| Isn't it morally, legally bound to ensure Malaysia unaffected? | ||||
| New
Straits Times Kuala Lumpur March 9, 2002 BY Ashraf Abdullah Related: Reclamation within our rights and international law: Singapore Row brews over Singapore land reclamation near Malaysia border ALTHOUGH international law dictates that a coastal State has every right to develop territorial sea for its own purpose and benefits, it is still morally and legally bound vis-a-viz its effects on neighbouring States. Therefore, as signatories to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, both Malaysia and Singapore are duty-bound to observe provisions of the convention. Malaysia has expressed its concern over reclamation works carried out at Pulau Tekong. Malaysia feels that the reclamation work could make certain parts of the narrow Tebrau Straits and Johor Straits even narrower, and shallower. This will make it almost impossible for large vessels to call at the Pasir Gudang and Tanjung Pelepas ports. These ships may be forced to enter Singapore instead of Malaysia. Malaysian fishermen operating between Tanjung Balau and Pengerang claim their livelihood had been severely affected by the reclamation works, which has affected marine life and reduced fish population in the area. When carrying out activities at its coastline, it's incumbent upon Singapore to consider the effects of such activities on its neighbour. It cannot compromise on good faith and the crucial general principle of International law --- pacta sunt servanda, the idea that international agreements are binding. The law of treaties rests inexorably upon this principle since the whole concept of binding international agreements can only depend on the presupposition that such instruments are commonly accepted as possessing that quality. Perhaps the most important general principle, underpinning many international legal rules is that of good faith. This principle is enshrined in the United Nations Charter, which provides in article 2(2) that "all members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter". The elaboration of this provision is contained in the Declaration of Principles Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States adopted by the UN General Assembly in resolution 2625 (XXV), 1970. It referred to the obligations by States to fulfill in good faith their obligations resulting from International Law generally, including treaties. The International Court in its 1974 judgment in the Nuclear Tests case between New Zealand and France, declared: "One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of legal obligations, whatever their source, is the principle of good faith. Trust and confidence are inherent in international co-operation, in particular in an age when this co-operation in many fields is becoming increasingly essential. Just as the very rule of pacta sunt servanda in the law of treaties is based on good faith, so also is the binding character of an international obligation assumed by unilateral obligation." Article 300 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea states that countries should not abuse rights extended to them by the Convention. Therefore, it appears Singapore is duty-bound to convince the international community that it acted in good faith, especially when there is widespread speculation that the republic's actions were prompted by the recent success of the Tanjung Pelepas port in attracting multinational shipping corporations. Good faith can only be demonstrated by ensuring that Malaysia does not suffer in any way as a result of the reclamation works. |
||||