This paper discusses the Tribunal’s decision to assume jurisdiction over the Philippine claim notwithstanding China’s publicly declared and law-based withholding of consent to the proceedings instituted by the Philippines. The Tribunal relied on its interpretation of China’s general commitment under Section 2 of Part XV (Settlement of Disputes) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea,1 which was subjected to a Convention-authorized “exception” under Article 298 (China’s Declaration of 25 August 2006) that had selectively deprived any such proceeding of the essential element of China’s consent. The paper calls for inventive consideration of the methods available for resolving disputes, which might be seen currently as excessively influenced by procedures designed for resolving international trade disputes where only one party is a state.

This paper provides an assessment of the Tribunal’s Award on the merits relating to the Philippines’ Submissions No. 1 and 2. First, it argues that the Convention is not the sole legal source of maritime rights. Second, the Tribunal erroneously infers from Article 311 that the Convention prevails over customary international law. Meanwhile, Article 293 does not terminate rules of general international law that are incompatible with the Convention. Third, the Tribunal, by deciding that historic rights under general international law have been superseded by the regimes of exclusive economic zone and continental shelf established under the Convention, fails to draw a distinction between the two separate legal regimes, namely the Convention and general international law. Fourth, as one of the “matters not regulated by the Convention”, historic rights should be governed by, and have been well established in, general international law.

On 12 July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal formed under Annex VII of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its decision on the proceeding brought by the Philippines against China relating to certain activities in the South China Sea. The Tribunal’s decision was hotly anticipated as it dealt with various important issues relating to law of the sea and the interpretation of the Convention. It dealt with issues including the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, the legal status of maritime features, historic rights, and duty to preserve the marine environment. Although it remains to be seen whether states will follow the Tribunal’s precedent, questions arose on whether such precedent can be applied to other unresolved issues in other parts of the world. This paper looks at the application of the precedent established by the South China Sea arbitration to the situation involving Dokdo between Korea and Japan.

On 12 July 2016, the Tribunal in the South China Sea arbitration issued its final award. China rejected the ruling as “null and void”. The Philippines dismissed it as “a piece of paper” after initially hailing the ruling a “milestone decision”. The reactions of the parties concerned raise important questions about the bindingness, finality, and state compliance with UNCLOS dispute settlement decisions. This paper addresses these questions by dissecting China’s arguments that the award “has no binding force” and by examining the options available for promoting compliance with the award. The paper also considers the broader question of how states generally comply with UNCLOS dispute settlement decisions and evaluates the significance of UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanisms, including the South China Sea arbitration, in the absence of external enforcement.

The conventional wisdom has been that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS] Part XV dispute settlement system is narrowly restricted and this reflects the drafters’ intent. Thus, tribunals should cautiously interpret Part XV, giving broad effect to its jurisdictional limitations. The unanimous award in South China Sea deals this approach a blow. Indeed, it assumes a fundamentally different orientation to interpreting UNCLOS: one which implicitly takes the foremost principle of Part XV as being its compulsory and comprehensive character. This approach is rooted in a very different understanding of UNCLOS as a “package deal” and the consensus it reflects. Indeed, I argue that any interpretation of ambiguous provisions of UNLCOS is necessarily coloured by one’s view of the struggles involved in its negotiation. Further evidence of this difference of approach in South China Sea is found, in particular, in its treatment of the regime of islands.

The Philippines v. China arbitration award has been praised as a landmark victory setting forth illuminating jurisprudence interpreting the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], but it has also been repeatedly excoriated as an “unenforceable” decision—a Pyrrhic victory—due to China’s repeated refusal to date to acknowledge the binding effect of the award. China’s withdrawal from Scarborough Shoal—hailed by the new Duterte government as a hallmark of its diplomatic efforts—is one instance of state practice that still remains equivocal on the opinio juris of China’s acceptance (or rejection) of the arbitration award.

All the claimants in the South China Sea disputes have engaged in various degrees of island-building on many of the geographic features in the Spratly Islands. However, as noted by the Tribunal in the South China Sea Arbitration, none has been on the scale of Chinese island-building on the features which it occupies, which escalated after the Philippines initiated arbitral proceedings in 2013. While the most important aspect of the Award is that it clarified the extent of the respective maritime rights of China and the Philippines in the South China Sea, the Tribunal’s rulings on the reclamation and island-building activities of China are equally significant. To this end, this paper will examine the findings of the Tribunal on the legality of China’s island-building activities as well as legal constraints on such activities (if any). Last, it will explore the implications of these findings for the Southeast Asian claimants and island-building and fortification of the features that they occupy.

Asia is currently the scene of some of the most high-profile maritime disputes in the world. Even though the majority of states in Asia are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS], its dispute settlement system has only been utilized in a handful of cases. Given that negotiations have brought about limited results in easing many of the tensions, it is worth asking whether the UNCLOS dispute settlement system can play a role in the resolution of maritime disputes in Asia. This paper, based on a review of the disputes before UNCLOS Tribunals, as well the advantages and limitations of the system, argues that the UNCLOS dispute settlement system can make meaningful contributions to resolving thorny disputes between Asian states. It does so by providing a solution to the disputes brought before them, clarifying the legal framework for the conduct of the parties and facilitating co-operation amongst countries in the region.

Southeast Asia includes some of the states at greatest risk of disasters worldwide, and ASEAN has been at the forefront of using international law to attempt to co-operate in disaster risk reduction and response. The ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) is a regional treaty that has been hailed as among the world’s best practice: progressive, comprehensive, and, unusually for a disaster instrument, legally binding. This paper evaluates ASEAN’s responses to two mega-disasters: Cyclone Nargis that hit Myanmar in May 2008 and Super-typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda that hit the Philippines in November 2013. The paper aims further to investigate the role of non-state actors, such as civil society and the private sector, in institutionalizing and implementing AADMER.

This paper uses the response to Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu, 2015, as a case-study to review one country’s legal preparedness to manage a large influx of international humanitarian assistance, and the international humanitarian community’s respect for national laws and institutions. It describes provisions in international disaster response law and the developing international law on the protection of persons in the event of disaster regarding the role of the affected state, and juxtaposes this with what happened in the cyclone response—namely, the introduction by international actors of a range of international humanitarian tools and services that were neither described in national legislation nor rehearsed in national planning processes. It concludes by suggesting that national governments and international humanitarian responders advance their efforts to promote the inter-operability of their disaster management systems, and to develop an improved mutual understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities under international law.

Indonesia has enacted laws which provide mandatory protection for victims of human trafficking. It also has mandatory drug laws which, in some cases, lead to the death penalty. This legislative conflict together with investigative and prosecutorial failure risks the execution of human trafficked victims who are used as drug mules in organized crime. In countries where there is no statutory defence to criminal conduct, there is a need to approach criminal conduct in a way that protects victims. This includes mechanisms to ensure non-prosecution and non-punishment. The recent reprieve for Mary Jane Veloso, albeit temporary at the time of writing, is an opportunity for Indonesia to lead a new global approach to victim protection.

Southeast Asia remains a notorious hotbed for human trafficking. The seriousness of the problem has led to the emergence of various initiatives to combat human trafficking. This paper seeks to address why human trafficking in Southeast Asia remains a contentious issue despite the various initiatives put in place for its eradication. ASEAN Member States, including Singapore, can only resolve the current inertia when it comes to combatting trafficking-in-persons (TIP) by adopting a multidimensional, and multistakeholder approach to the problem. Within Singapore, it is recommended that the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act should be amended such that it provides greater protection for all types of trafficking victims. At the regional level, there is a need for greater collaboration and co-ordination amongst ASEAN bodies in tackling human trafficking, which must be accompanied by comprehensive monitoring, compliance, and enforcement mechanisms.

International efforts to codify the law on trafficking in persons have been evolving since the early twentieth century. This paper re-examines this journey of law and divides the existing international and domestic legal regimes into three categories: the rescue model, quasi-curative model, and curative model. The study proposes the development of an effective legal model, which may rest on the twin pillars of shared state responsibility and long-term assistance to trafficking victims. In this model, it is argued that the enunciated principles of prosecution, protection, and prevention to combat human trafficking should not be dealt with in isolation, but in combination with the concepts of state responsibility and international financial co-operation to provide long-term assistance to the victims. My central argument focuses on the suitable legal regime in which the prosecution strategy is to successfully prosecute traffickers in person, improve survivors’ protection, and reinvigorate obligations imposed on the states.

This paper offers a preliminary assessment of the ASEAN Convention against Trafficking in Persons [ACTIP] and the road leading to ACTIP’s adoption. It argues that ACTIP’s adoption and entry into force represent a growing trend in ASEAN treaty practice, especially on issues of international and regional concern, in which hard and soft obligations are combined to appeal to states’ ratification and thus the possible timely entry into force of certain binding instruments. However, more needs to be done to increase the effectiveness of ACTIP, including the prescription of a stronger compliance mechanism. To investigate whether ACTIP represents a growing trend in ASEAN treaty practice, and to study further measures to increase ACTIP’s effectiveness, the paper endeavours to assess the strength of ACTIP’s provisions, effective implementation, and compliance. It shall do this by comparing ACTIP to other relevant international and regional anti-TIP conventions.