MARCH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TOWARDS ASIA
International Law, which has been dominated by European principles and doctrine, in a recent historical advancement has changed her course. To evidence the subject and practice of international law which, for the past centuries been dominated by European principles and doctrine, one can observe the tightly knit circle of major public international law judicial bodies such as the International Court of Justice, Permanent Court of Arbitration, and the International Criminal Court, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea location in Europe. As a result of this tightly knit physical perimeter of the Courts, the view amongst Asian and other continents has been perpetuated to believe that, international law is created and controlled by Western countries.
Thus, the declaration of Singapore as a venue for hearing cases before ITLOS can be marked as a march of international law towards Asia. Whilst the Tribunal will remain permanently headquartered in Hamburg, the ITLOS statute enables the Tribunal to exercise her functions elsewhere. This agreement and active involvement of Asia is a novel conclusion enabling a public international judicial organ to be conducted beyond Western Europe. One might consider the Tribunal’s effort to improve Asian participation in public international law discourse. Currently, in the International Court of Justice, only 8% of Asian states have accepted compulsory jurisdiction, in contrast to 30% of European states. Similar trends have been noted in the ICC and the World Trade Organization. Asian states have failed to keep up participants.[1]
Similarly, since the adoption of Convection on the Law of the Sea, the Tribunal has adjudicated more than 25 cases, both contentious and advisory, ranging from maritime boundary delimitation and land reclamation cases to opinion relating to responsibilities and obligations of states. Nevertheless, very few Asian countries have brought disputes before ITLOS. A total of six Asian countries out of more than 40 have participated in the Tribunal. Many reasons could be pointed towards about ‘under-represented’ population of international dispute settlement mechanisms for the Asian community. One reason may be the colonial imprint and fear of imperial order to dictate terms.
This has plagued Asia's faith in the international rule of law. Asian countries, to their citizens, have justified international law as a tool for justifying centuries of colonialism. One might also refer to international law as an instrument of political power and thus creating an international legal rules-based system into a cipher. In other words, Asian states have been reluctant to settle their disputes through international law mechanisms that are perceived to symbolize Western interests. But, all set to change after international law’s march towards Asia.
[1] Joining the ICC: Asia-Paci c States; https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/seminarBooks/universality-asia-eng-v.9-web.pdf