US attack on Syria: Use of Force and Norm Creation

by Sujoy Sur

The United States of America fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at an air base in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun on 6th April. This was 2 days after chemical weapons were used in the same Syrian town, which killed over 80 people, including at  least 20 women and 30 children. However, the question arises whether USA’s act can in any manner be held a) a legitimate response, b) a valid act in itself.Read More »

EU-Turkey Refugee Deal: Brewing Trouble over International Waters

By Karandeep Singh*  and Aashish Yadav**

The objective of the EU-Turkey refugee deal which came into effect on 20th March 2016 is applicable only to Syrian refugees. Since then, the official asylum channels to Europe for non-Syrians have been entirely cut off. As a result, tensions have been running high in the refugee camps in Greece as migrants are unsure about their future. There have been multiple reports of scuffles breaking out between Syrians and non-Syrians.
Read More »

ECtHR Mozer c/Moldova & Russia : a final round?

By Jacques Bellezit

Yesterday, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR has issued a judgement in the case Mozer c/Moldova &flag_moldova Russia.

The facts of the case are “unfortunately” common  (a detainee with precarious health, detained in poor conditions). The main issue was dealing with the jurisdiction of Moldovan and Russian governments in relation to a number of alleged violations of the applicant’s rights. Mr  Boris Mozer was arrested for fraud by police officers of ‘Moldovian Republic of Transniestria’ (MRT).Read More »

Business and Human Rights: Challenges in International Law

By Stuti Subbaiah Kokkalera*

International human rights standards have traditionally been the responsibility of governments, aimed at regulating relations between the State and individuals and groups. phpThumb_generated_thumbnailBut with the increased role of corporate actors, nationally and internationally, the issue of businesses’ impacts on the enjoyment of human rights has been placed on the agenda of the United Nations. Over the past decade, the United Nations human rights machinery has been considering the scope of businesses’ human rights responsibilities and exploring
ways for corporate actors to be accountable for the impact of their activities on human rights. As a result of this process, there is now greater clarity about the respective roles and responsibilities of governments and business Read More »

Extending the IHL applicable in IACs to NIACs: Re-examining the Tadić and its aftermath

by Shriya Maini*

(This post is part of a series of posts on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights.)

In the decades following the adoption of rights by the Geneva Conventions, there is evidence of an inclination towards the application of the rules and principles regarding International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “IACs”) to Non International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “NIACs”). This may be seen in the nascent tendency to either ‘apply, or call for the application of’ IHL in situations of armed conflict, without drawing the distinction as to which ‘type’ of conflict (IAC or NIAC) exists and accordingly, which ‘type’ of law is applicable. Prior to highlighting if, how and why International Tribunals have made the laws of IACs applicable to NIACs, I set out three basic facts to be kept in mind while reading this essay.Read More »

Sordid tale of the Rohingya refugees & the “disturbed” principle of Non-refoulment

By Jashim Ali Chowdhury*

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Article 3; European Convention on Human Rights

“Get them back.”

–  Tony Blair in Youseff v Home Office [EWHC (QB) 1884] at 15

Courtesy: Greg Constantine
Courtesy: Greg Constantine

Two States and a Stateless People

The origin of Rohingya’s is in dispute, artificially though. In Burmese military perception, they are virtually all immigrants from Bangladesh or what later became Bangladesh. Rohingya peoples on the other hand claim that they are the descendants of Muslims who came to this part of Burma long ago, perhaps of Persian and Arab traders, and are not Bengalis.[1] The cruel reality however is that Rohingyas are now living in limbo, even though they lived in Burma’s Rakhine State for generations. The Burma Citizenship Law of 1982 has denied their right to a nationality, and thereby removed their freedom of movement, access to education and services.[2] In addition, they are subject to frequent forced labor, arbitrary taxation and sexual violence and land confiscations.[3]Read More »