On 26 June 2018, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law [UNCITRAL] approved, largely without modification, the final drafts of the Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the Singapore Convention) and amendments to the Model Law on International Commercial Mediation prepared by Working Group II. These instruments aim to promote the enforceability of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation in the same way that the New York Convention facilitates the recognition and enforcement of international arbitration awards. This paper provides a critical analysis of the Singapore Convention, and some commentary from an Asian perspective.

International Criminal Law [ICL] contains a number of general principles, which form the foundations of and conditions for holding individuals criminally responsible for crimes under international law (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression), and other crimes against the peace and security of mankind. Most general principles of ICL have been adequately implemented in the current (second) edition of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This paper assesses the quality of and identifies the lacunae in the implementation of Kazakhstan’s Criminal Code, with a view to suggesting further improvements to this Code.

Global attention to events on the Korean Peninsula has been striking in the past year. With an inter-Korean summit and an unprecedented US-DPRK summit, hopes of a final end to the Korean War have been renewed. Although these summits resulted in declarations which pronounced an end to the Korean War and an establishment of a peace regime, the declarations must not be mistaken as official peace treaties. Unlike a peace treaty, which is governed by international law, the two summit declarations are not governed by international law due to their lack of legality. Therefore, a clear distinction must be drawn between the declarations and a peace treaty. This paper aims to determine the legal status of the declarations and explain how they are merely non-binding political declarations. The paper then identifies and explores some of the legal implications of a Korean peace treaty.

While there have been various studies on international law in domestic courts, the case of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China [HKSAR], which celebrated its twentieth anniversary in 2017, presents unique questions. Under the principle of “One Country, Two Systems”, while the HKSAR maintains a distinct common-law system and a separate judicial regime, foreign affairs remain the responsibilities of the Central People’s Government of China. The handling of international law issues in cases before HKSAR courts would require consideration of the constitutional relation between the national (central) authorities of China and the local authorities in the HKSAR, and between the main legal system of China and the local HKSAR common-law system, in the light of the experiences of handling relevant cases in the past twenty years.

This paper aims to build an analytical framework and a research agenda for a study of the potential impact of the rise of China and India on international law. In the light of the possibility that the two states may, together or individually, make changes in international law and shift it from its present Europe-America moorings, this paper attempts to analyze and answer three topics: (1) the common and different stances of China and India on the existing international legal order; (2) the changes China and India have sought to the international status quo; and (3) the contributions that have been or could be brought by China and India to the development of international law and their implications for the future. It proposes an analytical framework in which these questions are viewed through two lenses: the romantic vision and the realist vision.

The historic Award in the South China Sea Arbitration gave much-needed clarity to many of the complex legal issues lying at the heart of the Philippines-China maritime dispute. Often overlooked, however, is the procedural significance of the case. This Comment submits that the South China Sea Arbitration represents a shift towards the use of judicial fact-finding initiatives as a means to overcome the adjudicatory challenges inherent to highly technical and scientific cases where one Party fails or refuses to participate. Even more striking, the Tribunal’s independently acquired facts appear to be the basis for the majority of its conclusions in the Award. This Comment highlights the appropriateness and practicality of the Tribunal’s actions in view of its extraordinary obligation under Article 9 of Annex VII of the UNCLOS to “satisfy itself” that the Philippines’ claims are “well-founded in fact and law”.

There has been a recent proliferation of scholarship on the development, identification, and determination of customary international law [CIL]. Much of this has focused on explication of the theoretical and practical problems inherent in the modern use of CIL as a source of international law. However, there are influential voices who argue that CIL nevertheless continues to play a necessary role in the international legal system, and that many of the problems that have been identified are exaggerated. This paper maintains that the problems which have been identified in the processes of identification and determination of CIL are of such a serious and institutionalized nature as to produce a presumptive distrust of any statement about what is or is not CIL. It argues that the process of identifying and authoritatively determining CIL must evolve to more objectively evidence the positive assent of states to the making of customary rules.

The South China Sea is a common resource where ASEAN Member States derive multiple uses. Nevertheless, the competing claims and conflicting interests of ASEAN nations and other claimants, such as China, raise the issue of transboundary harm within this sea and the sustainability of its resources. This paper argues that, despite the absence of a region-based transboundary environmental impact assessment [EIA] regime covering the South China Sea, ASEAN Member States are bound by their commitments under the Law of the Sea Convention and other binding agreements, as complemented by customary international law, which provide guidance in applying a transboundary EIA over a shared resource. The South China Sea Arbitration particularly sets the minimum requisites of not only preparing an EIA, but also communicating the EIA results to relevant international organizations. Here, ASEAN can play a vital role as a platform through which where EIA communication can be channelled.

I argue that contextually reading two disputes involving Siam—Cheek v. Siam (1898) and the Temple of Preah Vihear (1962)—proves that both private law and public international law are structurally rigged against ex-semi-colonial nations. Nineteenth-century Siam was a political ferment known variously as a semi-colonial, semi-peripheral, non-colonial, or uncolonized polity. Siam bargained under imperial shadows her political independence by the tactical grants of concession contracts, as well as by negotiating treaties with competing European powers. In the post-colonial Temple of Preah Vihear case, colonial stationery—maps, photographs, and communiqués—as well as imperial customs offered evidentiary support to Cambodia, an ex-colonial state, against Thailand. In the early twentieth century, while authors picked Cheek v. Siam as a precedent for the law of international claims, textbooks offer the Temple of Preah Vihear case as a precedent on the form of treaties and estoppel. Conclusively, these two cases allow us to locate, if not exorcise, the ghosts of empires in Asian legal history, exposing, at the same time, Judge Koo’s Orientalization of customary international law.

International organizations have been described metaphorically as the Frankenstein of international law. They are created by states and yet more often than not they assume powers that humble their creators. This paper presents a different metaphor to describe the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN]. Created in 2007, ASEAN, it is argued, resembles the fettered wayang kulit in Indonesian theatre. It is an international organization which is controlled by its Member States in various ways. This paper analyzes three forms of ASEAN's fetters: constitutional, extra-constitutional, and practical. Constitutional fetters refer to the structural control embedded in the ASEAN Charter. Extra-constitutional fetters refer to rules of procedure that close the openness of the constitutional text. Finally, practical fetters refer to the ways the Member States limit ASEAN's legal personality in practice. Through these control mechanisms, ASEAN has so far acted on the stage of world politics according to the narrative of its puppet masters.

This paper examines resource nationalism in the legal system of Indonesia under the interpretation of Articles 33(2), 33(3), and 18B(2) of the 1945 Constitution. It will describe the evolution of the meaning of resource nationalism since independence to the present day, in the context of foreign investment, to investigate the extent to which resource nationalism has benefited indigenous peoples. This paper argues that resource nationalism in the legal system of Indonesia has been driven by state-centric goals and has strayed far away from considerations of the benefits to the indigenous people (Masyarakat Hukum Adat/MHA), so as to dominantly benefit the elites of government and foreign investors. This paper will introduce a new conceptual framework in order to develop an effective argument about resource nationalism using International Human Rights Law.

This paper examines the UN Security Council’s [UNSC] response to the environmental impact of the 1990–91 Gulf War and its relevance to ongoing debates on environmental protection during armed conflict. With Resolution 687/91, the UNSC referred to “environmental damage and depletion of natural resources” in the context of war reparations, and established the UN Compensation Commission [UNCC] to process environmental claims. Whilst this is often hailed as a success story, this paper raises questions about certain dimensions of the UNCC: the choice of the applicable law; the decision-making process, particularly in relation to causation and remedies; and its punitive/biased nature. It argues that the successful outcome of the environmental compensation regime cannot be separated from the UNCC’s exceptional application of international legal norms. By drawing attention to this “logic of exception”, I suggest that alternative responses, more attentive to the dynamics of contemporary conflicts and their multiple environmental impacts, should be imagined.

The development of post-colonial states through the operation of the uti possidetis principle in international law is intrinsically connected to the suppression of ethnic minorities and the ensuing humanitarian catastrophes in these states. With the continuation of colonial boundaries in post-colonial states due to the uti possidetis principle, international law facilitates many of these catastrophes. Accordingly, through exploring the questionable legal status of the uti possidetis principle and the fallacy of its conflict-preventing potential, I argue that uti possidetis itself is a key problem. The continuation of arbitrarily drawn colonial boundaries undermines the legitimate right to self-determination of numerous ethnic minorities. This paper specifically explores the application of uti possidetis to Myanmar and how it contributed to the Rohingya crisis. In the process, the paper also highlights the inherent relationship between colonialism and international law and how it has shaped the development of post-colonial states.

Given the global contestation against BITs and ISDS, the outcome of the Philip Morris v. Uruguay case upholding Uruguay’s right to regulate for public health is important for the international investment law community. However, it is not just the outcome of a case but also the quality of legal reasoning that is significant in building the legitimacy of the ISDS system. This paper focuses on the reasoning adopted by the tribunal in deciding whether Uruguay’s regulatory measures resulted in the expropriation of Philip Morris’s investment. The paper critiques the tribunal’s use of Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to invoke the police powers rule in interpreting the expropriation provision of the Switzerland-Uruguay BIT. The tribunal’s reasoning was internally inconsistent and based on abuse of arbitral precedents. Clarity in legal reasoning by ISDS tribunals is imperative to boost the legitimacy of the ISDS system for all stakeholders.

Since the inception of the WTO in 1995, India enthusiastically explored export-promotion strategies through multilateral trade reforms. However, the country has moved towards the regional trade route since 2004, primarily owing to the slow progress of the Doha Round negotiations. As a result, the whole architecture of international trade law and governance is being redesigned in the Asia Pacific region. This paper focuses on the pivotal role played by India in this rebalancing. Given the stress on services exports and investment requirements, India focused on entering into comprehensive agreements encompassing merchandise and services trade as well as investment provisions. Presently, India is involved in the ongoing Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership [RCEP] negotiations, where ASEAN remains at the core. The current analysis evaluates the Indo-ASEAN trade patterns and evolving dynamics over the last decade through select trade indices, and comments on the future of the RCEP.

The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank [AIIB] is the world’s newest multilateral development bank [MDB] and already one of Asia’s largest international organizations by membership. This paper will compare the institutional structure of the AIIB with that of the Asian Development Bank [ADB] to identify areas in which the AIIB has innovated as a matter of international institutional law. In reviewing the constituent documents, bylaws, and operational policies of the two banks, the paper will juxtapose the AIIB and ADB’s approaches to membership, project finance, voting, and governance. It will identify not only innovations, but also the likely implications, positive and negative, thereof. Finally, it will assess the degree to which these innovations may impact the AIIB’s ability to partner with existing MDBs. In particular, the AIIB’s approach to project finance and governance mark a significant break from the status quo, while in other areas it has remained conservative.