ICJ arbitration of Southeast Asian territorial disputes and post-Cold War IR theories: A case for analytic eclecticism?

• Main Author: Briones, Nikki S.
• Format: text
• Published: Animo Repository 2022
• Subjects: Boundary disputes; Southeast Asia—Boundaries; International courts; Pacific settlement of international disputes; International Relations
• Online Access: https://animorepository.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty_research/5800
• Institution: De La Salle University

Resorting to ICJ arbitration may lead observers to think that there’s either the lack of a viable regional mechanism for resolving conflict, or the unwillingness of states to make use of existing mechanisms. On the contrary, it can be argued that ICJ arbitration does not undermine existing mechanisms, but complement them. It is in line with TAC’s article 17 which does not preclude parties from taking other approaches as outline in the UN Charter. It can further be argued that it is only because of existing ASEAN mechanism has going to the ICJ has become a viable alternative. The “ASEAN way” paved the way for the mature relationships among disputing states. ICJ arbitration may be viewed not as a departure from but logical development of ASEA conflict management. That they have laid down a decision the Malaysia-Indonesia dispute without unnecessary delay is proof of the world court’s confidence in the maturity of relations between the two countries, due in no small part, to its established habits of intercourse within the framework of ASEAN interaction. While it may appear that ICJ arbitration signals the triumph of liberal institutionalism through the primacy of international law, a review of Malaysian, Indonesian, and Singaporean foreign policies reveals that the roads to the ICJ was paved with ambivalent state behavior. On the one hand, bilateral relations seemed to be driven by realist preoccupations, while multilateral relations, within the ASEAN framework, seemed to fall under the ambit of constructivism. How can theory help us make sense of the overlapping realities of bilateral, regional (multilateral-ASEAN), and international (legal-institutional-ICJ) relations specific to, rooted in, and manifested by the Southeast Asian experience? An approach of analytical eclecticism seems to be called for. This paper argues that the use of military power, international institutions in the form of the ICJ, and uniquely ASEAN norms and discourse were all intricately related and not mutually exclusive elements of foreign policy of the disputing countries. This shows the artificiality of theoretical boundaries, and highlights the utility of an eclectic analytic approach.