The Sultanate of Sulu’s $25 Billion Sabah Claim: A Legal Quagmire with a Side of Geopolitical Spice

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — April 5, 2025

Quick Hits: The Big Picture in a Flash

The Sultanate of Sulu’s audacious $25 billion claim against Malaysia over Sabah is a legal thriller packed with dusty treaties, diplomatic gambits, and a hefty dose of historical revisionism. The core treaties—think the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram deal with the U.S. and a shadowy 1405 pact with China—are flimsy at best, lacking explicit ties to Sabah and crumbling under the Vienna Convention’s textual scrutiny. Malaysia’s iron grip on Sabah since 1963, backed by international recognition, makes sovereignty a pipe dream for the Sultanate. But hope isn’t lost: the 1878 lease with Britain, Malaysia’s historical payments, and a $15 billion Paris arbitration win offer a lifeline for economic claims. Diplomatically, cozying up to China and the U.S. might score points, while politically, a Mindanao alliance adds regional clout. Geopolitically, this risks rattling Philippines-Malaysia relations and ASEAN harmony, with China and the U.S. watching from the sidelines. The Sultanate’s best bet? Ditch the sovereignty fantasy, double down on the lease angle, and cash in via arbitration.

Scene Setter: Welcome to the Chaos

Brace yourselves—it’s time for the latest installment of Kweba ng Katarungan’s most entertaining legal circus: “Who Owns This Land, Anyway?” Today’s contestants are the Sultanate of Sulu, swinging historical treaties like a medieval mace, and Malaysia, clutching Sabah with the confidence of a nation that’s had it locked down since ’63. The prize? A cool $25 billion and bragging rights over a resource-rich chunk of Borneo. The Sultanate’s playbook includes treaties with everyone from the Ming Dynasty to Uncle Sam, plus a fresh alliance with Mindanao’s royal cousins. Malaysia’s counter? “Nice try, but it’s ours.” Let’s dive into the legal swamp, assess the Sultanate’s strategies, and figure out if this claim’s got legs—or if it’s just a historical ghost rattling its chains.

Echoes of the Quill: Do Centuries-Old Treaties Still Hold Up?

The Sultanate’s leaning hard on a stack of treaties to prop up its claim. Spoiler: they’re about as sturdy as a house of cards in a typhoon. Let’s break it down.

1915 Carpenter-Kiram Treaty: Where’s Sabah?

The Sultanate insists this U.S.-signed treaty from March 22, 1915, put Sabah under American protection. The text, per the Official Gazette, says the Sultan recognized U.S. sovereignty over “the Sulu Archipelago and elsewhere within American territory.” Spot the problem? No mention of Sabah (a.k.a. North Borneo). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 31 demands we stick to the “ordinary meaning” of the text in context. Sabah’s absence isn’t a typo—it’s a legal crater. The Sultanate’s claim of U.S. assurances is a nice story, but without ink on paper, it’s legally DOA.

1405 Ming Dynasty Treaty: History or Fan Fiction?

Cue the dramatic music: a 1405 treaty with China’s Ming Dynasty allegedly made Sulu an “independent tributary state.” Secretary General Abraham Idjirani name-drops Xi Jinping’s 2017 speech at the East King’s tomb bash in Shandong as proof. Historical records—like GlobalSecurity.org—confirm Sulu sent tribute missions in 1417, but a 1405 treaty? No text, no dice. VCLT Article 2 requires treaties to show clear consent and territorial scope. Even if Xi waxed poetic about ancient ties, tributary status doesn’t hand Sulu Sabah on a platter. This one’s more diplomatic theater than legal ammo.

The Rest of the Treaty Grab Bag: Spain, UK, Netherlands

The Sultanate’s tossing out treaties with Spain (1878), the UK, and the Netherlands like confetti. The 1878 Spanish deal had Sulu bowing to Madrid over parts of its turf, but Sabah wasn’t on the map (Kahimyang). The UK’s 1878 agreement is a different beast—we’ll get there—but the Dutch treaties? Vague whispers, no substance. Without verified texts or Sabah-specific clauses, these are legal non-starters.

Verdict: The Sultanate’s treaty arsenal is a mixed bag of wishful thinking and historical footnotes. Sabah’s missing from the 1915 text, the 1405 deal’s a phantom, and the rest are footnotes at best. Legally, this is thin gruel.

Deals, Diplomacy & Dollars: The Playbook for a $25B Win

The legal deck’s stacked against the Sultanate, but they’re not out of moves. Here’s the playbook—legal, diplomatic, political, and economic—ranked by viability.

Legal Ace: The 1878 Lease with Britain

The Sultanate’s golden ticket is the 1878 agreement with Britain’s Gustavus von Overbeck and Alfred Dent. The Conklin translation calls it a “pajak” (lease), not a cession: “We… desire to lease… all rights and powers over all territories” (Official Gazette). Malaysia paid RM5,300 annually until 2013, suggesting an ongoing gig, not a handover. VCLT Article 31 backs this—treaties mean what they say, and payments scream “lease.” Weakness? Malaysia stopped paying and claims sovereignty. Still, this is the Sultanate’s best legal shot.

Diplomatic Hustle: China and U.S. Cameos

The Sultanate’s pitching the 1405 treaty to China for a diplomatic nod. Xi’s 2017 remarks might get a polite clap, but China’s got its own South China Sea headaches—don’t expect much beyond a pat on the back. The U.S., tied to the 1915 treaty, is another long shot. Post-Ramadan 2025 talks with Secretary Rubio are planned (DAILY TRIBUNE), but America’s not itching to stir this pot. Strength: symbolic heft. Weakness: zero legal teeth.

Political Power Play: Mindanao Unity

The October 2024 covenant with Maguindanao and Buayan Sultanates, signed by 3,000 royals in Zamboanga, is a slick move (DAILY TRIBUNE). It’s less about law and more about flexing cultural muscle—think indigenous rights vibes for the UN crowd. Republic Act 6734 (1990) nods to Moro heritage, but it’s vague on Sabah. Strength: regional clout could nudge Manila. Weakness: it’s not a legal trump card.

Economic Slam Dunk: Cash for Gas

The Sultanate’s claiming oil and gas loot under the 1878 lease, backed by a 2022 Paris arbitration award of $15 billion (Nikkei Asia). UNCLOS Article 77 gives resource rights to sovereigns, but the Sultanate’s pitching it as a lease perk. Malaysia’s fighting the award, but this is where the money’s at. Strength: precedent and big bucks. Weakness: sovereignty’s still Malaysia’s ace.

Assessment: The 1878 lease and economic claims are the heavy hitters. Diplomacy and politics are garnish—tasty, but not the main course.

Sovereignty, Sentiment, and the Law: Who Gets the Final Say?

Territorial Sovereignty: Possession’s Nine-Tenths

Customary law says sovereignty comes from effective control, historical title, or treaty cession. Malaysia’s run Sabah since 1963, with global recognition to boot. The ICJ’s Malaysia v. Indonesia (2002) ruling hammered home that effective control wins. The Sultanate’s historical title is shaky—treaties don’t cut it without Sabah named. Malaysia’s got this locked.

Treaty Interpretation: Words Matter

VCLT Article 31 insists on plain text and context. The 1915 treaty skips Sabah, the 1405 deal’s a ghost, and the 1878 lease is the only contender—but Malaysia’s control trumps it. Article 32 (historical context) doesn’t save vague treaties. International law’s not here for the Sultanate’s vibes.

Implication: Malaysia’s sovereignty stands tall. The Sultanate’s treaty nostalgia won’t shift borders.

Southeast Asia’s Power Brunch: Who’s Bringing What to the Table?

Malaysia’s dug in, calling this a “private matter” (BenarNews). The Philippines waffles—Republic Act 5446 (1968) claims Sabah, but the 1987 Constitution stays mum. The Sultanate’s 2004 UN petition and 2024 covenant keep the pot simmering, risking ASEAN harmony. China might cheer from the bleachers, but its own disputes keep it cautious. The U.S.? Too busy eyeing bigger fish. This could get messy if Manila picks a side.

Strategic Recommendations: Play Smart, Not Hard

Hammer the 1878 Lease: Push the “pajak” angle and Malaysia’s payments in arbitration—focus on cash, not control.
Milk Arbitration: Ride the Paris award wave for resource damages; UNCLOS Article 77 is your friend.
Mindanao Momentum: Keep the covenant alive for political leverage—cultural ties might sway soft power.
Diplomatic Realism: Chat up China and the U.S., but don’t bank on miracles—optics only.
Settle Smart: If Malaysia blinks, negotiate a payout or cultural nod over a doomed sovereignty fight.

Final Verdict: Wrapping It All Up

The Sultanate of Sulu’s Sabah claim is a legal unicorn—beautiful, but mythical. The treaties are wobbly, sovereignty’s a non-starter, and Malaysia’s not budging. Yet, the 1878 lease and arbitration wins give the Sultanate a shot at a payday, not a crown. This isn’t about rewriting maps—it’s about cashing in on history’s loose ends. For stakeholders, it’s a reminder: in law and geopolitics, possession’s king, but persistence can still pay dividends.

Disclaimer: This is legal jazz, not gospel. It’s all about interpretation, not absolutes. So, listen closely, but don’t take it as the final word.