This paper brings forward Justice Pal's dissenting opinion at the Tokyo Tribunal to add to Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) literature on international criminal law and the rules of evidence and procedure. It is part of a TWAIL effort to scrutinize the everyday practices of international prosecutions through procedural and evidentiary rules. By locating and situating Justice Pal's reasoning within the broader academic literature on dissents in international criminal law, it is possible to illustrate how and why Justice Pal's views were obscured as a relevant dissent. From this vantage point, this paper pursues Justice Pal's legacy as it relates to the rules of evidence and procedure in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. It traces the evolution of the judicial power to draft and amend these rules, and examines the impact of these decisions on the everyday functions of the tribunals and how truth is determined.

Asian governments tend to be more sensitive about their sovereignty than governments in the contemporary West. Therefore, when differences occur and disputes arise, Asian governments tend to insist that they be resolved through bilateral consultations and negotiations. The reality is that, very often, the differences and disputes remain unresolved after years and even decades of negotiations. When left unresolved, some of these disputes have a tendency to contaminate the bilateral relationship as a whole. This is a great pity, because the disputes may revolve around relatively minor issues compared to the many other areas in which the two countries have convergent interests. Asian governments should therefore consider resolving such disputes by other peaceful means.

What are other modalities for the peaceful resolution of disputes? They are: (i) conciliation; (ii) mediation; (iii) fact-finding; (iv) arbitration; and (v) adjudication.

This paper relies on archival research to rediscover Chen Tiqiang's study of public international law at Tsinghua University and Oxford University with James Brierly. Particular attention is directed to Brierly's profound influence on Chen's approach to researching the doctrine of recognition and his remarkable performance at his oral examination before Humphrey Waldock and Robert Y. Jennings. In addition to providing an abbreviated overview of the international legal community's overwhelmingly favourable reactions to the publication of Chen's dissertation in 1951, it argues that Chen's experience and accomplishments provide some evidence that China's teaching and scholarship of international law attained an unprecedented milestone in the late 1930s and 1940s.

Indicators are an important but often underrated means of international governance, with the power to regulate the thinking and conduct of international actors. This power should not go unregulated or unsupervised. Hence, this paper seeks to analyze ASEAN indicators from the viewpoint of global administrative law, and to consider the ways in which ASEAN indicators may possess regulatory characteristics. The paper reflects on the need to ensure that ASEAN indicators are generated in a way that is sufficiently transparent and accountable, and that allows participation from their targets, so that such indicators may be used constructively within ASEAN.

For any foreign investor, protection of their investment is a primary concern in host states. National legislations and BITs usually provide legal security to them so that they can exercise their desired economic freedom in host countries. Without legal safeguards for their investments, they will not be motivated to invest their capital further. Like other host states, generally, the national laws and BITs of Bangladesh provide significant investment protection guarantees. This paper will discuss how far the protection through judicial or arbitral settlement is established in the legal framework and BITs of Bangladesh. Dispute settlement mechanisms in Bangladesh, various ICSID cases involving Bangladesh, and conflicts between Bangladesh and foreign investors are discussed. The paper also covers the issues and challenges of judicial arrangements in Bangladesh, and findings show that dispute settlement arrangements in Bangladesh are not up to international standards and require significant development. Last, recommendations are provided for consideration.

Treaties are contractual instruments that may provide special rules of priority in case they conflict with other treaties. When a treaty does not provide such rules, however, priority is determined by the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) and/or general principles of law. This article argues that both the VCLT and general principles of law do not provide an adequate solution to treaty conflicts. It suggests that the solution to treaty conflicts rests in a value-oriented reading of international law and the norms incorporated in treaties. Norms represent values and values represent interests or benefits for which international society requires protection. Conflicts of treaty norms are, therefore, conflicts of values that courts and dispute settlement bodies resolve by ordering a hierarchy of competing interests and protecting the most important interests in a given context.

The entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in January 2021 has sparked much discussion of the Treaty's positive obligations under Article 6. But while victim assistance under Article 6(1) has received considerable attention, the environmental remediation obligation within Article 6(2) remains underexplored. Filling this gap, this article examines a specific issue relating to environmental remediation under Article 6(2): the scope of nuclear weapons-related activities captured by the obligation imposed upon TPNW parties. Ultimately, it is revealed that significant ambiguity exists as to the scope of activities covered when applying the rules of treaty interpretation of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. After offering some policy arguments both for and against a broad interpretation, this paper recommends that TPNW parties should begin to advance and clarify their positions on this issue in order to clearly identify the scope of Article 6(2).

International lawyers in Asia have long felt the need to establish an Asian Society of International Law. The American Society of International Law was founded a century ago in 1906; its European counterpart was established in 2004. In Africa, there is an African Society of International and Comparative Law. Asia, in fact, was the only major region of the world which had no international law society on a region-wide basis.

With Asia now being one of the most important and vibrant regions of the world in international affairs, it has risen as an active and influential player in international relations. This is apparent in fields such as peace and security, international trade and investment, human rights and the environment, as well as many other fields of international activities. There is today an acute need for the nations of Asia, as well as academics and practitioners working in or on Asia, to have their voices heard on these important issues, to contribute to the development of international law on a global basis, and to consolidate the rule of law in various fields of present-day international relations. There is by now ample room for Asia to contribute to the world not only in the economic and political fields, but also in the social, legal, and other intellectual fields.

The establishment of the Asian Society of International Law (hereinafter “the Society”) may be characterized as symbolizing a fundamental change in history: the transformation from the West-centric world of the twentieth century to the multipolar and multi-civilizational world of the twenty-first. The Society’s establishment suggests the urgent need for those living in this multipolar world—international lawyers in particular—to enhance their ability to appreciate this changing reality and the normative responses to it. The Society could also be an important forum for achieving these aims.

Global society in the twentieth century was dominated by “Western” powers. In the field of international law, it was mainly the governments, media institutions, leaders, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), experts, and international lawyers of the Western nations that constructed, interpreted, maintained, and implemented the international legal order. For a long time, it was the major Western universities and the American Society of International Law (ASIL) that played a leading role in the field of the academic and professional activities of international law.

From around the end of the twentieth century, it became evident that Asian nations had again risen in the global arena. Japan took the lead and has remained the world’s second-largest economy since the late 1970s. Yet it is the resurgence of China and India as world powers that is of fundamental importance from the perspective of human history.

In parallel with its efforts to become a full member of the United Nations (UN) and its specialized agencies, Palestine needs to take the implications of joining such organizations in earnest. Admission to the UN, in addition to encompassing rights for states, simultaneously entails duties on the part of the state. One duty is to respect, protect, and fulfil human rights for those living under Palestine's jurisdiction. This paper assesses the ability of the applicable legislation in Palestine to secure adequate standards of living by focusing on three rights: food, housing, and health. Many of the laws relating to these rights date back to the Turkish, British, Jordanian, and Egyptian eras. With a few exceptions, Palestine has so far enacted executive orders to activate these rights based on older laws. Nothing prevents Palestine from modernizing its nutrition, habitation, and medical care systems and joining the community of welfare states.

Ocean fertilization was first introduced as a carbon dioxide mitigation technique in the 1980s. However, its effectiveness to slow down climate change is uncertain and it is expected to damage the marine environment. Consequently, international law, including the London Convention/Protocol and the Convention on Biological Diversity, limits this activity to scientific research purposes. The applicability and scope of existing treaties for regulating this activity have been reviewed within international legal systems, in particular within the London Protocol. The establishment of a liability regime with respect to these activities has also been raised during a discussion on regulation of ocean fertilization under the London Protocol. One of the key purposes of the liability regime could be to make ocean users more cautious when exploring and exploiting the oceans through charging cleaning costs or imposing compensation for damage. This paper aims to identify such a preventative effect of the international liability regime, in particular, state liability.