รายงาน ALA และ CACJ 2019

on the increasing popularity of mediation as a means to resolve cross-border commercial
disputes.

10. Although this Convention has yet to come into force, a preliminary study of the
Convention can be done to examine how it can be feasibly implemented across ASEAN
member states. This study can be conducted by the ASEAN Law Institute (“ALI”).
Alternatively, ALA can leverage on other institutes such as the Asian Business Law
Institute (“ABLI”).

11. Through such studies, ALA can obtain important information which can help facilitate
the rapid implementation of the convention, i.e. through the diagnosis and study of (a)
the general state of implementation, (b) the challenges to implementation, (c) the areas
of prioritisation for implementation efforts and (d) possible technical assistance needs.4
In conducting this study, ALI, together with ALA and ASEC, can leverage on the
National Committees’ networks of domestic stakeholders, which includes members of
civil society, investors, and businessmen, to provide diverse inputs to ALI to produce a
robust and practical study.

c. A toolkit for specific implementation
12. The Mediation Settlement Convention is a relatively new legal instrument which ASEAN

Member states are only just starting to implement. At this initial stage, a toolkit
containing guidance will be especially useful as it can pre-emptively address the
challenges that are likely to be faced by the AMS in implementation and enactment. This
toolkit could be similar to legislative guides published by United Nations Commission
on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”).

13. ALI will be equally well-suited to preparing these toolkits. Alternatively, in conjunction
with ALI, ALA could utilise the expertise of the National Committees to develop the
required toolkits. In particular, collaborations with research institutions that specialise in
ASEAN matters can be considered.

4 Faith Delos Reyes, “Broadening Stakeholdership for a Rules-Based ASEAN: Reporting National-Level
Implementation of ASEAN Instruments”, Discussion Paper for “Consultation on a Rules-Based ASEAN: The
Process of Forging Legal Instruments”, 16-17 May 2018, Singapore (“Broadening Stakeholdership”) at 4.

3

Financing
14. The degree to which funding is required to promote legal convergence depends on the

capacity of ALI or other institutions at the material time. As a start, ALA members and
ALI can do the necessary preparatory work on a volunteer basis. Moving down the road,
ALA and ASEC can approach interested ASEAN Dialogue partners for funding. Funding
can also be sought from interested donor governments, non-governmental organisations
and international law firms.
Conclusion
15. Achieving greater legal convergence and harmonisation within ASEAN will promote the
success of the AEC. To this end, it is proposed that efforts be concentrated on
harmonising the use and implementation of various international conventions relating to
the enforcement of arbitral awards and judgments. The new Mediation Settlement
Convention can also operate as a testbed for new ideas in facilitating the rapid
harmonisation and use of cross-border legal instruments across the ten AMS.
Submitted by:
ASEAN Law Association (Singapore)
21 March 2019

4

Concept Note on the ASEAN Law Association’s Role in Monitoring Compliance

I. Introduction

1. This concept note explores how the ASEAN Law Association (“ALA”) may work
together with the ASEAN Secretariat (“ASEC”) to supplement ASEC’s efforts in monitoring
ASEAN Member States’ (“AMS”) compliance with ASEAN instruments.

II. Impetus for ALA’s involvement in monitoring compliance

2. In his keynote address given on 26 July 2018 at ALA’s 13th General Assembly held in
Singapore, Deputy Secretary-General H.E. Dr AKP Mochtan commented that: “[w]ith
expertise of members in ALA in legal and judicial matters, I believe that monitoring the
implementation of selected ASEAN legal instruments could be an area where ASEC and ALA
could work together in supporting and promoting the rules-based ASEAN”.1 Dr Mochtan’s
comment was responded to positively by the newly elected President of ALA, Chief Justice
Menon of Singapore, who suggested that ALA should strengthen its links with other ASEAN
institutions, and this “could extend to working with the ASEAN Secretariat to develop a system
for monitoring compliance, at the national level, with ASEAN instruments and agreements or
offering feedback on proposed instruments, if this was thought to be useful.”2

III. Overview of existing efforts in monitoring compliance

3. ASEC has developed a “practical reporting system” in 2017, pursuant to the
recommendations of the High Level Task Force (HLTF) on Strengthening the ASEAN
Secretariat and Reviewing the ASEAN Organs. The proposal was that the Annual Report to
the Secretary-General of ASEAN on the work of ASEAN to the ASEAN Summit, should
incorporate a robust reporting system on the status of ratification of ASEAN agreements as
well as their implementation. Under this framework, ASEC Sectoral Desk Officers (“Desk

                                                           
1 H.E. Dr AKP Mochtan, Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN for Community and Corporate Affairs (Address
at the 13th ALA General Assembly), 26 July 2018,
<https//www.aseanlawassociation.org/13GAdocs/aseandysecgenspeech.pdf> (accessed on 7 February 2019).
2 CJ Sundaresh Menon, ALA President (Speech at the gala dinner of the 13th ALA General Assembly), 28 July
2018, <https//www.aseanlawassociation.org/13GAdocs/cjmenonspeech3.pdf> (accessed on 7 February 2019).

1
 

Officers”) prepare Implementation Reports using information available at the discussions
within their respective ASEAN Sectoral Bodies, on the status of the implementation of ASEAN
instruments within their purview.3 These Implementation Reports are in essence, self-
diagnostic tools that depend on the information received by the individual Desk Officers.

4. The Desk Officers prepare their Implementation Reports using a standard template
prepared by ASEC’s Legal Services and Agreements Directorate (“LSAD”).4 There are four
areas of focus in the reporting template: (i) the degree of implementation of instrument; (ii)
measures/deliverables to implement the instrument; (iii) suggested priority actions for the
Sectoral Body’s consideration – up to three priority actions are to be identified as being
required to implement fully or enhance implementation, and the corresponding
resources/assistance required, and (iv) information management and sharing – desk officers are
to describe how information that the instrument requires to be collected or reported, is managed
and shared by key stakeholders.

5. The Implementation Reports are submitted to LSAD, which analyses and consolidates
the information and prepares a succinct report that is then submitted to the ASEAN Secretary-
General.5 Thereafter, the Secretary-General reports the findings to the leaders of the AMS. At
present, the report of the Secretary-General to the ASEAN leaders is for internal circulation
only, and is unavailable to the public.

6. In the economic sphere, there are also specific monitoring and evaluation efforts being
undertaken in relation to the relevant ASEAN instruments within the purview of the ASEAN
Economic Community. These efforts are conducted by the ASEAN Integration Monitoring
Directorate within ASEC to ensure the timely and effective implementation of the ASEAN
Economic Community Blueprint 2025.6

                                                           
3 Faith Delos Reyes, “Developing a Practical Reporting System on the Implementation of ASEAN Legal
Instruments”, Discussion Paper for “Consultation on a Rules-Based ASEAN: Legal Instruments and their
Implementation”, 1-2 November 2017, Singapore (“Developing a Practical Report System”) at 7.
4 Developing a Practical Report System at 8.
5 Ibid.
6 See the AEC Monitoring website, located at <http://aecmonitoring.asean.org/>.

2
 

IV. How ALA may potentially contribute towards monitoring compliance

7. ALA is the sole civil society organisation for law accredited by ASEAN, and is
identified as an entity associated with ASEAN. Through its triennial General Assemblies
(“GA”) and annual Governing Council meetings, ALA provides a regular platform for judges,
practising lawyers, and academia in ASEAN to exchange ideas and information, and in the
process forge life-long friendships throughout the region.7 The ALA network facilitates
cooperation and exchange through ad hoc events, including dialogues and training sessions
involving judiciaries of different Member States, and seminars and workshops organised from
time to time by individual ALA National Committees that are open to all ALA members.8

8. Thus a key strength of ALA is its ability to bring together an extensive network of legal
professionals in all ten AMS from all parts of the legal profession – the judiciary, academia
and the public and private sectors, including numerous prominent and influential figures.9
There is a strong sense of camaraderie and collegiality among ALA members that transcends
cultural and national boundaries and is not encumbered by political baggage.10 The breadth and
depth of the ALA network allows access to a wide diversity of expertise and ideas in all AMS
in typically relatively informal settings, thereby permitting quick and open exchanges of
information. The aforementioned attributes make the ALA network suitable for obtaining
ground-up feedback in individual Member States, and for arranging collaboration.

9. One drawback however of ALA’s existing structure is the lack of a permanent
secretariat and, consequently, lack of full-time permanent staffing. ALA’s members contribute
to its work on an entirely voluntary basis within the constraints of their own full-time
occupations. This situation may change with the launch of the ASEAN Law Institute (“ALI”)
next month, where ALI will in effect serve as a research and executive arm of ALA, and its
Governing Board will comprise members from the ten ALA National Committees. Its activities
will include organising training, conferences, and professional exchanges.

                                                           
7 Lee Seiu Kin J, “ALA at the Crossroads”, (Report presented at the 39th Governing Council Meeting), 25 March
2017 (“ALA at the Crossroads”) at 4-5.
8 ALA at the Crossroads at 5.
9 Ibid at 9.
10 Ibid.

3
 

10. At a Consultation on a Rules-Based ASEAN: Process of Forging Legal Instruments
held in Singapore from 16 -17 May 2018, then ALA’s Secretary General, Regina Padilla
Geraldez, observed that the establishment of the upcoming ALI could assist ASEC in
monitoring the implementation of ASEAN legal instruments, while ALA itself could undertake
implementation monitoring activities in the form of holding round table seminars, conducting
surveys and interviewing key stakeholders and intended beneficiaries.

11. Given the above, ALA could work with ASEC in the area of monitoring
implementation and compliance by providing platforms to supplement the existing reporting
system. Three initiatives are proposed in the section below.

(i) Tapping National Committees for on the ground feedback

12. ALA/ALI could organise roundtable meetings between the National Committees in all
ten AMS, to share information on the implementation of ASEAN instruments in their
respective Member States.11 The members of the National Committees can be expected to be
familiar with the domestic instruments that have been or will be enacted in their respective
Member States. They would therefore be in a position to provide detailed and up-to-date
information on implementation of ASEAN instruments in their own Member States.

13. Through such meetings, ASEC could obtain further information from the ground on
the areas of focus in the Implementation Reports, i.e. (a) the general state of implementation,
(b) the challenges to implementation, (c) the areas of prioritisation for implementation efforts,
and (d) possible technical assistance needs.12 This supplements the existing reporting system
by engaging and obtaining input from domestic stakeholders.

14. In fact, members of the National Committees may also have dealings with members of
civil society, investors, businessmen and other organisations which ASEC may not have direct
access to. Obtaining both primary and secondary feedback from National Committee members
will be useful for ASEC. ALA welcomes any input from ASEC as to whether there are

                                                           
11 Faith Delos Reyes, “Broadening Stakeholdership for a Rules-Based ASEAN: Reporting National-Level
Implementation of ASEAN Instruments”, Discussion Paper for “Consultation on a Rules-Based ASEAN: The
Process of Forging Legal Instruments”, 16-17 May 2018, Singapore (“Broadening Stakeholdership”) at 4.
12 Ibid at 4-5.

4
 

particular ASEAN instruments it wishes to focus on in these roundtable meetings. If there are
no such priority instruments for now, a good place to start could be trade and investment related
instruments which are uncontroversial and would be a common interest amongst all AMS.13

(ii) Broadening feedback mechanism through surveying stakeholders

15. In the preparation of this note, LSAD was consulted as to whether ASEC has any
immediate needs on which it would like ALA’s assistance. LSAD shared that it is looking into
possible improvements of the practical reporting system by establishing a feedback mechanism
from a broader base of stakeholders at the national level. To this end, LSAD intends to engage
consultants to prepare survey questionnaires, and queried if ALA could assist, on a pro-bono
basis, to conduct the survey through the respective National Committees based on the finalised
survey questionnaires. LSAD’s request dovetails perfectly with the types of possible assistance
discussed in paras 12–14 above. This is a worthwhile initiative and is certainly a need which
ALA can fulfil in the immediate future. It is also noted that all information obtained during the
work shall be confidential.

(iii) Undertaking studies related to implementation

16. In furtherance of the above, ALA/ALI itself could undertake studies in specific areas
related to implementation as identified by ASEC from the information collected from the
Implementation Reports, the roundtable meetings14 and the survey contemplated by ASEC.
Where appropriate, ALA/ALI can formulate the necessary proposals to address specific needs
identified. Such studies may be apposite for two areas of focus in the Implementation Reports:
(i) the areas of prioritisation for implementation efforts, and (ii) possible technical assistance
needs.

17. Collaborations with research institutes that specialise in ASEAN matters such as the
Centre for International Law at the National University of Singapore, Chulalongkorn
University, University of the Philippines, and University of Indonesia, can also be explored.

                                                           
13 One such instrument could be the elimination of Non-Tariff Measures in the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement
(ATIGA).
14 ALA at the Crossroads at 11.

5
 

Indeed, ALA/ALI should be suited to the task undertaking these studies given the breadth and
depth of legal brainpower across all fields in the legal profession in all ten AMS.
V. Conclusion
18. ALA is prepared to assist ASEC in its immediate need as outlined in paragraph 15
above, and is ready, willing and able to work with ASEC in any of the areas identified in
paragraphs 12 to 17 above. The extent to which ALA can assist will depend on the extent of
funding that ALA is able to secure for these projects.
19. Care of course will also be taken that any new efforts do not duplicate the monitoring
and evaluation work being done in connection with ASEAN instruments under the purview of
the ASEAN Economic Community, the practical reporting system or any other system, but
serve to augment them instead.

Submitted by:
ASEAN Law Association (Singapore)
21 March 2019

6
 

SESSION 3

Proposed ASEAN protocol for Communication with Non-Disputing States on Issues of
Treaty Interpretation

I. Introduction

1. The theme of the last ASEAN Law Association (ALA) 13th General Assembly and
Conference held in Singapore from 26th July 2018 was “The Power of One: Unlocking
Opportunities in ASEAN Through Law”. The last ALA President, Attorney Avelino V
Cruz, spoke of this in his speech, stating:

“The theme for The ASEAN Law Conference 2018 is ‘The Power of One”. In
mathematics, ‘one’ as an exponent denotes a symbol, by which another number
is to be raised. Our theme’s integer stands for ASEAN integration – something
to raise the ten-nation ASEAN’s geopolitical bloc to unbounded prosperity
through law.”

2. At the 4th Parallel Session of the 13th General Assembly on the “Rule of Law – Role in
Attracting Trade and Investments in ASEAN – Free Trade Agreements and Bilateral
Investment Agreements in ASEAN Countries”, a proposal was mounted for the various
ASEAN Member States to subscribe to a common protocol for handling requests for
non-disputing States to provide their input on treaty interpretation. The proposal
received good support. Dr Xuan Hop Dang of Vietnam stated that he believed that the
protocol embodies the collective spirit of ASEAN and that the “Power of One” should
be harnessed for investor-state disputes, and Mr Minn Naing Oo of Myanmar likewise
felt that the protocol was interesting and commendable.

3. Therefore, in line with the vision of the “Power of One”, and in order that ASEAN
achieve the “unbounded prosperity through law” spoken of by Attorney Avelino V
Cruz, it is proposed that the ALA Governing Council considers the adoption of a non-
legally binding draft ASEAN protocol for communication with non-disputing states on
issues of treaty interpretation (“Protocol”). This is to be done with a view to making a
recommendation to the ASEAN Senior Law Officials Meeting (ASLOM) that the
Protocol be adopted at the next ASEAN Law Ministers Meeting (ALAWMM). For this
purpose, a draft text of the Model Protocol is annexed to illustrate the form that the
Protocol may take, and to facilitate the ALA Governing Council’s consideration of the
matter.

II. Proposal

4. International investment agreements between host States and foreign investors often
contain arbitration clauses, and provide for dispute resolution in the Investment Centre
for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), arbitrations in the Permanent Court of
Arbitrations (PCA), and/or using ICSID Arbitration Rules or United National
Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Arbitration Rules. When a

1

dispute arises, an international tribunal is constituted to decide which party is in breach
of its international law obligations.

5. Questions of interpretation of a treaty inevitably arise in such a dispute. However, state
who is a party to the treaty but not a party to the dispute (“Non-Disputing State”), is not
usually involved in the tribunal’s analysis on what the proper interpretation of the treaty
should be. This is notwithstanding that the Non-Disputing State is equally a party to the
treaty. Unless it intervenes or is invited to participate, it would not be able to contribute
to the tribunal’s analysis of the proper interpretation of the treaty in question.

6. There is growing consensus that it is beneficial to tribunals to hear the views of Non-
Disputing States on how a treaty should be interpreted. For example, Article 5(1) of the
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration already
allows arbitral tribunals to invite Non-Disputing States to submit on issues of
interpretation. One of the advantages of allowing Non-Disputing States to express their
views on a treaty clause is that it permits states to voice their position on the issue
without resorting to a costlier and time-consuming attempt to re-negotiate it. Allowing
Non-Disputing States a say in the process will also lead to higher quality arbitral
decisions, and improve the rule of law in the process.

7. The proposed solution is an inter-state protocol to facilitate requests for Non-Disputing
States to provide input on treaty interpretation. A Non-Disputing State may also request
to offer its views on treaty interpretation even though no request is made of it. The
inputs of the Non-Disputing State may also be given to a national court. The Protocol
is envisioned to provide ASEAN Member States with a directory that stipulates points
of contact in the respective Non-Disputing States for which requests for consultations
on treaty interpretation can be directed. This will ensure clarity and certainty on the
proper authority to liaise with where the Non-Disputing States’ views are solicited.

8. The Protocol is not intended to have mandatory effect, and that a Non-Disputing State
can choose not to respond to requests from the tribunal.

9. Arising from concerns expressed by some panellists at the 4th Parallel Session of the
13th General Assembly regarding potential between the Protocol and the relevant
investment treaties, it is clarified that the Protocol is not intended to supplant existing
rules or provisions in relevant investment treaties concerning the consideration of Non-
Disputing States’ submissions by arbitral tribunals.

III. Conclusion

10. This relatively limited proposal is not intended to disrupt the manner in which current
arbitral processes or court proceedings are conducted. Non-Disputing States will simply
be given an avenue to be heard in a predictable and fair manner within a clearly
articulated framework. Tribunal and courts will be given assurance that inputs received
from a Non-Disputing State in accordance with the Protocol would be from the
appropriate and authoritative source within the Non-Disputing State. Eventually, the

2

additional input provided by Non-Disputing States will lead to more accurate treaty
interpretation, and will over time reinforce the rule of law in ASEAN. Through the
“Power of One”, ALA will help to achieve a more prosperous and transparent ASEAN.
Submitted for consideration and discussion
6 November 2019

3

Annex A

DRAFT PROPOSED PROTOCOL FOR COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ASEAN STATES
AND INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS AND SUPERVISORY/ENFORCING
NATIONAL COURTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES BETWEEN ASEAN
STATES

1. Introduction

1.1. ASEAN Member States have entered into bilateral and multilateral investment treaties among
themselves which contain provisions providing for investor state dispute resolution. Generally, in
accordance with the terms of such dispute resolution provisions, a dispute arising under such treaties
may be submitted to an arbitral tribunal.

1.2. Issues of interpretation of the relevant treaty often arise in such arbitral proceedings. However, not
all States party to the treaty would be party to the arbitration and thus would not necessarily be in a
position to provide submissions to the arbitral tribunal on the proper interpretation and intent of the
treaty. Such issues of interpretation may also arise when a national court within ASEAN is asked to
review the arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction or enforce or set aside the arbitral tribunal’s award.

1.3. This Protocol sets out procedures for such submissions to be sought from and/or provided by a
State which is not a party to a particular arbitration (“Non-Disputing State”) in respect of the
interpretation of provisions of a treaty to which the Non-Disputing State is a signatory. It also identifies
the appropriate authority from each ASEAN Member State which will deal with such matters.

1.4. The purpose of this Protocol is purely facilitative. ASEAN Member States remain at liberty to
decide whether it is necessary or desirable for them to provide such submissions to any arbitral tribunal
or national court. This Protocol is not intended to supplant existing rules or provisions in relevant
investment treaties concerning the consideration of Non-Disputing States’ submissions by arbitral
tribunals.

2. Request by Arbitral Tribunal, National Court or Disputing Party

2.1. An arbitral tribunal hearing a dispute pursuant to an investor state dispute resolution provision in
any investment treaty between any of the ASEAN Member States may choose to make a request to a
Non-Disputing State for that Non-Disputing State to provide written submissions to the tribunal on: (a)
the proper interpretation of the treaty in question; and/or (b) whether there is any common agreement
between parties to the treaty on an interpretation of the treaty and any evidence thereof.

2.2. A national court hearing an appeal against an arbitral tribunal’s decision on jurisdiction or an
application to set aside or enforce an arbitral award made pursuant to an investor state dispute resolution
provision in any investment treaty between any ASEAN Member States, may choose to make a request
to a Non-Disputing State for that Non-Disputing State to provide written submissions to the national
court on: (a) the proper interpretation of the treaty in question; and/or (b) whether there is any common
agreement between parties to the treaty on an interpretation of the treaty and any evidence thereof.

2.3. Any party to an arbitration pursuant to an investor state dispute resolution provision in any
investment treaty between any of the ASEAN Member States may make a request to a Non-Disputing
State for that Non-Disputing State to make written submissions on: (a) the proper interpretation of the
treaty in question; and/or (b) whether there is any common agreement between parties to the treaty on
an interpretation of the treaty and any evidence thereof, such submissions to be made to the arbitral
tribunal hearing the dispute or to the national court hearing an appeal from a decision on jurisdiction or
an application to set aside or enforce an arbitral award issued by such an arbitral tribunal.

4

2.4. Such a request by an arbitral tribunal, national court or disputing party shall be in writing and
should:

2.4.1. identify the provisions of the treaty that require interpretation and specify the question of
interpretation that needs to be decided by the arbitral tribunal or national court; and/or

2.4.2. identify any alleged common agreement between the parties to the treaty on the
interpretation of the treaty and specify the question that the requesting party invites submissions
on in respect of that alleged common agreement.

2.5. The request should also include any other information relating to the dispute that may be relevant
to the question of interpretation of the treaty.

2.6. Any such request shall be sent to the Non-Disputing State in the manner specified by that State as
set out in the Directory at Appendix A. Any such request to the Non-Disputing State shall be sent to
the designated office or representative specified by that State as set out in the Directory at Appendix
A. Any such request shall be in the language specified by the Non-Disputing State as set out in the
Directory at Appendix A.

2.7. Any such request shall specify the manner in and address to which the response should be sent by
the Non-Disputing State.

3. Response by the Non-Disputing State

3.1. The Non-Disputing State shall provide an initial response in writing within thirty (30) days of the
receipt of the request. This initial response and all subsequent responses shall be sent in the manner and
to the address specified in the request.

3.2. The initial response shall be one of the following:

3.2.1. The Non-Disputing State acknowledges receipt of the request and states that it will
provide a response to some or all of the queries in the request within a specified period of time.

3.2.2. The Non-Disputing State acknowledges receipt of the request and states that it will not
be providing any substantive response to the request.

3.2.3. The Non-Disputing State acknowledges receipt of the request and specifies any
clarifications it requires before it can inform the requesting party whether or not it will be
willing to provide a substantive response to the request. In that event, the Non-Disputing State
shall specify how much time after the clarifications are received it would require before
informing the requesting party either that it will not be providing any substantive response or
to provide a substantive response to part or all of the request.

3.2.4. The Non-Disputing State acknowledges receipt of the request and states that it is unable
to respond within thirty (30) days of receipt of the request and will respond within a specified
period of time.

3.3. This Protocol does not seek to require any arbitral tribunal or national court to wait for a Non-
Disputing State’s substantive response.

3.4. The initial response and/or any subsequent written communication from the Non-Disputing State
shall be sent or copied to all parties to the dispute, as well as the arbitral tribunal or national court, as
the case may be.

5

4. Written request by Non-Disputing State

4.1. A Non-Disputing State may on its own initiative wish to provide submissions on the proper
interpretation of an investment treaty between any ASEAN Member State and/or whether there is any
common agreement between parties to such a treaty on an interpretation of the treaty and any evidence
thereof, to an arbitral tribunal hearing a dispute pursuant to an investor state dispute resolution provision
in any investment treaty between any of the ASEAN Member States or a national court hearing an
appeal against a decision on jurisdiction or an application to set aside or enforce an arbitral award made
pursuant to an investor state dispute resolution provision in any investment treaty between any ASEAN
Member States. In that event, the Non-Disputing State shall make a request to the arbitral tribunal or
the national court, as the case may be, in the following manner.

4.1.1. The request should be in writing.

4.1.2. The request should be made by the office or representative identified by the Non-
Disputing State in the Directory at Appendix A.

4.1.3. The request should specify the issues on which the Non-Disputing State wishes to make
written submissions and the amount of time that that State requires to make those written
submissions.

4.2. The request should be sent to the office or representative of a State which is party to the arbitral or
court proceedings as specified in the Directory at Appendix A, who shall within thirty (30) days of
receipt the request, convey the request to the arbitral tribunal or national court in a manner consistent
with the applicable procedural rules. If the Non-Disputing State is aware of the contact details of the
other parties to the arbitration or court proceedings, and/or the contact details of the arbitral tribunal or
national court, the Non-Disputing State may concurrently provide a copy of the request to one or more
of them.

4.3. Nothing in this Protocol is intended to prevent a State from utilising any other existing avenue to
intervene in arbitral or court proceedings or communicate with an arbitral tribunal or a national court.

5. Maintenance of the Directory

5.1. The Directory at Appendix A specifies the office or representative of each ASEAN Member State
which shall have authority to deal with the matters covered by this Protocol.

5.2. ASEAN Member States may amend the details in the Directory by sending the new details to all
other designated offices or representatives listed in the Directory.

DRAFT APPENDIX A TO THE PROTOCOL: DIRECTORY

S/No ASEAN Member Contact Details of Form of Request/Initial Language
State Designated Office Response
1 or Representative
Brunei Darussalam To be made in writing by way
2 of [insert choice of methods,
3 Cambodia
4 Indonesia e.g. fax or email]
5
6 Laos
7 Malaysia
Myanmar
Philippines

6

8 Singapore
9 Thailand
10 Vietnam

7

SESSION 4

ASEAN LAW ASSOCIATION
GUIDELINES ON BEST PRACTICES ON THE ENFORCEMENT OF

ARBITRAL AWARDS WITHIN ASEAN

As many Member States of the Association of South East Asian Nations
(“ASEAN”) are contracting parties to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition
and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (“Convention”) and are desirous of
seeking ways to facilitate the enforcement of Arbitral Awards made in commercial
matters between private parties in the Member States And consistent with the objectives
of the ASEAN Law Association (“ALA”) as set out in its Constitution to promote the study
of and research in the laws of the ASEAN countries with a view to harmonizing those
laws as required by the social and economic development of the ASEAN region, the
ALA Governing Council at its meeting held on 18 February 2012 at The Westin Resort,
Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia, AGREED to adopt these Guidelines as representing the best
practices that should be adopted within ALA Member States and RESOLVED that each
ALA National Committee shall use its best endeavors to promote the use, adoption or
implementation of these Guidelines through their respective agencies and institutions,
including the legal and judicial organs of its State.

Section I

Article II of the Convention describes an “agreement in writing” to include an arbitral
clause in a contract or an arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or contained in an
exchange of letters or telegrams. In considering what constitutes “writing”, it should be
recognized that the circumstances therein are not exhaustive. The Article should be
interpreted using a more expansive and purposive approach. Regard should be had to
the following Principles.

1 The arbitration agreement will be recognised as being in writing if it is contained in
an exchange of statements of claim and defence in which the existence of an
agreement to arbitrate is alleged by one party and not denied by the other party.

2

2 The reference in an agreement entered into by the parties to any document
containing an arbitration clause will be given recognition as constituting a written
agreement to arbitrate.

3 The requirement that the agreement to arbitrate shall be in writing shall be deemed
to have been met by an “electronic communication” if the information contained in
such “electronic communication” is accessible so as to be useable for subsequent
reference. In this context —

a) "electronic communication" under this Principle means any communication that
the parties make by means of "data message"; and

b) “data message” under this Principle means information generated, sent,
received or stored by electronic, magnetic, optical or other similar means
including but not limited to electronic data interchange, electronic mail, telegram,
telex or telecopy.

Commentary to Section I

The Convention obliges the courts to recognise only an arbitration agreement in writing
and defines an “agreement in writing” [Article II (2)] to include an arbitral clause in a
contract or arbitration agreement, signed by the parties or contained in an exchange of
letters or telegrams”. The definition has been criticised by many as being too narrow and
the language archaic, ignoring means of modern telecommunications1. As amending the
Convention was considered impractical and not realistically achievable, a change
instead was introduced into the UNCITRAL Model Law for International Commercial
Arbitration [“MAL”] in December 2006 [‘2006 MAL Amendment’]2. The MAL amendment

1 United Nations Publication Sales No.E.99.V.2 ISBN 92-1-133609-0 – Papers of Colloquium
in celebration of the 40th Anniversary of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement
of Foreign Arbitral Award held in New York, June 1998, pages 21-24 (Kaplan). Hermann, G.,
“The Arbitration Agreement as the Foundation of Arbitration and its Recognition by the
Courts” in ICCA Congress Series No. 6 [ICCA Bahrain Conference 1993] at pp. 45-46;
Kaplan, N., “Is the Need For Writing as Expressed in the New York Convention and the
Model Law Out of Step with Commercial Practice” (1996) 12 Arbitration International 27, pp.
44-45.
2 UN Document A/6/17, Annex A, adopted by GA Resolution No 61/33 on 4 December 2006
at the 64th plenary meeting.

3

provides for 2 options, a broadening of the definition of ‘writing’ to mean ‘evidenced in
writing’ or the omission of writing.
Section I is not intended to do away with “writing” or interpret “writing” to mean
“evidence in writing” but merely to clarify that writing includes the use of electronic
communications. Doing so maintains symmetry with the Convention’s requirement that
the arbitration agreement must still be in writing albeit with writing no longer limited to
letters and telegrams.

4

Section II

Article IV of the Convention requires that an award or agreement sought to be enforced
in a Convention state must be “duly authenticated” or “duly certified”. For the purpose of
enabling an enforcement agency to take cognizance of the body authenticating or
certifying these documents, each ALA Member State should consider appointing one or
more competent bodies to authenticate and certify any Arbitral Award that has been
made for the purposes of recognition and enforcement in another ALA Member State.

1 The ALA National Committee shall notify the ALA Secretariat of the appointment or
change of a competent body.

2 The ALA Secretariat shall maintain a register of the competent bodies from the
respective Member States. The register of competent bodies shall be published on
the ALA website.

3 An Arbitral Award authenticated by a competent body shall be deemed to satisfy the
requirements of Article IV para (1) of the Convention for the purposes of
enforcement in another ALA Member State.

4 Nothing in these Guidelines shall prevent a court or agency of an ALA Member
State from accepting any other form of authentication or from dispensing with such
requirement altogether.

Commentary to Section II
Article IV of the Convention requires that an award or agreement sought to be enforced
in a Convention state must be “duly authenticated” or “duly certified”. It does not
however prescribe the method or standard of authentication required resulting in
differing practices and requirements imposed by courts of different States.
Section II is intended to plug a gap and seeks to establish a uniform ASEAN approach
that would make it clear that where an agreement or award is certified or authenticated
by a named institution or body of an ASEAN State, the document would comply with the
enforcement requirement for authentication under the Convention.

5

Section III

Article IV of the Convention requires that all Arbitral Awards shall be translated into the
language of the enforcement court through an official or sworn translator or by a
diplomatic or consular agent. Taking into account the international nature of commercial
arbitration and to ensure consistency in the enforcement and execution of Arbitral
Awards, documents and other materials shall where practicable under the applicable
law, be in English or if these documents or other materials are in any other language
then they shall be accompanied by a certified translation in English. In this regard —

a) The words “certified translation” referred to above means a translation by a
competent translator normally accepted by the enforcement court of the ALA
Member State.

b) Where a “certified translation” cannot be obtained under paragraph 1 then a
“certified translation” may be obtained through the auspices of the ALA
Secretariat on payment of the prescribed fees.

Commentary to Section III
Agreements and awards made in different jurisdictions may involve use of different
languages. Some courts mandate the sole use of its national language for all
documents to be submitted for enforcement proceedings. This may at times prove
impractical leading to delays and expense.
English is the dominant language for international commerce. As well, ASEAN States
have always adopted English as the common language of discourse. Adopting a
similar approach will distinguish ASEAN States as the ones that are prepared to accept
a language other than their own national language for enforcement proceedings.
Section III does not extend to oblige ASEAN State courts to conduct their proceedings
in English.

6

Section IV
These Guidelines shall not in any way affect the validity of any bilateral or multilateral
agreements entered into by the ALA Member States concerning the recognition and
enforcement of Arbitral Awards.
Nothing in these Guidelines shall be construed or interpreted to deprive any ALA
Member State of any rights it may have under the Convention, any treaty or the law of
such Member State where the Arbitral Award is sought to be enforced.

Commentary to Section IV
Section IV is adapted from the existing Article VII of the Convention. It is a saving
provision intended to ensure that parties may avail themselves of more favourable
provisions relating to the enforcement of arbitration agreements and awards, under any
national legislation or any bilateral or multi-lateral agreement between the ASEAN State
and another State(s).
This also echoes the UNCITRAL Interpretative Declaration on the New York Convention
that the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted on 4 December 20063 in
which it was recommended that “article VII, paragraph 1, of the Convention … should be
applied to allow any interested party to avail itself of rights it may have, under the law or
treaties of the country where an arbitration agreement is sought to be relied upon, to
seek recognition of the validity of such an arbitration agreement.”

3 UN Resolution A/RES/61/33

7

These Guidelines may be amended by the Governing Council of ALA from time to time
as the Governing Council may determine.
These Guidelines shall come into force on the ______ day of ________ 2012.

Approved and Adopted by the Governing Council of the ASEAN Law Association at its
meeting on 18th day of February 2012.

[Signatories as appropriate]
[When signed, the Commentaries could be collated as an annexure to this document.]

SESSION 5

ALA CONCEPT NOTE

THE INAUGURAL ASEAN MOOT (TAM) 2021

I. Introduction

1. This concept note sets out a proposal to establish a regional moot to take place once every
three years which would be named “The ASEAN Moot” (“TAM”).

2. In brief, it is proposed that TAM would be held in conjunction with the ASEAN Law
Conference (“ALC”) organised by the ASEAN Law Association (“ALA”) in
conjunction with its triennial General Assembly (“GA”). The elimination rounds would
be conducted on the eve of the ALC and the final round of TAM will constitute one of
the sessions of the ALC. The 14th GA is scheduled to be held in Kuala Lumpur (“KL”)
in 2021. If this proposal is approved, ALC 2021 would mark the inaugural TAM.

3. The paper is divided into three main sections: (a) the objectives of TAM; (b) the proposed
format for TAM; and (c) the financing costs and sponsorship.

II. Objectives of TAM

4. ALA’s key objectives are the fostering of close relations between lawyers in ASEAN
and promoting harmonisation of laws in the region. However, ALA is not a young
institution, having been in existence since 1979, and a key imperative is to ensure the
sustainability of an association that will enter its fifth decade by the next GA in 2021. It
is hoped that TAM will play a key role in achieving the goal of renewal of ALA
membership.

5. At the most recent ALC held in Singapore in 2018, one of the sessions featured a mock
trial comprising two teams of lawyers conducting litigation in court. The issue in the
moot was whether a private plaintiff harmed in his business operations as a result of an
alleged violation of ASEAN norms by his national authorities, may receive some relief
from his own domestic courts. The mock trial was presided over by three sitting judges
from Philippines (Ag. Chief Justice Antonio T. Carpio), Thailand (Justice Vichai
Ariyanuntaka) and Singapore (Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon). It was a surprise hit. The
format of the event was effective in getting the point across that it was possible to invoke
ASEAN legal instruments in litigation in a domestic court involving non-state claimants.

1

It was also a refreshing change from the usual lecture or panel discussion and made a
significant contribution to the success of the conference.

6. Presently, there is no moot competition that is dedicated to ASEAN laws. It is envisaged
that featuring a moot session as a regular feature of the ALC will add value to the
conference in terms of the quality of the programme, while promoting the importance
and relevance of ASEAN laws. This is therefore an opportune time for ALA to establish
a regional moot and link it firmly with the ALC.

7. It is also envisaged that involving law students in TAM will stimulate interest in ASEAN
legal issues among our younger generation of lawyers, who will form the ALA members
of the future. It is essential that there be a continual flow of new members in order to
provide the leaders of tomorrow who can take ALA to greater heights.

8. Against this backdrop, the objectives of TAM can be stated as follows:

(a) cultivate and stimulate interest in ASEAN legal issues among law
undergraduates of the region;

(b) generate and fuel the renewal of leadership in ALA and ASEAN; and

(c) enhance the quality and reputation of the ALC by establishing TAM as a unique
and invaluable feature of the conference.

III. Proposed format for TAM

9. It is envisaged that TAM will take place over two days:

(a) The oral rounds of TAM will kick-off one day before the start of the 14th GA.

(b) Every team will participate in two preliminary rounds in the morning. The
pairings for the preliminary rounds will be drawn at random.

(c) The top four teams will proceed to the semi-final rounds in the afternoon. The
top four teams will be identified by their win-loss record, and ranked by aggregate
score.
(d) The scoring will include the team’s performance in the preliminary rounds and
their memorial scores.

2

(e) The final round will take place on the opening day of the 14th GA, as one of the
conference breakout sessions in the afternoon. The winner of each semi-final will
proceed to the final.

10. Eligibility criteria: Participation in TAM would be open to Law Undergraduates from
universities in the ASEAN region.

11. Composition of Moot Teams: Each ALA member State would be entitled to send one
team, comprising three members who shall be law students from law schools of that
member State. The respective national committee will determine its own selection criteria
and will be responsible for holding national selection rounds if that is deemed necessary.
Two oralists will present the team’s case at each round.

12. Moot problem: The moot problem would contain at least two distinct issues: one
procedural issue on jurisdiction and one substantive issue on the merits. It is intended
that each oralist deal with at least one of the issues. The moot problem is likely to be
based on any of the treaties that all or the majority of the ASEAN member States have
entered into, and the domestic implementation (or lack thereof) of those treaty
commitments by an ASEAN member State and/or its local authorities. To this end, the
ALA Singapore national committee would be responsible for collaborating with relevant
research institutes for development of the moot problem.

13. Written Memorial: Each Team would be required to present both sides of the dispute, ie,
Applicant and Respondent, during the preliminary rounds, and submit a set of written
submissions for both Applicant and Respondent on a date to be determined (at least one
month before the scheduled date for TAM).

14. Profile of judges: Practitioners and academics from different ASEAN member States will
be invited to act as judges for the preliminary rounds, semi-final and written memorials
(“Judging Panel”). All of the written memorials submitted by the teams prior to the
competition will be assessed by a single panel of three judges. Each preliminary round
will be judged by a single judge, whilst the semi-final rounds will be judged by a panel
of two judges. The judges for the written memorials, preliminary rounds and semi-finals
will be drawn from the Judging Panel. The Final round will be judged by a panel of three
sitting judges from three different ASEAN countries.

3

15. Prizes: All participants will receive a Certificate of Participation. In addition, trophies
will be awarded to the Winning Team, Runner-up Team, Best Oralist and the moot teams
with the Best Written Applicant Memorial and Best Written Respondent Memorial.
Further, all trophy winners would be a given an opportunity to do an internship with
TAM’s exclusive named sponsor (see [22] below).

16. Championship trophy: There will also be a larger competition trophy with the name of
the victorious member State engraved on it. This competition trophy is to be safe kept by
the ALA national committee of the winning team which will have the responsibility to
bring it to the next TAM.

17. Participation benefits: To attract and facilitate participation, the law students who are the
members of each moot team (other than the home team) will be provided with the cost
of travel from the capital city of each team to the venue of TAM. All 10 teams will be
provided with accommodation in a hotel (with breakfast, twin share where possible) at
or near the venue for the duration of TAM and the ALC, as well as a small per diem.
Each team shall also be entitled to similar sponsorship for one person who attends TAM
as that team’s coach. All TAM participants, including the timekeepers, volunteers and
judges, will be treated to a buffet lunch after the preliminary rounds as well as a buffet
dinner after the Finals.

18. Conference fees: All participants in the Preliminary Rounds will be provided with free
passes to the ALC, which will include entry to the ALC as well as the Welcome
Reception and lunches that are provided in the conference programme. The host country
will be asked to waive such fees. However, the 2 teams in the Final Rounds will have
their attendance at the ALC fully sponsored, including attendance at the Farewell Dinner.

IV. Financing costs and sponsorship

19. In total, there will be a maximum of 40 TAM participants (ie, 10 moot teams comprising
a maximum of four persons each, including the team coach if any). Based on that, a
summary estimate of the key expenses are as follows:

(a) Airfare to KL (for 36 pax, round-trip): S$10,000

(b) Accommodation in KL (for 40 pax, 5 nights): S$15,000

(c) General Meal Allowance (for 40 pax): S$3,200

4

(d) Buffet expenses for Lunch and Dinner (for all TAM participants): S$3,000
(e) Prize Trophies, Championship Trophy and Certificates of Participation:
S$1,500
(f) Full sponsorship of ALC Conference Fees (including all meals) for 8 Finalists:
S$4,000
(g) Expenses for up to 6 preliminary and 4 semi-final judges: S$9,000
Total estimated costs: S$45,700
20. We have managed to secure commitment for financial sponsorship of S$50,000 from
Rajah & Tann Asia (“R&T Asia”). R&T Asia would be the exclusive named sponsor for
TAM.
21. To this end, we are in the midst of working on a Memorandum of Understanding
(“MOU”) between R&T Asia and the ALA. The MOU would detail the expectations and
roles of both parties. We will also explore the possibility of continuing sponsorship of
future TAM events.
22. Apart from funding, we also intend to work with R&T Asia to offer an all-expense paid
two-week internship for all student members of both moot teams in the final of the oral
rounds, as well as the moot team with the overall best written submissions score. This
opportunity would serve as a further incentive for interested participants.
V. Future TAMS
23. We propose to conduct an evaluation of the event after ALC 2021. If ALA decides to
continue with TAM in conjunction with the GA/ALC, the Singapore National Committee
is prepared to continue to shoulder the responsibility for organising future editions of the
TAM in the interest of continuity. Alternatively, if the National Committee hosting a
GA/ALC wishes to take the lead in organising the TAM taking place at the GA/ALC it
is hosting, the Singapore National Committee stands ready to support and assist the host
National Committee on matters concerning the TAM.

5

VI. Conclusion
24. We believe that the TAM Moot would be beneficial for ALA and the ASEAN

community. It would not only bring increasing diversity and publicity to ALA’s work in
the short run, we are confident that it will also in the long run generate interest in ASEAN
law, and its practical application within domestic jurisdictions, and serve as a fuel for the
renewal of leadership in ALA. The approval of the GC is sought to conduct TAM as
proposed and for the Singapore ALA national committee to take charge of organising
TAM 2021 in conjunction with the Malaysian ALA national committee, the hosts of the
14th GA and ALC 2021.

Submitted by:
ASEAN Law Association (Singapore)
6 November 2019

6

SESSION 6

 

SESSION 7



SESSION 8

41st ALA GOVERNING COUNCIL MEETING
21 NOVEMBER 2019
PHUKET

REPORT ON THE ASEAN LAW ASSOCIATION WEBSITE

Introduction

1 The ASEAN Law Association (“ALA”) website (www.aseanlawassociation.org)
was officially launched on 24th November 2005 at the ALA 25th Anniversary Special
Commemorative Session in Manila, Philippines with the following objectives:

(a) to promote ALA’s professional image;
(b) to raise the profile of ALA activities;
(c) to serve as a means of disseminating information and publicising ALA

activities to its members; and
(d) to serve as a central repository of ALA publications to facilitate the

dissemination of legal information on ASEAN.

Content Updates

2 Since the 40th ALA Governing Council Meeting held on 28th July 2018 in
Singapore, the following pages on the website have been updated:

Office Holders

 Updated the profile of President of ALA (Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon).
 Updated the profile of Secretary-General of ALA (Mr Paul Quan).
 Updated the profile of Chairman of ALA Singapore (Justice Lee Seiu Kin).
 Updated the profile of Chairman of ALA Malaysia (Chief Justice Tengku

Maimun Binti Tuan Mat).

General Assemblies

 Updated 13th ALA General Assembly in Singapore.

ALA Members Directory

 Updated the national committee of Malaysia.

1

Website Statistics

3 During the reporting period, the hosting service provider which had been
acquired by another company, migrated to a new platform for the reporting of statistics
for the ALA website. The usage statistics for the ALA website from the new platform
from July 2018 to Oct 2019 are summarised as follows:

Total Hits

 Averaged 42,228 hits a month - daily average of 1,385 hits
 Highest number of hits during the reporting period: July 2018 (55,714 hits)

Total Visits
 Averaged 4,433 visits a month – daily average of 145 visits
 Highest number of visits during the reporting period: July 2018 (7,853

visits)

Most Popular Section
 E-book on Legal Systems in ASEAN – with chapters relating to the

Philippines, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia being
among the top downloads.

Conclusion
4 During the 40th ALA Governing Council Meeting, it was agreed that the
ASEAN Law Institute will take over the operations of the new ALA website. The new
ALA website will also take on a myriad of functions to advance the interests of ALA.
It is critical that all national committees lend their support to the development of the
new ALA website to ensure it is effective to the greater cause of harmonisation of
regional laws.

Submitted by
Singapore National Committee
ASEAN Law Association
6 November 2019

2

Draft version 3

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) is made between:

ASEAN LAW INSTITUTE (“AsnLI”), an organ of the ASEAN Law
Association (“ALA”), with office address at ACCRALAW, 26th
Floor, ACCRALAW Tower, 2nd Avenue, Bonifacio Global City,
Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines;

-and-

SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW (“SAL”), a promotion and
development agency for Singapore’s legal industry, with address
at 1 Supreme Court Lane, Level 6, Singapore 178879.

AsnLI and SAL are individually referred to in this Memorandum of
Understanding as a “Party”, and collectively as the “Parties”.

Recitals:

WHEREAS, AsnLI has been mandated to, among others, promote (i) the
harmonization of the national laws and regulations of the member states of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (“ASEAN”) and (ii) the development of
ASEAN regional laws and legal structures and of mechanisms for avoidance
and resolution of intra-ASEAN trade and investment disputes;

WHEREAS, AsnLI has been further mandated to develop, operate, maintain,
and host the website of ALA at https://www.aseanlawassociation.org/ (“ALA
Website”) and the website of AsnLI at https://aseanlaw.institute/ (“AsnLI
Website”, and, together with ALA Website, the “ALA/AsnLI Websites”);

WHEREAS, certain papers, articles, speech texts, and other documents that
are found on the ALA/AsnLI Websites, at present or in the future, are covered
by copyright held by AsnLI, or by copyright which will be acquired by AsnLI
(such documents, the “Authorized Documents”);

WHEREAS, SAL has been mandated to (i) build up the intellectual capital of
the legal profession by enhancing legal knowledge, (ii) raise the international
profile of Singapore law, (iii) promote Singapore as a centre for dispute
resolution, and (iv) improve the standards and efficiency of legal practice
through continuing professional development and the use of technology;

1

Draft version 3

WHEREAS, SAL and its subsidiaries develop, operate, and maintain the
website of LawNet at https://www.lawnet.sg/ (“LawNet Website”), which is the
primary online legal research tool for the legal profession in Singapore, as well
as other websites that fulfill its mandate (“SAL Websites”);

WHEREAS, SAL desires to support AsnLI in the development, operation,
maintenance, and hosting of the ALA/AsnLI Websites;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Support. SAL will provide to AsnLI:

a. the amount of S$5,000 by January 1, 2020, for the development,
operation, maintenance, and hosting of the ALA/AsnLI Websites; and

b. up to the maximum amount of S$5,000 every calendar year beginning
January 1, 2021, upon the presentation by AsnLI of invoices showing
expenses incurred and paid out for the development, operation,
maintenance and hosting of the ALA/AsnLI Websites;

and the Parties will work out the administrative arrangements relating to such
payments within three months of the date of effectiveness of this MOU.

Section 2. Materials. (a) AsnLI hereby authorizes SAL and its

subsidiaries to publish, adapt and use the Authorized Documents on the

LawNet Website and SAL Websites during the period of effectiveness of this

MOU. For the avoidance of doubt, AsnLI reserves the right to grant other

entities the authority to reproduce the Authorized Documents on the website

of such entities.

(b) The authority granted under this section (i) covers only documents over
which AsnLI has a copyright; and (ii) with regard to documents whose
copyright was subsequently acquired by AsnLI, will be deemed to take effect
only upon the acquisition of such copyright by AsnLI.

Section 3. Effectiveness. This MOU will be effective from the date
approval is given by the Governing Council of ALA, notification of which will be
provided by AsnLI to SAL, and will remain effective for three (3) years from
such date.

Section 4. Variation. The Parties may agree in writing on any

amendment to this MOU. Such amendment will be effective on the date

approval is given by the Governing Council of ALA, notification of which will be

provided by AsnLI to SAL.

2

Draft version 3

Section 5. Termination. Either Party may terminate this MOU by giving

written notice to the other Party at least three months prior to the date of

termination.

Section 6. Confidentiality. Each Party shall treat as confidential the
contents of this MOU and any information provided by the other Party in
connection with this MOU.

Section 7. General. This MOU is not intended to be legally binding,

and no legal obligations or legal rights shall arise between the Parties from

this MOU. For the avoidance of doubt, this MOU does not create any legal

obligation on the part of SAL to provide the amounts stated in Section 1 of this

MOU, or any legal obligation on the part of AsnLI to continue authorizing the

publication, adaptation, or use of the Authorized Documents. Detailed

arrangements will be the subject of separate contractual agreements between

the Parties, if and when necessary.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the representatives of the Parties have signed this
Memorandum of Understanding.

ASEAN LAW INSTITUTE SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW

By: By:

AVELINO V. CRUZ SERENE WEE
Chairman Chief Executive
Date: __________
Date: __________

3

SESSION 9

 

7TH MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF
ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES 

22 nd November 2019
Phuket Marriott Resort & Spa, Merlin Beach
Phuket, Thailand

7th MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES
LIST OF MEETING PAPERS

Session 1
1. Agenda of the 7th Meeting of the CACJ
2. Draft Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the CACJ

Session 2
3. Report by the Working Group on the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal

Session 3
4. Report by the Working Group on Facilitating Service of Civil Processes Within

ASEAN

Session 4
5. Report by the Working Group on Case Management and Court Technology
6. Information Note on the SMU Intensive Course on AI and Emerging Technologies
7. Information Note on the International Judicial Dispute Resolution Network

Session 5
8. Draft Work Plan 2020-2025 prepared by the Working Group on Judicial Education

and Training
9. Summary of Commentaries and Inputs of the Draft Work Plan
10. Training Needs Assessment Survey

Session 6
11. Report by the Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children

Session 7
12. Report by the Working Group on ASEAN+ Meetings

Session 8
13. Report by the Study Group on the Future Work of the CACJ

Session 9
14. CACJ Activity Report 2018-2019 prepared by the CACJ Secretariat
15. Concept Note on the Colloquium on the International Framework for Court Excellence

Link to access : shorturl.at/puEU1

SESSION 1

7th MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES  
PHUKET & BANGKOK, THAILAND 
22 & 23 NOVEMBER 2019 
 
AGENDA 
 

Friday, 22 November 2019 

Phuket Marriott Resort & Spa, Merlin Beach, Phuket, Thailand 

(Grand Ballroom, Lobby Level) 

08.30am – 9.00am  Registration 

Session 1  Adoption of draft Agenda  
9.00am – 9.05am 

9.05am – 9.10am  Election of the CACJ Chair 
Opening Speech of Chief Justice Slaikate Wattanapan 

9.10am – 9.40am   Opening Speeches by the Chief Justices / CACJ Heads of 
9.40am – 9.45am  Delegations of other ASEAN Judiciaries (3 minutes each) 

 Address by ASEAN Deputy Secretary‐General Mr. Robert Matheus 

Michael Tene  (3 minutes) 

Approval of the draft Minutes of the 6th Meeting of the CACJ held in 

Singapore on 27 July 2018 

Session 2: ASEAN Judiciaries Portal 

9.45am – 9.55am  Report by the Working Group on the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal by [TBC]

(Chaired by Singapore) 

9.55am – 10.10am  Discussion 

Session 3: Facilitating Service of Civil Processes Within ASEAN 

10.10am – 10.20am  Report by the Working Group on Facilitating Service of Civil Processes 
within ASEAN by [TBC] (Chaired by Malaysia) 

10.20am – 10.35am  Discussion 

Session 4: Case Management and Court Technology 

10.35am – 10.45am  Report by the Working Group on Case Management and Court 
Technology by [TBC] (Chaired by Malaysia) 

10.45am – 11.00am  Discussion 

1 | P a g e  
 

 

Session 5: Judicial Education and Training 

11.00am – 11.10am  Report by the Working Group on Judicial Education and Training by 
[TBC] (Chaired by Indonesia & Philippines) 

11.10am – 11.25am  Discussion 

Session 6: Cross‐Border Disputes Involving Children 

11.25am –11.35am  Report by the Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving 

Children by [TBC] (Chaired by Philippines & Singapore) 

11.35am – 11.50am  Discussion 

11.50am - 2.00pm BREAK FOR LUNCH AND FRIDAY PRAYERS 
 

2.00pm - 2.20pm COFFEE BREAK  
 
Session 7: ASEAN+ Meetings  

2.20pm – 2.30pm  Report by the Working Group on ASEAN+ Meeting by [TBC] (Chaired by 

Thailand) 

2.30pm – 2.45pm  Discussion 

Session 8: Study Group on the Future Work of the CACJ 

2.45pm – 2.55pm  Report by the Study Group on the Future Work of the CACJ by [TBC]

(Chaired by Singapore) 

2.55pm – 3.10pm  Discussion 

Session 9: New Proposals or Recommendations 

3.10pm – 3.20pm  New Proposal (if any) 

3.20pm – 3.35pm  Discussion 

Session 10: Any Other Matters 

3.35pm – 3.40pm  Hosting of the 8th Meeting of the CACJ 

3.40pm – 4.30pm COFFEE BREAK 
(CACJ LOs to draft the Bangkok Declaration) 

 

By 4.30pm  Close of 1st Day CACJ meeting 

 
2 | P a g e  
 

 

Saturday, 23 November 2019 

The Supreme Court, Bangkok, Thailand 

4.00pm   Arrival of Chief Justices at the Supreme Court, Ratchadamnoen 
Avenue; Greeting by Chief Justice Slaikate Wattanapan at the 

reception room 

4.30pm   Guided Tour of the Supreme Court Building  
Proceed to Courtroom of the Criminal Division for Persons Holding 
Political Positions 

Session 11: Discussion and Signing Ceremony  

5.00pm   Signing Ceremony of the Bangkok Declaration at the Plenary Meeting 
Room 

5.30pm  Cocktail Reception at the Coffee Room, 3rd floor, overlooking the  
Grand Palace from the Terrace 

Session 12: Closing 

6.00pm   Group Photo Session in front of the Court of Justice Building 

6.30pm   Proceed to the Dinner Reception 

7.00pm   Traditional Thai Drum Show 

7.05pm   Welcome Speech by Chief Justice Slaikate Wattanapan 

7.15pm   Presentation of Tokens of Appreciation to Commemorate the 7th
7.35pm  Meeting of the CACJ 
Dinner and Thai Art and Cultural Shows  

8.30pm  Closing Speech by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon 

9.30pm  Departure of Guests 

 

 

3 | P a g e  
 

MINUTES OF THE 6th MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES
Singapore
27 July 2018

1. OPENING SESSION – APPROVAL OF DRAFT AGENDA FOR THE 6TH CACJ
MEETING

1.1. The Honourable Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni bin Haji Abdul Majid (“the Hon. Dato
Paduka Haji Hairol Arni”), Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brunei
Darussalam, opened the 6th Meeting of the Council of ASEAN Chief Justices
(“CACJ”) by requesting for a vote to adopt the agenda. There being no objections or
further comments, the Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni approved the draft
agenda of the 6th CACJ Meeting.

1.2. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni then proceeded to the first item on the draft
agenda, which was the election of the new Chair of the CACJ and nominated the
Honourable Sundaresh Menon (“the Hon. Sundaresh Menon”), Chief Justice of
Singapore. The Hon Sundaresh Menon was elected by acclamation.

2. SESSION 1 – ELECTION OF CHAIR AND OPENING SPEECHES

2.1. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon commenced Session 1 by saying that he was
honoured and privileged to be elected as the Chair of the CACJ. He said that he
would like to thank, on behalf of the CACJ, the Honourable Dato Seri Paduka Haji
Kifrawi Bin Dato Paduka Haji Kifli (“the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi”), former
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam and the previous CACJ
Chair, for leading the CACJ so ably over the course of the past year. The Hon.
Sundaresh Menon commented that during the tenure of Hon. Dato Seri Paduka
Haji Kifrawi, the CACJ had accomplished much, including the adoption of the
CACJ logo, the launch of the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal (“AJP”) and the convening
of the inaugural ASEAN Family Judges Forum (“AFJF”) in October 2017. He also
thanked the Brunei delegation for assisting the CACJ Secretariat in fulfilling the
tasks that were recorded in the Brunei and Manila Declarations and the Hon. Dato

Page 1 of 59