Island of Palmas Case

Last updated
Island of Palmas
Permanent Court of Arbitration - Cour permanente d'arbitrage.svg
Court Permanent Court of Arbitration
Full case nameIsland of Palmas (or Miangas) (United States v. The Netherlands)
Decided4 April 1928
Court membership
Judge sitting Max Huber, sole arbitrator
Case opinions
Decision by Max Huber

The Island of Palmas Case (Scott, Hague Court Reports 2d 83 (1932), (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928), 2 U.N. Rep. Intl. Arb. Awards 829) was a territorial dispute over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States which was heard by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Palmas (Indonesian : Pulau Miangas) was declared to be a part of the Netherlands East Indies and is now part of Indonesia.

Contents

The case is one of the most influential precedents dealing with island territorial conflicts.

Background

5°33′29″N126°35′05″E / 5.55804°N 126.5847°E / 5.55804; 126.5847

Philippines location map (square).svg
Red pog.svg
class=notpageimage|
Location of the Palmas, with the Philippines as a reference.
Indonesia location map.svg
Red pog.svg
class=notpageimage|
Location of the Palmas, with Indonesia as a reference.

Palmas (Miangas) is an island of little economic value or strategic location. It is 2.6 km in north–south length and 1.0 km in east–west width. [1] It had a population of about 750 in 1932, when the case was decided. The island is located approximately 100 miles ESE of General Santos, Philippines, and 70 miles north of the Talaud Islands, the next-northernmost part of Indonesia.

In 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898) and Palmas is located within the boundaries of that cession. In 1906, the United States discovered that the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over the island, and the two parties agreed to submit to binding arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. On 23 January 1925, the two governments signed an agreement to that effect. Ratifications were exchanged in Washington, D.C., on 1 April 1925. The agreement was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 19 May 1925. [2] The arbitrator in the case was Max Huber, a Swiss lawyer.

The question before the arbitrator was whether the Island of Palmas (Miangas) formed part of United States territory (referring to what is now the Philippines) or Dutch territory (referring to what is now Indonesia).

US arguments

Right by discovery

On 1 January 1906, General Leonard Wood, Governor of Moro Province, Philippines, visited Palmas. According to the Counter-Memorandum filed in the case by the United States, he had already visited the island in "about 1903". The report of Wood to the Military Secretary, United States Army, on 26 January 1906, and the certificate delivered on 21 January by First Lieutenant Gordon Johnston to the native interrogated by the controller of the Sangi (Sanghi) and Talauer (Talaut) Islands clearly show that the 21 January visit relates to the island in dispute. The visit led to the US statement that the Island of Palmas, undoubtedly included in the "archipelago known as the Philippine Islands," as delimited by Article III of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, also called "Treaty of Paris," and ceded in virtue of the said article to the United States, was considered by the Netherlands as forming part of the territory of its possessions in the East Indies. [3]

The United States, as the successor to the rights of Spain over the Philippines, based its title in the first place on discovery. The existence of sovereignty thus acquired was not merely confirmed by the most reliable cartographers and authors and even by treaty, particularly the Treaty of Münster of 1648, which was agreed to by Spain and the Netherlands. According to the same argument, nothing had occurred of a nature to cause the acquired title to disappear in international law. The United States argued the latter title at the moment when Spain ceded its title to the Philippines by the Treaty of Paris in 1898. Thus, it was unnecessary to establish facts showing the actual display of sovereignty precisely over the Island of Palmas.

Principle of contiguity

The American government finally maintained that Palmas forms a geographical part of the Philippine group and is closer to the Philippines than to the Dutch East Indies. Thus, the principle of contiguity substantiated the claim that it belongs to the power with sovereignty over the Philippines. [4]

Dutch arguments

Contesting the principle of contiguity, the Netherlands considered discovery by Spain was not proved, that the same held for any other form of acquisition, and that any such Spanish title would have been lost.

The main argument was that the Netherlands, represented by the East India Company, had possessed and exercised rights of sovereignty from 1677, or possibly from 1648. Sovereignty arose out of conventions entered into with native princes on Sangi (the main island of the Talautse Isles). to stabilize the sovereignty of the Netherlands over the territories of the princes, including Palmas (or Miangas) and this had been validated by international treaties. [5]

Issues

Huber had to determine "whether the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) in its entirety forms a part of territory belonging to the United States of America or of Netherlands territory." Based on the arguments made by both states, there were two main issues:

Decision

Huber ruled for the Netherlands:

For these reasons

The Arbitrator in conformity with Article I of the Special Agreement of 23 January 1925 DECIDES that : THE ISLAND OF PALMAS (or MIANGAS) forms in its entirety a part of the Netherlands territory. done at The Hague, this fourth day of April 1928. Max Huber, Arbitrator

Michiels van Verduynen, Secretary-General. [6]

Right by discovery

The United States argued that it held the island because it had received actual title by legitimate treaties from the original discoverer of the island, Spain. The United States argued that Spain acquired title to Palmas when Spain discovered the island and the island was terra nullius . Spain's title to the island, because it was a part of the Philippines, was then ceded to the United States under the Treaty of Paris (1898) after Spain's defeat in the Spanish–American War. The arbitrator noted that no new international law invalidated the legal transfer of territory via cession.

However, the arbitrator noted that Spain could not legally grant what it did not hold and the Treaty of Paris could not grant Palmas to the United States if Spain had no actual title to it. The arbitrator concluded that Spain held an inchoate title when Spain "discovered" Palmas. However, for a sovereign to maintain its initial title via discovery, the arbitrator said that the discoverer had to actually exercise authority even by as simple an act as planting a flag on the beach. Spain did not exercise authority over the island after making an initial claim after discovery and so the American claim was based on relatively weak grounds.

Contiguity

The United States argued that Palmas was American territory because the island was closer to the Philippines than to the Netherlands East Indies. The arbitrator said that there was no positive international law for the American view of terra firma in which the nearest continent or island of considerable size gives title to the land in dispute. The arbitrator held that mere proximity was not an adequate claim to land and noted that if the international community followed the proposed American approach, that would lead to arbitrary results.

Continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty

The Netherlands' primary contention was that it held actual title because the Netherlands had exercised authority on the island since 1677. The arbitrator noted that the United States had failed to show documentation proving Spanish sovereignty on the island except the documents that specifically mentioned the island's discovery. Additionally, there was no evidence that Palmas was a part of the judicial or administrative organization of the Spanish government of the Philippines. However, the Netherlands showed that the Dutch East India Company had negotiated treaties with the local princes of the island since the 17th century and had exercised sovereignty, including a requirement of Protestantism and the denial of other nationals on the island. The arbitrator pointed out that if Spain had actually exercised authority, there would have been conflicts between the two countries, but none is provided in the evidence.

Thus, a title that is inchoate cannot prevail over a definite title found on the continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty. Peaceful and continuous display of territorial sovereignty is as good as title. However, discovery alone, without a subsequent act, cannot suffice to prove sovereignty over the island. The territorial sovereignty of the defendant, Netherlands, was not contested by anyone from 1700 to 1906 so the title of discovery was, at best, an inchoate title and does not prevail over the Netherlands claims of sovereignty. [4]

Precedent

Under the decision, three precedents for resolving island territorial disputes were decided:

Inter-temporal rule

The decision has also served as a basis for the definition of the inter-temporal rule in international law (tempus regit actum). [7] [8] [9] The rule as enunciated by Huber distinguished between the creation of rights, and the existence of rights:

"A judicial fact must be appreciated in the light of the law contemporary with it, and not of the law in force at the time such a dispute in regard to it arises or falls to be settled." [7]

However:

"The same principle which subjects the act creative of a right to the law in force at the time the right arises, demands that the existence of the right, in other words its continued manifestation, shall follow the conditions required by the evolution of the law." [7]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Permanent Court of Arbitration</span> Intergovernmental organization

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a non-UN intergovernmental organization headquartered at the Peace Palace, in The Hague, Netherlands. Unlike a judicial court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support in international arbitrations involving various combinations of States, State entities, international organizations and private parties. The cases span a range of legal issues involving territorial and maritime boundaries, sovereignty, human rights, international investment, and international and regional trade. The PCA is constituted through two separate multilateral conventions with a combined membership of 122 Contracting Parties. The PCA is not a United Nations agency, but has been a United Nations observer since 1993.

<i>Terra nullius</i> International law term for unclaimed land

Terra nullius is a Latin expression meaning "nobody's land". Since the nineteenth century it has occasionally been used in international law as a principle to justify claims that territory may be acquired by a state's occupation of it. There are currently three territories sometimes claimed to be terra nullius: Bir Tawil, four pockets of land near the Danube due to the Croatia–Serbia border dispute, and parts of Antarctica, principally Marie Byrd Land.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sultanate of Sulu</span> 1405–1915 state in Southeast Asia

The Sultanate of Sulu was a Sunni Muslim state that ruled the Sulu Archipelago, coastal areas of Zamboanga City and certain portions of Palawan in the today's Philippines, alongside parts of present-day Sabah and North Kalimantan in north-eastern Borneo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scarborough Shoal</span> Disputed atoll in the South China Sea

Scarborough Shoal, also known as Panacot,Bajo de Masinloc, Huangyan Island, Minzhu Jiao, and Panatag Shoal, are two skerries located between Macclesfield Bank to the west and Luzon to the east. Luzon is 220 kilometres (119 nmi) away and the nearest landmass. The atoll is a disputed territory claimed by the Republic of the Philippines through the 1734 Velarde map, as well as the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The atoll's status is often discussed in conjunction with other territorial disputes in the South China Sea, such as those involving the Spratly Islands, and the 2012 Scarborough Shoal standoff. In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration against China under UNCLOS. In 2016, the tribunal ruled that China's historic title within the nine-dash line was invalid but did not rule on sovereignty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">North Borneo dispute</span> Territorial dispute between the Philippines and Malaysia

The North Borneo dispute, also known as the Sabah dispute, is the territorial dispute between Malaysia and the Philippines over much of the eastern part of the state of Sabah. Sabah was previously known as North Borneo prior to the formation of the Malaysian federation.

Intertemporal law regulates the conflict of laws relating to time. It determines which law is applicable at which time, and specifically the applicability of a rule to the cases that occurred before its creation or entry into force.

The Philippines has claims on territories which include the Spratly Islands, portions of North Borneo, and the Scarborough Shoal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Madrid Protocol of 1885</span> 1885 colonial treaty between the UK, Germany and Spain

The Madrid Protocol of 1885 was an agreement between the United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain to recognize the sovereignty of Spain over the Sulu Archipelago as well as the limit of Spanish influence in the region. Under the agreement, Spain relinquished all claim to Borneo.

The Spanish Government renounces, as far as regards the British Government, all claims of sovereignty over the

territories of the continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu (Jolo), and which comprise the neighbouring islands of Balambangan, Banguey, and Malawali, as well as all those comprised within

a zone of three maritime leagues from the coast, and which form part of the territories administered by the Company styled the "British North Borneo Company".

The Malaysia–Philippines border is a maritime boundary located in the South China, Sulu and Celebes Seas. It separates the Malaysian state of Sabah, which is on the island of Borneo, and the Sulu Islands of the southern Philippines.

A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognised by international law as lawful methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory. International law adopts much of Roman property law in regards to acquisition of sovereignty due to the underlying European civil law at the time of early discovery voyages such as Christopher Columbus. The basis of acquisition of states ownership of vacant territory therefore continues to apply,.

The sovereignty of the Philippines refers to the status of the Philippines as an independent nation. This article covers sovereignty transitions relating to the Philippines, with particular emphasis on the passing of sovereignty from Spain to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898), signed on December 10, 1898, to end the Spanish–American War. US President William McKinley asserted the United States' sovereignty over the Philippines on December 21, 1898, through his Benevolent Assimilation Proclamation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Spratly Islands dispute</span> Territorial dispute involving multiple countries over the Spratly Islands.

The Spratly Islands dispute is an ongoing territorial dispute among Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam concerning "ownership" of the Spratly Islands, a group of islands and associated "maritime features" located in the South China Sea. The dispute is characterized by diplomatic stalemate and the employment of military pressure techniques in the advancement of national territorial claims. All except Brunei occupy some of the maritime features.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Venezuelan crisis of 1895</span> Political crisis in Venezuela in the 19th century

The Venezuelan crisis of 1895 occurred over Venezuela's longstanding dispute with Great Britain about the territory of Essequibo, which Britain believed was part of British Guiana and Venezuela recognized as its own Guayana Esequiba. As the dispute became a crisis, the key issue became Britain's refusal to include in the proposed international arbitration the territory east of the "Schomburgk Line", which a surveyor had drawn half-a-century earlier as a boundary between Venezuela and the former Dutch territory ceded by the Dutch in the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1814, later part of British Guiana. The crisis ultimately saw Britain accept the United States' intervention in the dispute to force arbitration of the entire disputed territory, and tacitly accept the US right to intervene under the Monroe Doctrine. A tribunal convened in Paris in 1898 to decide the matter, and in 1899 awarded the bulk of the disputed territory to British Guiana.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Territorial disputes in the South China Sea</span> Disputes over ownership of islands in the South China Sea

Territorial disputes in the South China Sea involve conflicting island and maritime claims in the South China Sea by several sovereign states, namely the People's Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia. The disputes involve the islands, reefs, banks, and other features of the region, including the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, Scarborough Shoal, and various boundaries in the Gulf of Tonkin. The waters near the Indonesian Natuna Islands, which some regard as geographically part of the South China Sea, are disputed as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Miangas</span> Northernmost Island in Indonesia

Miangas or Palmas is North Sulawesi's northernmost island, and one of 92 officially listed outlying islands of Indonesia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Philippines–Taiwan relations</span> Bilateral relations

The bilateral foreign relations between the Republic of the Philippines and Republic of China (Taiwan) are a subject of China–Philippines relations. Among other issues between the two are the South China Sea dispute and the political status of Taiwan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South China Sea Arbitration</span> 2016 international arbitration case

The South China Sea Arbitration was an arbitration case brought by the Republic of the Philippines against the People's Republic of China (PRC) under Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea concerning certain issues in the South China Sea, including the nine-dash line introduced by the mainland-based Republic of China since as early as 1947. A tribunal of arbitrators appointed the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as the registry for the proceedings.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jamalul Kiram II</span> Sultan of Sulu

Jamalul Kiram II was the sultan of Sulu from 1894 to 1915. During his long reign, he signed treaties with several nations. He served under both Spain and America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indonesia–Philippines border</span>

The border between Indonesia and the Philippines consists of a maritime boundary mainly on the Celebes Sea that separates the two Southeast Asian countries as defined through a pact that was signed by both parties in 2014. The border is also the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) boundary between Indonesia and the Philippines, which is delimited through eight geographic coordinate points. It has a length of 1,162.2 kilometres dividing across the Celebes Sea to the Philippine Sea.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clipperton Island case</span> Arbitration between France and Mexico

The Clipperton Island case was an arbitration between France and Mexico over the sovereignty of Clipperton Island. The dispute was adjudicated by the King of Italy in 1931, who awarded the island to France. The case forms an important precedent in international law, particularly in matters of territorial sovereignty and the role of arbitration in resolving disputes between nations.

References

  1. ↑ Satellite view of 5.55804/126.58470
  2. ↑ League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 33, pp. 446-453.
  3. ↑ Jessup, Philip C. (1928). "The Palmas Island Arbitration". The American Journal of International Law. 22 (4): 735–752. doi:10.2307/2188429. JSTOR   2188429. S2CID   147068663.
  4. 1 2 Epps, Valerie. International Law (4th ed. 2009).
  5. ↑ "The Island of Palmas Case". Permanent Court of Arbitration. 1928.
  6. ↑ Paraphrased from THE ISLAND OF PALMAS CASE (OR MIANGAS) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. THE NETHERLANDS Archived 2012-08-21 at the Wayback Machine , PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION, 4 April 1928, p. 39.
  7. 1 2 3 Higgins, Rosalyn (1993). "Some observations on the Inter-temporal rule in International Law". In Makarczyk, J. (ed.). Theory of International Law at the Threshold of the 21st Century; Essays in honour of Krzysztof Skubiszewski. Kluwer Law International. pp. 173–181.
  8. ↑ Elias, T. O. (1980). "The Doctrine of Intertemporal Law". American Journal of International Law. 74 (2): 285–307. doi:10.2307/2201503. ISSN   0002-9300. JSTOR   2201503. S2CID   143623395.
  9. ↑ Wheatley, Steven (2020-12-21). "Revisiting the Doctrine of Intertemporal Law". Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 41 (2): 484–509. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqaa058. ISSN   0143-6503. PMC   8298020 . PMID   34305451.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.