TERRITORY-Territory is the fixed portion of the surface of the earth inhabited by the people of the state ACQUISITION AND

LOSS OF TERRITORIES: To the five modes of acquiring sovereignty over territory correspond five modes of losing it namely cession, dereliction, operations of nature, subjugation, prescription; just as cession gives territory to a state, so another state loses territory; dereliction is the obverse of occupation; operations of nature both increase and decrease territory; subjugation following conquest is the loss of territory to a victor state in war; and prescription may be both acquisitive and extinctive of territorial rights. But there is sixth mode of losing territory namely revolt. ACQUISITION OF TERRITORIES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Discovery and Occupation Prescription Cession Subjugation accretion

ACQUISITION AND LOSS OF TERRITORY Territories may be acquired by: a. Discovery and occupation is an original mode of acquisition by which territory not belonging to any state or terra nullius is placed under the sovereignty of the discovering state. EXAMPLE: ISLAND OF PALMAS OF CASE

was a case involving a territorial dispute over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States LOCATION: lies between Mindanao, the southernmost part of the Philippines, and the Nanusa Islands, the northernmost part of Indonesia other than Palmas. the Netherlands founded its claim on a continuous and peaceful display of authority over the disputed island. The United States, as a successor to the rights of Spain over the Philippines, based its claim on discovery, based on the Spanish sighting of the island in the 16th century. UNITES STATES ARGUMENT: a. it held the island because it had received actual title through legitimate treaties from the original "discoverer" of the island, Spain. b. 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 in 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. RULING: decided in favor of the Netherlands by ruling that even admitting that Spain had discovered the island and had a inchoate title over it, an inchoate title could not prevail against continuous and peaceful authority by another state. The ruling further added that such display might prevail over a prior, definitive title put forward by another case. The Island of Palmas case showed that holding a title based on effective exercise of sovereignty is superior to a claim founded on discovery. The Palmas case maintains that even if discovery was recognized by international law as a mode of acquiring a title to a territory, the present title has to be complemented by an effective display of authority. In other words, a title established by discovery, if

valid, could be lost by failure to display continuous state activity. Based on the Las Palmas Case, it has been maintained that there is greater weight in the opinion [of the international legal community] that discovery alone does not constitute an independent mode for territorial acquisition: at beast it creates an inchoate title which must be perfected within a reasonable time by effective occupation or it will lapse. Governing principle: Terra nullius or stateless could be acquired by discovery 2 REQUISITES: 1. possession It is effected through a formal proclamation and the symbolic act of raising the national flag in the territory. administration There had to be occupation not a temporary or transient occupation but an effective occupation one that would take real possession of the territory and establish some kind of administration

CESSION Is a method by which territory is transferred from one state to another by agreement between them. Acquisition of territory by cession is usually effected by such familiar transactions as sale, donation, barter or exchange and even by testamentary disposition. Cession being essentially consensual, transfer of title is effected upon the meeting of the minds of the parties and does not have to abide the actual delivery of the ceded territory to acquire state. 2 ELEMENTS OF CESSISION: a. The agreement to cede as express in the treaty b. The actual handling over of the territory to the cessionary states SUBJUGATION Territory is deemed acquired by subjugation when, having been previously conquered or occupied in the course of war by the enemy, it is formally annexed to it at the of the end of that war. Conquest alone confers only an inchoate right on the occupying state; it is the formal act of annexation that contemplates the acquisition. EXAMPLE: by contrast wthipia fell under Italian sovereignty when after its occupation by Italy during the war between them it surrendered to and was formally annexed by the latter. ACCRETION Is a mode of acquiring territory based on the principle of accesso cedat principali. Accomplished through both natural or artificial processes, as by the gradual and imperceptible deposit of soil on the

2.

PRESCRIPTION: requires long continued and acquisitive title in the claimant. 2 IMPORTANT ELEMENTS: Continuous, public, and adverse possession whether in good faith or in bad faith of some other states territory. discovery and occupation presupposes stateless land, prescription demands prior ownership or title in another state. 2. Lapse of a reasonable period of time reasonable time is a question of fact and can be ascertained from the particular circumstances surrounding a case. 1. adverse possession to vest

coasts of the country through the action of the water or more effectively by reclamation projects like those undertaken in manila bay and the polders of Holland. accretion also covers the formation of islands which if occurring within the maritime belt of the state, correspondingly extends the breadth of its territorial sea.

MODES OF LOSING TERRITORY: MODES OF LOSING TERRITORIES: 1. dereliction or abandonment: opposite of discovery and occupation there must be a physical abandonment of the property and the intent never return to the same-animus non revertendi prescription: just as there is acquisitive prescription, there is also extinctive prescription. cession: since by cession one state can acquire additional territory, it necessarily follows that some other state has lost the same territory; subjugation: physical conquest alone of a territory cannot result in loss; there must be also subjugation. the moment the right of occupation becomes permanent, absolute title is vested in the conqueror resulting in loss to the vanquished. forces of nature: for instance, avulsion or the sudden breaking off the part of the territory can result in loss unless steps are undertaken to force a return; volcanic eruption may completely destroy a city; natural elements harnessed by science e.g.

2.

nuclear megaton bombs, may completely wipe out a state 6. successful revolutions and cessions: EXAMPLE: England lost the united states in this manner; and a new state, a new power, soon emerged the united states of America. A. RIVERS CLASSIFICATION: 1. national situated completely in the territory of one state. example: pasig river 2. multi-national flow through the territories of several states example: congo river in africa 3. international is one that is navigable from the open sea and is open to the use of vessel from all states. example: rhine and danube 4. boundary B. BAYS a bay is a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to contain landlocked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. an indentation shall not however be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as larger than that of a semi-circle whose diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation. the above rules do not apply to the so-called historic bays whose waters have always been considered internal by the international community notwithstanding that their opening are more than 24 miles in width.

3.

4.

5.

SCARBOROUGH SHOAL OR SCARBORUGH REEF|: in Chinese|: huangyan island in Filipino; bajo de masinloc or panatag shoal LOCATION|: china see DISPUTED TERRITORY BETWEEN|: a. b. peoples republic of china Philippines dispute such as|: east india spratly island tea-trade located beween maclassified bank and Luzon island of the Philippines in the south

In 1935, China, as the Republic of China (ROC), regarded the shoal as part of the Zhongsha Islands In In 1947 1983 the the shoal People's was given the of name China as a

Minzhu
renamed second

Jiao (Chinese; literally "Democracy Reef")

Republic it Huangyan name. The breadth of the Territorial Sea of the People's Republic of China shall be twelve nautical miles. This applies to all territories of the People's Republic of China, including the Chinese mainland and its coastal islands, as well as Taiwan and its surrounding islands, the Penghu Islands, the Dongsha Islands, the Xisha Islands, the Zhongsha Islands the Nansha Islands and all other islands belonging to China which are separated from the mainland and its coastal islands by the high seas. China reaffirmed its claim of sovereignty over the Zhongsha Islands in its 1992 Law on the territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. China claims all the islands, reefs, and shoals within a U-shaped line in the South China Sea drawn in 1947 as its territory. Scarborough shoal lies within this area. late State China further asserted its claim shortly after the departure of Navy force from of Subic, Zambales, Philippines. In the by and 1970s, Bureau many scientific Surveying, expedition National activities Earthquake organized Bureau the US

Island with Minzhu

Jiao reserved

often discunssed in conjunction with other territorial or the paracel island.

NAME|: after

the

company

ship scarborough The area are rich fishing grounds.

CLAIMS BY THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA|: the peoples republic of china and he republic of |(Taiwan|) claim that the Chinese people china

discovered the shoal centuries ago and that thereby is a longs history of Chinese fishing activity in the area. the shoal lies within the nine-dotted line drawn by china on maps marking its cliam to around two thirds of the total area of the south china sea. han zhenhua|: first NANHAI the scholar to claim sea for that in point that called meaning with south Vietnam the

National Bureau of Oceanography were held in the shoal and around this area. In 1980, a stone marker reading "South China Sea Scientific Expedition" was installed on the South Rock, but was removed by Philippines in 1997. PHILIPPINES CLAIM|: The Philippines states that its assertion of sovereignty over the shoal is based on the juridical criteria established by public

astronomical survey referred to Scarborough Shoal. during the conflict sovereignty government over paracel islands: Chinese

issued an official document claiming that "Nanhai" in the 1279 survey was located in the Paracels.

international sovereignty.

law on

the

lawful

methods

for

the

acquisition

of

international the Exclusive sovereignty shoal.

law

on

acquisition

of

sovereignty, on in the the

Economic by

Zone claim the Philippines

the criteria are|: a. b. c. d. e. effective occupation cession prescription conquest and accretion effective occupation effective jurisdiction claims to have it erected reported that impact Natural marine the flags to in the some islands and a which asserts it and as and international and that has the US its Naval maritime Forces of the International

waters around Scarborough is different from the exercised

The Philippine government has proposed taking the dispute to Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) as provided in Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, but the Chinese government has rejected this, insisting on bilateral discussions The Philippines also of claims the that as Filipino early as the Spanish colonization Philippines, fishermen

DFA THUS ASSERTED THAT THE COUNTRY EXERCISE BOTH: a. b.

it

lighthouse organization. It also used

were already using the area as a traditional fishing ground and shelter during bad weather. Several official Philippine maps published by Spain and United States in 18th and 20th centuries show Scarborough Shoal as Philippine territory. The 18th-century map "Carta hydrographica y chorographica de las Islas Filipinas" (1734) shows the Scarborough Shoal then was named as Panacot Shoal. The map also shows the shape of the shoal as consistent with the current maps available as today. During the 1900s, Mapa General, Islas Filipinas, Observatorio de Manila, and US Coast and Geodetic Survey Map include the Scarborough Shoal named as "Baju De Masinloc."[25] In 1792, another map drawn by the Malaspina expedition and published in 1808 in Madrid, Spain also showed Bajo de Masinloc as part of Philippine territory. The map showed the route of the Malaspina expedition to and around the shoal. It was reproduced in the Atlas of the 1939 Philippine Census, which was published in Manila a year later and predates the controversial 1947 Chinese South China Sea Claim Map that shows no Chinese name on it. Another topographic map drawn in 1820 shows the shoal, named there as "Bajo Scarburo," as a constituent part of Sambalez (Zambales province).

Philippine and in

have

range studies

Department while

Environment topographic

Resources

conducted shoal,

scientific, Filipino

fishermen regularly use it as fishing ground and have always considered it their own. DFA ALSO CLAIMS THAT: identifies subdivision the of shoal the as a particular political of Philippine Province

Zambales, known as Masinloc Thus, the Philippines argues that the historic claim of China over the Scarborough Shoal still needs to be substantiated by a historic title, since a claim by itself is not among the internationally recognized legal basis for acquiring sovereignty over territory. The Philippine government argues that since the legal basis of its claim is based on the

 The Scarborough Shoal is not included within the territorial lines defined in the Treaty of Paris (1898), Treaty of Washington (1900), Convention Between the United States and Great Britain (1930), 1935 Constitution of the Philippines, Philippines"(1961),
[35] [34]

SABAH: During the 7th century CE, a settled community known as Vijayapura, to a have tributary been to the the Srivijaya empire, beneficiary was to thought Borneo. Another beginning the kingdom the 9th which century to the suspected was to it have was existed believed embraced P'o-ni. of earliest

Republic Act No. the Philippines.

3046 "Act to Define the Baselines of the Territorial Sea of the or the 1987 Constitution of The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) asserts that the basis of Philippine sovereignty and jurisdiction over the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not premised on the cession by Spain of the Philippine archipelago to the United States under the Treaty of Paris, and argues that the matter that the rock features of Bajo de Masinloc are not included or within the limits of the Treaty of Paris as alleged by China is therefore immaterial and of no consequence. President Ferdinand Marcos, by virtue of the Presidential Decree No. 1596 issued on June 11, 1978 asserted that islands designated as the Kalayaan Island Group and comprising most of the Spratly Islands are subject to the sovereignty of the Philippines, and by virtue of the Presidential Decree No. 1599 issued on June 11, 1978 claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) up to 200 nautical miles (370 km) from the baselines from which their territorial sea is measured. In 2009, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo enacted thePhilippine Baselines Law of 2009 (RA 9522). The new law classified the Kalayaan Island Group and the Scarborough Shoal as a regime of islands under the Republic of the Philippines.[3][38] The 2012 Scarborough Stand-off between PROC and RP has led the latter to seriously consider upgrading its maritime patrol and areal reconnaisance capability by acquiring Hamilton Class Cutters from the U.S. and negotiating for purchase of 12 fighter jets from South Korea for its small squadron.

the Bruneian Empireexisting around the northeast coast of

that po-ni existed at the mouth of brunei river and was predescessor sultanate brunei islam. In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei ceded the northern and eastern portion of Borneo to the Sultan of Sulu in compensation for the latter's help in settling a civil war in the Brunei Sultanate, but many sources stated that the Brunei did not ceded any parts of Sabah to the Sultanate of Sulu. In 1761, Alexander Dalrymple, an officer of the British East India Company, concluded an agreement with the Sultan of Sulu to allow him to set up a trading post in the Sulu area, although it proved to be a failure. In 1846, the island of Labuan on the west coast of Sabah was ceded to Britain by the Sultan of Brunei and in 1848 it became the British Crown Colony of North Borneo. Following a series of transfers, the rights to North Borneo were transferred to Alfred Dent, whom in 1881 formed the British North Borneo Provisional Association Ltd (predecessor to British North Borneo Company). In the following year, the British North Borneo Company was formed and Kudat was made its capital. In 1883 the capital was moved to Sandakan. In 1885, the United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany signed

the Madrid Protocol of 1885, which recognised the sovereignty of Spain in the Sulu Archipelago in return for the relinquishment of all Spanish claims over North Borneo. In 1888 North Borneo became a protectorate of the United Kingdom. As part of the Second World War, Japanese forces landed in Labuan on 1 January 1942, and continued to invade the rest of North Borneo. From 1942 to 1945, Japanese forces occupied North Borneo, along with most of the island. Bombings by the allied forces devastated of most towns including Sandakan, which was razed to the ground. In Sandakan there was once a brutal POW camp run by the Japanese for British and Australian POWs from North Borneo. The prisoners suffered under notoriously inhuman conditions, and Allied bombardments caused the Japanese to relocate the POW camp to inland Ranau, 260 km away. All the prisoners, then were reduced to 2504 in number, were forced to march the infamous Sandakan Death March. Except for six Australians, all of the prisoners died. The war ended on 10 September 1945. After the surrender, North Borneo was administered by the British Military Administration and in 1946 it became a British Crown Colony.Jesselton replaced Sandakan as the capital and the Crown continued to rule North Borneo until 1963. On 31 August 1963 North Borneo attained self-government. 1962, the Cobbold Commission was set up to determine whether the people of Sabah and Sarawak favoured the proposed union, and found that the union was generally favoured by the people. Most ethnic community leaders of Sabah, namely, Tun Mustapha representing the Muslims, Tun Fuad Stephens representing the non-Muslim natives, and Khoo Siak Chew representing the Chinese, would eventually support the union. After discussion culminating in the Malaysia Agreement and20-point agreement, on 16 September 1963 North Borneo, as Sabah, was united with Malaya, Sarawak and Singapore, to form the independentFederation of Malaysia.

From before the formation of Malaysia till 1966, Indonesia adopted a hostile policy towards the British backed Malaya, and after union to Malaysia. This undeclared war stems from what Indonesian President Sukarno perceive as an expansion of British influence in the region and his intention to wrest control over the whole of Borneo under the Indonesian republic. Tun Fuad Stephens became the first chief minister of Sabah. The first Governor (Yang di-Pertuan Negeri) was Tun Mustapha. Sabah held its first state election in 1967. Until 2008, a total of 11 state elections has been held. Sabah has had 13 different chief ministers and 9 different Yang di-Pertua Negeri as of 2009. Beginning 1970, Filipino refugees from the Mindanao began arriving in Sabah as a result of the Moro insurgency taking place in that region.[24] On 14 June 1976 the government of Sabah signed an agreement with Petronas, the federal government-owned oil and gas company, granting it the right to extract and earn revenue from petroleum found in the territorial waters of Sabah in exchange for 5% in annual revenue as royalties. The state government of Sabah ceded Labuan to the Malaysian territory on Kinabalu was federal 16 government, 1984. city In status, and Labuan the it making became state the 6th a federal city in April 2000, capital Kota

granted

Malaysia and the first city in the state. Also this year, Kinabalu National Park was officially designated by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site, making it the first site in the country to be given such designation. that In the 2002, islands the International Court of Justice ruled of Sipadan and Ligitan, claimed

by Indonesia, are part of Sabah and Malaysia. In February 2013, the Sabah village of Tanduo in the Lahad Datu region was occupied by several armed Filipino supporters of the Sultanate of Sulu, calling themselves the Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo. They were sent by Jamalul Kiram III, a claimant to the throne of the

sultanate. His stated goal is to assert the Philippine territorial claim to eastern Sabah as part of the North Borneo dispute. In response, Malaysian security forces surrounded the village. Attempts by the Malaysian and the Philippine governments to reach a peaceful solution with the Sultan's supporters were unsuccessful and the standoff escalated into anarmed conflict on 1 March 2013. TERRITORIAL DISPUTE BETWEEN: a. b. Indonesia Philippines

PHILIPPINE CALIM OVER SABA; The Philippines has a territorial claim over much of the eastern part of Sabah, the former North Borneo. It claims that the territory, via the heritage of the Sultanate of Sulu, was onlyleased to the North Borneo Chartered Company in 1878 with the Sultanate's sovereignty never being relinquished. Malaysia however, considers this dispute as a "non-issue," as it interprets the 1878 agreement as that of cession and that it deems that the residents of Sabah had exercised their right to selfdetermination when they voted to join the Malaysian federation in 1963 1878 AGREEMENT: An agreement was signed between the sultanate of sulu and british commercial syndicate alfre dent and baron von overback stipulation: that neither north borneo was either ceded or leased (depending upon the translation) to the british syndicate in return for payment of 5000 malayan dollars per year. sultan jamalul kiram signed a document as "Confirmation of cession of certain islands", under which he grant and ceded additional islands in the neighbourhood of the mainland of North Borneo from Banggi Island to Sibuku Bay to British North Borneo Company.

This Confirmatory Deed of 1903 makes it known and understood between the two parties that the islands mentioned were included in the cession of the districts and islands mentioned in the 22nd January 1878 agreement. Additional cession money is 300 dollars a year and arrears for past occupation 3,200 dollars. The sum 5,000 dollars a year payable every year then increased to 5,300 dollars a year payable every year. Note: The Confirmatory Deed of 1903 must be viewed in the light of the 1878 Agreement. The British North Borneo Company entered into a Confirmatory Deed with the Sultanate of Sulu in 1903, thereby confirming and ratifying what was done in 1878. British version

... hereby grant and cede of our own free and sovereign will to Gustavus Baron

Overbeck of Hong Kong and Alfred Dent Esquire of London...and assigns for e and in perpetuity all the rights and powers belonging to us over all the territ and lands being tritutary to us on the mainland of the island of Borneo commencing from the Pandassan River on the north-west coast and extending the whole east coast as far as the Sibuco River in the south and comprising amongst other the States of Paitan, Sugut, Bangaya, Labuk, Sandakan, Kina Batangan, Mumiang, and all the other territories and states to the southward th bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco river with all the islands three marine leagues of the coast.[11] Sulu version ...do hereby lease of our own freewill and satisfaction to...all the territories and lands being tributary to [us] together with their heirs, associates, successors and assigns forever and until the end of time, all rights and powers which we possess over all territories and lads tributary to us on the mainland of the Island of Borneo, commencing from the Pandassan River on the west coast to Maludu Bay, and extending along the whole

east coast as far as Sibuco River on the south,and all the other territories and states to the southward thereof bordering on Darvel Bay and as far as the Sibuco River, ..., [9 nautical miles] of the coast."[ THE NORTH BORNEO DISPUTE|: The North Borneo much known dispute refers the North of as the to the territorial of the to part of Sabah. dispute between Malaysia and Philippines over Sabah was Republic

his

enemies

and

from

then

on

that

part

of Borneo was

recognised as part of the Sultan of Sulu's sovereignty. The 1878 cession/rental payment was continued until the independence and formation the of the Malaysian to the to federation Philippines US$1,500 in 1963 been year together paying (around with Singapore, Sarawak and the states of Malaya. As of 2004, Malaysian Embassy money had per cession/rental amounting

eastern

Borneo prior

6,300 Malaysian Ringgits) to the heirs of the Sultanate of Sulu.[ This is an act of British government before the federation and continued to the today's government of Malaysia. The Sultan of Sulu relinquished the sovereign rights over all his possessions in favour ofSpain, based on Bases of Peace and Capitulation signed by Sultan of Sulu and Spain inJolo on 22 July 1878. In 1885, Spain relinquished all of its claim to Borneo to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the Madrid Protocol of 1885. In spite of that, in 1906 and 1920 the United States of America, which by then colonized the Philippines, formally reminded the Untied Kingdom that Sabah belonged not to them but to the Sultanate of Sulu. America posited the claim on the premise that Spain never had acquired sovereignty over North Borneo, and thus did not have the right to transfer claims of sovereignty over North Borneo to the United Kingdom in the Madrid Protocol of 1885. However, the British Government proceeded with the annexation the territory of North Borneo as a Crown Colony on July 10, 1946. DURING THE ADMINISTRATION OF DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL: the territory of North Borneo, and the full sovereignty, title and dominion over it were ceded by then reigning Sultan of Sulu, Muhammad Esmail E. Kiram I, to the Philippines. The cession effectively gave the Philippine government the full authority to pursue their claim in international courts. The Philippines broke diplomatic

the formation of the Malaysian federation. The Philippines, presenting itself as the successor state of the Sultanate of Sulu, that retains the a "dormant was claim" on Sabah on the basis territory only leased to the British

North Borneo Company in 1878, with the sovereignty of the Sultanate (and subsequently the Republic) over the territory interprets never the having 1878 been relinquished.[2] However, a "non-issue" as that it as of cession and Malaysia considers this dispute as agreement

that it deems that the residents of Sabah had exercised their right to self-determination when they voted to join the Malaysian federation in 1963 PHILIPPINE CLAIM: The 1935 Constitution of the Philippines (which was effective then) stated that the country's national territory included, among other things, "all other areas which belong to the Philippines on the basis of historical rights or legal claims". Present-day Malaysia was federated on 16 September 1963, and even before Sabah was incorporated into Malaysia, the Philippines had sent delegations to London that reminded the The Crown of Sabah's belonging to the Philippines. The Sultanate of Sulu was granted the north-eastern part of the territory as a prize for helping the Sultan of Brunei against

relations with Malaysia after the federation had included Sabah in 1963 but probably resumed it unofficially through the Manila Accord where the Philippines made it clear that its position on the inclusion of North Borneo in the Federation of Malaysia is subject to the final outcome of the Philippine claim to North Borneo, and the representatives of Indonesia and Federation of Malaya seconded that the inclusion of North Borneo into the aforementioned Federation "would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder" It was revealed later in 1968 that President Ferdinand Marcos was training a team of militants on Corregidor known as Operation Merdeka for infiltration into Sabah. The plan failed in the event known as the Jabidah massacre. Diplomatic ties were resumed in 1989 because succeeding Philippine administrations have placed the claim in the back burner in the interest of pursuing cordial economic and security relations with Kuala [ Lumpur. Republic Act 5446, which took effect on 18 September 1968, regards Sabah as a territory "over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty."[32] On 16 July 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the Philippine claim over Sabah is retained and may be pursued in the future.[ To date, Malaysia continues to consistently reject Philippine calls to resolve the matter of Sabah's jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice.[ Sabah sees the claim made by the Philippines' Moro leader Nur Misuari to take Sabah to International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a non-issue and thus dismissed the claim. Note: The above mentioned Sulu claim is currently resting on the treaty which was signed by Sultan Jamalalulazam of Sulu appointing Baron de Overbeck as

Dato Bendahara and Raja Sandakan on 22nd January 1878. But there is, in fact, another treaty which was signed earlier by Sultan Abdul Momin appointing Baron de Overbeck as the Maharaja Sabah, Rajah Gaya and Sandakan signed on 29th December 1877. In 1877, the Brunei Sultanate then still believed and maintained that the territory was in fact still under the control of the Brunei Sultanate.

SPRATLY ISLAND: CLAIMANT: a. peoples republic of china b. Taiwan c. Vietnam d. Philippines e. Malaysia f. brunei VARIOUS CLAIMS: A. BRUNEI: Brunei claims the part of the South China Seas nearest to it as part of its continental shelfand Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). In 1984, Brunei declared an EEZ encompassing the abovewater islets it claims in Louisa Reef. Brunei does not practice military control in the area. BASIS OF THE CLAIM: Brunei's claims to the reef are based on the Law of the Sea. It states that the southern part of the Spratly Chain is actually a part of its continental shelf and therefore a part of its territory and resources. B. MALAYSIA; Malaysia has militarily occupied three islands that it considers to be within its continental shelf. Swallow Reef (Layang Layang) has

10

been turned into an island through land reclamation and hosts a dive resort. The Malaysian military currently occupies Ardasier Reef (Terumbu ), Mariveles Reef (Terumbu Mantanani) and Swallow Reef(Terumbu Layang or Pulau Layang Layang). BASIS OF THE CLAIM: Malaysia's claims are based upon the continental shelf principle, and have clearly defined coordinates. This argument still requires that the islands were res nullius, though. C. PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA: The People's Republic of China (PRC) claim all of the Spratly Islands as part of China and had a historical naval presence. Recently, they have had a profound military impact on the area. BASIS OF THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC CHINA CLAIM: China claims to have discovered the islands in the Han Dynasty in 2 BC. The islands were claimed to have been marked on maps compiled during the time of Eastern Han Dynastyand Eastern Wu (one of the Three Kingdoms). Since the Yuan Dynasty in the 12th century, several islands that may be the Spratlys have been labeled as Chinese territory, followed by the Ming Dynasty and the Qing Dynasty from the 13th to 19th Century. In 1755, archaeological surveys the remains of Chinese pottery and coins have been found in the islands and are cited as proof for the PRC claim. D. PHILIPPINES: The Philippines base their claims of sovereignty over the Spratlys on the issues of Res nullius and geography. The Philippines contend their claim was Res nullius as there was no effective

sovereignty over the islands until the 1930s when France and then Japan acquired the islands. When Japan renounced their sovereignty over the islands according to the San Francisco Treaty, there was a relinquishment of the right to the islands without any special beneficiary. Therefore, argue the Philippines, the islands became Res nullius and available for annexation. E. VIETNAM: Vietnamese claims that it has occupied the Spratley and the Paracel islands at least since the 17th century, when they were not under the sovereignty of any state, and that they exercised sovereignty over the two archipelagos continuously and peacefully until they were invaded by Chinese armed forces. In Ph bin tp lc (, Miscellaneous Records of Pacification in the Border Area) by the scholar L Qu n, Hong Sa (Paracel Islands), and Trng Sa (Spratly Islands) were defined as belonging to Qung Ngi District. In i Nam nht thng ton (), an atlas of Vietnam completed in 1838, Trng Sa was shown as Vietnamese territory.[33]Vietnam had conducted many geographical and resource surveys of the islands. The results of these surveys have been recorded in Vietnamese literature and history published since the 17th century. After the treaty signed with the Nguyn Dynasty, France represented Vietnam in international affairs and exercised sovereignty over the islands.

11

THE ISRAEL-PALESTINE CONFLICT|: on going struggle between Israel and Palestine in the mid 20th century KEY ISSUES|: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. mutual recognition boarders security water rights control of Jerusalem Israel settlement Palestinian freedom of movement finding a resolution to the refugee question state solution involving the creation of an

Damascus to mandatory Palestine marked the beginning of Palestinian arab nationalist struggle towards establishment of a national home for arabs of Palestine. HAJ AMIN AL HUSSEINI||: initiate a large scale riots against the jews as a result of the establishment of jewish paramilitary force of haganah the riots resulted in massive jewish casualties in hebron and safed an the evacuation of jewish from hebron to gaza. the revolt led to the establishment of the peel commission towards partitioning of Palestine though was subsequently rejected by the Palestinian arabs. PEACE PROCESS OSLO ACCORDS: the crux of the oslo peace agreement was that Israel would gradually cede control of the Palestinian territories over to the Palestinians in exchange for peace.

ATTEMPT SOLUTIONS|: a. two independent Palestinian state b. an independent jewish state or next to the state of Israel (after israels establishment)

HISTORY|: the conflict began in the 19 with the birth of major

th

century and early centuries movement among the

the u.s. considered

did present by the

concepts side

for yet

peace left

which were by

nationalist

Israeli

unanswered

jewish and among the arabs both geared towards attaining sovereignty for their people in the middle east. with be the outcome friendly of the first world war the relations agreement co-exist on beween Zionism and the arab national movement seemed to potentially a and for the both faisal Weizmann to created framework aspirations

Arafat the palestininans principal failing is that from the beginning of the camp david summit onward they were unable either to say yes to the America ideas or to present a congent and specific counterproposal of their own. CAMP DAVID SUMMIT (2000) u.s. president bill Clinton leader convened Yasser a peace and summit Israeli between Palestinian Arafat

former ottoman empires territories. the retrun of several hard-line Palestinian arab nationalist under the emerging leadership of haj amin al-husseini from

prime minister ehud barak.

12

barak

reportedly

put

forward

the

following

as

bases

for

negotiations via u.s. to Palestinian leader; 92% of the west bank and the entire gaza strip as well as the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem; 69 jewish settlement which comprised 85 % of the west bank jewish settlers would be ceded to Israel. he also propose temporary Israeli control indefinitely over another 10% of the west bank territory an area including many more jewish settlements. according to Palestinian sources the remaining area would be under Palestinian control yet certain areas would be broken up by Israeli by pass roads and checkpoints depeding on how the security and roads reduce thus would by the be ability configured to these Israeli their roads might impede free travel Palestinian throughout absorb to the

are Israeli." The holy sites were to be split on the basis that Palestinians would have sovereignty over the Temple Mount/Noble sanctuary, while the Israelis would have sovereignty over the Western Wall. On refugees the plan suggested a number of proposals including financial compensation, the right of return to the Palestinian state, and Israeli acknowledgement of suffering caused to the Palestinians in 1948. Security proposals referred to a "non-militarized" Palestinian state, and an international force for border security. Both sides accepted Clinton's plan and it became the basis for the negotiations at the Taba Peace summit the following January. TABA SUMMIT 2000: The proposition removed the "temporarily Israeli controlled" areas, and the Palestinian side accepted this as a basis for further negotiation.

proposed refugees. the

nation

Palestinian Palestinian and

Arafat Israeli

rejected occupation

offer.

according land,

negotiators the offer did not remove many of the elements of regarding security. settlements Jerusalem. the Israeli former foreign minister in an interview when he asked whether the Palestinian made a counter proposal in the negotiation: he said no and that is the heart of the matter. never in the negotiations between Israel and Palestinians was there a Palestinian counterproposal. DEVELOPMENT O\FOLLOWING CAMP DAVID: clintoNs plan was eventually presented on December 2000 he proposed the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state in the gaza strip and 94-96 percent of the west bank plus the equivalent of 1-3 percent of the west bank in land swaps form pre-1967 israel. on Jerusalem the plan stated that, "the general principle is that Arab areas are Palestinian and that Jewish areas

Road Map for Peace

One peace proposal, presented by the Quartet of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States on 17 September 2002, was the Road Map for Peace. This plan did not attempt to resolve difficult questions such as the fate of Jerusalem or Israeli settlements, but left that to be negotiated in later phases of the process. The proposal never made it beyond the first phase, which called for a halt to Israeli settlement construction and a halt to Israeli and Palestinian violence, none of which was achieved it spelled out "final-solution" borders based explicitly on the UN borders established before the 1967Six-Day War. It offered full normalization of relations with Israel, in exchange for the withdrawal of its forces from all the occupied territories, including the Golan Heights, to

Arab Peace Initiative

13

recognize "an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital" in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, as well as a "just solution" for the Palestinian refugees PRESENT STATUS: The peace process has been predicated on a "two-state solution".

ISRAELS SETTLEMENT POLICY: PALESTINIAN INCITEMENT: Israeli officials and other political figures have harshly criticized what they regard as Palestinians inciting violence against Jews and Israel. U.N. AND PALESTINIAN STATE: The PLO's campaign for full member status for the state of Palestine at the UN and have recognition on the 1967 borders received widespread support though it was criticised by some countries for purpotedly avoiding bilateral negotiation. Netanyahu expressed criticism of the Palestinians as he felt that they were allegedly trying to bypass direct talks, whereas Abbas argued that the continued construction of Israeli-Jewish settlements was "undermining the realistic potential" for the two-state solution. PALESTINIAN REFUGEES: people who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 arab-israeli conflict and the 1967 six day war. the number of Palestinian who fled was estimated at 711,000 in 1949 Descendants of these original Palestinian Refugees are also eligible for registration and services provided by theUnited Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), and as of 2010 number 4.7 million people

born outside Israel by their descendants are origina Palestinian refugees. adopted this policy unanismously and the BEGINNING OF THE REFUGEE: The refugee problem was created in 1947-48, when the Palestinians and their Arab allies rejected United Nations Resolution 181 and tried to prevent by force implementation of the partition plan that called for the creation of a Jewish state alongside an Arab state in Palestine. During the fighting, 600,000 to 700,000 Arabs fled or were driven out of areas that eventually became the state of Israel. (There were also about 17,000 Jewish refugees who fled or were driven out of areas that came under Arab, i.e., Jordanian, control.) Israel's record in this chain of developments was far from spotless. But the major reason for the displacement of people was the war itself, which the Arabs imposed on Israel in an attempt to abort its birth. the jewish refugee were immediately accepted by the new state of Israel they were provided with the shelter , tents food and clothing the refugee fleed to various arab nations were no similarly well received and not regarded as arab brothers but as an unwelcome migrants. The UN through UNRWA (UN Relief Agency) provided assistance to the camps when the host country could not or would not. These camps became a training ground for terrorist youth to be targeted at Israel. The host country, like Syria, would provide training, weapons and explosives, but refused to absorb the Arab refugees as equal citizens. Keeping them in misery made them valuable and irreplaceable as angry front line terrorists attacking Israel as proxies for the Arab armies who lost to the Jews on the field of battle in declared wars. The Twin Pillars supporting Arab Muslim society are "Pride and Shame". Losing to the Jews on the battlefield time and again in 6 wars shattered the self perception of the Macho Man.

14

 is handled by a separate authority from that handling other refugees, that is, by UNRWA and not the UNHCR. Most of the people recognizing themselves as Palestinian refugees would have otherwise been assimilated into their country of current residency, and would not maintain their refugee state if not for the separate entities. the arab refugee problem is largely caused by the refusal of all arab governments except Jordan to grant citizenship to Palestinian arabs who reside within those countries borders. REFUGEE STATUS: The refugee status of the Palestinians was perpetuated by the host countries and the Palestinian leadership, and by the international community, through the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the only UN body dedicated to a specific refugee group (all other refugees in the world are the responsibility of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees). As a result, refugee status was passed down from father to son to grandson over 50 years, so that, today, they number three million to four million. That is why the Palestinians now account for about one-fourth of the world's refugees -- an impressive figure until one imagines how many refugees there would be if all the Finns and Germans and Indian Hindus and Muslims and European Jews who were made refugees after the Second World War (not to speak of the Greeks and Turks and Armenians who were made refugees during and after the First World War) were still considered refugees in the year 2000. Who qualifies for Palestinian refugee status? Any Arab who entered Israel up to two years prior to the rebirth of the Jewish state could claim to be a Palestinian refugee, even if he and his ancestors had lived elsewhere for generations before and he owned no land or property in Palestine. WHY ARE THERE STILL REFUGEES FROM 1948 STILL LIVING IN REFUGEE CAMPS GENERATIONS AFTER THE ORIGINAL DISPLACEMENT: The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an

affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die." "In general, one can say that Arab governments

regarded the destruction of the State of Israel as a more pressing matter than the welfare of the Palestinian refugees. Palestinian bitterness and anger had to be kept alive. It was clear that this could best be done by ensuring that a great many Palestinians Arabs continued to live under sub-normal conditions, the victims of hunger and poverty. No Arab Government preached this as a defined policy; most Arab Governments tacitly put it into practice."
The Palestinians are the only refugees who cannot and must not be absorbed elsewhere; their fate is to be played up as the mirror image of the Wandering Jew. The Gaza Strip, as it was known for the 19 years of harsh Egyptian occupation, had 8 UNWRA refugee camps in which the Palestinians were forced to live in overcrowded squalor. Egypt refused to absorb any refugees; kept them stateless, denied passports, and forbade them to travel or work in Egypt. 22 Arab countries are uninterested in aiding in Palestinian brothers , preferred to use them as a political weapon to wield against Israel and the u.n. supported this heartless human manipulation. EVEN IF ISRAEL IS NOT THE CAUSE IF THE ARAB REFUGEE PROBLEEM DID THEY DO ANYTHING TO COMPENSATE THOSE PEOPLE; Despite this, on humanitarian grounds Israel has since the 1950's allowed more than 50,000 refugees to return to Israel under a family reunification program, and between 1967 and 1993 allowed a further 75,000 to return to the West Bank or Gaza. Since the beginning of the Oslo process Israel has

15

allowed another 90,000 Palestinians to gain residence in PAcontrolled territory. Arabs who lost property in Israel are eligible to file for compensation from Israel's Custodian of Absentee Property. As of the end of 1993, a total of 14,692 claims had been filed, claims were settled with respect to more than 200,000 dunams of land, more than 10,000,000 NIS (New Israeli Shekels) had been paid in compensation, and more than 54,000 dunums of replacement land had been given in compensation. Israel has followed this generous policy despite the fact that not a single penny of compensation has ever been paid to any of the more than 500,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries, who were forced by the Arab governments to abandon their homes, businesses and savings. UN RESOLUTION 194: referred directly to Palestinian refugee The United Nations first took up the refugee issue and adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. This called upon the Arab states and Israel to resolve all outstanding issues through negotiations either directly, or with the help of the Palestine Conciliation Commission established by this resolution. Furthermore, Point 11 resolves: that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which under principles of international law or in equity should be made good by Governments or authorities responsible. Instructs the Conciliation Commission to facilitate the repatriation, resettlement and economic and social rehabilitation of refugees and payment of compensation... The emphasized words demonstrate that the UN recognized that Israel could not be expected to repatriate a hostile population that might endanger its security. The

solution to the problem, like all previous refugee problems, would require at least some Palestinians to be resettled in Arab lands. ISRAELS ATTITUDE TOWARD REFUGEES: the refugee had been given an opportunity to stay in their home and be a part of the new state. ARAB ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE REFUGEES: It is inconceivable that the refugees should be sent back to their homes while they are occupied by the Jews, as the latter would hold them as hostages and maltreat them. The very proposal is an evasion of responsibility by those responsible. It will serve as a first step towards Arab recognition of the State of Israel and partition.

The Arabs demanded that the United Nations assert the right of the Palestinians to return to their homes, and were unwilling to accept anything less until after their defeat had become obvious. The Arabs then reinterpreted Resolution 194 as granting the refugees the absolute right of repatriation and have demanded that Israel accept this interpretation ever since. One reason for maintaining this position was the conviction that the refugees could ultimately bring about Israel's destruction, a sentiment expressed by Egyptian Foreign Minister Muhammad Salah al-Din: It is well-known and understood that the Arabs, in demanding the return of the refugees to Palestine, mean their return as masters of the Homeland and not as slaves. With a greater clarity, they mean the liquidation of the State of Israel. Jordan was the only Arab country to welcome the Palestinians and grant them citizenship (to this day Jordan is the only Arab country where Palestinians as a group can become citizens). King Abdullah considered the

16

Palestinian Arabs and Jordanians one people. By 1950, he annexed the West Bank and forbade the use of the term Palestine in official documents. The treatment of the refugees in the decade following their displacement was best summed up by a former UNRWA official, Sir Alexander Galloway, in April 1952: The Arab States do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders don't give a damn whether the refugees live or die.

ISRAEL OCCUPIED TERRITORIES: the disputed territories, are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by the United Nations and other international organizations, governments and others to refer to the territory seized by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. CONSIST OF: a. west bank b. gaza strip united nations general assembly and the united nations security council regarded Israel as the occupying territory. occupying territory means: that Israel is occupying this territory in violation of international law. Israel high court ruled that: Israel holds the west bank under belligerent occupation. disputed territories: in case of the west bank.

17