EMBRSSY OF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.2
30.NOV.2007 11:55
CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/
PULAU BATU PUTEB, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE
(MALAYSIA/SINGAPORB)
RESPONSE OF SINGAPORE TO THE QUESTION POSED BY
JUDGE KEITH TO BOTH PARTIES ON 16 NOVEMBER 2007'
Question
The appeal to the JudicialCommittee of the Privy Col.lllcilfrom the
decision of the Pitcairn Court of Appeal, referred to by the Parties,
was dismissed on 30 October 2006. TI1ereference is Christian&
ors v.TheQueen [2007] 2 WLR 120, [2006] UKPC 47.
The question for each Party is as follows: is there anything in the
judgments of the Judicial Committee of significance forthe present
case?
Response
1. Singapore's answer to the ql.lestionis that the judgments of the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council are significant in that they did not seek to
disturb the statement of the law on British practice on the acquisition of
territory made by the Pitcairn Court of Appeal (and cited by Singapore during
1
the oral proceedings ). The authority of the Court of Appeal's statement on
this matter therefore stands.
2. The Court of Appeal bad, after a detailed examination of ''thesubstantial
volume of docurnentary material presented to the Court resulting from the
2
industry of counsel," on "the historical basis relating to the United Kingdom
claim of sovereignty over PitcairnIsl~ an.dits status as a British settlement,
1CR2007/21,7 November2007p.47,paras.60-(Brownlie);CR2007123,9November2007,p. 59,
para.19(Jayakumar);CR2007/28, 19November2007, p.61,para.50 (Brownlie).
2
127 ILR 23p.291,para34.
1
99% P.0230.NOV.2007 11=55 EMBRSSY OF SINGRPORE IN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.3
insofar as that can be done from the material" madethe following statement
oflaw onBritishpractice atpara46!
"It is not necessary to define with accuracy the time at which
PitcairnIsland did become a British possession. Sometimes there
may be a graduai extensionofjurisdictionover a territory, as was
reoognisedin Attorney General for British }fonduras v, Bri.stowe
(1880)6 App Cas 143.BritishHonduraswas formally annexed in
1862,butthere were grantsof landbythe Crownmade as early as
1817.The Privy Councilheld that sovereigntywas acquired on or
before that earlier year. Similarly,a forma! act of acquisition is
not required. It is the intention of the Crown, gathered from its
own acts and surrounding circumstances, that determineswhether
a territoryhas been acquired for English law pmposes. The same
principle applies in the resolution of international disputes as to
sovereignty." [Emphasisadded]
3. Thisstatementof the lawwas notnecessaryto the disposaiofthe appeal.
Nonetheless, the statement was a fully considered determination after an
extensiveexaminationofthe lawandthefactsinthat case and afterhearingfull
arguments. The statement therefore stands as an authoritative statement of
Englishlaw by the Court ofAppeal.
4. Thefollowingobservationsmay be madeaboutthe ~tatem ofthe law
pronouncedby the Court ofAppeal:
• It is a fully considered, authoritativestatement of the law on British
practice.
• It supports Singapore'sposition that a formai act of acquisition is not
requiredboth inBritishpracticeandinpubliointernationallaw.
l!bief.
4lbid.pp294-295,para46(e:rnphasisadcled).
2
P.0330.NOV.2007 11!56 EMBR5SYOF SINGRPOREIN BRUSSELS N0.210 P.4
• The statement by the Court of Appealthat "it is not necessary to define
with accuracy the tiroe at which Pitcahn Island did become a British
pos~essi sopports Singapore)s position.
• The statement is of general application, and is not confined to any
specifie situation. As such, it is applicable to the·situation of Pedra
Branca..
• The test laid down in this statement is "the intention of the Crown,
gatheredfrom its ownacts and surrounding circumstances". Singapore
has satisfiedthis test in the presentcase,aswas explainedin Singapore's
written pleadingsandby Mr Brownlie on behalfof Singapore during the
5
oral proceedings.
marNayar
Co-Agent of the Republic of Singapore
5MS,pp.29-87, paras.5.1-5.113;CMS,pp. 73-128,paras.5.1-5.139;RS, pp. 35-94, paras.3.1-3.134;
CR2007121,7Novcmber2007, pp. 36-69,paras. 12-154(Brownlie);CR2007128, 19November2007,
pp.52~6 aras. 8-49 (Brownlic).
99% P.04
Written response of Singapore to the question put by Judge Keith to the Parties at the public sitting held on 16 November 2007