The unprecedented outbreak of novel coronavirus COVID-19 has stretched the frontier of human capacity to combat an emergency situation. Before the emergence of this virus, we had not often been forced to face the fact that human beings are hostages to nature. The present world has witnessed many classifications of human beings. This classification was done on the basis of wealth, human resources, technology, atomic energy, even on the basis of culture, and so on. Moreover, the terms ‘developed society’, ‘developing society’, ‘least developed society’, and ‘underdeveloped society’ crystalize this classification. But this lethal COVID-19virus, infecting indiscriminately, reminds us of the principle of equality. It infects people from all classes (!), people from all countries regardless of their status, health, wealth. However, it teaches us many things. It has given the environment a considerable pause from human intervention. It has stopped some cruel wars existing in the world. It teaches us the cleanness of body and mind. It sets some people to pray to their God. It makes us understand that there are things which human beings can’t grasp because of their superficial knowledge, or their health, or their fame, or their pride, or their wealth. The most important lesson of COVID-19 we have found is that it does not discriminate while it infects people. It does not discriminate between a president and a beggar, between rich and poor, between a servant and a boss, between an inmate and a free person, between an asylum seeker or migrant and a national, between a stateless person and a citizen of a country. It has infected us going beyond the so-called classifications of the modern world. So, it can confidently be said that this virus keeps us all busy with the measures of protection from this virus. It does not know who are migrants, or refugees or stateless persons. Governments have also been very busy developing precautionary measures and with the treatment of infected citizens – but each is more concerned about the health of their citizens – those who have the nationality of their country.
Questions arise – for example, do we all get equal treatment from the government in response to this invisible virus regardless of our nationality and our present status? The answer seems to be ‘NO’. Amongst others, we would like to highlight the situation of migrant workers, asylum seekers, refugees, and stateless persons; the most vulnerable groups of people who lack equal treatment from the governments of the countries where they have been living amid the COVID-19.Let us have a look at the scenario of the miseries of these people during this crisis. The outbreak of COVID-19 abruptly halted the movement of people all over the world. People are required to stay at home and to maintain social distance. This outbreak and the requirements of precautionary measures have emerged as an extra health threat to migrants who work abroad to keep their families well and also, to asylum seekers. These people play a crucial role both in the economy of the countries they live andin their countries of origin too. They promote trade and investment and bring innovation, skills, and knowledge to their countries of origin and destination. But amid this crisis, migrants especially those who lack legal status or who work on a temporary basis face obstacles in many cases like housing, food, water, sanitation, obstacles to access to health care programs and other services. Frequently, they have to live in overcrowded, unhygienic conditions. They along with others are often denied an adequate standard living by the countries of destination because of their legal status, and often also some regulatory and practical barriers. While the authorities make demands of the people to practice good personal hygiene migrants workers often have no other option but to live in overcrowded places not permitting social distancing which may increase their contact with the disease.
Migrants workers especially who are from the least developing countries have been passing hard times usually having no work and no supplementary budget from the governments. We have seen in places like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait governments have introduced policies to move migrant workers to camps or to detention centres, or to remote islands. But it is often seen that these camps, detention centres and islands are not suitable enough to accommodate the huge number of people. This means these workers have to live in crowded places where there is no access to proper water, sanitation, enough space to breathe even. The same policy has also been adopted by countries like Bosnia, France, Greece, Libya for asylum seekers. It is also to be noted too that countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, and Belgium have suspended administrative services for migrants and asylum seekers. Let us acknowledge the contribution of migrant workers (legal & who lack legality) in the national economy and health sector of the countries of destination during this pandemic. A study of Migrant Policy Institute shows that around 6 million migrants which is 19% of the total U.S. front line workers, work in industries vital to the pandemic response like health care, grocery stores, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting. This statistic helps us infer the contribution of migrant workers in their countries of destination. Accordingly, they should not be denied a reasonable standard of living by the governments of the countries where they live during this crisis. They should be included in any support provided by the governments to their citizens during the pandemic COVID-19.Further, to overcome this unprecedented crisis, migrant workers should not be left behind but should be included in any of any measures taken by governments. Christine Cipolla; an ICRC’s regional director for Asia and the Pacific also said “Governments in the region should do more for the migrants. It is in their best interest. It saves lives, it protects society as a whole”.
In this context, stateless people and internally displaced people are also in extremely vulnerable positions. They face disproportionate risk in relation to this invisible lethal virus as they often live in a very overcrowded conditions. They frequently live in unhygienic camps, often in tents where it is next to impossible to follow the directions of WHO given as precautionary measures to combat the pandemic. These people are often denied access to proper health care, safety net programs, and other social welfare services taken by governments.“If COVID-19 arrives in the camps it will be devastating”- says UNCHR. We cannot deny this warning and this is the same picture of all refugee camps in the world. We must keep in mind that these people did not take the term ‘stateless person’ by themselves. It is “WE” who forced them to be stateless, to be refugees. Diverse political opinions, ideological conflict, wars, racial discrimination, religious persecution are things that drove these people to be Rohingya refugees, Syrian refugees, Venezuelan refugees, etc. It is unfortunate to see that many countries have adopted measures to combat the situation leaving behind this large number of people. While this virus shows us the principle of non-discrimination we have been doing discriminatory treatment excluding these people from the national health care system. However, there is news that some countries have been doing well in providing facilities to these people. We should applaud these countries which host these large numbers of people and have been doing their best to provide multi-sectoral responses to mitigate risk.It is pertinent to mention here that the majority of the world’s 25.9 million refugees and 41.3 million internally displaced persons are living in developing countries. So, it can confidently be assumed that these countries like Bangladesh, Lebanon, Syria, Kenya- with their limited resources – will face considerable hurdles to provide adequate support to these large numbers of people.
We must remember that the unqualified words ‘HUMAN BEING’ brings with that phrase the entitlement to human rights; as each person was born as a human being. These fundamental rights are the same in nature in all regions and in jurisdictions. These rights cannot be denied by any country in any situation just because of even by the justification of the crisis brought about by this virus. As the pandemic poses a global threat to humanity more than ever, the world should face the situation collectively irrespective of the status of people. And the world’s financial institutions and other multinational companies should come forward to help governments play a vital role in this crisis. In 2015, the UN with the presence of world leaders adopted SDGs to create a better world by 2030. The motto of this agenda is “leaving no one behind”. This echoes the vision of an inclusive society where everyone irrespective of their status will be included in the process of development. It does not discriminate against migrant workers, or refugees, to stateless persons, or internally displaced persons. So, in the year 2020, we should not forget our responsibility to work for an inclusive world where no one will be discriminated against on the basis of status, race, and country of their origin.
Let us have a look at some universal principles of non-discrimination. Article 2 of the UDHR provides that no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. In Article 25, it also protects the right to health for all people under all circumstances. We should not forget that the United Nations was established, amongst other reasons, with the purpose to achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
The constitution of the World Health Organization recognizes the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health; one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. Article 3, 33 of the UN Convention Relating to the status of refugees, 1951 also establishes the principle of equality and non-expulsion while the host countries deal with the refugees. One of the core Human Rights conventions, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CRMW), 1990 also sets minimum standards for migrant workers and members of their families. Considering these provisions, we must admit that the right of these people under international law and comity have received great attention and the same must be protected by the countries of reception. To respect the principle of non-discrimination, countries are to guarantee that the human rights of these people are to be exercised without discrimination of any kind based on their sex, race, political opinion, country of origin, status, and so on. Therefore, they should not be left out of mainstream services provided by countries to their citizens. This disease can only be controlled if there is an inclusive approach, truly leaving no one behind.
A leader of the third world has to lead a movement for reformation of the International law
It is by no means a hyper reality that China has accelerated its geo political influence around the world this year despite the criticism of the West on China’s negligence in concealing the COVID 19 at outset. China being one of the permanent members of security council has widely contributed to the UN system. In this single modern global market, the People’s Republic of China has arguably become the manufacturing hub of the world in producing a large number of goods than any other western country, besides that it has also become the world’s second largest importer of goods. Today the realm of bargaining power in the positivistic international law is completely based in the idea of power politics and the US stands as its cradle beyond a doubt. I would mention America as leader of the first world and China as leader of the third world. As the leader of the western world, the United States relentlessly works for its political, economic and legal dominance, which it has been enjoyed for plenty of years. The third world, which is considered to be the group of states known for its extreme poverty, civil wars, unrest and unemployment, has realized that poverty would become an inevitable obstacle in the process of its development. Mohammed Bedjaoui , who had served as a judge on the International Court of Justice, clearly claimed in his great astonishing work “ Towards a New International Economic Order” that “ It is western exploitation that leads to the poverty of the third world. “The third world pays for the rest and leisure of the inhabitants of the developed world,” and that “Europe created, and the United States has appreciably aggravated, most of the problems which face the third world”.
International law governing the rights and duties of states is perpetually and predominantly being dominated by the first world and its embodiment that is the United States. In this research article, I am going to discuss two essential things which are: what China has to do to reform the west constructed International law and as well as why China should lead a movement of the third world for its reformation?
For knowing these queries, we have to note the origins of International law down and how it works in today’s world?
If we have a look at the brief history of International law, International law has its roots in diverse European civilizations. To say in simple terms, International law is Eurocentric. Natural law which is also considered as a part of International law was developed by ancient Christian thinkers whose ideas were rooted in the Greco Roman ideas on rights and justice, in the due course of time those ideas were imbued with the Catholic theological virtues. However, it was such a sense of sheer irony that ideas such as natural law venerated by the Catholic thinkers were later used to legitimize the colonial expansion in the 16th century. For instance Francesco Vittoria who has been regarded as one of pioneers of modern international law used the very concept of natural law as Spanish justification of its rights over Indian territories in America. Let us turn towards modern International law. Modern International law primarily developed based on two concepts that are the concept of State practice and International treaties.
On the one hand, most of the global scholars perceive the United Nations charter as a founding International treaty of International law that contains rights and duties of states. On the other hand, the third world scholars perceive the United Nations as a founding organization of colonial imperialistic powers. There is a general perception among third world International law scholars that the Security Council of the United Nations is completely dominated and run by the colonial turned imperial powers. Four members out of the five in the Security Council were purely colonial countries who had ruled and economically exploited the world for centuries. The Security Council has also arguably been Eurocentric which is consisted of more western states embodying their own interests. Security Council is the principal organ of the United Nations, which mostly enjoys veto power. Permanent members may use the veto to defend their national interests. Over the years, in history of the Security Council, the United States has used the veto power more than other permanent member for defending west interests including Israeli interests. Most importantly, the third world has no effective role to play and to defend its interests in this globalised world. The colonial super powers met in San Francisco, to establish a predecessor to the League of Nations, have not granted independence to a number of African and Asian countries. Most of the third world countries became independent after establishing the United Nations.
Finally, we reached to the end. I would conclude this article by answering questions that I have put above. The structure of the United Nations is based on the charter of the United Nations, which is considered as a founding document of modern International law. In this way, the United Nations charter grants more absolute powers to the Security Council where third world countries do not have participation. The leader of the third world China must wage a movement for developing countries to reform the Security Council. China has to collaborate with a group of developing countries for removing global financial power that lies with the Bretton Woods Institutions. Obviously, most of the power lies with the Bretton Woods Institutions, where western nations exercise the power on the rest of the world. So far, third world was exploited. So, the rest of the world outside the west has to demand for new international economic order, which would work for developing states.
UN at 75: The Necessity of Having a Stronger & More Effective United Nations
October 24, 2020, marks the 75th anniversary of the United Nations. In this context, this article investigates the necessity of having a stronger UN for the benefits of the world’s people. In fact, if one looks at the past, the UN came up in 1945 in response to the Second World War for a more stable, secured, and peaceful world. And the UN has been successful to a larger extent to that goals and objectives, many argue. Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General for instance, wrote that ‘The United Nations, with their rules and institutions, are at the heart of the international system. They encourage States to prevent or settle disputes peacefully. The United Nations speaks for the voiceless, feeds the hungry, protects the displaced, combats organized crime and terrorism, and fights disease across the globe’ (Annan 2015).
If one looks at the history, after the Second World War, there are not so many wars on a large scale or conflicts except some bilateral Wars like Vietnam War or Iraq invasion in Kuwait or US invasion in Afghanistan or Iraq or Syrian crisis or Rohingya crisis. One can claim that the present world is more stable and peaceful than the world before the Second World War. Against this backdrop, Ramesh Thakur rightly observes, ‘On balance, the world has been a better and safer place with the UN than would have been the case without it (Thakur 2009:2). And it will not be wrong to claim that the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is playing a crucial role in this regard, focusing both on ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ security issues. Hard security issues ranges from nuclear threat to international terrorism and soft security issues include human security issues to human rights to international criminal justice and international sanctions (For details see, Thakur, 2009).
The UN is not only concerned about international peace and security but also concerned about economic and social issues. There are several UN organizations e.g. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), World Food Programme (WFP) or the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) which is involved in socio-economic issues that impact millions of people globally.
First, one can look at the role of the UN General Assembly to understand the necessity of having a more robust UN. It is the core organ of the UN. It is the only organ in which all the member countries are represented all of the time. The role of the UN includes to pass resolutions and to create subsidiary agencies to deal with particular issues (Barkin 2006: 58). UN General Assembly works as a forum where the world’s states meet and discuss the pressing global problems. In this context, Eleanor Albert, Leo Schwartz, and Alexandra Abell write that ‘Since its inception seventy-one years ago, the United Nations General Assembly has been a forum for lofty declarations, sometimes audacious rhetoric, and rigorous debate over the world’s most vexing issues, from poverty and development to peace and security’ (Albert et al. 2016). However, in September 2015, the Assembly agreed on a set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals, contained in the outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda (resolution 70/1). Notably, the implementation of SDG goals will have broader implications for the world’s people.
In addition, the Assembly may also take action in cases of a threat to the peace, breach of peace or act of aggression, when the Security Council has failed to act owing to the negative vote of a permanent member. In such instances, according to its “Uniting for Peace” resolution of 3 November 1950, the Assembly may consider the matter immediately and recommend to its Members collective measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Second, one should also look at the role of the Security Council to make the case of having a stronger United Nations. The UN Security Council is the most powerful security-related organization in contemporary world politics. As the Charter of the United Nations says: ‘the Security Council has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security (Article 24). The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of the settlement. In some cases, the Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security’
In contemporary world politics, the UN Security Council is the most potent security-related organization because it is the only recognized and legitimate international organ which deals with international peace and security. In this regard, Justin Morris and Nicholas J. Wheeler claim that ‘The United Nations Security Council is at the heart of the world’s collective security system’ (Morris and Wheeler 2007: 214). The UNSC play role by passing Resolutions regarding maintaining international peace and security, determining threats to peace and security and finally undertaking peacekeeping operations.
Decisions made by the Security Council are known as the Security Council resolutions. Examples of Security Council resolutions include Resolution 794 (1992), which authorized military intervention in Somalia on humanitarian ground, or the resolution 1325 (2000), which called on states to recognize the role of women in peace, and security and post-conflict situations. In the UN Security Council Working method Handbook, it is noted that the UNSC has adopted over 2,000 resolutions relating to conflict and post-conflict situations around the globe. Another report, titled Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council noted that between 2008 and 2009, the Security Council adopted 35 out of 65 resolutions in 2008 (53.8 %), and 22 out of 47 resolutions in 2009 under Chapter VII (46. 8 %) concerning threats to the peace, breaches of the peace or acts of aggression. The report also notes about several UN resolutions authorizing United Nations peacekeeping missions. In connection with the mission deployed in the Central African Republic and Chad, the Council approved the deployment of a United Nations military component for the first time in 2009 to follow up operations by the European Union in Chad and Central African Republic (EUFORChad/CAR). The Council continued to authorize enforcement action for United Nations peacekeeping missions in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI), Darfur/Sudan (UNAMID), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), Lebanon (UNIFIL) and Sudan (UNMIS). This increased number of UNSC Resolutions dealing with international peace and security reinforces its legitimacy and power as a security organization.
The critical question that comes into the forefront is how much UNSC can implement its mandates neutrally or independently in terms of maintaining world peace and security. The critiques bring the example of Iraq war (2003) where UNSC ‘faces a crisis of legitimacy because of its inability to constrain the unilaterally inclined hegemonic United States.’ (Morris and Wheeler 2007:214). Another critical question is the role of UNSC in resolving the long-standing Syrian crisis or the Rohingya refugee crisis.
It is undeniable the fact that UNSC cannot function with its full potentialities due to the challenges and limitations it faces because ‘in their pursuit of raisons d’état, states use whatever institutions are available to serve their interests’ (Weiss 2003: 151). And here comes the politics in the Security Council which is highly manifested in the past. Against this backdrop, Weiss correctly observes, ‘the politics of the UN system- not only the principal organs of UN like Security Council or General Assembly is highly politicized but even ‘technical’ organizations, for instance, World Health Organization or the Universal Postal Union continue to reflect the global division between the so-called wealthy, industrialized North and the less advantaged, developing South’ (Weiss 2009: 271).
It is, therefore, states and particularly the P5 want to use the Security Council as a means to uphold its interest. Gareth Evans rightly points out ‘for most of its history the Security Council has been a prisoner of great power manoeuvring…’ (Evans 2009:Xi). Hence, using veto by the P5 remains a significant challenge for the UNSC to work in its fullest potentials. In the recent case of the Rohingya refugee crisis, the UNSC is unable to take adequate measures due to veto power used by China and Russia. However, the UNSC is responsible for maintaining world peace and security.
The bottomline is that there is no alternative to having a stronger and more effective UN because it is the only hope for millions of people around the world. The UN is an inevitable international organization in this turbulent world despite its criticism or limitations.Thus, it becomes essential for the P5 nations to think about the broader benefits of the world’s people instead of their narrowly defined interest in the case of using veto power. And the world also needs to acknowledge that the UN reform has been a reality to ensure the neutrality and objectivity of the United Nations for a more peaceful, stable, secured world.
The United Nations and the Neglected Conflict of Kashmir
The principle of ‘right of self-determination’ and its applicability to the 72-year-old Kashmir conflict needs to be considered during the 75th session of the Fourth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly that is taking place between October 8 to November 10, 2020 at its headquarters in New York. The Committee will discuss and deliberate the issues related to international conflicts and decolonization. What I do hope to offer is an unstarry-eyed view of the fate of self-determination in Kashmir; and, the indispensability of convincing the United Nations that international peace and security would be strengthened, not weakened, by resolving the Kashmir conflict to the satisfaction of all parties concerned..
The self-determination of peoples is a basic principle of the United Nation Charter, which has been reaffirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and applied countless times to the settlement of international disputes.
The concept seems to be as old as Government itself and was the basis of French and American revolutions. In 1916, President Wilson stated that self-determination is not a mere phrase. He said that it is an imperative principle of action and included it in the famous 14-point charter. This gave a prominence to the principle. Self-determination as conceived by Wilson was an imprecise amalgamation of several strands of thought, some long associated in his mind with the notion of “self-determination,” others hatched as a result or wartime developments, but all imbued with a general spirit of democracy.
Self- determination is a principle that has been developed in philosophic thought and practice for the last several hundred years. It is an idea that has caused people throughout the world to rise up and shed the chains of oppressive governments at great risk.
Finally, in 1945 the establishment of the UN gave a new dimension to the principle of self-determination. It was made one of the objectives, which the UN would seek to achieve, along with equal rights of all nations. Article 1.2 of the Charter of the Untied Nations reads: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.”
From 1952 onwards, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a series of resolutions proclaiming the right to self-determination. The two most important of these are resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 and resolution 2625 (XXV) of 24 October 1970. Resolution 1514 was seen almost exclusively as part of process of decolonization. 1514 is entitled: Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.”
International Court of Justice considered the several resolutions on decolonization process and noted: “The subsequent development of International Law in regard to non-self governing territories as enshrined in the Charter of the UN made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them.” This opinion establishes the self-determination as the basic principle for the process of de-colonization.
The principle of self-determination in modern times can be defined as the right of peoples to determine their own political status and pursue their own economic, social and cultural policies. Self-determination in its literal meaning or at a terminological level also implies the right [of a people] to express itself to organize in whatever way it wants. A people must be free to express their will without interference or threat of interference from a controlling authority. This includes alien domination, foreign occupation and colonial rule.
Although, the applicability of the principle of the self-determination to the specific case of Jammu and Kashmir has been explicitly recognized by the United Nations. It was upheld equally by India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was brought before the Security Council. Since, on the establishment of India and Pakistan as sovereign states, Jammu and Kashmir was not part of the territory of either, the two countries entered into an agreement to allow its people to exercise their right of self-determination under impartial auspices and in conditions free from coercion from either side. The agreement is embodied in the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, explicitly accepted by both Governments. It is binding on both Governments and no allegation of non-performance of any of its provisions by either side can render it inoperative.
It is apparent from the record of the Security Council that India articulated the principle, accepted the practical shape the Security Council gave to it and freely participated in negotiations regarding the modalities involved. However, when developments inside Jammu & Kashmir made her doubt her chances of winning the plebiscite, she changed her stand and pleaded that she was no longer bound by the agreement. Of course, she deployed ample arguments to justify the somersault. But even though the arguments were of a legal or quasi-legal nature, she rejected a reference to the World Court to pronounce on their merits. This is how the dispute became frozen with calamitous consequences for Kashmir most of all, with heavy cost for Pakistan and with none too happy results for India itself.
By all customary moral and legal yardsticks, 23 million Kashmiris from both sides of the Ceasefire Line (CFL) enjoy a right to self-determination. Kashmir’s legal history entitles it to self-determination from Indian domination every bit as much as Eritrea’s historical independence entitled it to self-determination from Ethiopian domination.
India’s gruesome human rights violations in Kashmir also militate in favor of self-determination every bit as much as Yugoslavia’s human rights violations and ethnic cleansing created a right to self-determination in Bosnia and Kosovo. Kashmir’s history of social and religious tranquility further bolsters its claim to self-determination every bit as much as East Timor’s history of domestic peace before Indonesia’s annexation in 1975 entitled it to self-determination in 1999.
If law and morality are overwhelmingly on the side of Kashmiri self-determination, then why has that quest been thwarted for 72 years? The answer is self-evident: the military might of India. India is too militarily powerful, including a nuclear arsenal, and too economically mesmerizing to expect the United States, the United Nations, NATO, or the European Union to intervene. The United States is reluctant to exert moral suasion or pressure to prod India because it covets more India’s alluring economic markets and collaboration in fighting global terrorism. Further, the size and wealth of the Indian lobby in the United States dwarfs the corresponding lobbies supporting Kashmir.
The world powers need to understand that there is no way the dispute can be settled once and for all except in harmony with the people’s will, and there is no way the people’s will can be ascertained except through an impartial vote. Secondly, there are no insuperable obstacles to the setting up of a plebiscite administration in Kashmir under the aegis of the United Nations. The world organization has proved its ability, even in the most forbidding circumstances, to institute an electoral process under its supervision and control and with the help of a neutral peace‑keeping force. The striking example of this is Namibia, which was peacefully brought to independence after seven decades of occupation and control by South Africa; East Timor and Southern Sudan, which got independence only through the intervention of the United Nations. Thirdly, as Sir Owen Dixon, the United Nations Representative, envisaged seven decades ago, the plebiscite can be so regionalized that none of the different zones of the state will be forced to accept an outcome contrary to its wishes.
In conclusion, a sincere and serious effort towards a just settlement of the Kashmir dispute must squarely deal with the realities of the situation and fully respond to the people’s rights involved in it. Indeed, any process that ignores the wishes of the people of Kashmir and is designed to sidetrack the United Nations will not only prove to be an exercise in futility but can also cause incalculable human and political damage.
MEPs condemn Turkey’s activities in Varosha, Cyprus, and call for sanctions
Turkey’s decision to “open” the sealed-off suburb of Varosha undermines prospects of a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem, warn...
Taxing The Super-Rich To Help The Poor
What was traditional became law in 1941 when Thanksgiving was designated as the fourth Thursday in November. Large turkeys, plenty...
Securing Africa’s Energy Future in the Wake of Covid-19
African ministers from countries making up 70% of Africa’s total primary energy supply, nearly 70% of its GDP and more...
UN: Renew commitment to Palestinian people
Commemorating the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged Israeli and Palestinian leaders to...
Implications of the U.S. election on U.S.-China relations
The last four years have been one of the most tumultuous periods in modern China-U.S. relations. U.S. President Donald Trump...
COVID-19: Testing still vital even as vaccines roll out
Testing will still be a critical tool against COVID-19, even as vaccines are deployed against the disease, the head of...
Commission and EBRD promote innovative use of data in public procurement involving EU funds
The European Commission, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Open Contracting Partnership are joining forces to...
Economy2 days ago
International Conflicts from the View of Trade Expectations Theory
Green Planet2 days ago
Fisheries, Food Security and the Issues of Climate Change and its effect on the Indo-Pacific
Europe2 days ago
European sanctions against Turkey are more likely than ever
Middle East2 days ago
Iranian media and Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Diplomacy2 days ago
Bye Diego … (Geopolitics of Sports)
Intelligence3 days ago
National Security of PakistanPost 9/11: A Critical Review
South Asia2 days ago
Theorizing The teesta River Water Dispute
Middle East2 days ago
Libya: Lights and shadows of the peace process