The resurgence of thick haze caused by forest fires in Indonesia has once again highlighted the persistent difficulties Southeast Asian countries face in seeking legal recourse over transboundary environmental pollution. This year, fires in Indonesia’s Sumatra and Kalimantan provinces have contributed to one of the worst haze episodes in recent years, severely affecting neighbouring countries including Malaysia. In response, Malaysia has offered firefighting assistance to Indonesia, demonstrating the regional nature of the issue.

Despite the shared impact, legal accountability remains elusive due to institutional and jurisdictional challenges. Under ASEAN’s framework, disputes involving haze pollution are governed by the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution (AATHP), which was adopted in 2002 and came into force in 2003. The agreement emphasizes prevention and cooperation through national efforts and regional collaboration. However, it limits dispute resolution to consultation and negotiation between governments, excluding complaints from companies or individuals. This means that unless affected governments formally lodge complaints against each other, the dispute resolution process cannot be initiated.

Edmund Bon, Malaysia's representative to the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), explained that this limited mechanism reflects a broader gap in the region’s human rights and environmental governance. He noted human rights advocates have long called for the establishment of an ASEAN human rights court, which could provide affected communities a platform to hold companies or governments accountable for environmental harms such as haze pollution.

The issue is further complicated by jurisdictional constraints. Even if affected populations pursue legal actions in their own national courts or in neighboring countries, gathering evidence and exercising legal authority over companies operating abroad presents significant obstacles. For instance, Singapore’s transboundary law faces challenges when dealing with companies based in Indonesia. This often leaves communities with limited options for effective legal redress despite suffering from the environmental and health consequences of the haze.

Bon also emphasized that transboundary pollution challenges traditional notions of sovereignty and non-interference within ASEAN. He pointed out that environmental damage and health impacts from haze cross borders and affect shared airspace, underscoring the need for stronger regional collaboration and mechanisms that can address shared vulnerabilities.

Last year, ASEAN member states adopted the ASEAN Declaration on the Right to a Safe, Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment (ADER), which recognized the linkage between environmental protection and human rights and underscored the urgency of addressing transboundary environmental issues. Following this, the AICHR has taken steps to facilitate human rights-based discussions on haze. Under its 2025 Operational Guidelines on External Communications, the AICHR can receive written complaints regarding human rights breaches, including those linked to environmental harms. Although this process allows for information gathering and consultation, it does not currently empower the commission to issue binding rulings.

Looking ahead, advocates and officials are calling for enhanced regional mechanisms, including an ASEAN human rights court with the mandate to conduct investigations and issue binding decisions on environmental disputes. Until such institutions are established, affected populations will likely continue to rely primarily on their national legal systems while advocating for collective regional pressure.

In Malaysia, authorities are exploring the development of dedicated legislation to address transboundary haze pollution. The Natural Resources and Environmental Sustainability Ministry, led by Minister Datuk Seri Arthur Joseph Kurup, has initiated a special committee involving several agencies to strengthen national haze mitigation efforts, drawing on models such as Singapore’s laws.

Bon summarized the current predicament: “Each population needs to go to their own mechanisms nationally, and then join forces to pressure ASEAN on the matter. Where some countries’ judicial systems are weak, then regionally we have to act together.” This underscores the complex, multi-layered approach required to confront Southeast Asia’s recurring haze crisis.