30
International Boundary Disputes in ASEAN: Spirit and Prospects[1]
Akkharaphong Khamkhun
Pridi Banomyong International College
Thammasat University, Tha Phrachan
Abstract
Of the total of twenty land and maritime boundary disputes among states in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand) from the past up to the present, thirteen can be settled while another seven are being resolved. Thus most of the boundary disputes in Southeast Asia can be settled by three factors: 1. the existence in official historical records of explicit and clear boundary definitions which claimant states have mutually accepted since colonial times; 2. mutual trust between the claimant states which is conducive to the process of bilateral negotiations and eventually to constructive international relations; 3. designation of negotiators who work effectively and responsibly towards boundary management as opposition groups have used international boundary disputes as tools for their own political agendas.
Keywords: international boundary dispute, land boundary, maritime boundary, dispute settlement, ASEAN Mechanism
International boundary disputes have drawn the interest of scholars from various disciplines around the world. This is because the topic involves geography, strategic security, military matters, international law, international relations, as well as international economics. International boundary disputes raise obstacles which affect the increasingly global trend of international relations today. Moreover, in many cases, international boundary disputes have led to the resort to violence or dispatch of military missions by the disputed parties. Observing the Southeast Asian region only, the promotion of becoming one “ASEAN Community” after midnight of 31 December 2015 raised so many questions, among them the difficulties likely to come from the process of forging “one community” amid differences among the member states due to the existing boundary issues between them.
Undeniably, globalization has led to the rise in the concept of a “borderless world” that has demanded a diluting of the significance of “boundary lines”. Seemingly, the internet and cyber space are playing the roles of opening up nations beyond respective “national” boundaries. We can see this phenomenon of people browsing information outside their national territory. The European Union is another factor that has made the world see that the boundaries between nations have changed their functions from protection to connection when the people of European countries can freely travel among neighboring states. Nevertheless, there is a big notion that before the boundary line changed its function, a clear line is needed, or, in other words, we probably need to have a borderline before a borderless entity can prevail.
Although we are now facing a mega trend towards the borderless world which aims to promote the flow of information exchange through wireless internet technology, in fact we are still living in another type of world limited by boundaries which truly influence our imagination and control our perceptions. This type of boundary is neither limited within the national geography nor the physical fences because we cannot see it with our eyes. These invisible boundaries have controlled our daily lives, designating the limit of what is included and excluded. They also define “us and here” which means everything inside the borderline, vis-à-vis “them and there” which means everything outside the line. So, it is necessary to “draw the line” for the purpose of state administration and the consistency of “our” maximum political and economic interests which sometimes ignore the “them” of the opposite side. Moreover, we can say that the concept of “borderline” is an obstacle to the movement of people, capital, goods and services as well as to the deepening of knowledge, perception, thinking and imagination.
Since 1967, ASEAN has been playing the vital role of fostering regional cooperation, although many international boundary disputes existed before its formation. For instance, after Cambodia and Thailand agreed to bring the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear into the process of dispute settlement under the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1959 (or six years after Cambodian independence in 1953), the ICJ three years later on 15 June 1962 declared, with nine votes for and three against, that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia. Unfortunately, fifty years later, on 28 April 2011[2] Cambodia requested an interpretation of the ICJ’s judgment of 15 June 1962, and the ICJ declared the final judgment on 11 November 2013[3] demanding both states to cooperate among themselves and with the international community in the protection of the site as a world heritage. It shows that at the end of the day both countries need to engage in bilateral talks to completely resolve the problem. Hence it is clear that the court mechanism alone cannot achieve dispute settlement but the ICJ can make the disputed parties agree to employ a non-violence method to resolve the dispute. In other words, the ICJ can slow down the military fighting and violence along the border. This proves that dispute settlement requires peaceful means. At the same time, it is also true that the dispute over the Preah Vihear between Cambodia and Thailand is a boundary dispute that has generated an unhealthy international environment in the region.
Other international boundary disputes such as that between Malaysia and Indonesia during the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963 when Sarawak and Sabah agreed to be part of Malaysia but Indonesia disagreed. Making clear Indonesia’s stand, President Suharto declared a national policy of “konfrontasi” by dispatching a military mission along the border on Borneo Island.[4] The confrontation persisted for almost four years from January 1963 to August 1966. Moreover, the issues of boundary and territorial dispute on Borneo Island included the Sabah issue between Malaysia and the Philippines when the successor of Sulu Sultan claimed that Sabah belonged to the Philippines.[5] President Diosdado Macapagal also officially declared the claim in 1962 which became one item of his political agenda and used the Sabah dispute as national propaganda for his political interests. The Philippines tried to bring the case to the judgment of the ICJ in 1964, but there was no further action as of now.
The most interesting and prominent boundary dispute in Southeast Asia which draws the attention of various scholars concerns the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. This is the most complicated maritime dispute in the world because more than one party has claimed sovereignty over many islands and islets in the area. The overlapping area of more than 170 geographical features is claimed by six countries including Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, China, Chinese Taipei (Taiwan).[6]
The boundary disputes among member states in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand) originated during the colonial period when it was agreed to start the delimitation and demarcation of the international boundary lines that define the juridical sovereignty of the present-day Southeast Asian countries. The genesis of the boundary disputes is that after Southeast Asian countries became independent, they inherited all related documents and used them as the basis of evidence for modern boundary negotiations with the adjacent states. This paper tries to explore the boundary disputes among states in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand) from the past up to the present. The total twenty cases of land and maritime boundary disputes, thirteen of which can be settled while another seven cases are being resolved, reveal the history of delimitation and demarcation processes between the claimant states in Southeast Asia. Then, this paper examines the treaties, conventions, agreements, maps, and other related official documents pertaining to the management of boundary line construction made prior to and during the colonial period. This paper will broadly describe twenty cases of international boundary disputes in the Southeast Asian region excluding Thailand. (see Table 1)
Table 1: Land and Maritime Boundary Disputes in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand)
No. / Disputed Area / Disputing States / Status1 / Land Boundary on Borneo Island / Malaysia-Indonesia / Unsettled
2 / Limbang / Malaysia-Brunei / Agreed to settle March 16, 2009
3 / Sabah / Malaysia-Philippines / Unsettled
4 / Land Boundary / Laos-Vietnam / Settled March 1, 1990
5 / Boundary on Mekong / Laos-Myanmar / Settled June 11, 1994
6 / Land Boundary / Laos-Cambodia / Unsettled
7 / Land Boundary / Cambodia-Vietnam / Unsettled
8 / Continental Shelf Boundary in the Strait of Malacca and South China Sea / Indonesia-Malaysia / Settled October 27, 1969
9 / Territorial Sea in the Strait of Malacca / Indonesia-Malaysia / Settled October 8, 1971
10 / Territorial Sea in the Strait of Singapore / Indonesia-Singapore / Settled May 25, 1973
11 / Historic Waters / Cambodia-Vietnam / Settled September 7, 1982
12 / Defined Area of the Continental Shelf / Malaysia-Vietnam / Settled June 5, 1992
13 / Territorial Sea in the Strait of Johor / Malaysia-Singapore / Settled August 7, 1995
14 / Continental Shelf Boundary / Indonesia-Vietnam / Settled June 26, 2003
15 / Maritime Boundary / Brunei-Malaysia / Agreed to settle March 16, 2009
16 / Miangas Island / Indonesia-Philippines / Unsettled
17 / Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan / Indonesia-Malaysia / ICJ ruled December 17, 2002
18 / Ambalat Oil Block / Indonesia-Malaysia / Unsettled
19 / The Three Rocks Dispues / Malaysia-Singapore / ICJ ruled May 23, 2008
20 / Spratly Islands / Brunei-Malaysia-Philippines-Vietnam-China-Chinese Taipei (Taiwan) / Unsettled
Southeast Asian Land Boundary Disputes
On land, Southeast Asia has two major disputed areas; three cases on the Borneo Island and four cases among the CLMV countries. (see Picture 1)
Group 1 consists of international boundary disputes on Borneo Island which are:
1. Land Boundary between Malaysia and Indonesia
2. Limbang Territory between Malaysia and Brunei
3. Sabah Territory between Malaysia and the Philippines.
Group 2 involves boundary disputes in former Indochina or CLMV countries:
4. Land boundary between Laos and Vietnam
5. Boundary in the Mekong River between Laos and Myanmar
6. Land Boundary between Laos and Cambodia
7. Land Boundary between Cambodia and Vietnam.
Picture 1: Map of Land Boundary Dispute Locations in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand)
Southeast Asian Maritime Boundary Disputes
By sea, the boundary disputes in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand) can be broadly divided into four areas including the Strait of Malacca, Gulf of Thailand, Southeast China Sea, and Sulawesi or Celebes Sea. (see Picture 2 and Table 2) These boundary disputes mostly stem from the formation of the Law of the Sea despite did not settled at the time of dispute and the demarcation method is varied due to the agreement between the disputed parties.
Table 2: Maritime Disputes in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand)
No. / Disputed Area / Disputing States1 / Continental Shelf / Indonesia-Malaysia
2 / Territorial Sea / Strait of Malacca / Indonesia-Malaysia
3 / Territorial Sea / Strait of Singapore / Indonesia-Singapore
4 / Historic Waters / Cambodia-Vietnam
5 / Defined Area of Continental Shelf / Malaysia-Vietnam
6 / Territorial Sea in the Strait of Johor / Malaysia-Singapore
7 / Continental Shelf Boundary / Indonesia-Vietnam
8 / Maritime Boundary / Brunei-Malaysia
9 / Miangas Island / Indonesia-Philippines
10 / Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan / Indonesia-Malaysia
11 / Ambalat Oil Block / Indonesia-Malaysia
12 / The Three Rocks Disputes / Malaysia-Singapore
13 / Spratly Islands / Brunei-Malaysia-Philippines-Vietnam-China-Chinese Taipei
Picture 2: Map of Maritime Boundary Dispute Locations in Southeast Asia (excluding Thailand)
Spirit and Prospects of Boundary Disputes in Southeast Asia
Originally, the concept of “modern boundary line” in Southeast Asia was gained ground during the 19th Century with the invention of a “map” or the introduction of the “topographic technique” of western powers. In order to manage their colonial system, the western powers needed to know the limits of juridical sovereignty. Hence the process of delimitation and demarcation of the occupied territories became more intensive and inclusive. This process led to the new “lines of separation” between the former traditional states which existed before the arrival of the colonial powers, who subsequently passed on their legacy of unfinished boundary lines to the newly independent Southeast Asian states after the decline of colonialism after World War II. The new “nation states” were born from the old “colonies” which means that their territories were mostly uti possidetis. Nevertheless, prior to the formation of the colonial territories, the traditional states in Southeast Asia realized that their juridical sovereignty were limited not by the concrete boundary lines shown on the map because they did not exist. The Southeast Asian kingdoms traditionally perceived their juridical sovereignty upon the ability of military control; some kingdoms with strong armies could control a vast expanse of territory without drawing any line on the map. The power of the kingdom is not measured by the actual land size, but by the charismatic power of the king. This meant the territorial size could be drastically and frequently changed because of the wars among many overlapping powers of various kingdoms in the region, powers that sometimes could not reach the mountainous or remote areas in which they were not interested .
Until the arrival of colonialism in the region, the western powers tried to fix and clarify the boundaries in order to allocate natural resources and labor. The concept of juridical sovereignty shifted to the exploitation of land use. Land and labor were main reasons for the making of maps which indicated the limits of their boundaries. During this time, boundary agreements and treaties were signed among the western powers; the boundary lines were drawn into the maps and printed as legal documents to endorse their powers. Nevertheless, most of the maps that were drawn during the colonial period did not reflect the actual features of the boundary lines by comparison with present-day geography. Here truly lies the genesis of boundary disputes in the region: the disagreement of some countries to use documents they inherited from the colonial powers simply because they did not play any part in the process of map-making. Regional states today tend to reject the documents that they consider unfair and unintentionally drawn up during the colonial period. These reasons led to today’s boundary disputes among Southeast Asian countries and have become obstacles of dispute settlement when ASEAN proposes mechanisms to the disputed parties for conflict resolutions.