“The Sabah dispute remains a complex and sensitive issue, deeply rooted in historical claims and contemporary geopolitical interests”
THE ongoing geopolitical tension between Malaysia and the Philippines over the territorial claim of Sabah has once again come into sharp focus.
On July 4, Malaysia submitted a diplomatic note to the United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, firmly rejecting the Philippines’ renewed claim to Sabah.
The diplomatic note from Malaysia categorically rejected the Philippines’ filing, arguing the Philippines’ claim over Sabah’s baselines disregards Malaysia’s “indisputable sovereignty” over the state.
To understand the present status quo and the historical entanglements involving Sabah, it is essential to look into the historical background and legal frameworks that underpin these claims.
Historical background
The Sabah dispute dates back to the 17th century when the Sultanate of Sulu, based in the southern Philippines, was granted control over the territory by the Sultan of Brunei.
In 1878, the Sultan of Sulu leased Sabah to the British North Borneo Company.
This lease has been a central point of contention: Malaysia views it as a permanent cession, while the Philippines interprets it as a temporary arrangement, maintaining that sovereignty was never relinquished.
When Malaysia was formed in 1963, Sabah chose to join the Malaysian Federation after a referendum facilitated by the Cobbold Commission.
However, the Philippines has consistently maintained its claim, arguing the inhabitants of Sabah were not adequately consulted and the region should rightfully belong to the Philippines based on historical sovereignty.
The dispute saw a significant legal development in 2023 when the Paris Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Malaysia, nullifying an earlier French court’s ruling that had awarded $15 billion to the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu for oil-and-gas extracted by Petronas.
This ruling bolstered Malaysia’s legal standing and further complicated the Philippines’ efforts to reclaim Sabah.
Charting a course: The Philippines’ options
The Philippines has several avenues to pursue its claim over Sabah:
1. Diplomatic Channels: Engaging in sustained diplomatic efforts through bilateral talks with Malaysia and leveraging international support.
2. International Arbitration: Bringing the dispute before an international body like the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS).
Historical precedents, like the ICJ’s ruling in the Pedra Branca dispute between Singapore and Malaysia, could serve as a framework.
3. Legal Arguments: Utilizing historical documents and treaties, including the 1878 agreement and subsequent interpretations, to build a robust legal case. The Philippines could also reference the principle of self-determination, arguing the people of Sabah should have a say in their sovereignty.
4. Economic Incentives: Proposing joint development agreements or economic incentives that might make a settlement more palatable to Malaysia.
Exploring Malaysia’s possibilities
Malaysia, on the other hand, has its own strategies to defend its sovereignty over Sabah:
1. Legal Precedents: Citing the 2023 Paris Court of Appeal ruling and other international legal precedents to reinforce its claim.
2. Diplomatic Measures: Continuing to engage the UN and other international bodies to support its sovereignty claims. Malaysia can argue the principle of uti possidetis juris, which supports the maintenance of pre-existing administrative boundaries post-independence.
3. Public Relations Campaign: Highlighting the historical and contemporary ties between Sabah and Malaysia to garner domestic and international support.
4. Strengthening Presence: Increasing economic and infrastructural investments in Sabah to reinforce its administrative control and integrate the state further into the Malaysian Federation.
Recommendations
Moving forward, the Philippines should consider a multi-pronged approach:
1. International Mediation: Seeking mediation from a neutral international party could facilitate dialogue and potentially lead to a resolution that respects both nations’ interests.
2. Comprehensive Legal Strategy: Developing a detailed legal framework based on historical treaties, international law, and human rights principles to present a compelling case in international forums.
3. Regional Cooperation: Engaging ASEAN members to mediate and support a peaceful resolution, leveraging regional stability and cooperation.
4. Economic Partnerships: Proposing collaborative economic projects that could benefit both Malaysia and the Philippines, thereby providing mutual incentives for a diplomatic resolution.
5. Public Diplomacy: Conducting a robust public diplomacy campaign to educate the international community about the historical and legal bases of the Philippines’ claim.
The Sabah dispute remains a complex and sensitive issue, deeply rooted in historical claims and contemporary geopolitical interests.
As Malaysia and the Philippines navigate this contentious territory, a balanced approach that combines legal, diplomatic, and economic strategies will be crucial in seeking a resolution that upholds international law and promotes regional stability.
