Just how far do you draw the line?

Just how far do you draw the line?

The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

When the International Court of Justice announces its decision
in the row over the ownership of Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan
on Tuesday, their lengthy legal opinions could be boiled down to
one simple question: "How far do you draw the line?".

The line in question is the 4"10' line of latitude which cuts
across the northeastern part of Borneo Island to delineate the
border between Indonesia's East Kalimantan province to the south,
and Malaysia's Sabah state to the north.

By definition, the two countries share the Sebatik Island off
northeastern Borneo. The two however disagree over the maritime
boundary to the east in the Sulawesi Sea.

Indonesia insists that the 4"10' line of latitude goes all the
way to the east in defining their maritime border, putting both
Sipadan and Ligitan inside its territory.

Not so fast, Malaysia argues.

As far as Kuala Lumpur is concerned, the line stops at the
coast of the Sebatik.

Anything to the east is a different story. Malaysia claims
both Sipadan and Ligitan, citing geographical proximity,
historical rights, and de facto possession.

The legal arguments however are far more complex than the
simple question of drawing the demarcation line.

Indonesia and Malaysia came up with old maps and treaties
produced by the Netherlands and Britain, which ruled much of
Southeast Asia in the 19th centuries, to support their claims.

One document used by both parties is a 1891 convention signed
by the Dutch and British governments defining the 4"10' line of
latitude as the demarcation line in northeastern Borneo.

Interpretations of this treaty differ.

Indonesia produced Dutch and British maps drawn up after the
1891 convention, which showed Dutch claims over the two islands.
Britain never expressly recognized the Dutch claims, but it never
disputed them either.

Indonesia also produced various records showing that the Dutch
Navy patrolled the waters around the islands as an exercise of
sovereignty.

Indonesia has argued that Malaysia's moves to develop Sipadan
into a tourist resort since the 1970s was a breach of goodwill
involving restraint in the exercise of sovereignty until the case
was resolved.

Malaysia produced documents going back even before 1891, to
prove that the title to the islands had been passed from various
rulers, including Western colonial administrators, who had
occupied the northeastern part of Borneo.

One chain of title runs from through the Sulu Sultan-
Dent/Overbeck-Britain-Malaysia, and another through the Sulu
Sultan-Spain-United States-British North Borneo Company/Britain-
Malaysia.

There is also the fact that Malaysia has been exercising
sovereignty, first by the establishment of a watchtower, and
since the 1970s, the development of tourism on Sipadan.

These are some of the questions and the documents that the 17
judges of the International Court of Justice in The Hague have
been pondering over since the case was referred to it in 1998.

The ruling is binding and final with no recourse to appeal.

The 17 judges include one each proposed by Indonesia and
Malaysia to sit ad-hoc on the panel. Jakarta opted for America's
Thomas Franck, while Malaysia chose Sri Lanka's Weeramantry.

Both countries have retained the services of top-notch
international lawyers to help their campaigns.

Indonesia's team of lawyers includes:

* Alain Pellet, professor at the University of Paris X-
Nanterre and a member of the international law commission

* Alfred Soons, professor of public international law at
Utrech University in the Netherlands

* Sir Arthur Watts KCMG QC, president of the British branch of
the International Law Association

* Rodman R. Bundy, an advocate at the Court of Appeal in Paris
and a member of the New York Bar/Frere Chomeley, Paris.

Indonesia has spent Rp 16 billion, or $1.6 million, since the
legal campaign began in 1997, and nearly all has used to pay for
the lawyers, who charge by the hour.

"It runs like a taximeter," quipped a senior official of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The court has not only been working in the utmost secrecy, the
judges are also guided by a strict code that includes not meeting
or discussing the matter with any party to the dispute.

Judge Thomas Franck, whom Jakarta proposed for the panel, goes
out of his way to avoid meeting Indonesian officials.

"He would not even meet us for coffee," said one Indonesian
official.

-- Endy M. Bayuni