Settlement Agreement Singapore Malaysia
Category : Uncategorized
REPLY: 1 Mr Spokesperson Sir, MEPs recall that on 4 July 2003, Malaysia commenced international arbitration proceedings against Singapore under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (CNULOS) for conducting land exploration operations. On 5 September 2003, Malaysia requested interim measures from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). On 8 October, ITLOS rejected Malaysia`s request. Instead, it ordered the two governments to appoint a group of independent experts to conduct a joint study of Singapore`s land development, which is expected to be completed within one year. 2 In the months following the ITLOS order, the land use issue included two parallel processes. On one line, Singapore and Malaysia implemented the Order by assigning a group of four experts to carry out the joint study. On the other hand, Singapore and Malaysia were parties to the arbitration. Since the second route depended on the outcome of the first runway, the arbitration was mutually suspended until the completion of the joint study. 3 The conciliation agreement signed on 26 April is a complete and definitive solution to both processes. Malaysia has agreed to end its arbitration against Singapore. Both parties are in the process of asking the Court of Justice for a final arbitral award on the basis of the terms of the signed agreement.
Road to subdivision 4 Several reflections have resulted in this positive result. But before I address them, I would like to summarize the most important facts of the case. 5 The joint study prescribed by ITLOS was conducted by a group of independent experts, which included four professors of coastal technology – two on each side. The panel was supported by an independent consultant, DHI Water – Environment, jointly appointed by Malaysia and Singapore. 6 Malaysia had claimed that Singapore`s recovery had “caused serious and irreversible damage to the marine environment and could cause it.” The panel was tasked with identifying the negative effects that occurred or would occur. 7 The panel presented its report to both governments on 5 November. We have made this report available on the AMF and MND websites. 8 It is important to understand that the panel has carefully considered all of Malaysia`s allegations of harm. The experts examined the potential impact of our renovation work in a professional and in-depth manner.
9 At the end of the study, the panel unanimously found “no major impact” resulting from our remediation work. The four experts agreed with this very important finding. 10 The panel found that of a total of 57 effects from our recovery operations, 40 were considered “light,” meaning they can be detected in mathematical models, but are probably not detected on the spot. The other 17 effects were categorized in the “minor” to “moderate” range. The Task Force made seven recommendations to mitigate the effects. All of their recommendations were accepted by Malaysia and Singapore and served as the basis for bilateral negotiations to find a solution. After three rounds of negotiations, Malaysia and Singapore signed a full and final settlement of the case on 26 April. The recitals that led to the transaction are: to rely on transaction agreements, to apply for discharge under the Singapore mediation agreement, it must ensure that the transaction agreement must be signed by the parties and there is evidence that the transaction agreement is mediated (e.g.B.