In accordance with that Special Agreement, they requested the Court to determine, on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by them, to which of the two States sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belonged. Shortly after the filing by the Parties of the Memorials, Counter-Memorials and Replies, the Philippines, on 13 March , requested permission to intervene in the case. In its Application, the Philippines indicated that the object of its request was to. The Philippines specified that it was not seeking to become a party in the case. The Application for permission to intervene drew objections from Indonesia and Malaysia. Among other things, Indonesia stated that the Application should be rejected on the ground that it had not been filed in time and that the Philippines had not shown that it had an interest of a legal nature at issue in the case.
|Published (Last):||6 June 2004|
|PDF File Size:||18.78 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.60 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
In accordance with that Special Agreement, they requested the Court to determine, on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by them, to which of the two States sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belonged.
Shortly after the filing by the Parties of the Memorials, Counter-Memorials and Replies, the Philippines, on 13 March , requested permission to intervene in the case. In its Application, the Philippines indicated that the object of its request was to.
The Philippines specified that it was not seeking to become a party in the case. The Application for permission to intervene drew objections from Indonesia and Malaysia. Among other things, Indonesia stated that the Application should be rejected on the ground that it had not been filed in time and that the Philippines had not shown that it had an interest of a legal nature at issue in the case.
Meanwhile, Malaysia added that the object of the Application was inadequate. The Court therefore decided to hold public sittings to hear the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, before ruling on whether to grant the Application for permission to intervene. Following those sittings, the Court, on 23 October , delivered a Judgment by which it rejected the Application by the Philippines for permission to intervene.
After the holding of public sittings in June , the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits on 17 December In that Judgment, it began by recalling the complex historical background of the dispute between the Parties. It then examined the titles invoked by them. Indonesia asserted that its claim to sovereignty over the islands was based primarily on a conventional title, the Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands. After examining the Convention, the Court found that, when read in the context and in the light of its object and purpose, that instrument could not be interpreted as establishing an allocation line determining sovereignty over the islands out to sea, to the east of the island of Sebatik, and that as a result the Convention did not constitute a title on which Indonesia could found its claim to Ligitan and Sipadan.
The Court further held that the cartographic material submitted by the Parties in the case did not contradict that conclusion. Having rejected that argument by Indonesia, the Court turned to consideration of the other titles on which Indonesia and Malaysia claimed to found their sovereignty over the islands of Ligitan and Sipadan.
The Court sought to determine whether Indonesia or Malaysia obtained a title to the islands by succession. In that connection, Indonesia cited a continuous presence of the Dutch and Indonesian navies in the vicinity of Ligitan and Sipadan. It added that the waters around the islands had traditionally been used by Indonesian fishermen. As evidence of its effective administration of the islands, Malaysia cited inter alia the measures taken by the North Borneo authorities to regulate and control the collecting of turtle eggs on Ligitan and Sipadan, an activity of some economic significance in the area at the time.
It further invoked the fact that the authorities of the colony of North Borneo had constructed a lighthouse on Sipadan in and another on Ligitan in , that those lighthouses still existed and that they had been maintained by Malaysian authorities since its independence. The Court noted that. They cover[ed] a considerable period of time and show[ed] a pattern revealing an intention to exercise State functions in respect of the two islands in the context of the administration of a wider range of islands.
Statements by the President. Current Judges ad hoc. All Judges ad hoc. Contentious cases organized by State. Contentious cases organized by incidental proceedings. States entitled to appear before the Court. States not members of the United Nations parties to the Statute. States not parties to the Statute to which the Court may be open.
Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory. Organs and agencies authorized to request advisory opinions. Presentations on the work of the Court. Overview of the case On 2 November , the Republic of Indonesia and Malaysia jointly notified the Court of a Special Agreement between the two States, signed at Kuala Lumpur on 31 May and having entered into force on 14 May This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Memorial of Malaysia 2 November Available in: English. Reply of Malaysia 2 March Available in: English. Translation bilingual version Translation. Available in: English French.
Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan
Ligitan and Sipadan dispute
The dispute began in and was largely resolved by the International Court of Justice ICJ in , which opined that both of the islands belonged to Malaysia. Ligitan and Sipadan are two small islands located in the Celebes Sea off the southeastern coast of the Malaysian state of Sabah. Sovereignty over the islands has been disputed by Indonesia and Malaysia since and intensified in when Indonesia discovered that Malaysia had built some tourist facilities on Sipadan island. Malaysia however denied the allegation of an agreement between them, maintaining that the islands have always been part of the territory of its state of Sabah. The Philippines had applied during the proceedings to intervene over the case on the basis of their claim to northern Borneo. The court strongly rejected the Philippines' attempt of intervention and in doing so cited that the request made by the Philippines did not relate to the subject matter of the case. The Philippines query was totally dismissed in June when after oral hearings the court voted it down by a count of fourteen votes to one.