[This article is a critical analysis of the Fifth Report of the Special Rapporteur, Ms Concepción Escobar Hernández, on Immunity of State Officials from Criminal Jurisdiction, discussed during the 68th session of the International Law Commission. It was written as a part of an internship at the International Law Commission, Geneva during its 68th session in 2016]
The Report A/CN.4/701 can be accessed here. Since it is a lengthy report, a summary of the Report in the form of a conclusion drawn by the Special Rapporteur that there must be exceptions and limitations to the immunity of State Officials can be read onwards page 92 of the Report. This article is not a comprehensive critique of the Special Rapporteur’s report but a mere critique of the methods employed by the Rapporteur and the line of reasoning the Rapporteur tries to establish to make a case for exceptions to immunity of State officials in certain cases. Since diplomatic protection of State Officials is a customary norm, there is a prevailing trend of immunity in its favour, both in terms of Rationae Materie and Rationae Personae. The following analysis must be read in light of this established fact.Read More »
(This is a complete guide to the procedure of filing a refugee claim in UK, USA, South Africa and Canada. Read on to learn how to seek asylum or file a refugee claim in these countries.)
This memorandum describes the procedure of filing a refugee claim in the United Kingdom (“UK”) and then compares it to the modus operandi of three other countries namely United States of America (“USA”), The Republic of South Africa (“South Africa”) and Canada. It discusses at length, the entire procedure of making a claim for asylum, right from when the first application is made by the asylum seeker until the grant or refusal of refugee status by the concerned authorities, in order to facilitate effective comparison between the abovementioned jurisdictions.
(This post is third in the series by where she writes on contemporary issues of international criminal law and human rights. Read the other posts here)
“More case law on genocide established in the last twenty years than in the previous fifty-five illustrate that this is not a Convention in decline, but rather one in renaissance.”
The crime of genocide was described as the “crime of crimes” by William Schabas, denoting the degree of gravity and outrage to human dignity that is incomparable by other international crimes. The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 (“Convention”) is an iconic, foundational legal treaty that created a powerful word which is more than mere political rhetoric. By its very nature, the Convention is indispensable, since it (at least in spirit and most parts as norms of jus cogens now) plays an integral role in maintaining civility in international law and progressiveness of the society. However, due to its many shortcomings, I believeRead More »
On January 25th the 2261 Resolution of the United Nations Security Council was approved unanimously, which expresses full support and blessing of the international community to the peace process that is underway between the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP).
This resolution allows the international community to serve as guarantor of a tripartite mechanism, seeking, in this first step a “political mission of unarmed international observers” (para. 2), which will be established Read More »
(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 »
V. Why we need to control the NSAGs (Non-State Armed Groups) ?
The world is as of yet a nascent system grappling with war & violence, proliferating terrorism & traumatic inflictions on innocent civilians. International humanitarian law, traceable to the dawn of humanity’s cultural consciousness, has gradually taken shape & gained strength. So, in fact to some extent, with the intervention of various charters of United Nations, there has been an apparent control over the raging war between NSAGs & the State.
The controversial question arises who would be the actual body to control or measure the NSAGs. In this question, there has been only avoidance of responsibility among various states. The lethargic & callous attitude towards the role of NSAGs has been proved to be matter of great import.
As we can longer be dependent on state’s role to control the NSAGs, it is about time that the Non-Governmental Organizations should come forward & take this opportunity to prove their social responsibility is much greater than that of “state”.Read More »
In March 2005, the UN Security Council (UNSC) referred the Darfur ‘situation’ to the International Criminal Court (ICC), making it the first referral of its kind. UNSC Resolution 1593 was adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter with 11 votes in favor, and 4 abstentions. The Resolution was hailed as a major step towards strengthening the fight against impunity for the ‘crimes against humanity’ committed in Darfur against the indigenous Fur, Zaghawa and Massalit tribes.
Pursuant to Resolution 1593, the ICC opened preliminary investigations into the Darfur ‘situation’ and on July 14, 2008, then ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo filed an application for issuance of warrant of arrest for Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir (Al-Bashir), the sitting President of Sudan, before the Pre-Trial Chamber I (PTC I). The first warrant of arrest against Al-Bashir was issued by the PTC I on March 4, 2009 covering murder, torture, rape, and intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population. On a subsequent application filed by the Prosecutor’s Office, a second warrant of arrest against Al-Bashir was issued by the PTC I on July 12, 2010 on three counts of genocide.