Mô tả
Ownership of territory is significant because sovereignty over land defines what constitutes a state.Additionally, as Machiavelli suggested, territorial acquisition is one of the goals of most states. 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).
