The International Court of Justice and the Territorial Dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia in the Sulawesi Sea

Abstract

In the early 1990s Indonesia and Malaysia were locked in a longrunning and bitter dispute over the ownership of two tiny islands in the Sulawesi Sea and the associated question of maritime boundaries in this area rich in oil and gas deposits. Neither government had ever referred a dispute with another state to the International Court of Justice but in 1996 President Soeharto agreed to Malaysia's proposal to ask the ICJ to issue a ruling on the dispute between the two countries. In 1998 Indonesia and Malaysia asked the ICJ to rule on the ownership of the islands. They did not, however, ask it to rule on the far more important question of their maritime boundaries in the Sulawesi Sea. The ICJ's judgement in 2002 that the islands belonged to Malaysia therefore left that question unresolved. The article argues that because of Indonesia's experience with the ICJ and the high stakes involved for both countries any resolution of the boundary dispute -which came close to open confiict in 2005 -will almost certainly be the result of state-to-state negotiations rather than a ruling by the ICJ or any outside body.

Indonesia’s Foreign Policy Towards Malaysia in the Post Soeharto Era: A Case Study of Ambalat Dispute

“…The 1979 map issued by the Malaysian government did not only received protests from Indonesia but also from Philippine, Singapore, Thailand, China, and Vietnam, since it is considered as an attempt to seize the territory of another country. 8 Philippine and China, as an example, protested against Spratly Island. In April 1980, Singapore sent its protest related to Pedra Branca (Batu Puteh Island).…”

Indonesia - Malaysia Dispute Over Maritime Boundaries in the Northern Region of the Malacca Straits: Implication to Fisheries Management Regime

“…On the other hand, Malaysia claims that the EEZ boundary limits for both countries are based on the outer boundary lines of continental shelf stipulated in the 1969 Agreement. The Malaysia's position of adopting this single maritime boundary is reflected in the New Map of Malaysia,the Peta Baru published in 1979 (Director of National Mapping, Rampaian, 1979) (Butcher, 2013). See Map 1(a) below on Indonesia-Malaysia overlapping EEZ claims in the Malacca Straits.…”

Ghana and Cote D’Ivoire Boundary Dispute: The Customary Agreements that Dispel a Looming Interstate War

“…By the provision of Article 56 of the UN convention however, Ghana was granted the exclusive right to exploit and manage natural resources such as crude oil and energy within that periphery. According to article 59 of the UN convention, in case the convention does not make adequate provision in some aspects of the exclusive economic zone, coastal states may resolve disputes by taking the interest of all disputant parties into account (Butcher 2013;Okafor-Yarwood, 2015). Consequently, Article 87 of the UN convention states that all states have the freedom to use the high sea for navigation, overflight, laying marine cables, and the freedom to establish artificial islands according to international law (Korger 2017;UNCLOS, 2013).…”