[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] T [/yt_dropcap] he late Tony Judt coined the expression “misremembering” by which he meant that while it is fine, year after year, to commemorate the Holocaust with conferences, memorials, monuments, museums galore, if the commemoration is not followed by a meaningful moral analysis of the lessons learned from such a horrific event, if we periodically commemorate the event, but then dwell merely on the political, the economic, the military, the purely utilitarian considerations of the event, forgetting the much more important moral considerations, then the whole commemorative exercise turns into a sham ultimately dishonoring the very memory of that horrific event.
Emmanuel Levinas, on the other hand, wrote a powerful challenge to the Western ethical tradition without as much as mentioning the event of the Holocaust. It pervades however the background of his ethical writings as a powerful personal formative experience. Lest we forget, that experience collectively included the gassing of millions of human beings by chemical weapons duly kept secret from the rest of the world. Hitler made sure that his direct orders to proceed with his so called “final solution” were never put in writing so that they could not be traced back to him and he could deny being the reprobate originator of such a despicable crime against humanity, and that moreover he could even deny that he had ever had such weapons (already forbidden by the League of Nations).
When the issue of chemical weapons first came up a few years ago in Syria, Assad, its dictator, had the consummate gall of flatly denying at first that he had them and intended to use them against his own people. Later he was forced to give them up but never punished for actually using them. In Aleppo, as we speak, unharmed civilians, including women and children, are now being massacred when they should be given humanitarian aid and a way to evacuate the area safely. Their hospitals have been barbarously bombed by Assad and his Russian ally Putin, the man who goes on religious pilgrimages to testify to how pious and peace-loving he is. Indeed, to appease or tolerate a bully means ultimately to ensure that he will perceive no limits to his inhumanity.
But to return to past history and misremembering, a pacifist, a man of peace, the Prime Minister of England, Arthur Neville Chamberlain, the so called umbrella man, a year before World War II, when ominous rumors of war pervaded Europe, and after the aggression against Austria and Czechoslovakia, went to Germany to confer and appease the feared big bully of Europe, who concluded from that meeting that the West was weak and would not oppose the other invasions he was contemplating, namely that of Poland and Russia, and eventually the Western world and the world as a whole.
That is to say, the bully having been appeased, and the piper having not been duly paid early on, meant that he would have to be paid later on with much more loss of blood and treasure. This has been called an outrageous and false analogy by some pundits, almost politically incorrect, but it is indeed valid in its sheer simplicity. It has the simplicity of the language that every bully speaks and understands. It simply means that once one draws a red line with a bully, one has to confront him the very first time he violates it, not later when he has already been emboldened.
So, I will refrain in this piece from making the case for pacifism or for, at the other extreme, for a vengeful and paranoid reaction to any aggression. After all, even a Machiavelli and his modern devotees, who believe that the end justifies any means, would probably concur that paranoia is a mental sickness and that moreover, vengefulness and violence has never constituted a solution to any two wrongs, for two wrongs never cancel each other out ethically and remain two wrongs.
What I intend to do, rather, is to simply remember here the times when chemical weapons were used and tolerated after World War I, after they had been banned by most nations of the world. I will not engage in apportioning blame and final historical judgments based on utilitarian, pragmatic, political considerations. I leave that to more capable historians. For it seems to me that the reason the remembering is important before proceeding with a moral arguments is that without it, as a misremembering, the moral argument will be fatally flawed and even smell of hypocrisy.
As already mentioned, Hitler used chemical weapons to gas millions of Jews and other “undesirables.” Most of his henchmen were put on trial after the war and found guilty and sentenced to death. But after the war, even putting aside the consideration of the use of two nuclear bombs dropped on Japanese civilians justified because is shortened the war and saved millions of soldiers’ lives, there was extensive use of a nerve gas called napalm in Vietnam where not only soldiers but civilians were hit and justified as unavoidable collateral damage of war acts.
A bit later a brutal dictator named Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people and then against Iran while the US looked the other way and in fact maintained friendly relations with the dictator. There is even a picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with him as special envoy. He, or his boss Ronald Reagan for that matter, never chided the dictator for the use of chemical weapons and in fact supplied him with them. It is also important to remember that the former Soviet Union supplied the one thousand tons of chemical weapons that Assad had in his arsenal until he was compelled to give them up. Nevertheless, he paid no price for just possessing them illegally, and then using them; his worthy ally made sure of that.
The question arises: Have we somehow forgotten all that? Or have we misremembered it? For if we have, then our moral case against bullies and the advocacy of a justified war to prevent future catastrophes and obscenities against children and innocent civilians, is also misguided and may sound rather hollow and hypocritical, on both sides of the Atlantic alliance.
Indeed, the moral obscenity of massacring civilians needs to be confronted as a Kantian deontological moral imperative, one way or the other, at the risk of becoming a moral pigmy and a coward. The issue is how do we confront it? Do we do it the way a Gandhi or a Martin Luther King would, via non violence and diplomacy with war only as a last resort and the threat of war as an incentive to the bully to come to the table, or does one do it via paranoia and vengefulness, usually counter-productive?
It remains a fact, however, that a terrible crime has been committed, once again, and to redress it properly as the moral outrage that it is, we as a civilization (Western, so called) and all those who continue to call themselves civilized, need to remember, to acknowledge, and to take a modicum of responsibility and do amends for all the other similar crimes committed with chemical weapons and weapons of mass destructions. Those crimes are unworthy not only of civilization but of man’s humanity. Which is to say, we need to look deeply into ourselves first and examine our own historical record and our own conscience, with no anger and no paranoia.
Misremembering and pious pronouncements and hypocritical commemorations to the Holocaust with no moral lessons derived from them, simply will not do. As the saying goes, it behooves us “to put up or shut up.”
Curious Case Of Nirbhaya And International Court Of Justice
On December 16th, 2012, a 23year old physiotherapy intern known as Nirbhaya was gang-raped and heinously murdered in a moving bus in Delhi, she died subsequently in a hospital in Singapore. The aftermath of the Nirbhaya incident witnessed widespread public outcry, which resulted in the amendments to various provisions of the Indian criminal law both substantive and procedural. Despite the radical reform in the criminal law jurisprudence, the convicts remain defiant and have recently moved the International Court of Justice (ICJ) seeking a stay.
On 16th March2020, the Supreme Court of India (SCI) rejected the plea of one of the convicts in the Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case. The convicts were slated to be hanged on 20th March 2020, following which the convicts have written a letter to the ICJ seeking an urgent hearing to prevent “unlawful execution”. The letter reads as:
“I write to you to request your support and help, in whatever form, to prevent this barbaric and inhumane punishment from being inflicted upon convicts, the death penalty has no relevance in a progressive and modern International era. Inflicting it upon prisoners, who belong to the economically most vulnerable section of society will only serve to take out international forum several steps back.”
Notwithstanding this plea to the ICJ, the convicts were hanged on 20th March. This brief write-up intends to unravel the position of individuals in the ICJ and the progressive mechanism of individual complaint mechanism under international human rights law against the State.
Access to Individual under ICJ
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations(UN) that resolves disputes between States. The issue in the Nirbhaya case with regard to the ICJ is whether individuals can approach the ICJ claiming remedies against the State, the subject matter of which is purely domestic or in short does the ICJ have jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the convicts. According to the former Supreme Court judge of India BN Srikrishna, the ICJ has no jurisdiction to order a stay; his point is the ICJ cannot act as a court of appeal, this is true because the jurisdiction of the ICJ is based on the consent between States and not individual, this is also reflected in Article 34 of the Statute of the ICJ (ICJ Statute). Further, the entire judicial process in the Nirbhaya case was proper, ie. hearing from the trial court to the Supreme Court; the convicts were provided several opportunities to file review and curative petitions. The larger question that needs to be addressed is the relationship between individuals in the ICJ. Firstly, over the years several judges and scholars of international law have argued for amending Article 34 of ICJ Statute to include individuals; moreover, the Advisory Committee of Jurist, who drafted the PCIJ Statute ( Predecessor to the ICJ Statute) deliberated in detail the issue of locus standi; unfortunately, lack of support from majority saw the idea being dropped. Secondly, the famous dictums in the PCIJ and ICJ refer to the fact that injury to the individual constitutes an injury to the States, as asserted in the 2007 Diallo (preliminary Objection) diplomatic protection of the aliens extends to the protection of human rights; however, the extent and scope of these human rights are very much limited. Thirdly, according to HerschLauterpacht, the original purpose of the ICJ was to be a court of International Law, rather than a human rights court; thus individuals approaching the ICJ demanding Justice would require to circumvent the original intention of the drafters. Fourthly, post world war 1 witnessed the formulation several multilateral treaties to safeguard the rights of minorities, the PCIJ and ICJ through its advisory opinions had touched upon these treaties in the context of individual rights; however, the PCIJ and ICJ consistently refrained from invoking presumption against individuals rights and duties. Fifthly, the sole decision in the ICJ that has some proximity to the Nirbhaya case is the La Grand case, in which the ICJ affirmed that individual might possess direct rights under treaties, however, in the La Grand case, the ICJ did not equate the right of consular access as human rights and thus adopting a strict state-centric interpretation. Moreover, the Judgement acknowledges the fact that the individuals approaching the ICJ could invoke rights through the national State.
Sixthly, in international law, the concept of state immunity has trumped human rights or individual rights, in the Arrest warrant case and the Jurisdictional immunities case the ICJ firmly establishes the fact that immunity overrides international crimes, although the backdrop of these cases significantly differs from Nirbhaya, the undisputed fact that remains is State is protected under the ambit of immunity. Taking all these factors into account, it was on the expected lines that the convicts in the Nirbhaya case would be unsuccessful in espousing their point of view in the ICJ via a letter; moreover, the jurisprudence of ICJ in terms of cases akin Nirbhaya are none; therefore the ICJ will continue its trend of ‘State-Only’ conception of international legal personality.
Individual Complaint Mechanism under International Human Rights Law
The Nirbhaya convicts rather than taking recourse to the ICJ could have sought remedies under individual complaint mechanism of Individual Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR under Article 28 provides for the establishment of the Human Rights Committee (HRC) consisting of 18 members. The committee meets three times per year; the State party must submit a report to the HRC dealing with the implementation of the ICCPR’s provisions, after the initial report a State has to submit periodic reports, based on which the committee prepares its concluding observations. Further, the HRC is competent to entertain an individual complaint for alleged violation of an individual’s rights under ICCPR. The first optional protocol to the ICCPR comprehensively set out the procedure for individual complaint mechanism. The HRC also provides general comments to clarify the contents of ICCPR’S provisions. The Nirbhaya convicts as a final hope, could have resorted to individual complaint mechanism rather than the more state-centric and rigid apparatus under ICJ. The Nirbhaya convicts hypothetically speaking could have approached the HRC by taking recourse to Article 6(2) of ICCPR which reads:
“In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes by the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can only be carried out according to a final judgement rendered by a competent court”.
Assuming that the convicts approached the HRC, literal interpretation of the above provision points out that, the crime of rape and murder falls under the ambit of ‘most serious crimes’, however, India does not have codified list of crimes which constitutes ‘most serious crimes’, it is upon the courts in India to determine the same on a case to case basis, in short, it is a matter of pure judicial discretion. The general comment no.36 on Article 6 of ICCPR on the right to life in paragraph 16 implicitly recognise that countries which have not abolished the death penalty, to lay out clear and stringent criteria for retaining capital punishment; moreover the HRC in August 2019 identified the list of issues before submission of the fourth periodic report of India, one of the issue being the elaboration on any comprehensive review of the relevant legislation to ensure that the death penalty may be imposed only for the most severe crime and indicate whether the imposition of the death penalty is mandatory for certain crimes. The legislature in India requires to frame an enumerative list of ‘most serious crimes’, which fits the death penalty template, instead of passing the buck to the judiciary. Despite the cacophony surrounding the Nirbhaya verdict, justice was meted out to the victim on 20th March with the hanging of the convicts.
Affixing China’s Liability for COVID-19 spread
Authors: Manini Syali and Alisha Syali*
The article analyses whether International Environmental Law can be invoked for making China liable for the COVID-19 pandemic, which is said to have its origin in the wet markets of Wuhan, and if there exists an interrelationship between Right to Health and Environment.
The world is currently witnessing an unprecedented health crisis in the form of the COVID-19 outbreak, which is said to have its origin in the wet markets of Chinese city of Wuhan, infamous for its exotic meat products widely consumed by the local populations in the name of prevailing superstitious practices. The virus which has now affected 199 countries, has resulted in a death toll of 34,000 so far. China on the other hand is on a road to recovery and has started lifting the lock downs, which for months made its population live in isolation. The question arising at this stage is whether China should be made responsible for the apocalyptic conditions it has brought before the world community, despite its previous promises to shut down its wet markets during the 2003 SARS outbreak and if International legal framework regulating Trans boundary environmental damage is appropriate to affix this liability. An attempt in this article will, thus, be made to analyse the law on Trans boundary environmental damage in the context of contagious disease transmission across sovereign borders.
Development of law on Trans boundary environmental damage
In the Trail Smelter arbitration, the world community for the first time witnessed that the concept of ‘sovereignty’ is not absolute and no nation state can be allowed to use its sovereign territory in such a manner so as to cause harm to another nation state.The tribunal in this case laid down the principle in the following words “under the principles of international law, as well as of the law of the United States, no State has the right to use or permit the use of its territory in such a manner as to cause injury by fumes in or to the territory of another or the properties or persons therein, when the case is of serious consequence and the injury is established by clear and convincing evidence.”
The concept, however, took a concrete shape only through the Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration, which went on to impose responsibility upon nation States for ensuring that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.
A major criticism against the primary International environmental instruments, namely the Stockholm Declaration and the Rio Declaration, has been that they remain in the form of soft law norms and never actually had any strong enforcement mechanism behind them. It would, however, not be wrong to state that this proposition does not hold good any longer and International jurisprudence has also proved the contrary. A good example of the same is the landmark Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in which ‘the due diligence obligations’ of nation states in Trans boundary contexts were upheld by the World Court. The Court took note of the looming threats which nuclear weapons pose on the environment and went on to highlight that “environment can never be seen in abstraction but represents the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings, including generations unborn.” The court further laid emphasis on the general obligation of States to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction and control, respect the environment of other States or of areas beyond national control and held it to be a part of the corpus of international law relating to the environment.
A similar question was also again raised before the ICJ in the case between Ecuador vs. Colombia (2008) .The incident involved spray of herbicide by Colombia in the sovereign territory of Ecuador and it was contended that Colombia has violated its obligations under international law by causing or allowing the deposit on the territory of Ecuador of toxic herbicides that have caused damage to human health, property and the environment. The case, however, was settled amicably by both the parties but nonetheless raises interesting observations with respect to International responsibility of nation states to not harm the sound environmental conditions of other member nations of the world community.
Does the concept of Trans boundary Environmental damage hold application when Human Health is in a jeopardy?
Environment related rights have not been expressly incorporated in any of the Human Rights instrument existing at the International level. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)under Article 12 (b), has nonetheless mentioned improvement of environmental hygiene to be a precondition of Right to Health. The drafters of the Covenant with the help of this provision, thus, acknowledged the existing interrelationship between right to health and sound environmental conditions.
Furthermore, under modern day International Law, nature has never been seen in isolation and has always been interpreted in the context of socio-economic environment, artificially constructed by mankind. It is pertinent to note that both the Stockholm Conference (United Nations Conference on the Human Environment) and the Rio Conference (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development) were titled in such a manner that they remained reflective of the Human development aspects attached to them. The titles further demonstrate that these key environmental law conferences and the legal instruments, which were a by-product of them, never truly focused on nature conservation in isolation from man-kind. In fact, the two leading Environmental Conventions i.e. Convention on Bio-Diversity and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) look at sustainable development as a matter of concern and do not have nature conservation as their primary objective. It can thus be stated that the subject matter of international environment law is sustainable use of environment by human beings.
An analysis of the above discussed legal propositions, thus, makes it clear that the currently existing International Enviro-legal jurisprudence is sufficient to hold a nation state accountable, if a contagious disease travels across its borders and causes damage of a trans-boundary nature. The reason behind this is that there exist a requirement to exercise due diligence while undertaking any activity within the sovereign borders. Furthermore, this pre-condition to any developmental or commercial activity does not remain limited to not causing harm to the ‘natural eco-system’ and includes granting protection to human survival as well, because, the word environment under International Environmental Law,is inclusive of the man-made environment and safe and healthy living conditions of the present generation and of the generations unborn.
Therefore, for the purpose of affixing the liability of China under International Law, the legal framework governing Trans boundary environmental damage can be utilised, since, the spread of a contagious infection clearly demonstrates that there was a breach in observing due diligence obligations while undertaking commercial activities in the wet markets, which adversely impacted an important human right, namely, enjoyment of safe and healthy environment.
Both authors are writing in their personal capacity. All views expressed are personal.
* Alisha Syali is a BA LLB (H) Student at Amity Law School, Delhi.
A Recipe for Disaster: Pakistan’s ‘Migratory’ Response to COVID-19 in Pakistan- administered Kashmir
Authors: Aaditya Vikram Sharma and Prakash Sharma*
Various news outlets have reported that Pakistan is moving patients from Punjab to Pakistan- administered Kashmir. This article analyses the soundness of this decision vis- à -vis international law.
Recently, it has come to light that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is moving coronavirus positive patients from the province of Punjab to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This territory of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan is administered through two regions comprising of Gilgit-Baltistan and the so-called Azad Kashmir.
The patients of COVID-19 are being moved to “Special Quarantine Centers” that are coming up in Mirpur and other cities in the region. The region comprises of territories that are the two most marginalized areas under Pakistani occupation. In fact, Kashmir, as a whole, is considered a disputed territory.
In this article, we try to decipher the applicable international law concerning the State-mandated movement of COVID-19 infected people in Pakistan to Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We draw out the relevant international treaties and gauge the response of the government accordingly to find out the legitimacy of these acts.
Status of Kashmir
Kashmir is considered a disputed territory. The erstwhile Kingdom of Kashmir is controlled by three countries- China, India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan claim the whole of Kashmir. The history is complex and beyond the purview of this article.
It is pertinent to note that Pakistan’s stance has been, at least constitutionally, to respect the wishes of the Kashmiri people. To that end, the semi-autonomous State of Azad Kashmir was created. But, its autonomy is doubtful—the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974 under Article 7(3)states that “[N]o person or political party in Azad Jammu and Kashmir shall be permitted to propagate against, or take part in activities prejudicial or detrimental to, the ideology of the State’s accession to Pakistan.” The Government in Islamabad exercises ultimate control on its administered regions.
On the other hand, India administered its administered region of Jammu and Kashmir by initially creating the State of Jammu and Kashmir. On 5 August2019, the Indian Federal Government removed the special status and created the two Union Territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The move was opposed by Pakistan which even threatened to go to the ICJ.
The Corona Virus outbreak in Pakistan
Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses which may cause illness in animals or humans. In humans, several coronaviruses are known to cause respiratory infections ranging from the common cold to more severe diseases such as Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). The most recently discovered coronavirus causes coronavirus disease COVID-19.
This new virus and disease were unknown before the outbreak began in Wuhan, China, in December 2019. It is especially dangerous because its infectability is perilously high—people can easily catch COVID-19 from others who have the virus. The disease, which can be fatal, spreads from person to person through small droplets from the nose or mouth when a person with COVID-19 coughs or exhales. These droplets land on objects and surfaces around the person. Other people then catch COVID-19 by touching these objects or surfaces, then touching their eyes, nose or mouth. People can also catch COVID-19 if they breathe in droplets from a person with COVID-19 who coughs out or exhales droplets. This is why it is essential to stay more than 1 meter (3 feet) away from a person who is sick. Pakistan detected its first case on 26 February 2020. At the time of writing, as per the WHO database, there have been 1526 total cases, out of which 25 have recovered and 12 have died. However, instead of restricting movement, the Government of Pakistan has decided to move patients from the worst affected province to a least affected and internationally disputed and underdeveloped territory. The next part analyses the soundness of this decision under International Law.
As Pakistan-administered-Kashmir is a disputed territory, it is pertinent to see what international laws apply. De-facto control of the region is with Pakistan. So, our focus shall be on the treaties that apply to it. Under the international legal framework surrounding epidemics and pandemics, the primary documents that are available are the International Health Regulations (IHR). These were adopted by the World Health Assembly of the World Health Organisation in 2005 and entered into force in 2007. These regulations are applicable to196 countries, including Pakistan. One of the main principles of the IHR is that their implementation would be with “With full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedom of persons” (emphasis supplied).So, Pakistan is required to respect the human rights of the people in its administered territories.
The primary human right which applies here is the Right to Health. According to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Right to Health is considered an inclusive right and includes the right to prevention, treatment and control of diseases. This is enunciated by Human Rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR). Pakistan is a party to both the Covenants. The UDHR, under Article 25, states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family..”Further, explicit provisions have been made under Article 12(1) of the ICESCR regarding the health of peoples. It reads as follows-
“The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
In fact, Article 12(2)(c) goes further and states that-
“2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;” (emphasis supplied)
By moving infected patients into an internationally disputed and so-called autonomous territory, Pakistan is violating the rights guaranteed to these peoples. According to the WHO, the best methods to control the outbreak include isolation and social distancing. Most of the countries globally have gone into lockdown and restricted the movement of their populations. However, the Government of Pakistan, citing economic reasons, has been reluctant to declare a lockdown and in its wisdom, has decided to migrate highly infectious patients to a region with a relatively unscathed population.
Understandably, the locals are not in support of this move by the Government of Pakistan. So, the policy of the government goes against its stated goal to respect the wishes of the Kashmiri people. This migration of patients is being done even when the region has registered one of the lowest cases in Pakistan. At the time of writing, there are only 2 cases in the so-called Azad Kashmir province. Punjab has the highest number of cases, i.e, 558. The health-care facilities are also inadequate in Pakistan- administered Kashmir. Logic would, therefore, dictate making quarantine centres and creating better medical infrastructure in the better equipped Punjab province. Instead, quarantine centresare being established in the relatively underdeveloped Pakistan-administered-Kashmir. This move is quite baffling and contrary to international law.
Pakistan’s actions directly contradict its international stance and international law. In fact, its hypocrisy has taken a new tone when the Government of India offered aid during the SAARC conference and Pakistan raised the ‘Kashmir issue’. After raising the issue, it has started moving COVID-19 affected peoples from its Punjab province to its administered region of Kashmir. It should refrain from such acts and, as a matter of fact, treat them with better healthcare facilities that already exist in Punjab.
Both Authors are writing in their personal capacity. All views are personal.
*Prakash Sharma is an Assistant Professor at the Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, New Delhi, India.
Iran Proposed Five-Nation Bloc for Regional Stability, Peace, and Progress
In February this year, Pakistan’s foreign minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi received Syed Mohammad Ali Hosseini, an Iranian Ambassador to Pakistan....
Curious Case Of Nirbhaya And International Court Of Justice
On December 16th, 2012, a 23year old physiotherapy intern known as Nirbhaya was gang-raped and heinously murdered in a moving...
Multicultural Weddings: How to Make Them Work
An eternal binding of two people who are deeply in love is a marvelous occasion. Any wedding for that matter...
BRI to Health Silk Route: How COVID-19 is Changing Global Strategic Equations?
The beginning of 2020 brought a wild card entry into global strategic equations in the form of Coronavirus Pandemic, with...
The World Bank Strengthens Support to Argentina’s Most Vulnerable Families
The World Bank Board of Directors today approved a new US$ 300 million operation to support Argentina’s efforts to strengthen...
Why Trump Will Probably Win Re-Election
Throughout this election-season in the United States, there have been many indications that the stupid voters who chose Hillary Clinton...
Affixing China’s Liability for COVID-19 spread
Authors: Manini Syali and Alisha Syali* The article analyses whether International Environmental Law can be invoked for making China liable...
Americas2 days ago
Covid-19: Why the US is hit so hard?
Defense3 days ago
Europe After the INF Treaty
East Asia3 days ago
China is doing. Are you?
Europe2 days ago
Coronavirus Reveals Cracks in European Unity
Defense3 days ago
Development of New-age Weapons Systems Becomes Key to Sustaining US Military Superiority
Defense2 days ago
Indian DRDO: A Risk In Disguise
Economy3 days ago
COVID-19 has exposed the fragility of our economies
Diplomacy2 days ago
COVID-19 Diplomacy and the Role of the United Nations Security Council