Abstract
The Southeast Asian region has experienced transboundary haze on an almost annual basis for decades. ASEAN has been the platform for regional cooperation and collaboration for regional haze mitigation since 1985. ASEAN’s main legally-binding instrument for this purpose is the 2012 Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (ATHP). Despite this, haze episodes continue to persist until present times. This paper analyses recent legal developments related to transboundary haze management among the three main affected countries; Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Particularly, it examines Singapore’s Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, an extra-territorial act that extends criminal and civil liability to anyone causing or contributing to haze in Singapore. It also analyses Indonesia’s ratification of the ATHP, which followed soon after Singapore unilaterally passed their Act. Finally, it considers Malaysia’s indecisiveness in deciding its next legal move in the face of these developments among its neighbours. The ASEAN Way, a set of behavioural or procedural norms that govern regional engagement, prescribes nonlegalistic procedures and non-interference of sovereign rights, among others. This paper uses the framework of the “myth” of the ASEAN Way, popularly argued by Nischalke in 2000, to explain the changing positions of the associated states towards legal recourse related to transboundary haze. It argues that ASEAN member states can choose whether or not to adhere to the ASEAN Way in order to preserve crucial economic interests, without suffering any consequences. Hence, shifting national interests among these three states over time can likewise explain shifting attitudes and compliance towards certain ASEAN Way norms.
Highlights
Haze is defined as “sufficient smoke, dust, moisture, and vapor suspended in air to impair visibility”, and it is classified as trans boundary when “its density and extent is so great at the source that it remains at measurable levels after crossing into a country’s airspace”1
This paper uses the framework of the “myth” of the ASEAN Way, popularly argued by Nischalke in 2000, to explain the changing positions of the associated states towards legal recourse related to transboundary haze
This paper uses the framework of the “myth” of the ASEAN Way, popularly argued by Nischalke6, to explain the changing positions of the associated states towards legal recourse related to transboundary haze
Summary
Haze is defined as “sufficient smoke, dust, moisture, and vapor suspended in air to impair visibility”, and it is classified as trans boundary when “its density and extent is so great at the source that it remains at measurable levels after crossing into a country’s airspace”. The first ASEAN-level activity that addressed haze was in 1992, with the Workshop on Trans boundary Pollution and Haze in ASEAN Countries4 This was followed by several other soft-law initiatives like the Co-operation Plan and Haze Technical Task Force (1995), the Regional Haze Action Plan (1997), the Hanoi Plan of Action (1998), and the ASEAN Peatland Management Initiative (2002). This paper analyses recent legal developments related to transboundary haze management in Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia, in the context of regional governance It examines Singapore’s 2014 transboundary Haze Pollution Act (THPA), an extraterritorial act that extends criminal and civil liability to anyone, causing or contributing to haze in Singapore. This paper uses the framework of the “myth” of the ASEAN Way, popularly argued by Nischalke, to explain the changing positions of the associated states towards legal recourse related to transboundary haze. The paper concludes that shifts in national interests can explain why certain countries changed their engagement patterns with the ASEAN organization and with other ASEAN member countries over the haze issue
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
