Malaysia had filed an application requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to interpret its 2008 judgment on the sovereignty dispute between Malaysia and Singapore over Pulau Batu Puteh, said attorney-general Mohamed Apandi Ali.

Mohamed Apandi said the filing was needed as a bilateral committee set up to implement the judgment of the case had reached an impasse.

"One reason for this impasse is that the parties are unable to agree on the meaning of the 2008 judgment," he said in a statement today.

He noted that following the ICJ's ruling, both countries had issued large numbers of official protests against each other over alleged incidents in the disputed areas.

As such, he said that the need for an interpretation of ICJ's 2008 judgment was pressing as there was a high volume of aerial and maritime traffic in those areas.

Apart from Pulau Batu Puteh, the case also addressed the sovereignty of two nearby features - Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

The ICJ in 2008, in a 12-to-four ruling, found that Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Singapore. It also voted 15 to one that Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia.

Who owns South Ledge?

However, the court came to the decision that South Ledge belongs to the country which owns the territorial waters in which the features are located at, without specifically naming a country.

Mohamed Apandi said Malaysia is seeking a declaration that South Ledge is located within the territorial waters of Malaysia and consequently the sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to Malaysia.

He added that Malaysia also wants a declaration that the waters surrounding Pulau Batu Puteh remain within the territorial waters of Malaysia.

He hoped the ICJ's interpretation can serve as a guide for both countries to manage their maritime zones and airspace in future.

Malaysia in February had also applied for a review of the ICJ's decision.

Mohamed Apandi at that time said the application for a review was in light of "new facts" discovered by the Malaysian side.

However, he said this new application for an interpretation is unrelated to Malaysia's earlier application for a review of the decision.