ICJ arbitration of territorial disputes in Southeast Asia and implications for regional conflict management: Research report

• Main Author: Briones, Nikki S.
• Format: text
• Published: Animo Repository 2004
• Subjects: Boundary disputes; Southeast Asia—Boundaries; Arbitration (International law); International Relations
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty_research/5802
• Institution: De La Salle University

A close reading of the ASEAN’s Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, compared with the UN’s section on Pacific Settlement of Disputes highlights how ASEAN document pointedly leaves out arbitration. It is clear that there is a regional preference for good offices and negotiation, more than arbitration, because the latter is a high-risk, and zero-sum solution. Despite the regional preference for negotiations, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore brought their long standing disputes before the ICJ. The ICJ decision on Ligitan and Sipadan was received gracefully by Indonesia, and led to the speeding up of the agreement between Malaysia and Singapore to bring their dispute before the World Court. The ASEAN, as well as neighboring countries, has been quiet in relation to this development. While there is general agreement that ICJ arbitration is a positive development, the lack of a regional alternative or weakness of existing mechanisms is highlighted. This paper argues that while bringing territorial disputes to the ICJ may seem to signal a departure from time-honored practices generally referred to as the “ASEAN way”, and subsequently may seem to by-pass existing regional mechanism for settling disputes, ICJ arbitration of territorial disputes serves to complement, rather than undermine existing regional mechanisms for Pacific settlements of disputes. ICJ arbitration can be seen as a departure from, but logical development of the “ASEAN way.”