In the Malaysia/Singapore case the Court "does not draw any conclusions
about sovereignty based on the construction and commissioning of the
lighthouse. Rather it sees those events as bearing on the issue of the
evolving views of the authorities in Johor and in Singapore about
sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh." (Judgment, para. 162).
However, in two other recent cases (Indonesia/Malaysia and Qatar v.
Bahrain) the construction of lighthouses on small islands was considered
legally significant in terms of determining sovereignty, as the
following extract from the ICJ's Judgment in the Sovereignty over Pulau
Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia) case demonstrates:
"147. The Court observes that the construction and operation of
lighthouses and navigational aids are not normally considered
manifestations of State authority (Minquiers and Ecrehos, Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 71). The Court, however, recalls that in its
Judgment in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial
Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) it stated as
follows: "Certain types of activities invoked by Bahrain such as the
drilling of artesian wells would, taken by themselves, be considered
controversial as acts performed a titre de souverain. The construction
of
navigational aids, on the other hand, can be legally relevant in the
case of very small islands. In the present case, taking into account the
size of Qit'at Jaradah, the activities carried out by Bahrain on that
island must be considered sufficient to support Bahrain's claim that it
has sovereignty over it." (Judgment, Merits, I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp.
99-100, para. 197.) The Court is of the view that the same
considerations apply in the present case."
It should be noted, however, that in both cases the construction of a
lighthouse was only significant because there were very few other
sovereign acts in relation to the islands in question by either of the
parties. In general, building and maintaining a lighthouse is still
unlikely to be a key determinant of sovereignty - and building a
lighthouse on an already disputed island would clearly not strengthen a
sovereignty claim.
As far as EEZ and continental shelf claims are concerned, I don't see
any reason why building a lighthouse would magically transform a "rock"
into a full-fledged island from which EEZ and continental shelf claims
can be made, although if the light was staffed I imagine that the
government in question would argue that the island was capable of
sustaining human habitation....
Regards,
m a r t i n
==============================
Martin Pratt
Director of Research
International Boundaries Research Unit
Department of Geography
Durham University
Durham DH1 3LE
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)191 334 1964
Fax: +44 (0)191 334 1962
[log in to unmask]
www.dur.ac.uk/ibru
==============================
> -----Original Message-----
> From: International boundaries discussion list [mailto:INT-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Milefsky, Ray J
> Sent: 27 May 2008 15:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Distances to Kerang Selatin
>
> Aletheia,
>
> France, the Netherlands, and the U.S. recognized Venezuela's Aves
Island
> worthy of an EEZ in establishing of maritime boundaries with
Venezuela.
> The independent littoral states in the region, however, reject the
> glorified sandbar with its U.S.-built "research station" warranting an
> EEZ. The U.K. does not take a position with its adjacent territory of
> Montserrat.
>
> China has recently been challenging Japan's assertion of an EEZ around
> Okinotori-shima (Parece Vele), on which Japan built a "research
station"
> and concrete protective structures.
>
> Indonesia has built a beacon light on Unarang Rock several years ago
in
> the Celebes Sea to assert its claim to this feature it disputes with
> Malaysia and which complicates delimitation of a maritime boundary.
>
> Then there is the British-built lighthouse and Canadian administration
> of the U.S.-claimed Machias Seal island...
>
> So, yes, the evidence of structures and effective control in the
> Horsburg Light case might be looked upon as precedent-setting.
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: International boundaries discussion list
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of aletheia kallos
> Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2008 8:51 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Distances to Kerang Selatin
>
> kerang selatin
> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/imagegallery/store/phpbULgrK.jpg
>
> but it seems i may not be so wet here after all
> according to the following comment from
>
http://forumforforeignaffairs.blogspot.com/2008/02/icj-case-malaysia-sin
> gapore-dispute.html
>
> > a more profound factor that transcends the
> Malaysia-Singapore dispute that the ICJ should
> consider with utmost sincerity in its ruling: the
> potential precedents involving maritime delimitation
> and island sovereignty. After all the debate and the
> deliberations in the ICJ, in the final vote Singapore
> may very well emerge victorious. Ruling in favor of
> Singapore, though, particularly on the basis of its
> maintenance of the lighthouse, could set a
> groundbreaking precedent. To do so would in effect
> reward Singapore for building a structure on a
> neglected, yet legitimately disputed island. Pedra
> Branca is by no means the only neglected island that
> is the territory of a nation; many such islands dot
> the Pacific, Atlantic, and, for that matter, the
> entire globe. Other nations may be emboldened by this
> ruling to start building and maintaining structures on
> sparsely maintained islands around the world,
> heightening tensions between the various nations that
> have claimed islands and potentially wreaking havoc on
> the existing maritime boundaries and exclusive
> economic zones. Such aggressive action would not be a
> good thing for the ICJ - and by extension the UN - to
> support, given that the very nature of the UN is to
> try to facilitate peace and international cooperation.
> A precedent such as this would likely further
> discredit the UN and international law itself and
> might call into question other UN statutes. The ICJ
> has a chance to make a very big impact indeed with
> this case for better or, more likely, for worse, if it
> rules in favor of Singapore.
>
> so
> a guru i am not in any case
> but rather i am sitting at your feet for this one
> victor martin barbara david et al
>
> --- Professor Victor Prescott <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > Apparently sovereignty over Kerang Selatin (South
> > Ledge) was not
> > decided by the Court.
> >
> > The following description of the feature comes from
> > 'Malacca Strait
> > and West Coast of Sumatra Pilot' (1971),
> > Hydrographer of the
> > [British] Navy. p.204
> >
> > 'South Ledge consists of three rocks, the northern
> > of which dries 8
> > feet (2m4), and lies about 2 miles
> > south-south-westward of Horsburgh
> > Lighthouse: the others do not dry. They are steep-to
> > and are nearly
> > always marked by heavy tide-rips or by breakers.'
> >
> > Measurements from Kerang Selatin to the nearest
> > points on the
> > territory of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore on
> > the British
> > Admiralty chart 2403 (2004) produce the following
> > results.
> >
> > Indonesia. Tanjong[Point] Sading on the north coast
> > of Pulau Bintan.
> > 5.7 nautical miles
> >
> > Malaysia. Middle Rocks. 1.7 nautical miles.
> >
> > Singapore. Pedra Branca. 2.1 nautical miles.
> >
> > Article 13 of UNCLOS states:
> >
> > 1. A low-tide elevation is a naturally formed area
> > of land which is
> > surrounded by and above water at low-tide but
> > submerged at high-tide.
> > Where a low-tide elevation is situated wholly or
> > partly at a distance
> > not exceeding the breadth of the territorial sea
> > from the mainland or
> > an island, the low-water line on that elevation may
> > be used as the
> > baseline for measuring the breadth of the
> > territorial sea,
> >
> > 2. Where a low-tide elevation is situated at a
> > distance exceeding the
> > breadth of the territorial sea from the mainland or
> > an island it has
> > no territorial sea of its own.
> >
> > It appears that Malaysia has the best claim to
> > Kerang Selatin. That
> > is the Malaysian name on the British Chart.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Victor
> >
>
>
>
>
|
