Keynote Address by Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr Edwin Tong SC at the 4th International Law Association Singapore Symposium
20 October 2026 Posted in Speeches
Introduction: Singapore’s stake in a changing international legal order
1. Good afternoon, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen.
2. The theme for today’s symposium is “Navigating the Practice of International Law in Times of Metamorphosis”. I have not come across the word “metamorphosis” applied to the usage in this way, describing geopolitical times, but I think it is certainly very apt.
3. There could hardly be a more fitting setting for this discussion than The Arts House. Construction of this building began in 1826. Over the two centuries since, it has undergone several transformations: from a courthouse to the home of our Legislative Assembly and Parliament, and now to a home for the arts. 1
4. 1826 was also the year in which the Second Charter of Justice was issued. In little over a month, on 27 November, we will mark its 200th anniversary. Over these two centuries, our legal system has undergone its own periods of change, building on what we inherited while adapting it to our circumstances and evolving needs.
5. That experience offers us a useful starting point for what I am going to say this afternoon. Institutions endure not because they remain unchanged, but because they preserve the core of what matters most while at the same time responding to the needs of a changing and evolving world, meeting new needs and evolving aspirations. The same question confronts international law today. What must we preserve? What’s the core? What’s the kernel of criticality to international law that we want to preserve? But then again, what must we adapt to meet evolving times, to meet a new world, to meet the metamorphosis that is before us? And what part should we all as practitioners play in that process?
6. For Singapore, these are not merely questions of professional or academic interest. They go to the conditions that allow a small State like us to remain sovereign, to remain secure and to find progress and development.
7. As I said at the launch of the ICSID Singapore Office in August, our commitment to the international rule of law is not a matter of preference, but one of necessity. As a small country, we have no interest in a world where outcomes are determined mainly by size and might rather than by law.
8. While international law is undergoing its own period of metamorphosis today, we must not mistake this process for irrelevance. Nor can we assume that its continued relevance guarantees its effectiveness. That depends on what States, institutions and the people who work within them do next.
9. Singapore must therefore do more than navigate these changes. We must contribute actively to shaping it. We must chart the path and not just navigate the path. And that responsibility does not belong to Government alone. It belongs to all of us gathered in this room – our practitioners, academics, institutions and younger lawyers – all of you – have a part to play.
10. This afternoon, I will share the Government’s perspective on how we see Singapore’s role in international law. I will address this in three parts. First, to recap why international law matters so much to Singapore. Second, how we should understand the pressures and changes confronting it, how they are shaping and molding it, and how we can possibly foster positive developments in international laws. And third, what these developments require of our legal community, working in partnership with Government.
Why international law matters particularly to Singapore
11. Let me start with Singapore’s stake in international law.
12. We are a small country and a highly open economy. We cannot rely on the weight of our territory or the size of our population to determine international outcomes. Our interests are better served by an order in which sovereignty is respected, commitments are honoured, and disputes are addressed through agreed rules and credible processes.
13. International law does not remove differences in power. No serious account of the international system would suggest that it does. What international law does is to give these differences a framework. It establishes obligations that cannot simply be dismissed because one party is stronger or bigger than the other. It provides a basis on which smaller States can articulate their rights, defend their interests and work with others.
14. That is why the distinction between rules and power matters so much to us. It is not an abstract preference for one way of organising international affairs over another. It concerns the space within which Singapore can make its own choices.
15. There is also an economic dimension. Cross-border trade and investment are a lifeline for Singapore. They depend on more than just commercial opportunities. Businesses, especially those that operate in this region, need confidence that commitments will be respected, that legal risks will be understood, and that disputes can be resolved fairly and predictably.
16. International rules and institutions help provide that confidence. They do not guarantee that every transaction succeeds or that every dispute is avoided. But they make it possible for parties from different jurisdictions, with different legal systems and interests, to make cross-border investments on a platform that they understand, which is fair, neutral and predictable. It also allows parties to enter into relationships that might otherwise be too uncertain to sustain.
17. Singapore’s early participation in ICSID is one illustration of this. We ratified the ICSID Convention in 1968, just three years after our independence. Joining ICSID was part of our strategy to attract foreign investment. It signalled that Singapore was prepared to resolve investment disputes involving foreign parties investing in our nascent and early state at that point, and we were prepared to seek resolution of these disputes to an independent and neutral arbitral tribunals, in accordance with the rule of law. We knew very early on that if we did not do that, there would be less confidence in a younger nation state.
18. In many ways, that was not simply a legal decision. It was a decision about the kind of country we wanted to build, the DNA that our founding Prime Minister spoke about: one whose commitments could be trusted, and whose engagement with the world would be grounded in rules.
19. This remains as important today, 61 years after independence, as it was six decades ago. Our reputation as a trusted legal and business centre is not separate from our commitment to rule of law. It is supported by that commitment. Confidence in our domestic legal system and confidence in our international conduct should be mutually reinforcing rather than seen as separate parts.
20. Prime Minister Lawrence Wong made a related point at the recent Bo’ao Forum earlier this year. International law and multilateral rules have provided guardrails for state behaviour. They did not eliminate conflict, but they brought a measure of predictability to international relations. Those guardrails are now weakening, and small and middle-sized countries feel this particularly acutely. I think the events around the world underscore that.
21. For Singapore, our response cannot be to retreat from international engagement. Nor can it be to wait until the new landscape becomes clear. In fact, there might not be a reversion to the old landscape now that we have known. If the rules and institutions on which we depend are being contested and re-designed, then we in Singapore have every interest in participating in that process.
22. This is the connection our legal community must understand. International law is not something Government does overseas while the profession practises law at home. The two are deeply connected. The rules negotiated internationally can shape domestic regulations, commercial transactions and the disputes our lawyers handle. The experience accumulated in practice can, in turn, help improve those rules. That symbiotic relationship is very much at the core of how we see the work that all of you do as private practitioners, and in your practice on the international platform.
23. Our national interest in a strong international legal order and our professional interest in developing international legal capability are therefore mutually reinforcing. We should not reduce the first to a source of legal work. But neither should we overlook the opportunities that arise when Singapore contributes meaningfully to the system.
24. For example, when you have a simple consumer dispute, it should not take the same amount of time as a complicated, complex civil action. If it costs you more to find help than the amount that you are trying to recover, then I think we have to relook at the process. So we are looking at how we can expand the ways in which Small Claims Tribunals or simpler processes can help residents who face these problems navigate the process.
25. The larger ambition is to be useful: to help develop workable rules, support trusted institutions and bring different perspectives together. If we do that well, we strengthen the international order on which we depend. We also deepen the expertise and trust that makes our legal community relevant globally.
International law under strain, but not irrelevant
26. Let me turn to the state of international law itself.
27. So much has been said about it. There is, understandably, a degree of pessimism. But let me look at this topic through the lens of three different fronts: compliance, institutions and adaptation.
28. First, compliance. Rules exist, but they are not always observed. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 provides a prominent example. The prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another State is a fundamental and universally accepted principle enshrined in the UN Charter. The problem was not the absence of a rule, but the violation of an established one.
29. The distinction matters. If we describe every failure of compliance as proof that law is irrelevant, we risk accepting the very proposition that Singapore must resist: that obligations cease to matter whenever a State has sufficient power to disregard them.
30. We should be clear about the breach, realistic about the difficulties of securing compliance, but also consistent about the importance of the rule. These are not competing positions. They are parts of a credible commitment to international law.
31. Second, institutions. The machinery through which rules operate cannot be divorced from the rules themselves. The difficulty is that these machineries are under tremendous strain. One need not look further than the WTO Appellate Body, which has been unable to hear new appeals since December 2019. 2 A central component of its dispute settlement system has therefore been unable to perform its intended function.
32. Financial constraints can also affect international legal work. In 2025, the International Law Commission’s annual session was reduced from the planned twelve weeks to five because of the United Nations’ liquidity crisis. 3 Institutions require more than a mandate. They require resources, political support and practical capacity to carry out their functions.
33. Third, adaptation. Technological and environmental change presents circumstances that existing rules were not originally designed to address. We live in different times and face a whole range of challenges – some created by technology and AI, and others by environmental changes. Sea-level rise, for example, raises questions about the stability of maritime zones and, more fundamentally, the continuity of statehood for particularly vulnerable States. 4 We have started thinking about coastal defences on our East Coast, because Singapore is a small country. The East Coast is the lowest lying area, which is the most vulnerable for us. These were not issues that two or three decades ago were at the forefront of people’s minds.
34. These are difficult questions because they engage both established principles and circumstances that earlier generations did not anticipate. The challenge is not simply to identify a rule. It is to determine how the legal framework can preserve stability and protect legitimate interests as the underlying circumstances change.
35. Taken together, all these pressures are serious. I mentioned earlier that some forces will affect and attack the framework on which the rule of law sits. We should not dismiss or minimise them. But neither should we collapse them into a single conclusion that international law is becoming irrelevant. A breach of a rule, a weakened institution and a question requiring legal development of newer issues are different problems. They call for different responses.
36. There is another side to the picture, I believe.
37. States continue to invest substantial resources in international legal processes. In the ICJ’s climate change advisory proceedings, ninety-one written statements were filed in the initial phase, the highest number received in advisory proceedings before the Court. 5Each required a State to formulate and commit to a legal position. That reflects more than just activity that exists on a docket on a regular basis. It reflects continued engagement on an evolving basis with international law.
38. At the same time, demand for investment dispute settlement also remains substantial. In its 2025 fiscal year, ICSID administered 347 cases, a record for a single fiscal year. 6 These figures do not establish that every aspect of the system is working well. They do establish that users have not simply abandoned them In fact, with all that we speak about, with a fragmentation in the world order, with people withdrawing from multilateralism, with people looking inwards, friendshoring or reshoring, it signals that a credible dispute resolution framework that is respected, trusted, understood and predictable, is still very much in fashion
39. Indeed, increased resort to legal processes may coexist with greater conflict and institutional strain. We should not confuse demand with effectiveness. But the continued demand tells us that there remains something worth strengthening, rather than something we can afford to dismiss.
40. We should also be careful about what we infer when States invoke legal arguments. The fact that a State seeks to justify its conduct through law does not establish itself that its conduct is lawful. Nor does appearing before a court establish compliance with its decisions. Legal language can be used sincerely, selectively or in some cases - opportunistically. That is precisely why the quality of legal analysis matters. Lawyers must test the argument against the rule, and not treat the existence of an argument as its own justification. Continued resort to law demonstrates its importance as a framework; it does not excuse breaches within that framework.
41. The WTO example also contains a response to institutional difficulty. Members including Singapore established the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement, using the existing legal framework to provide appellate review between participating members. 7 It is an interim and partial solution, not a substitute for restoring the Appellate Body. But it demonstrates adaptation. If we cannot make the full Appellate Body work, then why not have a partial solution that works for a short period of time rather than abandoning it altogether.
42. International rules also continue to develop. The BBNJ Agreement entered into force in January this year, establishing a new framework for the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. Its conclusion and implementation show that States can still build and find consensus on common rules to address shared challenges. 8
43. Existing rules can also be applied to new circumstances. In 2024, ITLOS held that anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions constitute pollution of the marine environment under UNCLOS. 9 The ICJ’s 2025 climate change advisory opinion examined obligations across a broader range of international law. 10 These developments illustrate how established legal frameworks can respond to contemporary problems through interpretation and application.
44. Nor is institutional reform necessarily evidence of retreat. The work in UNCITRAL Working Group III on investor-State dispute settlement, including the proposed Multilateral Investment Tribunal, reflects an effort to address concerns about the existing system through the design of new arrangements.
45. There is a broader lesson here. Change, as the title may suggest, is not new to international law. Its development has always involved both continuity, resulting from the bedrock of principles at its core, but at the same time also change, evolving and meeting new needs. The challenge is to preserve the principles that make the system valuable while adapting the rules and institutions through which those principles operate.
46. We should therefore avoid two opposite mistakes in my view. One is complacency: assuming that the system will endure without sustained effort. But at the other end of the spectrum is the other mistake that we should avoid, and that is fatalism: assuming that because of all that we have seen, that the WTO has failed, or that there is not enough resources, or that it is not responsive, or that rules find no compliance among the larger States. Then, assuming that because of all this, the system is under strain, and let’s abandon it, there is no point in contributing to it. I think those are two extreme ends of the spectrum.
47. Neither of these conclusions serves Singapore’s interests. The appropriate response is practical engagement – preserve what works, address what does not, and contribute to the development of rules and institutions that can command confidence in a changing world.
Singapore must contribute to shaping what comes next
48. What can Singapore contribute? When I say that we should chart the course, what does that require?
49. We have long sought not merely to benefit from a strong multilateral system, but to contribute to it. Our participation in international institutions and negotiations reflects our belief that a small State can be a constructive and consistent partner.
50. That contribution does not depend on pretending that we can determine every outcome. It depends on bringing something useful to the table: sound legal analysis, practical experience, an understanding of different perspectives, and a willingness to work towards solutions that can find consensus and support.
51. As I said at the UNCITRAL Academy Conference in August, Singapore offers a stable jurisdiction grounded in the rule of law, with a mature dispute resolution ecosystem and connections to developed and developing economies. Those are foundations on which we can contribute. But foundations are not an achievement to be admired and left alone. They must be put to use.
52. This is why our international legal strategy must be larger than attracting activity to Singapore. We should also ask what and how that activity enables us to contribute. Can we help improve the operation of institutions? Can we bring practical experience into legal development and legal reform? Can we support exchanges that lead to better understanding and more workable solutions?
53. Hosting an institution, participating in negotiations and developing scholarship are different activities. But they can reinforce one another. Institutions bring people and problems together. Practice reveals where arrangements work and where they fall short. Research can test those experiences against principle and comparative evidence. The resulting ideas can inform reforms, and can be the basis on which we think about the next phase.
54. That is the kind of relationship we in Singapore would like to build. Not simply more international legal activity, but a stronger connection between that activity, our capabilities and our contribution to the wider system on the international platform.
55. It also requires us to remain open to different perspectives. An international legal centre cannot be relevant only to those who already share the same legal assumptions. It must understand the concerns of different States, legal systems and users, and help translate those differences and concerns into arrangements that can work in practice.
56. There is no contradiction in my view between this openness and a firm commitment to principle. We can listen carefully to different views while remaining clear about the importance of sovereignty, legal obligation, fair process and institutional integrity. Indeed, this combination is part of what makes that contribution credible. We are able to look at the different features of countries that come from different legal traditions, that might have different priorities from us and different levels of maturity in their legal systems. I think the ability to amalgamate, educate and convene amongst these differences is what makes Singapore’s contribution valuable.
57. We should measure our contribution accordingly. The question is not simply how many meetings we attend, institutions we host or papers we produce. It is whether our participation improves understanding, whether our proposals help resolve practical difficulties, and whether the institutions we support can command the confidence of their users. That is a demanding standard, but an appropriate one. Singapore’s relevance cannot rest on being present alone. It must rest on the value we bring. And that value will depend, in significant part, on the depth of expertise and the quality of engagement within our legal community.
58. For the legal community, this creates both a responsibility and an opportunity. A responsibility to contribute expertise to a system on which Singapore depends. An opportunity to build that expertise while the next generation of rules and institutions is taking shape. And they are taking share as we navigate a path that we are helping to chart as well.
59. This calls for competence, participation and judgment from the legal community.
The legal community’s role
60. First, competence. Master the foundations of international law, while always keeping an open mind and remaining alive to its application. We see that in constant motion today, almost with every turn of the pages of newspapers.
61. Periods of change make foundations more important, not less. They provide the vocabulary and analytical discipline through which new problems are assessed. When confronted with something unfamiliar, we should ask: is this genuinely a new legal problem requiring new rules? Or is it a new manifestation of an older problem to which established principles can be applied?
62. But strong foundations alone are not enough. Contemporary legal problems increasingly cut across traditional boundaries. The international lawyer needs depth in an area of expertise, and a broader understanding of the legal landscape in which that expertise operates.
63. A matter need not begin as an international law dispute for international law questions to become relevant. A cross-border commercial dispute may engage questions of governing law, forum, parallel proceedings and service. It may also involve sanctions, State immunity or the enforcement of an award against assets in another jurisdiction. All of these are matters that engage different aspects of the law, and I am happy to see that the session later today will be talking about both aspects of international law – private and public international law.
64. These are matters with practical consequences. A jurisdictional issue identified too late, a sanctions regime overlooked, or an enforcement difficulty considered only after judgment can materially affect the options that remain available.
65. That does not mean every lawyer must master every field. Specialists remain indispensable. But expertise in one area should not come at the expense of identifying when another discipline is relevant, and knowing when to bring that expertise into the discussion.
66. We must also understand the different forms through which international norms operate. Treaties and customary international law remain foundational. But model laws, standards, institutional rules and domestic implementing legislation can also shape conduct. Their legal status matters and understanding those differences is part of the task.
67. The UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration is a familiar example. It is not a treaty, but Singapore’s International Arbitration Act gives it force of law here. An international model can therefore have direct consequences for domestic practice through legislation. 11
68. The point is not to blur the distinction between binding law and other instruments. It is precisely the opposite: to understand what each instrument stands for, what it does, where its authority comes from, and how it interacts with the wider legal framework.
69. The same applies to forums. An international legal issue may arise before an international tribunal, a domestic court, a regulator or a negotiating body. The lawyer must ask not only what the applicable rule is, but where the issue will arise, who will interpret it, and through what process.
70. Keeping current is therefore part of professional competence. It is not an optional interest to be pursued after the real work is done. For a legal community that seeks to serve international clients and contribute to international legal development, it is part of our core competence.
71. Second, participation. I suggest that we can grow as a legal community if we help shape change rather than simply respond to it.
72. We are accustomed, as lawyers, to working downstream: a rule exists, a dispute arises, and we advise on how to resolve it. Periods of metamorphosis create opportunities to work upstream as well, contributing to the process by which a rule, institution or practice takes shape.
73. New arrangements seldom emerge fully formed. They are developed through negotiations, working groups, consultations and the exchange of ideas. There is value in engaging before the choices have been settled, rather than waiting until the only question becomes how to operate the resulting system. In periods of adversity or turmoil are where you might find great opportunities to reshape, redefine and evolve the rules. You do not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it is an opportunity to take stock of the situation. Sometimes in the most difficult and trying of times, you can forge the most practical and sustainable of rules.
74. Those who practise and study the law bring perspectives that can improve its design. Practitioners know where procedural difficulties arise in actual cases and transactions. Institutional and registry practitioners understand what makes a system workable and easily administrable. Academics can test proposals against principle, comparative experience and the broader legal architecture.
75. Take for example the proposed Multilateral Investment Tribunal (MIT). It is still in discussion stage. But its design raises questions about jurisdiction, adjudicator selection, independence, ethics and what registry arrangements should supplement the function of the MIT. These are matters on which practitioners, academics and institutions can contribute their relevant experience, and shape the MIT into something that draws on the learning experiences of all of you. Government negotiators should be able to draw on all of that experience, while remaining responsible for the positions advanced on behalf of the State.
76. Early engagement also builds our own capabilities. Those who understand how and why a regime was designed, including the alternatives considered and compromises reached, will be better placed to advise on it and work within it once it becomes operational.
77. The same approach applies beyond investment dispute settlement, to UNCITRAL model laws, private international law treaties and guidelines, as well as debates on emerging questions in digital commerce and climate governance. We should ask not only what the law presently requires, but what choices are being considered and where our experience can make a useful contribution.
78. Organisations such as the ILA can offer an important avenue. Its International Committees bring together practitioners and academics from different jurisdictions to research and contribute to the development of international law. 12 I encourage our lawyers, including younger members of the Bar, to seek such opportunities.
79. Participation need not begin with a place at a negotiating table. It can begin with a thoughtful response to a consultation, and very often my Ministry puts out papers for consultation and reviews, where we invite all of you to participate, a comparative study, a carefully argued article or research into a practical problem.
80. What matters is the quality of the contribution. We should be prepared to explain not only what we would prefer, but why a proposal is legally sound, institutionally workable and responsive to the concerns of those who must use it.
81. For law firms and institutions, I would encourage a longer view of this work. The value may not appear immediately as a brief or an engagement. But substantive engagement can deepen expertise, build relationships and establish a reputation for being useful in a field that is still developing.
82. For younger lawyers and students, it is important to start early. This is a discipline that cuts across so many different areas. It might not start as an obvious international law issue, but it engages in so many aspects of international law. In fact, one of the strongest proponents of international law is Ambassador Rena Lee. Each time I chat with her, she tells me that everything you do – from the food you eat to being able to travel with your passport – has to do with international law. Build strong foundations in public and private international law. Importantly, seek to expand your horizons. Seek exposure through broader experiences, through courses, moots, research projects, internships and exchanges.
83. For senior practitioners, this also means creating space for others to develop. A younger lawyer cannot acquire international experience solely by being told to become more international. Exposure must be substantive: an opportunity to research a difficult question, understand a client’s wider circumstances, contribute to an argument and learn from how a matter is handled. I would encourage firms and institutions to consider how they can systematically provide that exposure to younger generation of international lawyers. I believe building capability is not only an individual task. It is also a collective investment in the profession’s ability to serve the next generation of international legal needs. That requires deliberate effort.
84. Third, judgment.
85. The legitimacy of a legal system depends not only on the quality of its rules and institutions, but on the integrity of the professionals entrusted with operating them. We need to preserve professional ethics and intellectual independence as international law becomes more contested. That is particularly important when confidence in the system is already being tested.
86. The P&ID litigation provides a reminder. In 2023, the English Commercial Court upheld Nigeria’s challenge to the arbitral awards, finding that they had been obtained by fraud and conduct contrary to public policy. The judgment exposed serious misconduct involving legal representatives and misuse of privileged material. 13 The lesson is not confined to arbitration: professional integrity is part of institutional legitimacy.
87. There is also a less obvious dimension: intellectual independence. Where rules are evolving, competing interpretations may reasonably be available. Good judgment requires us to distinguish what the law presently supports, where genuine uncertainty exists, and where we are advocating for development in a particular direction.
88. These distinctions should not disappear because a client has a strongly held position, or because an argument would be convenient. A lawyer must sometimes have the courage to explain that the law does not support the answer a client wishes to hear. 14
89. This does not mean avoiding difficult arguments or declining to test established assumptions. Legal development requires both. But an argument for changing the law should be recognised as such, rather than presented as though the change has already occurred.
90. That matters because a position advanced today may have consequences for the law tomorrow. Government advisers must consider the consistency and credibility of the State’s approach. Adjudicators must consider the coherence of their reasoning. Counsel must advance their clients’ cases within their professional obligations, with a clear understanding of the arguments they ask a tribunal to accept.
91. Academia has a slightly different but equally important role. Scholarship should be free to challenge prevailing assumptions, expose weaknesses and test proposals. Contributing to Singapore’s international legal capability does not require scholars to endorse Government’s positions. In fact, it requires there to be a critical analysis, looking at the cold hard reality and testing it against assumptions and principles to see how it operates. An independent and rigorous analysis is itself a contribution.
92. Competence, participation and judgment I think belong together. Competence enables us to understand the system. Participation enables us to contribute to its development. Judgment ensures that we do so in a way that strengthens, rather than diminishes, the confidence on which it depends.
Government and the legal community: a partnership
93. Let me conclude by addressing Government’s part in this partnership.
94. Very often, I am asked what my Ministry is doing to help Singapore lawyers secure international work. Government has an important role. We maintain sound laws, support a trusted legal environment, build international connections – often through Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs). We also open up the legal industry to foreign practitioners so that they, in turn, will bring in international legal work to Singapore. We can bring institutions, networks and opportunities closer to Singapore.
95. But Government cannot determine whom a client chooses to instruct. Nor can the presence of an international institution guarantee work for local lawyers. An ecosystem creates possibilities; it does not guarantee outcomes.
96. Our recent initiatives should therefore be understood in that light. ICSID’s Singapore Office, launched in August, is its first staffed office outside Washington DC. It serves as a regional hub for Asia and the Pacific, supporting parties and counsel, and deepening engagement with States, investors and practitioners. 15
97. Together with the presence of PCA, ICC, and numerous others, we are quite conscious of the need to anchor these important institutions in Singapore as it contributes to our thought leadership. It brings our legal community closer to international institutions and the expertise and practices that develop around them. The opportunity is not simply geographical proximity. It is substantive engagement with the work those institutions undertake.
98. In August, I also announced the establishment of the Centre for Arbitration and International Dispute Resolution at NUS. 16 It will bring together academics, practitioners, arbitrators and policymakers to develop thought leadership and forward-looking research grounded in practice. We want to do research on things that matter, that move the needle and matter to practitioners, that may be nascent today but are evolving. Its purpose is not research for its own sake, but work that can inform policy, improve practice and strengthen international dispute resolution core in Singapore.
99. We have also announced our intention to bid to host the proposed Multilateral Investment Tribunal. 17 Its establishment and architecture remain matters for the States who are engaged in the UNCITRAL process to decide. Our bid reflects a willingness to partner and back a credible and accessible institution, and to contribute to the rules-based order. I spoke earlier about participation, and this is something tangible. We want the negotiators to know that as we are negotiating this space, we stand ready to host the institution and to make the institution more accessible, including to developing jurisdictions.
100. This is not about adding another nameplate to our dispute resolution landscape. It is about helping build and support an institution that can serve its users, while creating opportunities for our legal community to contribute to the thinking and practice around it.
101. These initiatives are connected by a common purpose: to strengthen the relationship between the institutions, the ideas that are generated and professional capability. The Government can build platforms and open doors. Our legal community must develop the competence, reputation and trust to make meaningful use of them.
102. As I conclude, the same is true of partnership with Government. It should not be understood as a request for the profession to wait for opportunities to be delivered. Nor should it be a request for practitioners to contribute without a clear sense of purpose. We should identify the questions where practical expertise can add value, bring the relevant perspectives together, and remain open to ideas that challenge our initial assumptions. A productive partnership is one in which I look forward to, where each participant brings something the others need. That is how platforms become useful, and how a shared ambition becomes a sustained capability.
103. International work follows those qualities. They have to be earned over time. The challenge is therefore to build capability before the opportunity arrives, so that when it does, we are ready to contribute.
Conclusion: a stake in shaping change
104. That brings me back to where I began. Over two centuries, this building and Singapore’s legal system have changed while preserving important foundations. The infrastructure on which it sits remains the same. I think that is an appropriate analogy. International law faces its own period of transformation. We should be clear about the pressures, but equally clear about what remains indispensable.
105. For Singapore, rules that respect sovereignty, sustain confidence and enable cooperation are not optional. All of us have a stake in keeping them strong and making them work in a changing world.
106. Our task is therefore larger than learning to navigate what comes next. It is to help shape it: grounded in principle, open to different perspectives, and prepared to contribute practical solutions.
107. If Government, practitioners, academics and institutions work together in that spirit, we can strengthen both Singapore’s international legal capability and the wider order on which we depend. One that is grounded in principle, open to different perspectives, and prepared to contribute practical ideas.
108. That is the opportunity before us, and that is the responsibility we should be ready to take on. Thank you very much and I wish you a productive session later. It is these sessions that you test assumptions across different disciplines of the law and as well as between different aspects of the stakeholders present in the room today.
1. National Heritage Board, “Former Parliament House and Annex Building (now The Arts House)”, Roots, available at: https://www.roots.gov.sg/en/places/places-landing/Places/national-monuments/former-parliament-house-and-annex-building-now-the-arts-house.↩
2. WTO, “Appellate Body”, available at: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/appellate_body_e.htm.↩
3. International Law Commission, Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Seventy-sixth Session, UN Doc A/80/10 (2025), paras. 440-441. ↩
4. International Law Commission, “Sea-level rise in relation to international law”, available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/8_9.shtml.↩
5. ICJ, “Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change - Filing of written statements”, Press Release No 2024/31 (12 April 2024), available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203897.↩
6. ICSID, “ICSID Releases Caseload Statistics for the 2025 Fiscal Year, With Expanded Data Insights”, available at: https://icsid.worldbank.org/news-and-events/comunicados/icsid-releases-caseload-statistics-2025-fiscal-year-expanded-data.↩
7. Singapore Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “Multiparty Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement” (6 April 2020), available at: https://geneva-wto.mfa.gov.sg/mission-updates/multiparty-interim-appeal-arbitration-arrangement-06-apr-2020/.↩
8. United Nations, “BBNJ Agreement”, available at: https://www.un.org/bbnjagreement/en.↩
9. Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Commission of Small Island States on Climate Change and International Law (Advisory Opinion, 21 May 2024) ITLOS Case No 31. ↩
10. Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change (Advisory Opinion, 23 July 2025), ICJ General List No 187. ↩
11. International Arbitration Act 1994 (Singapore), s 3 and First Schedule. ↩
12. ILA, “ILA Committees”, available at: https://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees.↩
13. The Federal Republic of Nigeria v Process & Industrial Developments Ltd [2023] EWHC 2638 (Comm), [13]-[16], [592]-[595]. ↩
14. Ministry of Law, “The Next Charter: Shaping Singapore's Legal Future Together” (6 March 2026), paras. 52–58, available at: https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/speech-by-minister-for-law-at-the-next-charter-shaping-singapore-s-legal-future-together-event/.↩
15. Ministry of Law, “International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes launches office in Singapore”, (26 August 2026), available at: https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/international-centre-for-settlement-of-investment-disputes-launches-office-in-singapore/.↩
16. Ministry of Law and National University of Singapore, “New Centre for Arbitration and International Dispute Resolution to be Established” (25 August 2026), available at: https://www.mlaw.gov.sg/new-centre-for-arbitration-and-international-dispute-resolution-to-be-established/.↩
Last updated on 20 October 2026