Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Publishing partners
  4. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute
  5. Content Listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

15200 results in ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute

Page 103 of 760

  • Appendix C - Agreement between the United Kingdom and the Netherlands Relating to the Boundary between the State of North Borneo and the Netherland Possessions in Borneo. Signed at London, 28 September 1915

  • from Appendixes
  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 200-205

  • Summary

    His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands having agreed in a spirit of mutual goodwill to confirm the joint Report with the accompanying map prepared by their respective Commissioners in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention signed at London on the 20th June, 1891, for the delimitation of the boundary line between the States in the Island of Borneo which are under British protection and the Netherland possessions in that island, and relating to the boundary between the State of North Borneo and the Netherland possessions in the island; the undersigned duly authorized to that effect, hereby confirm the aforesaid joint Report and map, as signed by their Commissioners at Tawao on the 17th February, 1913.

    The text of this joint Report, signed in English only, is as follows:-

    We, the undersigned: J.H.G. Schepers, engineer of the Triangulation Brigade, Netherland India, E.A. Vreede, 2nd Lieutenant of the Netherland Royal Navy, appointed by Netherland India Government Resolution No. 1 of the 9th April 1912, and No. 38 of the 30th October 1912, respectively, as leader and Joint Commissioner of the Netherland Commission to delimitate on the spot the frontier between Netherland territory and the State of British North Borneo; H.W.L. Bunbury, officer of the First Class, British North Borneo Civil Service, G. St. V. Keddell, surveyor, appointed by commission from his Excellency the Governor of British North Borneo, dated the 30th May 1912, respectively, as Civil Commissioner and Surveyor representing the Government of British North Borneo; have the honour to report as follows:-

  • We have travelled in the neighborhood of the frontier from the 8th June 1912, to the 30th January 1913, during which period the Netherland Commission has made the necessary astronomical observations and topographical surveys, the results of which we declare to be correct and sufficient for the determination of the boundary.

  • Where physical features did not present natural boundaries conformable with the provisions of the Boundary Treaty of the 20th June 1891, we have erected the following pillars:-

  • (a) Two pillars on the opposite banks of the Pentjiangan River, both marked “G.P.1.”

  • (b) One pillar on the right bank of the Agisan River, marked “G.P. 3.”

  • (c) One pillar on the left bank of the Seboeda River, marked “G.P. 2.

  • 1 - Introduction

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 1-15

  • Summary

    A Brief Description of the Sipadan and Ligitan Islands

    Before broaching the subject of this work, that is, the dispute over the ownership of the Sipadan and Ligitan Islands between Indonesia and Malaysia, a brief description of the two islands is in order. The islands of Sipadan and Ligitan are both located in the southeastern portion of Sabah in the Celebes Sea (Figures 1.1 and 1.2). Sipadan Island is an oceanic island and the only one of its kind in Malaysia. It is not part of the continental shelf of Borneo but emerges separately from the ocean rising some 600 to 700 metres from the seabed. It is a small island with an area of about 0.13 square kilometres. It is situated at 4°06’ latitude north and 118°37’ longitude east. The island sits on top of an extinct volcano and, was formed by living corals growing on the submarine mountain head. In 1903, a US naval report described Sipadan Island as follows:

    This island is densely wooded with tall timber and is the resort of many turtles. There is no water and it is in consequence, uninhabited.

    The coral reefs that grow around the island are home to many sea creatures such as the fusilier, snapper, barracuda, manta ray and hammerhead shark (Figure 1.3). The island is also home to many turtles of the hawksbill and green-backed species. There is a turtle tomb underneath the column of the island, formed by an underwater limestone cave where many turtles get drowned as they are unable to find the surface. Sipadan is rated as one of the top destinations for diving in the world. Sipadan lies about 21 nautical miles from Semporna of the Borneo mainland (Sabah). In the past, and even today, Sipadan has remained an important place for the collection of a valuable delicacy, that is, turtle eggs. On most nights, a number of turtles crawl ashore to lay their eggs in the sandy areas close to the bushes. Each turtle usually lays from 150 to 300 eggs in a safe, deep hole dug by itself. In the past, the Sultan of Sulu owned this island, and he obtained a handsome revenue from the collection and sale of turtle eggs coming from this place. This valuable commodity was collected by agents appointed by the Sultan.

  • 8 - The ICJ's Judgment

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 160-174

  • Summary

    Introduction

    As has been discussed in Chapter 1, both Indonesia and Malaysia agreed to refer the dispute concerning ownership of Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 7 October 1996. Subsequently, on 31 May 1997, both countries signed a Special Agreement for this purpose and filed the said Agreement with the ICJ on 2 November 1998. In the Special Agreement, the two parties requested the ICJ to determine, on the basis of treaties, agreements, and other evidence to be furnished by them, whether sovereignty over the two islands belonged to the Republic of Indonesia or to Malaysia. Each of the Parties subsequently submitted a Memorial, a Counter-Memorial and a Reply as required by the Court. The Court delivered its verdict on 17 December 2002.

    The Court comprised of seventeen judges. They included the President, Guilbert Guillaume, the Vice-President, Shi, and Judges Shigeru Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra- Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal and Elaraby; and Judges ad hoc Christopher Weeramantry and Thomas Franck. The Registrar was Philippe Couvreur. Since the Court did not include any judge of the nationality of either of the Parties, each Party proceeded to choose a judge ad hoc to sit on the case: Indonesia chose Mr Mohamed Shahabuddeen and Malaysia Mr Christopher Gregory Weeramantry of Sri Lanka. Mr Shahabuddeen later resigned, and Indonesia chose Mr Thomas Franck of the United States to replace him. Public hearings were held from 3 to 12 June 2002.1 At the Oral Presentation held from 3 to 12 June 2002, the two sides advanced the following submissions to support their claims to the two islands.

    On behalf of the Government of Indonesia:

    On the basis of the facts and legal considerations presented in Indonesia's written pleadings and its oral presentation, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia respectfully requests the Court to adjudge and declare that:

    (i) Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia; and

    (ii) Sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia

    On behalf of the Government of Malaysia:

    The Government of Malaysia respectfully requests the Court to adjudge, and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia.

  • Appendix F - Exchange of Note of 3 July 1907 between Britain and the United States

  • from Appendixes
  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 210-211

  • Summary

    SIR, I have the honor to inform you that His Majesty's Government, acting at the request and on behalf of the British North Borneo Company, are prepared to acquiesce in the last proposal stated in your letter to Sir H.M. Durand of the 19th of December last, respecting the administration of certain islands on the east coast of Borneo. I am therefore instructed by His Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs to place the proposed arrangement formally on record without further delay.

    His Majesty's Government understands the terms of the arrangement to be as follows:

    Firstly. That the said company be left undisturbed in the administration of the islands in question without any agreement specifying details, the United States Government simply waiving in favour of the said company the right to such administration in the meantime; in other words, that the existing status be continued indefinitely at the pleasure of the two Governments concerned.

    Secondly. That such privilege of administration shall not carry with it in question to extend beyond the temporary occupation of the company; and any grant, concession, or license made by the company shall cease upon the termination of the company's occupation.

    Thirdly. That the temporary waiver of the right of administration on the part of the United States Government shall cover all the islands to the westward and southwestward of the line traced on the map which accompanied Sir H.M. Durand's memorandum of the 23rd of June, 1906, and which is annexed to and to be deemed part of this note.

    Fourthly. That the British North Borneo Company, through His Majesty's Government, shall agree to the exemption of the United States Government from any claim or allegation that the latter Government has incurred any responsibility in respect of acts done in or from any island within the said line.

    Fifthly. That the understanding shall continue until the said two Governments may by treaty delimit the boundary between their respective domains in that quarter or until the expiry of one year from the date when notice of termination be given by either to the other.

  • 7 - The Bases of Malaysia's Claim

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 144-159

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The gist of Malaysia's case was that Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan had been under the possession and administration of its predecessors in title, the British North Borneo Company (BNBC) and Great Britain and itself, in an uninterrupted manner for a long time, since 1878 in fact. In addition, Malaysia claimed that it had acquired sovereignty over the two islands as a result of a series of treaties and engagements made since 1878 with various States and Parties who had jurisdiction in the area. The Netherlands did not challenge or contest these transactions which were open and public at the material time. In fact, the Indonesian claim to the islands which arose in 1969, was never advanced by the Netherlands.

    Malaysia then went on to stress the point that even if the issue of transactions with other powers in the region was removed from its arguments, the long and uninterrupted possession and administration of the two islands in question would be sufficient enough to prove its sovereignty over them. The Memorial of Malaysia, vol. 1 elaborated this point as follows:

    But in any event, even if—hypothetically—those transactions had never occurred, the fact of long and peaceful possession and administration dating as long ago as 1878 and unchallenged by any opposing conduct of Indonesia or its predecessor in title, the Netherlands, must be decisive. That fact, even if it stood alone, would be quite sufficient basis for upholding Malaysia's sovereignty over the islands as against Indonesia.

    Indonesia's claim, on the other hand, Malaysia contended, relied almost entirely on the interpretation of Article IV of the Boundary Convention of 1891 and an internal map published in the same year after the conclusion of the said Convention. Malaysia rejected the interpretation advanced by Indonesia pertaining to Article IV of the Boundary Convention of 1891 and the arguments relating to the internal Dutch Map (the Explanatory Memorandum Map of 1891). Under the circumstances, Malaysia submitted that there were only two issues for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider which were as follows:

  • i. The confirmation of Malaysia's sovereignty over the two islands based upon long and effective possession and administration, and on treaties with other interested States [Spain and the United States]; and

  • ii. The rejection of Indonesia's claim based upon its interpretation of the Boundary Convention of 1891 and the internal Dutch Map.

  • 5 - The Emergence of Successor States to Colonial Regimes and the Phenomena of Expansionist Nationalisms in Maritime Southeast Asia

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 105-126

  • Summary

    Introduction

    The dispute over the ownership of the islands of Sipadan and Ligitan developed between Indonesia and Malaysia in 1969. The Philippines has an ongoing claim over Sabah since 1962. In order to understand how these three nations became embroiled in these territorial disputes, it is imperative to understand the process of how they became legal successor states to the colonial regimes in the region; how they inherited some of the unresolved territorial problems of the colonial era; and how expansionist nationalisms clashed over British Borneo.

    The Emergence of the Philippines as Legal Successsor to Spain and the United States

    When Spain occupied the Philippines in the late sixteenth century, it inherited a territory which was fragmented and lacked any experience of an organized central government. Although Spanish rule was often harsh and oppressive, Spain unified the islands under a relatively organized central administration, introduced Western education and more importantly brought Christianity to the Filipinos. Consequently, the three hundred years of Spanish rule from 1571 to 1898 made the Philippines the only Asian country with a Christian majority and the highest degree of Western influence. The Philippines also became the first country in Southeast Asia to launch an anticolonial movement against its colonial masters and achieve independence. The spark of nationalism was ignited in the 1880s and 1890s by a middle-class Filipino intellectual and medical doctor named Jose Rizal who agitated for reforms by calling upon the Spanish authorities to give the Filipinos their just rights, liberty, and representation in the Spanish Parliament. His very moderate demands were unheeded by the government which in fact deported him to Mindanao in 1892 to curtail his influence. Whereupon, the nationalist movement passed into the hands of revolutionaries and went underground. In 1892, these revolutionaries, headed by Andres Bonifacio formed a secret society called Katipunan which sought to achieve independence from Spanish rule through armed rebellion. The Katipunan gained widespread support from Filipinos to the extent that it was able to arouse a nationwide insurrection in 1896. The Spaniards reacted with severe repression. Jose Rizal was executed on charges of rebellion and sedition, and the insurrection was mercilessly crushed.

  • 9 - Conclusion

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 175-190

  • Summary

    Introduction

    Malaysia has had the experience of submitting two cases to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for resolution. One involved the Sipadan and Ligitan case between Malaysia and Indonesia. This dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia over the ownership of these two islands developed in 1969, which is called the “critical date”. The case was filed with the ICJ for arbitration on 2 November 1998. The ICJ delivered its verdict on 17 December 2002 awarding Malaysia sovereignty over the two disputed islands.

    The second case involved the question of disputed sovereignty between Malaysia and Singapore over three maritime features, that is, Pulau Batu Puteh (Pedra Branca), Middle Rocks and South Ledge. In this case, the dispute emerged on 14 February 1980 when Singapore protested against the 1979 Malaysian map which showed Pulau Batu Puteh lying within Malaysian territorial waters. The issue of sovereignty over Middle Rocks and South Ledge emerged much later on 6 February 1993 when Singapore first brought it up in conjunction with the Pulau Batu Puteh claim. The dispute over these three marine features was filed with the Registry of the ICJ on 24 July 2003. Judgment day was 23 May 2008, but because of the nature of the case, and due to differing circumstances, three separate judgments were delivered. The court ruled, by a vote of 12-4, that sovereignty over Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to Singapore. Sovereignty over Middle Rocks was awarded to Malaysia with fifteen judges ruling in favour of Malaysia and one judge, dissenting. In the case of South Ledge, the court concluded, 15-1, that sovereignty over this feature belonged to the state in the territorial waters of which it is located.

    Cardinal Principles of International Law

    A number of important prerequisites and cardinal principles may be noted concerning the operation of International Law and the preferences of the ICJ pertaining to cases involving territorial disputes by using these two cases as a referral point. These are presented below.

    Prerequisites for Proving Ownership

    A country has to fulfil the following requirements in order to show that it has ownership or sovereignty over a piece of disputed territory:

    (a) It must possess an original legal title to the said territory.

  • 4 - Delimitation of the North Borneo–Philippines Sea Boundary and the Transfer of Sovereignty over Certain Islands to North Borneo, 1903–30

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 71-104

  • Summary

    Introduction

    In 1898, the United States became the new owner of the Philippine Islands. The territorial boundaries of the Philippines under its former master, Spain, were not accurately defined. Unlike Spain however, the United States was more meticulous, assertive and legalistic concerning the limits of its territorial control. The process of accurately identifying and confirming the territorial limits of its jurisdiction over the Philippines, especially in areas adjoining North Borneo, began in 1903. It was soon discovered that the State of North Borneo, under the British North Borneo Company (BNBC), was illegally administering twenty-six islands off the east coast of the state which in fact belonged to the Sultan of Sulu, and therefore rightly came under the US jurisdiction. From 1903 to 1930, the two sovereign powers in the region, Britain and the United States, were involved in resolving this issue of occupation and sovereignty. The United States was also keen to draw a permanent international boundary between possessions of North Borneo and the Philippine Islands, an endeavour which was completed in 1930. These two issues resulted in the forging of the Agreement of 1907 and the Boundary Convention of 1930 between Britain and the United States, which in turn decided the fate of a number of islands in the area, including Sipadan and Ligitan. This chapter explores the tangled nature of the issues involved and the resulting implications.

    Contested Jurisdiction Over Certain Islands off the East Coast of North Borneo

    As has been discussed in Chapter 2, the BNBC acquired jurisdiction over the east coast of Sabah till the Sibuku River based on the Sulu Grants of 22 January 1878. According to the text of the documents, the extent of the Company's jurisdiction over the territorial waters was limited to nine nautical miles or three marine leagues from the coast.1 In the vicinity of the sea near Sandakan and Tawau however, there were a group of islands numbering about twenty-six beyond the three marine leagues limit, but which the Company mistakenly thought belonged to it and thus brought them under its administration. See Figure 4.1. These islands2 which included Sipadan and Ligitan, as well, became the centre of a dispute first as a result of the Sultan of Sulu claiming ownership over them beginning in 1899; and later as a result of the United States claiming sovereignty over the islands beginning in 1903.

  • 2 - Historical Background: The Partitioning of the Malay Archipelago

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 16-45

  • Summary

    Introduction

    This chapter explores the coming of European powers to Southeast Asia and how, from 1529 to 1824, they parcelled out the region into the Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch and English spheres of control. By 1824, the Dutch and the English had basically partitioned the Malay world between themselves; the Spanish had entrenched themselves in the Philippines, while the Portuguese still retained some outposts in the region.

    The chapter then goes on to give special attention to the partitioning of Borneo as this has a direct bearing on the theme and topic of this work. The cutting-up of the huge island was in fact started by the indigenous powers, especially Brunei and Sulu. Later, Spain, the Netherlands and Britain continued the process and established their own spheres of control. In expanding their territorial possessions in Borneo, the European powers also inherited the problem of undefined boundaries and overlapping territorial jurisdiction from local powers. Such a situation was bound to create conflict, a reality that the powers concerned had to face in the 1880s.

    A large section of the chapter is devoted to the entrenchment of British influence in North Borneo as well as the establishment of the British North Borneo Company (BNBC). This emphasis is given as elements of British Paramountcy and BNBC administration in North Borneo became vital evidence for determining the question of sovereignty over the two islands of Sipadan and Ligitan by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) later on.

    The Creation of European Spheres of Influence in Southeast Asia, 1529–1824

    Some of the territorial and boundary disputes between the independent nations of Southeast Asia that emerged in the postcolonial era, such as the Philippines’ claim to Sabah (1962) and later the issue of sovereignty over the Sipadan and Ligitan Islands between Malaysia and Indonesia (1969), had their roots in both the precolonial and colonial periods. Western colonialism, especially, led to the eventual partitioning of Southeast Asia into spheres of influence and territorial empires basically between Spain, Holland, Britain, France and the United States. European colonial expansion began in the late fifteenth century and was pioneered by two countries, Spain and Portugal. As they were both Catholic states, the Pope wished to avoid conflict between them and so he divided the world into two parts along a line west of the Azores by the Papal Bull of 1493.

  • Preface

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp xv-xvi

  • Summary

    The conclusion of the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1958 (UNCLOS I) and the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in 1982 (UNCLOS III) caused a flurry of activities among coastal states in Southeast Asia and many other areas to extend their jurisdiction over seas and oceans based on the new limits permitted for the extension of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The result was that the territorial seas and EEZs of many nationstates overlapped, producing in their wake a trail of rival territorial claims and disputes. The dispute between Indonesia and Malaysia concerning sovereignty over the two islands of Sipadan and Ligitan, situated on the northeast coast of Borneo, was one such case that arose in 1969 while the two countries were in the midst of delimiting their continental shelf boundaries. Both countries advanced rival sovereignty claims over the two islands, but as the issue could not be resolved even after prolonged negotiations, the two countries decided in 1996 to place the case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for settlement. The case was filed with the ICJ in 1998 and the verdict delivered in 2002. Malaysia's case, and that of Indonesia as well, was fought by renowned international lawyers. However, long before the lawyers came into the picture, a great deal of meticulous, precise and laborious preparation for collecting, arranging and developing evidence for the case had already taken place. Although a number of agencies, representing different types of expertise, specializations and disciplines were involved in this massive task, there was one field and discipline which played an important role without which no country can have a case to present and without which no international lawyers would have a case to prepare; and this is the discipline of History. I can vouch for this statement as I was appointed as team leader by the Malaysian Government to prepare the historical evidence for its case concerning sovereignty over the Sipadan and Ligitan Islands.

    While analysing the verdict of the ICJ in the Sipadan and Ligitan case and about that of Pulau Batu Puteh/Pedra Branca, it became evidently clear to me that the ICJ gives priority consideration to the possession of a legal title based on historical developments.

  • Appendix B - Convention between Great Britain and the Netherlands Defining Boundaries in Borneo. Signed at London, 20 June 1891

  • from Appendixes
  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 197-199

  • Summary

    HER Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, and Her Majesty the Queen-Dowager, Regent of the Netherlands, in the name of Her Majesty Wilhelmina, Queen of the Netherlands, being desirous of defining the boundaries between the Netherland possessions in the Island of Borneo and the States in that island which are under British protection, have resolved to conclude a Convention to that effect, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries for that purpose, that it to say:

    Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India, the Right Honourable Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Marquis of Salisbury, Earl of Salisbury, Viscount Cranborne, Baron Cecil, Peer of the United Kingdom, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Member of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, & c.; and Her Majesty the Queen Dowager Regent of the Netherlands, Count Charles Malcolm Ernest Georges de Bylandt, Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Netherland Lion, Her Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at the Court of St. James’: who, having produced their Full Powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following Articles:-

    ARTICLE I

    The boundary between the Netherland possessions in Borneo and those of the British protected States in the same island shall start from 4°10’ north latitude on the east coast of Borneo.

    ARTICLE II

    The boundary-line shall be continued westward from 4°10’ north latitude, and follow in a west-north-west direction, between the Rivers Simengaris and Soedang, up to the point where the meridian 117° east longitude crosses the parallel 4°20’ north latitude, with the view of including the Simengaris River within Dutch territory.

  • 3 - The Resolution of Anglo-Spanish Claims and the Anglo-Dutch Boundary in North Borneo, 1878–1915

  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 46-70

  • Summary

    Introduction

    By 1881, we see that three overlapping colonial spheres of influence had emerged in North Borneo. These included the Spanish sphere which involved jurisdiction over the former dependencies of the Sulu Sultanate from Pandasan to the Balik Papan River. The next was the Dutch sphere of influence which extended on the east coast up to Batu Tinagat and the Tawau River in the north. And finally, there emerged the British sphere of influence in the state of North Borneo with the establishment of the Overbeck-Dent Association (ODA) and the granting of the Royal Charter to the British North Borneo Company (BNBC) by the British Government in 1881. As noted in Chapter 2, Britain had already established a sort of paramountcy in the realm of the Brunei Empire through the Treaty of Friendship and Commerce concluded with Brunei in 1847. However, Britain did not venture into the area directly to exercise effective control. With the granting of the Charter to the BNBC in 1881, Britain somewhat sealed the weakness of its policy in North Borneo, and the question of its sovereignty became implicit. All the three spheres of colonial control criss-crossed as they were themselves a product of overlapping indigenous kingdoms. This kind of situation was bound to create conflict especially at the local level, and the home governments had to intervene to resolve the problems that arose on the ground between the BNBC, the Dutch East Indies Government and the Spanish authorities in the Philippines.

    This chapter therefore examines how Spain and Britain settled the question of disputed sovereignty over parts of North Borneo by the Madrid Protocol of 1885. However, no attempt was made to demarcate the actual boundaries between the territorial possessions of these two powers. The dispute between the Netherlands and Britain pertaining to overlapping territorial claims in Borneo was settled by a long process of negotiations which began in the 1880s, leading to the Anglo-Dutch Boundary Convention of 1891, followed by an actual boundary delimitation exercise from 1912 to 1914 and culminating in the Boundary Treaty of 1915. The status of many small islands such as Pulau Sipadan and Pulau Ligitan was overlooked at the time, thus giving rise to the much later dispute in 1969 between Indonesia and Malaysia, the current focus of this work.

  • Appendix A - The Madrid Protocol, 1885. Protocol between Great Britain, Germany and Spain, signed at Madrid, 7 March 1885

  • from Appendixes
  • D. S. Ranjit Singh
  • Book:
    The Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute Concerning Sovereignty over Sipadan and Ligitan Islands
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    25 January 2020
    Print publication:
    26 November 2019, pp 193-196

  • Summary

    The undersigned, Sir Robert B.D. Morier, Envoy Extra-ordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of Her Britannic Majesty, his Excellency Don Jose Elduayen, Marquis del Pazo de la Merced, Minister of State of his Majesty the King of Spain, and Count Soloms Sonnenwale, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentairy of His Majesty the German Emperor, duly authorized to bring to a close the negotiations conducted in London and at Berlin during the years 1881–82 by the Representatives of His Majesty the King of Spain at the Courts of Great Britain and Germany, for the purpose of obtaining from these two Powers the formal recognition of the sovereignty of Spain over the Archipelago of Sulu (Jolo), have agreed upon the following Articles:-

    ARTICLE I

    The Government of Great Britain and of Germany recognize the sovereignty of Spain over the places effectively occupied, as well as over those places not yet occupied, of the Archipelago of Sulu (Jolo), of which the limits are laid down in Article II.

    ARTICLE II

    The Archipelago of Sulu (Jolo), conformably to the definition contained in Article I of the treaty signed September 23rd, 1836, between the Spanish Government and the Sultan of Sulu (Jolo), comprises all the islands which are found between the western extremity of the island of Mindanao on the one side, and the continent of Borneo and the Island of Paragua on the other side, with the exception of those which are indicated in Article III.

    It is understood that the Islands of Balabac and of Cagayan-Jolo from part of the archipelago.

    ARTICLE III

    The Spanish Government renounces, as far as regards the British Government, all claims of sovereignty over the territories of the Continent of Borneo, which belong, or which have belonged in the past to the Sultan of Sulu (Jolo), and which comprise the neighbouring islands of Balambangan, Banguey, and Malawali, as well as all those comprised within a zone of three maritime leagues from the coast, and which form part of the territories administered by the company styled the “British North Borneo Company”.

  • How Will Shifts in American Foreign Policy Affect Southeast Asia?

  • Daljit Singh
  • Book:
    How Will Shifts in American Foreign Policy Affect Southeast Asia?
    Published by:
    ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
    Published online:
    31 January 2020
    Print publication:
    18 November 2019, pp vii-viii

  • Summary

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  • • A new phase in US foreign policy, in which China is viewed as a major threat to American economic and security interests, has begun under the Trump administration.

  • • The strong anti-China sentiment is accompanied by efforts to “decouple” from China. If carried too far, they will alienate allies and friends whose cooperation the US will need in order to compete with China.

  • • In the broader American foreign policy community, there is an intense ongoing debate on how strong the push-back against China should be. Both moderates and hawks agree on the need for a “tougher” approach but differ on the degree and method of toughness. No coherent strategy has been possible partly because President Trump's thinking does not always accord with that of his own administration and partly because it is still too early in the day to come out with well-thought-out policies to support such a major change in foreign policy direction.

  • • The ongoing adjustments to global policy and strategy will therefore continue as the security focus shifts to the Indo-Pacific region. The “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” concept provides some signs of the broad direction policy may take but its vital economic dimension is still missing.

  • • There is greater recognition in Washington of the importance of Southeast Asia. Located in the middle of Indo-Pacific, it will be a contested zone between China and the US and its allies. The US will step up its public diplomacy to better promote its own narrative in Southeast Asia.

  • • Under the Trump administration the importance of the South China Sea to the US has risen.

  • • The US will remain a powerful factor in Asia despite Trump and problems at home. China is not on an inevitable path of dominance given its own significant domestic challenges.

Page 103 of 760