Case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor, Provisional Measures (2003)

Case concerning Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (REQUEST FOR PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. 8 October 2003
( Nelson, President; Vukas, Vice-President; Caminos, Marotta Rangel, Yankov, Yamamoto, Kolodkin,Park, Bamela Engo, Mensah, Chandrasekhara Rao, Akl, Anderson, Wolfrum, Treves, Marsit, Ndiaye,Jesus, Xu, Cotand Lucky, Judges; Hossainand Oxman, Judges ad hoc)



ITLOS Case No. 12


A small island city-State off the southern tip of Malay Peninsula, Singapore has been reclaiming land-a process of turning otherwise unusable land into usable-from the sea since its independence in order to make up for its putative shortage of land. Starting in 1960s, Singapore has reclaimed land for industrial, housing and infrastructure purposes. One of the most well-known projects is Changi Airport, located at the eastern part of the Mainland Singapore, Pulau Ujong.

The issue in question concerned massive land reclamation projects in Tuas and in Pulau Tekong, located at the southwestern tip of the Mainland Singapore and in a separate, northeastern island, respectively.

In January 2002, by the time the Singapore’s land reclamation projects in Tuas had progressed for more than one and half years, Malaysia began protesting the projects because of its alleged land encroachment into her territorial waters. A subsequent protest was made in April 2002 for the issue of various impacts arising from the projects.

Malaysia’s protest against the land reclamation projects in Pulau Tekong began with claims of a different nature, concerning the alleged impacts on her environment and the narrowed waterway in and around the Straits of Johor.
In a nutshell, Malaysia accused Singapore of reclaiming land in a way that impinged on her territory, narrowed and constrained navigation in the Straits of Johor, caused various damages to its marine environment including the reduced catch of the Malaysian fisherman.

In July 2003, Malaysia invoked Article 286 of 1982 UNCLOS and initiated arbitration under Annex VII of 1982 UNCLOS. Arbitration efforts afterwards had not produced any fundamental changes to the dispute and on 4 September 2003 Malaysia applied to ITLOS for provisional measures pending the arbitration outcome.


  • To what extent are the States obliged to continue exchanging views regarding the settlement by peaceful means? Does it have any bearing on the Tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction?
  • Whether the nature or/and degree of damages incurred by Malaysia, if any, arising from land reclamation works by Singapore justify prescribing the requested provisional measures, mainly the suspension of the works
  • Whether Singapore is responsible for the alleged damages incurred by Malaysia under UNCLOS
  • Whether the reduced catch by the Malaysian fisherman is subject to compensation. If it is so, to what extent and in what form shall Singapore compensate?

Law (See ADDENDUM [4] below for the specific articles invoked)

1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea

Judgement by the ITLOS

Consisted of five members, the Arbitral Tribunal delivered a unanimous judgement prescribing a set of provisional measures with regard to the establishment of a group of experts (GOEs) on assessing any adverse effects or risks of Singapore’s works. A very important point to note is that as the Court considered neither Malaysian claim to an area of territorial sea nor a situation of urgency a sufficient basis for the prescription of provisional measures with respect to the reclamation in the sector of Tuas.

Court’s Reasoning by Issue

1. To what extent are the States obliged to continue exchanging views regarding the settlement by peaceful means? Does it have any bearing on the Tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction?

Singapore argued that Malaysia has failed to fulfill its obligations under Article 283(1) because Malaysia’s actions were deemed to be an inadequate discharge of the obligation. Therefore Singapore submitted that ITLOS may not exercise its jurisdiction over the matter. To this, the Tribunal viewed that the “obligation to proceed expeditiously to an exchange of views” (UNCLOS Article 283) applies to both sides of the dispute (38). Then the Tribunal considered the both sides: Singapore maintaining that Malaysia broke off the negotiation process (43) while Malaysia maintaining that the further exchange could not be expected when reclamation works were continuing (44). Finding that “the parties were not able to settle the dispute or on means to settle it” (46) and citing two cases (Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases, Order of 27 August 1999, paragraph 60 and The Mox Plant Case, Order of 3 December 2001, paragraph 60), the Tribunal stated that “in the circumstances of the present case Malaysia was not obliged to continue with an exchange of views when it concluded that this exchange could not yield a positive result”. Thus the requirement of the Article 283 was satisfied and with no other objections to the Tribunal’s exercise of jurisdiction by Singapore, the Tribunal finds that it would prima facie have jurisdiction over the dispute.

2. Whether the nature or/and degree of damages incurred by Malaysia, if any, arising from land reclamation works by Singapore justify prescribing the requested provisional measures, mainly the suspension of the works.

1) With regard to the Malaysia’s claim that the Singapore’s reclamation works impinged on Malaysia’s territorial sea in the sector of Tuas and in the vicinity of Point 20 justifies the ordering the suspension of the works (70), the Tribunal viewed that the existence of claim to the territorial sea alone is not, per se, a sufficient basis for the prescription of provisional measures under Article 290 of UNCLOS (71).

2) With regard to the Malaysia’s claim of urgency of the situation, the Tribunal found that “the evidence presented by Malaysia does not show the urgency…or a risk that rights it claims with respect to the territorial sea would suffer irreversible damage pending the consideration of the merits…by Annex VII arbitral tribunal”. And thus the Tribunal “does not find it appropriate in the circumstances to prescribe provisional measures with respect to” the works in the sector of Tuas (73).

Yet the Tribunal, citing the Article 290 and the Mox Plant case, emphasize the duty to cooperate in the prevention of pollution in the marine environment (92). Then it found that there was no assessment “concerning the impact of the works on waters under the jurisdiction of Malaysia” (95) and that “it cannot be excluded that in the particular circumstances, the reclamation works may have adverse impacts on the marine environment” (96). The Tribunal stated that there existed insufficient cooperation between the parties and that “it is urgent to build on the commitments made to ensure prompt and effective cooperation of the parties in the implementation of their commitments” (98), prescribed the provisional measures that primarily emphasize the cooperative efforts of the both sides on the matter through the establishment of the group of independent expects (GOEs).

3. Whether Singapore is under UNCLOS responsible for the alleged damages incurred by Malaysia

The Tribunal did not explicitly rule on this issue. All it said about the matter was that “it cannot be excluded that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the land reclamation works may have adverse effects on the marine environment” (96). Thus the matter is open to questions and further inquiry by the GOEs.

4. Whether the reduced catch by the Malaysian fisherman is subject to compensation. If it is so, to what extent and in what form shall Singapore compensate?

The Tribunal did not comment on the reduced catch by the Malaysian fisherman. The matter, nevertheless, was subsequently dealt in the Settlement Agreement signed by both parties on 26th April 2005 in which Singapore agreed to compensate RM 374,400 (Malaysian Riggit), which was RM 5,200 per fisherman. This amount (RM 5,200), according to the exchange rate as of April 2005, was roughly equivalent to  $1,379 (USD 1 = 3.77 RM, 25th April 2005).



[1] Malaysia’s Reasons for which the request was made

1) Singapore is engaging in land reclamation in and around the Straits of Johor in a manner that is causing and has potential to cause serious and irreversible damage to the marine environment and serious prejudice to the rights of Malaysia.

a) Serious harm to the marine environment: The Malaysian reports (included in Annex) demonstrate this. The reclamation projects are producing major changes to the flow regime, sedimentation and consequential effects in terms of coastal erosion. Navigation is also affected.

b) Prejudice to the rights of Malaysia: those rights relating to the maintenance of marine and coastal environment and the preservation of its right of access to its coastline are at stake. Such rights are guaranteed by UNCLOS Article 2, 15, 123, 192,194,198, 200, 204, 205, 206, 210 and 300. Singapore must comply with all of the relevant obligations in those articles.

2) The projects are permanent in character; the harms caused are irreversible and irreparable

3) A failure to grant provisional measures would prejudice the rights of Malaysia while the grant of provisional measures would not cause irreparable prejudice to the rights of Singapore.

4) The situation is urgent as Singapore has not responded to Malaysia’s invitation that ITLOS should have jurisdiction over the merits as of the date of filing this request.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 290(1) and (5) which state that the Tribunal “may prescribe any provisional measure which it considers appropriate under the circumstances to the respective rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious harm to the marine environment”, Malaysia request that the Tribunal prescribe provisional measures as both conditions (serious harm and prejudice, as explained above) have been met.

[2] Provisional Measures requested by Malaysia were 

a) that Singapore shall, pending the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal, suspend all current land reclamation activities in the vicinity of the maritime boundary between the two States or of areas claimed as territorial waters by Malaysia (and specifically around Pulau Tekong and Tuas);

b) to the extent it has not already done so, provide Malaysia with full information as to the current and projected works, including in particular their proposed extent, their method of construction, the origin and kind of materials used, and designs for coastal protection and remediation (if any);

c) afford Malaysia a full opportunity to comment upon the works and their potential impacts having regard, inter alia, to the information provided; and

d) agree to negotiate with Malaysia concerning any remaining unresolved issues

[3] In her Response Singapore requested ITLOS to

(a) dismiss Malaysia’s Request for provisional measures; and

(b) order Malaysia to bear the costs incurred by Singapore in these proceedings; Application by the Court:

[4] Articles Invoked by Malaysia

Article 2: Legal status of the territorial sea, of the air space over the territorial sea and of its bed and subsoil

Article 15: Delimitation of the territorial sea between States with opposite or adjacent coasts

Article 123: Cooperation of States bordering enclosed or semi-enclosed seas

Article 192: States have the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment.

Article 194: Measures to prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment

Article 198: Notification of imminent or actual damage

Article 200: Studies, research programmes and exchange of information and data

Article 204: Monitoring of the risks or effects of pollution

Article 205: Publication of reports

Article 206: Assessment of potential effects of activities

Article 210: Pollution by dumping

Article 283: Obligation to exchange views

Article 286: Application of procedures under this section

Article 287 (1), (3): Choice of procedure

Article 288: Jurisdiction

Article 290 (1), (5): Provisional Measures

Article 300: Good faith and abuse of rights


#011 ULS Board Meeting

via video conference

2115 – 2400 HRS

20 AUG 2017




  • Reservations for ULS Retreat and Workshop
  • Next Meeting Date and Time for Completion of Reading Packet
  • Completion of Syllabus and Confirmation of Session Time
  • Request Email to ILSA + Competition Rules + Reservation of Locale – Sun
  • Preparation for Interviews + Email for CVs + Release of Guidelines to Candidates
  • Hire Video Crew for In-House Moot Court Competition

Next Meeting : IRACs and Case Briefs due 23 AUG 2017 / Meeting @ 2300HRS




Corfu Channel case (1949)

Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People’s Republic of Albania)

Please note that the scope of this case brief has been set to best serve our purposes in relation to the ULS Intramural Moot Court Competition 2017. Discussion regarding the Right to Innocent Passage and Use of Illegal Force has been curtailed. 


I.C.J., 1949 1.C.J.4.


On 22 OCT 1946, two British destroyers struck mines in Albanian waters while navigating through the Corfu Strait and suffered damage including serious loss of life. This channel had been swept in 1944 and check-swept in 1945 and therefore, was regarded as safe. The HMS Saumarez, one of the destroyers, struck a mine and was gravely damaged. The HMS Volage, the other destroyer, was sent to her assistance, however, while towing the HMS Saumarez, struck another mine and was also seriously damaged. Forty-five British officers and sailors lost their lives, and forty-two others were wounded in this series of events. The total damage was estimated at £843.947. It was not contested that this minefield has been recently laid at a time succeeding the 1944 sweep and check-sweep in 1945.

United Kingdom alleged that the Albanian Government was internationally responsible for the consequences of the incidents referred to above and that it must make reparation or pay compensation.


  • Whether Albania incurred international responsibility for acts of mine-laying of unproven origin in its territorial waters of which it allegedly had no knowledge
  • Whether Albania incurred international responsibility by failing to warn the United Kingdom of the danger due to the mines
  • Whether Albania liable for compensation for the damages British destroyers suffered in the Corfu Channel


Obligation of Due Diligence


The Court declared by 11 votes against 5 that Albania was responsible.

The Court ordered Albania to pay United Kingdom £843,947 in reparations.

Court’s Reasoning

In a second judgement rendered on 9 April 1949, the Court rejected both the suggestion that (1) the Albania herself had laid the mines and (2) the mine-laying had been carried out by two Yugoslave warships by the request of Albania, or with her acquiescence due to lack of evidence. “A charge of such exceptional gravity against a State would require a degree of certainty that has not been reached here, and the origin of the mines laid in Albanian territorial waters remains a matter of conjecture.”

The Court considered two series of facts which corroborate one another, in assessing Great Britain’s claims that “whoever might be the authors of the mine-laying, it could not have been effected without Albania’s knowledge.”

While admitting that “the mere fact that mines were laid in Albanian waters neither involves prima facie responsibility nor does it shift the burden of proof, the Court decided that due to “the exclusive control exercised by a State within its frontiers may make it impossible to furnish direct proof of facts which would involve its responsibility in case of a violation of international law… the State which is the victim must, in that case, be allowed a more liberal recourse to inferences of fact and circumstantial evidence.” “Such indirect evidence must be regarded as of especial weight when based on a series of facts, linked together and leading logically to a single conclusion.”

  • Fact 1: Albanian Government’s attitude before and after the catastrophe

They laying of the mines took place in a period in which Albania had shown its intention to keep a jealous watch on its territorial waters and in which it was requiring prior authorisation before they were entered… all of which render the assertion of ignorance a priori improbable. Moreover, Albanian Government while protesting strongly against the activity of the British fleet, it did not protest against the laying of the mines, though this act, if effected without her consent, would have been a very serious violation of her sovereignty; she did not notify shipping of the existence of the minefield, as would be required by international law; and she did not undertake any of the measures of judicial investigation which would seem to be incumbent on her in such a case.

  • Fact 2: Series of facts related to the possibility of observing the mine-laying from the Albanian coast

Naval experts appointed by the Court reported that they considered it to be indisputable that, if a normal look-out was kept at Cape Kiephali, Denta Point, and St. George’s Monastery, and if the look-outs were equipped with binoculars…, the mine-laying operations must have been noticed by these coastguards.

From these series of facts, the Court concluded that the laying of the minefield could not have been accomplished without the knowledge of Albania.

The obligations resulting for Albania from this knowledge are not disputed. It was her duty to notify shipping and especially to warn the ships proceeding through the Strait on October 22nd of the danger to which they were exposed. In fact, nothing was attempted by Albania to prevent the disaster, and these grave omissions involve her international responsibility. The Court answered in the affirmative the question could it not only decide on the principle of compensation but also assess the amount.

In a third Judgment, rendered on 15 December 1949, the Court assessed the total amount of reparation owed to the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay £843,947. In assessing this amount the Court held the view of the experts appointed by it and figures given by the United Kingdom to be an exact and reasonable estimate of the damage sustained.


Joining in 2010, Seungmin is a Founding Member of and Senior Partner at Yonsei ULS. Please be advised: the comment, writing, or column does not represent  the official position of YULS.


[ Back to ULS IMCC 2017 ]

#010 ULS Board Meeting

@ Boiling Pot 3F, Shinchon

1100 – 1400 HRS

12 AUG 2017


Agenda : Intramural Mock Trial preparations / Fall Semester / Recruiting



  • Trail Smelter arbitration (1938) – Daniel
  • Corfu Channel case (1949) – Seungmin
  • Lake Lanoux arbitration (1957) – Sun
  • Nuclear Tests case (1973)
  • GabčíkovoNagymaros case (1997) – Sun
  • Armed Activities (2005)
  • Land Reclamation by Singapore case (2005) – James
  • Genocide case (2007)
  • Pulp Mills (2010) – Gabin 
  • Construction of Road Along the San Juan River (2013) – Seungmin

Legal Analysis (IRAC)

  • Whether the Construction of Excelsior Island is legal under PIL – rev by Daniel
  • Whether EIGP’s dredging can be attributable to Ritania – rev by Seungmin
  • What are available Remedies for Amalea – rev by Seungmin
  • What are Ritania’s obligations under the Malachi Gap Treaty – rev by Gabin
  • What are Ritania’s obligations under CIL – rev by Gabin
  • Whether Ritania has satisfied its due diligence obligation under the Malachi Gap Treaty – rev by Daniel
  • Whether the Duty Not to Cause Trans-boundary Harm is applicable – rev by Daniel
  • Whether Amalea needs to satisfy Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule – Sun 
  • What is the legal significance of an ICJ Provisional Measure – Sun

Next Meeting :  TBD



Commencement of ULS Fall Recruitment!!

News and Notices


  • 09 Aug 2017, ULS Fall poster (designed by President Sun Kim) has been released by ULS via Kakao Talk, Facebook, and Everytime.
  • To see what is going on this Fall [ Go to ULS 2017 ]
  • Apply NOW and find out through first-hand experience if law is indeed your field of interest and the perfect career path for you. Experienced Members and qualified Alumni await you!! [ Go to Application Page ]




#09 ULS Board Meeting

@ Boiling Pot 3F, Shinchon

2000 – 2300 HRS

08 AUG 2017


Agenda : Preparations for ULS Syllabus for Fall Semester / Completion of Poster

  • Video recording and photos for preparations to be specifically assigned to an outside hire
  • Finalized recruitment poster to be released via Kakaotalk, Everytime, WordPress, and Facebook on 09 AUG
  • Outline of Memorandum for Amalea and Ritania
  •  Cases
    • Trail Smelter arbitration (1938)
    • Corfu Channel case (1949)
    • Lake Lanoux arbitration (1957)
    • Nuclear Tests case (1973)
    • GabčíkovoNagymaros case (1997)
    • Armed Activities (2005)
    • Land Reclamation by Singapore case (2005)
    • Genocide case (2007)
    • Pulp Mills (2010)
    • Construction of Road Along the San Juan River (2013)

Next Meeting for Sun, Gabin, James, Daniel, and Seungmin : 12 AUG 2017



The Homecoming #007

The End – A Pyrrhic Victory

Seungmin P. Jung

  • 12 Credits to Graduation : 3.73 GPA (93.3%)
  • Applications to Law Schools in Great Britain : aborted


What was all of it for?

Had spent 8 years in college only to leave with such disgrace and so much pain. No wonder there is no will to attend the ceremonies or return to the area any time soon. Little solace is found in the fact that I will finally have a bachelor’s degree.

This homecoming was a catastrophe.

Through this traumatic semester, I have learned to always prioritize my academic endeavors over all human relationships. People are fragile and once they sense weakness, betrayal and abandonment ensues, leaving the unexpected and injured in a pit of abyss and despair. Success in human relationships is neither determined by one’s conviction nor devotion. Your own wit and accomplishments in profession are the only possessions no other can rob one of. Where has the ambition to study the law in Great Britain gone to? Lost is the dream of a happy family man, now bitter and sullen as ever. Hereinafter, my sanctuary and home shall depend no longer on another’s heart but my own mind. This is how one chapter ends in this life and where another begins… again.

“Don’t look back. You are on the right track.” – Eric Bibb

[ #006 ]        [ Back to Entries ]



Joining in 2010, Seungmin is a Founding Member of and Senior Partner at Yonsei ULS. Please be advised: the comment, writing, or column does not represent  the official position of YULS.

#08 ULS Board Meeting

@ Boiling Pot 3F, Shinchon

1300 – 1700 HRS

20 JUL 2017



  • Syllabus for Fall Semester
    • Week 1 US Supreme Court case Demo + video
    • Week 4 (new and original members)
    • In-depth Case Analysis
    • Re-arrange IRAC into Memorandum Form
  • ULS Retreat and Workshop
    • Lecture on how to write Memorandums
    • Team division for End of Term Mock Trial
  • Recruitment
    • set a period for acceptance this semester
    • Flyers for open-house Philip C. Jessup view and dinner + Mock Trial
  • IRAC Analysis and Compromis Review for Next Meeting

Next Meeting for Sun, James, Daniel, Kwanwoo, and Seungmin : 03 AUG 2017



LSAT Preparation Schedule

Gratitude and many blessings to our beloved alumnus Lisa Park and Joy Pae for their support and advice

  • Textbooks and Prep Exams

    • LSAC Superprep (新)
    • Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible (舊) + Workbook (中) / (新) waiting for arrival 
      • per Question Type waiting for arrival/incoming
      • Cambridge Logical Reasoning per Question Type and Difficulty 1 – 60 (新)
    • Powerscore Logic Games Ultimate Setups Guide (中) + Bible (舊) + Workbook (中) / (新) waiting for arrival 
      • Cambridge Logic Games per Question Type and Difficulty 1 – 60 (新)
      • Prep Test 1 – 66 (新)
      • Prep Test 35 – 66 (新)
    • Powerscore Reading Comprehension (新) waiting for arrival
    • Full Prep Test 40 – 59 (新) Newly Purchased
    • Full Prep Test 1,2 + 15, 16 + 46, 47 + 49 – 68 (新)
    • Full Prep Test 52 – 60 (新)
    • Full Prep Test 61 – 70 (新)
    • Full Prep June 2007 (2)
    • Full Prep Super Prep C 1996
    • Powerscore 2004 LSATs Deconstructed (新)
    • Powerscore Volume 51 LSAT Deconstructed (新)
    • Powerscore Volume 62 LSAT Deconstructed (新)
    • Powerscore Volume 63 LSAT Deconstructed (新)

2017 December Exam [ Click to Register ]

LSAT Study Group Main Page [ Go ]

  •  Vocabulary

    • Barron’s Essential Words for the GRE
    • TEPS
  • Extra Reading Material per Subject

Logic / Math Literature Science and Technology
Law Psychology Economics

Editorial and Opinion: The Editorial or Opinion pages of any major US Daily newspaper, such as the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times

Law, Politics, and Economics: Magazines such as Legal Affairs, The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, The Economist

History: The Journal of American History

Science: Magazines such as Scientific American, Popular Science

  • Work-Out






0700 HRS Swimming


0700 HRS Swimming


2000 HRS Swimming


[ #001 ]     [ Back to Journal Entries ]     [ #003 ]

img_1852Joining in 2010, Seungmin is a Founding Member of and Senior Partner at Yonsei ULS. Please be advised: the comment, writing, or column does not represent  the official position of YULS.

#07 ULS Board Meeting

@ Yonsei Library, Shinchon

1400 – 1700 HRS

13 JUL 2017

 제목 없음
  • ULS Constitution draft and editing

Next Meeting for Sun, James, Daniel, Kwanwoo, and Seungmin : 20 JUL 2017