O

nce again, Indonesia has proved its ability to beneficially establish maritime boundaries with its neighbours. After nearly five years of intensive negotiations, Indonesia has managed to agree upon a maritime boundary with Singapore, on the Strait of Singapore (The Jakarta Post, Feb. 4, 2009). The previous agreement between the two countries was signed in 1973 and marked the territorial seas between Singapore and Indonesia's Batam Island. The segment is "floating" and contains six turning points.

Point P1 is at the western tip and point P6 is at the eastern tip of the boundary.

Beyond these two points, at the western and eastern sides, are gaps. Apparently, Indonesia and Singapore managed to close one of the gaps by agreeing a new line starting from point P1 westward.

This new maritime boundary is the second one with Singapore, 36 years after the first one was established. For Indonesia, this is also the second maritime boundary segment agreement of the 21st century - an agreement with Vietnam was made in June 2003 after 25 years of negotiations. In 1997, a new maritime boundary line was agreed upon between Indonesia and Australia, replacing an initial agreement of 1971. These examples show that negotiating maritime boundaries is by no means easy. With ten maritime neighbours - India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Australia and Timor Leste - the task is particularly complex for Indonesia.

At this point, Indonesia has settled, fully or partially, maritime boundaries with seven of these neighbours. Meanwhile, maritime boundaries with the Philippines, Palau, and Timor Leste are now under negotiation or in preparation for negotiation. At the same time, negotiations with other countries, like Malaysia, are pending.

The decision taken by Indonesia and Singapore to negotiate the boundary was very wise. Although the bilateral negotiation process is often very slow, it is preferable to submitting the case to a third party, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).

The most important reason why, is that both parties can take full control over their affairs instead of letting a third party make a decision.

Second, it is rare indeed that negotiations result in one participant gaining everything and the other nothing. Most likely, both parties will gain something, even if it is not always what either party first proposed.

Third, taking a case to a third party, such as the ICJ and the ITLOS, costs a huge amount of money. It is worth remembering that the Sipadan and Ligitan case between Indonesia and Malaysia cost Indonesia around Rp 16 billion (US$1.4 million).

Another plus for Indonesia in establishing the new maritime boundary with Singapore is its success in applying its archipelagic baseline. One base point of the archipelagic baseline, from which the new boundary line was constructed, is located on Nipah Island, which has been excessively mined for its sand. This means that Nipah is recognized as an island pursuant to the criteria set in Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which makes it eligible to be a base point. If the island sank, the story of maritime boundary delimitation between the two countries might have been different, with a probable disadvantage for Indonesia.

The next task for Indonesia and Singapore is to sign the agreement and then exchange the ratification note so that the treaty is final and binding for both countries. The completion of an agreement on the eastern segment, starting from point P6 eastward, is the next thing in the queue. The final maritime boundaries will be a trilateral business involving Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. The decision by the ICJ concerning sovereignty over the three geographical points in the Strait (i.e. Pedra Branca or Batu Puteh, Middle Rock and South Ledge) may, to an extent, facilitate the maritime boundary delimitation among the three countries. However, the ICJ did not fully settle sovereignty over South Ledge, which has yet to be decided between Malaysia and Singapore, so this may take some time.

The success of Indonesia and Singapore in establishing a maritime boundary through a series of negotiations is an example of a good bilateral relationship. This once again proves that countries in Southeast Asia can settle disputes peacefully. To some extent, this may motivate the resolution of other pending maritime boundaries between Indonesia and its neighbors and perhaps even other maritime boundary disputes all around the world. This model of dispute resolution between states sets an example for other maritime boundary cases to refer to.