Written Comments of Singapore on the Additional Written Observations of Malaysia

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION FOR REVISION OF THE JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE ON 23 MAY 2008 IN THE CASE CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA / PULAU
BATU PUTEH, MIDDLE ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA / SINGAPORE)
(MALAYSIA v. SINGAPORE)
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
ON THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS
OF MALAYSIA
12 FEBRUARY 2018
This page is intentionally left blank.
i
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
A. Procedural Background to these Written Comments ................................. 1
B. Overview and Structure of these Written Comments ................................. 3
1. Malaysia’s Continued Failure to Satisfy “the Due Diligence and Temporal
Criteria of Admissibility” ........................................................................................ 3
2. Malaysia’s Mischaracterisation of its “Newly Discovered Facts” .................. 5
3. Malaysia’s Flawed Case on Decisiveness......................................................... 5
4. Malaysia’s Disguised Appeal on the Merits...................................................... 6
CHAPTER II – MALAYSIA’S FAILURE TO SATISFY THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY.............................................................. 9
A. The Documents that Malaysia Relies on ..................................................... 10
1. Annexes to the Application .............................................................................. 10
2. Annexures to the Additional Written Observations ......................................... 11
B. Malaysia’s “Newly Discovered Fact” Was Not Unknown When the
Judgment Was Given .............................................................................................. 15
C. Malaysia Failed to Exercise Reasonable Diligence to Obtain the New
Documents Before the Judgment Was Delivered ................................................. 19
D. Malaysia Failed to File the Application Within Six Months of the Alleged
Discovery of the “New Fact” or the New Documents .......................................... 27
E. Conclusion...................................................................................................... 31
CHAPTER III – THE IRRELEVANCE OF MALAYSIA’S DOCUMENTS ...... 33
A. Annex 1 to the Application – the 1958 correspondence ........................... 33
B. Annex 2 to the Application and Annexure A to the Additional Written
Observations – Documents Relating to the 1958 Labuan Haji Incident ............ 36
C. Annex 3 to the Application and Annexures B and C to the Additional
Written Observations – Documents Relating to the Sketch Map ....................... 39
D. Annexure D to the Additional Written Observations – the 1937 Johore
Map ......................................................................................................................... 46
E. Conclusion...................................................................................................... 50
ii
CHAPTER IV – MALAYSIA’S FAILURE TO MEET THE “DECISIVE
FACTOR” REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSIBILITY .......................................... 51
A. Overview of the “Decisive Factor” Requirement ....................................... 52
1. The Exceptional Nature of Revision ................................................................ 52
2. The Requirement that the New Fact Be of a Decisive Nature ......................... 53
B. The Basic Deficiencies of Malaysia’s Case and Its Mischaracterisation of
Singapore’s Analysis of the Judgment .................................................................. 57
C. Malaysia’s New Documents Do Not Meet the “Decisive Factor”
Requirement ............................................................................................................ 63
1. Annex 1 – 1958 Internal Correspondence Concerning Delimitation of
Territorial Waters .................................................................................................. 64
2. Annex 2 – Documents Concerning the 1958 Labuan Haji Incident ................ 71
3. Annex 3 – Sketch Map of Restricted and Prohibited Areas ............................ 76
4. The 1937 Johore Map...................................................................................... 81
D. Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 83
CHAPTER V – THE TRUE NATURE OF MALAYSIA’S REVISION
APPLICATION: AN APPEAL ................................................................................. 85
SUMMARY OF SINGAPORE’S REASONING..................................................... 95
SUBMISSION ............................................................................................................. 99
iii
LIST OF INSERTS
Number Description Location
Insert 1 Sketch map in Annex 3 to the Application annotated
(in red) to show the places in Singapore where the
incidents recorded in Annexure C (serial numbers in
blue) took place
after page 42
Insert 2 Item 34 in Annexure C to the Additional Written
Observations
after page 44
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 1 -
WRITTEN COMMENTS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Procedural Background to these Written Comments
1.1 On 2 February 2017, Malaysia filed an application for revision (the
“Application”) of the Judgment delivered by the Court on 23 May 2008
in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh,
Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (the “Judgment”).
The Application is accompanied by three Annexes. On 24 May 2017,
Singapore filed its written observations (the “Written Observations”) on
the admissibility of the Application.
1.2 On 9 June 2017, Malaysia requested the opportunity to submit further
views on the admissibility of the Application, and to present further
documentation. In a subsequent letter to the Court dated 23 June 2017,
Malaysia stated that the further documentation “has only been found after
the Application was filed” and that the documents “do not constitute a
second application for revision”.
1.3 On 9 October 2017, the Court acceded to Malaysia’s request. On
11 December 2017, Malaysia filed its additional written observations and
documentation (the “Additional Written Observations”). In accordance
with the Court’s decision of 9 October 2017, Singapore now submits these
written comments on the Additional Written Observations (these
“Written Comments”). Unless expressly stated otherwise, the terms and
abbreviations used in these Written Comments bear the same meaning as
those used by Singapore in the Written Observations.
- Page 2 -
1.4 At the outset, two aspects of the Additional Written Observations
symptomatic of Malaysia’s general approach towards the Application
deserve comment. First, the Additional Written Observations have made
even more apparent that the Application is in effect an appeal of the
Judgment, and an attempt to obtain a rehearing of the original case, rather
than a proper request for revision. This will be elaborated upon in
Chapter V below. Second, Malaysia has introduced documents in the
Additional Written Observations that contradict the representations it
made to the Court when it sought permission to file further written
pleadings and documentation. These representations formed the basis of
the Court’s grant of permission to do so. This is an abuse of process, on
which Singapore will elaborate in Chapter II below.
1.5 In the Written Observations, Singapore showed that the Application fails
to meet the conditions under Article 61 of the Statute and is therefore
inadmissible. The Additional Written Observations do not remedy those
deficiencies. On the contrary, Malaysia’s pleading:
(a) again distorts, and even goes so far as to attack, the reasoning of
the Court underlying its decision in the Judgment that sovereignty
over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore;
(b) advances the wrong test for “decisiveness” at the admissibility
stage of the revision procedure, which ignores the text of the
Statute and the jurisprudence of the Court;
(c) fails to deal with Singapore’s arguments in the Written
Observations that Malaysia’s “newly discovered documents” have
nothing to do with sovereignty over Pedra Branca, and do not
affect the reasoning in the Judgment that supported the Court’s
decision on sovereignty;
- Page 3 -
(d) fails to demonstrate how Malaysia’s “newly discovered
documents” differ from similar documents that the Court regarded
as irrelevant in the Judgment;
(e) in an attempt to circumvent the requirements of Article 99 of the
Rules, introduces still further documents, which, in any event, are
completely irrelevant to the issue of sovereignty over Pedra
Branca; and
(f) still fails to explain how the Application satisfies the procedural
requirements under Article 61 of the Statute, and in fact raises
further doubts as to whether such requirements have been met.
B. Overview and Structure of these Written Comments
1. MALAYSIA’S CONTINUED FAILURE TO SATISFY “THE DUE DILIGENCE
AND TEMPORAL CRITERIA OF ADMISSIBILITY”
1.6 Chapter II of these Written Comments addresses Malaysia’s contention
in the Additional Written Observations that it has met what it terms the
“due diligence and temporal criteria of admissibility”1. As Singapore will
demonstrate, notwithstanding the amount of ink spilt and voluminous
documents annexed, Malaysia has still failed to show that it has overcome
the procedural shortcomings in the Application that Singapore
highlighted in the Written Observations2. On the contrary, the Additional
Written Observations contain further evidence that Malaysia has not
satisfied the procedural conditions under Article 61 of the Statute.
1 See Additional Written Observations, Chapter III.
2 See Written Observations, Chapter V.
- Page 4 -
1.7 For example, in the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia provided
clear evidence that it was informed in January 2017 that the sketch map
in Annex 3 to the Application was estimated to have been publicly
available as early as in 19983. Malaysia not only withheld this
information from the Court, it positively asserted in the Application, filed
just two weeks after being so informed, that its “newly discovered
documents”, including Annex 3, “were released to the public by the UK
Government only after the Court delivered its Judgment in 2008.”4
1.8 Further, in the case of Annexes 1 and 2, despite the fact that Professor
Shaharil’s early 2015 blog clearly referred to them5, Malaysia would have
the Court believe it was pure happenstance that its researchers
“discovered”6 them on the morning of the very first day it claims it
commenced its search in The National Archives of the United Kingdom
(the “UK National Archives”) for a “new fact”7.
3 See Additional Written Observations, Annexure L.
4 Application, para. 23.
5 See Written Observations, paras. 5.30-5.31.
6 Additional Written Observations, para. 158 and Annexure H.
7 See Additional Written Observations, para. 155 (“The research commenced on
4 August 2016 and took place in the National Archives of the United Kingdom
in London.”) See also Application, para. 23 (“During the period 4 August 2016-
30 January 2017, research was undertaken by Malaysia at the United Kingdom
National Archives in London. This research identified for the first time
documents which demonstrated that Singapore officials at the highest levels did
not consider Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to fall within Singapore’s
sovereign territory in the years following the 1953 exchange of
correspondence.”)
- Page 5 -
2. MALAYSIA’S MISCHARACTERISATION OF ITS
“NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTS”
1.9 Singapore has already demonstrated in the Written Observations that the
meaning sought to be ascribed by Malaysia to its “new documents” is not
borne out by the documents themselves or their context.
1.10 In Chapter III of these Written Comments, Singapore will show that the
Additional Written Observations and additional documents have added
nothing to Malaysia’s case in this respect. In fact, Malaysia has
completely failed to respond to Singapore’s arguments in Chapter III of
the Written Observations that none of Malaysia’s “newly discovered
documents”—namely, Annexes 1, 2 and 3 to the Application—touch on
any understanding on the part of Singapore as to the issue of sovereignty
over Pedra Branca, and that, in essence, these documents have nothing to
do with the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
1.11 As for Malaysia’s “further documentation” annexed to the Additional
Written Observations, none of these documents provide any additional
contextual support for Malaysia’s contentions with respect to its “newly
discovered documents” annexed to the Application. As Chapter III below
will demonstrate, they also show nothing concerning Singapore’s
understanding about who had sovereignty over Pedra Branca, and are
equally irrelevant to the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
3. MALAYSIA’S FLAWED CASE ON DECISIVENESS
1.12 Chapter IV of these Written Comments will show that, contrary to
Malaysia’s case in the Additional Written Observations, it has still not
met its burden of showing how the “newly discovered documents”, or any
- Page 6 -
fact they are said to evince, satisfies the “decisive factor” criterion for
admissibility. In particular, Singapore will:
(a) show that Malaysia posits an arbitrarily low standard for meeting
the “decisive factor” requirement of Article 61, which is
erroneous;
(b) correct Malaysia’s mischaracterisation of the Court’s reasoning in
the Judgment, and show that Malaysia has instead focused on
factors the Court did not find relevant, while ignoring or otherwise
characterising relevant factors as irrelevant; and
(c) demonstrate that none of Malaysia’s “newly discovered
documents”, or any fact they are said to evince, can be a “decisive
factor” that affects the Court’s reasoning in the Judgment or would
influence its decision on sovereignty.
4. MALAYSIA’S DISGUISED APPEAL ON THE MERITS
1.13 As alluded to above, Chapter V of these Written Comments will discuss
and expose the true nature of the Application – that of a disguised attempt
at an appeal on the merits of the Judgment. This is evident from, inter
alia:
(a) Malaysia’s criticism of the soundness of the Court’s legal
methodology on the pretext of reviewing the basis upon which the
Court decided that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to
Singapore, in order to support the alleged decisiveness of its “new
facts”8; and
8 Additional Written Observations, paras. 49 to 68.
- Page 7 -
(b) its overt accusation that the Judgment “rested on a proprio motu
analysis that had not had the benefit of submissions by the
Parties.”9
1.14 As Singapore will show in Chapter V, neither of these lines of argument
is justified. But apart from that, what is clear is that Malaysia’s attempt to
reargue the merits of its case for sovereignty over Pedra Branca is not
only irrelevant to an application for revision under Article 61 of the
Statute; it is also contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the Statute, which
provide that judgments of the Court are binding as between the Parties
and “final and without appeal”.
9 Additional Written Observations, para. 5. Malaysia has previously made similar
insinuations in the Application, which have been addressed in the Written
Observations. See Application, paras. 41, 45 and 48, and Written Observations,
para. 5.6.
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 9 -
CHAPTER II
MALAYSIA’S FAILURE TO SATISFY THE PROCEDURAL
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY
2.1 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia complains that
“Singapore objects to the admissibility of the Revision Application on
every conceivable ground”10. This is correct insofar as Malaysia’s
argument is open to criticism on just about every point although, of
course, Singapore acknowledged that the Application was filed within the
ten-year time limit of Article 61, paragraph 5, of the Statute11. However,
the Application fails under all the other admissibility conditions laid down
in Article 61 of the Statute. Moreover, to the extent Malaysia relies on the
Annexures to the Additional Written Observations as evidence of any
“new fact”, Malaysia has not complied with the procedural requirements
under Article 99 of the Rules.
2.2 In Section A, Singapore provides a brief description of the documents that
Malaysia relies on in the Application and the Additional Written
Observations, in order to place the procedural defects in Malaysia’s
pleadings in context. It also shows how Malaysia’s production of
Annexures C and D does not satisfy the procedural criteria of the Rules
and is in fact an abuse of process.
2.3 In Section B, Singapore will show that Malaysia’s “new fact” or “facts”
were not “unknown” to the Court and to Malaysia when the Judgment was
rendered. Section C will demonstrate that, in any event, if Malaysia was
unaware of its “new fact” or “facts”, such ignorance is “due to
negligence”. Moreover, as Section D will show, Malaysia has not
10 Additional Written Observations, para. 4.
11 See Written Observations, paras. 1.3 and 4.9.
- Page 10 -
demonstrated that the Application was made “at latest within six months
of the discovery of the new fact”. Any of these procedural shortcomings
of the Application, by itself, is a sufficient ground for the Court to dismiss
Malaysia’s request under Article 61 of the Statute.
A. The Documents that Malaysia Relies on
1. ANNEXES TO THE APPLICATION
2.4 In the Application, Malaysia relies on three sets of documents, contained
in the three Annexes to the Application, for revision of the Judgment.
2.5 Annex 1 to the Application consists of two telegrams: the first, dated
18 January 1958, was sent by the Secretary of State for the Colonies to
the Governor of Singapore; and the second was the Governor of
Singapore’s response dated 7 February 1958 to the Secretary of State for
the Colonies. Malaysia argues that the 1958 correspondence in Annex 1
showed that the Singapore authorities did not consider Pedra Branca as
part of Singapore territory at that time12.
2.6 Annex 2 to the Application consists of several documents concerning an
incident on 25 February 1958 involving the vessel Labuan Haji which
was en route from Singapore to Thailand, namely: a message from one
Mr. Wickens dated 25 February 1958, which is accompanied by
handwritten internal minutes dated 26 February 1958; and two newspaper
cuttings of reports of the incident from the Straits Times and Singapore
Standard. On the basis of these documents in Annex 2, Malaysia alleges
that the Singapore authorities at that time did not view the waters around
12 See Application, para. 25.
- Page 11 -
Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore, but rather, as belonging to
Johor13.
2.7 Annex 3 to the Application is a sketch map dated 25 March 1962 with
handwritten annotations, the most recent of which is dated “Feb 66”.
According to Malaysia, the sketch map shows that the Singapore
authorities’ understanding of their territorial entitlements was that they
did not include Pedra Branca14.
2.8 In the Written Observations15, Singapore demonstrated that Malaysia has
not satisfied the procedural requirements under Article 61 in respect of
the documents in these Annexes.
2. ANNEXURES TO THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS
2.9 Annexure A consists of three newspaper cuttings, one in the English
language dated 27 February 1958 from the Straits Times and two in the
Malay language dated 26 and 27 February 1958 respectively from the
Berita Harian. Malaysia claims that these newspaper cuttings provide
further corroboration of the location of the incident involving the Labuan
Haji16, the primary subject of the documents in Annex 2 to the
Application. On the basis of the reference in the 27 February 1958 Straits
Times cutting to the Prime Minister of Malaya calling for a “full report on
the incident in Johore territorial waters”17, Malaysia further asserts that
13 See Application, para. 30.
14 Ibid., para. 35.
15 See Written Observations, Chapter V.
16 See Additional Written Observations, para. 85.
17 Cutting from the Straits Times (Additional Written Observations, Annexure A).
- Page 12 -
this newspaper cutting confirms the fact that “the Malayan authorities
considered that Johor’s territorial waters encompassed the waters to the
north of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.”18
2.10 Annexure B contains the entire archival file consisting of 162 pages in
which the sketch map in Annex 3 was found.
2.11 Annexure C contains a copy of the archival file WO 268/802 entitled
“Indonesian Offensive Against West Malaysia (Excluding Piracies and
Undetected Infiltrations)”. It records incidents involving infiltration of
Malaysia and Singapore by Indonesian perpetrators in the period
17 August 1964 to 31 December 1965. According to Malaysia, it first
discovered Annexure C on 30 May 201719.
2.12 Malaysia claims that Annexure C shows why the omission of Pedra
Branca from the Annex 3 sketch map is significant20. Malaysia makes a
further claim that this document indicates that the UK authorities
considered Horsburgh Lighthouse to be “situated in East Johor until at
least the end of 1965”21, and “provid[es] yet another new illustration”22,
“valuable in itself”23, of the Singapore authorities’ understanding that
Singapore had not acquired sovereignty over Pedra Branca from Johor.
18 Additional Written Observations, para. 85.
19 Ibid., para. 91.
20 Ibid., para. 95.
21 Ibid., para. 94.
22 Ibid., para. 95.
23 Ibid.
- Page 13 -
2.13 Annexure D comprises a map titled “Johore, 1937” and franked with a
stamp of the War Damage Commission (the “1937 Johore Map”), as well
as the War Damage Commission’s report for 1952. Malaysia claims that
it first became aware of the existence of the 1937 Johore Map on
9 November 2017, and obtained it on 5 December 201724. According to
Malaysia, the 1937 Johore Map confirms that the authorities of Malaya
and Singapore both understood that Pedra Branca was situated in Johor’s
territorial waters25, and provides evidence that there was no appreciation
by the Singapore authorities that Pedra Branca was part of Singapore26.
2.14 Neither Annexure C nor Annexure D was referred to in the Application.
However, contrary to Malaysia’s claim that the further documents “do not
constitute a second application for revision”27, it is readily apparent from
Malaysia’s reliance on Annexures C and D as evidence of the Singapore
authorities’ “understanding” or “appreciation” of sovereignty over Pedra
Branca that Malaysia is also relying on Annexures C and D as
independent bases for revision of the Judgment.
2.15 Malaysia relies on Annexure C as evidence of a “new fact”: “the UK
authorities considered Horsburgh lighthouse to be situated in East Johor
until at least the end of 1965.”28 This goes beyond any “fact” Malaysia
relies on in the Application.
24 See Additional Written Observations, para. 103.
25 Ibid., para. 102.
26 Ibid., para. 105.
27 Letter from the Co-Agent for Malaysia to the Registrar dated 23 June 2017,
para. 5. See also para. 1.2 above.
28 Additional Written Observations, para. 94.
- Page 14 -
2.16 As for Annexure D, it bears absolutely no relation to any of the documents
annexed to the Application. Nothing in the Additional Written
Observations draws any link between Annexure D and the Annexes to the
Application, on which Malaysia’s request for revision of the Judgment is
based. Contrary to what the Co-Agent for Malaysia stated in his letter of
23 June 2017 to the Court, Annexure D is not “pertinent to the
Application”, nor can it be said in any way to provide “appropriate
contextual explanation of the points Malaysia seeks to make as detailed
in the Application itself”29. Malaysia claims that it received a copy of the
1937 Johore Map on 5 December 201730, six months after Malaysia’s
letter of 9 June 2017 requesting the Court for the opportunity to present
further documentation “in support of its Application” that had already
allegedly “been found”. It follows that the 1937 Johore Map could not
possibly have been within Malaysia’s contemplation at the time it made
that request. Moreover, contrary to Malaysia’s assertion at the procedural
meeting with the President of the Court on 11 September 2017 that the
further documentation Malaysia wished to present was found in the UK
National Archives, the map in Annexure D in fact was obtained from a
private individual31.
2.17 As Article 99, paragraph 1, of the Rules makes clear, Malaysia bears the
burden of demonstrating that the Application contains all the particulars
necessary to show that the conditions laid down in Article 61 of the
Statute have been met, and any documents in support of the Application
are required to be annexed to it. For all the foregoing reasons, Malaysia’s
presentation of Annexures C and D as “further documentation” pursuant
29 Letter from the Co-Agent for Malaysia to the Registrar dated 23 June 2017,
para. 5.
30 See Additional Written Observations, para. 103.
31 Ibid.
- Page 15 -
to the Court’s allowing it the opportunity to do so, instead of annexing
them to an application as required by Article 99 of the Rules, is an abuse
of process. In any event, they do not meet the criteria for admissibility
under Article 61 of the Statute.
B. Malaysia’s “Newly Discovered Fact” Was Not Unknown
When the Judgment Was Given
2.18 In the Application, Malaysia is imprecise on the characterisation of the
“new fact” that it allegedly discovered and that would warrant the revision
of the Judgment32. At some point, it alleges that each of the new
documents filed with the Application constitutes a new fact33. Yet, in
other places, it considers that these documents constitute “evidence of an
implicit underlying fact, namely, that Singapore did not consider that the
1953 correspondence effected a transfer of sovereignty over Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh to Singapore.”34 This is clearly not a “new fact”,
as explained by Singapore35. In the Additional Written Observations,
Malaysia does not dispute this, but complains that Singapore—which did
nothing more than quote from the Application—“misconstrue[s] the facts
which Malaysia has newly discovered”36.
2.19 Conscious of the shortcoming of its own description of the “new fact” or
“facts”, Malaysia has now changed its understanding of the “new fact” in
32 See Written Observations, paras. 4.6 and 5.3.
33 See Application, para. 22.
34 Application, para. 22. See also Application, paras. 23 and 40.
35 Written Observations, paras. 5.2-5.6.
36 Additional Written Observations, para. 107.
- Page 16 -
the sense of Article 61 of the Statute. On the basis of the documents it
claims were newly discovered, Malaysia undertakes to
“establish the existence of a continuing factual situation, of
which neither the Court nor Malaysia knew when the
Judgment was given: specifically, that no agreement,
express or tacit, existed between the parties as to the transfer
of Johor’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
to Singapore.”37
2.20 Malaysia further alleges that “[t]he fact that no agreement ever arose
between the parties was obviously unknown to the Court itself”38.
However, this new characterisation or understanding of the “new fact”
does not transform it into a fact “unknown” to the Court or to Malaysia.
Malaysia again ignores its own pleadings in the original case in which it
specifically tried to persuade the Court of Singapore’s lack of any
“conviction” in respect of sovereignty over Pedra Branca, or, to use
Malaysia’s words in the Additional Written Observations, of “the
apparent Singaporean component of the shared understanding implied in
the 2008 Judgment”39.
2.21 In its Memorial in the original case, Malaysia argued that:
“Singapore at no time subsequent to [the 1953]
correspondence took any steps to claim Pulau Batu Puteh.
Nor, evidently, did this affect Singapore’s perception that
the island was not in its territory. … Singapore at no time
37 Additional Written Observations, para. 107. See also Additional Written
Observations, para. 29.
38 Additional Written Observations, para. 109.
39 Ibid., para. 15. See also, Additional Written Observations, para. 32.
- Page 17 -
prior to 1980 expressed any conviction that Pulau Batu
Puteh was part of its territory.”40
2.22 It further alleged that:
“[A]t no time in the course of the bilateral relations between
the Parties did Singapore manifest any appreciation that it
had sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh. … There is nothing
in Singapore’s subsequent practice that shows a different
understanding.”41
2.23 After reviewing Singapore’s unilateral conduct in the period between
1953 and 1980, Malaysia finally asserted that:
“As with Singapore’s conduct in its bilateral relations with
Malaysia, Singapore’s unilateral conduct over the crucial
period of its constitutional evolution also confirms that
Singapore did not [sic] any time prior to 1980 have any
sense that it had title to Pulau Batu Puteh.”42
2.24 In its Counter-Memorial in the original case, Malaysia also relied on what
it now considers is a “new fact”. It stated that:
“Moreover [the Singapore authorities] did nothing to give
effect to the correspondence: at no point subsequently (until
just before the critical date) did Singapore assert a claim to
PBP [ie, Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh]. There was not the
slightest change in Singapore’s conduct: it continued to act
as it had done before, that is, to administer the lighthouse
and nothing else. There was no extension of Singapore
territorial waters nor any other act implying a claim of
sovereignty. Nothing more was said of the matter. While
Singapore now contends that it did indeed rely upon the
statement by the Johor Acting State Secretary, there is no
evidence at all to show that this was the case. On the
40 Memorial of Malaysia, para. 242.
41 Ibid., para. 244.
42 Ibid., para. 267.
- Page 18 -
contrary, further activity of Singapore clearly shows that it
continued to treat PBP as not being part of Singapore.”43
2.25 In its Reply, Malaysia also revisited the conduct of the Parties before and
after the 1953 correspondence and concluded:
“And in respect of conduct that is inimical to its claim to
sovereignty, there is only silence. Singapore’s conduct is
insufficient to sustain its own claim to title. It is certainly
insufficient to displace Malaysia’s original title.”44
2.26 Finally, during the hearings held in the original case, counsel for Malaysia
addressed the issue of tacit recognition and argued that Singapore never
claimed or accepted to exercise sovereignty over Pedra Branca:
“Cette pratique [subséquente] montre également, que
malgré les souhaits du Chief Surveyor et du Master
Attendant de Singapour, les organes compétents n’ont
jamais étendu la mer territoriale de Singapour autour des
eaux de Pedra Branca. Il en va de même du souhait du
prédécesseur lointain de M. Chao, l’Attorney-General :
‘nous pouvons revendiquer Pedra Branca’ disait-il, mais le
fait est que ni le Royaume-Uni ni Singapour l’ont fait.”45
2.27 As can be seen from the above, it is simply not true that Malaysia’s “new
fact”, however characterised, “was not pleaded by either Party during the
original proceedings”46. Against this background, Malaysia cannot now
43 Counter-Memorial of Malaysia, para. 510 (Emphasis added).
44 Reply of Malaysia, para. 372.
45 CR 2007/31, 23 November 2007, pp. 38-39, para. 30 (Kohen). (“This
[subsequent] practice also shows that, despite the wishes of the Chief Surveyor
and the Master Attendant of Singapore, the competent authorities never
extended Singapore’s territorial sea around the waters of Pedra Branca. The
same applies to Mr. Chao’s distant predecessor, the Attorney-General: ‘we can
claim Pedra Branca’ he said, but the fact is that neither the United Kingdom nor
Singapore did so.” [Translation by the Registry])
46 Application, para. 45.
- Page 19 -
claim that the “fact” of the non-existence of an agreement as to the transfer
of sovereignty over Pedra Branca was unknown to the Court and to
Malaysia. This was exactly what Malaysia argued in the original case47.
Yet, it did not prevail. In re-opening the issue, Malaysia is simply
appealing the findings of the Court in the original case48.
2.28 In any event, as in the original case, the documents submitted by Malaysia
with the Application cannot establish the non-existence of an agreement,
tacit or express, between the Parties in respect of sovereignty over Pedra
Branca. As Singapore shows in Chapter III below, none of these
documents deals with sovereignty or supports the drawing of any
conclusion in respect of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
C. Malaysia Failed to Exercise Reasonable Diligence to Obtain the New
Documents Before the Judgment Was Delivered
2.29 Even if Malaysia’s new documents, or any “fact” or “facts” they could be
said to evince, were unknown to Malaysia when the Judgment was
delivered, this ignorance is due to negligence attributable to Malaysia
alone. Singapore agrees that “the test of negligence in discovery is …
objective, based on what reasonably can be expected of a State’s conduct
in the circumstances of the case.”49 These documents would certainly
have been known to Malaysia had it acted with reasonable due diligence.
2.30 Malaysia contends that it is “not unreasonable in the circumstances of the
original case that Malaysia, despite its extensive and systematic efforts,
47 See Written Observations, paras. 5.4-5.5.
48 See paras. 5.4-5.11 below.
49 Additional Written Observations, para. 112.
- Page 20 -
did not locate or obtain the documents which support the newly
discovered facts on which this Application is based.”50 In particular, in
the Application, Malaysia contends that:
“It is also worth noting that the negligence standard in this
case should take into account the fact that the issue of the
Parties’ own understanding of the situation concerning
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh was not
pleaded during the original proceedings, and it would be
difficult to expect litigants to be characterised as negligent
for not discovering information relevant to a point which
was not anticipated in the proceedings.”51
2.31 It is plainly illogical to allege, on the one hand, that the Parties had not
pleaded or anticipated an argument used by the Court and, on the other
hand, that Malaysia had exercised all due diligence to search for
documents in support of that argument.
2.32 Moreover, as shown above52, the “new fact” on which Malaysia now
relies was referred to in the pleadings of Malaysia itself in the original
case. In these circumstances, it is reasonable to expect Malaysia, the Party
that pleaded a fact, to have taken all possible steps to establish and verify
its allegations. In Tunisia v. Libya, the Court considered:
“[I]t is to be expected that a State would not assert that such
concession extended to its own area of continental shelf
without knowing, or making efforts to discover, the exact
limits of the concession. It is also to be expected that, in
litigation the ultimate purpose of which is the establishment
of a continental shelf delimitation, and in the course of
which a petroleum concession in the relevant area is
described by one party without precision, the other party
50 Additional Written Observations, para. 114.
51 Application, para. 48.
52 See paras. 2.21-2.27 above.
- Page 21 -
will not limit itself to commenting on the matter in its
pleading, but itself seek out the information.”53
2.33 If it had been a diligent litigant, Malaysia should have conducted
extensive research, including in the UK National Archives, given the
history of Singapore and Malaysia. However, neither in the Application
nor in the Additional Written Observations does Malaysia provide any
evidence that it actually tried to request any documents from the UK
National Archives or the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the
“FCO”). It simply relies in generic terms on the fact that there are
exemptions contained in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (UK) (the
“FOI Act”), in particular, on Sections 24 (National Security), 26
(Defence) and 27 (International Relations)54. Malaysia does not provide
any evidence that the documents it submitted with the Application fell or
fall under these exemptions. On the contrary, the very fact that these
documents were disclosed to the public suggests that they did not fall
under these exemptions, and Malaysia has not shown that it tried to gain
access to these documents before the Judgment was delivered55.
2.34 In respect of the National Security exemption under Section 24 of the FOI
Act, Malaysia does not produce “[a] certificate signed by a Minister of
53 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February
1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1985, p. 206, para. 27.
54 See Additional Written Observations, para. 148. See also Additional Written
Observations, Annexure F.
55 See instead, Additional Written Observations, para. 116.
- Page 22 -
the Crown certifying that exemption [from production], is, or at any time
was, required for the purpose of safeguarding national security”56.
2.35 In an attempt to justify its failure to request relevant documents (or even
information on whether such documents existed in the UK National
Archives or the archives of the FCO), Malaysia contends that “there was
no basis during the original case to make any approach to the UK
Government to request such documents of which [Malaysia] was
unaware.”57 But Malaysia again misses the point. The question is not
whether Malaysia was aware of the existence of the documents that it now
produces, but rather, whether it should have made—and had made—
diligent research concerning the existence and contents of such
documents in the circumstances of the case.
2.36 In the Written Observations58, Singapore has shown that, well before the
Judgment was delivered, Malaysia was aware or should have been aware
of circumstances and information that, at the very least, should have
triggered more detailed research, such as by making requests to the UK
Government for documents or information.
2.37 Concerning the 7 February 1958 telegram in Annex 1 to the Application,
Malaysia was aware of the ongoing discussions regarding the potential
extension of the limits of the territorial sea, arising from contemporaneous
developments in the law of the sea59. The July 1953 correspondence
56 Freedom of Information Act 2000 (UK), Sec. 24(3) (Additional Written
Observations, Annexure F).
57 Additional Written Observations, para. 116.
58 See Written Observations, paras. 5.14-5.22.
59 See also Written Observations, paras. 3.3-3.4.
- Page 23 -
produced by Malaysia in the original case proves this knowledge60. In
these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to expect a litigant to carry
out the necessary research on related documents and correspondence,
including those in respect of the 1958 Geneva Conference on the Law of
the Sea. But Malaysia has produced no evidence of any approaches made
to the United Kingdom that would have enabled it to discover Annex 1 to
the Application before the Judgment was given.
2.38 The same is true in respect of the documents relating to the Labuan Haji
incident produced in Annex 2 to the Application. The contemporaneous
newspaper cuttings that Malaysia produced in Annex 2 to the Application
and in Annexure A to the Additional Written Observations show that the
incident was well documented. Malaysia should have been aware of this
incident and its alleged relevance to the original case. These newspaper
articles were publicly available and could have been easily discovered by
Malaysia with minimal effort. The circumstances of the Labuan Haji
incident could not have been unknown to Malaysia ever since the incident
occurred. Malaysia does not dispute this fact in the Additional Written
Observations. Yet, it has not provided any evidence that it had requested
relevant information from the UK National Archives or the FCO.
2.39 Malaysia’s negligence is also demonstrated in the case of the sketch map
in Annex 3 to the Application. Even if the handwritten annotations on the
sketch map show new dates, it is undeniable that almost identical versions
of the sketch map were in the public domain and could have been
identified easily by Malaysia well before the Judgment was rendered in
200861. Given the importance Malaysia attaches to the sketch map (and
60 Letter and attachments from A.G.B. Colton, for the Colonial Secretary,
Singapore, to the Deputy Commissioner General for Colonial Affairs,
Singapore, dated July 1953 (Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 3, Annex 68).
61 See Written Observations, paras. 5.20-5.24.
- Page 24 -
apparently to what the map does not depict), one would have expected
Malaysia to search for and request the production of other versions of the
sketch map. Yet, it has not produced any evidence that it ever enquired
whether such other versions existed or were held by the UK National
Archives.
2.40 The sketch map, even the one bearing the handwritten annotations that is
included in the archival file DEFE 69/539, was in fact obtainable by
Malaysia, and indeed by everyone, well before the Court rendered the
Judgment62. Malaysia attempts to cast doubt on Singapore’s evidence for
the release date of the archival file DEFE 69/539 given the different
information it received through its own enquiry63. This allegation
deserves two remarks.
2.41 First, Singapore’s evidence is constituted by a formal response sent by the
Chief Executive’s Office of the UK National Archives in reply to a
request made through the official channels by the Director, National
Archives of Singapore. In contrast, Malaysia produces an email exchange
that involved an enquiry by one of its researchers using what appears to
be his personal email account on the generic contact form found on the
website of the UK National Archives, with no indication that this was
made other than in a private capacity. Singapore leaves it to the Court to
appreciate the weight of the respective evidence brought before it by the
two Parties.
2.42 Second, Malaysia made this enquiry on 19 January 2017, more than two
months after “discovering” the relevant file in the UK National Archives
62 See Written Observations, para. 5.19. See also correspondence concerning the
date of release of DEFE 69/539 with the UK National Archives, 4-25 April 2017
(Written Observations, Annex 2).
63 See Additional Written Observations, para. 159.
- Page 25 -
and just 14 days before it filed the Application, and received a response
from a Reader Adviser two days later. Yet, when it filed the Application
on 2 February 2017, Malaysia failed to disclose to the Court that the
Reader Adviser had estimated that the archival file containing Annex 3 to
the Application had been made publicly available in December 1998,
nearly ten years before the Judgment64. Despite the information received
through its enquiry, Malaysia did not deem it necessary to carry out
further research concerning the release date. Instead, in the Application,
Malaysia categorically stated that the annexed documents—including the
sketch map in Annex 3—“were released to the public by the UK
Government only after the Court delivered its Judgment in 2008.”65 This
is not the care expected of a diligent Party, in particular, in revision
proceedings.
2.43 Finally, in respect of the 1937 Johore Map that Malaysia included in
Annexure D to the Additional Written Observations, it suffices to note
that Malaysia must have had official notice of this map ever since the
1950s. Indeed, as Malaysia points out, the War Damage Commission
consisted of members “appointed jointly by the High Commissioner of
the Federation of Malaya and the Governor of the Colony of Singapore”
and among the members were “the Honourable Financial Secretaries of
both Malaya and Singapore”66. Malaysia would have been aware of all
the materials in the archives of or used by the War Damage Commission,
including the 1937 Johore Map, from the time they were received by the
War Damage Commission, ie, from 1 January 1950 when the War
64 See correspondence between Malaysia’s researchers and the UK National
Archives, dated 19-21 January 2017 (Additional Written Observations,
Annexure L).
65 Application, para. 23.
66 Additional Written Observations, para. 104.
- Page 26 -
Damage Commission was established67. It could not have been the case
that Malaysia was only made aware of the 1937 Johore Map in November
2017, especially if—as Malaysia asserts—it had been used by the War
Damage Commission. Therefore, any ignorance of the 1937 Johore Map
on the part of Malaysia when the Judgment was given must have been due
to negligence. Malaysia cannot now claim that it only discovered this
document under peculiar circumstances from a private individual68.
2.44 In conclusion, Malaysia could not have been unaware of the existence of
these documents. Even if Malaysia did not know of the documents it now
produces in order to make its claim concerning the discovery of a “new
fact” or “facts”, its ignorance was due to negligence. It has not
demonstrated that it had made any enquiry concerning the existence or the
contents of these documents before the Judgment was rendered. The fact
that these documents were obtainable by Malaysia and the fact that, given
its arguments and allegations in the original case, it was in its own
interests to ascertain them, mean that a condition for admissibility of an
application for revision laid down in Article 61, paragraph 1, of the
Statute, namely, ignorance of a new fact not due to negligence, is not
satisfied69.
2.45 In addition, Malaysia not only asserts that these documents were available
to Singapore before the Judgment was rendered, but also insinuates bad
faith on Singapore’s part for not producing them in the original case and
67 See War Damage Commission Report for 1952, p. 33 (Additional Written
Observations, Annexure D).
68 See Additional Written Observations, para. 103.
69 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February
1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1985, p. 207, para. 28.
- Page 27 -
yet objecting to Malaysia’s request to revise the Judgment based on
them70. The newspaper cuttings in Annex 2 and Annexure A were
publicly available. As for the rest of the documents, Singapore
categorically states that it did not have them before the Judgment was
given and takes strong objection to Malaysia’s baseless suggestion of bad
faith.
2.46 In any event, Article 61 of the Statute does not contain any provision
concerning knowledge of the “new fact” or evidence of the “new fact” by
the Party that is not seeking revision. Moreover, given the circumstances,
Malaysia was entirely free to request production of the documents that
allegedly were in the possession or custody of Singapore during the
proceedings in the original case. But it never did so. Even if it had these
documents, Singapore had no reason to produce them given that they were
totally irrelevant to the issues of sovereignty before the Court.
D. Malaysia Failed to File the Application Within Six Months of the
Alleged Discovery of the “New Fact” or the New Documents
2.47 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia belatedly disclosed the
date of its discovery of each of the three Annexes to the Application. At
the outset, it should be noted that, in accordance with Article 99,
paragraph 1, of the Rules, this information should already have been
provided in the Application because an application for revision shall
contain “the particulars necessary to show that the conditions specified in
Article 61 of the Statute are fulfilled.” This includes the date of discovery
of the documents relied on for revision and the information necessary to
ascertain whether the six-month time limit was fulfilled.
70 See Additional Written Observations, paras. 16 and 116.
- Page 28 -
2.48 According to Malaysia, the documents produced in Annexes 1 and 2 of
the Application were first discovered on 4 August 201671. The document
in Annex 3 was said to have been discovered on 8 November 201672. In
order to substantiate its allegation, Malaysia produces photographs of
request slips from the UK National Archives73. Although these slips do
indicate the dates Malaysia relies on, they can only demonstrate that on
those dates Malaysian researchers made a request to retrieve a physical
copy of the relevant files.
2.49 However, in respect of at least two of the documents, which Malaysia
claims it only discovered on 4 August 2016, the evidence on the record
shows that Malaysia knew of them well before that date. Whether or not
Professor Shaharil is or was working for Malaysia at the time, in the post
dated 29 March 2015 on his blog “In Defence of Research”, he clearly
quoted the 7 February 1958 telegram produced in Annex 1 to the
Application, and described the documents concerning the Labuan Haji
incident produced as Annex 2 to the Application.
2.50 The blog post contains the following passage, which Malaysia omits to
quote in the Additional Written Observations74:
“The Third new fact was the observation of Singapore
authorities to the suggested Extension of territorial waters
to 6 miles in the Straits of Singapore would not be in
Singapore’s interests for the following reasons:
(a) The approaches to Singapore are through the channels
between the Indonesian Islands on the south and the
mainland of the Federation of Malaya [The State and
71 See Additional Written Observations, para. 158.
72 Ibid., para. 159.
73 Ibid., Annexures H and J.
74 Ibid., paras. 172-177.
- Page 29 -
Territory of Johore] on the north. These channels are only
8 ½ miles wide at their narrowest parts on both the western
and eastern side. The effect of extending territorial waters
to 6 miles therefore be to close the high seas channels of
approach to Singapore.
(b) 2. It is therefore important to Singapore that the present
3 mile limits of territorial waters should be retained.
However, if it is necessary in the last resort to agree to a
general application of six mile limits, not only must the
right of innocent passage through the International Straits
so created be reaffirmed, but a special provision should be
made for an international high seas corridor one mile wide
through the straits between Singapore and Malayan
territory on the north and Indonesian territory on the south.
This corridor should follow the normal shipping channel
from west to east which is approximately as follows. From
a point 3 miles north of the Brothers light to a point 3 miles
south of Sultan Shoal Light to a point 2 miles south of
Raffles Light to a point midway between the southern point
of St Johns Islands and Batu Berhenti Light to a point 1 mile
north of Horsburgh Light.”75
This text is identical to the part of the 7 February 1958 telegram that
Malaysia relies on in Annex 1 to the Application.
2.51 The same blog post contains the following description:
“Second, this file reveals another crucial piece of evidence
where there was mention of an incident around the
Territorial Waters of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and in
its official correspondence the local authorities of
Singapore mentioned that this incident occurred within the
territorial waters of Johore which was also reported in the
local press. The incident was never recorded in the List of
75 Written Observations, Annex 3, p. A23. See also Written Observations,
para. 5.30.
- Page 30 -
Intrusions into the Territorial Waters of Singapore. This is
a decisive fact.”76
The preceding paragraph in the blog explains that the incidents contained
in the “List of Intrusions into the Territorial Waters of Singapore” covered
the period 1955 to 1958. The documents relating to the Labuan Haji
incident, which Malaysia relies on in Annex 2 to the Application,
therefore match this description. Annex 2 consists of messages and
internal minutes by Singapore authorities, which referred to the Labuan
Haji as being “inside Johore territorial waters”77, and two newspaper
cuttings of reports of the incident.
2.52 It is therefore beyond doubt that Professor Shaharil discovered these
documents well before 4 August 2016. That the Malaysian authorities had
knowledge of the post and its contents is also undeniable because, as
explained by Singapore, access to Professor Shaharil’s blog was blocked
by Malaysian authorities78.
2.53 Moreover, it is telling that the Malaysian authorities started their research
in the UK National Archives, ie, the very same archives to which
Professor Shaharil referred in his blog post as having released in 2013
files containing evidence that could be used in an application for revision
of the Judgment79. It is also telling that, from the UK National Archives
request slip produced by Malaysia80, Malaysian researchers “discovered”
76 Written Observations, Annex 3, p. A23. See also Written Observations,
para. 5.30.
77 Note from “ER” to “G.S.” dated 25 February 1958 (Application, Annex 2).
78 See Written Observations, para. 5.34.
79 See Written Observations, Annex 3, p. A23.
80 See Additional Written Observations, Annexure H.
- Page 31 -
and requested the archival file FCO 141/14808, which contains the
documents now produced as Annexes 1 and 2 to the Application, at
11.05am on the very first day of their research, ie, 4 August 2016,81 only
two hours after the UK National Archives opened for the day. This is even
more surprising given the description of the archival file FCO 141/14808
in the catalogue of the UK National Archives: “Singapore: local waters;
policy and incidents concerning Indonesia”. The description does not say
anything about Malaysia, Pedra Branca, or even Horsburgh Lighthouse.
It is indeed more likely that the Malaysian researchers knew exactly what
they had to look for, ie, the file containing the information published by
Professor Shaharil on his blog almost two years prior to the filing of the
Application.
2.54 It is therefore apparent that Malaysia must have discovered the “new
facts” well before 4 August 2016. By submitting the Application only on
2 February 2017, Malaysia has failed to comply with the six-month
condition prescribed by Article 61, paragraph 4, of the Statute.
2.55 Moreover, and in any case, it is simply incredible that a document
discovered by a former “AGC’s historical advisor”, in his private capacity
as Malaysia now claims82, could not have been found by the Malaysian
team during the preparation for the original case, had it been reasonably
diligent.
E. Conclusion
2.56 For the reasons set out in this Chapter, the Application does not satisfy
the important procedural conditions of Article 61 of the Statute. The
81 See Additional Written Observations, Annexure H.
82 See Additional Written Observations, paras. 163-168.
- Page 32 -
Application is not based on any fact unknown to the Court and to
Malaysia. In any event, any ignorance by Malaysia of the documents
annexed to the Application is due to its own negligence. Furthermore, it
is apparent that these documents were, in reality, discovered more than
six months before the filing of the Application. On each of these grounds,
the Application is inadmissible.
- Page 33 -
CHAPTER III
THE IRRELEVANCE OF MALAYSIA’S DOCUMENTS
3.1 In the Application, Malaysia relied on three Annexes—Annexes 1, 2 and
3—for its request for revision. With the Additional Written Observations,
Malaysia filed a further 13 sets of documents as Annexures. With respect
to the “decisive factor” requirement, Malaysia purports to rely on three of
these Annexures—Annexures A, C and D83—in support of the
Application to revise the Judgment. In this Chapter, Singapore will
demonstrate that none of the documents on which Malaysia relies—
neither the Annexes nor the Annexures—touches on sovereignty at all, let
alone sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
A. Annex 1 to the Application – the 1958 Correspondence
3.2 In the Written Observations, Singapore showed how Malaysia’s argument
in the Application—that there would have been no need for the Governor
to “advocate the provision of an international passage so near the island”84
of Pedra Branca if the Singapore authorities had considered Pedra Branca
as part of Singapore territory at that time—defies logic. First, it was the
normal shipping channel that the Governor had described as
“approximately” passing “a point 1 mile north of Horsburgh Light”, not
the envisaged international high sea corridor85. Second, the Governor’s
references to various navigational aids along the normal shipping channel
83 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia makes no serious argument
based on Annexure B.
84 Application, para. 25.
85 See Written Observations, para. 3.6.
- Page 34 -
were not based on territorial entitlement to the features on which those
navigational aids were located, including Pedra Branca on which
Horsburgh Lighthouse is located86. Therefore, the Governor’s
approximate description of the normal shipping channel with reference to
navigational aids in the Strait of Singapore had nothing to do with
sovereignty over Pedra Branca or any other territorial feature. It follows
that the 1958 correspondence gives no indication whatsoever of either
Singapore’s or Malaysia’s component of the “shared understanding” as to
sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
3.3 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia has not addressed these
arguments. Malaysia has also not submitted any further documents to
support its arguments concerning the relevance of Annex 1 to sovereignty
over Pedra Branca.
3.4 Instead, all that Malaysia asserts is that it finds it “unusual” that the
Singapore authorities “apparently did not take Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh into the reckoning”87 and that “[f]aced with a clear challenge from
the State conduct of its neighbours, … it is remarkable that Singapore’s
authorities make no mention at all of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and
the maritime rights which are generated by sovereignty over that
island.”88 These assertions are without merit.
3.5 First, given that the Governor’s proposal of the “international high seas
corridor” had nothing to do with sovereignty over Pedra Branca, it was
not at all “unusual” or “remarkable” that the Singapore authorities did not
mention maritime entitlements generated by Pedra Branca in the 1958
86 See Written Observations, para. 3.9.
87 Additional Written Observations, para. 76.
88 Ibid.
- Page 35 -
correspondence. As Singapore has shown in Chapter III of the Written
Observations, the 1958 correspondence concerned how the proposal by
some States to extend the territorial sea from 3 to 6 nautical miles would
have the effect of “clos[ing] the high seas channels of approach to
Singapore”89, thereby making it “territorial sea-locked” by neighbouring
States90 because of the narrowness of the Strait of Singapore. It was to
deal with these concerns that the Governor suggested providing for an
“international high seas corridor” that should follow the “normal shipping
channel”, the approximate route of which is depicted in Insert 2 of the
Written Observations.
3.6 Second, as Chapter IV will show91, there was no “challenge from the State
conduct of its neighbours” calling for a response from Singapore. None
of the documents in Annex 1 emanates from Malaysia or evinces any
Malaysian claim to Pedra Branca that might have represented a
“challenge”.
3.7 In short, none of Malaysia’s assertions in the Additional Written
Observations adds any weight to the 1958 correspondence at Annex 1 to
the Application. Viewed in its proper context, the 1958 correspondence
does not concern sovereignty over Pedra Branca at all, much less the
understanding at that time by the Singapore authorities of sovereignty
over Pedra Branca.
89 Confidential telegram from Governor [of] Singapore to Secretary of State for
the Colonies dated 7 February 1958, para. 1(a) (Application, Annex 1).
90 Written Observations, para. 3.3.
91 See paras. 4.34-4.35 below.
- Page 36 -
B. Annex 2 to the Application and Annexure A to the Additional
Written Observations
– Documents Relating to the 1958 Labuan Haji Incident
3.8 In the Application, Malaysia relied on the description of the incident
involving the Labuan Haji in Johor territorial waters as “near Horsburgh
Light” to assert that the Singapore authorities considered the waters
around Pedra Branca as belonging to Johor92.
3.9 In the Written Observations93, Singapore demonstrated that this assertion
is not borne out by the documents in Annex 2. Given the geographical
setting of the area, with features belonging to different States situated very
close to each other, general terms such as “near” permit no conclusion on
exactly where the incident took place94. Moreover, none of the documents
in Annex 2 precisely indicates the distance between Pedra Branca and the
location of the incident involving the Labuan Haji, let alone co-ordinates
of where the incident took place, or says anything about sovereignty over
Pedra Branca95.
3.10 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia makes a bald claim that
Annex 2 provides a “reliable indication”96 of the location of the incident
without attempting to address Singapore’s arguments.
92 See Application, paras. 27-31.
93 See Written Observations, paras. 3.14-3.22.
94 Ibid., para. 3.18.
95 Ibid., para. 3.21.
96 Additional Written Observations, paras. 83 and 86.
- Page 37 -
3.11 Instead, Malaysia puts forward three more newspaper cuttings in
Annexure A as “further corroboration”97 of the location of the incident
involving the Labuan Haji, and disingenuously misplaces the location of
the incident as being “in the waters just north of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh.”98
3.12 However, like the documents in Annex 2 to the Application, the
newspaper cuttings in Annexure A are just as vague and imprecise as to
the location of the incident.
3.13 All that the newspaper cuttings in Annexure A state is that the Labuan
Haji was harassed by an Indonesian gunboat “off” or “near Horsburgh
Lighthouse, 35 miles northeast of Singapore”99 and that at some point, it
was in Johor territorial waters. It does not, however, follow that just
because there are Johor territorial waters in that vicinity, all the waters
surrounding Pedra Branca are Johor territorial waters and therefore Pedra
Branca belongs to Johor. Moreover, none of these reports says that the
incident occurred within the territorial waters appertaining to Pedra
Branca or that the island belonged to Malaysia, or, for that matter, that the
97 Additional Written Observations, para. 85.
98 Ibid., para. 86 (Emphasis added).
99 See cutting from the Straits Times dated 27 February 1958 (“The Indonesian
gunboat harassed [the Labuan Haji] off Horsburgh lighthouse, 35 miles northeast
of Singapore”); cutting from Berita Harian dated 26 February 1958,
English translation (“an Indonesian gunboat was intruding him [sic] near the
Horsburgh Lighthouse 35 mile northeast of Singapore”), and cutting from
Berita Harian dated 27 February 1958, English translation (“The Indonesian
gunboat had violated [the Labuan Haji] near the Horsburgh Lighthouse, 35
miles northeast of Singapore”) (Additional Written Observations, Annexure A).
- Page 38 -
incident had taken place in waters “just north of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh.”100
3.14 In asserting that the incident had taken place “in the waters just north of
Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”101, Malaysia purports to rely on the
Singapore Standard article in Annex 2 to the Application102, but in fact
misrepresents the contents of this article. The Singapore Standard states:
“When the Sunderland arrived in the area, north of
Horsburgh Lighthouse, the Indonesian gunboat was seen
moving off towards Indonesia, while the Labuan Haji
steamed north-west within the Federation territorial
waters.”103
It is not stated anywhere in the Singapore Standard article, or any other
document in Annex 2 or Annexure A, that the Labuan Haji incident had
taken place in the waters “just north” of Pedra Branca.
3.15 Malaysia also distorts this newspaper article by claiming that the
Singapore Standard “notes that the Indonesian gunboat and the Labuan
Haji were seen in the area north of Horsburgh Lighthouse”104, whereas it
was the Sunderland that was reported as being in the area north of
Horsburgh Lighthouse.
3.16 The last point Malaysia raises in the Additional Written Observations
concerns the reference in the 27 February 1958 Straits Times article that
100 Additional Written Observations, para. 86.
101 Ibid. (Emphasis added).
102 Ibid., para. 84.
103 Cutting from the Singapore Standard (Application, Annex 2).
104 Additional Written Observations, para. 84.
- Page 39 -
the Prime Minister of Malaya had called for a “full report on the incident
in Johore territorial waters yesterday”105. Based on this newspaper article,
Malaysia asserts that the calling for such a report is “confirmation of the
fact that the Malaysian authorities considered that Johor’s territorial
waters encompassed the waters to the north of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh.”106
3.17 This assertion is a non-sequitur. It is a leap of logic for Malaysia to assume
from the calling of the report that the Johor authorities considered all the
waters to the north of Pedra Branca to be Johor’s territorial waters. It is
obvious that Johor, which lies northwest of Pedra Branca, possessed
territorial waters, but that does not mean that Johor’s territorial waters
encompassed all the waters lying north of Pedra Branca. None of the
documents in Annex 2 or Annexure A remotely supports such a
contention.
3.18 In short, neither the documents that Malaysia relies on in Annex 2 to the
Application nor those in Annexure A to the Additional Written
Observations say anything about sovereignty over Pedra Branca, much
less Singapore’s understanding about sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
C. Annex 3 to the Application and Annexures B and C to the
Additional Written Observations
– Documents Relating to the Sketch Map
3.19 Malaysia relies on the sketch map in Annex 3 to the Application for its
assertion that since the sketch map does not include Pedra Branca, it is
105 Cutting from the Straits Times dated 27 February 1958 (Additional Written
Observations, Annexure A).
106 Additional Written Observations, para. 85.
- Page 40 -
evidence of Singapore’s understanding at the time that its territorial
entitlements did not extend to Pedra Branca107.
3.20 In an attempt to bolster its arguments regarding Annex 3, Malaysia
submitted in Annexure B to the Additional Written Observations the
entire archival file, consisting of 162 pages, in which the sketch map was
found108, but fails to make any serious argument on the basis of this
Annexure. In contrast, in the Written Observations, Singapore extracted
paragraph 6 of Annex B to the “Orders for Ships Patrolling in Defence of
Western Malaysian Seaboard”, which showed that the restricted areas
depicted on the sketch map were limited to the waters south of the main
island of Singapore. That paragraph 6 stated:
“SINGAPORE PORT RESTRICTED AREAS
6. In the waters South of Singapore Island. Restricted
areas, night curfew areas and night fishing areas are in
force. Details are given in Appendix One to this Annex.”109
Singapore also extracted text from Appendix One to Annex B, which
provided the details of the restricted areas, night curfew areas and night
fishing areas in force in the waters south of Singapore island110, and
explained that all of the designated curfew areas and fishing areas detailed
107 Application, paras. 33-35.
108 Singapore notes that the documents in Annexure B were not “found subsequent
to the filing of the Application” (see Malaysia’s letter of 9 June 2017 to the
Court), and thus fall outside the scope of the additional documentation that
Malaysia requested, and the Court allowed, the opportunity to submit.
109 Written Observations, Annex 1, p. A4 (Emphasis added).
110 See Written Observations, para. 3.31.
- Page 41 -
in Appendix One and marked on the sketch map were south of the main
island of Singapore111.
3.21 Malaysia has avoided addressing the crucial context for the sketch map,
a context which shows that Malaysia’s claim that this piece of “additional
documentation” provides a “clearer and more complete understanding of
the context in which the sketch map was produced”112 is unsustainable.
Malaysia also has not provided a response to the inherent inaccuracies in
the depiction of the so-called “territorial boundary” shown on the sketch
map. As Singapore highlighted in the Written Observations113, these
inaccuracies show that the sketch map was not prepared as an
authoritative or official map to depict the territorial boundaries of
Singapore, and is therefore irrelevant to the issue of sovereignty over
Pedra Branca.
3.22 Instead, Malaysia introduces as “further documentation” the document in
Annexure C to the Additional Written Observations on “Indonesian
Offensive Against West Malaysia”, and relies on it to make two
arguments. The first argument is that this document shows that “there was
a palpable need for Singapore to include Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh
in its security arrangements and curfew orders”114 and thus there was
“every reason for Singapore to depict Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh in
the Annex 3 sketch map.”115 A closer examination of Annexure C
disproves this argument. Annexure C does not show that there was a need
111 See Written Observations, paras. 3.32-3.33.
112 Additional Written Observations, para. 88.
113 See Written Observations, paras. 3.25-3.27.
114 Additional Written Observations, para. 99.
115 Ibid.
- Page 42 -
for Singapore to include Pedra Branca in the security arrangements and
curfew orders.
3.23 There is not a single incident recorded in Annexure C that involved an
incursion by Indonesian infiltrators on the island of Pedra Branca. Out of
the 124 “hostile interactions with Indonesian antagonists”116 recorded in
Annexure C, 54 are recorded as having taken place in Singapore. Of these
54 incidents, 17 involved bomb explosions or the recovery of explosives
at locations on the main island of Singapore117. The other 37 incidents
involved bomb explosions, sea interceptions, landings or attempted
landings along the southern coast of the main island of Singapore and on
or around the islands off the southern coast of the main island of
Singapore. At Insert 1 on the facing page is the sketch map from Annex 3
annotated with the locations of all the places in Singapore where the
Indonesian offensive incidents recorded in Annexure C had taken place.
3.24 It is clear from the locations of the Indonesian incursions on Singapore
that the security threats to Singapore were posed primarily to areas in the
south of the main island of Singapore—in particular, the areas around
St John’s Island, Sisters’ Islands, Pulau Blakang Mati and Raffles
Lighthouse—and along the southern coast of the main island of
Singapore. Thus, as Insert 1 shows, restricted areas, night curfew areas
and night fishing areas were put in place in these areas specifically in
order to guard against such security threats. Given that the orders were
limited to the areas south of the main island of Singapore, there was no
reason for Singapore to depict Pedra Branca in the sketch map.
116 Additional Written Observations, para. 98.
117 These are recorded as items 29, 30, 32, 35, 37, 39, 40, 65, 69, 70, 71, 77, 101,
102, 104, 105 and 106 in Additional Written Observations, Annexure C.
48 Changi
104, 105 106 Tampines
104, 105, 106 Lorong Teck Hock
48 Telok Mata Ikan
2, 8, 101 Bedok Jalan Lembah 101
East Coast Rd 29
Meyer Rd 35, 40
Katong Park 45
37 St. Lawrence Rd
71 Newton Circus
30 Orchard Rd
70 River Valley Rd
69 Robinson Rd
39 North Bridge Rd
USIS Bldg (Hill St)
32 Leng Kee Rd 77
101, 102 Changi Rd
7, 17 Jurong 47A, 100 Siglap
Kranji 65
22, 63 Pulau Senang
92 Pulau Pawai
47A, 111 Sisters’ Islands
44, 46, 52, 56 Blakang Mati
Raffles Light 9, 12, 50, 93, 97, 114
91 Pulau Seking Pulau Sebarok 2
Pulau Sekijan
18, 38, 42, 47A, 49, 54, 63, 64, 67, 73, 75, 90, 109 St. John’s Island Pelipah 13
Pulau Seraya 87
Eastern Anchorage 19
Insert 1 - Sketch map in Annex 3 to the Application annotated (in red) to show the places in Singapore where the incidents recorded in
Annexure C (serial numbers in blue) took place
Legend
Place (column (c))
Serial number(column (a))
Pulau Seraya
Kechil 95
Insert 1 – Sketch map in Annex 3 to the Application annotated (in red) to show
the places in Singapore where the incidents recorded in Annexure C (serial
numbers in blue) took place
- Page 43 -
3.25 Malaysia ignores all the incidents in Annexure C that took place in
Singapore, but focuses instead on item 34 on page 8 of Annexure C. For
ease of reference, Insert 2 (after page 44) shows the text in item 34.
3.26 On the basis of item 34, Malaysia asserts that the “threat to security posed
by the Indonesian agitators during the Konfrontasi campaign spread
throughout the region, and certainly encompassed the area of Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”118. This assertion is misconceived. The target
of the Indonesian agitators’ attempted landing, recorded in item 34, was
the Tanjung Punggai area on the eastern coast of mainland Johor119. The
location of Tanjung Punggai is shown in Figure 1 overleaf. That is why
item 34 records the place of the incident as “EAST JOHORE – TG.
PUNGGAI area”. The only thing that happened at Horsburgh Lighthouse,
9 nautical miles from Tanjung Punggai, was merely the subsequent
capture of one of the Indonesian infiltrators. Horsburgh Lighthouse was
not the Indonesian infiltrators’ target.
118 Additional Written Observations, para. 99.
119 The location of Tanjung Punggai is shown in several maps and inserts submitted
in the original case. See, eg, Memorial of Singapore, Vol. 1, Map 3; and
Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 1, Inserts 1, 2 and 21.
- Page 44 -
Figure 1 – Locations of Tanjung Punggai and Horsburgh Lighthouse
3.27 Malaysia has therefore not shown that there was a threat to the area of
Pedra Branca requiring the extension of the security arrangements and
curfew orders to Pedra Branca. By the same token, Malaysia has not
shown that there was any reason for Pedra Branca to be included in a
sketch map that depicts those security arrangements and curfew orders.
So long as those specific restrictions did not extend to Pedra Branca, there
would have been no need for the sketch map depicting these restrictions
to include Pedra Branca. This accounts for why, as of February 1966,
there were no changes in the arrangements described on the map120.
3.28 Further, Malaysia claims that the incident involving the Labuan Haji
described in the documents in Annex 2 to the Application is a “clear
indication that the danger posed by Indonesian infiltration forces
120 See Application, para. 34.
Insert 2 – Item 34 in Annexure C to the Additional Written Observations
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 45 -
stretched to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and its surrounding
waters”121. This claim is without merit. The incident involving the
Labuan Haji had no relevance at all to the security threats posed to
Singapore during the period of Konfrontasi. The incident occurred on
25 February 1958, more than five years before the threats to Singapore
arising from Konfrontasi or “Confrontation” began in August 1963 when
the Federation of Malaysia was formed. As outlined in the introduction to
the “Orders for Ships Patrolling In Defence of Western Malaysian
Seaboard” contained in Annexure B to the Additional Written
Observations:
“1. When Malaysia came into being in the Autumn of
1963, President Soekarno of Indonesia announced a policy
of ‘confrontation’ and began a campaign to ‘crush
Malaysia’. In the first phase, action took the form of
propaganda, sabotage and fostering racial strife, the latter
particularly in the susceptible areas of Singapore. The
struggle entered a new phase in August, 1964 with the
landing of infiltrators on the mainland of West Malaysia by
sea at Pontian, by air in September at Labis and by
subsequent landings.”122
3.29 The second argument that Malaysia relies on Annexure C to make is that
item 34 indicates that “the UK authorities considered Horsburgh
Lighthouse to be situated in East Johor until at least the end of 1965.”123
Annexure C indicates no such thing.
3.30 For each item in the tables contained in Annexure C, column (c) simply
refers to the place where the incident described in column (d) took place.
For item 34, column (d) records the “sea interception” incident, described
121 Additional Written Observations, para. 98.
122 Ibid., Annexure B.
123 Ibid., para. 94.
- Page 46 -
in column (m), by the HMS Puncheston, HMS Maryton and
HMS Invermoriston of two of the three Indonesian boats that had
“attempted landing” in the Tanjung Punggai area on the mainland in the
eastern part of Johore, hence the description in column (c) “EAST
JOHORE – TG PUNGGAI [ie, Tanjung Punggai] area”. The subsequent
capture of the Indonesian infiltrator attempting escape “at HORSBORO
Lighthouse” had nothing to do with the place recorded in column (c). This
is also apparent from how other entries in Annexure C are described. For
example, for item 30, which records a well-known bombing of
MacDonald House, a building on Orchard Road on the main island of
Singapore, column (c) records its location as “SINGAPORE –
ORCHARD RD [ie, Orchard Road] area”, even though column (m)
records that the perpetrators were subsequently captured on Pulau
Sebarok, an island to the south of Singapore and nowhere near Orchard
Road itself124. Therefore, contrary to Malaysia’s assertion, item 34 does
not indicate that the UK authorities considered Horsburgh Lighthouse to
be part of Johor territory.
3.31 In summary, nothing in the documents that Malaysia submitted in
Annexures B and C to the Additional Written Observations provides any
reason for Pedra Branca to be depicted in the sketch map. Its omission
from the sketch map does not provide any indication of the Singapore
authorities’ understanding of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
D. Annexure D to the Additional Written Observations
– the 1937 Johore Map
3.32 With the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia submitted as part of
Annexure D a so-called “newly discovered map” titled “Johore, 1937”,
124 The locations of Orchard Road and Pulau Sebarok are indicated in Insert 1.
- Page 47 -
franked with a stamp of the War Damage Commission (ie, the 1937
Johore Map) together with the report of the War Damage Commission for
1952. What Malaysia does not, however, clarify is that these are in fact
two entirely unrelated documents. Unlike the 1937 Johore Map, the report
of the War Damage Commission was not obtained from a private
individual, but is a report held by the National Archives of Malaysia, as
is apparent from the stamp with the words “Pengarah Arkib
Negara - Malaysia” (reproduced as Figure 2 below) at the top left corner
on the first page of the report and the stamp with the words “Arkib Negara
Malaysia” (reproduced as Figure 3 below) at the bottom right corner of
every page of the report.
Figure 2. Stamp with the words “Pengarah Arkib Negara –
Malaysia” [“Director National Archives – Malaysia”]
Figure 3. Stamp with the words “Arkib Negara Malaysia”
[“National Archives Malaysia”]
- Page 48 -
3.33 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia claims that the 1937
Johore Map “very clearly includes Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as part
of Johor”125, of which Singapore, whose Financial Secretary was a
member of the War Damage Commission, had “clear official notice …
and it made no protest”126.
3.34 Nothing in Annexure D, including the 1937 Johore Map, bears these
assertions out.
3.35 First, there is nothing on the face of the 1937 Johore Map that indicates
that Pedra Branca is included as part of Johor. The so-called “dotted
boundary line”127 in the Johor Strait between Singapore and Johor shown
on the 1937 Johore Map shows the territorial waters boundary between
Singapore and Johor in the Johor Strait that has been in existence since
the United Kingdom and Johor entered into the Straits Settlements and
Johor Territorial Waters Agreement in 1927128 (the “1927 Agreement”).
It does not indicate that Pedra Branca is included as part of Johor territory
in the 1937 Johore Map. In the original case, Malaysia exhibited a map
showing that boundary129 to support its argument that the
1927 Agreement was “evidence of the continuing appreciation that Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh and its surrounding waters were not part of the
125 Additional Written Observations, para. 104.
126 Ibid.
127 Ibid.
128 See Written Observations, para. 3.26. The same territorial waters boundary in
the Johor Strait between Singapore and Johor is shown in Insert 3 of the Written
Observations. See also Counter-Memorial of Singapore, paras. 6.20-6.25 and
6.97-6.99.
129 See Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 1, Insert 17.
- Page 49 -
territory of Singapore.”130 In its Memorial, Malaysia had in fact made
exactly the same argument it now makes about this boundary line. It
asserted that:
“[a]s the map annexed to the Agreement shows … , the
Article [defining the boundary line] defines an arc within
which falls the land territory and territorial waters of
Singapore and outside of which falls the land territory and
territorial waters of Johor or of third States.”131
3.36 As the Court found in the Judgment, Pedra Branca was not included in
the scope of the 1927 Agreement, which only covered the areas within
10 miles of the main island of Singapore132. The Court concluded that
“the 1927 Agreement does not assist the Malaysian case”133.
3.37 Second, there is nothing in Annexure D, whether on the face of the 1937
Johore Map or the report of the War Damage Commission for 1952,
which shows that the 1937 Johore Map was even referred to, much less
“used”134, by the War Damage Commission at all. Indeed, Malaysia
acknowledges as much135. The Commission assessed claims by Singapore
and Malayan individuals and entities for compensation as a result of the
Japanese invasion and occupation of Malaya and Singapore during the
Second World War. The Commission’s task had nothing to do with
identifying sovereignty over territory. Its purpose was, as the documents
130 Judgment, p. 71, para. 182.
131 Memorial of Malaysia, para. 220.
132 See Judgment, p. 72, para. 188.
133 Ibid.
134 Additional Written Observations, para. 104.
135 Ibid., footnote 113 (“It is to be noted that none of the reports of this Commission
explicitly refer to the map”).
- Page 50 -
filed by Malaysia attest, to assess claims as part of an effort to rehabilitate
the economy of Malaya136. Indeed, there would have been no reason for
the War Damage Commission to attach any particular significance to the
map or to view the map as a claim to sovereignty over any particular
territory, including Pedra Branca. The Commission’s task was of an
entirely different nature.
3.38 By itself, the franking of the War Damage Commission stamp on the 1937
Johore Map indicates at most that this copy was in the archives of the
Commission. It does not indicate that the Commission used the 1937
Johore Map, or, even if it did, the purpose for which it did. Even if the
1937 Johore Map was “used” by the War Damage Commission, as
explained above137, the map itself does not indicate Pedra Branca as being
in Johor territory. Thus, there was nothing for the Singapore officials in
the War Damage Commission to protest against. The lack of protest by
Singapore against the 1937 Johore Map is therefore completely irrelevant
to the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca.
E. Conclusion
3.39 For all the reasons above, none of the documents that Malaysia annexed
to the Application or the Additional Written Observations is relevant to
the issue of sovereignty over Pedra Branca at all. They do not say
anything about sovereignty, much less either Malaysia’s or Singapore’s
understanding as to sovereignty over Pedra Branca, and therefore do not
constitute evidence of any fact of such a nature.
136 See War Damage Commission Report for 1952, p. 63 (Additional Written
Observations, Annexure D).
137 See paras. 3.35-3.36 above.
- Page 51 -
CHAPTER IV
MALAYSIA’S FAILURE TO MEET THE “DECISIVE FACTOR”
REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSIBILITY
4.1 In addition to the procedural conditions, discussed in Chapter II above,
that Malaysia must satisfy under Article 61 of the Statute for the
Application to be admissible, Malaysia has to show that the “new fact” it
alleges to have discovered after the Judgment is of such a nature as to be
a “decisive factor”. As this Chapter will show, Malaysia has not even
remotely met that requirement. Indeed, the Additional Written
Observations contain lengthy sections regarding the Court’s methodology
that are more in the nature of an appeal of the Judgment than a genuine
request for revision.
4.2 In Section A, Singapore will provide an overview of the “decisive factor”
requirement. This will involve showing that Malaysia’s pleadings fail to
appreciate the exceptional nature of revision proceedings and posit an
erroneous standard for meeting the “decisive factor” condition.
4.3 In Section B, Singapore will explain the basic deficiencies in Malaysia’s
case with respect to the “decisive factor” criterion. In order to assess
whether Malaysia’s new documents evince any fact of such a nature, it is
necessary to recall the facts that the Court did find relevant, or
cumulatively “decisive”, in reaching its decision that, by 1980,
sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore and that
consequently, as held in the dispositif, sovereignty over Pedra Branca
“belongs to Singapore”. Malaysia not only shows a marked reluctance to
focus on the truly relevant factors, it fails to sustain its burden of
demonstrating how its new documents have the slightest effect on those
factors.
- Page 52 -
4.4 Section C will then focus on each set of Malaysia’s new documents, and
will demonstrate that none of them, which were discussed in Chapter III,
evinces a new fact that is of such a nature as to be a “decisive factor”, or
that would have affected the Court’s reasoning in the Judgment or
influenced its decision on sovereignty. On the contrary, as Singapore has
already explained in the Written Observations138, far from being a
“decisive factor”, Malaysia’s new documents are similar in nature to
documents that were submitted in the original case, to which the Court
attached no relevance for the purposes of its decision.
4.5 The end result is that Malaysia has not satisfied the “decisive factor”
condition for the Application to be admissible.
A. Overview of the “Decisive Factor” Requirement
1. THE EXCEPTIONAL NATURE OF REVISION
4.6 In the light of the basic principle reflected in Article 60 of the Statute that
judgments of the Court are “final and without appeal”, it is well
established that a request for the revision of a judgment of the Court
pursuant to Article 61 of the Statute, just like a request for interpretation
under Article 60, involves an exceptional procedure. As Rosenne
observed:
“Those provisions themselves are couched and placed in the
Statute in such a way as to emphasize the exceptional nature
of the two procedures, as possibly impairing the stability of
the jural relations established by the res judicata.”139
138 See Written Observations, paras. 6.14-6.27.
139 M. Shaw: Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920-2015
(5th ed.) (Brill Nijhoff: 2016), §III.394.
- Page 53 -
4.7 The Advisory Committee of Jurists who were charged with drafting the
original Statute of the Permanent Court, including what was then
Article 59 (now Article 61), were well aware of the exceptional nature of
revision. In its 1920 Report on the draft Statute of the Court, the
Committee underscored that revision is a very serious matter that strikes
against the res judicata effect of judgments, which, for the sake of
international peace, should be viewed as finally settled140.
4.8 This is consistent with Charles de Visscher’s observation that, as a general
principle,
“il est de l’intérêt général que les litiges ne recommencent
pas indéfiniment relativement au même objet: ut sit finis
litium.”141
4.9 The exceptional character of revision is also reflected in the fact that, prior
to the Application, there have only been three requests for revision that
have come before the Court and none before its predecessor, the
Permanent Court. In none of those cases were the requests found to be
admissible.
2. THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE NEW FACT BE OF A DECISIVE NATURE
4.10 Malaysia purports to recognise the exceptional nature of requests for
revision. As it noted in the Application: “Revision proceedings are
exceptional.”142 However, in the Additional Written Observations,
140 See Proceedings of the Committee, 18th June – 24th July 1920, p. 744.
141 Revue belge de droit international, 1965, p. 14 (“it is in the general interest that
litigation does not resume indefinitely with respect to the same subject matter”
[Singapore’s translation]).
142 Application, para. 6.
- Page 54 -
Malaysia argues with respect to the “decisive factor” condition laid down
in Article 61 that, in order for the Application to be admissible, it only has
to show that there is a new fact “of such a nature as to be capable of
affecting or altering the Judgment of the Court.”143 This is not what
Article 61 says, and it is not how the drafters of the provision and the
jurisprudence have treated the “decisive factor” criterion.
4.11 Rather than adhering to the actual language employed in the first part of
Article 61, paragraph 1, for admissibility—“An application for revision
of a judgment may only be made when it is based on the discovery of
some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor” [emphasis added]—
Malaysia would have the provision read: “An application for revision of
a judgment may be made when it is based on the discovery of some fact
that may be capable of affecting or altering the judgment”. However, it is
quite clear that Article 61 calls for a more demanding standard. The new
fact must be of a “decisive nature”. That means that the new fact must
have a direct and material influence on the Judgment.
4.12 The Report of the Advisory Committee of Jurists bears this out. As noted
above144, the Committee was conscious of the fact that revision was an
exceptional procedure that could adversely affect the fundamental
principle of res judicata or the autorité de la chose jugée. The Committee
thus noted in connection with the wording of Article 61 (then Article 59)
that
143 Additional Written Observations, para. 37.
144 See para. 4.7 above.
- Page 55 -
“a new fact is required which is of a nature to exercise a
decisive influence, and which, before pronouncement of
sentence, was unknown to the Court”145.
This stringent formula is reflected in the French text of Article 61,
paragraph 1, of the Statute, which provides in relevant part that:
“La revision de l’arrêt ne peut être éventuellement
demandée à la Cour qu’en raison de la découverte d’un fait
de nature à exercer une influence décisive …”
4.13 The Court had occasion to expand on the import of the “decisive factor”
requirement in its Judgment in Tunisia v. Libya. The “new fact” advanced
by Tunisia in that case concerned the co-ordinates of a Libyan oil
concession (Concession No. 137), which showed that its limits did not
precisely align with Tunisia’s own concessions. After explaining that the
Court’s reasoning in its original Judgment was “wholly unaffected”146 by
the evidence produced by Tunisia of the boundaries of the Libyan
concession, the Court went on to state the following:
“This is of course not to say that if the co-ordinates of
Concession No. 137 had been clearly indicated to the Court,
the 1982 Judgment would nevertheless have been
identically worded. The explanation, given above, of the
distinction between the bearing of the actual boundary of
Concession No. 137 (24°57’03”) and the bearing of the
boundary from Ras Ajdir implied by the choice of the point
33°55’N, 12°E (26°), might usefully have been included. If
the Court had found it necessary to enter into such precise
cartographic detail, it might also have made more precise
its finding that ‘the phenomenon of actual overlapping
claims did not appear until 1974, and then only in respect
145 Proceedings of the Committee, 18th June – 24th July 1920, p. 744 (Emphasis
added).
146 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February
1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1985, p. 213, para. 38.
- Page 56 -
of areas some 50 miles from the coast’ (para. 117). But
what is required for the admissibility of an application for
revision is not that the new fact relied on might, had it been
known, have made it possible for the Court to be more
specific in its decision; it must also have been a ‘fact of such
a nature as to be a decisive factor’. So far from constituting
such a fact, the details of the correct co-ordinates on
Concession No. 137 would not have changed the decision
of the Court as to the first sector of the delimitation.”147
It follows that Malaysia must show that any “new fact” said to be evinced
by the documents on which it relies is of such a nature as to exercise a
decisive influence on the Judgment.
4.14 For example, had the new documents on which Malaysia relies in these
proceedings been introduced in the original case, the Court might have
addressed them just as it did with respect to other materials the Parties
filed that the Court did not find relevant. In other words, the Judgment
might not have been identically worded. But just as in the Tunisia v. Libya
and El Salvador v. Honduras revision cases, none of those documents
would have changed the decision of the Court, which was based on other
factors that Malaysia’s new documents leave wholly unaffected. Thus,
not only do the new documents relied on by Malaysia not constitute a
“decisive factor” by any stretch of the imagination, even accepting
Malaysia’s lower standard of decisiveness (quod non), they are not
capable of affecting the Judgment in any way.
147 Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February
1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), I.C.J. Reports 1985, pp. 213-
214, para. 39.
- Page 57 -
B. The Basic Deficiencies of Malaysia’s Case and Its
Mischaracterisation of Singapore’s Analysis of the Judgment
4.15 Malaysia contends that the new documents contained in the three
Annexes it filed with the Application, together with Annexures A to D it
filed with the Additional Written Observations, evince not so much a
“new fact”, but rather the non-existence of fact – namely, the nonexistence
of any shared understanding between the Parties that, by 1980
(the critical date148), sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to
Singapore149.
4.16 It will be recalled that the Judgment regarding sovereignty over Pedra
Branca was based on the combination of four elements relating to the
conduct of the Parties, which the Court characterised in paragraph 276 of
the Judgment as the “relevant facts”. Briefly stated, these elements, which
the Court had reviewed and summarised in the preceding paragraphs of
the Judgment, were as follows:
(a) The explicit statement of 21 September 1953 by the Acting State
Secretary of Johor that “the Johore Government does not claim
ownership of Pedra Branca” – a statement that the Court viewed
as showing that “as of 1953 Johor understood that it did not have
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”150 (the “1953
Johor Understanding”);
(b) Numerous activities that Singapore and its predecessors carried out
on and around Pedra Branca à titre de souverain, coupled with
148 Judgment, p. 28, para. 34.
149 Additional Written Observations, paras. 28-29.
150 Judgment, p. 80, para. 223.
- Page 58 -
Malaysia’s acceptance of, or failure to react to, these activities
despite having notice of almost all of them151. These activities
included: (i) several examples dating from 1920, 1963, 1979, and
1985 to 1993 where Singapore investigated vessel groundings and
other maritime incidents around the island – conduct that the Court
concluded “gives significant support to the Singapore case”152;
(ii) Singapore’s exercise of control over visits to Pedra Branca,
including visits by Malaysian officials, which the Court also stated
“does give significant support to Singapore’s claim to sovereignty
over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”153; (iii) the contrast in the
conduct of the Parties relating to the display of Singapore’s ensign
over Pedra Branca and at the lighthouse on Pulau Pisang, a
Malaysian island154; (iv) Singapore’s installation of military
communications equipment on the island, action that the Court
viewed as conduct à titre de souverain155; and (v) Singapore’s
151 Judgment, pp. 95-96, para. 274 (“Malaysia and its predecessors did not respond
in any way to that conduct [ie, Singapore’s acts à titre de souverain], or the
other conduct with that character identified earlier in this Judgment, all of which
(but for the installation of the naval communication equipment) it had notice”).
152 Ibid., p. 83, para. 234.
153 Ibid., p. 85, para. 239.
154 Ibid., p. 87, para. 246.
155 Ibid., p. 88, para. 248. At paragraph 64 of the Additional Written Observations,
Malaysia asserts that the Court attached no weight to the installation by
Singapore of military communications equipment on Pedra Branca. This is
plainly wrong. As Singapore pointed out in the Written Observations
(paras. 2.21-2.22), although the Court was unable to assess whether Malaysia
knew, or should have known, about the installation by Singapore of this
equipment, the Court found that: “What is significant for the Court is that
Singapore’s action is an act à titre de souverain. The conduct is inconsistent
with Singapore recognizing any limit on its freedom of action.” (Judgment,
p. 88, para. 248).
- Page 59 -
proposed reclamation plans for the island, which the Court
observed was “conduct which supports Singapore’s case”156;
(c) Malaysia’s own publications and maps, including official maps
dating from the 1960s and 1970s, which, by labelling Pedra Branca
as “Singapore” or “Singapura”, indicated, as the Court stated, “an
appreciation by it [ie, Malaysia] that Singapore had
sovereignty”157; and
(d) The complete absence of any action by the Johor authorities and
their successors on Pedra Branca “from June 1850 for the whole
of the following century or more.”158
4.17 These were the elements of conduct of the Parties that the Court
considered to “reflect a convergent evolution of the positions of the
Parties regarding title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.”159. It was on
the basis of this mutually consistent conduct that the Court concluded that
“by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had passed to
Singapore.”160
4.18 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia refers to these four
elements. However, it then asserts that Singapore’s analysis of them
“clearly proposes that the Court had four independent legal reasons for
156 Judgment, p. 89, para. 250.
157 Ibid., p. 96, para. 275.
158 Ibid.
159 Ibid., p. 96, para. 276.
160 Ibid.
- Page 60 -
holding that Singapore had title to Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”161, and
that Singapore’s comments manifest a misunderstanding of the Court’s
decision162.
4.19 Malaysia has blatantly misrepresented what Singapore said. Nowhere did
Singapore suggest that there were four independent legal reasons on
which the Court based its decision. On the contrary, Singapore very
clearly noted that the Court’s conclusion at paragraphs 276 and 277 of the
Judgment that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore was
based on a “constellation of factors” relating to the conduct of the Parties
that the Court referred to at paragraphs 273 to 275 of the Judgment163.
That hardly constitutes a “misunderstanding of the Court’s decision”164.
4.20 As Singapore will once again show, none of the documents filed by
Malaysia in these proceedings, whether the three Annexes attached to the
Application or the Annexures to the Additional Written Observations, in
any way changes the facts or reasoning upon which the Judgment was
based. In particular:
(a) None of them refers to sovereignty over Pedra Branca or states that
Pedra Branca belongs to Johor.
(b) None of them alters the significance of Johor’s 1953 express
affirmation that it did not claim ownership or sovereignty over
Pedra Branca.
161 Additional Written Observations, para. 40 (Emphasis added).
162 See Additional Written Observations, para. 41.
163 Written Observations, para. 2.46.
164 Additional Written Observations, para. 41.
- Page 61 -
(c) None of them has any bearing on the various activities Singapore
carried out on and around Pedra Branca à titre de souverain up to
1980 (indeed, most of Malaysia’s documents in these proceedings
date from 1958 or earlier, with just one—the small sketch map at
Annex 3—having a notation from a later date – 1966). Apart from
the 1953 Johor Understanding, most of the conduct of the Parties
that the Court found relevant occurred after 1966.
(d) None of Malaysia’s new documents changes the fact that Malaysia
recognised Singapore’s sovereignty over the island by acceding to
Singapore’s control of visits to the island by Malaysian officials in
the 1970s, publishing official maps labelling the island as
belonging to Singapore, failing to protest the flying of the
Singapore ensign over Pedra Branca despite protesting the display
of a similar ensign on the Malaysian island of Pulau Pisang165, and
ceasing to list Horsburgh Lighthouse as a meteorological station in
Malaysia’s annual report of its meteorological service after
Singapore’s independence from Malaysia in 1965.
(e) And none of them provides evidence of any Malaysian sovereign
activities on Pedra Branca, thus leaving entirely intact the Court’s
observation that for more than a century after 1850, Malaysia and
its predecessors never carried out any such activities.
165 At paragraph 64 of the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia asserts that
the Court attached no weight to the display of the British and Singapore ensigns
over Pedra Branca. This is plainly wrong. As Singapore pointed out in the
Written Observations (paras. 2.19-2.20), at paragraph 246 of the Judgment, the
Court stated that “some weight may nevertheless be given to the fact that
Malaysia, having been alerted to the issue of the flying of the ensigns by the
Pulau Pisang incident, did not make a parallel request in respect of the ensign
flying at Horsburgh lighthouse.”
- Page 62 -
4.21 Rather than trying to demonstrate that its “newly discovered facts”
constitute a “decisive factor” that would have influenced the reasoning
and decision of the Court, Malaysia focuses in the Additional Written
Observations on the factors that the Court did not find relevant, and
erroneously characterises two relevant factors (the installation by
Singapore of military communications equipment on Pedra Branca and
the display of the British and Singapore ensigns on Pedra Branca) as
irrelevant166.
4.22 In contrast, when it comes to discussing the factors that the Court actually
considered as the “relevant facts” leading to its decision, Malaysia’s
pleading is remarkably economical. First, it lists (incompletely, it should
be noted) these elements in just one paragraph of the Additional Written
Observations (paragraph 64) without explaining how its “newly
discovered documents” change the legal significance of any of them.
Then, it jumps into the realm of speculation by asserting that “[i]n view
of the character, number and significance of these activities as analysed
by the Court, it [ie, the decision that by 1980 sovereignty had passed to
Singapore] must have been a fine call.”167 This assertion is not backed up
by any evidence. It ignores all the elements of the Parties’ conduct that
the Court found to be relevant to its decision, and does nothing to
demonstrate that Malaysia has satisfied the “decisive factor” requirement
imposed by Article 61 of the Statute.
4.23 In Chapter II of the Additional Written Observations dealing with the
“decisive factor” criterion, Malaysia also embarks on a long, and highly
critical, commentary on the Court’s methodology that led to its decision
on sovereignty. As Chapter V below will show, not only does this
166 See Additional Written Observations, paras. 63-64. See also footnotes 155 and
165 above.
167 Additional Written Observations, para. 67.
- Page 63 -
discussion distort the Judgment by attributing to the Court legal analyses
that the Court did not employ, it also reveals that Malaysia’s real aim in
these proceedings is to appeal the Judgment in derogation of Article 60 of
the Statute, rather than to present a proper request for revision.
4.24 In short, Malaysia not only wants the Court to reopen the case on the basis
of an unimpressive selection of wholly immaterial new documents it
purports to have discovered since the Judgment was delivered, it also
wants to reargue the legal basis on which the Court reached its decision.
C. Malaysia’s New Documents Do Not Meet the
“Decisive Factor” Requirement
4.25 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia argues that the new
documents it has filed “establish the occurrence of a series of incidents
which all demonstrate that no such agreement [ie, a tacit agreement that
sovereignty over Pedra Branca was transferred to Singapore] came into
existence.”168 On the basis of this assertion, Malaysia contends that its
new documents are “capable of altering the Judgment” and thus “are of
such a nature as to be a decisive factor.”169
4.26 In Chapter III above, Singapore showed that, as a matter of fact, none of
the new documents submitted by Malaysia refers to sovereignty over
Pedra Branca or provides any indication that Malaysia considered it had
sovereignty over the island while Singapore did not. Indeed, the
documents now relied on by Malaysia were concerned with entirely
168 Additional Written Observations, para. 70.
169 Ibid.
- Page 64 -
different issues that had nothing to do with the extent of territorial
sovereignty.
4.27 Singapore also showed that Malaysia’s contention that its new documents
undermine the notion of a “shared understanding” or “tacit agreement”
between the Parties during the relevant period is meritless. Quite apart
from the fact that the Court’s conclusion on sovereignty was based on a
“convergent evolution”170 of the positions of the Parties, the new
documents, whether considered individually or collectively, cannot by
any stretch of the imagination exercise a decisive influence over the
Judgment or constitute a “decisive factor”. If anything, they are similar to
the kinds of documents submitted in the original case to which the Court
attached no relevance in reaching its decision regarding sovereignty over
Pedra Branca.
1. ANNEX 1 – 1958 INTERNAL CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING
DELIMITATION OF TERRITORIAL WATERS
4.28 Annex 1 to the Application consists of two telegrams, dated 18 January
1958 and 7 February 1958 respectively, in which Singapore officials were
considering the proposal of some States to extend the breadth of the
territorial sea from three to six nautical miles. As Singapore recalled in
Chapter III above171, to protect Singapore against being “territorial sealocked”
owing to the narrowness of the Strait of Singapore, Singapore
officials were considering whether an “international high seas corridor”172
170 Judgment, p. 96, para. 276.
171 See paras. 3.2 and 3.5 above.
172 Confidential telegram from Governor [of] Singapore to Secretary of State for
the Colonies dated 7 February 1958, para. 2 (Application, Annex 1).
- Page 65 -
following the existing “normal shipping channel”173 should be
established174.
4.29 Malaysia has not submitted any further documents on this matter with the
Additional Written Observations. However, Malaysia argues that the
consideration of such a proposal in 1958 showed that Singapore
appreciated that the 1953 letter of the Acting State Secretary of Johor,
which stated in clear terms that “the Johore Government does not claim
ownership of Pedra Branca”175, was not dispositive of the question of
sovereignty; otherwise, the internal correspondence would have asserted
Singapore’s rights over the waters surrounding Pedra Branca176.
4.30 Singapore has already shown that the 1958 correspondence did nothing
of the kind177. It was not concerned with the question of sovereignty over
either Pedra Branca or any other features situated in the Strait of
Singapore178, and it certainly has no bearing on the evolution of the
positions of the Parties between 1953 and 1980, some 22 years after the
correspondence on which Malaysia relies and which was based on a
whole host of relevant factors, most of which post-date Malaysia’s new
documents.
173 Confidential telegram from Governor [of] Singapore to Secretary of State for
the Colonies dated 7 February 1958, para. 2 (Application, Annex 1).
174 See also Written Observations, paras. 3.3-3.4.
175 Letter from M. Seth Bin Saaid (Acting State Secretary of Johor) to the Colonial
Secretary, Singapore, dated 21 September 1953 (Memorial of Singapore,
Vol. VI, Annex 96).
176 See Application, para. 25.
177 See Written Observations, paras. 6.8-6.13.
178 See paras. 3.2-3.7 above. See also Written Observations, paras. 3.2-3.13.
- Page 66 -
4.31 Singapore also showed that the 1958 correspondence was similar in
nature to internal Singapore correspondence from a Mr. Colton on behalf
of the Colonial Secretary in Singapore in July 1953 (the “Colton Letter”)
that had raised similar territorial sea concerns179. The Court was fully
familiar with this correspondence, to which it attached no particular
relevance other than to say that the fact that the authorities in Singapore
or London took no action at that time “is not at all surprising.”180
4.32 Equally important is the fact that the 1958 correspondence in no way
affects the significance that the Court attached to the 1953 Johor
Understanding181 that Johor did not have ownership or sovereignty over
Pedra Branca. Indeed, nothing in the 1958 correspondence signals either
a Malaysian retraction of the 1953 Johor Understanding or an
acknowledgement by Singapore or the United Kingdom that sovereignty
over Pedra Branca did not belong to Singapore. Sovereignty is simply not
mentioned in the 1958 correspondence.
4.33 The Additional Written Observations gloss over the importance of what
Malaysia terms the “notorious letter dated 21 September 1953”182 by the
Acting State Secretary of Johor and leave unanswered how the 1958
correspondence affects the significance of that letter. Instead, Malaysia
focuses on the Colton Letter, which, as the Court noted, “indicates that
the Foreign Office and Colonial Office in London were involved in a
wider examination of issues relating to territorial waters, with the then
179 Written Observations, para. 6.16.
180 Judgment, p. 81, para. 225.
181 See para. 4.16(a) above.
182 Additional Written Observations, para. 74.
- Page 67 -
recent Judgment of this Court in the Fisheries case … constituting an
important element”183.
4.34 Malaysia’s argument is that the Colton Letter could not have taken into
account the 1953 Johor Understanding, which only came two months
later, while the 1958 correspondence “must be viewed in the light of the
1953 correspondence concerning sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau
Batu Puteh”184. According to Malaysia, the fact that five years after the
1953 Johor Understanding, the Singapore authorities “apparently did not
take Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh into the reckoning” when
considering the territorial sea issue in the Strait of Singapore “is unusual,
to say the least.”185 In a bizarre leap of logic, Malaysia then argues that
the failure of a State (Singapore) to react in circumstances where it is
reasonable to expect a reaction when “[f]aced with a clear challenge from
the State conduct of its neighbours” provides “a basis for ascertaining or
interpreting the intent of that State.”186
4.35 But in 1958 there was no challenge to Singapore by Malaysia or any other
State with respect to sovereignty over Pedra Branca calling for a reaction.
None of Malaysia’s new documents emanates from Malaysia, none of
them deals with issues of territorial sovereignty, and none of them shows
any conduct by Malaysia on Pedra Branca à titre de souverain which
might have warranted a Singaporean response. Rather, the 1958
correspondence was internal to the Singapore authorities and devoted to
an entirely different subject matter – the position the United Kingdom
183 Judgment, pp. 80-81, para. 225.
184 Additional Written Observations, para. 76.
185 Ibid.
186 Ibid.
- Page 68 -
should take in connection with the forthcoming Geneva Conference on
the Law of the Sea187.
4.36 Moreover, Malaysia’s attempt to show that the 1958 correspondence is
dissimilar in nature to the Colton Letter, because the Colton Letter predated
the 1953 Johor Understanding and is said to have pertained to
“fishing grounds”188, is misconceived. In the original case, Malaysia
labelled the Colton Letter (sent in July 1953) and the 1953 Johor
Understanding (sent in September 1953) as “virtually contemporaneous
correspondence”189. Moreover, the Colton Letter was concerned primarily
with the extent of the territorial waters of Singapore and other States, the
same subject-matter as the 1958 correspondence190. To the extent that
“fisheries, policing and control” were discussed in the Colton Letter, this
was in the context of the issue of territorial waters as a whole.
4.37 Equally misplaced is Malaysia’s effort to distinguish the 1958
correspondence from another document dealing with a ship routeing
system to which the Court attached no relevance in the original case – the
1977 Straits of Malacca and Singapore routeing system191. The 1977 ship
routeing system was not, as Malaysia describes, merely about “the
placement and upkeep of navigational aids.”192 It defined traffic lanes and
187 See confidential telegram from Secretary of State for the Colonies to Governor
[of] Singapore dated 18 January 1958, para. 1 (Application, Annex 1).
188 See Additional Written Observations, paras. 76 and 77.
189 Memorial of Malaysia, para. 238.
190 See Letter and attachments from A.G.B. Colton, for the Colonial Secretary,
Singapore, to the Deputy Commissioner General for Colonial Affairs,
Singapore, dated July 1953, para. 4 (Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 3, Annex 68).
191 Additional Written Observations, para. 78.
192 Ibid.
- Page 69 -
deep water routes through the Straits193. But just as the Court stated that
the 1977 documents “are not concerned with territorial rights but with the
facilitation and safety of navigation through the Straits as a whole”194, so
also was the 1958 correspondence not concerned with territorial rights
but, rather, with navigation along a high seas corridor through the Strait
of Singapore.
4.38 Not only is Malaysia’s convoluted argument thus devoid of merit, it
ignores an additional event that did take place in 1958, which disproves
Malaysia’s thesis that Singapore must have appreciated that it did not
have sovereignty over the island at that time.
4.39 The event in question concerns Singapore’s amendment in 1958 of the
Light Dues Ordinance it had enacted in 1957. Unlike the 1957 Ordinance,
which the Court did not find relevant because it made no distinction
between the lighthouses on Pedra Branca and Pulau Pisang195, the
statement of purpose in the 1958 amendment did make such a distinction
by stating that only the lighthouse at Pulau Pisang was not within
Singapore territorial waters, without saying the same thing about the
lighthouse at Pedra Branca. What is more, the drafting history of the
amendment included, as the Court observed, “a statement that Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh is Singapore’s.”196 The Court viewed this as
significant. In the words of the Judgment:
“The Court considers that the change, particularly given the
express reference to Pulau Pisang in the statement of
193 See Memorial of Singapore, Annex 134, Annexes I-IV.
194 Judgment, p. 91, para. 260.
195 Ibid., p. 68, para. 174.
196 Ibid.
- Page 70 -
purpose and the statement that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh is Singapore’s in the drafting history, does give
support to Singapore’s contentions.”197
4.40 It follows that Malaysia’s assertion that the 1958 correspondence “weighs
heavily against the notion that a convergence in the understanding of the
parties concerning Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh had formed, or even
begun to form, in 1958”, and that Malaysia’s Annex 1 “tips the balance
of the factual record on which the Court determined that there was a tacit
agreement between the parties”198, is pure wishful thinking.
4.41 Furthermore, much of the Court’s reasoning which led it to conclude that,
as of 1980, sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore was
based on conduct of the Parties that post-dated 1958. Malaysia has not
shown, and cannot show, that the 1958 correspondence has any effect on:
(a) Singapore’s various acts à titre de souverain on and around Pedra
Branca, especially in the 22-year period between 1958 and 1980;
(b) Malaysia’s failure to react to any of those acts, coupled with its
recognition of Singapore’s sovereignty over Pedra Branca by, eg,
seeking permission and complying with Singapore’s conditions for
Malaysian officials to visit the island in 1974 and 1978;
197 Judgment, p. 68, para. 174. This was in contrast with Malaysia’s own conduct
with respect to the upkeep of lighthouses. As the Court noted shortly thereafter
in the Judgment: “What is of some significance however is that in 1952 the
Director of Marine of the Federation of Malaya of which Johor was then a part
raised the question whether the Federation should assume responsibility for the
Pulau Pisang lighthouse, ‘as it is close to the coast of the Federation’ but made
no such suggestion in respect of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.” (Judgment,
p. 70, para. 178.)
198 Additional Written Observations, para. 80.
- Page 71 -
(c) Malaysia’s official maps published after 1958 labelling Pedra
Branca as belonging to Singapore, and its ceasing in 1967 to list
Horsburgh Lighthouse as a meteorological station in Malaysia’s
annual reports of its meteorological service after Singapore’s
independence from Malaysia; and
(d) Malaysia’s inability to adduce any evidence of its own sovereign
activities carried out on the island for more than 100 years after
1850.
4.42 In the light of the foregoing, the 1958 correspondence on which Malaysia
relies does not remotely rise to the level of a “decisive factor” justifying
the admissibility of the Application. Nothing contained in that
correspondence affects the reasoning of the Court that underlay its
decision on sovereignty.
2. ANNEX 2 – DOCUMENTS CONCERNING THE 1958 LABUAN HAJI INCIDENT
4.43 Similar considerations undermine the relevance of the documents
Malaysia filed under Annex 2 to the Application relating to the Labuan
Haji incident, which also took place in 1958. Just as with respect to the
1958 correspondence, none of the materials on which Malaysia relies,
including the additional press cuttings it submitted in Annexure A to the
Additional Written Observations, refers to sovereignty over Pedra
Branca. None of them changes the significance that the Court attached to
the 1953 Johor Understanding. As discussed above, none of them affects
the conduct that the Court found relevant relating either to the year
1958199 or during the ensuing years up to 1980200. And none of them
199 See paras. 4.38-4.40 above.
200 See para. 4.41 above.
- Page 72 -
evinces any Malaysian claim to sovereignty over the island, let alone
Malaysian effectivités.
4.44 Neither the documents filed by Malaysia in Annex 2 to the Application
nor the press cuttings submitted in the Additional Written Observations
indicate with any precision exactly where the Labuan Haji incident
occurred. The Annex 2 documents simply refer to the incident as having
taken place “near Horsburgh Light”201. The new press cuttings report the
incident as taking place “off”202 or “near the Horsburgh lighthouse, 35
miles northeast of Singapore”203. Significantly, none of these reports says
that the incident occurred within the territorial waters appertaining to
Pedra Branca or that the island belonged to Malaysia.
4.45 On the contrary, as discussed above204, the same year the incident
occurred, Singapore had specifically stated in connection with its
amendment to the Light Dues Ordinance in 1958 that Pedra Branca is
Singapore’s. There was thus no doubt in Singapore’s mind that it had
sovereignty over the island. Indeed, the situation was no different from
that which existed in late 1953 after Singapore had received the letter
stating the 1953 Johor Understanding. As the Court stated in the Judgment
with respect to the situation pertaining at that time:
201 Application, para. 27
202 Cutting from the Straits Times (Additional Written Observations, Annexure A).
203 Cuttings from the Berita Harian (Additional Written Observations,
Annexure A).
204 See para. 4.39 above.
- Page 73 -
“in light of Johor’s reply, the authorities in Singapore had
no reason to doubt that the United Kingdom had
sovereignty over the island.”205
4.46 This contemporaneous evidence dispels any notion that Singapore was in
doubt about its understanding that it possessed sovereignty over Pedra
Branca. In the Written Observations, Singapore also pointed out that the
reports of the location of the incident were too vague to have any bearing
on the question of sovereignty, and that the Court had dismissed the
relevance of similarly vague geographical descriptions in the Judgment206.
4.47 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia contests the pertinence
of just one of the references from the Judgment that Singapore cited for
the irrelevance of general geographical descriptions: the 1844
correspondence concerning the site of the proposed lighthouse. Malaysia
tries to distinguish this example by noting that the correspondence did not
refer specifically to Pedra Branca, unlike the documents it has annexed in
these proceedings, and the Court did not deem it necessary to rule on
Malaysia’s arguments because it had already found an original title
vesting in Johor207. But this does not detract from the Court’s observation
that the difficulty with Malaysia’s argument that the expression “near
Point Romania” encompassed Pedra Branca was that “the correspondence
appears to be in the most general terms”208. Moreover, Malaysia has no
answer to the fact that the Court also dismissed the relevance of a number
205 Judgment, p. 82. para. 230.
206 See Written Observations, paras. 6.19-6.23.
207 See Additional Written Observations, para. 82.
208 Judgment, p. 55, para. 134.
- Page 74 -
of other documents because they contained general geographical
references that shed no light on the question of sovereignty.
4.48 For example, Singapore also pointed out that the Court did not find
relevant an 1861 incident involving attacks on Singapore fishermen
described as having taken place “near to the Pedro Branco Light House”
or “in the neighbourhood of the Pedro Branco Light House”209.
Notwithstanding the specific reference to the lighthouse on Pedra Branca
in these reports, the Court stated that:
“on the basis of the available records, the facts cannot be
clearly established and the wording of the Singapore reports
are too vague to provide any assistance in determining the
understanding at that time by the authorities in Singapore of
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh.”210
Malaysia offers no response to this point other than to label Singapore’s
arguments as “similarly weak claims”211 without providing the slightest
justification for such an assertion.
4.49 Elsewhere in the Judgment, the Court also dismissed the relevance of
other general descriptions that were of a geographical nature. Thus, with
respect to what Malaysia claimed were official publications of Singapore
that did not list Pedra Branca as part of Singapore212, the Court noted that:
“Given the purpose of the publications and their nonauthoritative
and essentially descriptive character, even if
209 See Written Observations, para. 6.21.
210 Judgment, p. 72, para.191.
211 Additional Written Observations, para. 82.
212 See Judgment, p. 92, para. 261.
- Page 75 -
official, the Court does not consider that they can be given
any weight”213.
Further, in the original case, Malaysia also relied on a monograph—by an
individual who was for many years Singapore’s Director of Marine—
which apparently distinguished between navigational aids in Singapore
waters and those on “outlying stations” at Pedra Branca and Pulau Pisang.
Malaysia argued that this showed that the latter two had a common
status214. With respect to Malaysia’s argument, the Court agreed with
Singapore’s position that the descriptions were “simply geographical”215.
4.50 Similarly, when it came to assessing the relevance of Malaysia’s 1969
territorial waters legislation, which, like the 1958 documents relating to
the Labuan Haji incident, did not refer to territories, baselines, outer
limits and areas of territorial waters, the Court again stated that “the very
generality of the 1969 legislation means that Malaysia’s argument based
on it must fail.”216
4.51 In the light of the above, Malaysia’s contention that the 1958 documents
relating to the Labuan Haji incident, which do not even show that the
incident occurred in Pedra Branca’s territorial waters, constitute a
“decisive factor” within the meaning of Article 61 of the Statute, is
untenable.
213 Judgment, p. 92, para. 262.
214 See Judgment, p. 93, para. 263.
215 Ibid., p. 93, para. 264.
216 Judgment, p. 90, para. 256. See also Written Observations, para. 6.22, to which
Malaysia offers no response.
- Page 76 -
3. ANNEX 3 – SKETCH MAP OF RESTRICTED AND PROHIBITED AREAS
4.52 The document submitted as Annex 3 to the Application is a sketch map
dated 25 March 1962 depicting “Restricted and Prohibited Areas –
Singapore Territorial Waters” with a handwritten annotation from 1966.
It showed certain restricted and curfew areas imposed by Singapore as a
security measure as a result of Konfrontasi by Indonesia. Malaysia’s
discussion of this sketch map in the Application was very brief, and
appeared to be that, since the sketch map does not include Pedra Branca,
it is evidence of Singapore’s understanding at the time that its territorial
entitlements did not extend to Pedra Branca217.
4.53 Singapore has demonstrated that Malaysia’s thesis is fanciful and can
have no possible impact on the Judgment, let alone a decisive influence218.
First, Singapore showed that the sketch map was not designed to be an
authoritative depiction of the territorial extent of Singapore; it only
depicted the areas south of the main island of Singapore that were affected
by restrictions to guard against threats from the south. This was clear from
the fact that no restricted areas were shown either to the north of the main
island of Singapore or off other Singapore islands such as Pulau Tekong
Besar and Pulau Ubin219. Similarly, these restrictions did not extend to
Pedra Branca, and there was accordingly no need to include Pedra Branca
on the sketch map. Second, Singapore produced Annex B to the Orders
from which the sketch map was taken, and which Malaysia had not
submitted with the Application, confirming the limited scope of the
restrictions. That document stated very clearly that the Singapore Port
217 See Application, paras. 33-35.
218 See Written Observations, paras. 6.8-6.13 and 6.24-6.27. See also paras. 3.19-
3.28 above.
219 See Written Observations, paras. 3.26-3.27.
- Page 77 -
Restricted Areas pertained to “the waters South of Singapore Island”, not
to the entire territory of Singapore220. Third, Singapore pointed out that,
in the original case, Malaysia had attempted to rely on the omission of
Pedra Branca from a similar document—a 1948 Curfew Order—as
evidence that Singapore authorities appreciated that Pedra Branca was not
part of the territory of Singapore, but the Court did not accept that
argument because
“there was no reason in terms of its purpose for extending
the ban to such a distant island”221.
4.54 With the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia has filed further
documents relating to the Indonesian Konfrontasi. However, as
Chapter III above has shown222, these new documents not only fail to
contradict what Singapore said about the sketch map in the Written
Observations, they confirm Singapore’s position.
4.55 One of the new documents on which Malaysia relies is a UK War Office
tabulation of the details of numerous incidents involving Indonesian
infiltrators in both Singapore and Malaysia in the period from 17 August
1964 to 31 December 1965223. As discussed in Chapter III above224, what
is significant about this document is that it shows that all of the incidents
perpetrated by Indonesian activists against Singapore took place on the
main island of Singapore or in the waters to its south. There is not a single
220 See Written Observations, para. 3.30. See also para. 3.20 above.
221 Judgment, p. 72, para. 189. See also Written Observations, para. 6.25.
222 See paras. 3.19-3.31 above.
223 See Additional Written Observations, para. 92. See also Additional Written
Observations, Annexure C.
224 See paras. 3.22-3.27 above.
- Page 78 -
incident listed in Annexure C that involves an incursion on the island of
Pedra Branca.
4.56 Malaysia tries to counter this by arguing that Singapore “understates the
scale of the danger caused by Konfrontasi”225 when it notes that the threat
was one arising from the south of the main island of Singapore. In support
of its argument, Malaysia points to the fact that the newly furnished War
Office document lists numerous hostile interactions with Indonesian
antagonists over 16 months “in an area encompassing the Malacca and
Singapore Straits and the south-eastern coast of Johor”226, and that the
Konfrontasi campaign “spread throughout the region, and certainly
encompassed the area of Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh”227.
4.57 As Chapter III above has explained, it is true that the campaign by
Indonesian infiltrators was directed against both Singapore and Malaysia.
But it is not true that the infiltrations encompassed Pedra Branca or that
there was a need for Singapore to extend its restricted areas depicted on
the sketch map to that island228. Moreover, all this had nothing to do with
identifying the extent of Singapore’s territory.
4.58 Malaysia tries to counter this in the Additional Written Observations by
drawing attention to one incident (item 34 on the list) which took place
225 Additional Written Observations, para. 97.
226 Ibid., para. 98.
227 Ibid., para. 99.
228 See paras. 3.20-3.28 above.
- Page 79 -
on 25 March 1965 where an Indonesian infiltrator was captured at
Horsburgh Lighthouse229.
4.59 Chapter III above showed how Malaysia has misrepresented what
actually happened. The incident to which Malaysia refers did not take
place on Pedra Branca, but rather was directed at the east coast of the
Johor mainland230. The only thing that happened at the Horsburgh
Lighthouse on Pedra Branca was that one of the Indonesian infiltrators
attempting escape was captured there231. Contrary to Malaysia’s
assertion, this scarcely demonstrates that “the UK authorities considered
Horsburgh lighthouse to be situated in East Johor”232.
4.60 As for the views of the Parties regarding sovereignty at the time of the
incident, Malaysia fails to recall that in 1953 Johor had already conveyed
its understanding that it does not claim ownership or sovereignty over
Pedra Branca, and that Malaysia thereafter published two official maps in
1962233, and another map in 1965234 (the year of the incident), designating
Pedra Branca as belonging to Singapore235. Three more similar maps were
229 See Additional Written Observations, para. 93.
230 See paras. 3.25-3.26 and 3.30 above.
231 See paras. 3.26 and 3.30 above.
232 Additional Written Observations, para. 94.
233 Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 4, Maps 32 and 33. See also Counter-Memorial of
Singapore, Vol. 4, Maps 26 and 27.
234 Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 4, Map 34. See also Counter-Memorial of
Singapore, Vol. 4, Map 28.
235 Judgment, p. 94, para. 269.
- Page 80 -
published by Malaysia subsequently236. As the Court noted, “those maps
tend to confirm that Malaysia considered that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu
Puteh fell under the sovereignty of Singapore.”237 The notion that a small
sketch map that was only intended to show the restricted areas established
for security purposes and not the territorial extent of Singapore, when
compared with six official maps published by Malaysia that clearly
labelled Pedra Branca as “Singapore”, “may tip the balance of the factual
record on which the Court based its determination that a tacit agreement
emerged”238 is not credible. In contrast, Singapore had carried out an
investigation into the grounding of a British vessel on a reef adjacent to
Pedra Branca just two years earlier, in 1963239, which was one of a
number of such examples of Singaporean conduct that the Court found
“gives significant support to the Singapore case.”240
4.61 Needless to say, Malaysia’s invocation of an incident that occurred in
1965 also has no impact on all of the other elements of the Parties’
conduct after 1965 that the Court found relevant to its decision on
sovereignty. It follows that Malaysia’s assertion that its newly found
document provides “yet another new illustration that the ‘understanding
at that time by the authorities in Singapore’ [was] that it had not acquired
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh from Johor”241 is
entirely unfounded. Neither the sketch map nor the documents relating to
236 These were published in 1970 (Memorial of Malaysia, Vol. 4, Map 38), 1974
(Counter-Memorial of Singapore, Vol. 4, Map 30) and 1975 (Memorial of
Malaysia, Vol. 4, Map 41).
237 Judgment, p. 95, para. 272.
238 Additional Written Observations, para. 101.
239 See Judgment, p. 83, para. 233.
240 Judgment, p. 83, para. 234.
241 Additional Written Observations, para. 95.
- Page 81 -
incidents concerning the Konfrontasi with Indonesia adduced by
Malaysia had anything to do with sovereignty over Pedra Branca. As
such, they cannot possibly constitute a “decisive factor” within the
meaning of Article 61 of the Statute.
4. THE 1937 JOHORE MAP
4.62 The last document on which Malaysia relies is a 1937 map titled “Johor,
1937”. It was apparently only “discovered” by Malaysia on 5 December
2017, some ten months after Malaysia filed the Application242, and some
six months after Malaysia requested the opportunity to present further
written observations and documentation.
4.63 The 1937 Johore Map is included in Annexure D to the Additional
Written Observations along with a lengthy report by the War Damage
Commission for 1952. In Chapter III above243, Singapore showed that the
Commission’s task had nothing to do with identifying sovereignty over
territory, and there would have been no reason for the War Damage
Commission to attach any particular significance to the 1937 Johore Map
for that purpose.
4.64 Malaysia does not purport to rely on the War Damage Commission’s
report itself. Instead, its argument is that because the 1937 Johore Map
includes the island of Pedra Branca and bears a stamp of the War Damage
Commission, and the Commission included a number of Singapore
242 See Additional Written Observations, para. 103.
243 See para. 3.37 above.
- Page 82 -
officials, “Singapore had clear official notice that this map included Pedra
Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh as part of Johor and it made no protest.”244
4.65 Malaysia’s attempt to draw support from the 1937 Johore Map for the
proposition that its new documents in Annexure D show that there was no
“shared understanding” with respect to sovereignty over Pedra Branca is
baseless. In the first place, the 1937 Johore Map is not even mentioned in
the report. Moreover, not one of the claims discussed in the War Damage
Commission’s report dealt with a claim relating to Pedra Branca. Indeed,
Pedra Branca is not even mentioned in the report. Rather, in so far as the
report addressed claims from Malaya, it focused on claims relating to the
East Coast district of Malaya. This area, as the report noted, included
Kelantan, Trengganu and East Pahang245. Pedra Branca was not identified
as being part of those localities.
4.66 Apart from the irrelevance of the Commission’s stamp on the map for
sovereignty purposes, it is important to recall that the War Damage
Commission engaged in its work in the 1950s and that the report Malaysia
relies on is for the year 1952. This was one year before the 1953 Johor
Understanding, and it pre-dated all the conduct of the Parties between
1953 and 1980 that the Court found relevant for its decision on
sovereignty. In other words, whatever the purpose of the 1937 Johore Map
was for the Commission—and this is not explained by Malaysia—it does
not have any impact on the elements that the Court relied on for reaching
its conclusion that, by 1980, sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to
Singapore.
244 Additional Written Observations, para. 104.
245 See War Damage Commission Report for 1952, p. 67 (Additional Written
Observations, Annexure D).
- Page 83 -
D. Conclusion
4.67 This Chapter has shown that none of the new documents filed by
Malaysia, whether in the Application or in the Additional Written
Observations, evinces a new fact of a decisive nature that has any
influence on the Court’s reasoning or Judgment that sovereignty over
Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore. That being the case, Malaysia has not
satisfied the “decisive factor” requirement under Article 61, paragraph 1,
of the Statute, and the Application is therefore inadmissible.
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 85 -
CHAPTER V
THE TRUE NATURE OF MALAYSIA’S REVISION APPLICATION:
AN APPEAL
5.1 The previous Chapters have shown that Malaysia has not satisfied the
conditions for admissibility of the Application under Article 61 of the
Statute. This Chapter will show that the Additional Written Observations
confirm that the effect of Malaysia’s applications for revision, and, in
separate proceedings246, for interpretation of the Judgment is to appeal the
Judgment on the merits. It goes without saying that no appeal can be
brought against the Judgment. Article 60 of the Statute cannot be clearer:
“The judgment is final and without appeal.”
5.2 Malaysia is aware of the res judicata effect and the autorité de la chose
jugée attached to the Judgment. Indeed, it claims—probably to convince
itself—that the “Application is not an appeal against the
2008 Judgment.”247 Despite its assertions to the contrary, Malaysia is
simply re-pleading its case.
5.3 In the Additional Written Observations, Malaysia engages in a lengthy
exegesis on what it terms the Court’s “legal methodology” in reaching its
decision that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore248. This
exposition, which addresses concepts such as the presumption against
246 See Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case
concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks
and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Malaysia v. Singapore), Written
Observations of the Republic of Singapore, 30 October 2017, paras. 1.5, 1.31,
1.35 and 4.41.
247 Application, para. 7.
248 See Additional Written Observations, paras. 42-67.
- Page 86 -
abandonment of title, the relationship between a prior title and effectivités,
acquisitive prescription and historical consolidation, is nothing less than
a criticism of the Court’s reasoning.
5.4 Malaysia is criticising the Judgment when it asserts that: the Judgment
“has unusual features”249; the evidence relating to Malaysia’s conduct
relied on in the Judgment was “implied” and “always doubtful”250; the
evidence relating to Singapore’s conduct relied on in the Judgment was
“construed from limited and and [sic] shifting practice”251; “the
appreciation of the Court was unavoidably finely balanced”252, a “fine
call”253; and “[t]he 2008 Judgment rested on a proprio motu analysis that
had not had the benefit of submissions of the Parties.”254 It insinuates that
“the Judgment might have gone either way”255 and that it “turned on
limited practice and nuanced appreciations.”256
5.5 Malaysia also engages in an extended discussion of legal principles that
did not figure in the Court’s own reasoning. First, it discusses at length
the presumption against the abandonment of title257, and argues that “the
burden of proof rests upon the party claiming that sovereignty has been
249 Additional Written Observations, para. 5.
250 Ibid., para. 8.
251 Ibid., para. 5.
252 Ibid., para. 11.
253 Ibid., para. 67.
254 Ibid., para. 5.
255 Ibid., para. 7.
256 Ibid., paras. 7 and 11.
257 Ibid., paras. 49-51.
- Page 87 -
relinquished.”258 This is no more than an attempt to reargue points of law
that (i) were addressed in the original case; or (ii) in Malaysia’s opinion,
should have been addressed by the Court in the original case. It is quite
clear that the Court fully appreciated the fact that it was addressing a
situation where the question was whether, by virtue of the Parties’
subsequent conduct, sovereignty had passed to Singapore. Yet the Court’s
decision was not based on the notion of Malaysian abandonment of title,
but rested on the mutual conduct of the Parties.
5.6 Second, Malaysia further asserts in the Additional Written Observations
that the principle articulated by the Court in Frontier Dispute that legal
title has priority over effectivités formed part of the “essential legal
framework”259 of the Judgment260. Again, this is no more than an attack
on the Court’s finding that Singapore’s activities à titre de souverain on
and around Pedra Branca, coupled with Malaysia’s failure to react to those
activities, constituted one of the elements—but by no means the only
element—leading to the Court’s determination that, by 1980, sovereignty
over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore.
5.7 Third, while Malaysia acknowledges that, in the original case, “the two
Parties accepted that the notion of acquisitive prescription had no role to
play in the case”, and that “the Court itself did not refer explicitly to this
concept nor to that of historical consolidation”, it nonetheless asserts that
258 Additional Written Observations, para. 52.
259 Ibid., para. 55.
260 Ibid., paras. 53-54.
- Page 88 -
“in effect the Court drew upon their key elements in analysing the
case.”261 Indeed, Malaysia goes even further by stating that:
“After 1953, the Court perceived, on the evidence before it,
a shared understanding in favour of acquisitive prescription
or historical consolidation by Singapore.”262
But nowhere in the Judgment did the Court rely on either acquisitive
prescription or historical consolidation as part of its reasoning.
5.8 All this further exposes the Application for what it really is: an appeal
rather than a genuine request for revision. Malaysia is trying to reargue,
with the benefit of hindsight, the legal basis on which the Court reached—
or apparently (according to Malaysia) should have reached—its decision,
in contrast to how the Court actually approached the issue of sovereignty.
5.9 However, revision is not “une deuxième instance”263. Revision is also not
a form of rehearing permitting the parties to question the legal reasoning
upon which a judicial decision was based. As the Yugoslav-German
Mixed Arbitral put it, revision is not
“une voie de recours ordinaire, permettant aux parties de
remettre directement en question le raisonnement juridique
ou la méthode qui sont à la base de la décision attaquée”264.
261 Additional Written Observations, para. 56.
262 Ibid., para. 11.
263 Heim and Chamant c. Etat allemand, Franco-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal,
Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, Vol. III, p. 50, 54 (“a
second instance” [Singapore’s translation]).
264 Epoux Ventense c. Etat S.H.S., Yugoslav-German Mixed Arbitral Tribunal,
Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, Vol. VII, p. 79, 83 (“an
ordinary remedy, allowing the parties to question directly the legal reasoning or
method on which the decision is based” [Singapore’s translation]).
- Page 89 -
In the words of another mixed arbitral tribunal:
“[L]a procédure de révision instituée par le Tribunal
constitue une voie de recours extraordinaire [et] ne peut
être considérée comme une voie indirecte, permettant de
revenir par une nouvelle instance sur des décisions
déclarées définitives … [L]e Tribunal ne saurait se montrer
trop rigoureux dans cet examen avant d’accueillir une
demande qui ne tend rien de moins qu’à remettre en
discussion des questions définitivement jugées …”265
5.10 Malaysia also repeatedly asserts that the essential questions were not
argued by the Parties266. In the Application, Malaysia insinuates that “the
Court’s appreciation that sovereignty passed in consequence of the
emergence of an informal agreement between the Parties was not the
subject of submission by the Parties or enquiry by the Court in the original
proceedings”267, or that its “new fact” or “facts” were “not pleaded by
either Party during the original proceedings”268. It also contends that “the
issue of the Parties’ own understanding of the situation concerning
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh was not pleaded during
the original proceedings”269. It finally asserts that “the Court would, if the
Revision Application is found to be admissible, for the first time, be
265 Battus c. Etat bulgare, Franco-Bulgarian Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, Recueil des
décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, Vol. IX, p. 284, 285 (“The revision
procedure instituted by the Tribunal is an extraordinary remedy and cannot be
regarded as an indirect means of challenging through new proceedings on
decisions declared final … [T]he Tribunal cannot but be extremely rigorous in
its examination before allowing an application which tends nothing less but to
re-open the discussion of issues finally decided ...” [Singapore’s translation]).
266 See Application, paras. 41, 45 and 48. See also Additional Written
Observations, paras. 5, 15 and 187(d).
267 Application, para. 41.
268 Ibid., para. 45. See also Additional Written Observations, para. 5.
269 Application, para. 48.
- Page 90 -
addressed, by reference to the new facts, on the implied shared
understanding, or tacit agreement, on which the 2008 Judgment was
based.”270 This is tantamount to arguing, “If we had known how the Court
would decide, we would have argued the case differently.” It again
illustrates the point that Malaysia is seeking to appeal the Judgment under
the guise of a request for revision.
5.11 Singapore has demonstrated that Malaysia’s allegations are plainly wrong
and that both Parties, including Malaysia, extensively pleaded the “new
fact” or the “new facts” on which Malaysia now relies in the original
case271.
5.12 But in any event, while the Court is bound by the petitum of the Parties as
defined by their Submissions and needs to address this petitum in full, it
remains free to select the arguments and grounds for its decision. In the
Guardianship of Infants case, the Court held in this respect:
“The Court has to adjudicate upon the subject of the
dispute … It retains its freedom to select the ground upon
which it will base its judgment, and is under no obligation
to examine all the considerations advanced by the Parties if
other considerations appear to it to be sufficient for its
purpose.”272
5.13 This freedom to select the ground on which it bases its decision, which is
an essential corollary of the iura novit curia principle, was reaffirmed by
270 Additional Written Observations, para. 17. See also Additional Written
Observations, para 68.
271 See Written Observations, para. 5.5. See also paras. 2.20-2.27 above.
272 Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants
(Netherlands v. Sweden), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1958, p. 62.
- Page 91 -
the Court in several other cases273. In his Separate Opinion in the Arrest
Warrant case, Judge Koroma referred to this essential freedom of the
Court in the following terms:
“In other words, according to the jurisprudence of the
Court, it rules on the petitum, or the subject-matter of the
dispute as defined by the claims of the Parties in their
submissions; the Court is not bound by the grounds and
arguments advanced by the Parties in support of their
claims, nor is it obliged to address all such claims, as long
as it provides a complete answer to the submissions.”274
5.14 Judge ad hoc Dugard confirmed in his dissenting opinion in the original
case that:
“The Court is not bound, in reaching its decision, by the
submissions of counsel representing parties before the
Court. It may invoke reasons of its own proprio motu when
it considers that there is a sounder basis for decision than
that advanced by parties.”275
5.15 Malaysia seeks to put into question the Court’s power to decide the
dispute submitted to it in accordance with the international law it
considers applicable and relevant. In a nutshell, it wants to reopen the case
to present the case it would have presented had it been aware of the
273 See, eg, Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24
February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan
Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1985, p. 207, para. 29; Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 180, para. 37; and
Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, pp. 298-299, para. 46.
274 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v.
Belgium), Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 60,
para. 3.
275 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South
Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard,
I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 152, para. 45.
- Page 92 -
Court’s decision. However, as the Franco-German Mixed Arbitral
Tribunal put it in its judgment in the 1927 Baron de Neuflize case:
“[L]a revision ne se motive pas devant une juridiction
souveraine, par le bien ou mal jugé de la sentence, ni par
conséquent par la critique d’une doctrine de droit ou par
l’appréciation différente des faits …”276
5.16 What Malaysia seeks now is nothing more than an appeal that runs
counter to the principle of res judicata. As the Court recently recalled:
“the principle of res judicata, as reflected in Articles 59 and
60 of its Statute, is a general principle of law which protects,
at the same time, the judicial function of a court or tribunal
and the parties to a case which has led to a judgment that is
final and without appeal (Application of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007 (I), pp. 90‑91,
para. 116).”277
5.17 As can be seen from the above, despite the fact that the present
proceedings are devoted to the question whether Malaysia has satisfied
the conditions of Article 61 for the admissibility of the Application,
Malaysia has seized the opportunity the Court afforded to it to file an
additional written pleading to reargue legal points that were not accepted
276 Baron de Neuflize v. Diskontogesellschaft et al., Recueil des décisions des
tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, Vol. VII, p. 629, 632. To quote from an English
language summary of the case: “Revision ought not to be confused with appeal.
In order to justify revision it is not enough that there has taken place an error on
a point of law or in the appreciation of a fact, or both. It is only lack of
knowledge, on the part of the judge and of one of the parties, of a material and
decisive fact, which may in law give rise to the revision of a judgment.” (Annual
Digest of Public International Law Cases – Years 1927 and 1928 (Grotius
Publications Ltd: 1981), p. 492.)
277 Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and
Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua
v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 125,
para. 58.
- Page 93 -
in the Judgment and on which the Court did not rely to reach its decision.
Singapore submits that Malaysia’s approach does nothing to meet its
burden under Article 61, and that Malaysia’s arguments are tantamount
to an appeal of the Judgment, not a proper request for revision.
5.18 It is indisputable that the Judgment is res judicata. It cannot be the subject
of an appeal as Malaysia now claims through the Application.
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 95 -
SUMMARY OF SINGAPORE’S REASONING
1. In accordance with the Court’s Practice Direction II, Singapore presents
a short summary of the reasoning developed in these Written Comments.
2. Malaysia has still not shown that it has overcome the procedural
shortcomings of the Application. Specifically:
(a) The “new fact” or “facts” relied upon by Malaysia were not
unknown to Malaysia or the Court at the time of the Judgment.
(b) Malaysia has not exercised reasonable diligence to obtain the
documents annexed to the Application before the Judgment was
delivered. In particular, Malaysia has now produced evidence in
the Additional Written Observations that it was informed before
filing the Application that Annex 3 was estimated to have been
made available in 1998, well before the Judgment was rendered.
(c) Malaysia has still failed to provide evidence that it filed the
Application within six months of the discovery of its “new fact” or
“facts”. Instead, Malaysia’s own evidence now produced in the
Additional Written Observations only raises further doubts about
whether it did indeed file the Application within this time period.
3. Even with the production of further documentation and further arguments,
Malaysia has still not shown that the documents annexed to the
Application, even when taken together with the further documentation
now annexed to the Additional Written Observations, have anything to do
with sovereignty, let alone the Parties’ understanding as to sovereignty
over Pedra Branca.
- Page 96 -
4. Malaysia’s “newly discovered documents”, or any fact they are said to
evince, do not meet the “decisive factor” criterion of admissibility. In this
respect:
(a) Malaysia has articulated an arbitrarily low standard of
“decisiveness” required of the “new fact” supporting an
application for revision. Malaysia has to show that its “new fact”
would have had a decisive influence on the Judgment for the
Application to be admissible.
(b) Malaysia has mischaracterised the reasoning underlying the
decision in the Judgment and the proper context against which
Malaysia’s “new facts” should be examined for decisiveness. The
Judgment was, in actuality, based on a confluence of four key
elements: (i) the 1953 correspondence showing Johor’s
understanding that it did not have sovereignty over Pedra Branca;
(ii) Singapore’s conduct à titre de souverain, almost all of which
post-dated the documents annexed to the Application, and
Malaysia’s acceptance of or failure to object to that conduct;
(iii) Malaysia’s publications and maps, most of which also postdated
the documents annexed to the Application, indicating Pedra
Branca as belonging to Singapore; and (iv) the lack of any
competing effectivités by Malaysia.
(c) None of Malaysia’s “newly discovered documents”, or any fact
they are said to evince, can be a “decisive factor” for the purposes
of admissibility. Even if Malaysia’s arbitrarily low threshold for
admissibility is applied, none of the “newly discovered
documents” affects the reasoning on which the Judgment was
based or has “the potential” to lead to a different decision.
- Page 97 -
5. The Additional Written Observations bear all the hallmarks of an abuse
of the revision procedure in order to seek an appeal of the Judgment or
rehearing on the merits of the original case. Such an approach bears no
relevance to the criteria for admissibility of a revision application under
Article 61 of the Statute, and, moreover, runs contrary to the clear
wording of Articles 59 and 60 of the Statute that the Court’s Judgments
are binding as between the Parties and “final and without appeal” .
This page is intentionally left blank.
- Page 99 -
SUBMISSION
For the reasons set out above and in the Written Observations, the Republic of
Singapore requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Malaysia’s request for
revision of the Judgment is inadmissible.
Attorney-General Lucien Wong
Agent for the Government of the Republic of Singapore