Connect with us

International Law

Refugees: The Horns of a Dilemma

Dr. Nafees Ahmad

Published

on

The refugees in the present vicious visage want to stand to reason within the bounds of possibility by holding the scales at the odds being in favour etched in the feast of reason and the flow of soul so that they could come out of the horns of a dilemma.

Refugee status is an incredibly malleable legal concept that can take on different meanings as required by the nature and scope of the dilemma prompting involuntary migration. I have been talking about a trajectory of refugee rights beyond the rubrics of rights sans any regurgitation for more than two decades that is not reflected in the contemporary international refugee law. The governance architectures across the globe have blackballed the refugees from their itinerary of international obligations and prescriptions as enunciated in the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The International community has been performing its refugee mandate in a state of ostensible action for refugees who have been grappling with the quagmire of cynicism that has morphed all avenues of evolving solutions into geo-strategic polemics. Cartelization of humanitarian assistance and relief on the grounds of caste, colour, ethnicity, race, region, political opinion, social origin and statelessness amounts to the decimation of dignity, elimination of equality and liquidation of liberty.

The global dimensions of diplomacy, political permutations of international relations and paradoxes of protection priorities have pandered to procrastination in durable solutions which have trussed the paradigms of refugee protection. I have tried to have deciphered an understanding of refugee discourse that is innate, instinctive, intrinsic and inherent in transcendentalism whereas it is native, natural and normative in existentialism. Although, it is a well-established fact that classical and contemporary institutional conviction does not speak of this inalienable framework of refugeehood. Therefore, the present international refugee law poses more questions than offers answers. Despite the fact of it’s more than sixty years of existence it could not offer any durable or permanent solution to the problem of refugees such as Palestinian refugees and other intractable refugee questions across the globe. The most prominent challenge of the contemporary international refugee law is of its survival as law, and it must be attended in the right earnest otherwise it may turn out be a positive morality of a vanishing vacuum of the jurisprudence of international law. Let’s talk about rights beyond rights in a refugee peregrination paradigm from utopianism to utilitarianism within the premise of permanent protection having dwelt into epistemological, teleological, sensible and jurisprudential understandings of the refugee discourse.

The Refugee Desideratum

We, the People of the World, are all refugees in scriptures, structures, and literature commanded in the logistical and tactical architecture of divine delineations. But they are not regarded as such in geopolitical identities on planet earth at which refugees are conditioned by crossing lines called blurred borders, barbed boundaries and bracket barriers in a world-wide web of justice, equity, and the rule of law. Nobody wants to be a refugee but people are being made refugees that has really created a void in human relationships across the spectrum of humanity. That has pandered to the galvanizing a new cornucopia of questions which are not straightforward to answer as these are impregnated with multi-layered predicament, prevarication, and predaciousness of those who have the propensity to stir the course of history. Thus, the plight of refugee flight has acquired an immutable multitude, marmoreal magnitude, and immaculate mapping thitherto not available to be rummaged outside the confines of rudimental oblivion to regimental reminiscences.

There are refugees; there are rights but whose rights, what rights that are the questions? Should rights be understood in innate sense or merely as an expression of modern codification? Intrinsic rights should be regarded horizontal foundation for the vertical gestation and growth of refugee rights which are ancillary, incidental, peripheral and vicarious to the refugee discourse. Should rights be alive or dead? Rights could not be lifeless, if they were, they could not have been rights. How to visit these rights in classical and contemporary jurisprudence? How to address the psychological, mental and intellectual premise of violations forming an itinerary of alienation, agony, and trauma resultant in human displacement, social dehumanization, and human demonization? Is there any moral, ethical and ecclesiastical possibility to have the categorization of human pain, sufferings and deprivations enslaved in occidental and Asian jurisdictions, jurimetrix cs and jurisprudence? Should there be victors’ rights only? Is there just majoritarian premise of rights? Could refugee rights be interpreted, appreciated and adjudicated upon within the legalistic welter of words enunciated in hard laws and soft laws in the garb of definitions sans governance accountability? What about the poverty, gender, communal conflagration, generalized violence, organized crimes, mass rape, economic sanctions, economic recession, climate change, development displacement, mass movements of persons fleeing civil war, military occupation, foreign domination, gross violations of human rights, natural disasters, or simply bad economic conditions, natural disaster and scientific experiments as well-founded grounds of being treated as refugees? Should refugee protection paradigm still depend upon other human rights instruments for its being considered before national and international judicial tribunals? Shouldn’t time have come to make refugee law an independent substantive discipline of study? Shouldn’t existing definition of refugee be deconstructed, developed and designed? Shouldn’t we head for a new, novel and nice comprehensive, consolidated and cosmopolitan refugee law?

The Refugee Status

The most conspicuous stigma on humanity is having some of its integral parts as refugees whose life, liberty and dignity have been decimated, destined and destroyed in camps.  The contour, conviction, and commitment to contemporary international refugee law have outlived its utility. The present global refugee law poses more questions than offers answers. Despite the fact of it’s more than sixty-five years of existence it could not offer any durable or permanent solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees and other intractable refugee questions across the globe. The most prominent challenge of the contemporary international refugee law is of its survival as law, and it must be attended in the right earnest otherwise it may turn out be a positive morality of a vanishing vacuum of the jurisprudence of international law. Let’s talk about rights beyond rights in a refugee peregrination paradigm from utopianism to utilitarianism within the premise of permanent protection having dwelt into epistemological, teleological, sensible and jurisprudential understandings.

The matter of refugee status is of ancient origin, although the manner of treating it has not always been that which is currently acceptable. At every stage of its historical evolution, it underwent a volatile metamorphosis of legal construction. The idea of giving a home to the stranger appeared as early as the Old Testament. The complete code of treatment of refugees has also been crystallized in the Holy Quran and rights of refugees have also been come to be supplanted by modern refugee regime. Mass population movements occurred throughout history: The arrival of the barbarians in the Roman Empire, expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492, expatriation of French Protestants after revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, emigration of the French aristocracy after 1789 and the exodus of Jews from German territory are but a few examples. The estimated number of refugees in the world today ranges between twelve and fourteen million. A survey by the United States Committee for Refugees at the end of 1988 reported over four million refugees in Africa, nearly nine million in the Middle East and South Asia, nearly 280 000 in Latin America and the Caribbean, over 625 000 in East Asia and the Pacific, and almost 350 000 in Europe. As new refugee situations develop, such as the flow of more than half a million new refugees in Southern Africa, thousands of Iraqi Curds into Iran and Turkey, or as the number of Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong increased sharply in 1988, or as thousands flee the civil war in Yugoslavia or the worsening economic situation in Eastern Europe, the problem becomes exacerbated.

Refugee Rights Beyond Rights

Refugees are the counter-product of sustainable hate that has a past in the present to shape the future oozed out of the clash of clans, castes, communities’ and countries since the inception of humanity. Human migration, movement, and mobility are entrenched in the human psyche since pre-socio-political crystallizations that have become most obvious, desirous and catastrophic in the twenty-first century necessitated by the ever-growing paradigmatic shift in its dialectics, dimensions, and delineations regarding perception, interpretation, and determinations. Deviant to the grounds whatsoever of displacement the biggest pain in one’s life is to have been dislocated from his or her country of origin in a manner that is fallible, fallacious and fatal? Thus, there are refugee rights beyond rights which can only be felt by the human soul and mind in the most profound sense of mental integration with the roots of birth. To displace anybody from his land of habitual habitation tantamounts to deny and divest him of his or her a catena of rights such as:

  • Right to a healthy life,
  • Right to psychological integration,
  • Right to have past,
  • Right to have a sense of allegiance to the homeland,
  • Right to have an ancestral identity,
  • Right to the immemorial neighborhood,
  • Right to historical culture,
  • Right to perennial socialization,
  • Right to classic climate,
  • Right to mental stability,
  • Right to mental health,
  • Right to specific custom,
  • Right to geo-political predilections,
  • Right to be consulted in economic modules,
  • Right to participate in community development,
  • Right to good governance,
  • Right to the rule of law,
  • Right to socio-economic development,
  • Right to leave and return,
  • Right not to be displaced,
  • Right to have rights beyond rights,

These rights encapsulate all the divisions of rights as natural claims, non-derogable basic bonds, fundamental freedoms, inalienable human entitlements, and rudimental human rights outside the convention-oriented prescriptions. The venomous vicissitudes of global change have presented a picture of development which is muddy, mawkish and manoeuvred by the political class. The politically empowered class happens to be around the chess-board of the common heritage of gene-kind in and around the domestic and international commands at which humanity is at loggerheads with humanity. Nevertheless, from retrospect to prospect, the miasma of migration has more been created, crafted and calibrated by aristocratic wiles, kings cozenage, royal revanchism, political prestidigitation, civilian charlatanry, political chicanery and subterfuge at every stage of the civilizational endurance and its graduation to ultra-modernity.

Diagnosis to Prognosis

Consequently, there is a contemptuous atmosphere of peace, progress, and prosperity that is alienated, exclusive, elite and with a tint of arrogance, aggression, and attitude of above the board while not swotting the experiences from economic melt-downs and fiscal drubbings in USA and Eurozone and elsewhere. These developments have made the humanity to move, move and move in addition to the humanitarian crises and climate-induced displacement as around the globe, millions of people are being subjected to risk of man-oriented displacement at a magnitude that is beyond human comprehension. The first inhabited island was submerged due to rising sea levels, and island nations around the Central Pacific, South Pacific and the Indian Ocean, as well as extensive tracts of land from Bangladesh to Egypt, risk partial or total displacement by the middle of this century. The impacts of global warming on habitat are being felt in multiple modes, various ways and different dimensions around the world. Rising sea levels have imperiled the very existence of Small Island Nation-States, while Inuit communities in North America and Greenland stirred with a well-founded fear of being displaced due to melting ice. It is horrible to note that climate-induced displacement (CID) is of particular significance to Australia given its topographical, geographical and geological proximity to islands such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, where the entire nation’s displacement is imminent. Australia is a prominent destination country in the region for so-called climate change ‘refugees’ who do not qualify as ‘refugees’ under international law. In this conspectus, the growing worldwide flow in the number of people leaving their country has created a significant challenge to India and other population-receiving countries and continents such as USA, Australia, Canada, UK, Switzerland, Pakistan, Europe and South Asia, etc.

These flows are mostly the consequence of pejorative, pernicious and deteriorating social, political and economic conditions in many countries and continents in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd  Worlds in the former Soviet Union, or among states that were within the Soviet, Europe, African and Indian Sub-Continental circumnavigate. Every nation-state at a particular stage of its development and history has struggled with the problem of human influx and outflux in one way or the other, but the stakeholders have rummaged no permanent, pragmatic and plausible or durable solutions in the game with a gavel. The plight of flight is not easy to be understood without having a heterodoxical hermeneutics of the causes, combinations, conflations, permutations, a miasma of mutations and the regime of reasons purportedly to have been emplaced by the state and non-state actors who morphed themselves in ostensible pro bono publico obligations across the globe. Thus, a holistic, panoramic and pervading understanding of the questions and issues of the classical and contemporary refugee regime is required to be rejigged.

Ph. D., LL.M, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University (SAARC)-New Delhi, Nafees Ahmad is an Indian national who holds a Doctorate (Ph.D.) in International Refugee Law and Human Rights. Author teaches and writes on International Forced Migrations, Climate Change Refugees & Human Displacement Refugee, Policy, Asylum, Durable Solutions and Extradition Issus. He conducted research on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from Jammu & Kashmir and North-East Region in India and has worked with several research scholars from US, UK and India and consulted with several research institutions and NGO’s in the area of human displacement and forced migration. He has introduced a new Program called Comparative Constitutional Law of SAARC Nations for LLM along with International Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Refugee Law & Forced Migration Studies. He has been serving since 2010 as Senior Visiting Faculty to World Learning (WL)-India under the India-Health and Human Rights Program organized by the World Learning, 1 Kipling Road, Brattleboro VT-05302, USA for Fall & Spring Semesters Batches of US Students by its School for International Training (SIT Study Abroad) in New Delhi-INDIA nafeestarana[at]gmail.com,drnafeesahmad[at]sau.ac.in

Continue Reading
Comments

International Law

Will Israel Be Expelled from U.N.?

Eric Zuesse

Published

on

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.”

That phrase must be removed both from Article 108 and from Article 109, Paragraph 2, both of which say:

“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.

Continue Reading

International Law

Liberum Veto and the Monkey and the Pea

Dr. Andrey KORTUNOV

Published

on

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

Continue Reading

International Law

Whatever Happened To Due Process In International Relations?

Rahul D. Manchanda, Esq.

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy