From both a geographical and geopolitical perspective, Southeast Asia is a particularly interesting case-study for maritime delimitation. Despite the existence of significant obstacles to maritime boundary-making, including a complex coastal geography and a multitude of territorial and jurisdictional disputes, Southeast Asia has been described as the “scene of very active and innovative ocean boundary diplomacy”. The objective of this paper is to examine Southeast Asian approaches to maritime boundaries. First, it seeks to identify whether there are common trends and practices in Southeast Asian practice which have contributed to the high number of maritime boundaries concluded by Southeast Asian states. Second, the paper will explore the extent to which Southeast Asian practice has contributed to the normative development of international law on maritime delimitation. Third, the paper will discuss whether there are any lessons to be learned from Southeast Asian practice that can be used to settle unresolved maritime boundary issues in the region.

Numerous international institutions now seek to address the problems of misappropriation and disappearance of traditional knowledge. The relevant legal frameworks were developed at different times and motivated by diverse policy goals. As new frameworks continue to emerge, an important question arises as to how the unity of international efforts to protect traditional knowledge can be maintained. This paper scrutinizes the fragmentation of international law in this field, how it came about, and what its implications are for traditional knowledge protection. It argues that much of the confusion surrounding traditional knowledge protection today is attributable to the fragmentation of international law in this area. To reverse the adverse effects of fragmentation, all institutions involved must be conscious of, and collectively work towards, a common goal, however loosely defined that goal might be. National governments must also ensure that their negotiating positions are consistent across all relevant fora.

The rule of law bears a special meaning in the context of the international legal order, where there is no clear vertical hierarchy or sovereign. The international rule of law strives to curb the excess autonomy of individual states for the common good. Although there is considerable scepticism about whether the international rule of law actually exists, states largely do behave as if international law is truly “law”, and international obligations are also more enforceable now than ever before. But there have been and will be moments when the international rule of law is interrupted by major powers. In an interdependent world that is both capable of and prone to inflicting unimaginable destruction, the strategy for small states unable to defend themselves directly is to create the conditions that will best promote their survival, and that is accomplished by pursuing and promoting the rule of law both domestically and internationally.

The inadequacy of existing international law in the prevention of an arms race in outer space leaves uncertainties to international peace and security. The resurgence of aggressive space programmes in the new millennium has intensified concerns over the possible degradation of outer space into an area of conflicts, prompting various initiatives aimed to fill this loophole. The year 2014 witnessed the release of the revised draft PPWT proposed by China and Russia at the CD, the fifth public edition of the ICoC promoted by the EU, and the adoption of the Resolution on “No first placement of weapons in outer space” in the General Assembly. This paper attempts to make a comparison between the three initiatives in terms of their postulated primary-level obligations, namely to what extent space weapons are prohibited on the chain of “research, development, testing, placement and use”, and the verification of compliance with these obligations.

Whilst the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 allows for damning and infrastructural development in the Indus River Basin, it does so without factoring in environmental considerations. This is because environmental standards in international law, except those related to pollution control, were largely absent when the Treaty was negotiated in the 1950s. Given the increasing list of development-related disputes between India and Pakistan, and their aspirations for further damming and other infrastructural works in the Basin, this paper seeks to close the gaps in the Treaty’s provisions and developments in international environmental law to date. To do so effectively, the paper analyzes the relevant provisions of the UN Watercourses Convention, supplemented with an examination of the European regional framework. Based on these, it proposes changes to the Treaty so that both India and Pakistan are able to work within a legal framework which not only provides for environmental impact assessments for planned projects, but enhances monitoring, assessments, and reporting. This will ensure that such developments are not only environmentally sound but also help to alleviate some of the disputes between India and Pakistan.

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.

Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) are currently under increased scrutiny. This article aims at identifying the features and likely impact of the Generally Accepted Principles and Practices (GAPP), using two lenses, both well known to legal scholars, especially within global administrative law (GAL) studies: global standards and transparency. On the one hand, contrasting the GAPP with other types of global financial standards can help identify the most powerful incentives to foster compliance. On the other hand, even though the transparency provisions requesting SWFs to provide public information concerning their legal basis, structure, and financing decisions appear to be a step in the right direction, they need further clarification so that a proper balance between disclosure and the need to avoid unnecessary costs can be struck. Moreover, this article claims that the effectiveness of disclosure provisions in fostering the accountability of the funds depends also on the existence of structural elements.

The United Nations Protocol Against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air sets out an ambitious international approach to prevent and combat the smuggling of migrants. Although the Protocol has found widespread adoption worldwide, many countries have not—or not yet—signed and ratified the Protocol. Many critics argue that the Protocol promotes the views of rich, developed destination countries and offers little incentives for developing countries of origin to support the Protocol. This paper examines the reasons why some countries choose not to ratify the Protocol. The paper sheds light on the common concerns and characteristics of the forty-five non-Party States in order to pave the way for wider adoption of the Protocol and for more concerted efforts to combat the smuggling of migrants worldwide.

This paper proposes to think counterfactually about international law: How could it have been otherwise? Asking that question has the benefit of, first, exposing contingencies in international law’s development that are otherwise glossed over in the rush towards making sense of what happened. Second, counterfactual thinking supports the understanding of what actually happened in a context-sensitive fashion. Third, it forms part of comparative moral assessments and exposes blind spots. Counterfactual thinking may thus contribute to the freedom from necessity, from grand theory, and from reality. The paper draws the contours of what writing counterfactual (hi)stories of international law is about, discusses its merits as well as drawbacks, offers guidance on how to do it, and then focuses on two probing examples: What if the International Trade Organization had been established around 1949? What if garment workers were seals and the European Commission prohibited the importation of certain textiles?

Indonesia has been burning or sinking foreign vessels in its efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing in its exclusive economic zone. Opinions on how much longer this measure should continue are manifold. While political issues may easily mask the situation, the underlying legal question remains: whether burning or sinking foreign vessels is a legal and necessary enforcement measure for Indonesia. Even though Article 73(1) of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea does not make any reference to this type of measure, it allows coastal states to take measures that are “necessary to ensure compliance with their laws and regulations”. This paper examines the meaning of the term “necessary” within the ambit of Article 73(1) to evaluate whether Indonesia's measure to burn or sink foreign vessels is necessary.

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.

This paper examines the recent decision by the Indonesian government to terminate its Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) with the Netherlands when it expires on 30 June 2015. It discusses the likely driving forces behind Indonesia’s decision, and its alternative future strategy. In particular, it focuses upon controversial provisions on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) universally included in BITs. While Indonesia’s termination may appear of minor consequence at first glance, it has significant implications in terms of Indonesia’s obligations under international law as well its capacity to exercise its rights as a sovereign state to act domestically in the public interest. The termination of Indonesia’s first investment treaty containing the ISDS mechanism is also highly symbolic because it represents the first step in a reported strategy to review all its sixty-seven BITs. Indonesia thus joins a growing number of countries concerned about perceived excessive corporate rights enshrined in investment agreements as being incompatible with national development objectives.

This paper focuses on the role of ASEAN in maintaining peace and security in Southeast Asia. It uses the Temple of Preah Vihear dispute as a case-study to examine both ASEAN's successes and limitations in dealing with a crisis that threatened regional peace. The paper first examines ASEAN's initial response to the conflict and highlights a period of inaction that followed. It then traces ASEAN's renewed efforts to manage the conflict and assesses ASEAN's potential to resolve the dispute. The paper concludes that ASEAN did a remarkable job in facilitating negotiations and was instrumental in preventing the conflict from further escalation. It argues, however, that ASEAN's role remains limited: in particular, problems of institutional design reduce its effectiveness in managing conflicts and settling disputes. The paper concludes by making several suggestions to increase the effectiveness of the organization in maintaining regional peace and security.

By studying British Indian Army [BIA] desertions during World War II, and British postwar trial responses, this paper explores the complicated dimensions of desertion and draws attention to the need for a more explicit and comprehensive approach to desertion in international humanitarian law. The paper focuses on less known British trials dealing with desertion, namely, war crimes trials conducted by the British in Singapore. It examines how these trials dealt with contested interpretations of desertion. Drawing on lessons from these trials, the paper then highlights gaps in today’s international humanitarian law framework, specifically, the need to take into account the realities of desertion, its different permutations, and the difficulties of differentiating between prisoners of war [POWs] and deserters.

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.

Cross-border data flow is essential to contemporary international trade. However, transitioning from paper to digital in international trade has benefits and concerns. Concerns have led to an upsurge in data regulation as nations and regions impose restrictions on data flows and storage. This paper argues that, with increasing concerns about data sovereignty, the reconciliation of differing positions will be necessary to ensure that the benefits of digitization can be realized equally. At present, the objective of “data free flow with trust” is aspirational at best, with emerging trade barriers that unfairly threaten opportunities for small to medium enterprises and development within the Global South. This paper supports new knowledge and demonstrates that discriminatory regulation of data flow and disproportionately prioritizing national interests will be a trade barrier that impacts private entities and consumers in all nations. To avoid unintended externalities, cooperation is needed at a global level.

This article discusses the transition of international criminal justice from a predominantly ex post facto punitive concept of post World War II efforts—and the ad hoc tribunals set up in the 1990s—towards a more comprehensive concept of justice centred around the International Criminal Court established by the Rome Statute, with significant potential for the prevention of future atrocities. Four sources of preventive effect are examined: deterrence, timely intervention, stabilization, and norm setting. Significant challenges remain for the Rome Statute system, notably strengthening the principle of complementarity, enhancing the co-operation of states with the ICC, securing sufficient resources for international justice, and furthering universal acceptance of the Rome Statute, especially in the Asia-Pacific. The author argues that the ultimate value of the Rome Statute system lies in entrenching legal and social norms that will help human compassion prevail over cruelty.

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.