermine the
'demandfor power'and 'powermarket survey ofSingapore,
Brunei andKalimantan'. In order tohlfill this request,the
Consultant needs to discussand interviewthe relevant foreign
governmentagenciesane dlectricitybodies."557
This readingof the correspondenceis supported by the map attachedto the
letterof 26 March 1980. As an examinationof the map shows,the line
depictingthe "D.C.SubmarineCable"runswelltothenorthof PBP. Evenon
thisroughsketch,the cablewould not have approachedanywherenearPBP.
Second, internalMalaysiancorrespondence concernew diththisstudy
43 1.
confirmsthat the only foreignwatersthat would beaffectedby the study
would be Indonesianwaters. Thus, a telex message fromthe Sarawak
ElectricitySupplj;Coiporation extracteinan internal Malaysian Ministr oyf
ForeignAffairs notedated 26February1980states:
,'%E OBJECTIVOFTHESURVEYISTODETERNME THESHORTEST ANDMOST
SUITABLEROUTEFORLAYTNG THEHVDCCABLESBETWEEN WESTERN TIPOF
SARAWAKANDSOUTH-EASTPOINTOFJOHORE. THEPROPOSEDROUTEIS A
DIRECTLMK BEIWEENTHE TWO POINTS AND A SKEI%H OF THE ROUTE
WOULDBE FOLLOWEDBYMAIL.THE ROUTE WOULD BE SURVEYEDBY A
Biiii~BiY EQuiPSuiiLtiY ilESSU ANDSEABSURFACEWITHINA WIDTH
OF 250METRESONBOTHSIDESOFTHEROUTEWOULDBEMVOLVED. ITIS
ENVISAGEDTHATONLYINDONESIAN WATERWOULDBE INVOLVED.'*~~*
432. Third,it is evidentfrom'Singapore's letterof permission authorising
the surveyto goaheadthatSingaporehadnoappreciationat the timethatthe
surveywouldgothroughthewatersaround PBP. Onthe contrary,Singapore
Letter from the Director Genehe Economic PlanningUnit, Malaysia,to the
Secretary General ofthe Ministryof Foreign Affairs4March 1980:Annexes,vol.
3, Annex48. Seealso thetelexfromthe Sarawak Electricity Supply Corporation referrteodin
p58agraph5ofthisletter.
Letterfromthe DirectoryGeneralof the Economic Plannin, alaysia,to the
SecretaryGeneralof the Ministry ofForeignAffairs, 26lFebruary 1980: Annexes,
vol.3, Anne47.An examination ofthe Reportproducedfollowingthe surveyconfirms that
the only non-Malaysianwaters involved inthe surveywere Indonesian.See "SeabedStudy
alongthe HVDCSubmarineCable RouteInterconnecting Sawarak PeninsularMalaysia
as Part of the Feasibility Study forthe Power SystemDevelopmentin Sarawak"(Bremer?,
December1982).CopiesoftheFeasibility Studyhavebeen lodgedwiththe,Registrar.wasunclear whichof its territorialwaterswouldbethe subjectofthe survey.
This,itsletter of permissiof 7 June 1980states:"Sincethe proposedareas
for the survey would affect Singapore territorialwaters, the Singapore
authorities concernedwould like to have the coordinatesof the areas in
Singaporeterritorial waters to be s~eyed."~" The proposition that
Singaporenowadvances wasevidentlynot onethat informedits thinking at
the time.
433. Fourth,the feasibility studywas eventually conducted in July-August
1982anda Report produced.ThisReportmakesit clearthatthe surveyhad
nothing whatever to do withPBP orwith waters around it.Describingthe
"Area ofInvestigation",the Reportstates:"the areaof investigationextends
from 1'55'N to2O05N ' , fkomPeninsular Malaysiainthewestto Sarawakin
the east."56PBPis locatedat l0l9'48"Nand 104"24'27"~?~T 'heclosestthe
surveycameto PBPwas around40 nrn to the northat coordinates2'00.3'N
and 104'24.2'E. This correspondsto the depiction onthe map that was
attached totheMalaysianHighCommission's letter of 26 March1980. It is
nowherenear the territorialwaters ofPBP, and indeedthe Report neither
depictsBPbynameonanyofitsgraphics nor mentionsiin tthetext.
434. the SurveyReport indicatetsatvarious legofthesurveyended
inSingaporet,heportatwhichthe s&ey vessel was based.
435. As allthisattests,thecorrespondenceinrespectofthissurveysupports
neitherthecontention that MalaysiaequestedpermissionfromSingaporefor
theconductingof a surveyinthe watersaroundPBPnorthat thesurveytook
placeinthese waters. Singapore's relianoce this materialin supportof its
caseisthuswhollymisplaced.
SMAnnex147,p.1105.
s60 "SeabedStudyAlongtheHVDCSubmarinC e able Rouenterconnectigarawak
andPeninsular alaysiaasPartoftheFeasibStudy for teowerSyste Dmevelopment
inSarawak("Bremen, ecember982),p.7,para.1,I,
56' MM, para 32. (v) Permission giventoforeignerstooperate in PulauBatu
Puteh'sterritorialwaters
436. Finally, Singapore contendthat it "also controlledaccessby foreign
parties to her territorialwaters around PedraBranca, andforeign parties
recognized Singapore's sovereignty over Pedra Bran wcaen seeking to
engageinactivitiesinthesewaters"?62
437. In fact,Singaporemakes noreference hereto foreign parties,butonly
to a numberof exchangeswith one foreignparty. An examination ofthe
materialannexedto Singapore's Memoria in supportof this contentionis
instructive. It includesthreelettersto the Portof Singapore Authorityom
the English salvagecompanyRegis Ltd., and one letter of reply to the
companybythePortof SingaporeAuthority,allbetween Mayand July 1981.
Thiscorrespondenceconcernassalvage surveyin anarea"about6to 10miles
north-eastofHorsburgh ~i~ht?'.'~~hecorrespondence fromRegisLtd.goes
ontostate:
"the area to be lookedat lies entirely withinthe territorial
waters (as definedby accepted international racticeo)f the
isletonwhich Horsburgh Light Hous stands."'4
Subsequentcorrespondenc fiomthecompanyclarifiesthisfurther,viz.:
"The areaconcernedis shownon the attached diagram.It is
clear ofthe Traffic Separation Zonenorth of the lighthouse,
and lies within the territorial waters of Horsburgh islets
(assuming 12 mile limits and the customary methods of
determiningbase-lines)."565
The letterfromthe Portof SingaporeAuthority irnesponsetotheseenquiries,
dated 2 July 1.981,grwts permissionfor the carrying outof the sidescan
survey subjectto variousconditions.
SM, para. .65.
SMAnnex151,p.1115.
SM Annex 152,p.1117.
SM Annex 153,p. 1119.438, Anumberofpointsonthismaterialarerequired.First,Regis Ltd.isa
private companyn ,ot an agencyof a foreignState. Theactionsof a private
companyinmistaken appreciation of questionsof sovereigo nrttheextentof
territorialwaterscannotamountto conduct confmatory ofSingapore'sclaim
totitle. StilllessisitopposabletoMalaysia.
439. Second,Captain Glass andMrBrewerobservethat:
"[slcientifiand technical surveysmay have the effect of
interfering with the effective and reliable operation ofa
lighthouse, To this end, it is common practice among
lighthouse operatortso requirethatpermissionissought before
any such activities are carried on in the vicinity of a
, ~i~hthouse.~'~~~
Whileit isnotcIearwhetherthe sidescansurveyproposedbyRegisLtd.was
ofa kindthatmight havehterferedwiththeeffective operation ofHorsburgh
Lighthouse,a salvagecompanymaybe expectedto knowthat scientificand
technical surveys could interfereith lighthousesystems. Their requestfor
permissionto conductthe survey fiom the lighthouse operatorwouldthus
have been prudent conduct simply reflectintg he realities of lighthouse
administration.
440. Third, thelanguage ofthecorrespondence byRegisLtd.is interesting.
Insteadofsimply referringto thesurveyareaas"Singaporeterritorialwatersyyy
whichwouldhave been the simplest formulation t' use, the company used
more qualifiedlanguage,viz.,the arealieswithintheterritorialwatersof "the
islet on whichHorsburgh LightHousestands". This language isqualified,
suggestingthat RegisLtd.werenotthemselves sure that'thewaters in question
were Singapore waters.Hadthey been,the simplerformulation"Singapore
territorialwaters"would have sufficed.
441. Fourth,the qualified appreciationof Regis Ltd.that the surveyarea
thatwas the subjectof this requestmighthave fallen withinthe territorial
Glass-BrewRreport,ara50.
210 waters'ofSingaporewas incorrect. As the correspondencemake . .lear,the
surveyarea was between6 and 10 miles northeastof PBP. At the time,in
, 1981,Singapore onlyclaimeda territorialsea of 3 b. ~lthou~hSingapore
had,on 15September1980,signalledits intentionto extenditsterritorial sea
beyondthree nm"in certainareas",567it hadnot doneso by the time of this
correspondence.On anyreadingof the statusof PBP,therefore,the survey
area wouldnot have fallenwithinSingapore'sterritorialwaters. The point
simply illustratthatappreciationsof sovereignty antheextentofterritorial
watersbyprivatecompaniesareinherentlyunreliable.
.442. Significantly,the surveyarea did fall withinthe territorialwaters of
Malaysiaatthistime asMalaysiahad,in 1969,claimed a territorial seaof 12
nm. Insofar as RegisLtd. wereproceedingon the basisof someuncertain
notionthat a territorial seaof 12hadbeen claimed,the relevantStatewas
Malaysia,notSingapore.
443. Fift Shngapore'sLLpermission fo"r the conductingof the surveyin
.,July 1981occurredafterthe disputewithMalaysiahad crystallised. Asthe
surveyarea could not, evenby referenceto Singapore'sconductat the time,
havefallenwithin Singapore's claime territorialwaters,this permissioncan
onlybeseeninself-servingterms aspost-criticaldateconduct.
444. Sixth,Malaysiaknewnothingofthecorrespondence with RegisLtd.at
thetime, andsoitisnotconduct which Malaysiacouldhave objectedto.
567 SM Annex 148. G, Navalpatrolsandtheinstallation ofmilitarycommunications
equipmenton Pedra ~ranca~~'
445. Singaporecontends that itwas engagedin "frequentnaval patrolsin
the territorial waters around Pedra Branca and installed military
communicatione squipmentonthe is~and"."~It annexesin support a single
Singapore NavyOperationsInstructiondated 18 September 1975which
providesfor thedeployment of Singapore Navy"in anti-piracyand routine
securitypatrols"across five patrol areasextendingfrom the Sultan Shoal
Lighthousein the west to the "HorsburghLighthouseextending N.orth-
Easterly". At itsclosestto the Johorcoast,the coordinates ofpatrol'areaF5,
fiom the "HorsburghLighthouse extending North-Easterly",akegiven as.
01°17.5'N,104O 20.5'~.~~R~elatedto thesepatrols,Singaporealso contends
that it"installedmilitarycommunicationequipment on PedraBranca"inMay
1977.
446. A numberof observationsmay be maderegardingthese contentions.
First,as willbeaddressedinChapter9below,the RoyalMalaysian Navyhad
been engagedin naval patrols in the watersaround PBPfrom the period
immediatelyfollowingthe independenceof Malayaon 31August 1957and
the transferbyBritainto Malaya.oftheRoyal Malayan Navy on 1July 1958
allthewaythroughthe 1960sand 1970s and beyond?71Isolated instancesof
naval patrolsby the SingaporeNavy afterits formationin April 1975are
hardlysufficienttoundermine'thelong-established pattenfRoyalMalaysian
Navypatrolsinthisarea.
447. Second, fromthe coordinatesprovidedby Singaporeconcerning its
sectorF5patrols,it is evidentthatthesenavalpatrolsby Singaporeare likely
to have traversed Malaysianterritorialwatersalongthe Johor coast. The
SM,pm.a.6.68..
570 SM,para.6.70Annex 123p,.1033.
'" See below, paragraphs533-546. See also the Affidavitof Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingama,ras.13,21-25,51-75:Annexes,vol.2,Annex4.coordinatesgivenabove(01°17.5"N,104°20.5'Ew ) ould have takenthepatrols
within 14% nautical miles ofthe Johor coastand the islandsproximate
:thereto,suchasPulauLimaandPulau Pemanggil.
448. .,:.Third,givenSin.gapore'sresponsibilities for Horsburgh Lighthous ite,
isnotsurpri'.I.that itwouldhavetakenstepstosafeguardthe securityofthe
facility. AsPBPliesinthemiddleofa straitused forinternationalnavigation,
inrespectofwhich transitpassage "shall nob te impededor su~~ended",5~ it~
is equally unsurprisingthat Malaysiawould not have taken any steps to
impedepassagebySingaporenavalvesselsinthe area. Moreover,itis likely,
giventhe SingaporeNavypatrol sectorst ,hatthesepatrolswouldhavebeenon
a transitbasis,i.e.,thatthe vessels concernewouldhavebeenenrouterather
than anchoringat anyparticular spot?73Theywouldnot have appeared to an
outsideobserveraspatrols, and certainlynotaspatrolsrelevantto PBPwhich,
inthe languageof the Court itnheTempleCase, demanded area~tion.5~~
449. Fourth, as regardsthe installation of military communications
equipmentbySingaporeinHorsburghLighthouseinMay 1977,Malaysiacan
only observe that this was undertaken secretly,as the "restricted" or
"confidential"markingson the internal Singapore communicationson this
matter Malaysia only becameaware ofthisonreceiptof Singapore's
Memorial. This conducb ty Singapore, together with otherconduct ofwhich
Malaysia hasonlyrecentlybecome aware,has raisedserious concernsabout
Singapore's useof Horsbwgh Lighthouse fornon-light (andespecially
military)purposes.
572 UNCLOS,Article 38(1),44.
573 SeefurthetheAffidavit ofRear-AdmirTlhanabalasingap, ra.59:Annexes,vol.
2Annex4.
Seeabove,paragraph82.
SMAnnexes124-132. H. Clailholoncerninginvestigatioonfnavigationahl azards
and
450. Singaporeclaimsthatit has"exercisedsovereign authoritoverPedra
Brancaby investigatingand reportingon maritime hazards and shipwrecks
withinthe island'sterritorialrs".s77Insupportofthisclaim, itcitesthree
investigationsinto marine casualtiesaer0year period, namelyi,nrespect
ofincidentsthatoccurredon9July 1920,7November1963and29November
1979,57the issuingofNoticesto Marinersin 1981 and 1983:~'and various
investigationsinto marine casualestween1985and 1998?80
451. The issue ofNoticesto Mariners has alreadbeen addressedabove
and,butfora briefcomment,requiresnofurtherdiscussion;s81Thecomment
concerns Singapore's argument that enitreportedto theTwelfthTripartite
Technical Experts Group Meetino gn Safety of Navigation the Straitsof
Malaccaand Singapore ("ITEG") in May 1983(afterthe critical date) that
"two wrecksinthe vicinity oftheHorsburghLighthousehad beenverified",
"[nlo questions wereraised as to singapore's jurisdiction over these
hazards"?82
452. A reviewof the Reportof this meeting-the fullversionof whichis
attachedasan annex to thiscounter-~emorial~~ ~h-sthisw as a
meetingoftechnical experts. TeTEGisaforumfor discussionoftechnical
issuesrelatingtothesafetyofnavigationinthewholeareaoftheMalacca and
SingaporeStraitsbyexpertsfrom Indonesia, Malaysind Singapore.It was
as a result of recommendations ofthis groupthat the Traffic Separation
Schemeforthe Straitswasimplementedin1981.
SM,para6..6(k).
SM,para6..76.
SM,paras..77-6.79.
SM,paras..80-6.81.
SM,para6..82.
Seeabove,aragrap3s6-371,
SM,para6..8& Annex156.
Annexes,vol.3, Annex49.453. The salientpointthat emerges froma reviewof the Reportof this
meetingis that thefocusofthe TTEGis on maritimesafetyissues regardless
ofquestionsof sovereignty.It isa responseto theinjunctioninUNCLOSand
SOLASthat Stateshavea dutyto cooperatein respectof such matters. It
affirmsprecisely theoppositepoint to the one Singaporeseeks to make.
Maritime safety issues, includingthe administrationof lighthouses,are
addressed withinafunctionalrather thanaterritorialframework.IntheStraits
of Malacca and Singapore t,is goesbackto the earliestdays ofthe Straits'
Lights system.
454. Moreover nothing is saidneithertheReportor in Singaporels
pleadingsaboutthe wrecksthat wereverified-the nationalityof the
vessels, the circumstancesof the incidents,etc. As the earlier
discussioninthisChapteronNoticestoMariners indicates, lighthouse
operators have a responsibilityto warn of marine hazards to
na~i~ation.5'~
455. Asregards theinvestigationofmarinecasualtiescited by Singapore,a
numbzr iif sksert-iiibiiitibe made. as a generaiproposition,boin
UNCLOSandSOLASimposedutiesinrespect oftheinvestigationofhazards
tothesafetyof navigationandthe publication of informationnsuchhazards.
Inasmuch asSingaporehadthe capacityandactedto investigatesuch matters
and publish informationhereon,itwasactinginaccordancewithbestpractice
in the fieldof maritime safety.It wasnot acting(anddid not purportto be
acting)h titre dsouveraininrespectofPBP.
Seeabove,paragraph61,369.456. Second,whilethe investigationofmarine casualtiesmayormay not be
taken by an authority responsiblfor the operation ofa lighthouse, Captain
Glass and Mr Brewer note that a lighthouse authority willhave certain
responsibilitieinthisregard:
"A lighthouse authoritwouldbe likelyto review andsurvey
navigationalhazards, suchas wrecks, shoalsand sand banks,
and markany dangerto navigation causedby such hazards.
Who takes responsibilityfor the investigationof. marine
casualtieswill dependonthestatusofthevessel involved inthe
incident. In cases in which the State in whose watersthe
incident occurs undertakethe investigation,the Flag Stateof
the vessel involved would beexpectedto cooperatein the
investigation, althoughit may also carry out its own
investigationin more serious cases. In many countries,the
distinctionbetweenlighthouseauthoritiesandthecoastguardor
department responsible for marine investigatioinbslurred,as
they tend to operate as separate sections withinthe same
government administration. In such cases, therefore,the
authority responsibleor theadministration of lighthouses will
also be responsible for the investigation of marine
casua~ties."~~~
457. Third, as regards the marine casualtyon 9 July 1920to which
Singapore refers,thisresultedfroma collisionbetweenthe British'8.S.Chak
Sang and the Dutch S.S. Ban Fo Soon about 1%to 1% miles north of
Horsburgh ~i~hthouse.~'~At this time, Singapore was paro t f the Straits
Settlements,a BritishColony. The Courtof Investigation was sittingunder
the terms of the MerchantShipping Ordinance1910,pursuantto which
jurisdiction couldbe exercisedin a widevarietyof circumstances, Asthe
Court of Investigation'srecord of this incident indicates,this was an
investigationintothe circumstancesotfhecollision involving Britishship at
sea in whichthere wasa question about theproprietyof the conductof the
''13 SMiAnnex78,p.681.~astter.'~~Thejurisdictional basis of the inquiry-whether as a matterof
~ritish~" or international ~aw~~'-had nothing whateverto do with
sovereignty over PBP.
458. Fourth,the marinecasualtyon 7 November1963 sited by Singapore
concernedthe British registeredcargo vessel MV WooiJburn which ran
agroundon PBPon 7November1963. The incidentwas investigatedbythe
Master Attendantof Singapore. Followinghis report, Singapore'sDeputy
PrimeMinisterconveneda Courtof Investigation undersection 315of the
Merchant Shipping Ordinance. Singapore assetr hst,underthissection,the
Minister couldonlyappointa Courtof Investigationfor a shipnotregistered ,
in Singapore.unless the incident "occurs onor near the coast of
[$ingapore] 1.590
459. Of course Singapore waspart of the Federationof Malaysiaat all
materialtimes - atthetimeoftheincident,thetimeofthereportoftheMaster
Attendant,and the time of the appointment ofthe Courtof Investigation.
Moreover'the termsof section 315ofthe MerchantShippingOrdinanceare,
not qualifiedby referenceto distanceandjurisdicitoncan be exercised in a
wide rangeofcases. Forexample, under the Ordinancea "shippingcasualty"
is deemedto occur "(b)whereinanyplaceanyBritish ship hasbeen stranded
ordamaged andanyofhercrewwhoarecompetentwitnessestothe factsare
found"in ~in~a~ore.~''
'" The Courtof InvestigatreprimandedtheMasterof the British ship fofrailingto
take bearingoftheS.S.BanFo Soonafter sighther.SMAM~X 78, p.681.
Merchant ShippingOrdinanNco.XXXIIof1910(StraitsSettlemints),ss.285,288.
Underthese provisions (passed pursutntpowersgrantedby theMerchantShippingAct
1894(UK) S.478),jurisdiction coube exercised, for examp",[wlherethe offiofra
Britishshipwho is charged with incompetenormisconductoti board that Briship is
foundinthe Colony",irrespectiofwhereintheworld the,accident occurdh.e(disputed)
locationofthecollisionnear'PBwas not thejurisdictialasis of theinquiry,wcould
equdlyhave beenheldwithrespectto a collision within a miloer twoof the.PulauPisang
li ht-or anywhereelseforthatmatter.
'' Cf.7% CaseoftheSA'.Lorus,PCII,SeriesA,N0.10(1927)p.25.
590 SM, para.6.78(parenthesandemphasisinoriginal).
Merchant ShippingOrdinance,312:LawsoftheColonyofSingapore(1955edn.)
vol.V1ch.207. Thepower toappointaCourt ofInvestigationundr.315maybeexercised,
interalia,"wherea shippingcasuayasoccurred".Theterq "shippingcasualty"isdefined
in S312.460. Thereis a firther dimensionto thismatter. Singapore placesstorein
the fact that this incidentwas investigatedby the Master Attendant of
Singapore.TheMaster Attendant atthetimewasJ.A.L~avitt.'~' Pavitt,who
at the time alsocarriedthe title Singapore Director of Mae,as a noted
authorityonHorsburgh LighthouseH . isownwritingsabout the lighthousin
1966,i.e.,almostcontemporaneous withthe grounding.oftheW Woodburn,
expresshis view that Horsburgh Lighthouse was not part of singapore.'"
Pavitt'spositionon this pointwas clear;but he hadample ground in the
MerchantShippingOrdinanceto propose a Court of Investigation intth oe
incident,which was on any view a "shipping casualty" as defined inthe
Ordinance. Pavitt'sinvestigation athe subsequent appointmenotf a Court
of Investigatiocannotbe takenasconduct r)titredesouverainby singapore
relativetoPBP.
461. Fifth, aregardsthe marine casualtyon 29 November1979to which
Singaporerefers,there is a curiouspaucityof informationconcerningthis
incidentin the documentsprovidedby Singapore. Thus,we are told in
Singapore'~korial thata Panamanian cargovessel,theMY YuSeungHo,
"ran aground approximately600 metres east of Pedra ~ranca"?" No
additional informatiisprovided, whetheorn thevessel,the locationor the
incident.nexaminationof thelargescaleAdmiraltyChart2403 foldedinto
the sleeve of this Counter-Memorial showtshat the shallowestpoint in
proximitytoPBP to the eastis about 6 fathoindepth. It isnotcleariom
the informationthat Singapore provides whethtre MYYuiS'eung Ho ran
agroundat this pointor whetherit was involved ina collision withanother
vesselorwhethertherewassomeother factorwhichmight have.beenmaterial
toSingapore% subsequent investigatinftheincident.
SMAnnex 109,p.990.
"' MM,paras.257-263.Sealso M,paras.227-234.
SM, para6.79.462. The only information provided on this incident are three brief
documentswhichare entirelybarrenof any informationabout theincident.
The first is the single sentenceletter, dated4 December 1979, fiom the
Director of Marine otfhePortof SingaporeAuthorittyo Captains Thomasand
Chua ofthe Portof SingaporeAuthority appointing them '"t investigateinto
the above grounding".595 Theothertwoare lettersin almostidentical terms
fiomCaptain Thomas to MrBangNo HyeonandMrBakJong H& bothof
Korea. The lettersreadasfollows:
"This is to inform you that after investigatingthe above
casualty,theMinisterforCommunicationshas foundyouunfit
foremployment.on Singaporeregistered~hi~[s].''~~~
These lettersleave some doubtas to whetherthe MY Yu SeungHo was
actuallya Singaporeregistered vesseolrwhetherthe incidenthadsome other
connectionto Singapore.Inany event, the informatiop nrovidedbySingapore
issosketchyand solackinginprecisionthatitshouldbedisregarded.
463. Sixth,thisleaves onlythepost-critical daincidentsand investigations
citedby Singapore.Inthe lightof the paucity and insubstantial naturetohe,
pre-critical date practienwhichSingaporehas reliedt,hispost-critical date
conductcannotprovidea foundationfor Singapore'sclaim. Indeed, itwould
be quiteinappropriateforthis conductto betakeninto accountasthereisno
continuityof pre-and post-criticalate conduct.Malaysiadoesnottherefore
consider it necessaryto addressthis conduct in any detail. Two brief
observ&ionsmayhoweverbemadk.
464. First, in the light ofthe requirements ofUNCLOSand SOLAS in
respectof the investigation of marine hazard si,ngapore'sinvestigation.of
theseincidentsaccords.withbest practiceinthe geld andreflectsitscapacity
in maritime field.Theseinvestigations do not amountto conduct h titrede
souveraininrespectofPBP.
SM Annex139, p.1087.
596 SMAnnex142, pp.1093and1094.Thefirsletter reso"ship", teecondrefers
to"ships",
219465. Second,ineach ofthefiveincidents citedbySingaporebetween 1985
to '1998,there is a connectionto ~in~aporeIn two cases,the shipswere
registeredinSingapore.Infourcases,theshipsweredry-dockedinSingapore
for repairs. In every case,the shipshadjust departed Singaftertaking
oncargo. Inevery case,theship contactetheSingaporePort Authorityfter
the incident,eitherto request assistance or,in one case,to indicatethat it
wouldbe returningto Singaporeunderitsown steam. Given thesefactors,it
isnosurprisethat Singaporeundertook investigatioO.nceagain,however,
the investigations not amountto conductdtitredesouveraininrespectof
PBP.
I. Claimsconcerning the investigatiofaccidentaldeath inthe
watersofPedra~ranca~'~
466. Singapore refersto aAugu'st 1981 inquiryby the Singapore State
Coronerintothe deathsofthreemembersoftheSingaporearmedforceswhen
theirSingaporeNavyvessel capsizedoffPBPinJune 1980.Singaporerelies
on the factthat the inquiry conductedundera sectionof the Singapore
CriminalProcedureCode whichprovidesthat,wherea bodycannotbefound,
acoronermayassumejurisdictionif hebelievesthat thedeath occurredwithin
his jurisdiction. It is apparentfrom the inquiryfindingsthat the vessel in
question, referto asRSNHarbour Launch No.3,wasengagedinsomesort
of militaryexerciseoffPBPwhenit capsizedinroughseaswiththe death of
threeservingmembersof the SingaporArmed ~orces.~~~
467. Leavingto oneside thequestionof the characterof the.operationand
the legality of the use of these waters for military purposes(on which
Malaysia reservesits position),the fact of the Singapore State Coroner's
inquirycannot availSingapore's came. incidentoccurredon24June1980,
s97 SMAnnexes 157,159,184,198,200.
SMAnnex.155,p.112etseq.afterthe disputeoverPBPhadcrystallised.Theinquirytookplace 14months
later,in August 1981. Inthe circumstances,soonafter the crystallisationof
the dispute, the naval exercise itself appearto have been a self-serving
attemptby Singaporetomanufacturesome efectivit6insupportofitsclaimto
PBP.
468. As for the coroner'sinquiry, itis a long-established principle of
internationallawthatwarshipshaveabsolute immunity from thejurisdiction
of the foreignStatein whosewaters they are fouhd., Fromthe termsof the
coroner'sreport,thereis littledoubtthatRSNHarbourLaunchNo. 3 would
havecomewithinthedefinitionofa "warship".600 Theimmunityofwarships
was expressly affirmed in Article 22(2) of the 1958 Conventionon the
TerritorialSea and theContiguousZone,theoperativestatementof lawat the
time of the incident. It is expresslyaffied in Article 32 of UNCLOS,
subjectto limited exceptions,oneofwhich would pennitthe investigationof
conduct occurringon sucha vesselbythe authoritiesof a foreignStateeven
werethat conducttohaveoccurredintheterritorial watersofthat State. The
mostthat acoastal Statecould lawfully do inthe circumstanceswouldbeto
requirethewarship"toleavethe territoriasleaimmediatelyy1."'
469.
Seen in its legal context, therefore, jurisdictito inquire intothe
service deaths thatoccurredin the incident whichSingaporedescribes did
indeedproperlyrestwiththe SingaporeState Coroner.It did sobecausethe
incident concerneda Singaporenaval vesseland serving members ofthe
Singaporearmed forces. The vessel, its crew and troops fell exclusively
withinSingapore'sjurisdictionbecauseof their status, notfor anyreasonof
territoriality. The incident, and the State Coroner'sinquiry, does not
constitute conductd titredesouverainonwhichSingaporecan properly rely
insupport ofitsclaimto PBP.
,
600
ThedefinitioinUNCLOS Art.29broadlycorresponso thagiveninArt. 8(of
the1958ConventionontheHighSeas.
UNCLOS, Art.30. J. Claimsconcerningseareclamation
470. Singaporerelies on the fact that it looked into the feasibilityof
undertakinga sea reclamationproject around PBP as evidence that .it
considered theislandto be Singaporeterritory? It says that"an invitation
for tenderswas publishedin the nationalnewspapers"Po4In its pleading,it
indicatesthat these events occurreid1970. 605 .
...
471. There.is an initialfactual errorin Singapore'spleadingonthis point.
Thecircumstancestowhichit refers took place in 1978, notin 1970. Thisis
evident fromthe materialreproduced iA nnnex135ofSingapore's Memorial.
472. While the error may be typographical,it is nonethelessof some
significanceas it is evident that, sometimi en 1977,Singapore initiated .an
internal processto beginto prepareitsclaimto PBP.Thesalienteventsare as
follows.
473. On 13 January1978,WismaPutra (Ministryof ForeignARairs of
Malaysia) wrote to the SingaporeHigh Commissionin Kuala Lumpur
concerninga 'fjointhydrographic survey alongthe Straitsof Johorefor the
purposesof demarcatingthe internationalboundary"between them;606A
meetingbetweenthe representatives of the two sideswas eventuallyheld in
WismaPutra (Ministryof Foreign Affairs,Malaysia)on 13 April 1978to
discuss theissue. In thecoursethismeeting,theMalaysian representative en
pm,~mt raisedthe questionof the'Singapore flag being flownon Horsburgh
Lighthouse.TheSingaporerepresentativerespondedthat Singaporeregarded
PBP as theirs. The internal Malaysiannote of this meeting recordsthe
followingstatemenb tythe Singaporerepresentative:
602 SM, pm. 6.6(m).
603 SM,para.6.90.
SM,para.6.89.
"'5 Note fromthe Ministryof ForeignAffairsof Malaysiato the SingaporeNigh
Commission EC1/78, 13January1978:Annexesvol.3,Annex44. "[TheSingaporerepresentative] saidthat having cometoknow
abouttheproposalbytheMalaysiannavy to undertakea survey
around the Horsburgh Lighthouse,Sinwore immediatelv
undertooka thoroughstudyandresearchon the ownership of
the island of Batu Puteh which is of vital importance to
Singapore. Thestudywas completed abou t or4 monthsago
and fromthestudyit was established beyonadny doubtthatthe
island belongsto Singaporeby treaty agreement. Sin apore
hasinitspossessiontheoriginal copyof the agreemen,,87
474. As thismakesplain,by mid-April1978,Singapore alreadyhad in its
possession an internal studyc,ompleted3 or 4 mofithsearlier (i.e., around
December 1977 orJanuary 1978),settingout itsclaimto PBP. Thestudywas
presumably initiatedomemonthsbeforethis as it was characterisedbythe
Singaporerepresentativaesa"thorough study7'.
475. SobythetimeSingaporecame toinvitethetenders forthereclamation
worksonwhich itnowrelies--on27January1978-it evidentlyhaditsclaim
to PBPinmind.
476. Singapore referto"aninvitationfor tenders[which]waspublishedin
the nationalnew~~a~ers",6~F ~ollowingreceipt of Singapore'sMemorial,
Malaysia's researches into this iss11were able to identify nnly nne
advertisementpublishedon one dayin the StraitsTimes, i.e.,on 27 January
1978. The implicationin Singapore's pleadingo sf substantialinvitationsto
tenders, widely published over an extended periodis thus misleading.
Moreover, an examinatioo nf theactual TenderNoticeonthe dayinquestion
is revealing. The Notice is reproduced at Annex135 of Singapore's
Memorial.It invitestenders forfiveproposed workso,fwhich oneconcerned
theworksinquestion.Thereclamationworks werd eescribedinthefollowing
terms:
"' Notes on DiscussionBetween Mr. M. Kishore,Counsellor,SingaporeHigh
CommissionandPAS principalAssistantSecretSoutheastAsiaon 13' April, at78
WismaPutra(Ministryof Foreign Affairs, Malay1)4, April 1978 (emphasisadded):
Annexes,vol. 3,Annex.
SM,para.6.89. "RECLAMATION ANDSHOREPROTECTION
WORKSATHORSBURGH LIGHTHOUSE
TenderDeposit: $1,500.00
ClosingDate: 21Feb78".
477. ThisNoticeiswhatSingapore nowreliesuponas eflectivi'upporting
itsclaimtotitleoverPBP-an invitatiototender publisheonone dayinone
Singapore newspaperw , hich simplyrefers to unparticularisedworks at
Horsburgh Lighthouse,t a timewhenSingaporehadalready decidedtomake
a newclaimto sovereignty ovePrBP based ona ''treaagreement"whichit
hasneveryetmanagedtoproduce.
478. Twofurtherobservationsare wananted. First, the tenderexplicitly
linkedthe proposed reclamation wortkosorsburghLighthouse, describing
themas"shoreprotectionworksatHorsburgh Lighthouse".Theobservations
byCaptainGlassand Mr Breweronthispointareinstructive:
''Ifsuch workwere necessary in connectionwith.providing
additionalfacilitiesfor the operationof the lighthouse and
ancillaryequipmenti,ncludin,orexample,theconstruction of
a helipad,boat landingareaor antennabase,this wouldfall
withinthescopeofresponsibility oflighthouseauthority and
couldbe undertakenbythem. If suchworkwasnotnecessary
for purposes ofthe operation.and maintenance ofthe
lighthouse, it would otmewithinthescopeofresponsibility.
authorityand would not be undertakenby
them."
479. The TenderNotice doesnot describe specificalyhatthe proposed
workswere for. It onlyindicates in genera ermsthat they werefor the
lighthouse, On itsface, this was conductin the administrationof the
lighthouse.
480. Second,the Tender Evaluation Repofrt; theseproposedworks that
SingaporeannexetsoitsMemorialismarked"Secret".Itis notargportwhich
Glass-BmerReport, ar. 4:Annex, ol.2,Annex.1.
224Malaysiahadpreviouslyseen andnot onetowhichMalaysiamighthavebeen
expectedtorespond.
K. Conclusions
481. Singapore's claimsof conductare spread over two Chaptersand
almost 70pagesof its~emodal. Someitemsareaddressedinmore than one
place andarecitedin support ofmore thanoneproposition. Otheritemsare
addressed enpassant. Thepreceding review seeksto addresseachandevery
itemofconductadvancedbySingaporein supporo tfitsclaim.
l
482. It emergesclearlyfiomthis reviewthat there is not a singleitemof
conduct-not a single item fiom the array ofconductthat Singapore has
produced-in supportof Singapore's claimsI.na s.ignificatumberofcases,
the claims arenot supportedby the materialthat Singaporeannexesto its
Memorial. Singapore's pleading on these elementsare characterisedby .
omissions, misstatementasndinaccuracies,somehighly material.
483. Inmanycasestheconductreliedonhas no specificreferenct eoPBP at
all,orreferencestoHorsburgh Lighthouseappear amon aseriesofreferences
to lighthousesadministeredfromthe Singaporestation,includinglighthouses
admittedly on Malaysianterritory. As this Court said in the Sipadanand
~i~iian case,it"canonly considerthose actsasconstitutingarelevant display
ofauthoritywhich leavenodoubtastotheirspecificreference totheislandsin
disputeassuch."610
484. Evenwherethematerialdoescontaina specificreferenceto Horsburgh
Lighthouse,in everycasepriorto the critical date(andin most ofthe cases
since)the conductcitedby Singaporeis simplypart of the general conduct
thatwould be undertakeb nyanyoperatorofa lighthouse. It is notconducth.
6'0 Sovereign@overPulauLlgltanandPulaStpadan(lizdonesia/MalqsJ,udgment
17December2002atpara,136, ciinSM, para..106.
225titre de souverain. As has been shown,in the isolatedcases in whichthe
conduct citedgoes beyondconductin the administration of a lighthouse, it
takes place after the criticaldate and is self-servingin the context ofthis
dispute.Thereisnothing-nothihg-in theconductrelied uponby Singapore
that supportsSingapore'scase, Chapter9
MALAYSM CONDUCTSUPPORTIVEOFITSCLAM
TOSOVIEREIGNW
485. In its Memorial Singapore makes various claims about Malaysian
conductconcerning PBP. It contendsthat Malaysia (a)ne.vercarried out
sovereignacts in respectof thes~and,~"(b)never protested"againstanyof
the constant clear and public manifestationsof State authority by
~in~a~ore",6'(~c) recognisedSingapore's sovereigntthroughits silencein
the face of Singaporean conduct6I3and by requestingauthorisationfiom
Singapore foraccess to PBP waters,6I4and (d) formally acknowledged
Singapore's sovereignty,61his elementbeinglater recastas a disclaimer of
Malaysian title.616In large measur,heseclaims aresimplythe corollaryof
the claimsthatSingaporeadvanced inrespectof itsown conduct,thematerial
being reliedupontwice, frrstas conductd titre de souverainby Singapore,
second as an acknowldgemeno t f title byalaysia.617Malaysiadoes not
consider itnecessaryto respondto these arguments twice.The responseto
Singapore'sclaimswhichare hingedon its own conductis straightforward.
As has been shownin Chapter 8,Singapore's pre-criticdlateconduct either
had no specific relation to PBP or was conduct that would have been
undertakenby any operator ofa lighthouseas part of its administrative
responsibilities.It was not conduct titre de souverain. It did not, in the
language of the Cod in the Temple Case, demand a reaction fiom
G12 SM,para.6.13.
'l3 SM,paras. .6-7.19.
615 SM,paras. .31-7.37.
6'G SM,ChapteVr III.
'l7 ThepointisexpressmadeinSM,para 7.28.~ala~sia.6" These issueshavebeen explored klly intheprecedingChapter.
This relatesin particularto Singapore's claims of siland acquiescence
(items(b)and (c)above). Nothingmoreneedstobesaidontheseelements.
486. Thereremaintwo claimsconcerningMalaysianconductthat require
some further response, supplementingthe points made in Malaysia's
Memorial.Thesearetheclaims(a)thatMalaysia never carriedoutsovereign
acts in respect of PBP and (d) that Malaysia formally acknowledged
Singapore'stitle andlor disclaimedits own title to the Before
addressingthesetwoissues,anumberofgeneralobservations arenecessary.
A. Generalobservations
(0 Historical interactionbetweMenalqysiaandSingaporeandthe
chmacterofPulau~atziputeh
487. Thehistory of the interactinetweenMalaysiaandsingaporeandthe
characterofPBParegermane to an evaluation the conductreliedupon by
the Partiesinthiscase. Asthereview oftheStraits' Ligsystem inChapter
7showed,the independence ofMalaya(in 1957)andSingapore(in 1965) was
precededbyovera century of interactioatvarious levels betwetheMalay
States andthe StraitsSettlementsunderthe British colonialrk. This
wasnot onlyevidentinthe fieldof aidsto navigation-including lighthouse
management-but also, for ekample,in defence, railwaysw, ater supplies,
telecommunications andmeteorology. The close interaction continued
betweenMalaya andSingapore,culminating intheincorporationof Singapore
intothe Federation ofMalaysiabetween 16 September1963and 9 August
1965. Even after Singaporeseparated from Malaysia,close linkshave
continued toexist. For examplethe SeparationAgreement providedfor
'l9 Malaysia'sconduct,bothbilateral(withSingapore)andunilateral,is addressedin
MM,pares.219-244,268-282.Thequestionof alleged acknowledgotr disclaimeris
addressedatMM,para235-243.Malaysia's continued involveme ntSingapore'sdefence.620 TheRepublic of
SingaporeNavywas only ''officiallyformedon 1 April 1975"P2' From 12
July 1958untilthe early 1980s,the RoyalMalaysianNavy'wasprincipally
based at itWoodlandsNavalBasein Singapore.ThisBase was onlyfinally
vacatedby~ala~siaandhandedoverto Singaporetowards theendof 1997P11
488. Theadministration ofHorsburghLighthousebytheStraitsSettlements
wasoneelementinthis interaction.A numberofthe keylighthouseswhich
were partof the Straits' Lightssystemwere administeredfiom Singapore.
Otherswere administered fromelsewherein the Straits~ettlements.6~~ This
system was developed without prejudicteo issues ofterritorialsovereignty.
This wasparticularly evidenitnthecasesoftwoofthefive"Singapore Group
ofLighthouses" which although administerfe iomthe Singapore stationwere
situatedonJohorterrit0ry.6'~
489. The character ofPBPis also relevantto a reviewof conduct, and is
likewise lacking in Singapore'sMemorial. As Malaysia notedin its
Memorial, given the tinysurfaceoftheislandandthepermission given foirts
use as the location of HorsburghLighthouse,the conduct thatcould be
expectedfiomMalaysiais conductin respectof the maritimespacesaround
the island, includingthe use of these waters, naval patrols and maritime
delimitation.625Key elements of Malaysianconduct were addressedin
Malaysia's~emoria1.6'~ Thisaspectissupplemented by fiutherdiscussionin
SectionCofthis Chapterbelow.
'" See the Affidavitby Rear-Admilhanabalasingamp,ara.21: Annexes, v.,2
Annex4.
"' SM,para.6.70.
AffidavitofRear-AdmiTlhanabalasingap,ras.11-15,21-25.
623 Viz.MalaccaandPenang.Seeabove,paragraph22.
624 Seeabove,paragraph24.
MM, para2.69.
MM,paras.270-282. (ii) Cooperation in theSing~poreStraits in thefield of maritime
safetyandrelatedmatters
490. Unsurprisingly, conductin respect of maritime safety issuesand
related matters in the Singapore and Malacca Straits has long been
characterisedby the cooperation between the littoral States, Indonesia,
Malaysiaand Singapore. This cooperation is particularly evident at the
technicallevel. Expertsin maritime safety, hydrographic and relateareas
fromthe threeStatesworkclosely on issuer sangingfiomthe implementation
of thetrafficseparationschemeinthe Straits, conductinjoint hydrographic
surveysin theareaandenvironmentalprotection.
491. A numberof examplesofMalaysianparticipationinthesecooperative
initiativescanbe given. Malaysia, SingaporaendIndonesiacooperate
closely.withinthe framework of the TripartiteTechnicalExpertsGroupon
SafetyofNavigationinthe StraitsofMalacca andSingapore ("'ITEG"). .This
elementwasaddressedin the preceding Chapter in the contextof claimsby
Singaporethat Malaysiadid notassertsovereigntyoverPBPinonemeeting of
this group in which Singaporenoted that two wrecks in the vicinity of
Horsburgh Lighthous" ehadbeen verified'"27
492. TheTT'EGis a tripartiteforumfor discussionby expertsof technical
issueselatingtothesafety ofnavigatiointheMalaccaandSingaporeStraits.
The Traffic Separation Schemf eor the Straitscameabout as a result of
cooperative initiatisetweenthethreecoastal Malaysiaplayed an
active role in these developments. Malaysia'sparticipation in these
endeavoursattests to its interestsin thiseawhich includesPBP and its
surroundingwaters..Butthe 'ITEGis not a forumfor dealing with bilateral
issues.
''' Seeabove,paragraph4s51-454.
SeeAnnex Bofthe'ITEGReport: nnexes;vol.3,Annex49.
230493. Second, as has also already beennoted, Malaysia, Singaporeand
Indonesiaput forwardajointproposal withinthe frameworkofthe IMO Sub-
Committeeon Safety ofNavigationfora "MandatoryShipReportingSystem
in the Straitsof Malaccaand~in~a~ore".~~ M~alaysia's involvemen t this
exercisesimilarly atteststo its interestsin the area includingnd its
surroundingwaters.
494. Third, Malaysia,together with Singapore and Indonesia, has
participated actively over anyyears in joint hydrographisurveysof the
watersoftheMalaccaandSingaporeStraits, including thewatersaroundPBP.
In 1964, in the period in which Singaporewas part of the Federationof
Malaysia,the RoyalMalaysianNavyassumed responsibility for coastaland
offshoresurveying ofMalaysian waters. A hydrographicsurveyunit was
establishedwithin the Royal MalaysianNavy in 1965 in order to meet
Malaysia's defencheydrographicsurveyrequirements,
495. Correspondenceof 24 February 1967 from the Director ofMarine,
Malaysiato the SecretaryotheMinistry of TransporotfMalaysia, addressed
the responsibility of tRoyalMalaysianNavy to undertakehydrographic
surveysinthefollowing terms:'
"3. As you are aware the Royal MalaysianNavy have
establisheda hydrographic surveunit inchargeof a surveyor
secondedfromtheRoyalNavy. Thevesselto befvst usedfor
this purposeis to be refitted soonandwibe in usewithin a
fewmonths. Atthesametime,theadditional staffrequiredto
carry outsurveysis noweitherbeingtrainedor have already
beentrained.
4. Accordingto previousagreementson the division of
responsibility ofsurveying,the Royal MalaysiNavy was to
be responsiblefor all Malaysianwatersotherthan within the
limitsofports."630
Letterdated24Februa1967fromJ. Groves,Dkctor of Marine,Malaysiat,othe'
Secretartothe MinisyfTransport,uaILumpurp,aras.3-4:Annexes,3,Annex39.
231496. To givean exampleof one such survey,in Mwrch-Apri1 l974;the
RoyalMalaysian Navy .SurveyShip KD Perantauundertooka hydrographic
surveyof the area aroundPBP. As notedin the Report ofthe 3"'Joint
Hydrogaphic Suwey in 2MQlacca;SSingapo Srraits, participantfrom
Indonesia,Japanand Singapore joined this ~urvey.6~~The area surveyed
includedthataroundPBP,withthesurveyproceedinginitiallybythe setting
upof atidepoleatthepierleadingto Horsburgh ~ighthouse." A subsequent
survey ofthis areabythe Royal MalaysianNavyintheperiodJuIy-October
1974included theestablishmenotfatidepoleatHorsburgh ~i~hthousa.~~~
497. These joint hydrographic surveys do not represent exclusively
Malaysianconduct. The surveys took place in the watersof all1three
participating State. hatthesesurveys doshow, howeveri,s thatMalaysia
and Malaysian personne hlavealwaysbeeninvolvedin chartingthe waters
aroundPBP,thattheyhaveusedthelighthouse onPBPas m inspection point
for these surveys, and that the have landed onthe island to take
measurements, As witth he precedingexamplesof ~ooperestivienitiatives,
Malays.ian.nvolvemenitnthesehydrographic surveysatteststo itscontinuing
interestsinPBPanditssurroundingwaters.
498. Fourth,inthecontextofthisdiscussion ofcooperative initiativeist,is
convenienttoaddress Singapore'specificclaimofsilenceonMalaysia's'part.
In its Memorial,Singapore contendtshat ''onewouldnot have expcxted
Malaysiato have remainedsilenton the severalsolemnoccasions.when
international decisiwsere maderelatingtothelegalregimeofwatersinthe
region".634Inparticular Singaporeferstotwo"cru~ialoccasions?o'nwhich
it contendsthat a statement of reservatiomsighthave been expected'by
Malaysia.The fus tccasionwaswhat Singapord eescribesas '?headoption
"' Reportof t3* JointHydrographicurveyinMalacca-Singartrait, usst
1974,p.13:Annex,ol.3,Annex41.
632 Ibid.
633 Reportof the4' JointHydrograpcurveyin MalaccaSingapoetraits,April
1975,p.18:Annexe,ol.3Annex42.
634 SM,pm. 7.19.of the Joint Statementon the Malacca and SingaporeStraits signed by
Indonesia, Malaysiaand Singaporeon 16November197 The second
was "the discussions thatled to the adoptionby the Inter-Governmental
~aritiie Consultative Organisation('IMCO')Assembly,on 14 November
1977,of its Resolution375(X)establishinga new navigation scheme itn he
HorsburghLight Area"?6Neither example helpsSingapore'scase.
499. Asthepress statementattachea dtAnnex116ofSingapore'sMemorial
shows, the November 1971 "occasion"was a joint statement issued by
Indonesia,Malaysiaand Singapore followingconsultationsbetween them
"witha viewto adoptinga commonpositiononmatters relatingto the Straits ,
of Malaccaand Singapore".Thestatement didnot mentionPBP. It didnot
addressissues relevanto thesovereigntyofanyterritory,landormaritime.In
its principal paragraptsimply affirmedthat:
"(i) the three governm{ntsagreed that the safety of
navigationin the Straits of Malacca and Singapore t ise
responsibilityofthecoastalStatesconcerned;
(ii) the threegovernmentsagreed ontheneed fora tripartite
cooperationonthesafetyofnavigationinthetwo straits;
the three governmentsagreed that a body for CO-
operationto co-ordinate efforfor.thesafetyof navigationin
the ~fEg!mr.g & Singqq= bb :::,ggb!iafiesso::a. .
possible andthat suchbody shouldbe composedof onlythe
threecoastalstatesconcek~ed;"~'
Noreservation ofterritorialrightsbyMaIaysiainrespectofPBPwasrequired
bythisconsultationj,ust as it wasnot required inrespectofany otherportion
of Malaysianlandormaritimeterritory. Therw easnothingintheconsultation
that warranted it,whetheron the part of Malaysiaor (for that matter)of
Singapore.
SM, para7.19&Annex X16.
SM,para.7.1& Annex 134.
637 SMAnnex 116,p.1007-1008.500. The same istrue forthe other"oc&asion" advancedby Singapore,the
passingof the IMCO Resolution A.375fl) of 14 November 1977. The
purposeof the Resolutionwasto adopt"thenewrouteing systeminthe Straits
of Malaccaand Singapore including trafficseparation schemesd, eep water
routesand rules describedin AnnexesI to V to this ~esolution~~.6~ The
Resolutionendorsed"thenecessitythat all oiltankers navigating througthe
Straits shallbe adequately coveredby relevant insuranceand compensation
schemesfor oil pollutiondamage,includingclean-up ~osts".6~'Ratherthan
focusingonthe HorsburghLight Area,as Singaporeimpliesin its pleading,
the Resolution wasconcerned with navigation throut ghe Straitsof Malacca
and Singaporeas a whole. It had nothingwhateverto do with unresolved
issuesof sovereignty,land or maritirnedm Thus the occasion of lMCO
Resolution A.375(X) did not call for any reservationor declarationof
territorialrightsby Malaysiain respectofPBP. Therewasnothingin either
the Resolutionor the consultationsleadingup to it that warrantedsuch a
reservationordeclaration, asshownequallybythe absenceofanydeclaration
bySingaporeregarding PBP.
(iii) Thescope ofMalqsian conduct
501. Singaporecontends that Malaysin aevercarried outsoyereignacts in
respectof PBP and that it formallyacknowledged Singapore'ssovereignty.
Thisis inaccurate.In itsMemorial,Malaysiadrewattentionto various.items
ofconductwhichaffirmedMalaysian sovereignto yverPBP. Theconductwas
notonlyunilateralMalaysianconductbutalso bilateral conducb ty Malaysia
and Singaporetogether which was supportive ofMalaysia's title. This
bilateralconductincluded:
IMCOResolution A.3750, 14November 1977sixthpreambulapraragrapSM
639ex 134,.1057,
640 Ibid.,seventhpreambupraragraS:MAnnex 134p,.1057.
Ibid.,Annex11:M Annex 134p,1060. the Straits Settlements and Johore Territorial Waters
Agreement, 1927, whicc hontainsa detaileddescriptionof the
territoriallimitsof~inga~ore;~~'
e the Straits'Lightssystem;642
e the 1953
502. In addition,the following itemsof unilateral Malaysian condu(tor
conductinvolving thirdStates),also confirmatoryof Malaysia's title, ere
addressedinMalaysia'sMemorial:
1968 Malaysian nava clharts showingPBPand itssurrounding
watersto beMalaysianterritorialaters;644
e a I968 PetroleumAgreement Between theGovernmentof
MalaysiaandContinental OilCompanyof~ala~sia;~~'
the 1969delimitation ofMalaysia'sterritorial seain the area
around PBP;~~ .
the 1969Indonesia-MalaysC iaontinentalshelf~~reement.~~'
Furtherelementsof Malaysianconductin respectof PBP are addressedin
SectionCbelow.
B. The1953correspondence
503. Singapore claims that Malaysi"madeanexpressdisclaimeroftitleto
Pedra Branca,whichwas alsoa formal confirmation of her recognitionof
Singapore'ssovereignty".64C8hapterV111 ofSingapore's Memoria alddresses
this matterat length by reference toa 1953 exchangeof correspondence
betweenthe ColonialSecretary,Singaporeand the Acting State Secretary,
Johor. Singapore contends that the correspondence. ofthe Acting S6te
MM,paras,190-192,220-221.
MM, paras.22-234,andseeabove,Chapter7.
MM,paras2.35-243.
MM,paras2.70-273.
MM, paras.74-278.
MM, para.279.
MM, paras.80-281.
SM,para7. .29.Secretary,Johor"putto restthe statusofPedraBrancavis-bvis oho or'' t,at
this letter&ining "a soIemnundertakingwhich Singapore was entitledto
rely,anddid rely, upon",650and thatthe letterof the ActingStateSecretary,
Johorwas "a binding unilateral declaratiom nade in responseto a specific
enquiryyy.651
504. The 1953 correspondence was addressed .firlly in Malaysia's
~emorial,6'~to which the Court is respectfully referred. The following
remarksaremerely supplemental.
505. Singaporerelies on thestatementin the letter by the Acting State
Secretary, Johorto the effect that'?he Johor Governmend t oes not claim
ownership ofPedra Branca". It contendsthat thisamountsto a disclaimer of
titlebyMalaysia ora binding uniIateraIdeclarationonwhichSingapore was
entitledto rely.
506. What Singaporeskirts over, however, is that the letter from the
SingaporeColonial Secretat rythe BritishAdviser,Johor,to whichtheJohor
Acting State Secretary ultimately responded, undermin tee positionthat
Singaporeisnowadvancing,namely,that Singaporeacquired titleto PBPby
the'(takinof lawfhlpossession"ofthe island byBritainintheperiod 1847 to
1851. Singapore,still i1953 a Britishcolony, evidentldid nothold the
viewthatPBPhadbeenacquiredbySingapore inthismanneratthetimethe
singaboreColonial SecretarywmtetoBritishAdviser,'Jbhor.
649 SM,pm. 8.11.
650 SM,pm. 8.17;alsoibid.,pa8.35.
"l SM,pm. 8.18.
652 MM, paras.235-243& Annex67-70.
236507. Singaporealsoevadesan analysis ofthe basisofthe requestmadeby
J.D.Higham,on behalfof the SingaporeColonial Secretaryt ,o the British
Adviser,Johor. His letter dated12 June 1953, as shown in Singapore's
Memorial,containstwo annexes.653AnnexA is an extractof the Crawfurd
Treaty and AnnexB is an "Extractfiom a dispatch by the Governorof
Singaporeto theGovernor-General inBengal, 28.11.1844".Theextractisthe
paragraph from Governor' dsespatch whicrefersto theermissiongrantedby
Johor for the constructionof the lighthouse:"This Rock is part of the
Territoriesof the Rajahof Johore, who withthe Tamongong have willingly
consentedto cedeit gratuitouslyto theEastIndiaCompany." Between "This
Rock"and "is partof theterritories ofthe ~ajahof Johor"was added"[i.e.
PedraBranca]".
508. This letterclearly showsthat SingaporewasawarethatPBPwaspart
of the Sultanateof Johor, that thepermissionto construct thelighthouse
includedPBPand thatthe Governor's referencie nhis dispatchto an alleged
"consentto cede it.gratuitouslyyyid notevidencea cessionof sovereignty.
Thispoint is confirmedby the textofthe letteritself The Britishauthorities
inSingapore sought"to clarifthe statusofPedra BrancayyA. fterreferringto
Annex B,the letterwentontosay"Iwouldthereforebemostgratefulto know
whetherthere isany documens thowinga lease or grantoftherock orwhether
it has been cededby the Governmentof the Stateof Johoreor in any other
waydisposedof." The lettershowsthat in 1953 these authoritiesconsidered
that the1844 permissiontoconstructthelighthouseon PBPimpliedatransfer
of propbrty.Whatthey wantedto know fiomthe BritishAdviser,Johor,was
whethertherewas evidenceofa lease,grant or cessioorotheractofdisposal
ofPBP. The answer oftheActingSecretaryof State,Johor,must bereadin
thecontextofthe lettertowhichitwas replying.
509. Furthermore,whileSingaporerefers to the letterfromthe Singapore
Colonial Secretaryto the SingaporeMaster Attendant dated 13 October
653
SM Annex 93vol.6,p.923.1953:'~it doesnotaddressthe centralelementofthiscorrespondence.Inthis
letter,the Singapore Colonial Secretary observthat,on the strengthof the
statementbythe Johor ActingStateSecretary, "theAttorneyGeneralagrees
that we can claim [the island]as Singaporeterrit0ry)'.6~'The internal
correspondence betweetn he SingaporeColonialSecretaryandthe Singapore
Attorney-Generao lf2 October 1953isreproducedasAnnex70ofMalaysia's
Memorial. Thisconfirmsthe Attorney-General's observatio vi,.: "I think,
onthestrengthof [the ActingStateSecretary'sstatement],wecanclaimPedra
BrancaasSingapore territ0Iy".6~~
510. Significantly,neither theAttomey-General notrhe Colonial Secretary
of Singapore respondetdo the commentby the Johor ActingState Secretary
with anobservation such asthefollowing:'%isconfms that Pedra Branca is
Singaporeterritory". ney did not think it wasalrea&Singaporeterritory.
Moreovertheydid nothingto giveeffect to thecorrespondence: at no point
subsequently (untiljust beforethecritical date)didSingaporeassertaclaimto
PBP. There wasnotthe slightestchangeinSingapore'sconduct:it continued
to actas it haddonebefore,that is,to administerthe lighthouseand nothing
else. Therewasnoextensionof Singaporeterritorial waters no any other act
implyingaclaimof sovereignty. Nothingmore was saidofthematter. While
Singaporenow contendsthat it did indeed rely uponthe statement'bythe
Johor ActingStateSecretary,thereis noevidenceat allto showthatthiswas
the case. Onthe contrary,furtheractivity ofSingaporeclearly shows thatit
continued ttreatPBPasnotbeing partofSingapore.
511. It isnotsurprisingthattheSingaporeMasterAttendanttooknostepsto
asserta claimtoPBP,orto encourageanyoneelseto doso,inresponsetothe
note from the Singapore ColoniaS lecretary. The Master Attendantwas
intimatelyfamiliarwithheStraits'Lightsarrangements.
6'4 SM, para.8.356fn.76.
SMAnnex97(emphasis added).
6'6 MMAnnex70 (emphasiadded).512. As Malaysiapointed outin its ~ernorial,~'~ at the same timeas the
1953correspondence was takingplace, the Rural Boardof Singapore
publisheda detailed list ofthe islandswhichcamewithinthe controlof the
Board. PBP was notonthis list. Anditwasnotjust theRuralBoard. Over
anextendedperiod,various official Singaporaegenciesproduceddetailed lists
ofthe islands saidtoformpart of Singapore:PBPwasneveronanyofthese
lists,65aTherewasaconsistent appreciatioo nnSingapore's.partthat PBPwas
notSingaporeterritory.
513. At the same time, successive Annual Reports of the Marine
Department of Singapore catalogued Singaporr e'utine administration of
HorsburghLighthouse alongside similaw rorks in respect of'Pulau Pisang
Lighthouse and the other lighthousesin the "Singapore Group of
~i~hthouses".6~T ~heAnnualReportsoftheMarine Departmena tttest tothe
fact thatthe watersaround Horsburgh Lighthousewere Malayanratherthan
Singaporeanwaters.660
514. In anyevent, nothingturnson the 1953 correspondence. It is nota
model of clarity .from a Malaysian perspectiveb ,ut nor does it advance
Singapore's case.It indicatestha? Singspnredid nl~tir.10511rsgl?rdPEP 2s
part of Singapore, as confirmed by other contemporaneousconduct.
Singaporedidnothing subsequentto thiscorrespondence to asserta claim to
PBP, NordidSingaporerelyonthe correspondence in anyotherway. Inthe
.periodthatfollowed,the Federationof Malaya'sconductleftno doubtthatit
consideredthestatusofPBPanditssmoundingwaterstobeunchanged.
658 MM, paras.13-216.
MM, paras.07-218.
660 See aboveparagrap329.
See aboveparagraph324,359-362. C.. CsnndictconfirmatoryofMalaysia's titie
515, Singapore claimsthat Malaysia never carried out sovereig acts in
respectof ~~p.6~'This is not the case, as has been shownin Malaysia's
Memorialand in Mher detailab0ve.6~~ Withoutretracingthis groundit is
usef%lto supplementthe earlierdiscussionwith a further reviewof two
elementsof Malaysian conduct confirmatory of its titlT e.heseare,first,the
useofthewatersaroundPBPas traditional fishingwatersbyfishermenfiom
south-east Johor ands,econd, Royal MalaysianNavypatrolsin thesewaters.
As this review will illustrate,both at the level of private practice and
perception(Johor fishermen)andat the levelof State practice and perception
(navalpatrols), PBPwasconsistentlyregarded aspart of Malaysianterritory.
UseofPuEau BatuPutehwatersbyJohorfishermen
)
PBPis 7.7 nm fromthe Johor mainland.It is 6.8nmfiomthe next
5..6,
hilaysqian island,PulauPemanggil. PulauPemanggilis one ofa clusterof
;mail islandsimmediatelyoff the Johor coast at TanjungPenyusoh (Point
Romania) knownastheRomaniaorLimaislands. Other islandsinthisgroup
includePulauLimaandPulauBesar.
517. Themain fishingvillage alongthis part ofthe Johorcoastis Sungai
Rengit. SungaiRengit ia sbout10nmfiomPBPandabout5 nm fiomPulau
Besarand Pulau~ima.6~~ Asthe evidence of IdrisBinYusofandSabanBin
Mad attest,thewatersaround PBPhavebeentraditionalfishingwatersfor
Johor fishermenforgenerations.664
SeeMM,Chapter.7,
AmdavitofIdrisBinYusof,para.2:Annexes, vol.,nnex5.
664 Ibid.,paras10.SeealsoAffidavitof SabanBinAhrhad,para.4:Annexes, 2,l
Annex6.518. Dependingon the size of.boat and engine,it takes fishermenfrom
Sungai Rengitbetween 30 to 90 minutes to reach PBP.~~~ In earlier
generations,it wouldtakea smallfishingboatwitha sailabout 5hourstodo
the Inearliergenerations,fishermewnouldstayoutfor adayormore.
The usualpractice of localfishermentodayis to go out eitherfrom dawnto
duskor fkomlateafiernoonuntil first light next
519. PBP is 25.5nm from the nearestpoint onSingapore's~oast.6~~ It is
about35 nm fkomSingapore~arbour.6~~ Dependingon the size oftheboat
andengine,itwouldtakea fishermanfrom Singapore Harbourbetween 3to 5
hours to reachPBP.~'~Before theuseof engines,itwould have taken a small
sailingboatfromSingaporeHarbour between 15to 25 hours.
520. Attached to this Counter-Memorial areaffidavits of two local
fishermen, Idris Bin Yusof and Saban Bin Ahmad. This evidence is
illustrativeof a widerpoolof similar evidencefrom fishermenfkomSungai
Rengit.
521. Idris BinYusof was bornin 1945in Sungai Rengit. He beganas a
fisherman inhis mid-teensin about 1958 or 1959and has worked asa
fishermaneversince. In 1979,he wasappointedastheHeadofFishermenfor
the groupof fishermenfromSungaiRengitwho hadpermitsfromthe local
soh& FisheriesDepartmentto fish beyond3 nrn fromthe Johorcoast. He
occupiedthis positionuntil 2000. Hisrolewas to assist thefishermenofthe
group andto represent theirinterests. From2003, he has been Deputy
Chairman ofthe Fishermen'sAssociationofPengerang, aswellasa member
oftheBoardofDirectors oftheFishermen'sAssociationof ~en~eran~?~H ' is
Affidavitof IdrisBin Yu, ar12:Annexes,vol2,Annex5;AMdavitofSaban
BinAhrnadp,ara.:Annexesv, ol.2,Annex6.
Ibid.,para.4.
Affidavitof ldrisBin Yu, ar13:Annexes,vol.2, Annex.5;AffidavitofSaban
BinAhmad,pm. 7Annexesv ,ol.2,Annex6.
'" MM,para.32.
AffidavitofRear-Admiral~Thanabp aaa.s:Agnn,xes,vo.,Annex4.
671 Ibid.,pa48.
AffidavitofIdrisBinYusof,paras.1-4:Ann, o2,Annex5.evidence concerning the fishing practices ofJohor fishermen fiom Sungai
Rengitinthe watersaroundPBP reflectsbothhis owndirect experience and
mattersthat come withinhis own knowledge asa resultof his representative
roles.
522. SabanBinAhmadwasborninSungaiRengitin 1948.He comesfrom
a fishingfamily in which bothhis father andgrandfatherwere fishermen
beforehim. Hebegan fishingwith his fatherattheage ofnineinabout1957.
Following measures taken (from about 1986)by the Singaporenavy and
marinepolice toprecludeJohorfishemen fromfishing inthe watersaround
PBP, SabanBin Ahmadseldom goesfishingtoday,workingrather in his
business making shrimppastefor traditionalalaycooking.672 His evidence
concerningthe fishingpracticesofJohorfishermenfromSungaiRengitinthe
watersaroundPBPreflectshis owndirectexperienceas well as mattersthat
comewithinhisown knowledge asa prominentmemberof %he SungaiRengit
fishingcommunity.
523. This evidence attests that the waterasroundPBP were traditional
fishing waters for fishermen fiom SungaiRengit for generations until
Singapore, througthe peremptory useof itsnavalandmarinepoliceforces,
beganforciblytoexcludethem fishermen fiomthearea inthemid-1980s.The
reasonsfor theimportanceofthe PBP waters to theSungai Rengitfishermen
are apparent, The waters are comparatively shelteredarid attract a wide
variertyof fish in great numbers. They are easilyaccessiblefrom Sungai
Rengit.Theisland provideda refugeforfishermenincaseofbadweather.
672 AffidaviofSabanBinAhmad ,aras.1-314:Annexevol.2Annex 6.
242524, The watersaroundPBPare relatively sheltered by comparisonto the
deeperand fastermovingwaters closerto the Johorcoastthrough whichthe
majorinternational shipping lanreuns!" As ~drnkalty Chart 2403 (folded
into the back cover ofthis volume)shows,the,waters in the immediate
proximityof PBP range from 23 fathoms (138 feet.or 42.1 meters),at its
deepestpoint,to 10 fathoms (60 feet or 18.3 meters) or less,with average
depths beingaround 12to 14 fathoms(72to 84feet or 21.9 to 25.8meters).
Theusualpracticeistouselines for fishing duringthe daywhenthefishtend
tostaydeeperinthewater andcan see and avoid thenets. Nets,ofaround 8 to
10 metersinsize, areusedat nightwhenthe fishare closer tothe surface.674
Neitherthe linesnorthese nets wouldbe effectivein the deeperand faster
movingwaters closer to the Johor mainland,which in any event arenot
abundantwithfish.675
525, TheevidenceofSabanBinAhmadatteststothewide varietyoffishin
the watersaround ~~p.6~~ Theseare fish of niediwncommercialva1ue.6~~
Fishermen fiom Sungai Rengitwould usually sell their catch.to local
MalaysianChinese
526. The easy accessibility ofthe PBP waters from SungaiRengit
commentedon in both affidavits.679Theparticularabundanceof fish inthe
waters around PBP is also attestedtoanecdotally, in inter-generationatlerms,
inbothaffidavits.Thus,IdrisBin Yusofnotesthat"li]n 1dayoffishinginthe
watersmnd PBP,a fishermencould usually catct hhe equivalentofabout 3
'" Affidavitof IdrisBinYusof,para.10:Annexes,vol. 2,Annex5; AffidavitofSaban
BinAhmad, para.9:Annexes,vol.2,Annex6.
'" Affidavit of IdrisBinYusof,para.7: Annexes,vol.2, Annex5; Affidavit ofSabam;,
BinAhmad,para. 8:Annexes,vol.2,Annex6. .,.....
675 See also, in this regard,the Affidavitof Rear-AdmiralThanabalasi, ar'8q:.
Annexes, vol2,Annex4. . ..
676 Affidavit ofSabanBin Ahmad,para 8:Annexes,vol. 2, Annex 6. See also.the
Affidavitof IdrisBin Yusof,para.13:Annexes, .,Annex5.
Affidavitof SabanBin Ahmad, para. 8:Annexes,vol. 2, Annex 6. See'alsothe
AffidaviofIdrisBinYusof,para.13:Annexes,vol.2,Annex 5.
678 Affidavitof SabanBin Ahmad,para. 8:Annexes,vol. 2, Annex 6. See also:the '
679idavitofIdrisBin Yusof, pa.:Annexes, vol.,Annex 5.
Affidavitof IdrisBin Yusof, paragrah0:Annexes, vol.2, Annex5; Affidavitof
SabanBinAhmad, para.6:Annexes,vol.2,Annex 6.or 4 daysoffsh comparedto fishingin other SabanBinAhrnad
recallsa story toldby his grandfatherto the effect that fishingwas so
goodaround PBPthat,whentherewasawedding, it was only necessaryto go
fishingthe day beforethe wedding. Theywere so sure ofgetting agood
catch.'S81
527. The possibilityof shelterfor the fishermenon the island duringbad
weatherisalsoattested.XdrisBin Yusofstatesthat:
"PulauBatu Putehwasa goodplaceto fishevenforfishermen
from Sungai Rengitwith very small boatsbecausethe island
providedshelter. Instormywaters,the fishermenwere ableto
pull their boats onto the rocks and seek shelter in the
lighthouse. The lighthouse keepers werealwayshelpfuland
wouldprovidethefishermenwith foodandshelter."682
SabanBin Ahmadattests tothe samepointfrom his both grandfatherand
father'sexperienceandhisown:
"PulauBatuPutehhasbeena traditional fishing area forJohor
fishermenfrom Sungai Rengit for generations.I remember
storiesfrom my father and grandfatheraboutthe fishing in
these waters.Inmyfatherandgrandfather's time,theywould
useboats with sailand oars. Dependino gnthewind,itwould
takethemabout five hoursto getto PulauBatuPuteh. They
wouldshelterin the watersaroundthe island, If the weather
wasbad,theywould movethe boat onto therocksandwould
be invited by the lighthouse keepers to shelter in the
lighthouse..
I usuallydid not land on Pulau Batu Puteh,preferringto
anchorinthewatersoftheislandtodomyfishing. Sincethe
1960s,however,I landedon PulauBatuPutehon maybe 10
occasions. On 1 occasion,my catchwas so greatthat I left
someof it ina sac kntherockstobe collectedthe nextday.
On other occasions,the lighthouse keepersgave me shelter
and assistance. I rememberthree lighthouse keepersin
particular:Samy,who was Indian,Salim,who was English
buthadconvertedtoIslam,andThomas, who waC s hinese. I
especiallyremember Samyand Salimas they were kid to
me. Usually,there were othersin the lighthouse withthe
lighthousekeeper,includinga cookandsomeoneto help with
AffidavitfXdris inYusof,pa10:Annexes,ol.2,Annex5.
AffidaviofSaba ninAhrnadp,ar5:Annexes, o2,Annex 6.
, AffidavtfIdrisBinYusopara11:Annexes,ol.2,Annex5. the light. The keepersand the otherswere rotated oncea
monthduringthe 1960sand1970s.'"~~
Itwas the practiceof fishermen fromSungaiRengitto spendbetween10and
20 days a month fishing in the watersaroundPBP in the periodApril to
October each year.684Theywouldanchorinthewatersjust offPBP-perhaps
100 metershm theisland-to dotheirfishing.685
528. Overthe years,a relationship developed betweenthe fishermen fiom
Sungai Rengit and theKeepersinHorsburgh Lighthouse.Accordingto Idris
BinYusof:
"[tlherewasan arrangementthatthe fishermen wouldprovide
the lighthousekeepers withsupplieswhichtheywouldbuyfor
themin Sungai Rengitinexchangeforshelterand petrol. The
supplies that thefishermenbroughtto the lighthouse keepers
included cooking oil, bread,biscuits andotherfoodstuffs,and
sometimescigarettes.Ifthelighthousekeepers ranoutofthese
things, they could waitfor a week before'they got fresh
supplies. Instead ofwaiting,they wouldgive the fishermen
moneyandthe nextdaythe fishermenwoulddeliver what they
hadaskedfor."686
Similarly,SabanBinAhmadattests:
I,..,o&I--b.-&$ wasba~ie[iijGkSher and grandfathi";ie&by Adiie
lighthouse keepersto shelterinthe lighthouse.The lighthouse
keeperswouldalso offerthemfood. In exchange,my father
and grandfatherwould give the lighthouse keepersa small
portionof their catch or otherprovisions, such as vegetables,
£hit, chillies, coconuts,or whateverthe lighthousekeepers
needed. It was the same for other fishermenfiom Sungai
~en~it,"~"
''l
684 AffidavitofSabanBinAhmadp, ara. ,ll: Annexe, ol.2,Annex6.
Affidavitof IdrisBin Yus, m.8:Annexes,vol. 2,Annex 5;Affidavitof Saban
BinAhrnadp,ara.6:Annexes, ol.2,Anne6.
AffidavitofIdrisBinYusof,par13:Annexes,vol.2,Annex 5;AffidavitofSaban
BinAhmad, pay 11:Annexesv,ol.2,Annex6.
'" AffidavitofIdrBinYusof,para.11:Annexes, ol.2,Annex5.
AffidaviofSabanBinAhmedp , ark4:Annexes,vol.2, Anne6.BothIdrisBinYusof and Saban BiA nhmadattestto the unimpeded access by
Johor fishermento the waters around PBP untilthe mid-1980s. Theyboth
alsoaffirmavisibleMalaysianMarinePolicepresenceinthe area.6B8
529. AftergenerationsofunimpededfishinginPBPwaters,access byJohor
fishermento thesewatersbeganto be peremptorily restricted by Singapore
naval and marine police vessels in around 1985or 1986, 1dri'Bin Yusof
describesthesedevelopments inthefollowingterms:
''Therewere no restrictionsonfishingaround PulauBatuPuteh
until about 1985or a little later, After that, the Singapore
MarinePoliceor SingaporeNavy began tostopus,prohibiting
us fromanchoringinthe area around Pulau BatuPuteh. The
reasonthey gavewasthat there were cablesin the waterand
therewas a dangerthatour anchorswould pull onthe cables
andwewould beelectrocuted.I donotknowifthis wastrueor
whether they were just tryingto fiightenus. Fromthis time,
Johor fishermenhavenot been permittedto anchorwithin 1
nautical mileof Pulau Batu Puteh. Before that, we would
inchorabout100metersfiomthe
Similarly,SabanBinAhmadattests:
"Beforeabout 1986,I wasneverstoppedwhengoingto Pulau
Batu'Puteh. Onceortwice amonth,I saw Malaysian Marine
Policeinthe areabutwasneverstoppedbythem. Beforeabout
1986, I never saw the Singapore MarinePoIice or the
SingaporeNavyinthe area. Ataboutthistime, howevert,hey
beganto stopmesayingthatenteringtheareaaroundthe island
wouldjeopardise relations betweenMalaysia and Singapore.
They never gaveanyother.reason.Theyordered meto go at
least1nauticalmilefrom theislandtofish."690
530. The significanceof this evidenceis not that the actions.of Johor
fishermenfrom SungaiRengitis conduct h.titrede souverainbyMalaysiaas
regardsPBP. Theseareprivateacts!'' The evidencedoes, however,show
thatthewatersaroundtheisland havebeenusedbyfishermen fiomJohorfor
Affidavitof IdrisYusof,paras.14-15:Annexes,vo2,Annex 5;Afidavitof
SabanBinAhmadp ,ara.12:Annexe,ol.2,Annex6,
690 AffidavofIdrisBinYusof,para.15:Annex, ol. 2,Annex5.
69' Cf.CaseconcerninKasikilVSehduIdund(BotswandVamibia)I,CJReports1999
p.1045,atpp.1105-6(para.98).generationswithoutquestionor hindranceT . heevidence ofSabanBinAhmad
on the subjectof his detentionby Indonesian MarinePolicein the watersto
the south-east of PBP indicatetsat theJohorfishermenhad an appreciation,
bornof experience,ofthe limitsofMalaysian waters and theirentitlementto
fish.692
..,.
, .
531. The evidenge..also atteststo the absenceof any Singapoieanpresence
or interest thewatersaroundPBPprior tothemid-1980s,andto anevtdent
lackof concernby the Singaporean Keepero sf Horsburgh Lighthousa etthe
presence of Johor fishermeinnthe watersaroundthe island and evenonthe
islanditself,
532. While the possibility cannotbe excluded that fishermen from
Singapore might.occasionallyhave beenfoundin PBP' waters in the period
priorto the mid-198Qst ,his wasnot usual. Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingarn
hasthis to say on the subjectof local fishingpracticesin the watersaround
PBP:
"Asa resultofmynavalduties,Xhadsomefamiliaritywith the
practicesof the fishermenfrom south easternJohor in the
waters around Pulau Batu Puteh. This requires fiurther
explanation.
During Confrontation withIndonesiafrom 1963to 1966,the
RoyalMalaysianNavypatrolledactivelyin the watersof the
Singapore Straits, includinaground PulauBatu Puteh. For
reasons of security, allMalaysian navalvessels.patrolled
completely darkened, withoue tven navigation lights. The
safetyof the ship,aswell asof other vesselsin the vicinity,
thus.laycompletelyin the hands ofthe CommandingOfficer.
Wenavigated using radar.
In the circumstancesof Confrontation, and navigatinign this
darkenedstate,we hadto be particularly alert.'Whenever we
identifieda smallvesselof whatever kind,we stoppedit and
boardedit forpurposesofidentifying whowasonboard, where
it came from and whetherit was a fishing vessel,a vessel
engaged inbarter tradeor a vessel engagedin the insurgency.
Thereweremanyoccasions likethis whenweboardedourown
fishingvessels in the araround Pulau Batu Puteh, They were
AffidaviofSsbanBinAhmad ,aragrap10:~nneies,vol.2,Anne6. the vast majorityof suchvesselsin the area. Once wehad
identifiethatthey wereMalaysianfishingvessels,weallowed
themtoproceed.
The barter trade vessels wer meostly in the vicinity of
Singapore, coming flom the Riau islands. I do not recall
comingacrossfishing boatsfiomSingaporeinthe vicinity of
PulauBatu Puteh. As I have noted,it wouldtake a small
fishingboatbetween 3 to 5 hoursto reachPulauBatuPuteh
fromSingapore. This is quite a timeand distancefor'local
fishermento travelin smallboatssimplyto reach a fishing
area. It isnotsurprisithereforethatthewaters aroundulau
Batu Puteh were used almost exclusively by Johor
Royal Malaysia n avypatrolsin thewatersaround
(ii)
PulauBatuPuteh
533. In itsMemorial,Malaysia drew attentioo the issuanceinJuly 1968
ofa LetterofPromulgationandaccompanying chartletsbyCommodore (ashe
then was) Thanabalasingamt,hen recently appointed Chio ef the Royal
MalaysianNavy. TheLetterof Promulgation describetd he outer limitof
Malaysianterritorial watesndforeign claimed waters West MaIaysiafor
purposesof RoyalMalaysianNavy patrols. One ofthe accompanying
chartlets-No.2403-markedPBP,Middle Rocksand SouthLedge cIearly
within MalaysiaterritorialwatersC"MTW").TheLetter of Promulgatioand
ChartletNo.2403areattachedtoMalaysia'sMemorialashex 76and Map
25. Asnoted inMalaysia's Memorial,whiletheLetterofPromulgation was
'internal Malaysian practite,tandsas clearnd.incontrovertiblevidence
thatMalaysia regardePdBP,as wellas theMiddle Rocks and SouthLedge
andtheir surroundingaters,'sMalaysianterritory.6g4
534. The backgroundto the issuing ofthe Letterof.Promulgationmd
chartlets,and the 'significanceof these documents,is addressedin the
Afidavitof Rear-Admiral Thanabalasing(a ashebecamein 1973)whichis
attachedas Annex4 to thisCounter-Memorial.The affidavitaddressesa
Affidavtf~e&-~dmira'lI'hanabalasia,as. 6-79: Anne,ol2,Annex4,
694 MM, pm. 270-273. . .number of related matters,including(a) the establishmentof the Royal
Malayan Navy (subsequentltheRoyalMalaysian Navy) bty heBritishandits
handovertotheMalayanGovernmenton 1July1958, (b )heRoyal Malaysian
Navy'sWoodlands NavalBase in Singapore,(c) the funding,staffingand
responsibilitioftheRoyal MalayankfalaysianNavy,includingin respectof
the defenceof Singapore,and(d)RoyalMalaysian Navyconductconcerning
PBP from 1958through to 1976,i.e., the period to which Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam can attestfrom personal knowledgeT . he arrangementsin
respectofnavalpatrols inthewatersaroundPBPto whichthe Rear-Admiral
attestscontinuedafterhisretirementfromthenavy in1976beyondtheperiod
ofthecrystallisatioofthisdispute.
53 5. TheRoyalMalayanNavy,laterto becomethe Royal Malaysian Navy
("RMN"),had its roots in the Malay Sectionof the (British) RoyalNavy,
established before tSecond World Mr. Virtuallyall of therecruitsofthe
MalaySection camefrom the Malay States,mostly from Johor. After the
Second WorldWar,the MalaySectionwasdisbandedand then reconstituted
in December 1948 asthe Malayan NavalForce. The Malayan Naval Force
becamethe Royal Malayan Navy inAugust1952. TheMalayan NavalForce,
andthereafterthe RoyalMalayanNavy,wasbasedas the WoodlandsNaval
Basein ~in~a~ore.~'~
536. On 31August 1957t,he Federation ofMalaya became independenI .n
consequenceBritaintook stepsto transfer the RoyalMalayan Navyto the
control ofthe Malayan GovernmentT . hetransfer took plaon 1July 1958.
On 12 July 1958,Britain alsohanded overthe Woodlands NavalBase in
Singaporeto theMalayan Governmentth , isbeingthe principal navalbaseof
theRoyal Malayan NavyT . heRoyal Malaysian Navo ynlyfmallyvacatedthe
Woodlands NavalBase towards the end of 1997, handing it back to
ing gap ore.^'^
695 Ibid.,par11.
'" Ibidpm. 13,15.537. Singapore itselfhad no navalforce until 1975.~'~A small naval
reserveforcehadbeen established byBritainin 1934, butthisdid not havea
sea-going capability.698Singapore was noitn a positionto patrolthe waters
around PBPuntil 1975. Themaritimedefenceof Singapore remained with
Britain until Singaporebecame partof the Federationof Malaysiaon 16
September1963. In the years immediately followingSingapore's separation
from Malaysia on 9 August 1965,Malaysia continued to have some
responsibility fthedefenceofSingaporeunderthe SeparationAgreemeno tf
1965.6" During the period of Confiontation-the Indonesian-backed
insurgency againstMalaysia between 1963 an1 d966-the Royal Malaysian
Navy was givenconsiderable assistance in respondingto this threatby the
British, AustraliaandNewZealand navie~.~"Thusnot onlydidthe Royal
Malayan/Malaysian Navyconduct patrolsinthe watersaroundPBP-as will
be seen-but it did so for a periodof yearsin close coordinationwiththe
British, Australian and New Zealand navies on the basis of a common
appreciationthatPBPwasaMalaysianisland?''
538. Rear-Admiral Thanabalasingaa mtteststo hisfirm belief, throughout
hisnavalservice,thatPBPand itssurroundingwaterswasMalaysianterritory.
Henotes,forexample,hislandingontheisland inAprilorMay 1962,infull
RMNuniform,whenhewasincommandoftheRoyal Malaysian Navyvessel
KD Sri Pahang:"I would neverhave donesoifIthought, even for amoment,
that PulauBatu Putehwas not Malayanterritory."'" He alsorefersto the
common understandingamongst naval oflcers that the arrangementsin
respect ofHorsburghLighthouse were similatro those in respectof Pulau
PisangLighthouse,i.e.,that"Singaporewas runningthe lighthousesbut both
wereon Malaysian
697 SM,para.6.70.
698 AffidavitofRear-AdmiTlhanabalasingpa,ra12Annexes,vol.2,Annex4.
699 Ibid.,para1.
700 Ibid.,para.22.
"' Ibid.,paras.22-25,57-63.
702 Ibid.,para.52.
703 Ibid.,par58.539. Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingamalso notes variousadditional factors
which affirmedthat "Pulau BatuPutehwas a Malaysian island, evethough
Singaporeoperatedthelighthousey'I.nhisview:
"1alsohadno doubtthatitwas regardedas a Malaysian island
by the senior navalofficersfrom the Royal Navy, and the
Australianand New Zealandnavies,with whom I served,as
wellasby~in~a~ore."~~~
Theseadditional factorsincluderoutinRMN patrolsof the watersaround
PBP, the evidentappreciationofseniorofficersoftheRoyalNavy(aswellas
ofAustralian andNewZealand naviest )hatPBPwasMalaysian, and theclear
and specificunderstandingof the limitsof Malaysianterritorialwatersthat
informedthe drawing upandissuingof the 1968Letterof Promulgationand
accompanyingchartlets.
540. On the question of the appreciatinf senior officersof the Royal
Navy,andtheAustralianandNewZealandnavies,theRear-Admiralattests:
"Pulau Batu Puteh'sstatus as a Malaysian island wasalso
affirmed during the period of my service on board HMS
Cavalierin 1962,theBritishRoyal Navydestroyer,to whichI
have already referred.Duringthis time,we usedto go off to
the SouthChina Sea, fromthe Naval Base in Singapore,to
conductsubmarineexercises.AsIhavenoted,onourreturn,it
v,,=$heprgs$ice$cI&~&F&\s b!ifiz~c;i~~~ G ~ci&~~.
this purpose,we were requiredto plot a courseback to the
Naval Basebytakingnavigationalbearingsfiomvariouspoints
'on Malayan territory'. On this basis,as we approachedthe
south easterntip of Malaya, I wouMplot a course taking
bearings,on the one side, fiom TanjungPenyusoh,and the
smallislands,suchasPulauLima,just offthispoint,andfrom
Pulau BatuPuteh, on the other. Of course, we were then
engagedin blind navigation anour principal concerwas to
avoid hazardsto navigation. Wewerenot directly concerned
with thestatus of the island. I note the point, however,to
illustratethat PulauBatuPutehfeaturedregulainoperational
discussionswiththe Royal Navyat thistimeand was always
regarded, withoutny doubt,asaMalayanisland.
Therewerealsootheroccasions,when Iwasonexerciseswith
the British,Australianand New Zealandnavies,that Pulau
704 Ibid.,pa57. BatuPutehfeaturedinthe planning and wasagain uniformly
regardedasa Malaysian island.TheSCAPareadesignations,
to whichI havealready referred,and whichwerecommonto
the Malaysian,British, Australianand New Zealandnavies,
all featuredPulau BatuPuteh. I do not recallanydiscussion
or commentin the context ofthese coordinated patrols that
alludedtoPulauBatuPutehintermsthatsuggestedthatitwas
anything other thana Malaysianisland. All of the ships
takingpartinthesepatrolshadchartsonwhichthe territorial
watersof the variousStateswere clearlymarked,including
the extent of Malaysian territorial waters and those of
Indonesia. When Singapore separatedfrom Malaysia in
August 1965,Singapore'sterritorialwaters wouIdhavebeen
similarlymarkedonthecharts.
Another elementthat I recall, which affirmedPuIau Batu
Puteh'sMalaysian character, wertehe requestsby the Royal
Navy for permissionfor the survey shipHMSDampierto
surveyoffPulau Batu Puteh.Oneparticular request ow f hich
1subsequentlybecameaware,was thaton 20 February1967
ataroundthetimethatIwasinformedthatIwastotakeupthe
positionof Chiefof the Navy. The requestcamefromthe
Royal NavyOffice of Commander Far EasF t leet,Singapore
to the Ministry ofDefence(Navy),KualaLumpurrequesting
clearance'forHMSDumpierand detached partiestocarryout
surveysin West Malaysia'. The coordinates ofthe survey
givenin the letterof request, whichI havebeen shownand
exhibit hereto as Attachment 6, are the coastal reference
points ofthe surveytobeconducted.Thesurveyincludedthe
watersaround Pulau Batu Puteh, asisclearly evidenfxomthe
Fair Sheet ReportofHMSDampierinrespect of this survey.
TheFair SheetReport, whichI havebeenshown andexhibit
heretoas Attachment7, was signedby the Captain ofHMS
~arn~ier.'~~~~
541. On the subjectof naval patrols of the waters around PBP, Rear-
AdmiralThanabalasingam observes:
"we patrolledthis area routinelyfrom the very first days
following independencien 1957andourcontroloftheRoyal
Malayan Navyin July 1958. To my knowledge,and,
certainly,asI took on progressively senior roleisnthe navy
during1967, I wouldhavebeenawareofsuchdevelomentsl'
Singaporeneveronceprotestedagainstthesp eatrols.'"
Ibid.,par.1-63.
'06 Ibid.,pa60.542. Onthegeneral character of these patroth,eRear-Admiral states:
"Singapore never asked for permission to supply the
Horsburgh Lighthouse and Malaysianeverexpectedit to do
so. Singaporehad been runningthe lighthousefor many
years. It was not a source of difficulty. The Royal
Malayanhlalaysian Navy regularly patrolledthe waters
around Pulau BatuPuteh. We did so on a transit basis. In
otherwords, wedidnotgivetheisland special attention,inthe
samewaythat we did not givespecialattentionto the many
other islands along the Malaysian coast. Malaysia, both
peninsula Malaysiaand the eastern states of Sabah and
Sarawak,has a very long coastlineof around 4,300km. At
times,theremaybe a particularneed fora naval presenceat
various points alongthe coast. TheRoyalMalaysianNavy
does not have unlimitedresources. This was even more the
case duringtheperiodoftheRoyal Malayan Navy alltheway
through to the late 1970s and early 1980sduring which
virtually allof our fleetwas basedat the WoodlandsNaval
BaseinSingapore.RoyalMalayan/Malaysian Navypatrolsin
the area around south eastern Johoarnd Pulau Batu Puteh
werethus routine. We did not generally layanchoroff the
island. Therewasnoneedtodoso."'07
543. Several examples of Royal MalaysianNavy patrols in the waters
around PBP are given by Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingam. He attaches
various Passage Narrativesand Reportsof Proceedingsfrom a number of
MN shipswhich conducted patrols andotheractivitiesinPBPwatersinthe
periodJanuary1965to November 1971.Oneofthese vesselswas KD Hang
Tuah,the flagshipof the RoyalMalaysianNavy, on which Rear-Admiral
Thanabalasingam served, first, withe rank ofLieutenantCommander,as
ExecutiveOfficer in the period from February1965to October 1966and,
subsequently, wittherankofCommander,as itsCommanding Oficer inthe
period1Marchto 31August 1967.~'~ThePassageNarrativesfor KD Hang
Tuahrecordthefollowing:709
(a) January1965 - "Slipped14berth 1400(-7%)Monday 11' Jan. 1965
for exerciseofftheeast coastandnightpatrolsbetween HorsburghLt.
'07 Ibid.,pa59.
Ibid.,par9-10.
709 Ibid.,Attachm1,PassageNarrativAnnexes,vol.2,Annex4.
253 andJasonsBay. Thepatrolswerefruitlessastheseawas fairlyrough,
force4to 5andlandingsbyseaalthoughnotpossiblewas ~nlikel~"~'~
June 1965 - "At 2200wewere orderedto patroloff HorsborooghLt,
(b)
in placeof Agincourt,whohaddeveloped engine trouble.At 2350a
fast sampanwas sightedilluminated anda Boforwarning shotwas
fired. The sampanstoppedand on investigation they turn to be 2
IndonsChinesegoing backto Indonesiafrom Singaporein a twine
engined boat loadedwith biscuits. Theywereheldonboardand tuned
overto the policethe followingmorning. The shipthenproceededto
M1 Buoy. Arrivedat0900(-7%)";711
(c) September 1965 - "Slipped'C'Buoy 0900 (-7%)Tuesday7' Sept.
and proceededto Singaporestraits for trailsonmain bearings. Trials
weresuccessfullycompleted, carried outnightpatroloff Horsborourgh
Lt. Patrolwas uneventful'exceptfor the sightingof a B.T. boat.. .
Returnedto Singaporestraitson Friday 17' for a night patrol off
Horsborough
(d) November 1965 - "Friday 26' November,NOIC W/Mand staff
arrivedat 0730 by helicopter forsea inspection. On completionof
inspectionapatroloff Horsburghwascarriedout"':13
(e) April 1966 - "The next day a He10 was dispatchedand HangTuah
PatrolledJSB/HORS.~t.";~'~
(f) May 1966 - "FromHorsburgh Lt.to Tg APIit was noticedthat the
currentsettingsnorthelyatslightlymorethanaknot"?15
544. The ReportsofProceedingsfor KD HangTuahand otherRMNships
recordas follows:
'I0
'l1 Ibid.,Attachment1,para.10.
'I2 Ibid., Attachme1,assageNarrativ,ara.20.
'l3 Ibid., AttachmtPassageNarrative,ark31.
'l4 Ibid.,Attachment1, PassageNarratives7,"TheWest CoastPatrol23"'-26'
$pri17'.
Ibid, ttachmen1PassageNarrative,.7, "SingaporteoEast Malaysia".(a) April1966 - "JERAIcast offat 0600 onTuesday 12~ andproceeded
to rendezvouswithK.D.HANG TUAHin its position 063 Horsburgh
Light15.5'';716
April1966- "On 27thAprilthehelicopter disembarkedand after two
(b)
patrolsoff HORSBOROUGH Lightandfuellingat BUKOM,HANG
TUAH returnedto SINGAPORE,securingto M Buoy at 0900 on
Friday29 ~~ril";~"
(c) June 1971 - "While off HorsburghLighthouseK.D. HANDALAN
transfere1,200 gallonsof fkeltoK.D.PENDEKARbybump transfer
on General Motors &er all K.D. PENDEKAR'spassengershave
previouslybeen transferredby bump transfer on proteus to K.D.
GEMPITA";~'~
November 1971 - "On the 3'(the ship was broughtto immediate
(d)
noticefor seaat1330andwastoldthatpendingonmher signalsfiom
KEMENTAH KL, the shipwouldbe requiredto proceedto the East
Coast fora search andpossible arrest ofNorthVietnameseTrawler.
Later in theevening,at700 the orderwasreceivedand the shipsailed
MBJ underthe Tactical Command of KD SRI NEGRISEMBILAN
(LT.CDR.PANG MENGKUNG,RMN,SeniorOfZcerSecondPatrol
Craft Squadron)at1725. Onarrivalat HorsbroughLightat 2050,the
ship was detachedto proceedfor patrolnorth of Pulau Aur. No ,
incidence occurred durinhenight"?19
545. As these extractsillustrate,RMNpatrolsin the watersaround PBP
were routine,.Theycontinuedin thismannerthe periodafterRear-Admiral
Thanabalasingarn'rsetirementfiomtheNavyon31December 1976. Reports
of Proceedings ofSD SriPerak (forSeptember 1977)and KD Lembing (for
7'6 Ibid.Attachmen2,ReportofProceedings-MonhfApri1966-K.DJE.RAIp,ara,
7:Annexe sol2, Anne4.
7'7 IbidAttachment3KD HangTuah,2hbMei, 1966p,ara8Annexes vol2, Annex
4.
718 Ibid.,Attachme4,K.D.PENDIXAR-Reporo tfProceedings-Ju1971,para.3:
Annexe sol.2,Annex4.
7'9 Ibid.Attachmen5,KD. SRI TRENGGANU-RepoorftProceedingsForMonth of
November 1971,ara4:Annexe v,l.2,Annex4.Januaryand February1979)are attachedas annexes,in illustrationof the
continuityofthispractice?20
546. The July 1968Letterof Promulgationand its accompanyingchartlets
was addressedin Malaysia's~emorial."' Thesedocumentsare addressed
more fully in Rear-AdmiralThanabalasingam's ~ffidavit.7~~The essential
elementsoftheRear-Admiral's evidenceisasfollows:
"64. The clearest naval practiceaffirming Pulau Batu
Puteh's Malaysian character comes from my Letter of
Promulgation of16 July 1968 and the chartletsand notes
attachedto it.
65. Becauseoftheheavymaritimetrafficthroughthe deep
channel to the north and westof Pulau BatuPuteh, Royal
MalaysianNavypatrolswouldusuallystayto thesouth, east,or
north east of the island, ie, away -fromthe main shipping
channel.Tothesouthandthe east,however, there wasarisk of
running intowhatwereferredtoasIndonesian Claimed Waters
("XCW') .ometimebeforeItook overasChiefoftheNavyin
1967,Indonesiahadunilaterally claimed a territorialseaof 12
nauticalmiles. PulauBatuPutehis less than 8 nauticalmiles
fiom the IndonesianIsland of PulauBintan. PulauBintanis
about 5.6 nautical milesfiom South Ledge, which we also
consideredtobe Malaysian.
66. Malaysiafirst claimeda territorial seaof 12 nautical
miles in 1969. WhenI took overas Chief of the Navy in
December1967,thequestionofMalaysia's territoria slealimits
was activelyunder consideration. As I understandit, the
Geneva Convention onthe Territorial Seaandthe Contiguous
Zone,to which Malaysia waa sparty,providedthat,inthe case
ofoppositeStates,the outerlimitoftheterritorialseawas to be
the.medianlinebetweenthetwoStates. Giventhewidth ofthe
SingaporeStraits(less than12 nautical milesat its widest),
MalaysiaandIndonesiawouldhavehadoverlappingterritorial
claims in the area. We thereforebegan discussing maritime
delimitationissueswithIndonesiaat this point,concluding an
agreement delimitingthe continental shelf betweenthe
MalaysiaandIndonesiain 1969.
Annexes,vol.3,Annex43.
"' MM, pm. 270-273.
Backgrounissuesrelevatothe LettrfPromulgationreaddresseintheRear-
75oftheAffidavit. aras.37-46.TLetteofPromulgatiotselfisaddressinparas.4-67. The depthof the waterin the areaaround Pulau Batu
Puteh is variable and includes a number of navigational
hazards. I havebeen showna largescaleversionof (British)
Admiralty Chart2403, whichI had annotatedand attached to
myLetterof Promulgation of 16 July 1968. I understandthat
Malaysiawill beattachingthis largescaleversionof the chart
to itsCounter-Memorial.Referenceto this chartshowsthatthe
water depthimmediately tothesouth andtheeastofPulauBatu
Putehrangedfromaround7fathoms(or42feetor 12.8metres)
to around19fathoms(or 114feetor34.7metres),the average
depth being 12to 14 fathoms. The chart also shows a10
fathomline as well as MiddleRocks,South Ledge andother
navigational hazardsnthearea.
68. The importanceof these factoristhat, whenit came to
drawingup the Letterof Promulgation that I eventuallyissued
inJuly 1968,two factorw s eighedheavilyontheprocess. The
first wasthe needto identify the limofMalaysianterritorial
waters, pendingthe extensionof these watersto 12 nautical
miles, whichI expectedwould occur. The second was to
identifythe limits of foreign claimed watersn, otably those
claimedby Indonesia andthe limitsof Singapore's territorial
waters. The reasonwasto ensurethat navaloperationswere
sensitiveto the limits of thesewaters. In particular, especially
asMalaysiahadjust emergedfromthe periodofConfrontation
withIndonesia,I wantedour shipsto be awareof and respect
Indonesian Claimed Waters. Thiswasthe reasonfor drawing
up the Letterof Promulgationin 1968. The narrow widthof
the Straitsandthe shallowdepthof thewatersmeantthat the
annotation of theselimits on thechart3hadto he done with
precision.
69. Asthe LetterofPromulgationindicates i,tspurposewas
to show 'theouterlimits ofMalaysianTerritorialWaters and
foreign claimed waterin WestMalaysia'for the information
ofSeniorandCommanding Oficers. While only Commanders
and other Senior Officers will have seethe Letteritself,the
chartlets attached to theLetter were providedto all Royal
Malaysian Navy ships and the details would have been
incorporatedontotheir largescalecharts.
70. The notes and chartlets attached to the Letter of
Promulgation indicate'clearly both the outer limits of
Malaysia's territorial watrndvariouspointsof uncertainty,
which we were concernedto represent faithfully. Thus,
referringto "Chart 2403 - SingaporeStrait"...a number of
boundarylines(actualor claimed)are depictedin manuscript
annotationon the originalAdmiraltyChart. The thicksolid
linethatrunsthe lengthoftheSingaporeStraitsmarksthelimitof Indonesian Claimed Waters,asweunderstood them to be at
the time. This is evident from the by now rather faint,but
nonethelessstill clearly visible, manuscript annotatioalong
the line"LimitofICW'.
71. The thick solid line thatruns betweenMalaysia and
Singapore,to the north, west andeast, is the boundary line
described in detail in the Straits Settlementsand Johore
TerritorialWaters Agreemeno t f 19October 1927.Thereis a
typographical errorin the referenceto this line in the notes
attachedto the Letterof Promulgation, which refersto this as
the '1923Treaty'.
72. To the east of Singapore,at the point of the Johore
Straits between Singaporeand Johore, the thick solidline
comesto an end,being picked upfbrthersouthby a lighter
peckedline which diverges to the eastand the west. At this
pointonthe chart,thereis anotherfaintmanuscript annotation
whichreads'See Note1 '.Note 1,inthenotes attachedto the
Letter of Promulgationin respect of this chart (which is
attachedasAnnex76toMalaysia'sMemorial), provides:
'The boundary betweenSingaporeand Malaysia
wouldseemto bestillbasedona 1923Treaty[sic]
betweenthe.BritishandJohoreGovernments which
specifiesthecentre ofthe deepwaterchannelofthe
JohoreStraitas thedividingline. As faras canbe
ascertained,the exact line has nevereenofficially
drawn and published. As the treaty can be
interpreted morethan one way south of Calder
Harbour,the dividing line in thpt area hasbeen
omittedon this chartlet. The peckedline south of
the Johore ShoalBuoyrepresentsthe outerlimit of
Singapore/MalaysiaT nerritorialWaters.'
73. Wherethere was uncertainty about territorial waters'
limits, we werethus carefulto reflectthat uncertainty. The
pecked line at this point, which becamea solid, but still
somewhatfaintIine,reflected Malaysia's understandio ngthe
limitsof bothits ownand of Singapore's territorial watea rs
thetime.
74. The continuation ofthe faint solid linewhichfollows
thearcofthe south easternMalaysiancoast continues to depict
the outer limits ofMalaysianterritorialwaters. Wherethis
comesto a point adjacentto PulauBatuPuteh,Middle Rocks
andSouthLedge,this line takesthe formofa circlearoundthe
three features,indicatingthat the three featuresfall within
Malaysian territorialwaters. At the point at which the territorialwaters line intersects the line showIgdonesian
ClaimedWaters, ittakesthe formof a peckedline in the area
adjacentto the Indonesianislandof Pulau Bintan. At this
point, there is another manuscript annotationon the chart
reading 'See Note2'. Note2,on the notesaccompanyingthe
Letterof Promulgationforthischart,provides:
'The pecked line south of the HorsburghLight
representsthe outer limit of MalaysianTerritorial
Waters as authorised by the 1958 Geneva
Convention,i.e. a three mile circle around South
Ledge flattened at the southern end by a true
medianlinebetweenSouthLedge andthe isolated
rock close north of Tanjong Sading. R.M.N.
vesselsareto complywithS.O.A.I. 107 inregard to
thisarea.'
75. As I examine this chart today, and read the
accompanying notes, 36 years after I issued the Letter of
Promulgation,I amquiteclear that,in 1968,we had no doubt
that Pulau Batu Puteh (as wellas MiddleRocks and South
Ledge)were Malaysian territory. Equally importa inthe fact
that these chartlets formedthe basis of the ongoing Royal
MalaysianNavypatrolsinthesewaterstowhichI havealready
referred. The onlyrestriction that tmarkedin respectof
patrolsinthewaters aroundPulau BatuPutehwas southofthe
linemarking IndonesiaClaimed ~aters.'~'~
D. Conclusions
547. The preceding reviewatteststhat: Singapore's claim of acquiescence
anddisclaimer oftitlebyMalaysia hasnofoundationinsubstance;Malaysia,
contraryto Singapore's contentiond,id indeedactli titrde souverain as
regardsPBP and its surrounding waterst;here was awider appreciationof
Malaysian sovereignty over PBP by senior naval officers of the British,
AustralianandNewZealand navies.
548. It alsoshowsthata consideration ofthe practice ofthe Partiesinthis
case cannot proceed in isolationfrom its historicaland physical context.
Singaporewould liketo persuadethe Courtthat the only conductthat is
"' Ibid.,par64-75.relevantare anumberof isolatedindividual'actsndertakenbyeachParty.In
proceedingin thismanner,Singaporeleavesoutof its account an assessment
of whetherthe instances of conductto which itreferswere simply partof a
pattern of routineacts in the administration ofHorsburghLighthouseor
manifestationsof sovereign activity.It leavesoutthe historicalevidence of
theStraits' Lightsystemandthe interactionbetweenMalaysiaandSingapore
over centuries.It leaves outthecharacterofBPitself Itleavesoutthejoint
and cooperative arrangements concernintg he SingaporeStraits in which
Malaysia wasactivelyengaged. Singapore'scaseon conduct-both its own
andMalaysia's-is thusconstructedin large measureonomissionratherthan
onanyreflectionofthe actualpurpose oftheconductonwhichitrelies.
549. The significanceofthe evidenceinthe last section ofthis Chapteron
thetraditionaluseof PBPwatersbyJohorfishermenandthe patrollingbythe
RoyalMalaysianNavy is twofold.First, it atte'thatpracticeandperception,
bothat the private and Statelevel,consistently regardedBPas Malaysian.
Second, giventhe characterof PBPand that ithas nothingon it otherthan
HorsburghLighthouse,thisMalaysianconduch tasspecial weight.It canonly
be explainedas a manifestationor appreciation of sovereignty.In contrast,
Singapore'sconduct' inall respectsis explicableas routine conductin the
administratioofthelighthouse. Chapter10
THEMARITIMECONTEXT
A. Singapore's newclaimtojurisdiction the SouthChinaSeas
comparedwith itsdelimitationpractice
550. If SingaporehashadsovereigntyoverPBPsince185 1asitclaims,this
would imply a maritimeboundaryline whichat the leastdelimitsthe area
around PBPat the entranceofthe SingaporeStraitinthe ChinaSea,between
Singapore, MalaysiandIndonesia. However,despitethe opportunityto do
so,Singaporehasnotsoughttodelimita maritimeboundary inthevicinityof
PBP,nor has it formallyreservedits rightsin circumstanceswhereitld
havebeenexpectedto dosoif itwasindeedconvincedofitssovereigntyover
the three features. Singaporesailure toregisterany interest in the area
around PBP,arisingfroma sovereigntyit nowsaysit hashad since1851,is
striking.
551. Of particular interesthere is its failure toinonegotiatingthe
delimitation of ittserritorialseabounwith Indonesia.
552. Indonesia'sPulauBintanis lessthan 10nmfromPBP, sothatthe 12
nm territorial sea claimedby Indonesiain 1960~'ould overlapwith a
territorialseaclaimbySingaporearoundPBP. Yet,asobservedinMalaysia's
~emorial:~~the AgreementStipulatingthe Territorial'SeaBoundary Lines
BetweenIndonesia andtheRepublicofSingaporeinthe StraitfSingaporeof
25 May 1973~d 'oesnot containany referenceto the waters in the area of
PBP, either to delimitthe watersbetweenthe partiesor recordthat'the
waters wereyetto bedelimited.Thereisnoconceivablereasonwhyin 1973,
724 Articlel(2) of Govert egulation ReplgBWNO.4 of theYear1960on
Indonesian Waters,bruar1960:Annexes,ol. 3,Annex38.
725 MM,pm. 101.
72"~ Annex18.beforethis dispute arose, if Singapore considerte hdat it didhavesovereignty
overPBPit did not seekto delimitthe territorialseaboundarybetweenitself
andIndonesiainthearea aroundPBP,or at leastto register thefactof sucha
claim.
553. Noristhereanysuggestionthat therewasany partof theterritorialsea
boundaryline betweenthe two parties leftopen for futurenegotiation:the
PreambletotheAgreementstatesthat theparties note
'"tat the coastsofthe twocounties areoppositeto eachother
in the Strait of Singapore .... And desiringto establishthe
boundariesof the territorialseas of the two countries inthe
StraitofSingapore."(emphasisadded.)
If PBPwasconsideredbySingaporeto lie inthe Straitof Singaporethenthe
agreement wouldhave delimited theterritorialsea betweenit and Pulau
Bintan. If PBPwasnotconsideredto lie inthe Straitof Singapore,why did
the parties notrecordthat the coastsof the two countrieswerec'opposite" in
thatareaalso?
554. Singaporethus failed to act ina manner consistenw t iththe claimnow
putforwardby Singaporeto a long-settledsovereignty over PBP interritorial
seaboundarynegotiations with neighbouring StateT s.hisisnotthebehaviour
of a State which considersitself to have sovereignty over a strategically
locatedand highly visible island. It is,onthe other.hand,consistent withthe
actionsofa lighthouseoperator.
...
B. Malaysia'spractic'
555. By contrastMalaysia'spracticein the ~arn&;~erioid ,C:'"I' s consistent with
its view that PBP is a Malaysianisltkid:: T$&.:ppcticewas det.ii"d in
Malaysia's~emorial~~'butitisworthwh .i!A..ft$~alliitghere:
..I-'..'i.
,.'I:. . .:,
."V..,,..
. ..C.
.. ,
727 MM, paras 2.68-281. Under theApril 1968Petroleum Agreement betweeM n alaysia
and the ContinentalOil Companyof Malaysia, Malaysia
granted a concession area covering a maritime area which
includesPBP and setsa boundary linewhichbroadly follows
an anticipated Malaysia-Indonesicaontinentalshelfboundary,
the agreementfor whichwas concluded inthe followingyear.
This is clearly shown on the Map of Concession Area
reproducedat page 120of Malaysia's Memorial. A nsotedin
Malaysia's Memorial t,he concessiondoes not"carveout" an
area around PBP,as wouldbe expectedif Malaysiahad any
conceptionthatPBPwasapartofsingapore."'
e WhenMalaysiaextendedits territorialwaters to 12nmunder
the Emergency (EssentialPowers) Ordinance 1969, the
legislation incluwatersaroundPBP. Clearlyindefiningits
territorialseaMalaysiaconceivethat PBP fellwithinit,thatit
wasnotSingapore's
e The Indonesia-Malaysia Continenta lhelf Agreement of27
October1969wasavbwedlya partial agreementw , hichdidnot
resolve all issues. Point 11 of the Indonesia-Malaysia
. ContinentalShelfAgreementof 27 October 1969was set 6.4
nm from PBP. The continentalshelf negotiations were
publicisedby JointPressStatementof Malaysiaand Indonesia
on 22September,more tha n monthbeforethe conclusionof
theAgreementon 27~ctober?~'
556. As notedbyMalaysia initsMemorial, onnone ofthe three occasions
out1ined"abovedid Singaporeprotestthe sea boundary lines. Nor has it
suggestedinitsMemorialthatit didotherwise.
MM, pm. 278.
729 MM, para. 79.
730 MM, para280. C. The positionofthird States
557. The perceptionof third Statesis that Singaporedoes nothave a
maritime boundarintheareaaroundPBP.
558. Malaysia gavea numberof examples in is emorialof mapswhich
depictboundarylineswhichclearlyplaceBPwithinthe territorial watsfo
Malaysiaor itspredecessors.Evidentlythesemapsdonotshowa Singapore
boundaryline intheareaaroundPBP:
a a 1936British AdmiralyhartofSingapore
a 1941BritishWarOfficemap;n2
e a 1944SurveyofIndiamap;733
* a 1950UK WarOEce
e a 1959WarOfEice andAirMinistrymap?35
a 1967UKMinistry of Defencm eap;736
a 1968UKMinistry of Defence
a
aUnitedStatesDepartmeno tfStatemappublished i1974T8
a 1994 UK JointOperations Graphic publisedythe United
KingdomDirector General oMf ilitaryue~?~~
559. Other thanthe depiction afboundaryline betweenMalaysiaand
Indonesiaor theirpredecessorsthe areaof PBP,noneof the mapslisted
above showanyotherboundary lines ineareaofPBP. Theabsence ofany
suchboundarylineinUnited KingdomandtheUnitedStatesmaps showsthat
MM,para.316,MapAtlas,M25.
MM,para.317&Insert29p.147;MapAtlas,Map26.
MM,pm. 318;MapAtlas,Map27.
MM,para.318;MapAtlas,Map29.
MM,par&317;MapAtlas,Map31
MM,para.318;MapAtlas,Map35
MM,para.318;MapAtlas,Map36.
MM, para3.22Inser30p.149;MapAtlas,Map40.
MM,para.325&Insert3p.153;MapAtlas,Map47.theydidnotconsiderSingaporeto have a maritimeboundaryareaaround PBP
or thatit fellwithin Singaporewaters.
560. For example theJoint Operations Graphic, publishe bdy the United
Kingdom Directory General ofMilitary Surveyin 1994,7d ~epicts the
maritime boundariesbetweenSingapore-MalaysiaS , ingapore-Indonesiand
Malaysia-Indonesia.Whilethe boundary finebetweenthe three Statesshown
inthe Graphicisdepictedbyan incompletedottedline,inthe area of PBPthe
line neverthelessclearly showsPBP falling on the Malaysianside of the
Malaysia-Indonesiaboundary line anditdoesnotshow any otherdelimitation
in the area aroundPBP,or registeranyterritorialclaimof Singaporein this
locality.
561. The 1950Chart of theSouth ChinaSea publishedby the United
Kingdom War Office (Sheet-48 0,"SediliBesar",first edition),depithe
maritime boundaries betweentheFederationofMalaya,the NetherlandsEast
Indies-Singaporeinanunbrokenline whichenclosesSingapore. It showtshe
maritime boundary betweenSingapore-Federation otfhe Malaya meetingthe
Federationof Malaya-Netherlands East Indiesmaritime boundary at a point
just to the rightand belowof Singapore Island. PBPfalls clearlywithinthe
maritime boundary ofthe Federation ofMalaya and well outside the
Singapore boundary line. SeeMap 7 in the MapsSectionat the endof this
~emorial.~~'
562. Furtherexamplesof officialUnitedKingdomandUnited Statesmaps
which placePBP outsideSingapore waters can be addedto the listabove. A
1965 UnitedKingdommilitary mappreparedfor"OperationMason",partof
the Britishand Commonwealth respons to the Indonesian insurgency, uses
the sameunbrokenlineasthe 1950 Chart referred tinparagraph558above
to depictthe maritimeboundariesbetweenMalaya,theRepublic ofIndonesia
740
74' Map7arisa coloreproductiandaenlargemeoftMap 29intheMMMapAtlas.
SeealsoMM,para318.andSingapore,placing*P welloutsidethe Singaporeboundaryline. This
map isreproducedas Map 8 intheMaps SectionattheendofthisMemorial,
withan enlargement showintherelevantarea.
563. The sameunbroken boundary line asre depictedon a UnitedStates
War Office map (Second Edition - AMS 2, "Lagoi", sheet 26) which,
although it labethe main lineas beingbetween"The Unfederated Malay
States-StraitsSettlements"and ""Sma, etherlandsEastndies",alsolabels
the boundary line between Singapore andJohor which intersects the
Unfederated Malay States-Straitsettlements and NetherlandEast Indies
line as that between"Singapore"and cbJohor".Again, Singapore waters
clearly excludePBP. See Map 9 in the Maps Sectionat the end ofthis
Memorial.
564. UnitedStatesGovernmentagenciedsepictboundarylinesinmapsthey
produce ofthe areawhicharenotconsistent with a perceptihat Singapore
has a maritime boundarylineinthe areaof PBP.,A 1965map of"Malaysia
and Singapore"inthe Collectionsof theUSLibrary ofCongress, Geography
and Map Divisionhas a broken dashed line looselydepicting maritime
boundary lineofthetwoStates. Themapcontainsaninsetshowinga close-
7'heinsetdoesnot
upofSingaporeandthemaritimeboundarylinesaroundit.
includethe areaaroundPBP,whichisnotconsistentwith a viewthat there isa
Singaporemaritimeboundaryline in the areaof PBP. See Map 10 in the
MapsSection attheend ofthisMemorial.
565. A 1967 map ofSingaporefromthesame collection(Base526463-67)
depicts the sameSingapore boundary lien even more detail. Whilethe
boundary line is depicted as a broken dash, intersection pofor the
convergence of Singapore-Malaysia-I bouodarsi ines in the
Singapore Strait are shown whichindicate a boundary line completely
enclosing Singaporewaters and clearly excludinga Singapore maritime
boundary lineanywherenearPBP. PBPis not shown (Map11 inthe MapsSection),This isrepeatedina 1968mapof Singapore(57209 7-68)(Map 12
inthe Maps Section),gainina 1969mapofMalaysiaandSingapore(77236
10-69)(Map 13 inthe Maps Section) and agaiin a1973 map ofSingapore
(Base5010163-73)publishedbythe US CentralIntelligence Agency(Map
14 intheMapsSection).
566. A 1974 OperationalNavigationChart (ONC L-10)of Indonesia-
Malaysia-Singaporedepicts rnaritimeboundarylines which placePBP in
Malaysianwaters (seeMap 15 in the Maps Section, andthe enlargement
followingit).
567. A firther map ofSingaporein the same seriesby the United States
CIApublishedin 1994afterthe critical date(802150(R01039)10-94)does
not depict convergencepoints of Singapore-Malaysia-Indonesbioundary
linesinthe SingaporeStrawhichclearly indicate a boundary line completely
enclosing Singapore waters. Noris PBP shown (Map 16 in the Maps
Section).The2000editionofthe samemapofSingaporedoeshowever depict
"PedraBranca"in an inset,althoughno maritime boundary linesetweenit
and Johor are depicted(Map 17 in the Maps Section). The changein the
representationof Singaporein2000to includean inset showingPedBranca
suggests an awarenesson the part of the United States Governmentof
Singapore's assertinfsovereigntyovePr BP andthecurrentdispute.
568. However,earlierdepictionsof Malaysia andSingapore suggest there
was no perception onthe partof theUnitedStatesGovernmentduring that
periodthat PBP was part of Singaporeor that Singaporehad a maritime
boundarylineintheareaofPBP.
569. With only one recent exception,the practiceof third Stateswhen
publishing mapsof Singapore and Malaysiaand the surrounding areashas
been to depict maritime boundariin the vicinityof PBP which place it
firmlyin Malaysian watersand outside Singapore waters.This practiceisconsistentwith a perceptiothat Singaporedoesnothave a maritime boundary
intheareaof PBP.
D. Singapore'srelianceoncertainMalaysianmaps
570. In its Memorial Singapore placegreatemphasison certainMalaysian
maps whichdepict a lighthousa end attributeittoin~a~ore.7~ A~ccordingto
Singaporethesemaps"areentitledtothe highestdegree ofprobativevalueas.
S743
admissionsagainst interestythe Governmeno t f Malaysia.
571, There isof course a question whether maps can eva er,such, amount
to admissions (independentlyof their use in inter-State.negotiationsor
encounters,as inthe Temple case744).Andthere aregoodreasons bothof a
generalandaspecifickindwhythis cannotbesohere.
572. Astothegenera1 reasons,the Courthas taken aconsistentpositionthat
"by virtue solely of theirexistence,[maps] cannotconstitutea territorial
tit~e",~~a'nd it followsequallythat-unless theyare incorporatedor used in
treatiesor inter-Stateencountersin such a way as to give them particular
significance-they cannotconstitutedefinitiveStatedmissionseither.
573. This isparticularlyso where,as here,the mapscontaina disclaimer.
Singaporearguesthatbecausethedisclaimersreferto"boundaries"or to"he
delimitationof internationalor other boundaries",the mapsdo constitute
representationsor admissionsas to sovereignty overislandsF6 But any
distinctionbetweenthe attributionof sovereigntyand the delimitation of
boundariesis a relativeone;the two concepts areclosely linked. In some
cases sovereigntyover territory(land or insular)results from a boundary
delimitation;in others,establishingsovereignty overdistinctplots or areas
SM, 7.38-7.50.
SM,para.7.50.
Seeabove,paragra3h2.
74s FrontiDispute Case, Reports1986p.554atp.582(para.54),citinMM,
ara.302.
6 SM,pFa.7.49. carrieswithitthe implicationofa boundary between themandthe process of
delimitationstartsromthat premise. Thusit is artificialin the extremeto
supposethat themap-maker intendeb dythevaryinglanguageof disclaimers
tomakeanysuch categorical distinctiobnetweensovereigntyand delimitation,
orthat themapcouldbeusedto determine issueo sfdisputedsovereignty.
574. Turningtothespecificsofthepresentcase, even ifmapscouldinsome
caseshavethe preclusive effect attributedy Singapore,this is not the case
here. The maps in questionare severalamong many which have been
publishedof the region,andthey havenever beenreliedon by any State for
the purposesof attributingsovereignty. In particular,as pointed out in
Malaysia'sMemorial, allthese maps do is to show the lighthouse,as is
emphasizedbythelighthousesymbol.Insuchacontexttheydonotconstitute
a statementas to sovereignty ovethe scrapofrock onwhich thelighthouse
'stands.747Canit reallybesupposed thatthemap-maker intended thereby to
decidelegalissuesof thefateofterritoryandmaritimezonesbythe(accurate)
depictionof Horsburgh Lighthousa es ownedby Singapore? Nor have these
mapsbeentaken asfixingthepositionso far as other States aconcerned,as
hasbeendem~nstrated?~'
E. Conclusion
575. The discussion abovedemonstratesthat neither the practice of
'
Singaporeitselfnor that ofother States, includMaIaysia,inthe contextof
maritime boundaries is consistentwitha perceptionthat Singapore hashad
sovereigntyoverPBPfor over150 years,as itclaims:
(a) Singapore did not delimi the area aroundPBP in its 1973territorial
watersdelimitation agreemen tithIndonesia,despite therebeing only
10 nrnbetweenPBPandtheIndonesiancoastline;
748 MM, para.321.
SeeMM, para.322,andseefurtherabove,paragraphs557-569.
269(b) Malaysiaonthe otherhanddidtakeactionsconsistentwithitsviewthat
itshared amaritimeboundary with Indonesiaonly intheareaofPBP-
the April 1968 Petroleum Agreementbetween Malaysia and the
ContinentalOil Companyof Malaysia andthe Indonesia-Malaysia
ContinentalShelfAgreement of 27October 1969;
(c) SingaporeneverprotestedMalaysia'sactionsor otherwiseindicated in
any waythatit consideredthat ithada maritimeboundaryinthe.areaof
PBP consistentwithsovereigntyovetrheisland;
(d) The consistent practiceof the United Kingdomand United States
Governmentsinthe placingofmaritimeboundarylineson officialmaps
of theareawastoplace PBPinMalaysimwaters.576. Throughout its Memorial,Singapore argues that its
title to the three features derives fiom "a takiig of lawful
possession" of PBP in the period 1847-1851. But States may
possess .territory in the sense of lawfully using it for specific
purposes without asserting or acquiring sovereignty. The key
questionis: inwhat capacitydidGreatBritainconstructand operate
the lighthouse? Its conductat the time indicated clearlythat it did
so not with a view to acquiringterritorial sovereigntybut with a
specific view to assisting navigationin the public interest. That.
wastrueof manyotherlights operated under Britishauspices,inthe
region and elsewhere,at the timeand subsequently. At no stage
prior to Singapore's independencedid the character of British
conductchange. Atno stagedidBritainpubliclyassertsovereignty
overPBP. Nor did Singaporeact any differentlyin theperioduntil
1980 when the dispute broke out. In those circumstancesthe
location of sovereignty remainsunchanged; it remains with the
sovereign whose consent was sought in order to establish the
lighthouse.
Before 1824the Sultanate of Johor existed Northand .
577.
Southof the Straitof Singaporeand includedall islands and other
maritimefeatures in and in the vicinityof the Strait of Singapore.
Both the Anglo-Dutch Convention of 1824 and the Crawfurd
Treatyof 1824confirm this.578. The actsperformed in relationto the constructionand
inaugurationof the lighthouse clearly differ from the consistent
Britishpractice concerning formaltaking of possessionon behalf
of the Crown. They did notconstitute a manifestationof the will
of the British Crown to acquiresovereignty. Nor was there ever
any annexationor incorporation ofPBP intothe BritishColony of
the Straits Settlements. On the contrary,the construction of the
lighthousewas performed withthe authorisationof the recognised
sovereignoftheterritory,Johor.
579. The absenceof any originaltitle on the part of Great
Britainto PBP was reflected inBritishpractice throughout. This
was also true of Singapore:until 1980no Singaporeanauthority
everreferredto PBPas belongingto Singapore. The dependencies
of Singapore have always been carefilly described and were
consistently limitedto the 10-milelimitof Singapore Island. They
haveneverincludedPBP.
580. Middle Rocks and South Ledge are distinct and
separate EromPBP. Thethree featureshave neverbeennamedas a
group and have distinct geological and geomorphological
characteristics. Singapore'slate claimto MiddleRocks and South
Ledgeis merely an effortto enlargeitsterritorialclaim.
581. Singapore's account of eflectivit&scomes down to
nothing morethanthe construction,operationandadministrationof
the lighthouse, In the context, includingBritish practice in the
region (the Straits' Lightssystem) and elsewhere, this is notconduct d titr de souverain. In the limited instances in which
Singapore advances non-lighthouse conduct, this is either
inconclusive (not being specifically related to PBP) or it is
subsequent to the critical date and evidently self-serving In
character.
582. By contrast Johor (and subsequentlyMalaysia) never
relinquishedtitle to the three features, but continuedto treat
aspart of its territory,inthe context ofits sovereignty overa wider
range of islands. Furtherinformation is provided this respectas
to the use of waters aroundPBP astraditional fishing waters for
f~hermenfrom south-east Johor,and asto Royal Malaysian Naval
patrolsinthewaters aroundPBP.
583. Finally, the delimitation practices of Malaysia,
Singaporeand other States in the SingaporeStraiand the South
China Sea are consistent with and supportive of Malaysia's
sovereigntyoverPBP, andinconsistentwithSingapore'sclaim. MAWSJA AND SINGAPORE,11-65
UNITEDSTATESLIBRARYOFCONGRESSCOLLECTION,4965
&&WuGW W TiIBCO-dflS OP l'E8L W OF C(IR~SI mm IiM D-
--C....inlornafl tndsv
-..-,-.9Qlqboundeiy
wlddWyWdlislaw~Wdar~
@ EIsllapital
m 'SWecclp!$l
- bnwd
- Raad SUBMISSIONS
In the light of the considerations set out above, Malaysia respectfully
requeststhe Courttoadjudgeanddeclarethatsovereigntyover
(a) PedraBranca/PulauBatuPuteh;
(b) MiddleRocks;
(c) South Ledge,
belongsto Malaysia.
Agent ofMalaysia
KualaLumpur
25 Jluluary2005
Counter-Memorial of Malaysia