Superman and International Law

Introduction 

On 27 February 1940, the Look magazine published the comic strip, “How Superman Would End the War” (Comic Strip). The creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, co-creator of Superman, published a short story. In this story, Superman zooms off to Germany and Stalin, where he picks up Hitler and Stalin, by the scruff of his neck.; he takes the two dictators to Geneva, Switzerland, where he delivers them to the League of Nations’ World Court for trial. The League of Nations was first proposed by President Woodrow Wilson as part of his Fourteen Points plan for equitable peace in Europe. It was dissolved after the second World War, in 1946, to make room for the United Nations. Consequently, the League of Nations’ World Court in Geneva was succeeded by the United Nations’ International Court of Justice/ World Court in The Hague. 

Rethinking International Human Rights Law

By Ankit Malhotra*

Introduction

In the year 1983, Argentina saw the end of a brutal military dictatorship that had killed and led to the disappearance of up to 30,000 people. In the years that followed, forensic anthropologists worked with the families of the disappeared to exhume and identify human remains from mass graves. This operation was momentous. The forensic anthropologists were investigating serious abuses of human rights through the analysis of remains, with the hope of one day bringing the perpetrators to trial. But, they had another goal: to ease the suffering of the living by identifying and returning the remains of the dead to their families. It was from that time that the work of forensic anthropologists began to take on a humanitarian function. 

Image credit: The New Humanitarian

Since the operation in Argentina, forensic investigations of mass graves have become an almost standard response to mass violence. Similar investigations have taken place in Rwanda, Guatemala, South Africa, and the former Yugoslavia. The common denominator of these countries in terms of their recent history has been that they all have witnessed mass killings. The Argentinian investigation marked the beginning of this era. But, these events are part of a much bigger story about the humanitarian interest in mass deaths. 

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 6^th 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.

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 20^th 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.

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 & 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).

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. But 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

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.

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

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]