Oil Treaty Dispute: Australia Refuses to Give in to East Timor’s Demands

In response to East Timor's urging on the International Court of Justice to force Australia to return seized documents regarding the two countries' controversial oil treaty, Australian authorities defends their position and rejects to give in to the demands.

Mr Justin Gleeson, solicitor-general of Australia, remarks on Mr Lauterpacht's statements Tuesday, saying, "Coming from such an authority as Sir Eli, those remarks wound."

Yesterday, East Timorese counsel Elihu Lauterpacht called the December ASIO (Australian Security Intelligence Organization) raids and confiscation of sensitive documents as "unprecedented, improper and inexplicable". East Timor then asked the International Court of Justice Monday for Australia to return data and documents it confiscated, with Mr Lauterpacht urging the UN court to "clear, firm and severe condemnation of what Australia has done".

Mr Gleeson asserts that George Brandis, Australia's attorney general, has assured the public that the documents are currently in safe hands and that the information in the documents in question would not be disclosed to anyone and any other objective, except for the purpose of "protecting national security". He says that Australia will hold on to the documents until the International Court of Justice makes an official order.

John Reid, representative of Mr Brandis' office of the attorney-general, adds that East Timor is being "offensive" when it acts reluctant to have faith on the validity of their previous undertakings.

"To question the veracity of these undertakings and to suggest from the bar table that the undertakings have either not been implemented or are somehow without legal force, as our friends did yesterday, is both wrong as a matter of law and frankly, offensive," Mr Reid said.

"Australia has made the undertakings. Australia will honour them."

In lieu of the ASIO raids as a move to "protect national security", the Australian camp does not expound as to why.

"It is not for Australia to disclose further than I already have the precise security interest that drove the warrant," Mr Gleeson replied.

Additionally, the Australian side suggests that East Timor might have other motives that pushed them to go public.

"It's a fair inference that one reason for these proceedings is to skirt around the confidentiality provisions and maximise the opportunity for publicity and comment prejudicial to Australia," remarked Professor James Crawford, also part of the Australian camp in Hague.

Tomorrow, both sides would sum up their positions on the third and final day of the hearings in the International Court of Justice.