JRSSEM 2023, Vol. 02, No. 10, 2223 – 2233

E-ISSN: 2807 - 6311, P-ISSN: 2807 - 6494

DOI: 10.59141/jrssem.v2i10.446 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index

SIPADAN AND LIGITAN ISLAND SOVEREIGNTY DISPUTES:

FOREIGN POLICY ANALYSIS OF INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA IN

RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS

Pascal Amadeo Yapputro

Aurel Aprilia Annisya Trisetya

Jocelyn Cheriesta

1,2,3

Faculty of Law, Tarumanagara University, Indonesia

e-mail: pascal.205210036@stu.untar.ac.id, aurel.205210028@stu.untar.ac.id,

jocelyn.205210058@stu.untar.ac.id

*Correspondence: pascal.205210036@stu.untar.ac.id

Submitted

: April 30

2023

Revised

: May 05

2023

Accepted

: May 10

2023

Abstract: Initially, the state had full and exclusive jurisdiction over its territory. The main

definition of international relations is the shared needs of one country with another because

a country cannot meet its own needs. There are international relations that have a positive

impact, but it is not uncommon for disputes and conflicts to arise. The Sipadan and Ligitan

Island cases are an international dispute between Malaysia and Indonesia related to the issue

of state sovereignty and international relations. This study aims to analyze the foreign policies

of Indonesia and Malaysia in the settlement of disputes over the sovereignty of the Sipadan

and Ligitan Islands. The method used is normative juridical research by collecting data from

primary and secondary sources. The results of the study show that Indonesia and Malaysia

have made various efforts to resolve the dispute, but this conflict is still ongoing and affects

bilateral relations between the two countries. Therefore, further cooperation is needed

between the two countries to find a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute.

Keywords: Disputes; Sovereignty; Foreign Policy.

Pascal Amadeo Yapputro

Aurel Aprilia Annisya Trisetya

Jocelyn Cheriesta

| 2224

INTRODUCTION

Initially, the state had full and exclusive

jurisdiction over its territory. The concept is

at the root of the concept of state

sovereignty. Sovereignty does not refer to a

place of power, such as parliament or

bureaucracy, because sovereignty does not

describe the institutions that exercise

power. Furthermore, sovereignty cannot be

identified with the concept of law order, or

justice, because sovereignty does not mean

the intention to exercise the exercise of

power. Sovereignty is one thing and

encompasses many things. From the

concept of history and these statements,

sovereignty (sovereignty) can be

interpreted as a state that has the highest

power (Suherman, 2003) (Sigit Riyanto,

2012). Argued that a sovereign state means

that the state does not recognize authority

beyond its own, so individual actions are

their own, but the state has a monopoly on

power (Kusumaatmadja & Agoes, 2021).

The statement relates to the definition

made by the UN General Assembly which

states

the principle of sovereign equality of

states which states that,

“All the States enjoy sovereign equality.

They have equal rights and duties and

are equal members of the international

community, notwithstanding economic,

social, political or other differences.”

(Starke, 2001).

Based on the principle of equality of

sovereignty of the country, resulting in the

sovereign state being unable to exercise its

jurisdiction over other sovereign states.

The main definition of international

relations is the common need between one

country and another because a country

cannot meet its own needs. There are

international relations that have a positive

impact, but it is not uncommon for disputes

and conflicts to arise. Disputes arise

because of differences in understanding

between what one party says and what the

other party denies.

The Sipadan and Ligitan Island cases

are an international dispute between

Malaysia and Indonesia related to issues of

state sovereignty and international

relations. Sipadan and Ligitan Islands are

two small islands located in the waters of

the Makassar Strait, between Sabah,

Malaysia, and East Kalimantan, Indonesia.

In 1891, both islands were controlled by the

Sultanate of Sulu, a kingdom in the

Philippines. However, after Philippine

independence in 1946, both islands

became part of the administrative region of

Malaysia.

In 1998, Indonesia claimed both

islands as part of its territory, arguing that

the islands lay in waters traditionally used

by Indonesian fishermen and that they had

historical evidence suggesting that the two

islands should have been part of

Indonesian territory. This dispute raises the

issue of state sovereignty, where Malaysia

and Indonesia each claim rights to both

islands. This has raised tensions between

the two countries and worsened their

international relations.

International organizations will unite

the nations of the world into a system of

cooperation equipped with bodies capable

of preventing or resolving disputes

between them. The United Nations (UN) is

the largest international organization in the

history of the development of cooperation

between all countries of the world in

2225 | Sipadan and Ligitan Island Sovereignty Disputes: Foreign Policy Analysis of Indonesia

and Malaysia In Resolving International Conflicts

various spheres of international life. As

stated in the preamble to the UN charter

which reads: (Farmer Mauna, 2008)

(Sumaryo Suryokusumo, 1987).

“We the peoples of the united nations

determined to save succeeding

generations from the scourge of war…”

Therefore, the UN plays an active role

in resolving every dispute that occurs

between countries in the world. One of the

principles held by the United Nations in

resolving any dispute handled as stated in

Article 2 paragraph (3) of the UN Charter:

“All members shall settle their

international disputes by peaceful

means in such manner that international

peace and security, and justice, are not

endangered”

Article 2, Paragraph 3, underlines the

importance of resolving international

disputes by peaceful means and through

dialogue and avoiding the use of force or

threats of violence that may violate the

provisions of the Charter of the United

Nations. This article is one of the basic

principles in maintaining international

peace and security which is the main

objective of the United Nations.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

was established under Article 92 of the

United Nations Charter and is one of the

internationally recognized international

dispute settlement mechanisms. The ICJ is

the principal judicial body of the United

Nations and is tasked with resolving

disputes between states submitted to it

through procedures prescribed by the

Statute of the ICJ.

The ICJ was established to facilitate the

settlement of international disputes

through peaceful means, such as mediation

and arbitration, as well as to provide

binding and final legal decisions. ICJ

decisions must be adhered to by the

countries involved in the dispute. However,

it is important to note that not all

international disputes can be resolved

through the ICJ. States involved in disputes

may choose to resolve disputes through

other mechanisms, such as mediation or

arbitration, or bilateral or multilateral

negotiations.

In 2002, the two countries successfully

resolved the dispute amicably through the

International Court of Justice in The Hague,

Netherlands. The court ruled that both

islands were part of Malaysian territory and

that Indonesia's claims lacked a solid legal

basis. This decision has ended the dispute

and restored good relations between

Malaysia and Indonesia.

In this case, it can be seen that the

issue of state sovereignty and international

relations is closely related to international

disputes. Such disputes can affect relations

between the countries involved and can

trigger conflict or even armed conflict if not

handled wisely and effectively. Therefore,

the author raised the title "Sovereignty

Disputes of Sipadan and Ligitan Islands:

Foreign Policy Analysis of Indonesia and

Malaysia in Resolving International

Conflicts". In this paper, an analysis of the

foreign policies of Indonesia and Malaysia

will be carried out in resolving the

sovereignty disputes of the Sipadan and

Ligitan Islands. This analysis is expected to

provide a clearer picture of what factors

influence the two countries' decisions in

resolving this international conflict, as well

as the impact of these decisions on bilateral

relations and regional stability in the future.

Pascal Amadeo Yapputro

Aurel Aprilia Annisya Trisetya

Jocelyn Cheriesta

| 2226

The purpose of this study is to

understand the foreign policies of

Indonesia and Malaysia in resolving

disputes over the Sipadan and Ligitan

Islands and the impact of these disputes on

bilateral relations between the two

countries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A suitable research method for

researching sovereignty disputes over

Sipadan and Ligitan Islands is normative

juridical law research. This approach

involves analyzing laws and regulations and

court rulings as data sources. Basic

concepts of international law such as

sovereignty, jurisdiction, and international

dispute resolution must be understood by

researchers. In addition, researchers must

also consider historical and political context

factors that influence the foreign policies of

both countries. This research can make an

important contribution to understanding

the applicable law in this dispute,

evaluating the foreign policies of both

countries and providing recommendations

regarding the most appropriate way to

resolve the dispute by applying

international law.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. The history of the Sipadan and Ligitan

Island disputes between Indonesia and

Malaysia includes a chronology of

events that occurred from the beginning

of the dispute until the last settlement

reached.

Black's Law Dictionary states disputes

as "

A conflict or controversy, esp. one that

has given rise to a particular lawsuit

". In this

case, a dispute is a situation when two

parties cannot reach an agreement on an

issue, and they need the help of a third

party to resolve the issue. John Collier &

Vaughan Lowe distinguish between dispute

and conflict. According to him, the dispute

is "a

specific disagreement concerning a

matter of fact, law or policy in which a claim

or assertion of one party is met with refusal,

counterclaim, or denial by another

" while

conflict is a term of a dispute between

certain parties. Thus, every dispute is a

conflict, but every conflict cannot

necessarily be categorized as a dispute. The

dispute referred to here is an international

dispute that is not an internal affair of a

country. International disputes that occur

today not only involve relations between

states as subjects of international law but

also involve many state actors (Julianto

Jover Jotam Kalalo, 2016).

Sipadan and Ligitan Islands are in the

Sulawesi Sea and are located northeast of

Kalimantan Island. The distance between

the two islands is about 15.5 nautical miles.

The coordinates of Sipadan Island are

located at 4°06' North Latitude and 118°

37' East Longitude, while Ligitan Island is at

coordinates °06' North Latitude and 118°

37' East Longitude. In the 1960s, Indonesia

and Malaysia granted permits for oil

exploration in waters east of Borneo Island.

The first license granted by Indonesia to a

foreign company was issued on 6 October

1966 between P.N. Tambang Minyak

Nasional (Permina) and Japan Petroleum

Exploration Company Limited (Japex).

Meanwhile, in 1968, Malaysia granted

exploration permits to the Sabah Teiseki Oil

Company.

The dispute over Sipadan and Ligitan

2227 | Sipadan and Ligitan Island Sovereignty Disputes: Foreign Policy Analysis of Indonesia

and Malaysia In Resolving International Conflicts

islands dates back to 1969 when Indonesia

and Malaysia held negotiations to define

continental shelf boundaries. The

Indonesian Technical Team at that time

adhered to Indonesian law, namely, Perpu

No. 4 of 1960 which stipulates points from

the baseline of Indonesian waters and from

that point becomes the benchmark for the

Indonesian Continental Shelf to the sea.

Perpu No. 4 of 1960, stated that the two

islands were not included as a base point.

In the map of Malaysia, the boundary line

between Indonesia and Malaysia in the

region is drawn straight from the east coast

of Sebatik Island to the east which makes

Sipadan Island and Ligitan Island also

located outside Malaysian territory and it is

written that both islands are within

Indonesian territory. This caused confusion

between the parties. Indonesia also

investigated the ownership of the two

islands. After tracing historical records, it

turns out that Indonesia has evidence

related to the ownership of the two islands.

However, Malaysia uses the argument by

referring to several facts that show the

peaceful and sustainable management

carried out by the British and Malaysian

colonial governments on the two islands

(Djalal, 2013; Novitasari, 2021).

Since the discovery of the problem, in

1969 the Indonesian Technical Team felt no

authority to discuss the dispute. Finally,

Indonesia and Malaysia agreed to give the

status quo to Sipadan and Ligitan Islands.

To resolve the dispute, quite several steps

are allowed by International Law. Article 33

of the UN Charter states that:

“first of all, seek a solution by

negotiation, inquiry, mediation,

conciliation. arbitration, judicial settlement,

resort to regional agencies or

arrangements, or other peaceful means of

their own choice".

Finally, Indonesia and Malaysia tried to

resolve the dispute through negotiations.

The negotiations began with a high-level

meeting held in Yogyakarta between

President Suharto who was then president

of Indonesia and Mahathir Mohammad,

Prime Minister of Malaysia. Then after that,

the two countries tried to negotiate again.

The results of various negotiations stated

that Indonesia and Malaysia agreed to

submit the determination of the two

disputed areas to be resolved at the

International Court of Justice. The dispute

resolution mechanism at the International

Court of Justice is an agreement by the

disputing state. This is regulated in Article

36 paragraph (1) of the Statute of the

International Court of Justice. The

agreement between the two countries was

stated in an agreement on May 31, 1997,

and entered into force on May 18, 1998,

which was named "Special Agreement

for

Submission to the International Court of

Justice of the Dispute between Indonesia

and Malaysia concerning Sovereignty over

Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Special

Agreement)".

In the Special Agreement,

the International Court of Justice was asked

to determine ownership of the Sipadan and

Ligitan Islands. Before taking the dispute to

the International Court of Justice, the two

countries agreed to accept whatever

decision would be issued by the

International Court of Justice.

On December 17, 2002, the

International Court of Justice finally issued

its ruling on the dispute over Sipadan and

Ligitan Islands. The result of the decision

Pascal Amadeo Yapputro

Aurel Aprilia Annisya Trisetya

Jocelyn Cheriesta

| 2228

stated that Malaysia was won by 16 judges,

while only 1 person sided with Indonesia.

Of the 17 judges, 15 judges are permanent

judges of the International Court of Justice,

while 1 judge is selected by Malaysia and 1

is chosen by Indonesia. The decision from

the International Court of Justice is final

and binding so Indonesia must be willing to

lose its sovereignty over the two islands.

The decision of the International Court

of Justice that ruled in favor of Malaysia in

the Lipadan and Ligitan dispute was based

on the grounds of effective control and

control (

effective occupation

). Malaysia has

succeeded in preserving the environment

on both islands as an implementation of its

government administrative functions. This

International Court of Justice ruling has

consequences for Indonesia and Malaysia.

One of them is the change in the

boundaries of the waters of the two

countries, so it needs to be regulated again

so that the territorial boundaries between

the countries are clear (Lestari, 2019).

2. The foreign policy of Indonesia and

Malaysia in resolving the Sipadan and

Ligitan Island disputes, both through

diplomatic channels and international

legal channels.

The occurrence of controversy

between countries over borders regarding

the status of outer islands requires efforts

to resolve according to international legal

mechanisms, namely international dispute

settlement institutions peacefully. The

peaceful settlement of disputes is affirmed

in Article 2 paragraph (3) of the UN charter

which states that "All members shall resolve

international disputes by peaceful means in

such a way as not to endanger international

peace, security and justice". Resolving

international disputes can be done in 2

ways, namely: (Cornelis Djelfie Massie,

2019).

1. Agreement between the parties to the

dispute;

2. The decision by the judiciary.

Because of this freedom, most

countries prefer to resolve disputes

through political channels due to their

flexible nature. They argue that a

settlement with such a path is more in line

with their sovereignty (Farmer Mauna,

2008).

The settlement of disputes through

judicial bodies is handled by the

International Court of Justice (ICJ). The

International Court of Justice is the main

judicial organ of the United Nations with 15

judges elected by the

General Assembly

and the Security Council. This judicial body

is based in The Hague, Netherlands at the

Peace Palace. Although based in the

Netherlands, it does not rule out the

possibility of the International Court of

Justice conducting hearings elsewhere if

deemed necessary. In conducting the

session, in principle, the International Court

of Justice is attended by 15 members but

the quorum of members is sufficient to try

a case.

On the Sipadan and Ligitan Island

disputes, Indonesia and Malaysia initially

chose to resolve them through

negotiations. The negotiations have been

conducted repeatedly by the two countries,

but have not found a settlement.

Negotiation is considered a better

alternative settlement than if the parties

take the dispute to an international court

commonly referred to as the International

Court of Justice (ICJ). The two countries can

2229 | Sipadan and Ligitan Island Sovereignty Disputes: Foreign Policy Analysis of Indonesia

and Malaysia In Resolving International Conflicts

take other ways, namely mediation,

conciliation, arbitration, or the ASEAN High

Council.

In resolving the dispute, Indonesia also

proposed to choose a settlement through

the ASEAN High Council which had

previously resolved the same dispute

experienced by Indonesia and Malaysia.

However, Malaysia rejected the proposal

because it had territorial problems with

almost all ASEAN countries due to the

establishment of Malaysia's unilateral

claims based on the 1979 map, such as the

Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore. So if

the Sipadan and Ligitan Island disputes are

resolved through the ASEAN High Council,

it will certainly harm Malaysia (Bakhtiar,

2015).

Finally, Malaysia proposed that the

dispute be resolved through the

International Court (ICJ). With all

considerations, Indonesia finally agreed to

take the dispute to the International Court

of Justice. The decision of the two countries

is the right decision. The advantage of

resolving disputes through the

International Court of Justice compared to

other means is that disputes are examined

and tried by judges recognized for their

expertise in international law (Sefriani,

1997).

The foreign policy of Indonesia and

Malaysia in resolving disputes over the

Sipadan and Ligitan Islands is influenced by

political, economic, and national security

factors. The following is an analysis of the

factors influencing the foreign policy of the

two countries in this dispute:

a. Political Considerations

Political factors are one of the factors

influencing the foreign policy of Indonesia

and Malaysia in this dispute. Indonesia and

Malaysia are two countries that have

complex histories and political relations.

The dispute over Sipadan and Ligitan

Islands could affect political relations

between the two countries and could

impact political stability in the region.

Therefore, in resolving this dispute, the

two countries are trying to maintain good

political relations. In addition, both are also

looking for solutions that can be viewed as

a victory by their domestic people and

politicians.

b. Economic Considerations

Economic factors also influence the

foreign policies of Indonesia and Malaysia

in this dispute. Sipadan and Ligitan Islands

are areas rich in natural resources,

especially fisheries and tourism. These two

sectors are important sources of income for

both countries.

Therefore, in resolving this dispute,

both countries are trying to find a solution

that can obtain optimal economic benefits

for both countries. However, this solution

should not damage the economic interests

of the two countries and should not

aggravate the disputed situation.

c. National Security Considerations

National security factors also influence

the foreign policies of Indonesia and

Malaysia in this dispute. Sipadan and

Ligitan islands are located near

international shipping lanes that are

important for the security and stability of

the region. Both countries also have

national security interests that must be

protected.

Therefore, in resolving this dispute, the

two countries are trying to find a solution

that can strengthen the national security of

Pascal Amadeo Yapputro

Aurel Aprilia Annisya Trisetya

Jocelyn Cheriesta

| 2230

both countries and maintain regional

stability. These solutions must not pose a

threat to national security and regional

stability.

3. Evaluation of the effectiveness of foreign

policies implemented by the two

countries in resolving the Sipadan and

Ligitan Island disputes, including

successes and failures that occurred.

First of all, we can review further the

approach taken by the two countries.

Malaysia took a more aggressive approach

by taking its case to the International Court

of Justice. This approach required

considerable effort and expense, but on the

other hand, Malaysia managed to win its

case at the International Court of Justice. In

addition, Malaysia also managed to gain

international support in resolving the

dispute. This support can be seen from

several countries that support Malaysia at

the International Court of Justice and also

support provided by ASEAN (Association of

Southeast Asian Nations).

On the other hand, Indonesia chose a

more diplomatic approach to resolving the

dispute. Indonesia seeks to resolve the

dispute through bilateral dialogue with

Malaysia. This approach was less

aggressive, but Indonesia managed to get

compensation from Malaysia even though

it did not win its case at the International

Court of Justice. In addition, Indonesia

succeeded in strengthening bilateral

relations with Malaysia through the

dialogue.

Second, we can also evaluate the

effectiveness of the compensation

provided by Malaysia to Indonesia. The

compensation includes recognition of

Indonesian sovereignty over the Sipadan

and Ligitan Islands, as well as financial

compensation of USD 2,900,000. This

compensation can be said to be successful

because it provides benefits for Indonesia

in improving its economic condition and

strengthening bilateral relations with

Malaysia. However, some parties also

criticized that the compensation was

inadequate and did not match the value of

assets claimed by Indonesia.

Third, we can also examine the long-

term effects of this dispute on bilateral

relations between Malaysia and Indonesia.

Although the dispute was successfully

resolved, bilateral relations between the

two countries are still affected by the

dispute. Some differences still arise

between the two countries, for example,

related to security issues and maritime

boundaries. However, the two countries are

seeking to strengthen cooperation in

various fields, such as trade, investment,

and tourism, hoping to strengthen bilateral

relations in the future.

In conclusion, the foreign policies

implemented by Malaysia and Indonesia in

resolving the Sipadan and Ligitan Island

disputes proved effective in achieving their

respective goals. Malaysia won its case at

the International Court of Justice and

gained international support, while

Indonesia managed to obtain

compensation from Malaysia and

strengthen bilateral ties. However, the

dispute still has an impact on bilateral

relations between the two countries in the

long run. Therefore, further efforts are

needed to strengthen cooperation and

build trust between the two countries.

In addition, the Sipadan and Ligitan

Island disputes also provide important

2231 | Sipadan and Ligitan Island Sovereignty Disputes: Foreign Policy Analysis of Indonesia

and Malaysia In Resolving International Conflicts

lessons for countries in the Southeast Asian

region about the importance of resolving

disputes through peaceful channels and

dialogue. Both countries have shown that

resolving disputes through international

legal channels or bilateral dialogue can

yield positive results. Therefore, countries in

the region should adopt a similar approach

to resolving disputes in the future.

In this regard, ASEAN's role is also very

important in facilitating dispute resolution

between its member states. ASEAN can

play the role of mediator and facilitate

dialogue between its member states in

resolving disputes. In addition, ASEAN can

also promote trust and cooperation among

its member states, thereby reducing

potential disputes in the future.

Overall, an evaluation of the

effectiveness of foreign policies

implemented by Malaysia and Indonesia in

resolving the Sipadan and Ligitan Island

disputes shows that both countries

succeeded in achieving their goals with

different approaches. However, the dispute

still has an impact on bilateral relations

between the two countries in the long run.

Therefore, further efforts are needed to

strengthen cooperation and build trust

between the two countries and countries in

the Southeast Asian region as a whole.

The Sipadan and Ligitan Island

disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia

have had a significant impact on bilateral

relations between the two countries. This

impact covers political, economic, and

socio-cultural aspects, including:

1. Politics

The dispute has affected the political

relations between Indonesia and

Malaysia. In the past, this dispute has

created tension between the two

countries and affected their diplomatic

relations. However, over time, the two

countries managed to reach a peace

agreement and establish cooperation in

various fields, such as security, borders,

and combating terrorism.

2. Economics

The dispute also has economic

repercussions. Sipadan and Ligitan

Islands have great natural resources

potential, such as fisheries and tourism.

However, uncertainty and tensions

during the dispute have reduced

investment and trade between

Indonesia and Malaysia, as well as

impacted tourism in the area.

3. Socio-cultural

This dispute also has an impact on

socio-cultural relations between

Indonesia and Malaysia. These disputes

can create tensions between the peoples

of the two countries and affect

cooperation between them in various

fields, such as education and culture.

However, through dialogue and

diplomacy, the two countries have

managed to improve their socio-cultural

relations.

To maintain good bilateral relations,

the two countries need to continue to

conduct dialogue and cooperation in

various fields. In addition, efforts to

strengthen economic and socio-cultural

cooperation between Indonesia and

Malaysia also need to be carried out.

To improve bilateral relations after

the dispute between Indonesia and

Malaysia related to the Sipadan and

Ligitan Island cases, several efforts can

be made, including:

Pascal Amadeo Yapputro

Aurel Aprilia Annisya Trisetya

Jocelyn Cheriesta

| 2232

4. Dialogue and Diplomacy

The two countries can use dialogue

and diplomacy to improve bilateral

relations. Negotiations can be

conducted to resolve disputes in a

mutually beneficial and fair manner for

both parties.

5. Economic cooperation

The two countries can strengthen

economic cooperation to increase

dependence on each other and create

closer ties. The two countries can build

trust and reduce tensions that may arise

by strengthening economic ties.

1. State security cooperation

Security cooperation can also

strengthen bilateral relations between

Indonesia and Malaysia. The two

countries can cooperate in terms of

border security and countering

transnational crime.

2. Cultural and Educational Exchange

The two countries can strengthen

bilateral relations through cultural and

educational exchanges. Student and

cultural exchanges can enhance

understanding between the two

countries and create better relations.

To prevent the recurrence of similar

disputes in the future, several steps can be

taken, including:

1. Use of international law

Both countries can refer to

international law to resolve border or

territorial disputes.

2. Transparency

Both countries can show

transparency in terms of policies and

plans relating to borders and territories.

This transparency can reduce tensions

and strengthen bilateral relations.

3. Cooperation

Cooperation between the two

countries in terms of security, economy,

and socio-culture can reduce tensions

and create better relations.

4. Increased understanding

Increased understanding between

the two countries about each other's

history, culture, and interests could also

help prevent similar disputes in the

future.

5. Dialogue and Diplomacy

 In addition, dialogue and diplomacy

should be maintained consistently

to strengthen bilateral relations and

resolve disputes if they occur

CONCLUSIONS

Based on research, Indonesia and

Malaysia experienced disputes related to

the sovereignty of Sipadan and Ligitan

Islands which ended with a settlement

through the International Court of Justice.

The foreign policy of the two countries in

resolving this dispute is influenced by

political, economic, and national security

factors. The solution sought must take into

account the interests of the people and

politicians of their respective countries, not

damage the economic interests of the two

countries, and not pose a threat to national

security and regional stability. Therefore,

suggestions that can be made are to

continue to establish good communication

and negotiations, make fair agreements,

prioritize settlement through credible

diplomatic channels and international

institutions, increase cooperation in the

field of fisheries and tourism, and increase

cooperation in the field of security and

2233 | Sipadan and Ligitan Island Sovereignty Disputes: Foreign Policy Analysis of Indonesia

and Malaysia In Resolving International Conflicts

defense. By implementing these

suggestions, it is hoped that the two

countries can resolve the dispute peacefully

and strengthen bilateral relations between

the two countries.

REFERENCES

Bakhtiar, A. I. (2015). “Dispute Settlement

between Indonesia and Malaysia in

Ambalat Region According to

International Law of the Sea.”.

Student

Journal of Faculty of Law, Universitas

Brawijaya

Cornelis Djelfie Massie. (2019).

Introduction to the Law of Border

Areas and Outlying Islands

. Pustaka

Reference.

Djalal, Prof. Dr. H. (2013).

“Sipadan-Ligitan

Dispute Settlement: Interpellation?”

Law and Development.

Farmer Mauna. (2008).

International Law –

Definition, Role, and Function in the

Era of Global Dynamics

. P.T. Alumni.

Julianto Jover Jotam Kalalo. (2016).

“Dispute Resolution of State

Immunity Cases through the ICJ

(International Court of Justice)”,

Jurisprudence,

(2), 103.

Kusumaatmadja, M., & Agoes, E. R. (2021).

Pengantar hukum internasional

Penerbit Alumni.

Lestari, T. D. (2019). “Indonesia-Malaysia

Maritime Boundary Dispute (Study of

Sipadan Ligitan Case: Indonesian

Perspective).”

Journal of Legal

Panorama

(1).

Novitasari, C. N. (2021). Analysis of the

International Court of Justice Ruling

in the Indonesia-Malaysia Dispute

Case Regarding Sipadan and Ligitan

Islands.".

The Digest: Journal of

Jurisprudence and Legisprudence

Sefriani. (1997). “Revitalization of the

International Court of Justice: A Case

Study of the Indonesia-Malaysia

Sipadan-Ligitan Ownership Dispute.”

Journal of Law

(9).

Sigit Riyanto. (2012). “State Sovereignty

within the Framework of

Contemporary International Law”.

Yustisia

(3), 7.

Starke, J. G. (2001).

Introduction to

International Law 1

. Sinar Grafika.

Sumaryo Suryokusumo. (1987).

International Organizations

. UI-Press.

for possible open-access

publication

under the terms and conditions of the Creative

Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license

(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).