There are a number of principles and lessons that we can draw from the Batu Putih episode.
One, it underscores the importance of resolving inter-state disputes in a peaceful manner. Territorial disputes between close neighbors that involve the question of ownership are often contentious — and intractable. It is to the credit of both the Malaysian and Singapore governments that right from the outset they were determined to settle this longstanding conflict through bilateral negotiations if possible, failing which, they agreed to accept independent adjudication.
Two, the willingness of both parties to submit to the International Court of Justice (the World Court) has in a sense strengthened the rule of law. Strengthening international law is the responsibility of all member states of the United Nations. Malaysia had turned to the ICJ on an earlier occasion in its dispute with Indonesia over the Ligitan and Sipadan islands. The ICJ’s decision made in December 2002 which, as in the case of Batu Putih, was also rationally argued favoured Malaysia.
Indeed, in a number of other cases too with greater implications for international law and politics, the ICJ has demonstrated its commitment to rationality, fairness and justice. One recalls its 1986 decision in favour of Nicaragua against the United States in which the ICJ found that the US had violated international law by mining Nicaragua’s harbours and by supporting Contra guerrillas in their illegitimate war against the Nicaraguan government. In July 1996, it handed down an advisory opinion that the threat, or use, of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. In July 2004, the ICJ condemned the separation wall — also known as the apartheid wall— that Israel was building on the West Bank of occupied Palestine.
It is because we can expect justice from the ICJ that we should promote it as the primary organ for the development of international law in an increasingly globalised world.
Three, the ICJ’s decision on Batu Putih also reveals that Malaysia had been somewhat lackadaisical in exercising its sovereign rights over the island. It is significant the ICJ acknowledged the Johor Sultanate’s sovereignty over Batu Putih since time immemorial but observed that after 1844 when the British Colonial Administration built a lighthouse on the island, the Sultanate through various acts of commission and omission did not appear to assert its ownership over Batu Putih. The culmination was the written reply from the Acting State Secretary of Johor in September 1953 to a query from the colonial authority in Singapore about the status of Batu Putih in which the former had stated
that “Johor has no claim of ownership over Batu Putih”.
What is perhaps even more telling is that after the separation of Singapore from Malaysia in 1965 for about 14 years at least, neither Johor nor Malaysia sought to raise any question about the status of Batu Putih with the leadership of the island republic. Given that separation itself had diminished the sovereign status of the Malaysian Federation, one would have thought that the Malaysian government would have kept a close eye on other related issues of territorial jurisdiction.
In the meantime, Singapore acted as if it was the legal owner of the little island, undertaking a variety of activities that went beyond mere management of the British built lighthouse, without any objections from Johor or Malaysia. To paraphrase the ICJ, Singapore’s actions showed that it possessed sovereign rights over Batu Putih.
There is no doubt at all that Malaysia should have been more alert and vigilant about Batu Putih. Eternal vigilance is the price of sovereignty.
Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,
President,
International Movement for a Just World (JUST)
Malaysia.
25 May 2008