Malaysia panicked with Sabah claims: Philippines, 3 thousand military started training with US

Malaysia panicked with Sabah claims: Philippines, 3 thousand military started training with US
Should Malaysia be concerned with the Philippines’ latest claim on Sabah?

Incoming President of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte recently vowed to pursue his nation’s claim over Sabah.

Malaysia’s government was quick to issue a response. It’s not the first time Sabah’s sovereignty has made the headlines, as well as this latest episode sparked mixed reactions among Malaysians.

s such a claim over Sabah, valid under international law? History , The Malaysian state of Sabah, formerly known as North Borneo, was once a territory of the Sultanate of Brunei.

In 1658, the Sultan of Brunei ceded the northern as well as eastern portion of Borneo to the Sultan of Sulu in compensation for the Sulu’s assistance in repressing civil war that erupted in Brunei at that time.
At its peak in the 18th century, the influence of the Sultanate of Sulu extended beyond the territory of the modern daytime Sabah to include the southern Philippines as well.

The advent of the colonial powers of Britain as well as Spain saw the gradual depletion of the influence of the Sulu Sultanate.

While the rest of the Philippines fell under Spanish dominions, British took the initiative to gain power in Sabah.

The Worldwides dissolved the political sovereignty of the Sulu Sultanate through the Carpenter Agreement signed on 22 March 1915.

Sabah as well as the Sultanate of Sulu ,On 22 January 1878, an agreement was signed between the Sultanate of Sulu as well as two British agents, Alfred Dent as well as Baron von Overback (German by nationality) which provided that North Borneo was ceded or ‘leased in perpetuity’ to the British, in return for payment of 5, 000 Malayan dollars per year.

The lease was increased to 5, 300 Malayan dollars a year when the territory ceded was extended to include additional islands along the coast of North Borneo from Banggi Island to Sibuku Bay. Upon cession, the British North Borneo Chartered Company (BNBC) administered Sabah until 1941.

Sabah was then annexed as part of the Japanese Empire. Upon Japanese surrender in 1945, Sabah was made a British crown colony until its independence within Malaysia in 1963.
The Philippines began it’s claim over Sabah in 1963 but agreed in 1977 not to pursue it.

However, the current President-elect was reported to have decided not to drop the claim, based on the fact that Sabah had traditional as well as ancestral ties with the dissolved Sulu Sultanate.

It is not entirely clear whether or not the Philippines would pursue this through the International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Territorial Acquisition as well as Recognition under International Law ,There are a number of methods of territorial acquisition under international law, among others, through conquest, prescription as well as cession.

Malaysia has, since 1963, administered Sabah without any persistent objection from any members of the United Nations. Malaysia’s exercise of sovereignty over Sabah is different with that of Indonesia in relation to East Timor.

East Timor was annexed by Indonesia in 1975. Due to protests from the international community as well as the East Timorese themselves, East Timor became an independent sovereign State in 2002.

Sabah was never annexed as it, through the Cobbold Commission, voluntarily decided to be federated into Malaysia together with the British colonies of Singapore as well as Sarawak as well as with the independent sovereign of Malaya.

Since 1963, Malaysia has installed a working government to administer Sabah, invested funds to develop its economy with the international community recognising Sabah as part of Malaysia.

The claim of Sabah as ancestral territory of the Sultan of Sulu is baseless. The ICJ in the 2008 Malaysia-Singapore dispute over Pedra Branca recognised that Pedra Branca was not terra nullius (no-man’s land) as well as the sovereignty over it was with the Johor Sultanate.

The ICJ however awarded Pedra Branca to Singapore when it was proven that the British government of Singapore has acquired it from the Sultan of Johor since 1953.

If ancestral claims hold strong position under international law, then Pedra Branca should remain with the Johor Sultanate (Malaysia) as well as not with Singapore.

In addition, if historical claims could be upheld, then, Malaysia, through the existing Johor Sultanate could put a claim on Singapore as well as the Riau Islands of Indonesia.

Malaysia too, via the historical territories of the Kedah Sultanate, could claim sovereignty over Thai provinces of Satun as well as Trang as well as Tenasserim in Myanmar.

This is nevertheless, not how international law operates as well as shows that ancestral claims do not carry much weight under international law.