Download Case Study

Case Study
This case is one of the most highly influential
precedents dealing with island territorial conflicts.
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. The Island of
Palmas (known as Pulau Miangas in Bahasa
Indonesian) is now within Indonesian sovereignty.
Case Study
The structure of the case
Ⅰ. Facts of the case
Ⅱ. The Arbitrator's decision
ⅰ. Right by discovery
ⅱ. Contiguity
ⅲ. Continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty
ⅳ. Conclusion
Case Study
Ⅰ. Facts of the case
Palmas, also referred to as 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 when the
decision of the arbitrator was handed down. The
island is located between Mindanao, Philippines
and the northern most island, known as Nanusa,
of what was the former Netherlands East Indies. In
1898, Spain ceded the Philippines to the United
States in the Treaty of Paris (1898) and Palmas
sat 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.
Case Study
Ⅰ. Facts of the case
On January 23, 1925, the two government signed
an agreement to that effect. Ratifications were
exchanged in Washington on April 1, 1925. The
agreement was registered in League of Nations
Treaty Series on May 19, 1925.[1] The arbitrator in
the case was Max Huber, a Swiss national.
The question the arbitrator was to resolve was
whether the Island of Palmas (Miangas), in its
entirety, was a part of the territory of the United
States or the Netherlands.
The legal issue presented was whether a territory
belongs to the first discoverer, even if they do not
exercise authority over the territory, or whether it
belongs to the state which actually exercises
sovereignty over it.
Case Study
Ⅱ. The Arbitrator's decision
The Arbitrator, Swiss lawyer Max Huber, ruled in
favor of the Netherlands’ position and stated that
the Netherlands 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.
Case Study
ⅰ. 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 SpanishAmerican War. The arbitrator noted that no new
international law invalidated the legal transfer of
territory via cession.
Case Study
ⅰ. Right by discovery
However, the arbitrator noted that Spain could not
legally grant what it did not hold and the Treaty of
Paris could not grant to the United States Palmas
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 United States’ claim was based on
relatively weak grounds.
Case Study
ⅱ. Contiguity 毗邻关系
The United States also argued that Palmas was
United States territory because the island was
closer to the Philippines than to Indonesia which
was then held by the Netherlands East Indies. The
arbitrator said there was no positive international
law which favored the United State's 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 noted that if the
international community followed the proposed
United States approach, it would lead to arbitrary
results.
Case Study
ⅲ. 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.
Case Study
ⅲ. Continuous and peaceful display of
sovereignty
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, than there would have been conflicts
between the two countries but none are provided
in the evidence.
Case Study
ⅳ. Conclusion
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
（早期的；未充分发展的） title.
• Finally, 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.