Southeast Asia has turned to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on three occasions. The first case was Cambodia v. Thailand in 1959 and concerned the Preah Vihear Temple. Indonesia and Malaysia turned to the ICJ in 1998, in order to resolve an ongoing dispute over sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, two islands in the Celebes Sea. In 2003, Malaysia and Singapore turned to the ICJ in a bid to resolve territorial disputes regarding Pedra Branca (known as Pulau Batu Puteh in Malaysia), Middle Rocks and South Ledge.

This essay will consider these cases in greater detail in an attempt to establish the effectiveness of the ICJ as a means of resolving territorial disputes in the Southeast Asia region. The ICJ, one of the six principal organs of the United Nations, serves as its main judicial organ. It acts as a world court and has a dual jurisdiction, deciding disputes that are brought to it by states and giving advisory opinions on legal questions at the request of organizations like the UN. The 15 judges of the ICJ are elected by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council for a period of nine years. The election process was designed with the aim of restricting political pressures in the selection of judges. However, one of the criticisms of the Court is that in practice politicization does occur.

Southeast Asia is currently embroiled in a number of territorial disputes, the resolution of which would greatly increase progress towards regional integration. This essay argues that the ICJ has the potential to play a much greater role in resolving these disputes and that action should be taken to increase the court’s credibility among Southeast Asian nations. It is important to note that China is involved in a number of territorial disputes with countries in Southeast Asia. The Spratly Islands is the most notable of these, although there are also issues relating to the land borders between China and Vietnam and China and Laos.