Search

By Prof. Bharat H Desai On 18 April 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) scheduled ‘oral hearings’ (30 April and 1 May 2024) at Peace Palace (The Hague) to indicate “provisional measures” sought in the case filed by Mexico against Ecuador’s brazen storming (5 April 2024) of the Mexican Embassy in Quito. Mexico invoked the instrumentality of International Law to file the said case (11 April 2024) against Ecuador. The bone of contention has been the arrest by Ecuadorian special forces of Ecuador’s former vice-president Jorge Glas who was holed up inside the Mexican diplomatic mission since December 2023. The raid came within hours of Mexico granting diplomatic asylum to Glas based on the customary practice of diplomatic asylum in Latin America. Ironically, the wheel turned the full circle wherein Ecuador had similarly granted diplomatic asylum (2012-2019) to the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in its Embassy in London. “This is not possible. It cannot be. This is crazy,” Roberto Canseco, head of the Mexican consular section in Quito, told local press while standing outside the embassy right after the raid. “I am very worried because they could kill him. There is no basis to do this. This is totally outside the norm,” Canseco said. Police break into the Mexican embassy in Quito, Ecuador, Friday, April 5, 2024. The raid took place hours after the Mexican government granted former Ecuadorian Vice President Jorge Glas political asylum. (AP Photo/David Bustillos) Stéphane Dujarric, the spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres promptly issued a crisp statement on 6 April 2024 that sought to flag the sanctity of International Law to ensure the raid on the Mexican diplomatic mission does not escalate into any major confrontation between two Latin American countries. “The Secretary-General is alarmed at the forced entry of Ecuadorean security forces into the premises of the Mexican Embassy in Quito. He reaffirms the cardinal principle of the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel, emphasizing that this principle must be respected in all cases, in accordance with international law. The Secretary-General stresses that violations of this principle jeopardize the pursuit of normal international relations, which are critical for the advancement of cooperation between States. The Secretary-General calls for moderation and exhorts both Governments to solve their differences through peaceful means”, the statement said. Police detain Glas in Quito, Ecuador on April 6; National Police of Ecuador/Handout/Anadolu/Getty Images A military vehicle transports former Ecuadorean Vice President Jorge Glas from the detention center where he was held after police broke into the Mexican Embassy to arrest him in Quito on Saturday (Dolores Ochoa / Associated Press) Violation of 1961 Vienna Convention The Ecuadorian action in the storming of the Mexican Embassy in Quito flies in the face of Article 22 of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 22 explicitly states: “1. The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity.” The 1961 Convention is a classic example of codification of customary International Law grounded on the time-tested practices of the sovereign states. It is based on reciprocity and recognition of a diplomatic legation as an exercise of the sovereignty of states. The Ecuadorian action became one more bizarre incident of blatant violation of the cardinal principle of inviolability of the diplomatic missions. As a corollary, Mexico has claimed breach of obligations by Ecuador under international law, notably Article 2(3) of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations, Article 3(i) of the 1948 Charter of the Organization of American States, and Article 2 of the 1948 Pact of Bogota (American Treaty on Pacific Settlement). In turn, Mexico has urged the ICJ, to begin with, for provisional measures order as well as to adjudicate (judgement) upon the said violations of International Law. Some previous incidents of storming of the diplomatic missions include the 1979 Iranian Revolutionary Guards taking hostage the US diplomatic and consular staff, the 1989 US action to arrest Manuael Noriega from the Vatican Nunciature (Panama City) and 1996 Taliban’s storming of the UN Mission in Kabul to drag out President Najibullah and execute him publicly. In the Case Concerning US Diplomatic & Consular Staff in Tehran (1980), the ICJ emphasized, in the face of Iran’s violation of US mission’s immunity, that “The obligation to respect the rules of diplomatic immunity is an absolute obligation which must be obeyed in all circumstances”. The Court held that the inviolability of diplomatic envoys and embassies was one of the fundamental prerequisites for peaceful relations between States. The ICJ called for immediate restoration to the United States of the Embassy premises and the release of the hostages. In its decision on the merits of the case, at a time when the situation complained of still persisted, the Court, in its Judgment of 24 May 1980, held (page 44, paragraph 95) that: “the Islamic Republic of Iran, by the conduct which the Court has set out in this Judgment, has violated in several respects, and is still violating, obligations owed by it to the United States of America under international conventions in force between the two countries, as well as under long-established rules of general international law…is under an obligation to make reparation to the Government of the United States of America for the injury caused to the latter by the events of 4 November 1979 and what followed from these events”. The ratio of the ICJ’s legal reasoning in the 1980 case, emphatically laid down the crux of the institution of diplomatic relations, sanctity of diplomatic missions and any asylum granted therein. Practice of Legation/ Diplomatic Mission The practice of granting ‘asylum’ connotes, generally, providing shelter to an individual who faces dire situation including threat to life. It can take place in a consulate, on board naval ships in foreign waters or even an aircraft. However, what constitutes a diplomatic mission would depend upon circumstances especially under license in a host country. The UN General Assembly, vide resolution 3321 (XXIX) of 14 December 1974 took cognizance that “States have granted diplomatic asylum and that several conventions on this subject have been concluded in Latin America.” Hence, in order to understand humanitarian and other aspects of diplomatic asylum, the UNGA asked the UNSG to prepare “a report containing an analysis of the question of diplomatic asylum.” As a corollary, the UNSG did provide a comprehensive report on Question of Diplomatic Asylum. (A/10139 dated 22 September 1975). In the past, the Indian civilization has witnessed numerous instances of diplomatic asylum (कूटनीतिक शरण; राजनयिक शरण; राज्याश्रय) given to the dissenters (e.g. Vibhishan in the Court of King Ravan) and the rulers who were dethroned (e.g. the Mughal Emperor Humayun). In Europe, the practice crystallized especially in 16th century, as can be seen in instruments such as the Venetian Statute of 1554 (“he who has taken shelter in a house of a diplomat shall not be followed there”) and the edict of the Roman Emperor Charles V (1519-1556; “May the houses of ambassadors may provide inviolable asylum, as did formerly the temples of the gods”). It was also asserted by Grotius in his 1625 treatise: De jure belli ac pacis (Book II, Chapter XVIII, para 8). The practice of providing diplomatic asylum to various categories of persons ranging from political dissenters to those facing religious persecution to fugitives from law taking shelter in the nearest diplomatic post has been one of the escape routes that comes into conflict with the sovereignty of states. Still, it serves as a savior for many when they cannot flee from the territory. There is no right of legation per se in International Law. It means after recognition of an entity as a state, there is no automatic establishment of diplomatic relations. The diplomatic mission or legation is located on the territory of another country under ‘license’ and the practice is based on ‘reciprocity’. It is a classic example wherein sovereignty respects sovereignty. In essence, a diplomatic mission possesses attributes of a sovereign territory wherein the agents of the host country cannot enter without explicit permission of the head of the mission. Asylum (1950) Case to Assange (2012-2019) Case The current diplomatic stand off between Mexico and Ecuador is reminiscent of the 1950 Asylum (Columbia v Peru) case wherein asylum was granted on 3 January 1949 by the Colombian Ambassador in Lima to M. Victor Raul Haya de la Torre (head of a Peruvian political party, the American People's Revolutionary Alliance). Following a military rebellion in Peru, proceedings were instituted against Haya de la Torre for the instigation and direction of that rebellion. He was sought out by the Peruvian authorities, but without success; and after asylum had been granted to the refugee, the Colombian Ambassador in Lima requested a safe-conduct to enable Haya de la Torre (whom he qualified as a political offender), to leave the country. The Government of Peru refused. Hence, the two Governments submitted to the Court certain questions concerning the dispute. Though it did not involve actual storming of the Columbia Embassy in Lima, the ICJ held on 20 November 1950 that “the grant of asylum by the Colombian Government to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was not made in conformity with Article 2, paragraph 2 ("First"), of that Convention (1928 Havana Convention on Asylum).” However, the Court did not spell out as to what happens to Haya de la Torre? As a result, he was holed up in the diplomatic mission for a long time. Ironically, Ecuador that chose to merrily storm the Mexican Embassy in Quito on 5 April 2024, was on the other side of the fence when a WikiLeaks Founder and Australian national, Julian Assange, was subjected to extradition proceeding in London for alleged commission of some offences in Sweden. Apprehending arrest after rejection of his plea against extradition, Assange took shelter on 19 June 2012 in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Credit goes to the British Government for respecting the sanctity of the Ecuadorian Embassy during 2012-2019. The prolonger incarceration of Assange invited opprobrium from the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UN-WGAD). “It is time that Mr. Assange, who has already paid a high price for peacefully exercising his rights to freedom of opinion, expression and information, and to promote the right to truth in the public interest, recovers his freedom,” said the UN-WGAD. The Group called upon the British authorities (on 21 December 2018) to allow Julian Assange to safely leave the Ecuadorian Embassy in London without being arrested and extradited to the United States. UNWGAD reiterated its request after more than three years wherein it had upheld through a formal process (Opinion 54/2015) that continuous forcible stay of Assange was violation of his basic human right guaranteed under International Law. The 7-year long confinement of Assange led to piquant spectacle of Assange remaining safe within the Ecuador Embassy but faced arrest if he stepped out of it. The scene of Assange addressing the Press Conference while standing in the balcony of the Ecuador Embassy reflected actual working of the institution of diplomatic asylum in International Law. Interestingly, Ecuador decided to confer citizenship on Assange on 12 December 2017. Subsequent efforts of Ecuador to confer diplomatic status upon Assange were, however, turned down by the UK. Ironically, change in government in Quito created problems for Assange as Ecuador declared its intention (October 2018) not to intervene with the British government on behalf of Assange in talks over his situation as an asylee it its London embassy. In apparent change of political position, Ecuador’s Foreign Minister José Valencia asserted that Ecuador’s only responsibility was looking after Assange’s wellbeing. “Ecuador has no responsibility to take any further steps,” Valencia unashamedly said. Finally, Assange ran out of his protective diplomatic shield when Ecuador Embassy called the British Police. On 11 April 2019, Assange was dragged out of the mission and taken into custody. Majesty of International Law In view of the highly fractious nature of the issue of diplomatic asylum that countries view from their own narrow national perspectives, the ICJ has a role cut for itself. It matters most that instead of taking recourse to use of force or military action, the Mexican foreign minister promptly asserted that violation of the diplomatic immunity of the Mexican Embassy in Quito by the Ecuadorian special forces will be challenged before the ICJ. It vindicates an abiding faith in the majesty of the institution of International Law as well as the ICJ, as the principal judicial organ of the UN. Mexico’s case rests on the customary International Law and 1961 Vienna Convention, the UN Charter, the Pact of Bogota and the Charter of the Organization of American States. For redressal of the Ecuador’s storming of the Mexican Embassy on April 5, 2024, Mexico has invoked the ICJ jurisdiction on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota. Mexico has raised the principles enshrined for protection its rights (Articles 22, 24, 30, 44 and 45) under the 1961 Vienna Convention. Since the diplomatic relations are broken off, essentially, Mexico would primarily seek ICJ legal view in upholding the cardinal principle of inviolability of diplomatic mission and resultant reparations. Interestingly, no remedy per se has been sought concerning the bone of contention, the Ecuadorian national Jorge Glas, who was dragged away by the local police. Mexico seems to be alive to the reality that once a foreign national is dragged away even by unauthorized and illegal way, the Court would not be inclined to restore the status quo ante. Notwithstanding this, the invocation of the remedy of International Law before the world court, itself underscores majesty of the instrumentality in our troubled world. Therefore, in all probability, the ICJ would rise to the occasion, as it did in 1980 US Hostages case, to uphold the majesty of International Law by reiterating the cardinal principle of inviolability of the (Mexican) diplomatic mission. #UNSG #UNSC #MEA #UNGA #PMOIndia  #ForeignPolicy #JNU_official_50 @PMO @meaindia @DrSJaishankar @narendramodi @whitehouse @potus @RishiSunak @OlafScholz @JPN_PMO @LulaOfficial @KremlinRussia @PresidentMacron @AntonioGuterres Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is Professor of International Law and Chairperson of the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated three knowledge initiatives for SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023), Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) and Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

By Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli Several ‘firsts’ were clocked at the NPC and CPPCC sessions that have long-term implications for not only China domestically but also for what it might do externally. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/xi-has-reversed-deng-era-rebalancing-of-party-state-equation-it-s-ominous Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 17th March '2024 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/xi-has-reversed-deng-era-rebalancing-of-party-state-equation-it-s-ominous Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli is Professor at the Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On March 20, 2024, India rebuffed the model presented by the United for Consensus (UFC) group of countries at the meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms. The UFC opposes any creation of new permanent members. It advocates for an expansion of the UNSC from 15 to 26 members with an increase merely in the non-permanent elected member category. The UFC group comprises Argentina, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Pakistan, the Republic of Korea, San Marino, Spain, and Turkiye (with China and Indonesia as Observers). As a permanent member of the UNSC, the presence of China in the UFC reflects conflict of interest. Interestingly, the UFC model has been pitted against the long-standing demand, especially from the G4 countries (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan), for an expansion of the permanent membership of the UNSC. As of now, the crucial question of ‘veto’ isn’t on the radar. “Threats to international peace and security have become more complex, unpredictable and undefined. The world of the twenty-first century desperately needs a UN 2.0 that is credible, representative, reflecting the needs and aspirations of the member states and capable of maintaining peace and security”, India’s Permanent Representative (IPR) to the UN, Ambassador Ruchira Kamboj, said in response to the UFC model presented by Italy at the IGN meeting on the UNSC reforms. Intergovernmental Negotiations The UFC group has been dubbed as the ‘spoilers’. In fact, their campaign runs directly contrary to the quest for permanent membership by each of the G4 countries. The UNSC reform formula ‘G4 model’ was mooted on March 08, 2024 at the 13th Informal Meeting of the IGN (equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the UNSC). The Indian PR (Ruchira Kambhoj), put forward a comprehensive 'G-4 model' proposal for UNSC reforms in the five clusters. It is continuation of the G4 approach earlier presented on March 09, 2023. It has sought an increase in the UNSC membership from the current 15 to 25-26, by adding 6 permanent and 4 or 5 non-permanent members. This proposal entails new permanent members to comprise African states (2) Asia Pacific states (2), Latin American and Caribbean states (1); and Western European and Other states (1). A growing number of states support on the limitations and use of veto as well as listed some options on the issue. The Co-chair, however, made it clear that this dialogue is taking place “always under the assumption that in the reform of the Council the veto is not abolished”. Hence, insertion of the anomaly of ‘veto’ in the UN Charter adopted on June 26, 1945 at Opera House in San Francisco still remains a fact of international life even after 78 years. The IGN are taking place in the proverbial UN Trusteeship Council (UNTC) Chamber itself. In view of the significance and sensitivity of the issue of UNSC expansion, parleys have been taking place both in an open format (recorded) as well as in an informal and interactive closed-door format. The G4 expects possibility of some tangible progress on the UN reforms in general and expansion of the UNSC membership (especially the five clusters of reform) by the UN’s 80th anniversary (2025). The G4 has dubbed the current round of parleys as a “testament to stalled discussion at IGN” being done “without a text” amidst calls for “burning issue” of the UNSC reforms in a “comprehensive and holistic fashion”. It alluded to the calls made by the leaders of the 87 countries, in their respective addresses in the high-level segment (September 18-22, 2023) of the UNGA’s 78th session, for a reformed UNSC that is representative of the UN membership. UNGA: Conductor of a Grand Orchestra As the plenary organ of the UN, the General Assembly (UNGA) has been instrumental in setting in motion International Law-making and institution-building processes (through the ILC as its subsidiary organ, global conferences or other intergovernmental negotiations). The UNGA decided at 62nd (2008) - session, to roll out the IGN process in an ‘informal plenary’ starting with the 63rd (2009) session. As a sequel to his April 28, 2023 letter, the UNGA President enlisted ‘elements’ in his June 05, 2023 letter to all the PR and Observers concerning “convergences and divergences on the question of equitable representation on and increase in the membership of the Security Council and related matters”. The UNGA has followed up each meeting of the IGN process and sought to nudge the Member States through a series of its processes (63/565 B, 64/568, 65/554, 66/566, 67/561, 68/557, 69/560, 70/559, 71/553, 72/557, 73/554, 74/569, 75/569, 76/572, and 77/559). The high-level segment of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) concluded on September 26, 2022 was addressed by 190 speakers included 76 Heads of State, 50 Heads of Government and 48 Ministers. They resorted to posturing and airing of grievances against the global order, the UN system, global flashpoints and other states. Interestingly, the US President Joe Biden’s September 21, 2022 address brought the spotlight back on the long pending discourse for expansion of the UNSC and the Indian claim for a permanent seat therein. “I also believe the time has come for this institution to become more inclusive so that it can better respond to the needs of today’s world. That is also why the United States supports increasing the number of both permanent and non-permanent representatives of the Council”, Biden said. Biden did not spell out the countries that the US would support in both the categories. The Indian External Affairs Minister (EAM), Dr. S. Jaishankar while attending a flurry of meetings in New York, addressed the UNGA plenary session on September 25, 2022 (A Watershed Moment: Transformative Solutions to Interlocking Challenges), contributed to the 32 countries’ joint statement of September 23 for comprehensive reforms for a “legitimate Security Council” and held a meeting of G4 countries on September 22, 2022 – Brazil, India, Germany and Japan – jointly seeking a permanent seat. Each one of them have challengers from the UFC group to their claims in respective regions. UNSC Veto as the Charter’s Inherent Inequality The advent of the UN, on the ashes of the League of Nations, was an audacious project to “to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war” (Preamble, UN Charter). In his address at the adoption of the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, the US President Harry Truman prophesized that “If we had had this Charter a few years ago-and above all, the will to use it--millions now dead would be alive. If we should falter in the future in our will to use it, millions now living will surely die”. The special provision for the “concurring votes of the permanent members” (Article 27), known as veto, proved most contentious at the outset since many of the original 50 founding members expressed reservations about making the P5 countries – China, France, USSR, UK and USA (Article 23) – more equal than the others. However, with the collapse of the League, the war-ravaged world was left with no option but to accept the imperfect general political organization that the victorious powers pushed down their throat. It was taking it or leave it situation. That legacy continued even after expansion of the non-permanent membership from 11 to 15 by a December 17, 1963 amendment to Article 23. Since then, the world has been greatly transformed in the last six decades including the UN membership of 193 states. The UN has been a human construct and not a perfect solution for the ‘outlawry’ of war. It was not “to take mankind to paradise, but rather to save humanity from hell”, the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in his address to the UNGA on September 24, 2022. Thus, at the outset itself, the instrument of iniquitous veto was not inserted in the UN Charter “in a fit of absent-mindedness”. It was a “deliberate decision to render the Security Council incapable of undertaking enforcement action against, or against the will of, any of the Big Five” [Inis Claude, Jr., International Conciliation 532 (1961) 329]. On numerous occasions, the P5 have proved this prophecy correct in inability of the UNSC to bring about ceasefire, peace agreement in several global conflicts including the stand-off in Russia-Ukraine (since February 2022) and Israel-Gaza (Palestine) (since October 2023) conflicts. Need for Comprehensive UN Reforms The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a call for “comprehensive UN reforms” in his address of September 25, 2021 at the 76th UNGA. “We cannot fight today’s challenges with outdated structures”, the Prime Minster said. His priority list included climate change, poverty alleviation, situation in Afghanistan and the Security Council reforms. In response to a question by this author, the EAM Jaishankar, SIS/JNU alumnus, made similar assertion in during his February 26, 2024 Kunzru Lecture (SIS/JNU) as to why India deserves to be on the Global High Table of the UNSC. Apart from the claim of India and others, the question of veto remains the bone of contention. Will the P5 allow the future inductees the privilege of wielding a veto? In all probability and as indicated by the Co-Chair at the IGN (March 08, 2024), the question of abolishing or sharing this privilege with new members remains non-negotiable for P5. Hence, the prospective bidders shall have to take a realistic position. Interestingly, some improvising is now discernible from President Biden’s UNGA address (September 21, 2022) when he suggested that the P5 need to “refrain from the use of the veto, except in rare, extraordinary situations”. Similarly, in the wake of use of the Russian veto in the aftermath of the ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine, the UNGA adopted an unprecedented resolution 76/262 on April 26, 2022 for a “standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. It provides that “President of the General Assembly shall convene a formal meeting of the General Assembly within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent members of the Security Council, to hold a debate on the situation as to which the veto was cast.” This extraordinary step shows the future pathway to blunt the edges of use of veto by P5. Hopefully, it could render veto less attractive for the future expansion of the UNSC. That inevitably opens the doors for the third category of the UNSC’s permanent membership without veto. It now appears to be the pragmatic way out for India and G4 to secure a permanent seat on the UNSC’s horse-shoe table. The G4 model presented by the Indian envoy Ruchira Kamboj at the IGN (March 08, 2024) and statements of the EAM underscore this graphic reality. Making the UNSC Permanent Seat to follow India It is feared that the UNSC expansion would open up a Pandora’s box since different parts of the Charter (General Assembly, ECOSOC, Security Council, Trusteeship Council and the International Court of Justice) need to be reviewed especially on the issue of representation in view of multi-fold growth in the UN membership (from original 50 to 193 at present). Many member states, including India, genuinely feel that the UN Charter does not reflect realities of the 21st century world. In a futuristic scenario, if consensus would emerge at the IGN in the near future, it will necessitate an amendment of the Charter under Article 108. It would require approval by a two-thirds of the UNGA members as well as concurrence of P5 of the UNSC. As an alternative, a review conference under Article 109 can be convened by a two-thirds vote in the UNGA and a vote of any nine UNSC members. Notwithstanding this, any alteration of the Charter proposed at such a review conference would still necessitate the consent of the P5! If the UNSC expansion comes up on the agenda, can the revival and repurpose of the UN Trusteeship Council (UNTC), lying dormant since November 10, 1994, be far behind? This author has suggested (The Tribune, December 2, 2020) for the repurposed UNTC (EPL 52 (2022) 223–235) to exercise trusteeship of the planet through global supervision of environment and the commons. The idea for “trusteeship of the planet” was flagged in the Indian  Prime Minister Modi’s address of November 21, 2020 to the G20 Riyadh Summit. That would require an institutional wherewithal that is readily available – at no cost – by revival and repurpose of the UNTC in the same hall where the current IGN meeting are being held at the UNHQ. The Road Ahead Assuming that the G4 model and the Indian bid for a permanent seat of the UNSC materializes in the coming years, it would require cutting-edge futuristic ideas for providing solutions to the global problematique. That calls for timely investment in the study of international affairs by institutionalizing knowledge-driven architecture in the mainstream Indian university sector. Set up in 1955, this author’s home turf – School of International Studies (SIS) – has the requisite credentials as envisioned in the role of a ‘think tank’ both at unveiling (December 27) of the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023) as well as in the five years long painstaking process of Making SIS Visible initiative (2008-2013). Cumulatively, it can be based on the bedrock of solution oriented cutting-edge scholarly works of global relevance (addressing issues such as  resolutions of the global conflicts affecting 2 billion people; delegitimization and elimination of rape as a weapon of war; environmental crimes; humanitarian crisis; exacerbation of conflicts and disasters by climatic changes; making International Law instruments work etc.) emanating from the SIS as a ‘think tank’ as well as other Indian centers of International Law and International Relations. They need to provide vital building blocks for knowledge to facilitate the Indian role as a Global Solution Provider wherein the UNSC’s permanent seat would legitimately follow India. In this wake, the author has earnestly sought to walk-the-talk, made out a scholarly case, nudged the conscientious colleagues and pleaded in one-on-one meeting with the decision-maker at the highest level. The challenge lies in making this knowledge-driven roadmap possible by putting into place a robust architecture, an ecosystem to facilitate generation of futuristic ideas and finally, an entrustment to genuine scholars as the thought leaders. Rest would follow. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is Professor of International Law and Chairperson of the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the knowledge initiatives for SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023), Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) and Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

Contributors SIS Blog accepts blog posts from faculty, students, alumni and guest contributors. Click the drop down sub pages under Contributors section to view.

No upcoming events at the moment

Scholar's Lecture To be updated.