Malaysia's Territorial and Maritime Disputes

The map of Malaysia hanging on a school wall looks calm and settled — but at its sea borders, those lines are still being discussed at the negotiating table and in international courts. Malaysia has three territorial and maritime questions that are not yet fully resolved, and each is handled differently: one in a court, one at a UN commission, and one deliberately left dormant.

This article explains all three factually and without taking sides — what is claimed, by whom, and where matters stand now.

What is Malaysia’s issue in the South China Sea?

The South China Sea is the most complex overlap of claims in the region. At least six parties — China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia — claim parts of the waters and features in the Spratly Islands.

Malaysia’s position is anchored in law. Its claim is based on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): a 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone and continental shelf measured from Malaysia’s baselines, not a “historic rights” claim like China’s “nine-dash line” that covers nearly the entire sea.

Malaysia occupies five features in the southern part of the Spratly Islands, the ones closest to Sabah:

Feature	Malay name	Notes
Swallow Reef	Terumbu Layang-Layang	Occupied since 1983; has an airstrip, naval base and dive resort
Ardasier Reef	Terumbu Ubi	Naval outpost
Erica Reef	Terumbu Siput	Naval outpost
Investigator Shoal	Terumbu Peninjau	Naval outpost
Mariveles Reef	Terumbu Montanani	Naval outpost

On 12 December 2019, Malaysia submitted a partial claim to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) for the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles in the northern part of the South China Sea, under Article 76 of UNCLOS. It complemented the joint Malaysia–Vietnam submission of 2009 for the southern part.

The 2019 submission triggered formal protests (notes verbales) from China, the Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia. China argued the submission violated its sovereignty and asked the CLCS not to consider it. By relying on UNCLOS rather than a historical claim, Malaysia effectively asserted that only lawful land features and baselines can generate maritime rights — a stance aligned with the 2016 South China Sea arbitration ruling.

Who owns Pedra Branca after the ICJ ruling?

The issue with Singapore is Malaysia’s only territorial dispute that has been brought to court and decided. On 23 May 2008, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling on three features at the eastern entrance of the Singapore Strait:

• Batu Puteh / Pedra Branca — sovereignty awarded to Singapore. The Court found that although the Sultanate of Johor originally held title, that title had passed to Singapore by 1980 through Singapore’s acts of sovereignty and the absence of any Malaysian protest.
• Middle Rocks — sovereignty remained with Malaysia, as heir to the Sultan of Johor.
• South Ledge — a low-tide elevation left to the state in whose territorial waters it lies; this has not been determined because the maritime boundary in that area has not yet been delimited.

After the ruling, the two countries established the Malaysia–Singapore Joint Technical Committee (MSJTC) to implement the decision, including a Sub-Committee on Maritime Boundary Delimitation for the three features. At the Ninth Meeting of the MSJTC on 23 November 2021, both sides agreed that the Sub-Committee should continue its work. These boundary-delimitation negotiations are still ongoing.

The Pedra Branca issue also has a domestic chapter. Malaysia filed an application for revision of the 2008 ruling on 2 February 2017 and a request for interpretation on 30 June 2017, claiming new facts had been found. However, the Mahathir Mohamad government discontinued both applications on 28 May 2018, and the ICJ removed them from its list of cases the following day. That withdrawal decision later became controversial: in January 2023, the Malaysian cabinet ruled that the 2018 action was “irregular and improper”.

Is the Philippines’ claim to Sabah still alive?

Yes — but it is dormant, not active. The Philippines maintains a claim to the eastern part of Sabah (formerly North Borneo) based on an 1878 agreement between the Sulu Sultanate and the British North Borneo Company. At the core of the dispute is the interpretation of that agreement: the Philippines regards it as a lease (padjak) that did not transfer full sovereignty, while Malaysia and Britain regard it as a cession.

Malaysia’s position is clear: Sabah joined the formation of the Federation of Malaysia on 16 September 1963 through a self-determination process assessed by the Cobbold Commission, and Malaysia’s sovereignty over Sabah cannot be disputed. The Philippines, for its part, has never formally relinquished its claim; its baselines law still contains a “without prejudice” provision regarding the claim to North Borneo.

The issue is usually quiet but occasionally resurfaces:

• 2013 — the Lahad Datu incursion. An armed group calling itself the “Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo” landed at Lahad Datu to assert the claim. Malaysia ended the incursion and later established the Eastern Sabah Security Zone (ESSZONE) and the Eastern Sabah Security Command (ESSCOM) to secure the state’s east coast.
• Maritime rivalry. When the Philippines filed an extended continental shelf claim in the area west of Palawan with the UN, Malaysia rejected it categorically because that continental margin is projected from Sabah’s baselines — which, in Malaysia’s view, disregards its sovereignty over Sabah.

The two countries generally maintain a functioning diplomatic relationship despite the unresolved issue, and no active legal mechanism is under way to settle it.

How does Malaysia’s approach differ for each issue?

Three issues, three different channels of resolution:

Issue	Parties involved	Channel	Status
South China Sea	China, Vietnam, the Philippines, Brunei, Taiwan	UNCLOS, UN CLCS, ASEAN diplomacy	Overlapping; CLCS submission protested
Pedra Branca / Middle Rocks / South Ledge	Singapore	ICJ (decided 2008) + MSJTC	Island sovereignty decided; maritime boundary under negotiation
Sabah	Philippines	Diplomatic; not before a court	Dormant; rejected by Malaysia

The common thread uniting all three is Malaysia’s preference for law-based and negotiated resolution over armed dispute — whether through UNCLOS, the ICJ, or bilateral diplomatic channels.

What comes next?

These territorial and maritime questions are not expected to be resolved quickly, but there are a few things to watch:

• South China Sea. The CLCS’s consideration of Malaysia’s 2019 submission, along with progress on the ASEAN–China Code of Conduct, will shape the long-term legal landscape.
• Pedra Branca. Following the 2023 cabinet decision questioning the 2018 withdrawal, watch whether Malaysia takes any further steps — even though the ten-year window to apply for an ICJ revision has expired. The MSJTC maritime boundary negotiations continue.
• Sabah. This issue is likely to remain dormant unless reignited by developments in Philippine domestic politics or a new overlap of maritime claims.

For the latest official information, refer to statements from Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Wisma Putra), the submissions on the UN CLCS website, and the full ICJ ruling. This article is an AI-generated draft and has not undergone expert human review.