UNIVERSITI UTARA UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIAMALAYSIA

COLLAGE OF LAW COLLAGE OF LAW GOVERNMENT AND GOVERNMENT AND

INTERNATIONAL STUDIESINTERNATIONAL STUDIES

GFPP 2223: FOREIGN GFPP 2223: FOREIGN POLICYPOLICY

MALAYSIA TERITORIAL DISPUTES:

SIPADAN – LIGITAN(INDONESIA)

Decision Rendered On Dec 17, 2002

PRIDHIVRAJ NAIDU (127445)

Territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession or control of land between two or more states or over the possession or control of land by one state after it has conquered it from a former state no longer currently recognized by the occupying power.

Pulau sipadan and ligitan is a very small islands in the Celebes Sea

of the northeast coast of the islands of borneo, which divided between Indonesia and Malaysia

BACKGROUND OF CASEBACKGROUND OF CASEThe dispute between Indonesia and

Malaysia, sticking out in 1967 Malaysia and Indonesia held several

meetings to delineate their CSB from September 9 to September 22, 1969 in Kuala Lumpur

The problem was discussed by the Malaysian Prime Minister Hussein Onn and Indonesian President Suharto in a meeting on March 26, 1980

In 1976, the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, or TAC (Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia) in the first ASEAN Summit in Bali Island

In October 1991, established the Joint Working Group (JWG)

The JWG met on July 6, 1992, January 26-27, 1994 and on September 8, 1994 respectively. All meetings broke down.

On September 14, 1994, following the failure of JWG, Tun Mahathir proposed to Indonesia to have the dispute referred to the ICJ.

Cont..Cont..During his visit to Kuala Lumpur on

October 7, 1996, President Soeharto finally approved the proposal of Prime Minister Mahathir to bring the case to ICJ.

On November 2, 1998, Indonesia and Malaysia submitted their intention to the ICJ by notifying its Registrar of the compromise signed by both countries on May 31, 1997 in Kuala Lumpur.

It entered into force on May 14, 1998.

EFFECTIVE OCCUPATIONEFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

SIPADAN DIVE RESORT(60% GOVT OWNED)

*On 17 December 2002 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its final and binding judgment on the case concerning,

*Sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan finding by 16 votes to one that Malaysia has sovereignty over the islands.

PERSPECTIVE OF PERSPECTIVE OF ANALYSISANALYSIS

RATIONAL ACTOR MODAL

The model adopts the state as the primary unit of analysis, and inter-state relation as the context for analysis.

The state is seen as a monolithic unitary actor, capable of making rational decisions based on preference ranking and value maximization.

According to the rational actor model, a rational decision making process is used by a state.

BASIC UNIT OF ANALYSISBASIC UNIT OF ANALYSIS

TERITORIAL INTERGRITY

ECONOMIC IMMPORTANCE

ORGANISING CONCEPTSORGANISING CONCEPTS

NATIONAL ACTOR - Malaysia (Tun Mahathir) - Indonesia (President Soeharto)

THE PROBLEM - Territorial dispute

STATIC SELECTION - Dialogues - Compromise by both states (1997) - ICJ

ACTION AS RATIONAL ACTION AS RATIONAL CHOICECHOICE

(INSTRUMENTS OF FP)(INSTRUMENTS OF FP)

GOALS & OBJECTIVES

TERRITORY: SOVEREIGNITY IS TERRITORIAL IN NATURE

BOTH COUNTRIES ARE SAFEGOURDING THEIR TERRITORIAL INTERGRITY

ACTION AS RATIONAL ACTION AS RATIONAL CHOICECHOICE

OPTIONSMILITARY (EFFECTIVE

OCCUPATION)ECONOMIC DIPLOMATIC (BILATERAL)PROPAGANDAINTELLIGENCE (REGARDING

ACTIVITIES OF THE PLAINTIF)

ACTIONS AS RATIONAL ACTIONS AS RATIONAL CHOICECHOICE

CONSEQUENCESEACH DECISIONS MADE BRINGS

EFFECT, CONCERNS OF THE OTHER PARTY

LARGELY DIPLOMATICLIMITED MILITARY INVOLVEMENTTHIS CASE TOOK IN TO ACCOUNT

THE OTHER PARTIES MIGHT & CAPABILITY TO RETALIATE IN ALL ASPECTS

ACTIONS AS RATIONAL ACTIONS AS RATIONAL CHOICECHOICECHOICE

RATIONAL CHOICE IS MADE IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE VALUE/OUTCOME

CONSIDERDIPLOMATIC MEANS & ICJ

DOMINANT INFERENCE DOMINANT INFERENCE PATTERNPATTERN

An action took by a state is presumed to have assurance over the result at its favor. This assures the action is value maximizing means.

Action taken by Malaysia in this case, it is assured by the legal means it pursued in the international court of justice (ICJ)

CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONThrough this paradigm of foreign

policy we could see the systematic and rational decisions made by the states as the primary actor of analysis.

Also gives a clear picture on how decisions are made in a complete and professional manner at national levels.

THANK THANK YOUYOU