22 - 11 - 2019 | 20:27
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size
Home Conferences & Seminars Fourth International Workshop, November 2012 Deciding Sovereignty Disputes: Ownership Claims Over “Land Features” in South China Sea, by Capt Azhari Abdul Aziz RMN

Deciding Sovereignty Disputes: Ownership Claims Over “Land Features” in South China Sea, by Capt Azhari Abdul Aziz RMN

E-mail Print PDF

Ownership of territory is significant because sovereignty over land defines what constitutes a state.[1] Additionally, as Machiavelli suggested, territorial acquisition is one of the goals of most states.[2] The territorial disputes in South China Sea have long plagued the relationship of nations in a semi enclosed sea and the disputes in ownership over some 240 islands, atolls, low tide elevations and the waters surrounding them have long been seen as a national and regional security problem. By themselves, they are not serious enough reasons for states to go to war with each other. They are, nonetheless, a source of insecurity in the region, more so for the smaller claimant countries. In a legal dispute concerning the status of an island or sub-aerial features the question first to be determined is who owns or held sovereign over the island. Secondly, do the island be entitled to generate continental shelves and economic exclusive zone and finally, what effect should they have on maritime boundaries delimitations between adjacent and opposite states. This paper attempts to discuss the jurisprudence developed over eight decades as the guiding principles on sovereignty over “land features” focusing on Malaysia’s experiences and contribution to this jurisprudence by way of the two cases to the International Court of Justice namely the Sipadan-Ligitan case (2002) and Pedra Branca (2008).

Deciding Ownership

alt

Countries claiming sovereignty over the land features assert legal and historical arguments in support of their claims and some have taken various steps to occupy the land features[3]. While the two assertions seem to be in the forefront in maintaining their claims, it is by no means that countries are estopped in resorting to other assertions or basis to advance further and legitimizing their claims[4]. Meanwhile, despite the claimant countries' expressed commitment to cooperation, diplomacy, and the employment of peaceful means to settle the dispute[5], tensions remain high and the potential for armed conflict exists.

Effectivites

Sovereignty over territory was aptly summarized in the Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the proceedings between Eritrea and Yemen (1998)[6] by an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, and by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis and was fondly endorsed by Judge Dugard, in his dissenting opinion in the Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh case, stated:

“This formulation requires serious attention for two reasons. First, because it gives effect to the jurisprudence of contemporary international law from the time of Max Huber’s seminal decision in the  Island of Palmas Case (Netherlands/United States of America) (Award of 4 April 1928, RIAA, Vol. II (1949), pp. 839, 868). Secondly, because it was expounded by a Tribunal omprising two former Presidents of the International Court of Justice (Professor Sir Robert Y. Jennings and Judge Stephen M. Schwebel), the President of the Court (Judge Rosalyn Higgins) and two highly experienced and well regarded international law practitioners (Dr. Ahmed Sadek El-Kosheri and Mr. Keith Highet). In my view, this is a formulation of the law on the acquisition of territory that is to govern all acquisitions of territorial title based on the effective control of territory over a long period of time, including prescription, estoppel, abandonment of title by the previous sovereign, acquiescence and tacit agreement evidenced by conduct”[7]

(countinuing)

 

Read full text of this paper here 



[1] See PAUL GILBERT, THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATIONALISM 91 (1998) (“To claim a right to statehood is to claim a right to some territory over which the state can exercise political control.”)

[2] See NICOLÒ MACHIAVELLI, THE PRINCE 25 (W.K. Marriott ed., J.M. Dent & Sons 1938) (1513) (“The wish to acquire is in truth very natural and common . . . .”). This principle is the state-level extension of human territoriality, or the “spatial strategy to affect, influence, or control resources and people, by controlling area.” ROBERT DAVID SACK, HUMAN TERRITORIALITY: ITS THEORY AND HISTORY 1 (1986)

[3] See generally MARK J. VALENCIA ET AL., SHARING THE RESOURCES OF THE SOUTH CHINA SEA 20-30 (1997) (describing the basis of each country's claim).

[4] See BRIAN TAYLOR SUMNER, TERRITORIAL DISPUTES AT THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (2004) (Such claims can be generally divided into nine categories: treaties, geography, economy, culture, effective control, history, uti possidetis, elitism, and ideology. States have relied on all nine categories to justify legal claims to territory before the International Court of Justice (ICJ)). See also the ICJ decision in Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh (Malaysia/Singapore) ICJ case (decided 2008) where the tribunal found that it is impossible that the island could have remained unknown or undiscovered by the local community. Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh evidently was not terra incognita. It is thus reasonable to infer that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh was viewed as one of the islands lying within the general geographical scope of the Sultanate of Johor.  Judgment, p. 35.

[5] See P. Paramaswaran, Concerns over Spratlys, Malacca Straits Dog Asian Naval Show, AGENCE FR.-PRESSE, May 6, 1997, available in 1997 WL 2104886(stating that analysts perceive the Spratly Islands dispute as one of the

most probable sites of armed conflict, other than the Korean Peninsula); Australia Sees Spratlys as Major Security Threat, REUTERS N. AM. WIRE, Nov. 22, 1995, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (expressing Australian Defence Minister Robert Ray's belief that other than the Korean peninsula, the Spratly Island dispute represents the most threatening security risk in the region); Richard Lloyd Parry, No Plain Sailing in Desert Island Dispute, INDEP. (LONDON), May 20, 1997, available in 1997 WL 10468034 (expressing the Philippines' military chief General Arnulfo Acedera's acknowledgment of the possibility of armed conflict over the Spratly Islands). But see, e.g., China Said Unlikely to go to War over Spratlys, REUTERS N. AM. WIRE, Nov. 14, 1995, available in LEXIS, News Library, Curnws File (stating that engaging in armed conflict would be economically disastrous for China).

[6] Award of the Arbitral Tribunal in the first stage of the proceedings between Eritrea and Yemen (Territorial

Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute, (1998) 22 RIAA. p. 268, para. 239).

“The modern international  law of the acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis. The       latter two criteria            are tempered to suit the nature of the territory and size of its population, if any   “.

[7] (Pages 150-151, para. 42).


Newer news items:
Older news items:

Cooperation in the South China Sea: from Dispute Management to Ocean Governance, by Nguyen Dang Thang

Cooperation in the South China Sea: from Dispute Management to Ocean Governance, by Nguyen Dang Thang

The South China Sea (SCS) has long been of interest to scholars of international law and international relations.[1] But attention has been paid almost exclusively to the simmering territorial disputes in the SCS. While this is justified by the concern that such disputes pose a threat to regional peace and stability, that the management of the territorial disputes in the SCS dominates existing literature may belie the fact that problems associated with the use and management of oceans in general and the South China Sea in particular are interrelated and should be addressed in a holistic way. This paper canvasses for a more comprehensive approach to cooperation in the SCS through the prism of ocean governance.

Read more...

The South China Sea: Ten myths and ten realities, by Rodolfo C Severino

The South China Sea: Ten myths and ten realities, by Rodolfo C Severino

All too often, the public discourse on the conflicting claims to territorial sovereignty and maritime jurisdiction in the South China Sea renders an already complex subject even more complicated. The mass media and some academic commentators, who should know better, help this trend along by perpetuating, in the face of the facts and realities, certain myths related to the disputes. Some of these myths reflect nationalist sentiments in their purveyors’ respective countries,expressed in public demonstrations and in traditional and non-traditional channels of communication. Indeed, some of them may have their roots in nationalist motivations.

Read more...

The South China Sea in legal perspective, by Hasjim Djalal

The South China Sea in legal perspective, by Hasjim Djalal

A.   Legal Perspective

1.    Customary International Law:

a.    What are these:

·         Freedoms of the sea.

·         Cooperation between states.

·         Peaceful settlement of disputes.

Read more...

Deciding Sovereignty Disputes: Ownership Claims Over “Land Features” in South China Sea, by Capt Azhari Abdul Aziz RMN

Deciding Sovereignty Disputes: Ownership Claims Over “Land Features” in South China Sea, by Capt Azhari Abdul Aziz RMN

Ownership of territory is significant because sovereignty over land defines what constitutes a state.[1] Additionally, as Machiavelli suggested, territorial acquisition is one of the goals of most states.[2] The territorial disputes in South China Sea have long plagued the relationship of nations in a semi enclosed sea and the disputes in ownership over some 240 islands, atolls, low tide elevations and the waters surrounding them have long been seen as a national and regional security problem. By themselves, they are not serious enough reasons for states to go to war with each other. They are, nonetheless, a source of insecurity in the region, more so for the smaller claimant countries. In a legal dispute concerning the status of an island or sub-aerial features the question first to be determined is who owns or held sovereign over the island. Secondly, do the island be entitled to generate continental shelves and economic exclusive zone and finally, what effect should they have on maritime boundaries delimitations between adjacent and opposite states. This paper attempts to discuss the jurisprudence developed over eight decades as the guiding principles on sovereignty over “land features” focusing on Malaysia’s experiences and contribution to this jurisprudence by way of the two cases to the International Court of Justice namely the Sipadan-Ligitan case (2002) and Pedra Branca (2008).

Read more...

Understanding Recent Developments in US-China-ASEAN Relations: A US Perspective, by Bonnie S. Glaser

Understanding Recent Developments in US-China-ASEAN Relations: A US Perspective, by Bonnie S. Glaser

Relations among the United States, ASEAN and China have undergone significant changes in the past decade.  Some of the salient factors behind these changes are: 1) increasing assertiveness by China in pressing its claims in the South China Sea; 2) resurgence of ASEAN’s concerns about Chinese intentions and ambitions that has prompted support for increased US involvement and presence in the region; and 3) announcement by the United States of a strategic rebalance to Asia that includes economic, diplomatic, and military components.  The South China Sea is at the center of the rebalancing of US-China-ASEAN relations. The territorial and maritime disputes have become a crucible of how China will treat its neighbors as it amasses greater comprehensive national power.  The disputes have also posed a major challenge to ASEAN unity.  In addition, they have presented a test of US policy, which has attempted to remain neutral on sovereignty matters, while pursuing a consistent set of principles in handling the South China Sea.

Read more...

Flashpoint South China Seas: Policy options and Implications for India, by Probal Ghosh

Flashpoint South China Seas:	Policy options	and Implications for India, by Probal Ghosh

The South China sea region has emerged as one of the areas of intense global focus with claims and counter claims of contending countries flooding the region in an atmosphere of mistrust and animosity. The debate and  actions by maritime para military forces, fishing fleets , agencies behaving like maritime militia  have underscored the shrill  cry for establishing/ reasserting sovereignty over disparate islands and “rocks” raising it to a crescendo. The entire atmosphere in the area seems laden with a growing disenchantment with the efficacy of the multilateral forums like ASEAN due to  the growing divisions evidenced by the recent failure to issue a joint communiqué at the Pnom Penh meeting recently.[1] Depending on the perception and loyalties of the viewer, but a majority of the contending littorals would like to place the blame of the imbroglio at the Chinese doorstep – much to the chagrin of the latter.

Read more...

The Growth of Chinese Military power and its implications for military modernization in Southeast Asia, by Richard A. Bitzinger

The Growth of Chinese Military power and its implications for military modernization in Southeast Asia, by Richard A. Bitzinger

As China emerges as a leading, modern military power in the Asia-Pacific region, the countries of Southeast Asia are increasingly hedging against possible Chinese military adventurism by rearming themselves. At the same time, China is hardly the only reason for the ASEAN states’ current military modernization efforts. Other external and internal factors – such as new regional security requirements, changing military doctrines, lingering regional suspicions, domestic politics, and supply-side economics in the international arms trade – have also played important roles as drivers of this process.[1] Nevertheless, as China’s military presence in the South China Sea increases – coupled with a growing assertiveness on the part of Beijing to press its claims in the region – any actual or potential “China threat” to Southeast Asia will only grow as the principle driver behind regional military in Southeast Asia.

Read more...

China Debates South China Sea Policy: Implications for Future Developments of the Dispute, by Li Mingjiang

China Debates South China Sea Policy: Implications for Future Developments of the Dispute, by Li Mingjiang

The past few years have been an eventful period for the South China Sea dispute, which has always been a crucial issue for peace and stability in East Asia. In 2009, the submissions of extended continental shelf claims to the United Nations Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf by various parties in the dispute created the first round of diplomatic tussles. China’s action of submitting its nine-dotted line map in the South China Sea to the UN,  in particular, sparked strong opposition from other claimant states. The diplomatic contentions at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) in 2010 in Hanoi, particularly between the American and Chinese officials, marked the unprecedented rise of tensions over the South China Sea issue for over a decade. In the first half of 2011, a series of incidents, including Beijing’s heavy-handed actions against the Filipino and Vietnamese fishery and energy exploration activities in the South China Sea, further exacerbated the relations among relevant parties  in the regional dispute.  As a result of all the happenings, the relations between China and some ASEAN claimant countries have worsened and external major powers are getting increasingly involved in the South China Sea issue.

Read more...

The Choice of Fundamental National Interests and the Position of South China Sea Issues, by Su Hao and Ruan Yuan-zhe

The Choice of Fundamental National Interests and the Position of South China Sea Issues, by Su Hao and Ruan Yuan-zhe

The foundation of national strategy is the national interest, that could be the strategic starting point and its ultimate end. The judgment of national interest is the basis of national strategic decision-making, which determines national strategic orientation and direction of strategic actions.[1]

Read more...

Charm and Harm Offensives: Impacts of Geopolitical Considerations by China and the United States on the South China Sea Region, by Ngo Vinh Long

Charm and Harm Offensives: Impacts of Geopolitical Considerations by China and the United States on the South China Sea Region, by Ngo Vinh Long

The South China Sea connects the western Pacific with the Indian Ocean and hence with the rest of the world. Historically its sea lanes have perhaps been most vital to global sea-borne commercial activities. And partly because of its position straddling the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean, most of Southeast Asia was embroiled in the  commercial  streams  that  swept  through  the  region  during  the  first  period  of globalization which precipitated the colonization of most of the area. The process of decolonization also brought much turmoil to the region.

Read more...

Booklet of 4th International Workshop on South China Sea

Booklet of 4th International Workshop on South China Sea

Booklet 4th Workshop on South China Sea at 19-21 November, 2012 in Ho Chi Minh city, Viet Nam, including Background, Programme, CV of Speakers, Abstracts of Papers, List of Participants,..

Read more...

Opening remarks of 4th International Workshop on the South China Sea

Opening remarks of 4th International Workshop on the South China Sea

OPENING REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR DANG DINH QUY, PRESIDENT OF DIPLOMATIC ACADEMY OF VIETNAM

(Ho Chi Minh City, 19-21 November 2012)

Read more...

Language

South China Sea Studies

Joomla Slide Menu by DART Creations

Special Publication

 

Search

Login Form

Subscribe form

Top Photo Galleries

Web Links

VIETNAM MOFA SPOKESPERSON

 

NATIONAL BOUNDARIES