Since the Japanese government recently unveiled a plan to release radioactive water into the ocean, the neighbouring countries have expressed concerns. In particular, certain environmental groups claimed that the execution of this operation would have a significant impact on the marine environment in the region. In light of significant potential risks, this article argues that such an operation is likely to trigger an international dispute at an international court or tribunal for several reasons. Accordingly, this article would like to explore the highly likely international litigation. First, the background of this potential international litigation, including the reasons why the operation may end up at an international court or tribunal are addressed. Subsequently, certain legal and factual issues that are expected to be contested between the parties at the court or tribunal are discussed. Finally, this article discusses some of the expected outcomes of this likely international litigation, including reparation.

Every September and October, entities in the palm oil and timber industries in Indonesia conduct slash-and-burn activities over peat land, causing transboundary ‘haze’ pollution. This paper analyzes the effectiveness of various legal solutions to tackle the transboundary haze pollution. There are mainly three forms of international law, customary international law, the ASEAN Agreement on Transboundary Haze 2002 and Singapore’s extraterritorial Transboundary Haze Pollution Act 2014. Their effectiveness will be measured by Indonesia’s increasing willingness to take domestic enforcement measures. This paper argues that the ASEAN Agreement is the primary instrument despite its lack of sanctions as it is neutral, non-confrontational and consistent with the ‘ASEAN way.’ The Singapore Act plays a complementary role, yet its invocation may strain relations between Singapore and Indonesia. Ultimately, the three forms of international law serve as a normative and facilitative source in nudging Indonesia to take more stringent domestic enforcement measures.