Maritime Boundary Disputes Between Indonesia and Malaysia in the Area of Ambalat Block: Some Optional Scenarios for Peaceful Settlement

Supancana, Ida B. R.

doi:10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_16

Ida B. R. Supancana ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9810-4865²

640 Accesses

Abstract

Maritime boundary issues have become a constraint in the relations between Indonesia and its neighboring countries, including Malaysia. One of the pending issues regarding the overlapping maritime boundary which is not yet to be resolved is the Ambalat area. The primary purpose of this research is to suggest possible senarios to resolve the maritime delimitation dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia around Ambalt peacefully under international law. This article is prepared to explore all available ways for the peaceful settlement on Ambalat issue. The author will examine the diplomatic channel, ASEAN Way dispute settlement mechanism, adjudication process (litigation and arbitration), and dispute settlement under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. He will also epropose other innovative approach, such like Joint Development Zone. The result of such examination can be used as considerations for the way forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 169.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 219.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
For details, see G. Triggs, Maritime Boundary Disputes in South China Sea: International Legal Issues, at 3, Legal Studies Research Paper no 09/37, Sydney Law School (May 2009). See also, ENI finds oil in area claimed by Indonesia, Malaysia, JAKARTA POST, Mar. 18, 2005.
2.
For details on the background of Ambalat Case, see I. Supancana, Prospects for Settlement of Disputes of Ambalat Case from the Perspective of International Law [Prospek Penyelesaian Sengketa Ambalat dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional], Paper presented at Seminar on Ambalat at Ngurah Rai University, Denpasar-Bali, April 30, 2005.
3.
Id.
4.
For further information see I Made Andi Arsana, Ambalat, What’s Up?, available athttps://geoboundaries.wordpress.com/2005/03/08/Ambalat-whats-up (last visited on Feb. 2, 2015).
5.
Makmur Keliat, Shelving the Issue of Sovereignty in the Ambalat Dispute, JAKARTA POST, (Mar. 15, 2005).
6.
Djoko Harmantyo, Ambalat Issues: a Preliminary Study on the Problem of Indonesian Territorial Boundaries, 38 INDONESIAN J. GEO (2006).
7.
Bakosurtanal (Indonesian Coordinating Agency for National Survey and Mapping) 2004.
8.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed on Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S 3 [1994] I.L.M. 1261 (1982) [hereinafter UNCLOS]. For details on the content of UNCLOS III, see R. CHURCHILL & A. LOWE, THE LAW OF THE SEA. See also, YOSHIFUMI TANAKA, THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE SEA (2012).
9.
UNCLOS art. 7 (1).
10.
Id.
11.
Id. art. 7 (2).
12.
Id. art. 7 (3).
13.
Bantarto Bandoro, Ambalat, Where the Game Natios Play, JAKARTA POST, Mar. 16, 2005.
14.
See Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indon. v. Malay.), Judgement, 2002, I.C.J. (Dec. 17) [hereinafter Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan], available athttp://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=inma&case=102&k=dfSee also S. BREAU, QUESTION AND ANSWERS: INTERNATIONAL LAW); Hasjim Djalal, Dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia on the Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands, 12 OPINIO JURIS (2013).
15.
Id. See Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, 135.
16.
This assessment was made by Clive Schofield, a former director of the International Boundary Research Unit (“IBRU”) as quoted by Arsana, supra note 4.
17.
UNCLOS art. 47 1. “An archipelagic State may draw straight archipelagic baselines joining the outer-most points of the outermost islands and drying reefs of the archipelago …etc.” For details on Archipelagic principles, see CHURCHILL & LOWE, supra note 8, at 90–100.
18.
Supra note 4.
19.
Supra note 13.
20.
Arif Havas Oegroseno, Determination of Maritime Boundary at Sulawesi Sea [Penetapan Batas Maritim Laut Sulawesi], in SUTISNA SABAR (ED), THE PERSPECTIVE OF TERRITORIAL BOUNDARY: THE PROBLEMS OF INDONESIAN MARITIME BOUNDARY [PANDANG WILAYAH PERBATASAN; ASPEK PERMASALAHAN BATAS MARITIM INDONESIA] (2006).
21.
Id. See also C. Schofield & IMA Arsana, Ambalat Revised: The Way Forward, JAKARTA POST, June 5, 2005, available athttps://geoboundaries.wordpress.com/2005/06/10/the-jakarta-posts-ambalat-revised-the-way-forward (last visited on May 7, 2015).
22.
For details, see I. Supancana, The Roadmap toward the Creation of ASEAN Security in 2015: Legal Perspectives, 1 J. EAST ASIA & INT’L L 333 (2008).
23.
Breau, supra note 14, at 172–201.
24.
U.N. Charter arts. 2(3) & 33. For details, see J. MERRILS, INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT 2 (2012).
25.
Merrils, id.
26.
Id.
27.
Report of the Indonesian Delegates on the Negotiation between Indonesia and Malaysia concerning Ambalat (The Report is not open to the public because it is a secret government document from the Indoensian Ministry of Foreign Affairs).
28.
D. WEATHERBEE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTONOMY 142 (2009).
29.
D. Loh, Malaysia and Indonesia on Common Ground, NEW STRAITS TIMES Mar. 9, 2008, as quoted at D. WEATHERBEE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA: THE STRUGGLE FOR AUTONOMY 142 (2009).
30.
Id. at 2–3.
31.
Id. at 3.
32.
M. MOSES, PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION 13-4 (2008).
33.
Id. at 14.
34.
Merrils, supra note 24, at 41.
35.
Id. at 54.
36.
For details on good offices and other means for peaceful settlement of the disputes, see M. BEDJAOUI ED., INTERNATIONAL LAW: ACHIEVEMENT AND PROSPECTS, UNESCO-PARIS TITLE TWO 501–517(1991).
37.
For details on ASEAN Way, see F. Frost, ASEAN and Regional Cooperation: recent Development and Australia’s Interests, Research Paper Australian Parliamentary Library 2013–2014, 5–8 (2013). See also W. Woon, Dispute Settlement the ASEAN Way (Oct. 17, 2011), available athttp://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/DISPUTE-SETTLEMENT-IN-ASEAN-KSIL-ProfWalterWoon.pdf; D. Marshall, Dispute Settlement the ASEAN Way (Dec. 11, 2012), available athttp://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/WalterWoon-Dispute-Settlement-the-ASEAN-Way-2012.pdf (all last visited on May 2, 2015).
38.
Supra note 28, at 128. See also Woon, id.
39.
For details on the concession-based principle and its implementation, see supra note 22.
40.
Supra note 37.
41.
Supra note 28.
42.
Adopted by the Head of State/Government at the First ASEAN Summit in Bali-Indonesia (Feb. 24, 1976), available athttp://www.aseansec.org/1217.htm (last visited on May 2, 2015).
43.
Supra note 22, at 327. The principles set forth in article 2 of the TAC in Southeast Asia consist of: mutual respect for independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity; the rigth of every state to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion, or coercion; non interference to the internal affairs of one another; renunciation of the threat or use of force; and effective cooperation among themselves. For details, see supra note 28, at 129–31.
44.
Djalal, supra note 14, at 13.
45.
Adopted by the Economic Ministers in Manila-Philipines on Nov. 20, 1996, available athttp://www.aseansec.org/16654.htm (last visited on May 2, 2015).
46.
Adopted by the Economic Ministers at the 10^th ASEAN Summit in Vientiane-Laos (Nov. 29, 2004), available athttp://www.asean.org/16754.htm (last visited on May 2, 2015).
47.
Adopted by the Heads of States/Government at the 13^th ASEAN Summit. For details, see W. Woon, The ASEAN Charter Dispute Settlement Mechanism, presented before the ALA 10^th General Assembly Meeting, available athttp://www.aseanlawassociation.org/speechespub-sing.html (last visited on May 7, 2015).
48.
Adopted In Hanoi-Vietnam on Apr. 8, 2010.
49.
Supra note 32, at 1.
50.
Id. at 13.
51.
Id.
52.
Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malay. v Sing.), Judgment, 2008, I.C.J. (May 23), available athttp://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=2b&case=130 (last visited on May 8, 2015).
53.
Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan.
54.
Djalal, supra note 14, at 25.
55.
Id.
56.
Churchill & Lowe, supra note 8, at 295.
57.
UNCLOS art. 279.
58.
Id. art. 280.
59.
Id. art. 284.
60.
UNCLOS annex V.
61.
L. Brilmayer & N. Klein, Land and Sea:Two Sovereignty Regions in Search of a Common Denominator, Faculty Scholarship Series Paper 2523, 706–9 (2001), available athttp://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/2523 (last visited on May 7, 2015).
62.
UNCLOS art. 286.
63.
For details, see CHURCHILL & LOWE supra note 8, at 296.
64.
UNCLOS art. 287.
65.
For details on the structure and working method of ITLOS, see G. ERRIKSSON, THE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LAW OF THE SEA (2000). See also Merrils, supra note 16, at 181.
66.
Merrils, supra note 16, at 181–182.
67.
Id. at 176.
68.
UNCLOS Annex VII.
69.
Arbitrators must have some experience in maritime affairs. For details, see Churchill & Lowe, supra note 8.
70.
UNCLOS Annex VIII.
71.
Churchill & Lowe, supra note 8, at 296–297.
72.
Id. See UNCLOS Annexes VII art. 4–13 & VIII (Special Arbitration).
73.
Berita Satu, Malaysian Prime Minister Give the First Diplomatic Home Work to Jokowi-Ambalat [PM Malaysia beri PR Diplomasi Pertama Jokowi-Ambalat], BERITA SATU.COM, Oct. 21, 2014.
74.
Id.
75.
Supra note 4, at 3.
76.
Djoko Harmantyo, A Preliminary Study on the Problem of Indonesia Territorial Boundary, Department of Geography, Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Science, University of Indonesia, Unpublished Document 6, (2006).
77.
Arif Havas Oegroseno, Indonesia-Philippines agreement: Lessons for South China Sea Claimants, JAKARTA POST, June 10, 2014, available athttp://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0c54e3b3-1e9c-be1e-2c24-a6a8c7060233&lng=en&id=180702 (last visited on May 7, 2015).
78.
For details on these remarks, see M. Valencia & N. khalid, The Sulawesi Sea Situation: Stage for Tension or Storm in a Tea Cup?, Unpublished Document, at 5.
79.
C. Brown, Sidestepping Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Potential Joint Development of Deep Sea Hydrocarbon in the Ambalat Block, 2 ASIAN J. CLIMATE CHANGE & SUSTAINABLE DEV 66–7 (2013). See also Muhammad S. B. H. Yahya, Joint Development: Prospects of Dispute Resolution in Case ND 6 and ND 7, 2 PERKEM V PROCEEDINGS (2010). Yahya has shown his support for a possibility of establishing joint development in Ambalat Block.
80.
UNCLOS art. 74 (3). It provides: “pending agreement as provided for in paragraph 1, the States concerned, in a spirit of understanding and cooperation, shall make every effort to enter into provisional arrangement of a practical natureand, during transitional period, not to hampir or jeopardise or hamper the reaching of the final agreement. Such arrangement shall be without prejudice to the final destination.”.
81.
Id. art. 83 (3). It is almost similar to Article 74 (3). Article 83 (3) just applies to Part VI on the continental shelf issues, while Article 74 (3) applies to Part V on exclusive economic zone.
82.
For details, see Brown, supra note 79, at 67–8.
83.
It reads: “States bordering an enclosed or semi enclosed sea should cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in performance of their duties.” For details, see D. Ong, 1979 and 1990 Malaysia-Thailand Joint Development Agreements: A Model for International Legal Cooperation in Common Off-Shore Petroleum Deposits, 14 INT’L J. MAINE & COASTAL L. 782 (1999). See also Rainer lagoni, Interim Measures Pending Maritime Delimitation Agreements, 78 A J. INT’L L. 367 (1984).
84.
Zhiguo Gao, The Legal Concept and aspects of joint development in international law, 13 Ocean Y.B. 109 (1998).
85.
Brown, supra note 79, at 71–7.
86.
Id. at 78–85.
87.
Supra note 4, at 12–13.
88.
Track Two Diplomacy is based on discussions that were informal where participants acted in their personal capacity. For details, see C. Schofield & I. Story, Energy Security and South East Asia: The Impact of Maritime Boundary and Territorial Disputes, 11 HARV. ASIA Q (2005).
89.
D. Ong, Implication of Recent South East Asian State Practice for the International Law on Off-Shore Joint Development, in BEYOND TERRITORIAL DISPUTES IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA ch. 7 (R. Beckman et al. eds., 2013).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Faculty of Law, Atma Jaya Catholic University, l Jenderal Sudirman 51, Jakarta, 12930, Indonesia
Ida B. R. Supancana

Authors

Ida B. R. Supancana
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

YIJUN Institute of International Law, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)
Eric Yong Joong Lee

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Supancana, I.B.R. (2022). Maritime Boundary Disputes Between Indonesia and Malaysia in the Area of Ambalat Block: Some Optional Scenarios for Peaceful Settlement. In: Lee, E.Y.J. (eds) ASEAN International Law. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_16

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3195-5_16
Published: 13 October 2021
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-3194-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-3195-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics