By: Marja Azlima Omar, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sabah

In April 2025, the Sultanate of Sulu announced its intention to invoke a series of historic treaties, including a 15th-century tributary pact with China and the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram Agreement, as the basis for a $25 billion territorial and damages claim against Malaysia concerning Sabah.

This latest claim undeniably introduces a complex interplay of modern international law, cultural diplomacy and historical legacy.

Thus, this short write-up evaluates the legitimacy of these claims through the perspective of international law, focusing on treaty interpretation, the principle of effective control, and contemporary standards of sovereignty.

Since the Sultanate aims to revive its historical status and sovereignty claims by invoking ancient treaties and fostering alliances among Mindanao Sultanates, such a claim warrants examination of their legitimacy in light of international legal standards and historical accuracy.

By examining the intersection of historical agreements and modern legal frameworks, the brief analysis highlights the symbolic nature of the Sultanate’s position and the disconnect between ancestral narratives and current mechanisms for resolving territorial disputes.

First and foremost, it is essential to note that central to the Sultanate’s argument is the 1405 agreement with the Ming Dynasty. In the said argument, the Sulu Sultanate is presented as evidence of its status as an “independent tributary state.”

While tributary relations were a diplomatic norm in Imperial China, their existence then lacked the sovereign equivalency implied by modern treaty systems.

Instead, those relationships were hierarchical and ritualistic, intended to maintain harmony and commerce rather than establish enforceable rights or territorial claims. Although Chinese President Xi Jinping acknowledged this relationship during the 600th anniversary of the death of the East King of Sulu in 2017, such recognition is merely symbolic in the absence of legal recognition.

It does not equate to legal endorsement of territorial rights under contemporary international law frameworks.

 In other words, the 1405 China-Sulu relationship remains largely as diplomatic symbolism rather than a pursuit of legal sovereignty.

It is also pertinent to note that the Carpenter-Kiram Agreement marked a pivotal shift in the Sultanate’s role, transitioning from a temporal authority to a religious and cultural institution under American colonial protection.

This means that the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram Treaty was nothing more than a colonial transitional arrangement.

While the Sultan retained ceremonial influence, the sovereignty and administrative power were, however, transferred to the United States.

The agreement does not recognise any enforceable territorial claim over Sabah. Notably, the treaty did not include Sabah, which by then was already under the administrative control of the British North Borneo Company.

 The treaty serves as a historical document of imperial consolidation rather than a legal basis for contemporary territorial claims.

The basis of the Sultanate’s renewed claim also emphasises the interconnectedness between sovereignty, effective control and self-determination.

A seminal principle in international law is effective control, and in this regard, Malaysia has administered Sabah continuously since its formation in 1963.

This de facto governance is reinforced by the people of Sabah’s participation in the Malaysian federation through a referendum.

The involvement in question solidifies its sovereignty over the territory.

Since its inception, the United Nations Charter and subsequent resolutions of the General Assembly have consistently and continuously supported the right to self-determination.

The people of Sabah had clearly exercised this right, and their decision to join Malaysia carries substantial legal weight in comparison to historical claims by external entities. The latter claim falls short of modern international law’s jurisdiction or authority.

 Lastly, one must also set the record straight by insisting that the recent unity covenant of the Mindanao Sultanates was, in fact, a cultural revival, not a legal instrument with binding implications.

The Covenant signed by the Sultanates of Sulu, Maguindanao, and the Rajanate of Buayan reflects a pertinent cultural and historical solidarity among Mindanao’s traditional leaders.

While it may carry sociopolitical significance within particular communities, such agreements are not legally binding in international law unless recognised by sovereign states or treaty-based institutions such as the United Nations.

The revival of these royal networks, while notable for heritage preservation, cannot substitute for state-based diplomacy or legal standing at the United Nations or the International Court of Justice.

In sum, the renewed Sultanate of Sulu’s assertion of territorial rights over Sabah was based on pre-colonial and early 20th-century treaties.

Nonetheless, the treaties lack sufficient grounding in modern international law.

The treaties cited either carry symbolic or obsolete colonial implications that do not translate into current legal authority.

In contrast, Malaysia’s longstanding administration of Sabah and the region’s exercise of self-determination represent stronger legal foundations under international norms. Any credible effort to revisit or resolve the Sabah question must engage with contemporary legal mechanisms and geopolitical frameworks rather than relying on antiquated claims rooted in lost sovereignty.

This article presents an academic argument by Marja Azlima Omar a senior lecturer affiliated with the International Relations Programme at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, UMS. She obtained her first law degree (LL.B.) and Master’s in International Trade Law (LL.M.) from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom. Over the past few years, she has taught several core courses, including Public International Law, Global Environmental Politics, and Asia and International Trade. She has also published several articles in various academic journals as well as co-authored and co-edited a few books. Among others is “Sabah Priority Issues: Setting the Course for Change,” published in 2010. Her recent publications include a book chapter, “Establishing Animus Occupandi for Effective Occupation of Pulau Layang-Layang: Analysis of Past Decided Cases” (2024), and “Empowering Youth: Education for Economic Disadvantage in Sabah, Malaysia” (2025). Her research interests lie in areas concerning Malaysia and issues in international Law and international relations. She is also interested in Sabah’s environmental and developmental problems, as well as indigenous land rights and native title. She can be contacted via email Alamat emel ini dilindungi dari Spambot. Anda perlu hidupkan JavaScript untuk melihatnya..