In 2025, Western courts are facing a wave of unprecedented scrutiny, both at home and abroad. Traditionally seen as models of fairness, transparency, and rule of law, these judicial systems are now being questioned on multiple fronts — politically, socially, and internationally. From debates over sovereignty to challenges involving international arbitration, today’s globalized world is testing the credibility and authority of Western legal institutions like never before.
A Growing Global Distrust
The era when Western courts were universally accepted as impartial arbiters is fading. In today’s multipolar world, emerging powers, nationalist movements, and even longstanding allies are pushing back against perceived Western judicial overreach. Cases involving international arbitration have amplified concerns that these courts prioritize Western interests over a truly neutral interpretation of international law.
For instance, in several recent international arbitration disputes, developing nations have accused Western courts of bias, alleging that corporate giants from the United States and Europe have been favored in rulings at the expense of local sovereignty and development. This growing distrust is feeding a broader movement to seek alternative dispute resolution mechanisms outside the Western legal sphere.
The Sabah Territorial Dispute: A Flashpoint
One of the most dramatic examples fueling this scrutiny is the ongoing Sabah territorial dispute between Malaysia and the heirs of the former Sultanate of Sulu. In a controversial turn, a European arbitration court ruled in favor of the Sulu heirs, ordering Malaysia to pay billions in compensation. Malaysia, however, has rejected the decision, calling it a violation of its sovereignty and accusing the process of being manipulated through Western legal channels.
The Sabah territorial dispute has sparked fierce debate across Southeast Asia about the legitimacy of international arbitration when national borders, historical claims, and colonial legacies are at stake. Critics argue that Western courts are ill-suited to resolve such deeply rooted regional conflicts, especially when they stem from histories of colonial domination.
Malaysia’s strong reaction to the Sabah ruling has set a precedent, encouraging other nations to challenge the authority of Western-led legal decisions that they see as undermining national sovereignty. As a result, the Sabah case has become a symbol of broader dissatisfaction with Western judicial influence in sensitive geopolitical matters.
South China Sea Tensions and Legal Maneuvering
Parallel to the Sabah case, the escalating South China Sea tensions have further exposed the challenges Western courts face in maintaining their legitimacy. Several Southeast Asian nations, including the Philippines and Vietnam, have sought legal recourse against China’s expansive maritime claims. However, China’s consistent rejection of Western-based arbitration outcomes, particularly the 2016 Hague Tribunal ruling, has emboldened other states to question whether Western courts can truly enforce international norms.
The South China Sea tensions have made clear that, while legal victories in Western courts might be symbolic, they often have limited real-world impact without broad geopolitical consensus. China’s refusal to recognize arbitration outcomes has encouraged a more pragmatic, power-based approach to disputes, rather than one centered on legal rulings. This erosion of faith in the enforceability of court decisions significantly contributes to the growing scrutiny facing Western legal systems.
Moreover, countries within ASEAN are becoming increasingly reluctant to rely solely on Western courts to resolve disputes, fearing that such decisions might exacerbate tensions rather than promote peaceful settlement. Instead, there’s a push for regional solutions through ASEAN mechanisms and other multilateral forums that are seen as more sensitive to local contexts.
Domestic Challenges Within Western Courts
The pressure on Western courts is not just external; it’s internal as well. Over the past few years, several high-profile cases have exposed deep-seated political and ideological divisions within the judiciary. In the United States, the Supreme Court has come under intense criticism for decisions that appear deeply politicized, undermining its image as an impartial arbiter of the law.
Similarly, courts across Europe are grappling with complex cases involving immigration, freedom of speech, and digital rights — areas where public opinion is often sharply divided. In many instances, rulings have triggered mass protests, further weakening the perception of judicial neutrality.
In this environment, accusations of bias, corruption, and elitism have gained traction. Populist leaders across the West have also played a role in eroding trust in the judiciary by framing courts as obstacles to “the will of the people.” As a result, Western courts are increasingly viewed not as apolitical guardians of democracy but as battlegrounds for ideological conflict.
The Role of International Arbitration
Amid these challenges, international arbitration has emerged as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it offers a mechanism to resolve complex cross-border disputes without resorting to national courts that may be seen as partial. On the other hand, the heavy involvement of Western law firms, arbitrators, and institutions has raised concerns about bias and fairness.
In commercial disputes, particularly those involving developing countries and multinational corporations, critics argue that international arbitration tends to favor the wealthier and more powerful party. This perception is exacerbated when arbitration panels are seated in Western cities and arbitrators come from a small, elite pool dominated by Western-trained lawyers.
The debate over international arbitration reflects broader anxieties about the globalization of law — who makes it, who enforces it, and whose interests it serves. In 2025, these anxieties are fueling demands for reforms that would democratize international legal processes and make them more representative of global diversity.
Repercussions for Global Legal Order
The unprecedented scrutiny of Western courts has profound implications for the future of the global legal order. If confidence in Western-led judicial processes continues to erode, we may see a shift toward regional legal institutions, new models of international arbitration, and greater reliance on diplomatic negotiation over legal adjudication.
Some nations are already pushing for reforms in international institutions like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) to ensure broader representation and more culturally sensitive legal interpretations. Others are creating new regional arbitration centers, such as those in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Abu Dhabi, to provide alternatives to Western-dominated venues.
In the context of ongoing issues like the Sabah territorial dispute and South China Sea tensions, these new forums could play a pivotal role in reshaping how international conflicts are addressed — moving away from a system dominated by a few Western powers to a more multipolar legal environment.
Looking Ahead
In 2025, the scrutiny facing Western courts is not merely a crisis but also an opportunity. It presents a chance to rethink and reform legal systems to make them more inclusive, transparent, and globally legitimate. Western courts and arbitration centers must respond to these challenges by embracing diversity, enhancing transparency, and genuinely listening to the voices of non-Western nations.
Otherwise, the current trend will only accelerate, leading to a fragmented global legal system where trust is replaced by suspicion, and law by power politics.
As the world becomes more interconnected yet more divided, the need for impartial, fair, and universally respected judicial mechanisms has never been greater. Whether Western courts can rise to this challenge remains one of the defining questions of our era.
