Island of Palmas Case
|Island of Palmas|
|Court||Permanent Court of Arbitration|
|Full case name||Island of Palmas (or Miangas) (United States v. The Netherlands)|
|Decided||April 4, 1928|
|Judge sitting||Max Huber, sole arbitrator|
|Decision by||Max Huber|
Island of Palmas Case, (Scott, Hague Court Reports 2d 83 (1932), (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928), 2 U.N. Rep. Intl. Arb. Awards 829), was a case involving a territorial dispute over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) between the Netherlands and the United States which was heard by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Palmas (Indonesian: Pulau Miangas) was declared to be a part of the Netherlands East Indies and is now part of Indonesia.
This case is one of the most highly influential precedents dealing with island territorial conflicts.
Palmas (Miangas) is an island of little economic value or strategic location. It is two miles in length, three-quarters of a mile in width, and had a population of about 750 in 1932, when the case was decided. Palmas lies between Mindanao, the southernmost part of the Philippines, and the Nanusa Islands, the northernmost part of Indonesia other than Palmas.
In 1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898) and Palmas lay within the boundaries of that cession to the U.S. In 1906, the United States discovered that the Netherlands also claimed sovereignty over the island, and the two parties agreed to submit to binding arbitration by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. On 23 January 1925, the two governments signed an agreement to that effect. Ratifications were exchanged in Washington on 1 April 1925. The agreement was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on 19 May 1925. The arbitrator in the case was Max Huber, a Swiss lawyer.
The question before the arbitrator was whether the Island of Palmas (Miangas), in its entirety, was a part of the territory of the United States or the Netherlands.
Arguments of United States
- Right by Discovery and Recognition by Treaty
The origin of the dispute is dated back to January 1 of 1906, when General Leonard Wood who was then Governor of the Province of Moro, paid a visit to the Island of Palmas (or Miangas). It is true that according to information contained in the Counter-Memorandum of the United States the same General Wood had already visited the island about the year 1903. The report of General Wood to the Military Secretary, United States Army on January 26, 1906, and the certificate delivered on January 21 by First Lieutenant Gordon Johnston to the native interrogated by the controller of the Sangi (Sanghi) and Talauer (Talaut) Islands clearly show that the visit of January 21 relates to the island in dispute. This visit led to the statement that the Island of Palmas (or Miangas), undoubtedly included in the "archipelago known as the Philippine Islands", as delimited by Article III of the Treaty of Peace between the United States and Spain, hereinafter also called "Treaty of Paris"; and ceded in virtue of the said article to the United States, was considered by the Netherlands as forming part of the territory of their possessions in the East Indies.
The United States, as successor to the rights of Spain over the Philippines, bases its title in the first place on discovery. The existence of sovereignty thus acquired is, in the American view, confirmed not merely by the most reliable cartographers and authors, but also by treaty, in particular by the Treaty of Münster of 1648, to which Spain and the Netherlands are themselves Contracting Parties. According to the same argument, nothing has occurred of a nature to cause the acquired title to disappear in international law. U.S. argues that this latter title at the moment when Spain ceded its title to the Philippines by the Treaty of Paris (1898). In these circumstances, it is, in the American view, unnecessary to establish facts showing the actual display of sovereignty precisely over the Island of Palmas (or Miangas).
- Principle of Contiguity
The United States Government finally maintains that Palmas (or Miangas) forms a geographical part of the Philippine group; meaning that the territory in dispute was closer to the Philippines than to the Dutch East Indies. Thus the principle of contiguity substantiates the claim that it belongs to the Power having the sovereignty over the Philippines.
Arguments of Netherlands
- Continuous and Peaceful Display of Sovereignty
According to the Netherlands Government the fact of discovery by Spain is not proved, nor yet any other form of acquisition, and even if Spain had at any moment had a title, such title had been lost. The principle of contiguity is contested. The Netherlands Government's main argument endeavors to show that the Netherlands, represented for this purpose in the first period of colonization by the East India Company, have possessed and exercised rights of sovereignty from 1677, or probably from a date prior even to 1648, to the present day. This sovereignty arose out of conventions entered into with native princes of the Island of Sangi (the main island of the Talautse (Sangi) Isles), establishing the sovereignty of the Netherlands over the territories of these princes, including Palmas (or Miangas). The state of affairs thus set up is claimed to be validated by international treaties.
Huber was charged to determine "whether the Island of Palmas (or Miangas) in its entirety forms a part of territory belonging to the United States of America or of Netherlands territory." Based on the arguments made by both states, the court focuses on two issues: (1) whether the inchoate title claimed by the United States prevails over a continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty exercised by Netherlands, and (2) whether title of contiguity has foundation in international law.
The Arbitrator's decision
Huber ruled in favor of the Netherlands's position and stated that it held actual title to Palmas:
For these reasons
The Arbitrator in conformity with Article I of the Special Agreement of January 23rd, 1925 DECIDES that : THE ISLAND OF PALMAS (or MIANGAS) forms in its entirety a part of the Netherlands territory. done at The Hague, this fourth day of April 1928. Max Huber, Arbitrator Michiels van Verduynen, Secretary-General.
Right by discovery
In the first of its two arguments, the United States argued that it held the island because it had received actual title through legitimate treaties from the original "discoverer" of the island, Spain. 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.
However, the arbitrator noted that Spain could not legally grant what it did not hold and the Treaty of Paris could not grant Palmas to the United States if Spain had no actual title to it. The arbitrator concluded that Spain held an inchoate title when Spain "discovered" Palmas. However, for a sovereign to maintain its initial title via discovery, the arbitrator said that the discoverer had to actually exercise authority, even if it were as simple an act as planting a flag on the beach. In this case, Spain did not exercise authority over the island after making an initial claim after discovery and so the American claim was based on relatively weak grounds.
The United States argued that Palmas was American territory because the island was closer to the Philippines than to the Netherlands East Indies. The arbitrator said there was no positive international law which favored the United States approach of terra firma, where the nearest continent or island of considerable size gives title to the land in dispute. The arbitrator held that mere proximity was not an adequate claim to land and noted that if the international community followed the proposed American approach, it would lead to arbitrary results.
Continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty
The Netherlands' primary contention was that it held actual title because the Netherlands had exercised authority on the island since 1677. The arbitrator noted that the United States had failed to show documentation proving Spanish sovereignty on the island except those documents that specifically mentioned the island's discovery. Additionally, there was no evidence that Palmas was a part of the judicial or administrative organization of the Spanish government of the Philippines. However, the Netherlands showed that the Dutch East India Company had negotiated treaties with the local princes of the island since the 17th century and had exercised sovereignty, including a requirement of Protestantism and the denial of other nationals on the island. The arbitrator pointed out that if Spain had actually exercised authority, there would have been conflicts between the two countries, but none is provided in the evidence.
Thus, a title that is inchoate cannot prevail over a definite title found on the continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty. The peaceful and continuous display of territorial sovereignty is as good as title. However, discovery alone without subsequent act cannot suffice to prove sovereignty over the island. The territorial sovereignty of the defendant, Netherlands, was not contested by anyone from 1700 to 1906. The title of discovery at best an inchoate title does not therefore prevail over the Netherlands claims of sovereignty.
Under the Palmas decision, three important rules for resolving island territorial disputes were decided:
- Firstly, title based on contiguity has no standing in international law.
- Secondly, title by discovery is only an inchoate title.
- Thirdly, if another sovereign begins to exercise continuous and actual sovereignty, (and the arbitrator required that the claim had to be open and public and with good title) and the discoverer does not contest this claim, the claim by the sovereign that exercises authority is greater than a title based on mere discovery.
- League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 33, pp. 446-453.
- "The Palmas Island Arbitration". The American Journal of International Law 22.4 (1928). 735-752.
- Epps, Valerie. International Law (4th ed. 2009).
- "The Island of Palmas Case". Permanent Court of Arbitration(1928).
- Paraphrased from THE ISLAND OF PALMAS CASE (OR MIANGAS) : UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. THE NETHERLANDS, PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION, 4 April 1928, p.39.
- H. Harry L. Roque Jr. "Palmas Arbitration revisited" (PDF). Philippine Law Journal. 77 (4): 437–462.
- William Heflin (2000). "Diayou/Senkaku Islands Dispute: Japan and China, Oceans Apart" (PDF). Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal. 1 (2): 9–11 Section III–A, Island of Palmas Case.
- William S. Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law (6th ed. 2011).