Sovereignty Case Study: Indonesia versus Malaysia Case Study by mmm
Sovereignty Case Study: Indonesia versus Malaysia
Looks at the way the International Court of Justice (ICJ) settled a case in which Indonesia challenged Malaysia over the sovereignty of Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan.
# 147586
| 3,605 words
| 3 sources
| MLA
| 2011
| 
Published
on May 15, 2011
in
Law
(International)
, Political Science
(Non-U.S.)
, Asian Studies
(General)
, Public Administration
(General)
$19.95
Buy and instantly download this paper now
Description:
This paper relates that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Ligitan-Sipadan case of 1998, which is a classic maritime dispute where Indonesia and Malaysia had overlapping claims, was complicated by the colonial history of Netherlands and Great Britain, who were predecessors of the parties. Next, the author relates three key issues: the 1981 Treaty, succession by title and effectivites. From this case, the paper surmises that the ICJ is more than a judge because it can be an arbitrator that facilitates good relations between two parties resulting in more effective and friendlier pre-negotiations, which enable smoother, more peaceful settlements. The paper includes quotations and illustrations. The footnotes contain MLA-style references.
Table of Contents:
Facts
Backgrounder
Role of World Court
Parties to the Dispute
Object of the Dispute
Special Agreement
Case Specifics
Philippine Intervention
Historical Conflict
Issues
1981 Treaty
Succession by Title
Effectivite
Holdings
Thoughts
Table of Contents:
Facts
Backgrounder
Role of World Court
Parties to the Dispute
Object of the Dispute
Special Agreement
Case Specifics
Philippine Intervention
Historical Conflict
Issues
1981 Treaty
Succession by Title
Effectivite
Holdings
Thoughts
From the Paper:
"Indonesia had named three things: (1) patrols in the area by vessels of the Dutch Royal Navy in the area, (2) activities of Indonesian navy, and (3) Indonesian fishermen activities - all of which were denied by the Court. ICJ had cited that it failed in that none of them relied on legislative charter. In fact, a regulatory law in 1960, which drew the baseline for Indonesia, contradicted Indonesia's claim as it disregarded Ligitan or Sipadan as base points in its maps. As for the naval activities, it was deemed irrelevant since much evidence show that naval authorities did not consider islands and surrounding waters to be under their sovereignty."Sample of Sources Used:
- IS THERE A NEW WORLD COURT? Douglass Cassel 2004 http//:www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/JIHR/v1/1.
- MARITIME DISPUTES AND CYBER WARFARE: ISSUES AND OPTIONS FOR MALAYSIA by Mokhzani Zubir
- P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 53, pp. 45-46.
Cite this Case Study:
APA Format
Sovereignty Case Study: Indonesia versus Malaysia (2011, May 15)
Retrieved June 07, 2023, from https://www.academon.com/case-study/sovereignty-case-study-indonesia-versus-malaysia-147586/
MLA Format
"Sovereignty Case Study: Indonesia versus Malaysia" 15 May 2011.
Web. 07 June. 2023. <https://www.academon.com/case-study/sovereignty-case-study-indonesia-versus-malaysia-147586/>