• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Malaysia Territorial Disputes - Sipadan Ligitan
 

Malaysia Territorial Disputes - Sipadan Ligitan

on

  • 2,620 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,620
Views on SlideShare
2,620
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
48
Comments
1

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

11 of 1 previous next

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Malaysia Territorial Disputes - Sipadan Ligitan Malaysia Territorial Disputes - Sipadan Ligitan Presentation Transcript

    • UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA COLLAGE OF LAW GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES GFPP 2223: FOREIGN POLICY 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 CASE
      • The 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..
      • 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 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 ANALYSIS
      • 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 ANALYSIS
      • TERITORIAL INTERGRITY
      • ECONOMIC IMMPORTANCE
    • ORGANISING 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 CHOICE (INSTRUMENTS OF FP)
      • GOALS & OBJECTIVES
      • TERRITORY: SOVEREIGNITY IS TERRITORIAL IN NATURE
      • BOTH COUNTRIES ARE SAFEGOURDING THEIR TERRITORIAL INTERGRITY
    • ACTION AS RATIONAL CHOICE
      • OPTIONS
      • MILITARY (EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION)
      • ECONOMIC
      • DIPLOMATIC (BILATERAL)
      • PROPAGANDA
      • INTELLIGENCE (REGARDING ACTIVITIES OF THE PLAINTIF)
    • ACTIONS AS RATIONAL CHOICE
      • CONSEQUENCES
      • EACH DECISIONS MADE BRINGS EFFECT, CONCERNS OF THE OTHER PARTY
      • LARGELY DIPLOMATIC
      • LIMITED MILITARY INVOLVEMENT
      • THIS CASE TOOK IN TO ACCOUNT THE OTHER PARTIES MIGHT & CAPABILITY TO RETALIATE IN ALL ASPECTS
    • ACTIONS AS RATIONAL CHOICE
      • CHOICE
      • RATIONAL CHOICE IS MADE IN ORDER TO MAXIMIZE VALUE/OUTCOME
      • CONSIDER
      • DIPLOMATIC MEANS & ICJ
    • DOMINANT INFERENCE PATTERN
      • 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)
    • CONCLUSION
      • Through 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 YOU