ALSA 2025 meeting

Sustainable development, addressing climate change, poverty, and inequality, is central to contemporary international law. Nevertheless, the implementation often conflicts with traditional notions of sovereignty and state consent, leading to fragmented regimes that hinder collective action. Asian perspectives remain underrepresented in international jurisprudence, and many developing Asian countries face a profound dilemma between achieving economic growth and adhering to stringent sustainability standards, highlighting significant equity concerns in global legal frameworks.

This paper examines how judicial activism through systemic treaty interpretation by international tribunals can help reconcile these tensions. It provides an in-depth comparative analysis of landmark cases, notably the 2024 ITLOS Advisory Opinion on Climate Change and WTO dispute DS600 (Malaysia v. European Union), illustrating how tribunals strategically interpret treaties, particularly through Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), to expand obligations beyond the original text and better integrate environmental, trade, and human rights imperatives. The ITLOS opinion classified greenhouse gas emissions as marine pollution under UNCLOS, extending environmental responsibilities to Asian maritime states. Similarly, the DS600 dispute validated the EU’s climate-labeling approach, allowing sustainability criteria to influence market access and pressuring Asian exporters to adapt their supply chains.

Through a careful analysis of these and other selected decisions, the paper argues that judicial activism, balanced with respect for state consent, can effectively promote sustainable development. It ultimately proposes doctrinal safeguards ensuring tribunals respect sovereignty concerns while employing interpretative flexibility to address urgent transboundary sustainability challenges in Asia and beyond.