Widespread haze from Indonesian wildfires has persisted for over a month, severely affecting air quality in Malaysia and Singapore, leading to school closures and a surge in respiratory problems. Although this regional pollution crisis is not new, legal options for affected countries to seek redress remain limited.

Experts note significant hurdles in pursuing disputes through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague. The court requires the consent of all states involved to exercise jurisdiction, either through special agreements, compatible declarations, or treaty clauses. Since Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have not accepted such terms in this context, the ICJ is unlikely to hear cases related to the haze. None of the three countries are parties to the 1979 Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution, a European treaty aimed at managing cross-border pollution, further limiting legal avenues.

Instead, the three nations participate in the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze Pollution, a legally binding regional treaty designed to prevent and control haze from land and forest fires. However, its enforcement mechanisms are weak, as it does not provide a process for one member state to initiate legal action against another. The treaty emphasizes national responsibility and regional cooperation rather than litigation. Analysts suggest that ASEAN’s principles of sovereignty and non-interference restrict diplomatic pressure on member states concerning domestic land and fire management.

“In this situation, stronger ASEAN cooperation is the more feasible approach,” said Prof Mohd Hazmi Mohd Rusli of Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia. He highlighted measures such as enhanced hotspot monitoring, information sharing, prevention efforts, and tougher enforcement against illegal burning as practical steps forward.

Civil litigation presents another potential course, with the possibility of Malaysians or Singaporeans suing companies connected to the fires in Indonesian courts. Azam Hawari, an environmental law expert at the charity clientEarth, emphasized the difficulty of establishing a clear causal link between a company’s activities and the resulting haze experienced abroad, an obstacle that has prevented successful cases so far. Prof Mohd Hazmi also stressed that proving Indonesia’s international responsibility requires sufficient evidence connecting its activities to the harm suffered by neighboring countries.

Singapore has previously passed its own Transboundary Haze Pollution Act in 2014 following severe haze episodes in 2013 and 2015. This legislation targets companies whose operations outside Singapore cause or contribute to unhealthy haze levels within Singapore. However, enforcement challenges remain significant due to the necessity of foreign cooperation, difficulties in attributing responsibility, and issues involving overlapping land rights and companies lacking presence in Singapore. Investigations into Indonesian companies implicated in the 2015 haze remain open, but these inquiries contributed to diplomatic tensions between Singapore and Indonesia.

Going forward, Singapore appears inclined to await Indonesian identification of culpable companies before initiating action under its domestic law to avoid unilateral moves that could exacerbate regional sensitivities, according to Prof Alan Tan, an environmental law scholar at the National University of Singapore. With cross-border haze an ongoing problem, regional collaboration and preventive efforts remain crucial components of addressing the persistent environmental and public health challenges.