패드라 브랑카(싱가포르)/플라우 바투 푸티로(말레이시아) 도서 영유권 분쟁에 대한 국제법적 평석 (Territorial Title Disputes over Pedra Branca(Malysia)/ Pulau Batu Puteh(Singapore) & Its International Legal Comments)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 고려대학교 법학연구원
· 수록지 정보 : 고려법학 / 52호 / 363 ~ 390페이지
· 저자명 : 이장희

초록

This Article divided into six parts: Preamble, Facts Findings, Legal issues of two parties, Contents of judgements & its analysi, International Legal comments and its implications for Dokdo Issue.
The main subject matter of the disputes is a small island called Pedra Branca(Malysia)/Pulau Batu Puteh(Singapore) situated in the middle of the Straights of Singapore at entrance to the South China. Pedra Branca has been part of Singapore's territory since the 1840s. On 21 December 1979, Malaysia published a map entitled “Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia”.
By this map, Malaysia purported to include Pedra Branca within Malaysia's territorial waters. Singapore duly lodged a protest with Malaysia against this paper claim on 14 February 1980.
By a special Agreement dated 6 February 2003 and notified to the court on 24 July 2003, Malaysia and Singapore agreed to submitted the above dispute to the court.
By article 2 of the special Agreement, the court is requested to determine whether sovereignty over (1)Petra Branca/Pualu Batu Puteh, (2) Middle Rocks, (3) South Ledge, belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore. The Special Agreement does not request the court to enter into an exercise of delimitation or to make declarations concerning fishing or other economic rights.
Arguments of the parties as follows:
Malaysia has an original title to Petra Branca of long standing. Petra Branca is and has always been, part of the Malaysia State of Johor. Nothing has happened to displace Malaysia's sovereignty over it. Singapore's presence on the island for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a lighthouse there-with the permission of the territorial sovereign-is insufficient to vest sovereignty in it.

Singapore sums up its positions as follows :
1) The selection of Pedra Branca as the site for building of the lighthouse with the authorization of the British Crown constituted a classic taking of possession a tire de souverain.
2) Title was acquired by the British Crown in accordance with the legal principles governing acquisition of territory in 1847-1851.
3) The Title acquired in 1847-1851 has been maintained by the British Crown and Uts lawful successor, the Republic of Singapore.

At the stage of oral pleadings Singapore also referred to the legal status of Pedra Branca as terra nullius. In his statement, the Agent of Singapore as follows :
“Singapore's title to Pedra Branca is based upon the taking of lawful posessuion of the island by the British Authorities in Singapore during the period 1847 to 1851. Malay claims that, prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was under the sovereignty of Johor. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support Malaysia's claim. Mr. President, the truth is that, prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was terra nullius, and had never been the subject of a prior claim, or any manifestation of sovereignty entity”.

The Question to which the court must now respond is whether in the light of the principles and rules of international law it stated earlier and of the assessment it has undertaken of the relevant facts, particularly the conduct of the Parties sovereignty over Pedra Branca passed to the United kingdom or Singapore.

The conduct of the United Kingdom and Singapore was, in many respects, conduct as operator of Horsburgh lighthouse, but that was not the case in all respects. Without being exhaustive, the court recalls their investigation of marine accidents, their control over visits, Singapore's installation of naval communication equipment and its reclamation plans, all of which respond in any way to that conduct, or the other conduct that charcter identified earlier in this judgement, of all which it had notice.

Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more. It is the clearly stated position of Acting Secretary of the State of Johor in 1953 that Johor dis not claim ownership of Pedra Branca. That ststement has major significance.
The Court is of opinion that the relevant facts, including the conduct of the Parties, previously reviewed and summarized in two preceeding paragraps, reflect a convergent evolution of the positions of the Parties regarding title to Pedra Branca. The court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors a titre de souvran, taken toghther with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore.
For that above reasons, the court concludes that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore.
This PB judgement implies that the burden of proof in territorial disputes would be vital to decision of ICJ for the Dokdo territorial issue in the future.

영어초록

This Article divided into six parts: Preamble, Facts Findings, Legal issues of two parties, Contents of judgements & its analysi, International Legal comments and its implications for Dokdo Issue.
The main subject matter of the disputes is a small island called Pedra Branca(Malysia)/Pulau Batu Puteh(Singapore) situated in the middle of the Straights of Singapore at entrance to the South China. Pedra Branca has been part of Singapore's territory since the 1840s. On 21 December 1979, Malaysia published a map entitled “Territorial Waters and Continental Shelf Boundaries of Malaysia”.
By this map, Malaysia purported to include Pedra Branca within Malaysia's territorial waters. Singapore duly lodged a protest with Malaysia against this paper claim on 14 February 1980.
By a special Agreement dated 6 February 2003 and notified to the court on 24 July 2003, Malaysia and Singapore agreed to submitted the above dispute to the court.
By article 2 of the special Agreement, the court is requested to determine whether sovereignty over (1)Petra Branca/Pualu Batu Puteh, (2) Middle Rocks, (3) South Ledge, belongs to Malaysia or the Republic of Singapore. The Special Agreement does not request the court to enter into an exercise of delimitation or to make declarations concerning fishing or other economic rights.
Arguments of the parties as follows:
Malaysia has an original title to Petra Branca of long standing. Petra Branca is and has always been, part of the Malaysia State of Johor. Nothing has happened to displace Malaysia's sovereignty over it. Singapore's presence on the island for the sole purpose of constructing and maintaining a lighthouse there-with the permission of the territorial sovereign-is insufficient to vest sovereignty in it.

Singapore sums up its positions as follows :
1) The selection of Pedra Branca as the site for building of the lighthouse with the authorization of the British Crown constituted a classic taking of possession a tire de souverain.
2) Title was acquired by the British Crown in accordance with the legal principles governing acquisition of territory in 1847-1851.
3) The Title acquired in 1847-1851 has been maintained by the British Crown and Uts lawful successor, the Republic of Singapore.

At the stage of oral pleadings Singapore also referred to the legal status of Pedra Branca as terra nullius. In his statement, the Agent of Singapore as follows :
“Singapore's title to Pedra Branca is based upon the taking of lawful posessuion of the island by the British Authorities in Singapore during the period 1847 to 1851. Malay claims that, prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was under the sovereignty of Johor. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support Malaysia's claim. Mr. President, the truth is that, prior to 1847, Pedra Branca was terra nullius, and had never been the subject of a prior claim, or any manifestation of sovereignty entity”.

The Question to which the court must now respond is whether in the light of the principles and rules of international law it stated earlier and of the assessment it has undertaken of the relevant facts, particularly the conduct of the Parties sovereignty over Pedra Branca passed to the United kingdom or Singapore.

The conduct of the United Kingdom and Singapore was, in many respects, conduct as operator of Horsburgh lighthouse, but that was not the case in all respects. Without being exhaustive, the court recalls their investigation of marine accidents, their control over visits, Singapore's installation of naval communication equipment and its reclamation plans, all of which respond in any way to that conduct, or the other conduct that charcter identified earlier in this judgement, of all which it had notice.

Further, the Johor authorities and their successors took no action at all on Pedra Branca from June 1850 for the whole of the following century or more. It is the clearly stated position of Acting Secretary of the State of Johor in 1953 that Johor dis not claim ownership of Pedra Branca. That ststement has major significance.
The Court is of opinion that the relevant facts, including the conduct of the Parties, previously reviewed and summarized in two preceeding paragraps, reflect a convergent evolution of the positions of the Parties regarding title to Pedra Branca. The court concludes, especially by reference to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors a titre de souvran, taken toghther with the conduct of Malaysia and its predecessors including their failure to respond to the conduct of Singapore and its predecessors, that by 1980 sovereignty over Pedra Branca had passed to Singapore.
For that above reasons, the court concludes that sovereignty over Pedra Branca belongs to Singapore.
This PB judgement implies that the burden of proof in territorial disputes would be vital to decision of ICJ for the Dokdo territorial issue in the future.

참고자료

· 없음