“No other concept is as powerful, visceral, emotional, unruly, and as steep in creating aspirations and hopes as self-determination.”-Wolfgang Danspeckgruber
Principle at its outset
[yt_dropcap type=”square” font=”” size=”14″ color=”#000″ background=”#fff” ] P [/yt_dropcap]ublic International Law, which governs the relation inter-alia between two or more states, expressly provides for right to self-determination. The principle is of jus cogens nature, which means that a norm or a principle attaining a status of customary international law against which no derogation is allowed, whatsoever.
The states therefore are under strict obligation to follow this principle. The principle trace its history to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter, which latter evolved into United Nations Charter, 1945 (Article 1 specifically). The principle, notably, also find its mention in “CASE CONCERNING EAST TIMOR (PORTUGAL v. AUSTRALIA)” before International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ), Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970, Helsinki Final Act adopted by the Conference on Security and Co- operation in Europe in 1975, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, etc.
In common parlance, right to self-determination means a right to choose the political status and pursue its own economic, social, and cultural development, by a population, which belongs to a certain territory, from subjection of alien subjugation, dominion and exploitation, including formation of their own independent state. The right essentially wants to end, as well as, counter the issues of colonial domination, racial or ethnic discrimination, military occupation, etc., due to which a group suffer systematic and gross violations of human rights that make their participation in that state impossible, which were very much prevalent till latter half of 20th century. The principle has two aspects, which are namely internal (right of people to govern themselves without interference of foreign power) and external (right of peoples to determine their own political status and to be free of alien domination). As a result, there could be number of outcomes like independence, merging with some other countries, or remaining within the political domain of same country. However, it should not be confused and correlated with right to secession, as right of secession is not govern under the realm of international law except in context of decolonization and situations of military occupation.
Having this background, I want to move the focus of this article to some important correlation and issues concerning this principle. Article in its essence, deals with an important question that ‘whether this principle need to evolve more, in terms of its specificity’, by detailing out various contours of right to self- determination.
Deconstructing syntax of correlation
Right to self-determination has a critical relation with various other factors, which need to be looked upon, in order to highlight the need for its development.
Relation with territorial sovereignty
General Assembly in its resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, titled “Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples” states in one of its provision that ‘Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’ Member states have also been wary about this principle due to its sensibility regarding their territorial integrity; hence this principle has been incorporated in aforementioned declaration. Therefore, bringing a perilous relation amongst each other. As mentioned by Castellino “……but in a debate between territorial sovereignty and right to self-determination, one has to admit the norm of territorial integrity once again prevailed to the gains of peoples due to the envisaged realization of self- determination” (para-phase).
Relation with terrorism
Terrorism has been a global menace which is affecting the world at large. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999 defines terrorism as “Any act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context is to intimidate a population or to compel a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act”. This act is proscribed under various regimes, such as United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, UK Terrorism Act 2000, US Patriot Act, European Union Common Position on Terrorism, etc. The struggle for independence through self-determination, may often lead to armed conflict. These armed conflicts may turn out to be an act of terrorism, where innocent’s life is put at stake, so as to overawe the government or authority to take such steps, as would lead to self-determination. Therefore, the relation is quite critical, in a sense that, a struggle for self-determination must not lead to perpetrating a bigger crime, which is condemned worldwide. It may vitiate the genuineness of the concerns of a group, which calls for the application of this principle.
Relation with occupation
Article 42 of the Hague Regulations, 1907 states that a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” The legality of any particular occupation is regulated by the UN Charter, 1945 and the law known as jus ad bellum. Once a situation exists which factually amounts to an occupation the law of occupation applies – whether or not the occupation is considered lawful. Such authority can govern those territory but without changing the existing order. The occupant powers are never considered as legitimate government, as they overthrow elected regime and in this context the right to self-determination becomes crucial for the native to decide their future. Therefore as far as relation is concern, both run opposite to each other, as this right offers autonomy to the native while military occupation demeans this opportunity.
Relation with Security Council
Security Council constituted under the aegis of United Nations Charter, 1945 is one of a principle organ which has a duty to oversee and monitor international peace and security. It is in this regard Security Council is considered to be a watchdog, for ensuring that any sort of armed conflicts be eliminated. But as mentioned above, in many instances the situation runs contrary to this expectation, which necessarily involves acts of armed conflicts, i.e. either in form of terrorism or military occupation, for the demand of an application of this right. Therefore, the relation between the principle and this organ is of vital nature, because Security Council ought to ensure that the right be exercised systematically and violation of peace and security, in the form of human rights violation or by challenging territorial sovereignty, is eliminated to greater extent.
Various concerns relating to this principle
Notwithstanding that the principle has been incorporated under various charters or convention, as non-derogable norm, it still lacks the definitiveness. These issues put concerns over practical application of this principle in real time problems.
It has been, on number of occasions, alleged that the alien authority changes the structure of inhabitants in an occupied region, by implantation of non-indigenous settler in that land. This erodes the earlier structure which existed before imposition of foreign rule, in that land. Same preposition was argued by Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy which is based in northern India and was established in 1996, in Asian Civil Society Forum, 2002. The contention is ‘that right to self-determination as a principle does not foresee this problem and as a result it is not incorporated in any charter or convention, which deals with this principle.’ The other example is “Falkland Island’, wherein right to self-determination was exercised and more than 90% people voted for British regime but it was argued by Argentina that locals who voted were from Britain itself and since they don’t constitute aboriginal or inhabitant population of this island, it doesn’t leads to proper implementation of this principle.
Next in the line is an issue concerning determination of subjugation of alien authority or domination and exploitation, which constitute as cause of exercising this principle. The first aspect to it is that ‘how can we determine the subjugation of alien force’. The matter is contentious because no authority, howsoever whimsical, would consent to the fact that it is alien force. They will argue to an extent to prove, that their control have historical significance. These situations are not properly addressed by this principle, as it fails to draw a line between legitimate and illegitimate authority. ‘Kashmir Dispute’ between India and Pakistan, is relevant to be stated in this regard because both exert their influence on this piece of land, by stating that other is an alien authority. This fuels the situation between these nations rather than solving it. The second aspect is ‘who will decide this very question’. Well ICJ (as decided in number of cases) could decide upon it, but jurisdiction of same is subject to the consent of member-states. Therefore creating a vacuum, as to how to deal with these questions.
Last but not the least, if authorities so concern agree to conduct application of this principle, through an election, ‘how will it be ensured that they are conduct in free and fair manner’. It is necessary in that case to mention that just arguing application of this principle would not suffice the dire need for fair election, which has a possibility of any sort of manipulation. It would rather lead to abuse of authority if same is not conducted in free and fair manner. ‘Scotland Independence Referendum’ is one of such example, wherein free and fair elections were held to ensure that whether the people of Scotland wants to be an independent country or remain as part of United Kingdom, in 2014.
These issues raise an important question that whether this principle requires more width, so as to answer those jurisprudential questions relating to its effectiveness in larger sense of this debate.
Conclusion: an inference
One can infer that, despite the principle had attained status of customary international law and more specifically status of jus cogens, does not justify the fact that it doesn’t need to evolve anymore as a principle. Issues concerning displacement of original population, question of historical aspect related to control of an authority, and application of this principle in fair and unbiased manner still haunts the jurist of international law, working in this field. These issues have further implications like human rights violation, grave breaches under International humanitarian law, demilitarization of such areas, etc. which cannot be addressed without answering the above-mentioned concerns.
It could also be inferred that, relation of this principle with various facets of public international law also brings our focus on changing dynamics. The colonization has been outdated as a cause and these days’ military occupation, ethnic discrimination, etc. have taken its toll. But the authenticity of these demands suffers a big blow when correlation is brought with terrorism and territorial integrity. Therefore, it is in these contexts a strong watchdog is required to monitor its implementation and administration, for which the role of Security Council is enhanced and galvanized. But there are other narratives also like human rights, humanitarian aspects (war crime or grave breaches), development issues, etc. which too require a special focus from world community, as well as, respective specialized agency, in context of such territories.
Hence, the principle of right to self-determination does need to evolve further, so that it can cope up with modern-days challenge, as well as, practical realities, as reflected in correlation and issues concerning this principle.
Will Israel Be Expelled from U.N.?
The conditions of membership in the U.N. are specified in the U.N. Charter. Specifically, “Articles 5 and 6 of the Charter of the United Nations deal respectively with suspension of rights and privileges of membership, and with expulsion from the United Nations.” But the operative part is Article 6, which reads:
“A Member of the United Nations which has persistently violated the Principles contained in the present Charter may be expelled from the Organization by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council.”
Israel certainly qualifies, but the United States Government, which is controlled by the anti-Shia and anti-Iran alliance between Israel’s Government providing the anti-Iran lobbyists and propagandists, and the Saudi Government providing the anti-Iran bribe-money, won’t allow that. Consequently, no matter how violative of the U.N. Charter Israel is, it cannot be expelled.
The United States Government likewise is routinely violating the U.N. Charter and cannot be expelled, because this very Government is on the U.N.’s own Security Council as one of the five permanent members: it would veto its own expulsion.
Consequently, a fatal flaw in the current U.N. Charter is that no vote by the U.N. General Assembly can expel a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. Nor can they expel any member of the General Assembly that’s backed by one or more members of the permanent Security Council. Until this situation is changed and a stated percentage of the votes from the General Assembly can expel a member from the U.N. General Assembly, there can be no international accountability applied against a member of the U.N. Security Council permanent five nations; and the U.S. Government, being a member of that, will continue to be allowed to do whatever its Saudi and Israeli masters want it to do — thereby protecting both Israel and Saudi Arabia themselves, and giving each of those two masters virtually as much freedom-of-action as the U.S. has; the U.S. Government’s masters buy impunity, indirectly, from their protector.
This is not a world of international law; it is a world of international force — basically a world of conquest and submission (and subversion can be part of that), which mocks democracy internationally (and maybe even domestically), and therefore effectively corrupts and prevents democracy within all nations that the controlling masters in Saudi Arabia and in Israel demand.
The most fatal failure of the U.N. Charter is thus its prohibiting any amendment that one of the five permanent Security Council members opposes.
The issue of what the conditions would be for amending the U.N. Charter was debated while the U.N. Charter was being drawn up in 1945, but nothing effective was agreed to, and so the U.N’s PR on the matter states only that “the question of future amendments to the Charter received much attention and finally resulted in an agreed solution.” They don’t say what that “solution” was, but there have been no controversial amendments made to the Charter, during its 73 years, so whatever it might have been was almost totally ineffective. A web-search for “U.N. Charter” plus “proposed amendment” produces no major “proposed amendment” but does, near the top, show what that (obviously failed) “agreed solution” (which the U.N. tries to hide) was; and it is:
“This concession took the form of Articles 108 and 109 concerning Charter review procedures. While Article 108 describes the required steps for making specific amendments, Article 109 introduces the option of a review conference outside of the usual General Assembly (GA) meetings with the purpose of a comprehensive “review” of the Charter. Both these avenues for making changes to the UN Charter include the criteria of two-thirds of the UN member states voting for and ratifying a proposed amendment. However, in addition, “all the permanent members of the Security Council” must also ratify before the amendment goes into force. This unanimous concurrence of the P5
[the five permanent members] is the biggest challenge to adopting any amendment to the UN Charter.”
In other words: The U.N. Charter’s colossal (and thus-far fatal) failure was in its including the 5-member permanent Security Council’s veto-provision to apply even to any proposed amendment to the Charter. Only an amendment which all five permanent members support can pass. Here is such an amendment. No matter how much of the rest of the world want a particular change to be made, it can’t be done unless all five of the permanent members of the Security Council will accept it. This is the harmful dictatorial power that the five permanents were granted, but it can be eliminated without eliminating the Security Council itself (as will be discussed later here).
Consequently: In order to boot Israel or any other international rogue-nation out of the U.N., an amendment would first be needed, which would apply a degree of accountability to each member of the U.N. permanent Security Council, by stripping the provision that inappropriately applies their veto-power even over the consideration of any proposed amendment. Obviously: amending the Charter should be a matter for consideration only by the General Assembly — without any veto-power being held by any one nation. Amendment isn’t regular U.N. action: it concerns the Charter itself.
The biggest difference between a religious Scripture and a democratic constitution (such as the U.N. Charter was intended to be for the entire world) is that whereas the former (Scripture) includes no provision for its being amended, the latter (a democratic constitution) does — or else it instead is actually a religious Scripture, something to be taken only on faith, no democracy at all, nothing suitable for the Age of Science, and thus for a future of democracy. This faith-basis being the actual epistemological status of the U.N. Charter — unless and until its amendment-section becomes itself amended to what it needs to be — that Charter is a religious Scripture, and the U.N. is more a religion than a democracy of any kind, so long as there exists any nation that can veto any proposed change to the founding document. Though intended to be the emerging democratic constitution for the future world, the existing U.N. Charter is instead just a type of religion, and this is its Scripture. (Though, as noted, uncontroversial amendments may be considered in it; so, the U.N. isn’t fully a religious institution.)
Consequently, to address these problems, I propose that the members of the U.N. Security Council that wish to establish through the U.N. a democracy and transform the U.N. so as to abandon its current status as being a religion, push, at the U.N., relentlessly, for a measure to unlock the U.N. Charter — to enable it finally to be significantly amended and allow a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly to pass into international law as an Amendment to the emerging global Constitution, the no longer religion, but instead henceforth the democracy, of an unlocked Charter of the United Nations — thereby causing the existing Scripture to be henceforth a Constitution.
Unless and until this (the introduction of the General Assembly’s exclusive ability to amend the Charter) is done, there can be no progress, only continued regress to international dictatorship and a World War III, and so in the direction of even more global dictatorship — this time likely ending in global extermination (precisely what the U.N. was intended to avoid).
Any member of the Security Council who would oppose removing that provision — the veto-power’s extending even to any proposed amendment to the Charter — would be clearly an international pariah-Government and enemy of democracy, which all the rest of the world could then boycott and penalize outside the U.N. until that pariah-nation becomes defeated economically and thus effectively becomes coerced by economic means to become a decent member-state in the international community.
This is an existential issue for the future of a livable planet. A basic condition for progress is the elimination, from the Charter, of the clause:
“including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”
“108. Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective
[individual national] constitutional processes by two-thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”
“109:2. Any alteration of the present Charter recommended by a two-thirds vote of the conference shall take effect when ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations including all the permanent members of the Security Council.”
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are: China, France, Russia, UK, and U.S. U.S. would try to block removal of that phrase “including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” On 14 May 2018, Russia’s Sputnik News bannered “UK Has no Plans to Move Embassy to Jerusalem, Disagrees With US on Issue – May”, and this indicates that the U.S. well might be the only member that would fight to block democratization of the U.N. — to unlock the Charter for all U.N. members.
The precipitating event for this call for correcting the Charter would be the virtually unanimous repugnance of the entire world other than the U.S., regarding Israel’s string of brazen in-your-face violations of the Charter and of much of international law. Taking advantage of this intense global outrage — plus of the many outrageous actions by the U.S. Government itself — provides a rare opportunity to make the long-delayed but essential reform of the U.N., as follows:
America is the only member, of the five permanent members of the Security Council, that is so under the boot of Israel and of the Sauds. America is controlled by its own aristocracy, which are heavily interlocked with those of Israel and especially of Saudi Arabia and its other vassals, such as UAE but more broadly including the Gulf Cooperation Council of Arabic fundamentalist-Sunni royal families — and that includes a large portion of the world’s wealth. The American portion of that Imperial alliance includes control over many of the world’s largest consumer-brands, and is thus (unlike either of its masters) especially highly vulnerable to international public-image problems, such as any consumer boycotts.
There might be a way to save the world. This might be the way to a progressive future, reversing the worst of what has happened after the death of FDR (who, more than any other person, laid the groundwork for the U.N.).
Though the U.S. Government might succeed in winning the UK’s support to block democratization of the U.N., such boycotts might produce a democratic victory, if not immediately, then still within a reasonably short time, such as happened when apartheid was removed from South Africa. But this victory would be not only for the Palestinians — it would be for all peoples everywhere — a world moving in the direction of international democracy, no longer like now, in the direction of increased international dictatorship.
Liberum Veto and the Monkey and the Pea
To paraphrase the beginning of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina: all effective structures are alike; each ineffective structure is ineffective in its own way. The problems with the effectiveness of the UN Security Council are in many ways unique, as unique as the body itself. In recent years, only the laziest have failed to reproach the Security Council for dragging its feet, acting irresponsibly, getting bogged down in political infighting and pointless rhetoric, and being unwilling or unable to agree on the most pressing crisis situations, from Syria and Ukraine to Palestine and Myanmar.
For all its diversity, criticism of the Security Council has two main points. The first point is related to the composition of the Council itself, and the second is connected to the procedures of its operation. The current choices for the Security Council’s permanent members, or Big Five, are questionable to say the least. China is represented, but India is absent. France and the United Kingdom are present, but Germany or the European Union as a whole are not. Neither Africa nor the Middle East nor Latin America are represented. As for procedures, the primary bone of contention is the veto enjoyed by the five permanent members, which allows any of the Big Five to block any and all decisions that fail to please them.
It is clear that the first of the two problems looks more interesting, though the second one is of more importance. The prospect of expanding the Security Council promises a great deal of diplomatic scheming, behind-the-scenes negotiations and cunning subterfuge. However, as long as the right of veto remains, and as long as the obvious differences in the viewpoints of the permanent members regarding fundamental international problems persist, extending membership of the Security Council – regardless of which countries are let in – will make very little difference. On the contrary, “democratization” under the same old procedures will only serve to further complicate the possibility of ever reaching any agreement.
It is worth remembering that the constant abuse of a similar, albeit much more democratic principle of liberum veto (free veto) in the Sejm of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth eventually led to the irreversible decline and subsequent partition of one of the most powerful states in medieval Europe. Unfortunately, in recent years, the right of veto has been used more and more actively by some members of the Security Council. And it is Moscow that has set the tone. In the past two years alone, the Russian Federation has used its veto power nine times in connection with the Security Council’s examining the situation in the Middle East.
The struggle against the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council has been going on for a very long time, without much chance of success. More than anything, it is a question of status, especially for those members whose position in world politics and whose economies are on the decline. To deprive them of their special status would be to inflict a crushing blow to national pride, to reduce them to the level of “ordinary” countries, and to forget their role in the creation of the United Nations. To be fair, let us recall that the permanent members of the Security Council are still the UN’s primary donors, accounting for more than 42 per cent of the organization’s total budget.
Besides status, however, the right of veto is also a question of practical national interests. For all their differences, each of the members of the Big Five values their sovereignty and would not like anyone, including the United Nations, to interfere in it. The Big Three of Russia, China and the United States are particularly critical of this issue. And the veto provides almost absolute guarantee of sovereignty to the select few.
So what should be done? Actually, the international community has little choice. You can do things the nice way, or you can do things the hard way. Doing things the hard way would mean commencing the procedure for a radical revision of the UN Charter so that a significant part of the Security Council’s authority would be transferred to the General Assembly. At the same time, you could get rid of the veto. In theory, such a procedure is provided for by the Charter itself: Article 109 allows for a United Nations General Conference to be held for this purpose with the support of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and any nine members of the Security Council.
This is a rare case when the veto right of the permanent members of the Security Council is not valid. This procedure for the revision of the UN Charter has thus far never been implemented. And this is no coincidence, as it contains serious risks for the United Nations as a whole. Everyone understands that while it might be possible to take apart the complicated machine that is the UN, putting it back together again would be another thing entirely.
Doing things the nice way would mean convincing the permanent members of the Security Council of the need to take “voluntary” restrictions upon themselves in the use of the veto. There has been an active Code of Conduct campaign behind the scenes at the General Assembly for several years now that is designed to exert moral pressure on the permanent members of the UN Security Council to at least not to block those resolutions related to crimes against humanity and genocide. Strangely enough, the campaign was initiated by France, which is itself a permanent member of the Security Council. Presently, more than half of the UN’s members have joined the campaign. However, Russia, the United States and China, in a rare display of solidarity, refuse even to discuss such a possibility. The logic of the Big Three is understandable: start with voluntary restrictions and you can end up with an actual withdrawal of the veto power as a whole.
A multitude of other options exist to reduce the dependence of the practical work of the UN on the veto power of the permanent members of the Security Council. Some suggest extending the powers of the UN Secretary General. Others talk of resurrecting the now dormant Military Staff Committee. And still others believe that the solution to the problem lies in the transition to “subsidiary” peace-making by having the United Nations transfer a number of important functions in this area to “authorized” regional organizations. In any case, in order for these or other similar proposals to be implemented, a consensus is needed among the Big Five, something that is sorely lacking at present.
However, try as you might, the end will always come. The current situation in the UN Security Council should not be considered normal. It is difficult to believe that this abnormal situation can last indefinitely. In failing to resolve critical regional and global crises, the Security Council suffers serious damage to its reputation, damage that extends to the United Nations as a whole. This is not even the point; more importantly, the chronic paralysis of the Security Council reinforces and justifies the temptation to bypass the UN Security Council and sometimes circumvent the modern system of international law in general. For now, actions bypassing the Security Council are still perceived as the exception, but they could soon become the rule. For now, they are frowned upon, but soon they could become the norm.
Historical – and even everyday – experience suggests that those not willing to sacrifice a part risk losing the whole. Unfortunately, the United Nations is not at all immune to the fate of its predecessor, the League of Nations, which left the political scene quietly in the late 1930s, at the precise moment that international efforts to prevent a new world war were needed most.
To return once again to Leo Tolstoy, this time to one of his children’s fables: “A monkey was carrying two handfuls of peas. One little pea fell out. He tried to pick it up and spilled twenty. He tried to pick up the twenty and spilled them all. Then he lost his temper, scattered the peas in all directions and ran away.” The permanent members of the UN Security Council are still in the second stage – twenty peas have already been spilled. Will it reach the third stage?
First published in our partner RIAC
Whatever Happened To Due Process In International Relations?
It seems that recent events across the globe have further revealed a glaring hole within the framework and structure of international relations, law, and diplomacy – the complete and total lack of Due Process.
In each and every country around the world, from the local level all the way to the federal, there exists in criminal and civil jurisprudence the concept of Due Process – a concept which has been defined as the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.
Due process balances the power of law of the land and protects the individual person from it.
When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law, this constitutes a due process violation, which offends the rule of law.
Due process has also been frequently interpreted as limiting laws and legal proceedings so that judges, instead of legislators, may define and guarantee fundamental fairness, justice, and liberty.
Analogous to the concepts of natural justice, and procedural justice used in various other jurisdictions, the interpretation of due process is sometimes expressed as a command that the government must not be unfair to the people or abuse them physically.
Due process developed from clause 39 of Magna Carta in England.
Reference to due process first appeared in a statutory rendition of clause 39 in 1354 AD: “No man of what state or condition he be, shall be put out of his lands or tenements nor taken, nor disinherited, nor put to death, without he be brought to answer by due process of law.”
When English and American law gradually diverged, due process was not upheld in England but became incorporated in the U.S. Constitution.
While there is no definitive list of the “required procedures” that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly (July 3, 1903 – March 11, 1986), a prominent judge in the United States, who sat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1959 through 1974, generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:
(1) An unbiased tribunal;
(2) Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it;
(3) Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken;
(4) The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses;
(5) The right to know opposing evidence;
(6) The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses;
(7) A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented;
(8) Opportunity to be represented by counsel;
(9) Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented; and
(10) Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.
The international news media, on behalf of various governmental agencies, intelligence organizations, private deep state oligarch run businesses, has been blasting from time to time, allegations and accusations leveled by one country or empire versus another, most notably by the Western NATO powers against the Eurasian ones, that of Russia, Syria, Iran, and North Korea, China and others, while the converse has not occurred at all.
This should tell us something.
Lately, the Skripal poisoning attempts, the multiple alleged Bashar Assad Syrian government chemical weapons attacks, and countless others have dominated the headlines.
Russia has been screaming from the rooftops that their greatest concern is that the USA or West will manufacture some type of false flag attack to blame it on them.
The only solution then is that both the United Nations and the International Criminal Court must be given the power, funding, and support by countries that are being victimized by false flag allegations to be empowered to put a stop to these irresponsible lobbings and accusations of criminal conduct by one set of nations versus the others.
When Due Process is absent from our nations’ courts, police departments, law enforcement agencies, then innocent people get thrown into jail in criminal cases or bankrupted in civil matters.
But when nations are not afforded Due Process in the course of international relations, terrorism breaks out, and so does the possibility of nuclear annihilation of all the worlds’ people.
IRENA and Mission Innovation to Work Together on Renewable Energy Innovation
At the 3rd Mission Innovation Ministerial, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) and Mission Innovation, an initiative of 22 countries...
Lithuania should focus reform efforts on improving quality and efficiency of health services
Lithuania has made strong progress in reshaping its health system since the 1990s but further reforms are needed to urgently...
Dodging UN and US designations: Hafez Saeed maintains utility for Pakistan and China
A recent upsurge in insurgent activity in Kashmir likely explains Pakistani and Chinese reluctance to crackdown on internationally designated militant...
Excellency Narendra Modi when will you become Affectionate Neighbour?
Slavery was abolished in Islam 1500 years ago. Against this backdrop the Muslims of Indo-Pak subcontinent revolted against the “British...
We Innovate For Climate Because Our Future Depends On It
In Frankfurt this week, Innovate4Climate brought together climate leaders who recognized and applauded the growth in climate finance and innovation...
Offshore wind and hydrogen for industry in Europe
Fossil fuels currently play a critical role in industry, not only as sources of energy, but also of feedstocks and...
An economic space from the Atlantic to the Pacific
On the 23 May, in the run-up to SPIEF, a roundtable held jointly between the Roscongress Foundation and St. Petersburg...
Economy2 days ago
Eastern Europe1 day ago
Azerbaijan aims to boost its “Sustainable Development” profile
Eastern Europe2 days ago
Russia–Armenia Relations and the April Revolution
Energy1 day ago
The Bigger Picture: Convergence of Geopolitics and Oil
Middle East2 days ago
A Ramadan Humiliating Commercial: A Blatant Call for which Sort of Peace?
Newsdesk1 day ago
Russia’s Economic Recovery Continues: Modest Growth Ahead
New Social Compact2 days ago
World’s 100 Most Influential People Working in Gender Policy for 2018
Defense1 day ago
“Don’t Be Evil” removed from Google code of conduct