Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Abbreviations
- Acknowledgements
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Historical Background: The Partitioning of the Malay Archipelago
- 3 The Resolution of Anglo-Spanish Claims and the Anglo-Dutch Boundary in North Borneo, 1878–1915
- 4 Delimitation of the North Borneo–Philippines Sea Boundary and the Transfer of Sovereignty over Certain Islands to North Borneo, 1903–30
- 5 The Emergence of Successor States to Colonial Regimes and the Phenomena of Expansionist Nationalisms in Maritime Southeast Asia
- 6 The Bases of Indonesia's Claim
- 7 The Bases of Malaysia's Claim
- 8 The ICJ's Judgment
- 9 Conclusion
- Appendixes
- Bibliography
- Index
- About the Author
6 - The Bases of Indonesia's Claim
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2020
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- List of Figures
- List of Abbreviations
- Acknowledgements
- Preface
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Historical Background: The Partitioning of the Malay Archipelago
- 3 The Resolution of Anglo-Spanish Claims and the Anglo-Dutch Boundary in North Borneo, 1878–1915
- 4 Delimitation of the North Borneo–Philippines Sea Boundary and the Transfer of Sovereignty over Certain Islands to North Borneo, 1903–30
- 5 The Emergence of Successor States to Colonial Regimes and the Phenomena of Expansionist Nationalisms in Maritime Southeast Asia
- 6 The Bases of Indonesia's Claim
- 7 The Bases of Malaysia's Claim
- 8 The ICJ's Judgment
- 9 Conclusion
- Appendixes
- Bibliography
- Index
- About the Author
Summary
Introduction
Indonesia advanced its claim to Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan based on a number of arguments. The linchpin of its submissions was that it held a legal title over these two islands as a result of historical circumstances; the Anglo-Dutch Boundary Convention of 1891; and the process of ratification of the said Convention which involved proceedings in the Dutch Parliament, especially those pertaining to the Explanatory Memorandum Map of 1891. To Indonesia, possession of a legal title was paramount, and no amount of subsequent effectivités could displace such a title; they could only enhance it. Indonesia built its case on four major bases as stated below:
A grand argument that Indonesia possessed legal title over Sipadan and Ligitan;
a supporting argument based on State Practice or Effectivités;
map evidence; and
activities of colonial powers in the region.
Indonesia's Case Based on the Possession of a Legal Title
Legal Title Derived From Historical Developments
In its written Memorial, Indonesia went to great lengths to explain the uncertain nature of the traditional territorial boundaries in the northeastern region of Borneo in the nineteenth century. The explanation was necessary as the native rulers paid more attention to control over people rather than territory. As such, territorial concessions made by local rulers to European powers in the region in the nineteenth century often overlapped so much so “that this lack of precision in determining territorial possessions in the area was the source of confusion among the colonial powers themselves”. The Memorial of Indonesia, vol. 1 proceeded to explain that the Sultan of Bulungan had jurisdiction over territories as far as Batu Tinagat, situated at parallel 4°19’ north on the northeast coast of Borneo. The Sultan of Bulungan, Muhammad Khahar-Oedien had signed a Contract of Vassalage with the Netherlands Indies Government on 12 November 1850, by which he acknowledged submission to Dutch overlordship as far back as 1834. Indonesia claimed that Article II of the 1850 Contract of Vassalage contained definitive evidence that the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan belonged to the Sultan of Bulungan.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan IslandsHistorical Antecedents and the International Court of Justice Judgment, pp. 127 - 143Publisher: ISEAS–Yusof Ishak InstitutePrint publication year: 2019