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 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.

Paragraph 5(a) of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf has been invoked by states to block the Commission's consideration of several submissions made by coastal states. The paragraph introduces several new factors into the delineation process of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles, which had not been envisaged by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. In addition, this has had significant consequences in respect of the completion of the delineation process, and thus the realization of one of the key objects and purposes of the Convention – that is, to create certainty about the extent of the continental shelf and the limits of the area. This article examines whether Paragraph 5(a) is in accordance with the Convention, and whether there is an alternative approach that may have a more limited impact on the delineation process.

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.

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.

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.

This article proposes re-thinking the history of refugee protection in the Southeast Asia region, focusing on the post-World War Two period (1945–1979). It fills a gap in the literature on this period, drawing on archival material. It disrupts a narrative of “human rights exceptionalism” in Southeast Asia. First, it examines the small but powerful role of Southeast Asian states during the drafting of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. These states challenged colonial powers and asserted human rights. Second, it considers the role of key refugee-hosting states in Southeast Asia in developing—with other post-colonial states—regional standards to protect refugees under the auspices of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee, the Aliens Principles of 1961 and Bangkok Principles of 1966. Third, it places international and regional action in the domestic context by drawing on the example of Thailand's protection of Vietnamese refugees. It concludes that the approach in the post-WWII years points to an extended history of protecting refugees in Southeast Asia, and valuable lessons from the Global South for the region and beyond.