Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:55:20.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

IV. Sovereignty Over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia V Malaysia), Merits, Judgment of 17 December1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Malcom D Evans  and
JG Merrills
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 17 December 2002 the International Court gave its judgment in a dispute over two small islands in the Celebes Sea claimed by both Indonesia and Malaysia. The islands in question, Ligitan and Sipadan, are located off the north-east coast of Borneo and lie approximately 15.5 nautical miles apart. Both are very small and Ligitan is uninhabited; Sipadan, on the other hand, was developed by Malaysia into a tourist resort for scuba diving in the 1980s. In 1998 Indonesia and Malaysia referred the dispute to the Court by means of a Special Agreement, asking for a decision ‘on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by the Parties’ on whether sovereignty over the islands belonged to Indonesia or to Malaysia.

Type
Decisions of International Tribunals International Court of Justice
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 3 , July 2003 , pp. 797 - 802
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Indonesia chose Mr Mohamed Shahabuddeen, who subsequently resigned and was replaced by Mr. Thomas Franck. Malaysia chose Mr Christopher Weeramantry.

3 See the Court's judgment of 23 Oct 2001, ICJ Rep 2001, and the author's case-note in (2002) 51 ICLQ 718.

4 See paras 34–6 of the judgment.

5 Called Sebittik in the 1891 Convention, but referred to throughout the judgment by its present name, Sebatik.

6 See paras 37 and 38 of the judgment, where the Court noted that Indonesia is not a party to the Vienna Convention.

7 See paras 39–43 of the judgment.

8 Ibid, paras 44–48.

9 Ibid, paras 49–51.

10 Ibid, paras 53–58.

11 See paras 59–80 of the judgment.

12 Ibid, paras 81–91.

13 Ibid, paras 93–96.

14 Ibid, paras 97–125.

15 Ibid, paras 12–149.

16 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, 1933, PCU, Series A/B No. 53, 22.

17 The passages referred to by the Court are to be found, Ibid, at 45, 46.

18 Case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain), Merits, ICJ Rep 2001. The point referred to in the text was made by the Court, Ibid, para 197. The island in question is Qit' at Jaradah. See further MD Evans, Case-Note (2002) 51 ICLQ 709 at 716 n 47.

19 Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening), ICJ Rep 2002, and see the author's case-note in (2003) 52 ICLQ 787.

20 Dissenting opinion of Judge Franck, para 7. The only other member of the Court to make an individual point was Judge Oda, who, in a declaration, discussed the possible impact of the Court's decision on delimitation of the continental shelf in the region.

21 See, for example, the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal at the First Stage of the recent Eritrea/Yemen case, where sovereignty over disputed islands was the main issue. Text of the Award in (2001) 40 ILM 900, and see WM Reisman, Case Note (1999) 93 AJIL 668; also Antunes, N, ‘The Eritrea-Yemen arbitration: First Stage-The Law of Title to Territory Re-Averred’. (1999) 48 ICLQ 362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22 For a summary of this history, with references to earlier analysis, see Merrills, n 19 above.