The Batu Putih mess is the handiwork of a rather poor brief over which the Malaysian government spent several millions of dollars for little gain. The instructing advocates and solicitors representing Malaysia in the case were rather pallid in their arguments and certainly lacked depth to deal with a matter as complex as Batu Pitih was and remains.
Looking at the outcome of the Batu Putih matter through a 2024 lens is like trying to litigate the merits of a treaty between the British and the Sultanate of Johor narly 2 centuries ago whereby much of Malaysia's sovereignty was ceded over to a private family (the Johor Sultan) in breach of Malaysia's sovereignty and international law.
But then international law as we know it today was non existent during the time of British and other European colonial domination of much of the world. International law as we know it today is still (though more refined) set of colonial (Euopean) laws authored, edited and implemented through the use of forcce since world war 2. Those very set of rules, plundered and breached with impunity recognized more often than not in its breach than for its observance by the colonial powers is splitting at the seams today. Malaysia's legal team had no vision of the contemporary and prevailing position of intenrnational law and its fading impact on the multi lateral organizations that gave effect to its existence.
Malaysia's legal team in the Batu Putih matter, although consisting of a band of connected socalite lawyers, possessed no depth, dimension or intellectual integrity sufficient for Lauterpacht or anyone else of his calibre to deliver a compelling case for Malaysia before the court in any way that could have changed the outcomes for Malaysia.
Even in cases in which Sir Ian Brownlie (for Singapore) cannot be said to have ‘won’ his argument before the Court (as he saw it), he nevertheless often played an important role.
One could be forgiven for thinking that creative arguments advanced by the parties’ counsel, such as those often advanced by Sir Ian, can prove determinative in terms of how the Court ultimately arrives at its decision.
In reality, however, cases at the International Court of Justice are seldom ‘lost’ or ‘won’ in such a straightforward way. A party will often find some aspects of its submissions upheld by the Court while others are dismissed.
The fact of the matter is that even in those cases where a state does not obtain the satisfaction it seeks from the Court, the good arguments advanced by competent counsel in the written pleadings and oral arguments often give the Court food for thought and enrich the judges’ deliberations.
Through this process, Sir Ian Brownlie also contributed to the deepening of the International Court’s analytical understanding of a given case including Batu Putih without doubt.
The Batu Putih mess is the handiwork of a rather poor brief over which the Malaysian government spent several millions of dollars for little gain. The instructing advocates and solicitors representing Malaysia in the case were rather pallid in their arguments and certainly lacked depth to deal with a matter as complex as Batu Pitih was and remains.
Looking at the outcome of the Batu Putih matter through a 2024 lens is like trying to litigate the merits of a treaty between the British and the Sultanate of Johor narly 2 centuries ago whereby much of Malaysia's sovereignty was ceded over to a private family (the Johor Sultan) in breach of Malaysia's sovereignty and international law.
But then international law as we know it today was non existent during the time of British and other European colonial domination of much of the world. International law as we know it today is still (though more refined) set of colonial (Euopean) laws authored, edited and implemented through the use of forcce since world war 2. Those very set of rules, plundered and breached with impunity recognized more often than not in its breach than for its observance by the colonial powers is splitting at the seams today. Malaysia's legal team had no vision of the contemporary and prevailing position of intenrnational law and its fading impact on the multi lateral organizations that gave effect to its existence.
Malaysia's legal team in the Batu Putih matter, although consisting of a band of connected socalite lawyers, possessed no depth, dimension or intellectual integrity sufficient for Lauterpacht or anyone else of his calibre to deliver a compelling case for Malaysia before the court in any way that could have changed the outcomes for Malaysia.
Even in cases in which Sir Ian Brownlie (for Singapore) cannot be said to have ‘won’ his argument before the Court (as he saw it), he nevertheless often played an important role.
One could be forgiven for thinking that creative arguments advanced by the parties’ counsel, such as those often advanced by Sir Ian, can prove determinative in terms of how the Court ultimately arrives at its decision.
In reality, however, cases at the International Court of Justice are seldom ‘lost’ or ‘won’ in such a straightforward way. A party will often find some aspects of its submissions upheld by the Court while others are dismissed.
The fact of the matter is that even in those cases where a state does not obtain the satisfaction it seeks from the Court, the good arguments advanced by competent counsel in the written pleadings and oral arguments often give the Court food for thought and enrich the judges’ deliberations.
Through this process, Sir Ian Brownlie also contributed to the deepening of the International Court’s analytical understanding of a given case including Batu Putih without doubt.