The location of the headquarters, along with other factors like the influence of ideas by western nations, undoubtedly instilled a lot of participation from these regions. However, the Asian regions were often neglected to receive any recognition from the international organizations. The Western-centric notion of sovereignty and colonial discourse provides a coherent explanation of why international law reflects global inequalities over half a century after decolonization. Consequently, the extent of faith and reliability over these bodies, by them, was also minimum. 

Consultations concerning Singapore as a seat for the Tribunal began in 2007. This led to a joint declaration being signed between the Ministry of Law and President of the Tribunal.

Under Article 1, Para 3 of the Statute of the ITLOS, “The Tribunal may sit and exercise its functions elsewhere whenever it considers this desirable.” In furtherance of the said article, the joint declaration in 2015 was signed. Therefore, in 2015, Singapore did not become a legal adjudicator for the settlement of law of the sea disputes. Rather, it was simply allowed to conduct ITLOS proceedings in Singapore.

A similar agreement for the provision of facilities for arbitral disputes administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was concluded between Singapore and the PCA in 2007.

On June 11, 2020, during a virtual ceremony, a step was taken forward. ITLOS and Singapore signed a model agreement to enable the Tribunal to sit in Singapore. It meant that countries engaged in disputes over any dispute related to International Law of the Sea matters may now bring those disputes to ITLOS but have them seated in Singapore.

Undoubtedly, the recognition of Asian states in international adjudicatory bodies has been low, with western influence playing a major factor. Only 8 percent of Asian states have accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and they have similar rates of accepting other international institutions and conventions, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), in terms of the number of participants.

As of now, only a few Asian countries have brought disputes before ITLOS, namely Bangladesh, India, Japan, Malaysia, Myanmar and Singapore: a total of six Asian countries out of more than 40. Nevertheless, some gradual change has been observed as there has been an increase in Asian participation at the ITLOS as well as ICJ. The Asian nations are slowly changing their attitude toward accepting third party adjudication for the settlement of disputes, thus contributing more actively to the development of international law.

The ITLOS has 21 judges who are elected by the parties to UNCLOS from among persons enjoying the highest reputation for fairness and integrity and having a recognized expertise in the law of the sea, and no two members of the Tribunal may be nationals of the same state.

In 2009, as many as five judges represented the Asian nation. Such a representation allows non-biased decisions towards the Asian states and dilutes the influence of Western nations to a great extent. This also ensures that a change has been observed in recent years, in favor of the Asian nations.

These changes point out how the Asian states have been placing certain reliance on international bodies. The agreement works as a great incentive in continuation of these changes. The present agreement between ITLOS and Singapore definitely makes accessibility to ITLOS easier.

This was important, particularly as the East and South China Seas are home to a number of escalating territorial disputes between China and its neighbors, including Japan, Vietnam, and the Philippines. Another factor which shall increase accessibility is the reduction in costs of travel, which hampered the process since both the client and the counsel’s charge added up to influence the decision in a significant way.  

Singapore as a possible venue for the settlement of law of the sea disputes could also help to reduce the impression of Asian states that the settlement of public international law disputes is predominantly eurocentric and this may persuade more Asian states to resolve their law of the sea disputes via international dispute settlement, and with Singapore as a venue.

The Asia-Pacific region covers vast maritime areas and therefore, it is necessary to introduce a mechanism to instill the faith of the Asian community in the adjudicatory mechanism developed internationally, under the aegis of the Western nations. Although most international disputes are resolved through political means, particularly bilateral negotiation and consultation, international adjudication and arbitration are indispensable as an important component of dispute settlement.

The legal adjudication at Singapore could develop a growing stimulus to get disputes between nations adjudicated. Negotiations could still be helpful; however, the availability of other mechanisms in the region in easy access will leave no room for compromise. Establishing expertise in international conciliation could also contribute to the future growth of law of the sea disputes in Singapore.

It is often said that, in Asian cultures, an adversarial third-party dispute settlement procedure, such as a trial, is preferred to be avoided. With the seat in Singapore along with mediation and arbitration centers in Singapore, the choice of both, third party settlement and means of mediation and other related measures shall be available to the people. 

The joint declaration can act as an important catalyst for the growth and expand the possibility of Singapore being the venue for a range of other matters that are either unique to ITLOS, or in conjunction with the PCA host country agreement.  Singapore is increasingly becoming a venue for investor-state claims and the Singapore International Arbitration Centre continues to see an increase in the number of cases each year. 

Singapore has developed effective mechanisms to hear matters in reference to the PCA, International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) as well as ITLOS. It has covered arbitration, mediation and other third party mechanisms to deliberate on the behavior of a state. Issues involving complex rules incorporating all these mechanisms can be conveniently dealt with in Singapore.

Singapore has established its name in international politics with the present move. The costs of adjudication may fall, and the Asian states will finally achieve the recognition they need. A culture of adjudication may develop, which will impact several states and bodies. Faster disposal of cases will ultimately benefit all.

This is a remarkable achievement for all Asian states, and one may celebrate it now or when it approaches the seat for adjudication.

 ***

The writer is assistant lecturer at Jindal Global Law School and a research analyst at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University.