The law of international organizations is often described in terms of both its universality and its unity. Writers in this field begin their texts with an acknowledgement that there are common legal principles that have been developed by, and can be applied to, a variety of international organizations. The idea that there are legal principles applicable to multiple organizations – whatever their membership, location, powers, technical functions, or financial resources – is also implicit in the reports of the International Law Commission discussing the immunities, responsibilities, and law-making capacity of international organizations. But despite this search for common principles, a question remains whether international institutional law is based on the practice of all, or at the very least, a range, of organizations. Writers in this field have tended to focus on the activities of organizations based in either Europe or North America, including the United Nations and its specialized agencies, the European Union, and Council of Europe. This article argues that the omission of the principles and practices of organizations outside Europe and the United Nations’ system, specifically Asia Pacific organizations, undermines the claim of international institutional law to be universal. It explores the way in which a more inclusive approach – one that pays attention to the perspectives of Asia Pacific organizations – could illuminate certain features of the law and lead international lawyers to reconceive some of its central principles.

Since 1945, the reasons for major crises and how the world responds to them have changed every 10-15 years or sooner. Whereas these crises vary greatly across global regions, their economic, environmental, ecological, social, and disease aspects are increasingly under the influence of widely integrated global changes and forces arising primarily from: climate extremes; rapid unsustainable urbanization; critical biodiversity losses; and emergencies of scarcity in water, food, and energy. These slow-moving but increasingly severe crises affect larger populations across many borders and lead to the emergence of increasing population-based, preventable public health emergencies related to water, sanitation, food, shelter, energy, and related health illnesses, and ultimately global health security. This report explores the impact of these crises on Asia and the Pacific region, and their potential for regional conflict.

While many Australians continue to see their roots in Western Europe, in matters concerning human rights and immigration control, Australia's culture and attitudes over time have become more closely aligned with those of States in its immediate geographical region. The trend finds obvious expression in the convergence of laws and policies governing the treatment of asylum seekers. This article uses as a case study various efforts made to establish regional frameworks for the management of irregular (forced) migration. The author argues that Australia's reversion to deflection and offshore processing as deterrent measures resonates with the discourse in two States that have been closely associated with the new ‘arrangements’: Malaysia and Indonesia. Australia's policies make express reference to laws and State behaviour in the region through what has been labelled the ‘no advantage’ principle governing Australia's treatment of asylum seekers presenting as unauthorized maritime arrivals (UMAs). The central idea is that these asylum seekers should gain no material advantage by reaching Australia in comparison with the situation they would face if their claims were processed in States of first refuge. If the comparators are the refugee-receiving States around Australia, the policy has to play out in the degradation of terms and conditions faced by UMAs in Australia. In the area of human rights and refugee policy, the author argues that Australia should be doing more to distinguish itself as a leader rather than follow the (generally poor) practices of its neighbours.