Search

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On August 12, 2024, the historic 75 years milestone of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949  passed almost unnoticed by scholars, media and the decision-makers. We live in a world wherein some 2 billion people (one-fourth of total 8 billion population) are entrapped in 120 plus conflicts. The custodian  of these Geneva Conventions, t he International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has appealed for according respect and adhering to the thresholds laid down in the Geneva Conventions that have largely codified the customary practices among nations and civilizations since time immemorial. “The world must recommit to this robust protective framework for armed conflict, one that follows the premise of protecting life instead of justifying death,” ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric told the reporters at ICRC headquarters in Geneva. The Four Geneva Conventions (along with their Additional Protocols I and II of 1977 and Additional Protocol III of 2005), form the core of the modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL). The four Geneva Conventions are: Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (I); Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces at Sea (II); Treatment of Prisoners of War (III); and Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (IV). The primary motto of the Geneva Conventions (also called the Red Cross Conventions) is to humanize warfare.   The Challenge of Humanizing Warfare Historically, wars have been regarded as neither legal nor illegal –something extra-legal. Wars have been considered as the legitimate attribute of sovereignty and an instrument of state action to avenge an injury caused to vital national interests. There has been a movement for “outlawry of war” that culminated (August 27, 1928) into the Kellogg Briand Pact (Peace Pact) . For the first time, the 1928 Pact explicitly called for the renunciation of war as the instrument of national policy. Article I of the Pact provided: “The High Contracting Parties solemnly declare in the names of their respective peoples that they condemn recourse to war for the solution of international controversies, and renounce it, as an instrument of national policy in their relations with one another”. Earlier, the 1919 Covenant of the League of Nations , an integral part of the 1919 Treaty of Versailles (see International Studies , vol.57, no.3, 2020, pp.201-222 )  adopted in the aftermath of the First World War, did not prohibit war but it provided machinery ( Article XV ) to reduce possibility for “ any dispute likely to lead to rupture” and having recourse to war. On the contrary, the 1945 UN Charter  does not use the term war at all. Instead, it uses phrases such as “use of force” and “armed attack”. The right to resort to war is no more an inherent right of a sovereign State and has been replaced by a general outlawry of war. The UN Charter, in general, does not allow any “threat or use of force” [ Article 2 (4) ]. Still, only permissible use of force by a UN member state can be “ inherent right of individual or collective self-defense ” under Article 51  only in cases wherein “ an armed attack occurs” . The threshold set for such use of force in self-defense is high since it requires an actual armed attack (not imaginary or anticipatory).  Notwithstanding the robust architecture for the prohibition of threat or use of force under the UN Charter, our world is riddled with numerous armed conflicts between state actors, non-state actors and those waged by terror groups. During 2023, some 59 conflicts  of various kinds were reported around the world. On the 75th anniversary of the ICRC, the grave concerns of the humanitarian watchdog are reflections of the growing numbers of violations of the IHL that include targeting of the civilian places such as hospitals, places of worship, schools, ambulances and refugee camps. The resulting colossal damage comprises killing of civilians and the humanitarians (aid workers) as well as destruction of heritage sites. Many of these conflicts have witnessed “rape under orders” and “use of sexual violence as a weapon of war” ( Author, SIS Blog:  March 11, 2023 ; June 22, 2022 ). When the IHL “violations are committed with impunity, this fuel further cycles of violence often resulting in protracted armed conflicts that span decades”, the ICRC said. This ominous reality was underscored on August 15, 2024  by Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, as the number of Palestinians killed in Gaza by the Israeli Defense Forces, in the aftermath of October 7, 2023 brutal attack by Hamas, passed the dark milestone of 40, 000  including death of at least 16,456 children . “ Most of the dead are women and children. This unimaginable situation is overwhelmingly due to recurring failures by the Israeli Defense Forces to comply with the rules of war”, the UN High Commissioner said. There are also reports ( August 14, 2024 ) by the humanitarians about rise in children killed and injured in the West Bank. The gravity of the humanitarian crisis can be seen from the UNSG’s May 14, 2024  report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts  wherein he observed that in many conflicts — including issues on the Council’s agenda such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Somalia, Syria, and Ukraine — “compliance with international humanitarian law and human rights law is often lacking…and the demands of the Council’s protection of civilians resolutions of the past 25 years have gone largely unheeded”. In fact, during 2023, “hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed or suffered appalling injuries as victims of deliberate or indiscriminate attacks, as well as purportedly lawful attacks under international humanitarian law.” The UN recorded, in 2023, more than 33,443 civilian deaths in armed conflict, representing a 72% increase over 2022. In a 2024 Policy Brief , the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) reviewed the UN Security Council’s consideration of its protection of civilians’ agenda during the years 2019-2023. It notes that the UNSC has consistently integrated protection language into country-specific resolutions, including in the mandates of peace keeping operations, most of which are called upon “to investigate, monitor, analyse and report on IHL and IHRL [international human rights law] violations and abuses”. It adds that the most common protection of civilians-related listing criteria for Security Council-authorized sanctions “relate to violations of IHL and IHRL abuses.” Notwithstanding a series of UNSC resolutions, including enforcement measures taken under Chapter VII (Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression) of the UN Charter, many remain unheeded year after year by the warring parties. The UNSC is unable or unwilling to press for strict compliance with own resolutions since in several cases, the Council members, both permanent and elected, are either directly involved or have strategic interests in respective conflicts that remain on the ‘seized’ items agenda. Thus, the UNSC remains a silent spectator with its leverage remaining ineffective in decades long conflicts (e.g. Democratic Republic of Congo) that inflict colossal loss of civilians and devastation in violation of the IHL. The simmering conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Syria are some current examples of this tragic syndrome. Even after series of confabulations (closed door and open), the divided UNSC has been unable to protect civilians and uphold sanctity of the IHL in war-torn Gaza Strip since October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attacks killed 1200 people in Israel and subsequent unprecedented response unleashed by the IDS that have killed 40, 000 Palestinians. On July 19, 2024 , buttressing the overall gravity of the humanitarian situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave its Advisory Opinion (as requested by the UN General Assembly vide   resolution 77/247 of December 30, 2022 ) on: “ Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. ” It invoked application of International Humanitarian Law including the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War  ( August 12, 1949 ) to the OPT including East Jerusalem.  Declaring the State of Israel’s continued presence in the OPT as unlawful, the ICJ has upheld sanctity of the IHL and IHRL under such egregious violations of the International Law on Belligerent Occupation. This author’s separate SIS Blog article on July 29, 2024  provides a detailed evaluation of the said ICJ Advisory Opinion on the OPT.  In ancient times, especially in the Indian civilization, we find concrete examples in Ramayana and Mahabharata  about rules concerning entire conduct of warfare for the parties at war as well as requirements for adherence to humanitarian aspects. In the modern times, the codified form of the IHL seeks to humanize warfare – by trying to limit the effects of an armed conflict. The process for crystallization of basic contours of humanitarian law began in 1864 when 12 nations signed the first Geneva Convention. It was followed by the 1907 Hague Conventions. They agreed to guarantee neutrality to medical personnel, to expedite supplies for their use, and to adopt a special identifying emblem. It is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict designed to regulate the excesses of armed conflict. The primary focus has been on limiting the means and methods of warfare as well as limiting the sufferings caused by war. As a corollary, the IHL seeks to protect those that have not, or are no longer, taking a direct part in hostilities; civilians; wounded who give up fighting - prisoners or detainees. Thus, IHL is that portion of international law, which is inspired by a feeling for humanity - it is centered on the protection of the individual in times of war.   It has two components - one legal and the other moral. The core principles of IHL comprise: (1) distinction between civilians and combatants; (2) prohibition of attacks against hors de combat;  (3) prohibition on the infliction of unnecessary suffering; (4) principle of proportionality; (5) principle of Necessity; (6) principle of humanity. The 1949 Geneva Conventions have placed the IHL on a concrete footing. Along with the three additional protocols, they comprise an imposing legal corpus of about 576 Articles protecting the person in armed conflict. There are several other international legal instruments that form part of the mosaic of the IHL: the Four Geneva Conventions (1949); The Additional Protocols I and II relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts (1977); Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (1954), plus its two protocols; Biological Weapons Convention (1972); Conventional Weapons Convention (1980) and its five protocols; Chemical Weapons Convention (1993); Ottawa Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines (1997); Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (2000); Additional Protocol III to the Geneva Conventions Relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (2005); the Weapons Conventions 2005 (chemical weapons, landmines, cluster munitions). Due to consistent practice, over a long period of time, by a large number of states, bulk of the IHL is regarded as a part of Customary International Law.       Respecting the Humanitarians   The World Humanitarian Day (WHD)  is commemorated after the Canal Hotel b omb attack in Baghdad (August 19, 2003) that killed 22 humanitarian aid workers, including the UNSG’s Special Representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. After five years, the General Assembly adopted resolution 63/139 (December 11, 2008)  to strengthen the UN’s coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance. The resolution aimed at “increasing public awareness about humanitarian assistance activities worldwide…to honour all… who have lost their lives in the cause of duty”. The humanitarian aid workers face grave risks in the troubled zones and natural calamities. In 2021 alone, 460 aid workers were attacked: 140 killed, 203 wounded and 117 kidnapped . It shows the graphic reality of the world we live in; growing lawlessness in failed states arising from reigns of terror unleashed by warlords and despotic regimes. Such ‘inhuman’ beings traumatize their own people and others. Can the world remain a silent spectator to watch catastrophe and human misery? It came out vividly on August 15, 2021, when the desperate Afghans stampeded Kabul airport to get out when the notorious Taliban defiantly captured power. It was reminiscent of the marauding hordes running over a territory in medieval times. Thousands of aid workers face grave risks amid violence in countries such as South Sudan, Afghanistan, Syria, Ethiopia, the DR Congo and Yemen. In the first half of 2022, the Humanitarian Outcomes  had recorded attacks on 168 aid workers wherein 44 lost their lives. The 2024 Aid Worker Security Report  provides spine-chilling figures of the grave risks faced by the humanitarian staff who especially serve the needs of the civilians in the conflict zones. As of August 7, 2024 , an estimated 172 aid workers died (out of which 137 deaths took place in conflicts in Gaza, South Sudan and Sudan) whereas in 2023, more than 280 aid worked had been killed in 33 countries. Out of these, 163 aid workers died due to air strikes in Gaza alone in the first three months of start of war (October 7, 2023).  On August 19, 2022, the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres had invoked the age-old wisdom that it “takes a village to raise a child” in the context of the humanitarian needs. The metaphor of a village  by the worldly-wise UNSG “to support people living through a humanitarian crisis” sums up the very nature of the global humanitarian response to the rising tide of global conflicts and disasters that affect millions of people. In his May 2024 report Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict , the UNSG has underscored that: “in the years ahead, a commitment to respect international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, is urgently needed. Central to this, is redoubling of efforts to strengthen compliance by parties to conflict with international humanitarian and human rights law and ensure accountability for violations. States should ensure that “A Pact for the Future” is more than a reaffirmation of their commitment to full respect for the law in armed conflict and that commitments to strengthen protection and investigate violations are matched by practical and effective measures to these ends” ( Secretary-General Report, S/2024/385, May 14, 2024, paragraph 4 ). The humanitarians seek to recover, sustain and rebuild human lives in conflict zones and other emergencies. According to Global Humanitarian Overview 2024 , a record 300 million people around the world (in regions such as East and Southern Africa; West and Central Africa; Middle East and North Africa; Asia and the Pacific; Latin America and the Caribbean region) will need humanitarian assistance and protection due to conflicts, climate emergencies and other drivers. As a result, the UN and its partner humanitarian organizations have appealed for US$46.4 billion to assist 180.5 million people   across 72 countries.   “Never before have humanitarians been called to respond to this level of need…in ever more dangerous environments,” said Jens Laerke, the spokesperson of the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Strengthening the Humanitarian Architecture On August 15, 2024 , Lisa Doughten, the representative of OCHA, in her briefing on the situation in Yemen to the UN Security Council, drew attention to the grave risk faced by the humanitarians due to deterioration in the operational environment in Houthi-controlled areas. In fact, the Houthi  de facto  authorities closed the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sana'a, and subsequently forcibly entered the office compound and took control of the UN assets. Yet she observed that the “ prioritized humanitarian response plan for 2024 is only 27 per cent funded, forcing humanitarians to make difficult decisions about which vulnerable families and communities would receive support”.   Martin Griffiths, the UN Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs paid tributes to “all humanitarian workers who often work in dangerous conditions to help others in need” and “those who have lost their lives in the line of duty”. The beauty, majesty and raison d'être of the humanitarian support is drawn from ancient notion of neighbors helping neighbors . It comprises providing health care and education, food and water, shelter and protection and the hope to live. The UN has put into place an institutional framework that provides support in troubled countries. It comprises: OCHA , Refugee Agency , Children’s Agency , World Food Program , World Health Organization  and Inter-Agency Standing Committee . OCHA alone has 2,000 staff   working across 29 countries and 34 offices.  Cumulatively, they represent the best of human spirit and empathy-in-action. It transcends across rogue regimes, brutality of wars and inherent risks to the humanitarians. The audacity of faith remains unshaken, for instance, as the UN refuses to abandon the DRC mired in endless conflicts  even after its compound came under attack, three peacekeepers were killed and the MONUSCO   spokesperson  in Kinshasha was expelled. Apart from the UN system, the global humanitarian sentinel, ICRC has 20,000 staff presence amidst 100 conflicts raging in 60 countries where 100 non-state armed groups  play havoc. ICRC’s core policy of neutrality enables it to provide relief, succour and protection to the civilians facing brutal violence in conflicts. As the custodian of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols , ICRC has a strong operational legal basis to grapple with humanitarian needs. It can draw vital ‘red lines’ while negotiating to reign in the armed groups. The human streak for self-destruction – akin to the renegade Kaurava Prince Duryodhana going berserk in the epic Mahabharata – presents a big challenge, as narrated in conversation with this author by the ICRC President Peter Maurer on August 17, 2022 , at the online release of the author’s book: Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in International Law   (Singapore: Springer Nature ). Often the assurances to the humanitarians are belied when the armed groups ambush even a hospital in the middle of a night. It underscores gravity of the challenge in upholding protective shield provided by International Humanitarian Law. Not going to the level of the evil provides an eternal hope since, as Peter assured me, “such forces are not invincible”. He was pleased when I told him about similar prophecy by Mahatma Gandhi, way back in August 1947 (when he undertook fact-unto-death in Kolkata to stop the communal carnage after the partition of India) that “all the destructive forces in the end perish forever”. Hence, we need to have a reservoir of patience, perseverance and abiding faith in humanity to tame the beast of vengeance and ruthless killings in conflict zones even as contributing factors such as geopolitics, specific situations, cultural factors, old colonial interests, proxy wars and idiosyncrasies of the warring parties differ from conflict to conflict. The audacity of hope can best be seen in the steadfast response and engagements of the humanitarian aid workers that seek to humanize warfare by catering to human miseries amidst death and destruction at great peril to themselves.             Road Ahead: Taming the Beast It is in this backdrop, it appears high time to factor in humanitarian studies  as an integral part of the studies in International Law and International Relations. As a corollary , it would make great sense to inject ‘humanitarianism’ in the respective research trajectories of the University faculties and doctoral scholars to seed futuristic ideas that would provide a strong basis for a country such as India to be the Global Solution Provider  ( here , here , here , here , here , here ,  here , here ). The Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to speak, after a hiatus of three years, in the High-Level Segment of the 79th Session of the UNGA in New York on September 26, 2024 . It would once again provide him a unique opportunity, to unveil the Indian roadmap, among other issues, for taming the beast of conflicts that ravage the world. It could be India’s biggest contribution for securing  “a better future to the world, and a better world to the future”  ( Indian PM Modi's address to the Joint Session of the US Congress; June 22, 2023)  especially since “the decisions we make today are going to determine our future for decades to come”  ( President Biden @ the White House; June 22, 2023 ) . The forthcoming address of the Indian PM (September 26, 2024) at the 79th UNGA session could also be significant  to spell out the Indian vision for follow-up on the outcome – Pact for the Future  – of the Summit of the Future  (September 22-23, 2024). As a consensual document, the end product may not be bold, innovative and futuristic to save the planet Earth from the brink. Still, it could allow members “to reaffirm the importance of international humanitarian and human rights law, and offer ideas for how to mitigate the barbarous effects of war on civilians” ( Security Council Report , August 2024, page 3 ). The audacity of hope underneath this scholarly prognosis and prospects calls for  ‘ideational’ processes on the bedrock of cutting-edge ideas emanating from a University-based research hub, robust and empathetic solutions to humanize the world and a crop of outstanding persons to enable our troubled world to usher into more humane and peaceful planetary future. #UNSC #UNSG #ACTFORHUMANITY #UN This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. It is 10th article by the author in the Blog Special Series: Use of Weapons of War .   1)     27 January 2024:  Blog Special – IX: The Odious Scourge of Genocide and the Use of Weapons of War: Making International Law Work ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) ;    2)    13 April 2023 :  Blog Special – VIII: The Conflict Diamonds and the Weapons of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 3)    11 March 2023 : Blog Special – VII: Rape under Orders as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 4)    22 September 2022 :  Blog Special –VI: Use of Weapons of War and Violence Against Children: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )    5)    23 August 2022 : Blog Special   –V: Use of Weapons of War and the Role of Humanitarians: ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 6)    11 August 2022 :  Blog Special –IV: Use of Nuclear Weapons in War (Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day): A Challenge ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 7)    06 August 2022 :  Blog Special - III: Abused Ammunition as a Weapon of War in the DR Congo: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 8)    22 June 2022 :  Blog Special-II: Use of Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International  Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 9)    28 May 2022 :  Blog Special-I:   Use of Food as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )   Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) Chairperson and Professor of International Law at 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 futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24) , the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)  and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013)  as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief  of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) .

By Manoj Karki In recent years, the rise of conflicts worldwide—such as the military coups in Myanmar and various African countries, the Russia-Ukraine war, and the Israel-Gaza conflict—signals a disruption in the global order. A decade ago, Yuval Noah Harari, an Israeli historian, remarked in his book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind , “Never before has peace been so prevalent that people could not even imagine war.” Fast-forward ten years, and we are witnessing a cascade of conflicts. What has changed since then? The International Liberal Order The international liberal order is a global system characterized by principles, norms, and institutions that promote a liberal vision of international relations. This system emerged primarily after World War II, led by the United States and its allies, intending to create a more stable, prosperous, and peaceful world. Key features of the international liberal order include: Economic Openness : Promoting free trade and market economies. Rule of Law : Ensuring that international laws and norms govern state behavior. Human Rights and Democracy : Advocating for democratic governance and human rights. Collective Security : Maintaining peace through international alliances and organizations. Multilateralism : Encouraging cooperation among nations. Development and Aid : Supporting economic and social development worldwide. Overall, the international liberal order aims to create a world where countries interact peacefully, cooperate for mutual benefit, and uphold principles that support human dignity and development. As the strongest military and security power, the US played a key role in maintaining this order. Member states are committed to universal liberal values and cooperate in promoting human rights, free trade, and pacifying wars of conquest. Former US President Barack Obama once remarked, “Indeed, our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given, that great powers no longer fight world wars.” However, the international liberal order has faced increasing challenges in recent years, leading to global turmoil. The system is not as effective as it once was. Challenges to the Liberal Order Two main theories explain the recent disruptions: Polarity and Populism. Polarity The theory of polarity examines the distribution of power among great powers. In a multipolar world, three or more great powers vie for influence, which can lead to instability, as seen in historical conflicts like the Thirty Years' War and the two World Wars. A bipolar world, with two dominant powers, is considered more stable theoretically but has experienced numerous proxy wars, such as in Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan during the Cold War. After the Cold War, the world experienced a unipolar moment led by the US. However, this unipolarity is under threat due to the resurgence of Russia and the rise of China ( Lake, 2020).  The liberal international order, which spread after World War II and expanded post-Cold War, now faces a crisis due to the erosion of US dominance and the rise of new powers ( Ikenberry, 2018 ). Populism Populism has been another major challenge to the liberal order. Prof. John Mearsheimer, an American political scientist and international relations scholar, argues that the US-led international liberal order was doomed to fail due to three fatal flaws ( Mearsheimer, 2019 ): Intervening in Politics : Transforming countries into liberal democracies is extremely difficult. Nationalism often leads to significant resistance within targeted countries. States fearing regime change or US interference band together to thwart the US's liberal agenda. Examples include Syria and Iran aiding the Iraqi insurgency, and Russia and China supporting each other economically and militarily. Sovereignty and National Identity : The liberal international order creates political problems regarding sovereignty and national identity, especially when regime change efforts fail, it leads to large-scale refugee flows, as seen in Afghanistan. Economic Costs : Hyper-globalization has resulted in significant economic costs for many people within liberal democracies, including job losses, declining wages, and income inequality. These domestic political consequences undermine the liberal international order. Additionally, the rise of China and Russia's revival has challenged unipolarity, an essential condition for maintaining a liberal international order. Alternatives and the Future As the USA’s uncontested unipolar status wanes, the world seems to be moving towards a more unstable multipolar reality. Many thinkers believe we are already living in a less stable multipolar world. Factors like the influence of EU trade, China’s ambition to become a superpower, India's population potential, climate change, and migration are now significant poles of power. The rise of autocratic regimes challenges the established liberal order, and international alliances are less cohesive ( Khan et al., 2021 ). Some argue that Trump-led populism shifted the US's focus from global engagement to an inward-looking approach. The Russia-Ukraine war has distracted the US from preventing other conflicts. Increasing violence from states such as Azerbaijan and parts of Africa suggests a declining fear of US intervention, indicating a fragmentation of the global international order (Patman, 2019). Conclusion The indices of globalization, free trade, and democratization are stagnating. The international liberal order seems less liberal and less orderly. Global cooperation is crucial for addressing 21st-century challenges like the threat of a third World War, climate change, and ecological collapse. Urgent global cooperation is needed to ensure humanity's survival. This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Manoj Karki is pursuing his post-graduation in Politics (specialization in International Relations) at the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi, India.

By Shreya Nautiyal The Indo Pacific region stands at the crossroads of strategic rivalries, geopolitical tensions, economic dynamism and maritime conflicts - making security a paramount concern. The expanse stretches from the vast Indian Ocean to the Western Pacific Ocean, encompassing diverse nations with varied interests and power structures. Hence, preserving peace and stability in this area is fraught with difficulties. At the heart of the security issues in the region lies the maritime conflicts and territorial disputes in the South China Sea due to overlapping claims made by China, Taiwan, Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Brunei. China’s sweeping claims of sovereignty over the sea—and the sea’s estimated 11 billion barrels of untapped oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas—have antagonised competing claimants Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam . It is feared that these instances of maritime disputes might escalate to armed confrontation, which would endanger the freedom of navigation, crucial for international commerce. As per a report by Centre for Strategic and International Studies,‘80% of global trade by volume and 70% by value is transported by the sea route, with around 60% of it passing through Asia and one third of global shipping moving through the South China Sea’, thereby making the maritime zone a hotspot of emerging conflicts in the Indo Pacific Region. Moreover, the South China Sea also serves as an extensive fishing ground for the neighbouring countries offering essential sustenance and food security for the inhabitants of the region. China’s assertive claims especially with regard to the self proclaimed ‘nine-dash line’ overlaps with the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the region which leads to the never ending territorial and maritime disputes as well as tensions in the region. In particular, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) disregards the Nine-Dash Line - a focal point of contention. Competing territorial claims give rise to dilemma where China claims the greatest area of the sea based on historical records, while other nations make their own claims based on historical presence and international law. The militarisation of the disputed areas, instances of maritime harassment of the island nations, and the engagement of other countries like the United States—which defends freedom of navigation and opposes any attempts to change the status quo through coercion or force—all contribute to the complexity of this convoluted situation.   Concerted attempts to settle the disputes   Numerous attempts to ensure that stability in the maritime region is maintained have been through diplomacy, legal suits and diplomatic conferences . China prefers bilateral negotiations with the other parties. But many of its neighbours argue that China's relative size and clout give it an unfair advantage . Nevertheless, the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) countries together with China have had copious dialogues in an attempt to establish a code of conduct that can reduce chances of any conflict in the near future. The legal dispute over territorial sovereignty reached its peak with the Philippine – China confrontation that brought China before the Permanent Court of Arbitration  (PCA) in 2016. PCA decided in favour of Philippine and dismissed Chinese claims based on the ‘nine-dash line’. However, China refused the verdict stating that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the said tribunal and was not a party to it. This has further exacerbated the issue. However, the United States and the European Union, among other actors have advocated for freedom of navigation and adherence to principles of international law, thus strengthening the diplomatic pressures towards seeking a peaceful settlement. Despite that, these efforts have not yet yielded the desired results in the pursuit of a sustainable solution to the conflict as it entails factors such as overlapping claims by the stakeholders, strategic interests and sovereignty of nation states among others factors.   Path ahead   In order to manage and solve these geopolitical and strategic issues in the south china sea the following measures need to be taken by the international community. To start with, political actions coupled with compliance with the international law must be the top-notch priorities for all the neighbouring countries to steer through this volatile maritime region by providing a roadmap, especially in regards with the international protocols especially the UNCLOS. Secondly, code of conduct with comprehensive guidelines and legal force could contribute to conflicts’ resolution and stimulate the initiatives, creating more trust, if the problem of dispute resolution and compliance check is taken care of. Moreover, in order to prevent further escalation in the future and ensure stability and development of the South China Sea region, it is important to encourage dialogue, build trust, and participate in confidence and cooperation building measures at both bilateral and multilateral levels. Thirdly, we may consider the concept of territorial national parks in the South China Sea, the creation of protected zones or Maritime Peace Parks, where they may be designated for purposes that are neutral, such as research, conservation and occasional ecotourism as may be required. Finally, we cannot overlook the conservation measures put in place to maintain the marine ecosystem, such as measures to curb illicit fishing, pollution, and ensure conservation of the biodiversity. Hence, it becomes imperative for the parties involved to remain committed to the process of diplomacy and refrain from the use of force in an effort to restore order in this region of significant importance for global strategizing. This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.   Shreya Nautiyal is a student of M.A. IRAS (2022-24). Her core areas of interest includes Europe and Eurasia, Arctic and the Indo-Pacific with themes encompassing Security, Society and Transnational Terrorism.

By Shreya Nautiyal The planet is blistering. The Arctic is sweating. Glaciers and icebergs in the Arctic make up about 20 percent of Earth’s supply of freshwater resources. However, most of these glaciers are retreating today. The year 2023, found itself at the fiery crest of a climate wave, with scorching temperatures unmatched for 125,000 years. The Arctic is a canary in the coal mine. There is no doubt that the Arctic is considered as the ‘ground zero’ for climate change. It is the fastest warming region on the planet. There are dozens of instances indicating the potential of this region to start the breakdown of the world, like the recent case of Alaskan rivers turning bright orange as a result of melting permafrost which has released high levels of toxic metals into waterways. Despite having a comprehensive treaty for the polar south - The Antarctic Treaty System (ATS)  since 1961, the polar north lacks a mosaic of efforts by the world community. However, the analogy of Antarctic does not fit well with Arctic. The basis of governance of the two extreme poles is completely different with Antarctic being subjected to international claims and having no native population. Nevertheless, the relative success of ATS at maintaining a demilitarised and an undisturbed ecosystem is a testament to the potential of international governance. Towards a Unified Arctic Strategy   The Arctic Council was formed in 1996 through the ‘ Ottawa Declaration ’ with its eight surrounding coastal territories comprising of the states of Canada, United States of America, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia along with their autonomous territories. Yet the region is still regarded as a “ No Man’s Land ”. All member states of the council have comprehensive Arctic strategies since 2011 but there’s no one comprehensive Arctic treaty addressing all the issues of the Arctic.   The Arctic is warming at approximately twice the global average rate - a phenomenon known as ‘ Arctic amplification ’. The top of the world is no longer white, but blue due to the retreating ice. This melting ice is making way for cold currents, changing ecosystems, disrupting marine life and wildlife such as seals, walruses, polar bears and reindeers, climate patterns and even the rise in sea level. In addition, the thawing of permafrost will gradually contribute enormous quantities of greenhouse gases, for instance, carbon dioxide and methane, to the atmosphere; further accelerating  global warming. The indigenous communities are at the forefront of bearing the brunt of the Arctic meltdown. Their traditional lifestyles, economies as well as culture is under threat. There are more than forty indigenous peoples in the Arctic representing about 10 percent of the Arctic’s total population . Yet they are losing their control over the land and its resources. They are getting displaced, facing food insecurity as well as cultural disintegration. Moreover, the Arctic has become a hotbed for geopolitical issues. This region holds vast reserves of untapped natural resources including oil, gas and critical minerals. Retreating sea ice makes access to these resources easy and with this pace it will make it easier in the coming decades. Nations thus seek to secure energy resources to reduce dependence on volatile regions. Enhanced military capabilities in the region raise the risk of conflicts and necessitate robust defense strategies especially with the shifting global power dynamics in the region and an increasing interest of Beijing. Arctic security dialogue remains volatile, in a state of limbo and in danger of being sidelined by the NATO-RUSSIA relations in Europe in general, especially with the Russia-Ukraine war unfolding in its front yard.   As an Arena of Symbolic Politics   Over the recent decades, Arctic has emerged as an arena for symbolic politics where actions and rhetoric serve to convey the messages of identity, power and legitimacy. Post 2014, Arctic transitioned from becoming a ‘ priority to a responsibility ’ on account of the Russian annexation of Crimea, falling oil prices which diverted interests again towards the conventional players and more importantly the rising climate consciousness among the global citizenry. Its symbolic value lies in serving as an environmental icon often seen at the frontline of climate change, symbolising the broader environmental challenges facing the planet. As a consequence of melting ice, the Arctic serves a vast expanse of untapped resources and paves way for new maritime routes especially for Russia. Moreover, the presence of indigenous communities in the region underscores a rich cultural heritage showcasing human resilience and adaptation. The region boasts of an extensive military networks with annual military exercises, such as Operation Nanook of Canada. Even outlying states like China designates itself as a ‘near-Arctic State’  and its investment in Arctic cold climate infrastructure and a growing interest and stake in Arctic affairs projects China’s strategic interest in the region. However, these symbolic actions in recent years are giving way to geopolitical tensions by emphasising territorial claims, as well as national interests, leading to military buildup and territorial disputes.   Guiding Principles for Arctic Governance   The lack of binding agreements lead to inconsistent implementation of policies. Multiple stakeholders with divergent interests create a fragmented policy landscape, hindering cohesive action. A comprehensive Arctic treaty should be guided by principles encompassing diverse subjects including environmental conservation, building economic resilience and maintaining geopolitical stability in the region. First, the Treaty must prioritise a ‘ Just Transition ’ from a neo-colonial and extractive system based on the exploitation of the most vulnerable to a reciprocal and respectful relationship with the land and an adherence to the human rights including the rights against climate change fostering sustainable livelihoods and a life of dignity for the indigenous population. For example Canadian government’s partnership with the Inuit communities on the governance of the Arctic region. Second, International cooperation is essential to manage shared resources and address global challenges. For example the Nordic Council has its own Arctic program and its pivot to Arctic in recent years especially Norway’s High North policy  ‘Nordomradepolitikken ’ could be fundamental in addressing the Arctic issues through a comprehensive treaty. Third, addressing ‘climate emergency’ in the Arctic which requires urgent and concerted action and global and regional levels which kicks in a sense of urgency to restore the Arctic ecosystem and cooperation on Arctic governance and climate resilience. Fourth, upholding the principles of international law , including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , to address the territorial disputes and govern maritime boundaries. This can be particularly helpful in arbitration processes as seen in the settlement of the maritime dispute between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea. Lastly, the treaty must ensure to address the concrete issues which individual state policies, otherwise, would tend to overlook, like oil spills and ‘search and rescue’ initiatives in the region. These challenges would cater to keeping the Arctic Relevance  alive in the coming times.   As of now, the major stakeholders of the Arctic region need to look at the bigger picture of formulating a comprehensive Arctic treaty, otherwise fragmented arctic policies would never lead to demilitarisation and a common governance for the Arctic region. Additionally, closer Nordic cooperation on the Arctic can be a major boost for it to be a leading Arctic player and having a greater influence on the region. This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.   Shreya Nautiyal is a student of M.A. IRAS (2022-24). Her core areas of interest includes Europe and Eurasia, Arctic and the Indo-Pacific with themes encompassing Security, Society and Transnational Terrorism.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H Desai On July 19, 2024 , the International Court of Justice (ICJ) finally delivered its historic advisory opinion  on “ Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem ”. As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ was requested by the UN’s plenary organ, the General Assembly ( vide   resolution 77/247 of December 30, 2022  (adopted by 87-26-53 votes), to render a legal opinion on the Occupied Palestinian Territory  (OPT). The 17-page omnibus resolution had designated Israel as “occupying power” and expressed grave concern about the “continuing systematic violation of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel”. It invoked application of International Humanitarian Law including the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Time of War  ( August 12, 1949 ) to the OPT including East Jerusalem. In its 74 page (285 paragraph) advisory opinion, the ICJ unanimously decided that “it has jurisdiction” to give the legal opinion sought by the UNGA. In its considered advisory opinion, the Court upheld the majesty of International Law by unanimously affirming the cardinal principle of the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force”. In many respects the opinion of the Court is unprecedented. Moreover, this advisory opinion effectively builds upon the previous advisory opinion given by the Court, exactly 20 years ago (July 9, 2004): entitled: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory  . Out of the 15 judges of the Court, 14 judges (including President Salam) appended their separate opinions, individual or joint declarations. Only dissenting opinion has been given by Vice-President Sebutinde. Notably, the only judge who chose not to express any separate opinion or append a declaration (to explain reasons for his vote) is Judge Dalveer Bhandari. In every such ICJ advisory opinion with ramifications in the field of International Law, sitting judges do make it a point to be part of the history by expressing their considered legal views that could not be reflected in the main consensual advisory opinion. Possibly, as it is widely surmised, lack of sound background in International Law (as a former judge in India) deterred Judge Bhandari from expressing his separate views on the subject. It seems, Judge Bhandari has rarely explained reasons for his vote in favor or against the ICJ majority judgements in contentious and advisory opinion proceedings during 12 long years (2012-2024) on the ICJ bench (with 3 more years to go).  Invoking Legal Technique of ICJ Advisory Opinions The UN Charter  has explicitly conferred competence (Article 96) on the UNGA to “ request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question” . In turn, the Court has competence under Article 65 of its own Statute  to render an advisory opinion. In making the request for an advisory opinion on the OPT, the UNGA as a plenary organ, with 193-member states had spread a very wide canvass for the UN’s principal judicial organ to examine the legal issues on the basis of the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council as well as the ICJ Advisory Opinion of July 9, 2004  in the Wall case. Over the years, the Palestine question has witnessed many ups and downs including direct negotiations between the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority (initially headed by late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat and now President Mahmoud Abbas). Many interlocutors played roles for its resolution starting with the UN Mediator in Palestine ( vide  UNGA resolution resolution 186 of 14 May 1948 )  Count Folke Bernadotte who was assassinated on September 17, 1948 by the Jewish militia Stern Gang of the time . It led to the celebrated (April 11, 1949) ICJ Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations  ( Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations | International Court of Justice ( icj-cij.org ) . In providing legal opinions as well as through interpretation and elaboration of complex questions of the time, the ICJ has made enormous contribution. Article 65 (ICJ Statute)  empowers the Court to “give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request”. As a corollary, such legal questions need to be “laid before the Court by means of a written request containing an exact statement of the question upon which an opinion is required”. Upon receipt of the request the Court calls upon the UN member states and others to provide written and oral statements on the issue at stake. Neither the ICJ is bound to give an opinion nor the requesting organ is under any obligation to adhere to the Court’s legal opinion. Notwithstanding this, the ICJ has, as the practice show, always provided an opinion sought by the UNGA and, in turn, it has accepted in letter and spirit the opinions rendered by the ICJ.    The UNGA Requests: Two Legal Questions The UNGA resolution came in the wake of the Human Rights Council resolution S - 30/1 of May 27, 2021 (24 in favor, 9 against, 14 abstention) as well as report of the GA mandated ( resolution 76/80 of December 9, 2021 ) Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Palestinian People . The Special Committee has given six reports during 2018-2023  including the latest on November 03, 2023  (A/78/553). The UNGA reiterated that all measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity. It has demanded that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949  and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention. The UNGA resolution ( 77/247 of December 30, 2022 ) comprised two well-calibrated concrete legal questions that encapsulate the entire history of the vexed Palestinian question. It shows drafting dexterity, expectation from the Court and the indication of future trajectory for resolution of the issue: (a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures? (b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status? The UNGA request  (transmitted to the ICJ on January 17, 2023) for an ICJ advisory opinion reflected an audacity of hope for the OPT. Palestine remains the oldest problem inherited by the United Nations (UN) from its predecessor the League of Nations. In a divided world, it vividly reflects the relevance of the UN as well as underscores the relevance and working of International Law for resolution of long-standing intricate global problems. In a communication of January 17, 2023 to the ICJ President Joan E. Donoghue, the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres transmitted the General Assembly resolution 77/247 of December 30, 2022 . The resolution has explicitly recalled the previous UNGA requested ICJ advisory opinion (July 9, 2004) entitled: Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory . The connoisseurs of International Law have marveled at the sheer engineering skills marshalled by the ICJ (largely due to election of outstanding International Law scholars with wider horizons as judges) in the development of International Law. In addressing the requests for advisory opinions, ICJ has sought to dabble into some of the most contentious issues jettisoning the issues of legal and political content of the questions presented to it. For instance, the ICJ advisory opinion (July 08, 1996) of Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons  witnessed the Court vertically split ( paragraph 105 (2) E ; seven votes to seven; adopted by the President’s casting vote). In doing so, the ICJ took the proverbial “ cannot conclude definitively” ( do not know; नरो व कुन्ज्रोव) approach and observed: “ in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.” However, in his concerted view on the Advisory Opinion, this author stated at the time that the ICJ brought in “an extraneous factor into the picture and creates doubts about the existence of law on a question, which was not even asked by the General Assembly. Here, the Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. At best it can only be regarded as obiter dictum and not a finding of non liquet ” (Bharat H. Desai, “Non Liquet and the ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Force: Some Reflections”, Indian Journal of International Law  37 (2) 1997, p. 217). The ICJ Opinion on the OPT   Even though the Court was not explicitly asked by the UNGA to pronounce upon the quest for ‘statehood’ by Palestine, it chose to throw its weight behind it and observed: “ realization of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including its right to an independent and sovereign State living side by side in peace with the State of Israel within secure and recognized borders for both States, as envisaged in resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly.” ( paragraph 283 ). In doing so, the Court endorsed the political formulation normally propounded by the UNGA. Having delivered its two Advisory Opinions ( 2004 ; 2024 ), the Court seems to be inclined to suggesting a way out and “precise modalities to bring to an end Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory is a matter to be dealt with by the General Assembly” ( paragraph 281 ). Some of the key elements of the ICJ’s concerted opinion can be culled out as follows: a)   the State of Israel’s continued presence in the OPT is unlawful; b)  the State of Israel is under an obligation to end its unlawful presence in the OPT as rapidly as possible; c)   the State of Israel is under an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities, and to evacuate all settlers from the OPT; d)  the State of Israel has the obligation to make reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the OPT; e)   all States are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the State of Israel in the OPT; f)    international organizations, including the United Nations, are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT; g)   the United Nations, and especially the General Assembly, which requested the opinion, and the Security Council, should consider the precise modalities and further action required to end as rapidly as possible the unlawful presence of the State of Israel in the OPT.   Cumulatively, the significance of the OPT advisory opinion ( July 19, 2024 ) lies in drawing the legal contours of the International Law on Belligerent Occupation. The crux of the law lies in rejecting any territorial claims resulting from conflict driven occupations. Most cases of such occupations by force remain for long periods. Therefore, a State having legitimate claims of sovereignty over a territory that comes to be forcibly occupied by another State cannot be deprived of its territory. Irrespective of the length of such ‘belligerent’ occupation, it does not confer title to the territory to the occupying power. Such occupying power cannot seize land and other immovable property, cultural property and assets including archives and documents or make any demographic changes and forcibly transfer civilian population. The work and reports of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories (set up vide  UNGA resolution 76/80 of December 9, 2021 ) became crucial reference point in affixing responsibility of Israel as an occupying power in the OPT.  This has been construed as an “internationally wrongful act” ( ILC Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts ; adopted vide  UNGA resolution 56/83 of December 12, 2001 ). It has been of a continuous character adding to the gravity of violations of International Law. It enjoins upon Israel “ to comply with its obligation to respect the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and its obligations under international humanitarian law and international human rights law” ( ICJ Wall Opinion 2004; paragraph 149 ).  This forms central feature of the OPT and obligations of Israel as an occupying power.   The significance of the International Law on Belligerent Occupation lies in its application to many such territories that still remain in control of the occupying powers. The Court has also drawn upon view of the Security Council and the state practice reflected in its resolutions ( 465 of March 1, 1980 ; 2334 of December 23, 2016 ) that “ it will not recognize any changes to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.”  In view of this emphatic legal position, the Court has spelled out the obligation of the UN Member States “not to recognize any changes in the physical character or demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the territory occupied by Israel on 5 June 1967, including East Jerusalem” ( paragraph 278 ). Similarly, the “duty of non-recognition” also applies to international organizations, including the United Nations, in view of the serious breaches of obligations erga omnes under international law” ( paragraph 280 ). After adjudging illegality of continued presence of Israel in the OPT, the ICJ has dwelled upon an elaborate menu of “legal consequences” for Israel, other states and the United Nations ( Part VII; paragraphs 265-283 ) arising from Israel’s policies and practices and from the illegality of Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory.     As a principal organ of the UN, the Court has made a historic contribution in defining contours of illegality of the policies and practices of Israel as an occupying power in the “ entirety of the Palestinian territory occupied by Israel in 1967”. The Court's legal opinion provides clarity as regards legal status of the entity of Palestine (recognized as a non-member observer state in the UN) that would strengthen its arms in any future negotiated settlement. It also provides concrete basis to judge legality and return of the occupied territories to the legitimate sovereign states in many other cases of ‘belligerent occupations’ around the world.    Calibrating the Indian Position   India abstained in the UNGA resolution ( 77/247 of December 30, 2022 ) and chose not to make any written statement in the OPT advisory opinion proceedings. India earlier provided a written statement ( June 20, 1995 ) for the advisory opinion (July 8, 1996) on Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons .  Similarly, India has recently filed a written statement (March 28, 2024) in the pending UNGA request for an advisory opinion  proceedings on Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change . India has stakes in legal calibration of ‘belligerent occupation’ as a follow up to the ICJ advisory opinion on the OPT  (July 19, 2024) since India has consistently laid legal claims to the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK). As underscored by this author ( EPW (vol. 52, no.5, February 4, 2017) , the legal basis for this Indian claim is premised upon the “title to the entire territory of erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, as reflected in the exercise of sovereign will of the Maharaja (Hari Singh)” who signed the Instrument of Accession to join India on October 26, 1947.   In the wake of the ICJ advisory opinion on OPT ( July 19, 2024 ), spelling out the International Law on Belligerent Occupation, now India needs to chisel her tools to strongly reassert and formally present legal claims for return of the entire territory POK from the occupying state, Pakistan. The Indian Home Minister Amit Shah has already spoken ( May 15, 2024 ) about taking “proactive steps” at the right time for “taking back” the POK.  Hence, the ICJ advisory opinion on the OPT  provides an authoritative legal clarification that duly supports the said Indian position, enunciated by the Union Home Minister, for finally taking back the POK. #UNSG   #UNSC   #UNGA   #PMOIndia   #MEA   #JNU_official_50   This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) 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 (2023-24) , 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. Sameena Hameed As the sense of urgency is gripping the world in the face of climate change and environmental degradation, it’s time for India to showcase its leadership in saving our planet. When the comity of nations was grappling to address the issue through the first UN Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972, a group of rural women from India, unaware of the global initiative had launched one of the biggest environment movements in Indian history. The Chipko movement, by clinging to the trees, was a successful attempt to save the forest lands in the state of Uttarakhand (then Uttar Pradesh) from industrial giants. Further on, India’s then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in the conference gave the echoing formulation “Poverty is the worst source of pollution” thereby incorporating the perspective of developing countries in the discourse.   In the 21st Century, India under Prime Minister Narendra Modi made seminal contribution to the discourse and efforts towards combating climate change and saving the environment. In the negotiations, during United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC) (also called COP21) in Paris, India along with countries like China and US prevented a legally binding targets in favour of voluntary commitments through Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC). India’s philosophy and practises have generated a compelling ideation for global community to emulate and collaborate. India’s has enhanced its INDC voluntary targets and as per the August 2022 pledge, it aims to reduce its emissions intensity of its GDP by 45 percent by 2030, from levels in 2005, and of achieving 50 percent cumulative electric installed capacity from renewable energy resources by 2030. Prime Minister Narendra Modi also took the lead in establishing an International Solar Alliance (ISA) during COP21 and the secretariat is based in Gurugram in India.   Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a call for climate justice that urges all nations to collaborate to address climate change, that has devastating impact on the lives and livelihood of vast multitude of humanity especially in the Global South. Extreme weather conditions, increased frequency of droughts, floods, hurricanes etc have exacerbated the likelihood of poverty, multiple deprivations and precarious migration. Modi’s book on Convenient Action: Continuity for Change was jointly released by French President Francois Hollande (along with PM Modi) on the sideline of COP21. Giving examples of restoration of ponds and water bodies as ‘water temples’, his book illustrates how people can be motivated to save environment through cultural persuasions. During COP26 in 2021, PM Modi launched mission LiFE i.e lifestyle for environment, as global mass movement that seeks to generate a cumulative effect of pro-environment changes in individual lifestyles at global level. India’s recent Supreme Court judgement underscores the imperative to address climate change as matter of individual’s right to life and equality.   India’s corporates sector is increasingly pledging action for climate change and several start-ups  are making business case in climate-smart practices. The US$21 billion Mahindra Group have invested extensively in businesses that supports environment like renewable energy, electric vehicles, logistics, green buildings and hospitality sector. The private sector had invested heavily in India's Clean Development Mechanism projects. Climate start-ups are making seminal contribution in agriculture, transport and energy and supported by government’s Start-up India scheme. Through these endeavours and public-private partnerships, India made a quantum leap from 31st position in Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI) to 7th in 2023, and remained among top performers in the last five years.   India has pitted its foreign policy on establishing development partnerships specially with developing countries around the world.  Thorough investments, aid and training, India has been contributing to development of countries in the Global South. India can consider mainstreaming projects under Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM) under the Paris Agreement to facilitate countries in achieving their INDCs.  Globally, India ranks fourth in installed renewable energy capacity (including large hydro), in wind power capacity and in solar power capacity (as per REN21 Renewables 2022 Global Status Report). Few stellar Indian companies like L&T, Tata Solar have international presence in renewable energy projects. The first Renewable Energy Global Investment Meet and Expo (RE-INVEST) was organised in February 2015 to provide a platform for the global investors to engage with enterprises in India. In January 2022, India signed an agreement with International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) based in Abu Dhabi to strengthen collaboration in field of renewable energy. India aims to become a major producer of green hydrogen to decarbonise its industrial sector. Besides, a wide spectrum of start-ups and small and medium enterprises are emerging as social enterprises that are making business case in the Indian ethos of ‘reduce, reuse and recycle.’    Social enterprises are emerging in providing innovative solutions to address climate crisis and adaptation in India and around the world. Supporting social innovators with finance through public-private partnership would be the self-reliant way of adapting to climate change in the developing world. The developing countries suffers more from adversities of climate change and need larger adaptation mechanism, which faces challenges of technology and finance. India needs to invigorate its climate diplomacy that pivots on its corporates and social enterprises in building climate resilience. India’s climate diplomacy would be elevated by SDM projects ‘delivered by India’, climate-smart B2B networking, and promoting social enterprises and climate finance. #India #ClimateDiplomacy #UN This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. Sameena Hameed is the Chairperson, Centre for West Asian Studies, SIS, JNU.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On June 17, 2024 - the World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought  – the Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres, the UN’s proverbial conscience-keeper, issued a stern warning to all the 193-member states that almost 40% of planet’s land is degraded land . “ The security, prosperity and health of billions of people rely on thriving lands supporting lives, livelihoods and ecosystems, but we're vandalising the Earth that sustains us,” the UNSG said. In fact, Guterres concern emanates from the humankind’s profound insensitivity since he felt ( World Environment Day; June 05, 2024 ) that “Our planet is trying to tell us something.  But we don't seem to be listening”.  The UNSG’s words were echoed ( June 20, 2024 )  by CEO and Chairperson of the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Carlos Manuel Rodríguez at the 67th Council meeting (Washington DC; June 17-20, 2024) , as he  observed: “We are at a moment of truth for the planet. We need to rise to the challenge by assessing what we have, where we need to go, and how we will get there.”    During 2024, several global confabulations are lined up. They comprise Bonn climate talks ( June 3-13, 2024 ), the industrialized countries 50th G7 periodic parleys in Apulia (Italy) ( June 13-15, 2024 ), G20 Summit in Rio de Janeiro (November 18-19, 2024), the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly ( September 10, 2024 ), and UNFCCC Baku COP29 ( November 11-22, 2024 ). Even if greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions hit zero tomorrow, a recent study found that climate chaos will still cost at least $38 trillion a year by 2050. This staggering cost only underscores the gravity and implications of climate change as one of the triple planetary levels.  The Human Predicament   The current warning bells concerning planetary level crisis and quest of conscientious thought leaders and decision-makers to find solutions underscores proverbial dilemma of the humankind on living in harmony with nature (GA resolution 75/220 of December 21, 2020). It vividly reminds us about the alarm bells rung in the decades of sixties and seventies through scholarly works such as Silent Spring (Rachel Carson, 1962), The Limits to Growth  (Club of Rome, 1972), This Endangered Planet   (Richard Falk, 1972) and Only One Earth (Barbara Ward & Rene Dubos, 1972). They in fact set the stage for the epochal first UN Conference on Human Environment  (Stockholm, 1972). This author recalls his my early publication, as a doctoral scholar, on “Destroying the Global Environment” ( International Perspectives , Ottawa, Nov./Dec. 1986), that sought to underscore the “human quest for development seriously threatens our fragile ecosystem”. The resultant global environmental regulatory process has come a long way. In fact, full 50 years later, two curated scholarly works of this author in 2022 ( Envisioning Our Environmental Future ) and 2021 ( Our Earth Matters ) reflected the spirit of those early works by reminding the decision-makers as regards rapidly “ depleting time " for a decisive course correction. The existential crisis has emanated from human frailty and inability to know The Limits to Growth , as propounded by the 1972 Club of Rome report  and the finitude of resources on our only abode – the Earth. There appears human civilizational inability to overcome the greed (against need). It constitutes the root cause of the global problematique  and the proverbial predicament of humankind. The Club of Rome report had aptly prophesized that: “It is the predicament of mankind that man can perceive the problematique , yet, despite his considerable knowledge and skills, he does not understand the origins, significance, and interrelationships of its many components and thus is unable to devise effective responses. This failure occurs in large part because we continue to examine single items in the problematique without understanding that the whole is more than the sum of its parts, that change in one element means change in the others.” ( The Limits to Growth , p.11). Isn’t it ironical that notwithstanding all the intellect, resources as well as scientific and technological prowess, the humankind is unable to make a decisive course correction for our own planetary existence? The Planetary Crisis The humankind appears to have sleepwalked into the current crisis impinging upon the planet Earth’s essential ecological processes. As observed in preface to this author’s curated futuristic ideational works, Envisioning Our Environmental Future  (2022) as well as Our Earth Matters  (2021), we need to “ponder on the rapidly depleting time we have left for remedial action to safeguard our future amid warnings of impending environmental catastrophe”. It is this planetary level crisis that stares the humankind in the face in the third decade of the 21st century. Exactly a year ago, the feisty UN Secretary-General (UNSG) António Guterres, in his opening remarks on June 02, 2022  at the 2022 Stockholm+50 Conference  described the triple planetary crisis  as “our number one existential threat” that needs “an urgent, all-out effort to turn things around.” Ironically, in the words of the UNSG , the human consumption is “at the rate of 1.7 planets a year” and the “global well-being is in jeopardy”. Similarly, Inger Andersen, UNEP executive director and the Secretary-General of Stockholm+50 , underscored that “If we do not change, the triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste will only accelerate." The President of the 76th General Assembly, Abdulla Shahid , also reminded that the policies we implement today “will shape the world we live in tomorrow”. The UNSG’s warnings have graphically vindicated this author’s 1992 scholarly prognosis ( Social Science & Medicine , vol.35, no.4, 1992 ), at the time of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit  that: “much of the developmental process in the world today does not appear to be sustainable…the human quest to conquer nature through science and technology has brought us on to the present brink. The threats to our eco-system essentially emanate from human activities in almost every sector.” At this stage, the drivers of the triple planetary crisis include: climate emergency; ecosystem degradation leading to biodiversity loss and pollution and waste. The alarm bells rung by the UNSG, as the chief executive officer, are based upon the findings of several scientific reports released during 2022-2023 including IPCC6; UNEP and WMO. The Global Annual Decadal Update (2024-2028) released by the WMO has underscored that: “ there is an 80 percent likelihood that the annual average global temperature will temporarily exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels for at least one of the next five years”.  In WMO’s report in February 2023  has predicted that during the period 2013-2022 sea level rise has been 4.5 mm/yr, wherein the human influence is construed as the main driver of such ominous sea level rise. Similarly, the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (April 2022)  drew a grim scenario that the “Net anthropogenic GHG emissions have increased since 2010 across all major sectors globally…as have cumulative net CO2 emissions since 1850”. Even UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2023 has warned that “ Global GHG emissions increased by 1.2 per cent from 2021 to 2022 to reach a new record of 57.4 gigatons of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e)”. In fact, the   UNEP’s Emissions Gap Report 2022 had reinforced the global concerns that “the international community is falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place. Only an urgent system-wide transformation can avoid climate disaster”. We now live in the Anthropocene as the new geological epoch (recognized on 21 May 2019), with an ‘unmistakable imprint of human activities’. This has been affirmed in the formal proposal of the Anthropocene Working Group to the Sub-commission on Quaternary Stratigraphy ( October 31, 2023 ). That, in turn, calls for a new human prism for the care, maintenance and ‘trusteeship of the planet’. It is an appropriate occasion to reflect upon the course traversed in the past fifty years only to earnestly look ahead to seek answers for our better common environmental future. It raises some pertinent questions: What lies in store for us in the next three quarters of the 21st century? How do we manage our profligate life styles, heavy resource extraction-based production processes and wasteful patterns of consumption so as not to endanger the very survival of life on planet earth in general and the future of humankind in particular? It calls for serious prognosis to make sense of the concerted international environmental law-making  and institution-building processes ( Bharat Desai, Institutionalizing International Environmental Law: Ardsley, NY, 2004 ) comprising the normative approach at work, global conferencing technique (1972, 1992, 2002, 2012, 2022) wherein the UN General Assembly has been an anchor , application and efficacy of the basic legal underpinnings of international law to the environmental challenges, actual working of the giant treaty-making enterprise, and quest for a robust international environmental governance architecture ( Bharat Desai, International Environmental Governance: Bill, 2014 ). It is yet another defining moment for a futuristic gaze to make sense of the perennial “predicament of mankind” to “devise effective responses” for the “world problematique” ( The Limits to Growth , 1972) . In turn, in calls for an honest introspection as regards what have we attained in the last six decades or so that comprised giant regulatory process, use of innovative tools and techniques, art and craft of law-making. Has it brought about changes in human mindsets, jettisoning of greed and defining our needs? What could be the new ideas, approaches, processes, regulatory tools and institutional structures to address the “world problematique”? This question still continues to haunt the humankind. 2024: Year of the Planetary Future   The year 2024 is all set to become a landmark in succession to 2023 and 2022 that witnessed summits on the  Sustainable Development Goals   (New York; September 18-19, 2023) and the  Stockholm+50 Conference  (Stockholm; June 2-3, 2022). The outcome of both these global conferences [(1) 2023  - here ; (2) 2022  - here ] has shown the gravity of the smouldering planetary level environmental crisis  ( here ; here ). During 2024, as mandated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 76/307 of September 8, 2022  ( Modalities Resolution ), another momentous  Summit of the Future  will be held in New York on September 22-23, 2024. Hence, the year will be cast in stone as the year of the  Planetary Future .   The gravity of the planetary crisis came out vividly in the June 02, 2022 address of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who   reminded the UN member states that we have not kept our promises on the global environment, our consumption is “at the rate of 1.7 planets a year” and the “global well-being is in jeopardy”  ( Secretary-General's remarks to Stockholm+50| UNSG ). The gathering storms and the growing scientific evidence underscore the planetary-level environmental crisis at work. As the coming events cast their shadows before, humankind seems to have sleepwalked into planetary crisis ( The Sleepwalking into a Planetary Crisis ; ( here ; here )   Some Heads of Government have showed realization that “the decisions we make today are going to determine our future for decades to come”  ( Remarks by President Biden | The White House )  as well as in securing “a better future to the world, and a better world to the future”  ( Indian PM Modi address to the US Congress ( narendramodi.in ) .  Can we reverse this planetary crisis? What lies in store for the planetary future with rapidly depleting time?  Need for Futuristic Ideas The above-mentioned gathering storms provide enough indications of a planetary-level environmental crisis. Do they cast shadows of the coming events in the 21st century? It is almost akin to some of the catastrophic events including the two world wars that devastated the world in the 20th century. Hence, it was logical that one of the panellists of the June 5, 2023 global webinar , Patricia Mbote (Director, UNEP Law Division), endorsed this author’s ideational quest for “exploring the future pathways” [ Desai, Preface: EPL 51 (1-2) 2021, 1-2 ] to address the planetary level crisis. The global environmental crisis has worsened notwithstanding the mega regulatory enterprise at work. The crucial question that haunt the humankind are: What went wrong? What decisive course correction is required? Thus, it makes great sense to strive for innovative and iconoclastic solutions that could form a basis for a decisive course correction. This author precisely sought to walk-the-talk by bringing together cutting-edge ideas of global thought leaders by curating three marathon scholarly processes: (i) Regulating Global Climate Change (2023) ; (ii) Envisioning Our Environmental Future (2022) ; and (iii) Our Earth Matters (2021) . After the 2024 Summit of the Future   (September 22-23), it would be appropriate for the UNGA to hold an emergency special session to set in motion a normative process to nudge the 193 member states to gear up for global environmental challenges as a planetary concern [Desai, EPL  52 (5-6) 2022, 332-347] . It posits a challenge for the global scholarly community for pursuing an  ideational groundwork, including contours of the UNGA’s normative process, to be affirmed by a concrete plan of action as a follow-up to the outcome of the forthcoming 2024 Summit of the Future .   It is in this wider context that this author has audaciously organized the EPL  ( Environmental Policy and Law ) Special Issue 54 (2024) on The Planetary Future   wherein some of the global thought leaders from the five continents would contribute their ideational and solution-oriented papers to look ahead into the future. The Part – I  of the EPL Special Issue [ 54 (2-3) 2024 ] comprises 10 cutting-edge contributions by these eminent scholars: Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown University); Oran R. Young (University of California at Santa Barbara); Maria Frenanda Espinosa Garcés (former Ecuadorian Foreign Minister and President of the 73rd UN General Assembly); Klaus Bosselmann (University of Auckland); Kazuhiro Nakatani (Tokai University); Eve Darian-Smith (University of California at Irvin); Vesselin Popovski (Jindal Global University); David L. VanderZwaag (Dalhousie University); Oliver C. Ruppel (Stellenbosch University & University of Graz). All of these articles can be accessed under O2S  model ( here ).   The Road Ahead   The second batch of scholarly ideas will be curated and published by the author, prior to the 2024 Summit of the Future  in the EPL Special Issue: Part – II    54 (4-5) 2024  on The Planetary Future . Apart from the above mentioned concrete scholarly churning organized from the home turf of the School of International Studies ( here , here ), far-away from the decision-making centres’ of the world, this author moderated a Global Webinar (June 05 @ 5.30 PM)  on the 2024 World Environment Day . The first part of the discourse was held on June 05, 2024  with a panel of eminent speakers on the theme: The Planetary Future: Part – I ( World Environment Day 2024 ) . It will be followed by two more successive webinars before and after the 2024 Summit of the Future : Part – II  ( Summit of the Future ; September 19, 2024); Part – III  ( World Human Rights Day ; December 10, 2024).   A lot of scholarly ideas will be required to strengthen and amplify push for the global regulatory juggernaut, to make international law instruments work as well as ensure that various global actors including sovereign states, international institutions and other decision-makers take the task of securing our planetary future seriously. The author will strive to remain engaged in this audacious scholarly quest – even as a drop in the ocean – from the other side of the globe, 12, 000 km away from the decision-making centre of the world. One only hopes that someday it will accrue plaudits for the author’s home turf of SIS/ JNU  ( here , here ) – where he has strived for excellence over the years notwithstanding all odds to produce a reasonable body of solution-oriented outstanding scholarly works in the field of International Law. This Article is an Original Contribution for the SIS Blog. 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) .

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai The year 2024 is all set to become a landmark in succession to 2023 and 2022 that witnessed summits on the Sustainable Development Goals (New York; September 18-19, 2023) and the Stockholm+50 Conference (Stockholm; June 2-3, 2022). The outcome of both these global conferences [(1) 2023 - here; (2) 2022 - here] has shown the gravity of the smouldering planetary level environmental crisis (here; here). During 2024, as mandated by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution 76/307 of September 8, 2022 (Modalities Resolution), another momentous Summit of the Future will be held in New York on September 22-23, 2024. Hence, the year will be cast in stone as the year of the Planetary Future. The gravity of the planetary crisis came out vividly in the June 02, 2022 address of the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres who   reminded the UN member states that we have not kept our promises on the global environment, our consumption is “at the rate of 1.7 planets a year” and the “global well-being is in jeopardy” (Secretary-General's remarks to Stockholm+50| UNSG).The gathering storms and the growing scientific evidence underscore the planetary-level environmental crisis at work. As the coming events cast their shadows before, humankind seems to have sleepwalked into planetary crisis (The Sleepwalking into a Planetary Crisis; (here; here)  Some Heads of Government have showed realization that “the decisions we make today are going to determine our future for decades to come” (Remarks by President Biden | The White House) as well as in securing “a better future to the world, and a better world to the future” (Indian PM Modi address to the US Congress (narendramodi.in). Can we reverse this planetary crisis? What lies in store for the planetary future with rapidly depleting time? It is in this wider context that this author has audaciously organized the EPL (Environmental Policy and Law) Special Issue 54 (2-3) 2024 on The Planetary Future wherein some of the global thought leaders from the five continents would contribute their ideational and solution-oriented papers to look ahead into the future. The first part of EPL Special Issue comprises 10 cutting-edge contributions by these eminent scholars: Edith Brown Weiss (Georgetown University); Oran R. Young (University of California at Santa Barbara); Maria Frenanda Espinosa Garcés (former Ecuadorian Foreign Minister and President of the 73rd UN General Assembly); Klaus Bosselmann (University of Auckland); Kazuhiro Nakatani (Tokai University); Eve Darian-Smith (University of California at Irvin); Vesselin Popovski (Jindal Global University); David L. VanderZwaag (Dalhousie University); Oliver C. Ruppel (Stellenbosch University & University of Graz). This EPL Special Issue 54 (2-3)2024 will be uploaded during this week and all the articles can be accessed under O2S model (here). Apart from the abovementioned concrete scholarly churning organized from the home turf of the School of International Studies (here, here), far-away from the decision-making centres’ of the world, this author will moderate a Global Webinar (June 05 @ 5.30 PM) on the 2024 World Environment Day. The first part of the discourse will be held on June 05, 2024 with a panel of eminent speakers on the theme: The Planetary Future: Part – I (World Environment Day). It will be followed by two more successive webinars during 2024: Part – II (Summit of the Future; September 19, 2024); Part – III (World Human Rights Day; December 10, 2024). The program for the WED Webinar on June 05, 2024 will be as follows: PROGRAM Welcome by Reina Steenhuizen (IOS Press, Amsterdam) Introduction by EPL Editor-in-Chief Bharat H. Desai (Jawaharlal Nehru University) Discussion moderator: Bharat H. Desai, EPL Editor-in-Chief Panel of Speakers: Nicholas A Robinson, University Professor Emeritus, Elisabeth School of Law, Pace University, New York, USA Richard Macrory, Professor Emeritus, University College London, University of London, UK Sara Seck, Schulich School of Law and Marine & Environmental Law Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada Closing remarks by Bharat H. Desai, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University _______________________ Register for this free webinar to be held on Wednesday June 5, 2024 @ 08:00 AM (EDT) / 02:00 PM (CETS) / 5:30 PM (IST) | Register here; Webinar: The Planetary Future: Part – I | 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 Maldives’ recent elections on April 22 threw a surprise, pointing to the popularity of President Muizzu’s ‘India Out, China In’ campaign. The swell of support to Muizzu’s People’s National Congress, which won an absolute majority in the island-nation... Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/muizzu-s-india-out-china-in-campaign-2998141 #MaldivesElection #China #India Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 28th April 2024 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/muizzu-s-india-out-china-in-campaign-2998141 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. 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)