Search

By Debashreeta Behera For an extended period, Iran’s nuclear aspirations have been under intense international scrutiny and diplomatic negotiation. But as it inches closer to the nuclear threshold, there have been heightened global concerns about its implications for regional stability in the Middle East and international security. The recent confidential report  from the UN’s nuclear watchdog states that Iran has increased its uranium stockpile enriched to near weapon-grade levels not complying with international restrictions, a reality much closer now Iran’s supreme leader recently expressed his intentions  to renew negotiations with the United States concerning Iran’s rapidly advancing nuclear program. Ensuring its civilians that there is no harm in involving with Iran’s enemy, suggests a mocking undertone towards the United States' weakening efforts at limiting Iran’s nuclear program. Iran's civilian nuclear program began in the 1950s under the Eisenhower administration’s Atoms for Peace initiative, with U.S. support in setting up nuclear research reactors in Tehran. Iran committed to peaceful nuclear exploration, becoming one of the 51 nations to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), pledging not to pursue nuclear weapons. However, the late 1970s brought U.S. concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions following the establishment of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. Relations further deteriorated after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which severed ties between Iran and the U.S., leading to the U.S.-backed Iraq-Iran war (1980-1988). During this period, Abdul Qadeer Khan, the architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program, possibly sold uranium enrichment technology  to Iran. In 1995, Iran and Russia signed a contract to build light-water reactors at the Bushehr complex which was completed in 2010. Several intelligence reports about rising suspicion of Iran building a nuclear weapon prompted the U.S. to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities, including sanctions against foreign companies  investing in Iran under the guise of combating international terrorism. Iran, meanwhile, in 1999 under President Mohammad Khatami’s détente policy  advocated for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons , particularly concerned by Israel’s nuclear capabilities. In 2002, the discovery of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility led to global suspicion of Iran’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). Under international pressure, Iran temporarily suspended its nuclear program and allowed stricter inspections, but resumed its activities despite warnings from the UN Security Council asserting its right to use nuclear technology to produce fuel  stating its motives as peaceful. The U.S. and Israel launched cyberattacks, including the infamous Stuxnet virus, delaying Iran's nuclear progress. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) imposed strict limits on Iran's nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. However, after the U.S. withdrew from the deal in 2018 under the Trump administration, Iran resumed uranium enrichment. In response to growing isolation, Iran strengthened ties with Russia  and China  by virtue of their common shared interests and increased its support for militias across the region, escalating its covert conflict with Israel. Regional Security Implications Saudi Arabia opposes Iran's nuclear program as it sees it as a direct threat  to its security and influence in the Middle East. The JCPOA, which eased sanctions on Iran, was perceived by Saudi Arabia as empowering Iran economically and politically, increasing its regional dominance, while excluding Saudi and its allies from key negotiations. Additionally, Saudi concerns over Iran’s growing asymmetric power, supported by its oil revenues, drive this opposition. The GCC countries have also been proactive in negating the growing power of Iran in the region by engaging with external powers such as the US and NATO and having normalized relations with Israel, a shared adversary of Iran. Similarly, Israel’s nuclear opacity policy threatens Iran's security and regional ambitions. Israel views a nuclear Iran as an existential threat as Iran has been historically hostile to Israel over its legitimacy and criticizing its policies towards Palestine further deepening the rivalry over nuclear power. Iran's nuclear ambitions may bolster its confidence in supporting regional proxy groups, including Hezbollah, the Assad regime, Shiite militias in Iraq, and the Houthis, thus extending its strategic influence and further destabilizing the Middle East. This expanded backing not only threatens the interests of regional adversaries like Saudi Arabia and Israel but also deepens sectarian divisions and heightens geopolitical tensions across the region. Global Security and Non-Proliferation The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action represented a significant diplomatic achievement aiming to restrict Iran’s nuclear activities in exchange for relief from crippling sanctions and ensuring Iran’s compliance with international inspections. The US withdrawal from the deal in 2018 led to the agreement’s partial disintegration prompting Iran to exceed the limits mentioned in the JCPOA. Efforts are being carried out to revive the deal amidst the rising challenges of growing Iran’s powers and shifting regional geopolitics. Despite being a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities has drawn a vague line between the civilian and military use of nuclear technology. This could encourage other Middle Eastern states like Saudi Arabia or Turkey to follow suit, leading to a regional arms race and weakening global non-proliferation efforts. This can also likely lead to a shift in international power balances, especially in the Middle East. With Iran as a potential nuclear state, five of the nuclear countries in Asia (North Korea, China, India, Pakistan, and Iran(potential power)will be connected by land route forming a chain structure (except for Israel which is not connected through land route nevertheless apparently is a part of this chained structure), further elevating the probability of a nuclear war in the Asian continent in the future with the already omnipresent dilemmas and risks regarding nuclear weapon deployment associated with India-Pakistan , East Asia , and South East Asian  rising tensions. There remains a significant risk that there could be nuclear proliferation to non-state actors like Hezbollah as Iran has a long history of supporting non-state actors. A nuclear-armed Iran could potentially be influenced by leadership driven by ideological or unconventional motivations, raising concerns about their ability to fully consider the consequences of using nuclear weapons. They may also lack sophisticated security measures and command and control procedures, making their arsenals more vulnerable to theft or unauthorized access.  Some scholars fear new nuclear powers might threaten nuclear use for blackmailing other nations or at best may lead to cascading nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. The Strait of Hormuz  has become one of the most vulnerable maritime and trade chokepoints, the blockade by Iran could lead to a full-blown war between Iran and the United States over gulf security and oil trade. This has been interpreted to usher over a global stock market crash. Theoretical Dimensions The challenges surrounding this issue are numerous and scholars have made significant efforts to address and mitigate them. According to Kenneth Waltz , Powers beg to be balanced. Israel is the only nuclear-armed power in the Middle East region and this nuclear monopoly has created instability in the region for decades now. In no other region of the world does a lone unchecked nuclear state exist. (Waltz, K. N. (2012). Therefore, it is only fair for Iran to stabilize the region by acquiring a nuclear deterrent. This would not only paradoxically balance the power in the region but also reduce Iran’s insecurity. Waltz saw nuclear deterrent as the ultimate security guarantee. He also believed that the slow spread of nuclear weapons could even be beneficial to deter conflicts and wars by citing the example of the escalation of mutual fear during the Cold War and the dampened scope of wars between India and Pakistan.   Conclusion Iran's pursuit of nuclear capabilities poses significant risks to regional stability and the global non-proliferation regime. While nuclear deterrence suggests potential stability through mutually assured destruction, the dangers of escalation and proliferation remain high. Taking the Israel-Iran covert war down a notch could also reveal to be stabilizing. Rafael Grossi, (Director General, IAEA) believes that uranium reserves don’t guarantee Iran will have a nuclear weapon within weeks as estimated.  A functional warhead requires many other things independently apart from uranium. He advocates for unfettered access and visibility of the nuclear sites for international inspections.  Additionally, fostering regional security dialogue to prevent an arms race is crucial. The international community should balance credible deterrence with economic incentives and security guarantee s  to steer Iran away from militarizing its nuclear program and ensure long-term stability. Debashreeta Behera is pursuing her post-graduation in Politics with a specialization in International Relations (PISM) at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi with a keen focus on research and academic writing on contemporary political issues and global affairs.

By Prof. Dr. Bharat H. Desai On September 9, 2024, the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC), under Slovenia Presidency, held an open debate on the “peacekeeping operations” . The primary strength and support of these operations is drawn from the contributions of the UN member states.  “As geopolitical tensions have mounted, including here in this Council, and amid shifting global and regional dynamics, peacekeeping operations are increasingly unable to rely on Member States to act in a strong, unified manner to support peacekeeping efforts they are mandated to support,”  Jean-Pierre Lacroix, Under-Secretary-General for Peace Operations  told the 15-member UNSC. UNSC Open Debate The concept note ( August 27, 2024 ) prepared and circulated in advance by the Slovenian Presidency emphasized that “the United Nations peace operations must continue to adapt to new realities and ensure their own effectiveness and ability to implement their mandated task, including the protection of civilians. This cannot be achieved without the full, equal and meaningful participation of women and a gender responsive approach at all stages of peacekeeping”.   Following were the guiding questions  for the UNSC open debate: (1)  What can the Security Council do to make United Nations peace operations more fit for purpose? (2)  How can the Security Council engage Member States, including host countries, neighbouring countries and troop- and police-contributing countries, more effectively and systematically rally behind United Nations peacekeeping and the political solutions that they are designed to support? What can the role of the regional organizations be in helping ensure a conducive political environment for peace operations? (3)  What concrete steps can be taken to foster greater political unity within the Security Council as the basis for consistent political support for peace operations? (4)  Recognizing the progress made thus far, how can the Security Council do more to define strategic objectives and to prioritize and sequence peacekeeping mission mandates? (5)  In devising peacekeeping mandates, how can we reach an optimal balance between upholding the Council’s prerogatives under the Charter while appropriately considering both the views of the host countries and the expectations of the civilian population? (6)  How can it become more people-centred and ensure that it continues to support inclusive peace and political processes, with the participation of women and youth? Instrumentality of Peacekeeping As of April 2024, some 77, 650 peacekeepers were stationed in conflict zones and seek to protect the civilian population as well as fight battles, among others, against armed groups, mercenaries, rogue elements, transnational organized gangs, illegal resource plunder (poaching, trafficking, smuggling), proliferation of weapons, disinformation campaigns. There are 11 UN peacekeeping operations that carry different nomenclatures, areas of operation, mandates and composition. They comprise: Western Sahara ( MINURSO ); Golan ( UNDOF) ; Abyie ( UNISFA ); India and Pakistan ( UNMOGIP ); Central African Republic ( MINUSCA ); Cyprus ( UNFICYP ); Kosovo ( UNMIK ); Middle East ( UNTSO ); DR of the Congo ( MONUSCO ); Lebanon ( UNIFIL ) and South Sudan ( UNMISS ). The UN peacekeepers are engaged in fire-fighting operations in various conflict zones that essentially require political solutions. The approved budget for UN Peacekeeping operations stood at US$6.38 billion for the fiscal year 2021 - 2022  ( A/C.5/75/25 ). UNMOGIP, as the UN’s oldest mission (1949) seems to have outlived its utility in view of fundamental change of circumstances. After the Shimla Agreement (1972) and the Lahore Declaration (1999), “all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally”. Moreover, after the last UNSC resolution 307 (1971), the Council has remained silent on the “India-Pakistan Question (IPQ)". It underscores that the subsequent developments have overtaken the legal dynamics of the original issue. Therefore, it seems high time to remove IPQ from the UNSC’s “seized items” ( Bharat Desai, SIS Blog Special , May 10, 2022 ) list and close the UNMOGIP after a passage of 75 years (1949-2024). The 2021-2022 budget represented an average of 2.1% decrease  on the approved budget (US $6.57 billion) for 2020-2021 . This finance covers 9 of the 11 UN peacekeeping missions. The remaining two are the oldest missions (UNTSO, 1948; UNMOGIP, 1949) and funded through the regular UN budget. By way of comparison, the expenses incurred on UN peacekeeping operations constitute less than one-half per cent (0.5%) of world military expenditures (estimated at $1, 981 billion in 2020). For the year 2020-2021, the top 10 contributing countries for the peacekeeping operations were as follows: United States (27.89%); China (15.21%); Japan (8.56%); Germany (6.09%); United Kingdom (5.79%); France (5.61%); Italy (3.30%); Russian Federation (3.04%); Canada (2.73%); Republic of Korea (2.26%). Out of total 77, 650 peacekeepers deployed in 11 missions, none of the permanent member (P5) of the UNSC has provided any troop (or police) contribution except very small number of experts provided by the Russian Federation (MINURSO and UNIFICYP) and China (UNTSO). Each of the peacekeeping mission has witnessed casualties that show the grave peril faced by them. So far 1374 peacekeepers have died on UN peacekeeping missions. “There is only so much that peacekeeping can do on its own,” Lacroix modestly underscored as he urged the UNSC and the UN Member States to provide unified backing for missions. The most of the UN peacekeepers (68, 950) are deployed in just four missions: MINUSCA (22, 523); MONUSCO (17, 761); UNMISS (18, 125) and UNIFIL (10, 541). The mandates of these four major operations are as follows: (1) Under MONUSCO , the peacekeepers  have been entrusted with protection of more than 100,000 displaced civilians at the Drodro camp in Ituri Province of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; (2) The UNIFIL  personnel face daily threats in Southern Lebanon from cross-border violence but serve as the crucial communication channel preventing further escalation; (3) The UNMISS  works to advance political solutions in South Sudan by engaging local and national stakeholders, building confidence for long-term peace; and (4) The UNISFA  mediates peace agreements in Abyei Province in Sudan between herders and farmers competing over scarce natural resources, preventing conflict during cattle migration seasons by collaborating with local and international partners. The current Indian contribution to the UN peacekeeping comprises 4653 troops primarily in these four peacekeeping missions: UNMISS (2402); MONUSCO (1817+139); UNIFIL (895) and UNDOF (200). Traditionally, India has been one of the biggest providers of military and police personnel to UN missions, including the first all-women UN police contingent in 2007 posted to the UN Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) . The mission successfully ended its mandate on March 30, 2018. Moreover, in 2023, India provided a contingent of 25 women soldiers  from the Corps of Military Police (CMP) and the Assam Rifles. Since the peacekeeping operations began in 1948, more than 200,000 Indian men and women had served in 49 peacekeeping missions. Most of the peacekeeping forces are run with the help of troops contributions provided by the Global South countries such as Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal and Pakistan.  Apart from the troops, the UN also deploys police personnel in mission  countries where normal law and order has broken down. The UN Police personnel complement and work in conjunction with the UN peacekeeping troops. From it first deployment in 1960, to its current presence in DR Congo, tens of thousands of police officers from over 130 countries have worked to protect populations, strengthen the rule of law, and build the foundations for effective and accountable policing that serve host-State populations. Policing is as much preventive as it is responsive, and it is central to efforts to avert, mitigate and resolve violent conflict. For this reason, the United Nations and its police components must prioritize conflict prevention in peace efforts, as well as in response to violence in support of the achievement of peace and security. With a current authorized strength of 10,000 serving on the frontlines in UN peace operations globally, they occupy a unique role among the world’s police forces. The UN policing serves and protects people where ‘blue helmets’ are stationed, beginning with Action for Peacekeeping, particularly in the areas prioritized within what the UN has designated as A4P+. The UN Police helps in adherence to rule of law and International Human Rights Law ( UNSG Report, December 31, 2018 ). Legal Basis for UN Peacekeeping The idea and the practice of peacekeeping is premised upon inter-related and mutually reinforcing three basic principles: (i) consent of the parties (ii) impartiality and (iii) non-use of force except in self-defense and in upholding the mandate. Each peacekeeping operation is designed differently since situations arising from conflicts and post-conflicts present different challenges. The UNSC could invoke its powers especially from the UN Charter ( Chapters VI, VII and VIII ). In general, while adopting a resolution authorizing a peace operation, the UNSC does not need to refer to any specific Chapter or provision. However, the UNSC does so whenever it undertakes to give effect to its ‘enforcement powers’ under Chapter VII.   The Charter provides for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes  under Chapter VI (Articles 33-38) . UN peace operations have traditionally been associated with this Chapter. However, the UNSC while giving a mandate for specific UN peacekeeping operation has not invoked Chapter VI. Chapter VII (Articles 39-51)  contains provisions related to “Action with Respect to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression’. It entails progressively tougher actions as warranted by situation on the ground. In order to trigger pea ce enforcement operations, the Council needs to make an explicit reference to   Chapter VII . In recent years, the Council has adopted the practice of invoking Chapter VII of the Charter while authorizing deployment of the UN peace operations especially in the aftermath of breakdown of rule of law, peace and order and exercise of normal state functions. In doing so, the Council first arrives at a determination  (Article 39) as regards the “ existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”  Thereafter, the Council invokes its inherent power for maintenance of international peace and security and emphatically states that it is “acting under Chapter VII”  (see UNSC Reso. 2738 (June 27, 2024 on the DRC). Then it further “decides” specific course of action for addressing the parties to the conflict. Since the UNSC’s powers under Chapter VII lead to legally binding consequences, the language also remains emphatic as the Council literally issues ‘orders’ as a reflection of the collective resolve of the 15-members including P5. As compared to Chapters VI and VII, in enabling action under Chapter VIII (Articles 52-54) , the Charter broadens the basis by involving regional arrangements and agencies in the maintenance of international peace and security. However, any such action must be in consonance with the purposes and principles outlined in Chapter I of the Charter. Now in its 77th year as an instrumentality for peace, “peacekeeping” per se  does not find an explicit mention in the UN Charter. Since 1948, there been 71 UN peacekeeping operations. As of April 2024, 11 missions were active. However, the primary leitmotif (leitmotiv in German) of the UN’s peacekeeping remains maintenance of international peace and security [ UN Charter, Article 1(1) ]. As the global military expenditure reached a new high of US$ 2.24 trillion (2022) , conflict related deaths reached 28 year high (2022) ,  conflicts have become a major factor for global displacement of people. Notwithstanding the UN Charter ‘blueprint’ [ Article 2 (4)  and Article 51 ] for prohibition of “threat or use of force”, some 2 billion people (one-fourth of global population of 8 billion) live in world’s conflict zones. It presents daunting challenges for the UN and its peacekeepers. Instead of managing conflicts as the UNSC mostly ends up doing, the primary focus needs to be on prevention of conflicts as well as timely resolution of the roots causes of such global conflicts. The security forces can try to contain harm caused by the warring groups. However, ultimate solution must be through political means.   Limits of Peacekeeping The role of the UN, primarily driven by the UNSC, do not necessarily result in solutions in all conflicts wherein the peacekeepers are stationed. There are limits to the peacekeeping operations in view of competing interests of the UNSC members. Therefore, the language of the legally binding resolutions could be unclear, ambiguous or open-ended as they emanate from political compromises of 15-member UNSC. As a result, mandates of many peacekeeping operations do not yield results even as the peacekeepers face risks on missions (1374 UN personnel have died in 11 ongoing missions). It leads to conflicts festering for years causing death and destruction as can be seen from peacekeeping operations in Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, South Sudan and Lebanon. In this respect, the report of the Brahimi Panel on United Nations Peace Operations   (August 17, 2000) observed: “ There are many tasks which United Nations peacekeeping forces should not be asked to undertake and many places they should not go. But when the United Nations does send its forces to uphold the peace, they must be prepared to confront the lingering forces of war and violence, with the ability and determination to defeat them”. Therefore, any UN peacekeeping operation needs to be carefully designed considering situation on the ground, responsible factors (such as tug-of-war for control over natural resources) for the conflict, disruptive capacity of the rival armed groups, political will of the P5 and availability of required financial and manpower requirements for the operation. The crucial balancing calls for deciding on how to do peacekeeping and how not to do peacekeeping. The size and capacity of the peacekeeping contingent would need to be assessed on the basis of their capacity to deter the rebel groups. Notwithstanding this, as seen in some cases, the anguish of the local populations sometimes turns against the peacekeepers due to sheer survival issues (abject poverty) or frustration arising from years-long insecurity and instability. For instance, the UN experts, Zaida Catalán (Sweden) and Michael Sharp (USA) were on mission as mandated by the UNSC resolution 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee’s Group of Experts . They were abducted on March 12, 2017 during their investigation of mass atrocities in the troubled Kasai region in the aftermath of brutal clash between armed militia and the Congolese government forces. The search by the UN peacekeepers found their bodies after two weeks. Similarly, on August 04, 2022, t he Congolese authorities also expelled spokespersons of the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC ( MONUSCO ) following some deadly protests in the eastern part. The Board of Inquiry set up by the UNSG noted in its report of August 16, 2017 that the “Congolese interpreter and the three motorcycle drivers [accompanying Catalán and Sharp] were also killed, but their bodies have not been found to date.” Reporting took place under the UNSC resolutions that have given mandate to the Group of Experts  (starting from resolution 1533 March 12, 2004   to resolution 2738 of June 27, 2024 ) . These UNSC resolutions were adopted under ‘enforcement’ powers of Chapter VII of the UN Charter  after arriving at an explicit determination  that the “ situation in the DRC continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region” ( resolution 2738 of June 27, 2024 ) . The UNSC took a comprehensive review of the situation in the DRC vide   resolution 2641  of June 30, 2022. This came in the wake of long line of the UNSC’s 33 extensive briefings and consultations (between July 10, 2017 to June 30, 2022). It speaks volumes about the laborious task involved, deep-rooted malaise, gravity of the situation in the DRC and UN’s own engagement in the quagmire of the DRC. Tragedy of Peacekeeping in the DR Congo With third largest contingent of the UN peacekeeping contingent of 17, 761 ( MONUSCO, February 2024 ), 110 million population, 11th largest country (geographical area) in the world and extremely rich natural resources, the DRC in the sub-Saharan Africa has remained one of the poorest and most unstable regions in the world. Variously known during different phases as the Belgian Congo, Congo-Kinshasha, the Congo,  Zaire and the DR Congo (different from the Republic of Congo-Brazzaville), the prosperity in resources seems to have become such a curse that its helpless people are condemned to remain at 175 out of 189 countries  listed in the ‘low’ Human Development Index.   The crux of the appalling condition in the DRC was graphically narrated in spine-chilling address of the Congolese gynaecologist Denis Mukewege in his 2018 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech  (December 10) at the Oslo City Hall. “ The human cost of this perverted, organized chaos has been hundreds of thousands of women raped, over 4 million people displaced within the country and the loss of 6 million human lives. Imagine, the equivalent of the entire population of Denmark decimated. United Nations peacekeepers and experts have not been spared, either. Several of them have been killed on duty”, Denis Mukewege said. Even after passage of six years (2024), the situation in DRC remains as explosive as narrated in Mukewege’s Nobel Prize acceptance speech. The UN has been badly entangled in the quagmire of the DR of Congo. It is worth recalling that it was the DRC conflict that led the feisty UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, to personally go to check the ongoing negotiations of a cease-fire. His death in September 18, 1961 plane crash, on UN mission, still remains a mystery. The UNSC resolutions 2738 (2024) , 2688 (2023) , 2641 (2022) , 2612 (2021) , 2582 (2021)  and 2556 (2020)  have sought a general and immediate cessation of hostilities  and the UNSG’s March 21, 2022 report  amply showed no signs of resolving the complex tangle of the DRC, the questions arise about this ‘bottomless-barrel’ situation. It poses grave risks for the UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC that includes an Indian contingent. The UNSC resolution 2612 of December 20, 2021  explicitly asked the President Tshisekedi towards ensuring that the DRC Government protects and respects human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as combats impunity in all areas. The gravity of the situation can be gauged from the fact that on July 25-26, 2022, anti-UN protestors looted and damaged UN facilities across North Kivu province. They were angered by the UN’s inability to curb violence by armed groups. Three UN peacekeepers (two from India and one from Morocco) were also killed.   Road Ahead: Beyond Peacekeeping The quagmire of the vicious global conflicts have forced the UN’s engagements in various peacekeeping missions. It underscores the graphic reality that the dramatis personae  in respective regions have been driven by vested interests in perpetuating conflicts rather than resolving them. The UN peacekeeping can only help in managing the conflicts pending final resolution through settlement between the parties. Therefore, every operation calls for very careful calibration that finally yields a treaty for durable peace between the conflicting groups. It necessitates peace brokered by ace international lawyers and diplomats as the peacekeepers keep a hawk eye. Thus, the roadmap, after the UN peacekeepers leave, would require an application of the I nternational Humanitarian Law, International Criminal Law and the innovative TJ mechanisms to usher into era of peace with justice for all the stakeholders. The Pact of the Future to be adopted at the UN Summit of the Future (September 22-23, 2024) acknowledges the need to "respect and protect humanitarian personnel and UN and associated personnel" in global arms conflict. However, it is a tall order and would need to be give effect to in relative international legal instruments. This presents an ideational challenge for International Law scholars, peace negotiators and the decision-makers.     #UN #PEACEKEEPING This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. It is 11th article by the author in the Blog Special Series: Use of Weapons of War .   1)    20 August 2024 : BLOG SPECIAL – X: The Geneva Conventions @75: Use of Weapons of War and Audacity for Humanizing Warfare ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )      (2)   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 ) ;    3)    13 April 2023 :  Blog Special – VIII: The Conflict Diamonds and the Weapons of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 4)    11 March 2023 : Blog Special – VII: Rape under Orders as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 5)    22 September 2022 :  Blog Special –VI: Use of Weapons of War and Violence Against Children: A Challenge for International Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com )    6)    23 August 2022 : Blog Special   –V: Use of Weapons of War and the Role of Humanitarians: ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 7)    11 August 2022 :  Blog Special –IV: Use of Nuclear Weapons in War (Hiroshima-Nagasaki Day): A Challenge ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 8)    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 ) 9)    22 June 2022 :  Blog Special-II: Use of Sexual Violence as a Weapon of War: A Challenge for International  Law ( sisblogjnu.wixsite.com ) 10)    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 Introduction China’s remarkable rise as an Olympic superpower has captured the attention of the world. Over the past two decades, China’s journey from a relatively minor player in global sports to a dominant Olympic force reflects its broader aspirations for global influence. This transformation, achieved through deliberate policies and significant investments, offers valuable lessons for India, a nation with immense potential yet struggling to replicate similar success on the Olympic stage. For India, understanding and adapting some of these strategies could unlock new avenues for success in global sports competitions, particularly at the Olympics. By examining China’s rise to Olympic dominance, India can draw lessons on how to leverage its strengths and overcome the challenges that have hindered its progress in sports on the world stage. China’s Olympic Journey China’s journey in the Olympics began humbly, with sporadic participation and limited success in the early years. Before the turn of the millennium, China’s presence at the Olympics was modest. However, the 2008 Beijing Olympics marked a turning point. Not only did China top the medal tally for the first time, but it also showcased its ability to organize an event of such magnitude with flawless precision. This success was the culmination of years of meticulous planning, strategic investments in sports infrastructure, and a centralized approach to talent development. Since the 2008 Beijing Games, China has consistently performed among the top nations in subsequent Olympics. The Chinese government’s commitment to sports, viewing it as a means of enhancing national prestige and fostering unity, has been evident in the systematic and sustained support provided to athletes. This development strategy reflects China’s long-term vision for sports as a symbol of national strength and identity.   Key Strategies Behind China’s Success Centralized Sports System A cornerstone of China’s Olympic success is its highly centralized sports system. The government plays a pivotal role in identifying and nurturing young talent through a network of specialized sports schools. This begins at a young age, where potential athletes are scouted and trained intensively. The state provides significant resources, ensuring access to top-notch facilities, coaching, and a comprehensive support system that includes psychological and nutritional needs throughout an athlete’s career. Scholars like Zheng & Chen  (2016) and Hong & Zhouxiang (2012) emphasize how this approach has been crucial in sustaining China’s Olympic success. Similarly, Hong et al.  (2007) highlight how this centralized model nurtured Olympic talent. Investment in Sports Infrastructure China’s investment in sports infrastructure is unparalleled, with the nation consistently allocating significant financial resources to develop world-class facilities. This transformation can be traced back to the 2008 Beijing Olympics , which marked a pivotal turning point. For instance, China invested an estimated $40 billion in preparation for the event, covering not only the construction of sports facilities but also broader urban infrastructure improvements, such as new subway lines, highways, and airport expansions. The Bird’s Nest National Stadium, constructed at a cost of $423 million, and the Water Cube National Aquatics Centre, which required an investment of $140 million, exemplify the scale of these investments. Following the 2008 Olympics, China’s investment in sports infrastructure continued to grow. From 2010 to 2015, the country spent an estimated $6 billion upgrading sports facilities nationwide. This effort focused on expanding access to sports facilities across the country, particularly in rural areas. The shift from urban to rural investment strategies broadened China’s talent pool for future Olympic athletes, as discussed by Hu  (2024). For the 2022 Winter Olympics , China allocated $3.9 billion, focusing on winter sports facilities such as ski resorts, ice rinks, and training centres. This strategic investment aimed to diversify China’s sporting prowess beyond traditional summer sports and establish the country as a leading nation in winter sports.   International Collaboration Recognizing the importance of global expertise, China has strategically partnered with foreign coaches and trainers to enhance its athletes’ skills. By blending traditional training techniques with international practices, such as recruiting foreign coaches and integrating sports science, China has exposed its athletes to various competitive environments. Partnerships with nations like the U.S., Russia, and Germany provided Chinese athletes with different training methodologies, contributing significantly to their resilience and performance on the global stage. This influence of foreign expertise is well-documented by Chen & Chen  (2021) illustrating how Chinese athletes gained a competitive edge through these collaborations. Long-term Vision and Planning China’s approach to the Olympics is characterized by a long-term vision and meticulous planning, guided by a series of strategic government documents and policies. For instance, the Outline for Building a Leading Sports Nation  (2019) sets the ambitious goal of establishing China as a global sports leader by 2035. This strategy builds on earlier initiatives, such as the National Fitness Program , first introduced in 1995 and regularly updated to encourage mass participation in sports. Additionally, China’s Outline for the Strategic Development of Sports in China  provided a decade-long framework to enhance sports infrastructure and competitive performance, particularly leading up to and following the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Scholars such as Zheng et al.  (2018) and Tan & Green (2008) have analyzed how these initiatives evolved from basic infrastructure and public health to international competitiveness and sports diplomacy. Challenges and Criticisms While China’s Olympic success is commendable, it has not been without criticism. The country’s intense focus on sports excellence, particularly the practice of starting rigorous training at a young age, has raised concerns about the physical and mental well-being of athletes. Social and ethical issues, such as the pressures on young athletes and early specialization, remain points of contention. These issues are highlighted by Cao & Zhiwei (2008), who discuss how the emphasis on winning medals can sometimes overshadow broader efforts to promote mass participation in sports among the general population.     Lessons for India India’s sporting culture has deep roots, dating back thousands of years. Traditional sports like wrestling ( Kushti ) and archery have been integral to Indian society since ancient times, with wrestling holding a prominent place in Indian culture. The ancient practice of Malla-Yuddha  (traditional Indian wrestling) has survived through centuries and remains popular today, with mentions in historical texts such as the Mahabharata  and the Ramayan . During the colonial period, British-introduced sports like cricket, hockey, and football gained popularity. Cricket, in particular, grew to become India’s most followed sport. However, India’s Olympic successes have primarily come in individual sports, such as wrestling, shooting, and badminton. The rise of initiatives like Khelo India , launched in 2018, is starting to shift the focus toward broader participation in sports and the development of Olympic-level athletes. India can chart a path to greater success on the global stage by learning from China’s example. Focusing on centralized sports development, increasing investment in sports infrastructure, nurturing talent from the grassroots level, integrating sports science, and balancing elite sports with mass participation are key strategies that India can adopt. Centralized Sports Development A cornerstone of China’s Olympic success is its highly centralized sports system, where the government plays a crucial role in scouting, training, and developing athletes. India, with its federal structure, faces unique challenges in implementing a similar model, but adopting a more coordinated national approach could yield significant benefits. Currently, India’s sports development is largely state-driven, leading to disparities in resources and outcomes between states. For example, Haryana ,   which comprises 2.09% of India’s population according to the 2011 census , contributed 66.66% of the medals India won at the Paris 2024 Olympics ,  showcasing how focused state-level policies  can lead to impressive achievements. Expanding the reach and resources of national initiatives like the Sports Authority of India   (SAI) could further enhance India’s sports performance, as demonstrated in the success of India’s athletes  at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics . Increased Investment in Sports Infrastructure India’s investment in sports infrastructure remains modest, especially compared to countries like China. In the 2024-25 budget , India allocated around ₹3,442.32 crore towards sports initiatives, a notable increase from previous years, largely driven by the Khelo India  program. However, this spending represents only about 0.1% of India’s GDP, a stark contrast to China’s substantial  investments in sports. Programs like Khelo India  aim to enhance sports infrastructure across the country, focusing on creating state-of-the-art facilities and promoting grassroots sports. However, disparities persist between Indian states, with regions like Haryana and Punjab  receiving better funding and infrastructure for sports such as wrestling and hockey. Expanding these programs and ensuring equitable distribution of resources will be crucial for India to compete more effectively on the global stage. Talent Identification and Nurturing India must prioritize grassroots programs that identify and nurture talent from a young age. The Khelo India  initiative is a step in the right direction, but more needs to be done to scale up these programs and ensure they reach even the most remote parts of the country. By providing young athletes with resources and support early on, India can build a stronger foundation for future Olympic success. Focus on Sports Science and Coaching India can learn from China’s emphasis on scientific training methods and international coaching expertise. By blending traditional practices with modern sports science, Indian athletes can enhance their global performance. Incorporating international coaching expertise and investing in research and development in sports sciences could lead to significant improvements in athlete performance, as seen in China’s Olympic success. Balancing Elite and Mass Sports While India must focus on elite sports to achieve Olympic success, it should not lose sight of promoting mass participation in sports. Encouraging a culture of sports at all levels of society will not only broaden the talent pool but also contribute to a healthier and more active nation. This dual approach will ensure that the benefits of sports are widely felt beyond the elite athletes. Conclusion As of the latest Olympics held in Paris , China’s medal tally stands at 91 (Gold: 40, Silver: 27, Bronze: 24), while India has secured 6 medals (Gold: 0, Silver: 1, Bronze: 5). China’s ascent to Olympic superpower status is a testament to the country’s strategic planning, investment in infrastructure, and commitment to sports development. India’s journey to Olympic success will require strategic reforms and a national commitment to sports development. By building on existing initiatives like Khelo India and learning from China’s strategic investments, India can unlock its athletic potential and take its place among the global sports superpowers. Sports can serve as a powerful tool for national development, uniting people and instilling a sense of pride and achievement. 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 Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit The reports and revelations coming from Kerala about sexual abuse, harassment, exploitation in the Malayalam film industry are reminders of the underbelly of glamour and politics. Men and boys, we show our manhood through the way we treat our women. Our colleagues, our wives, our sisters, our mothers.Archbishop Desmond Tutu Women’s safety and its issues are discussed and debated all around the globe. Still, every year the number of reports on sexual harassment is increasing at an alarming rate. We continue to say that we are living in modern times where women finally have the agency to break the glass ceiling more easily and achieve their goals. However, the ground reality is a far cry from sunshine and rainbows. Women’s workforce participation rate remains low, and they continue to face safety issues. There are enough news reports to show the gruesome situation women face at workplaces, and these are a clear example of lack of safety. The series of reports and revelations coming from Kerala about sexual abuse, harassment, misuse of power and exploitation allegations in the Malayalam film industry are reminders of the underbelly of glamour and politics. After five years of waiting, the report of the Justice Hema Commission was made public. The Commission was established in 2018 under the retired Justice K. Hema to review the scope and magnitude of sexual harassment and exploitation in the Malayalam film industry, also known as Mollywood. What has followed is a series of women, be it actresses or those working in the Mollywood industry, coming forward with allegations of harassment and exploitation (sexual and otherwise). The names put under question are genuinely shocking, spanning not merely from the actors and directors but also members of politics and beyond. This has sparked serious concerns about the status of women, not merely in the entertainment industry but women in workplaces everywhere. The uproar it has generated in Kerala, and nationwide, showcases the trend in society towards a growing consciousness about these issues. In such a light, the episode raises critical issues that demand thoughtful consideration. This is just the tip of the iceberg. First, it raises more significant questions and thoughts about the working of commissions/committee reports by the government that are shrouded under secrecy. Bringing transparency to these committee reports and other more extensive government policy-making mechanisms is necessary. There is a growing anger amongst the public against obfuscation and lack of transparent measures. Now, for the public to be upset about government’s delayed response is natural, as such measures underscore the hypocrisy of the communist government that is apparently trying to shield the accused. Meanwhile, the intellectual class at the forefront of asking for transparency and accountability is selective and silent on the issue. Barring a few exceptions, the problem is not given the importance it deserves. Remember the wokes and ultraliberals during Covid-19 who went crazy asking to release data and information about the PM Cares fund? Now, they have embraced silence. Second, it is a far larger issue than Malayalam cinema; it concerns women across the entertainment industry and in workplaces everywhere. The Women in Cinema Collective, the organisation formed in the aftermath of the 2017 assault that triggered the formation of the Justice Hema Commission, should be commended for taking up the initiative and its persistent effort to make the report public. It should also be noted that exploitation is not limited to actresses but goes to different levels of hierarchy within the industry, including the junior artists and supporting staff who are more vulnerable to such advances by the controlling regimes in the industry. The fact that people are underpaid and overexploited for their work through less or no compensation showcases a disturbing trend in regulating the workplace environment. Women are indeed the worst victims, for this idea of the “casting couch” is not merely an attack on their talent and hard work but also their dignity. So far, the government has remained elusive in its response. However, the need of the hour is for the government to come out in support of the victims and formulate workplace norms that prevent such incidents. Third, the most important thing at this stage is to remember that we must stand united against harassment of any kind. Exploitation, bullying or coercion, no matter how innocuous it may seem, are not acceptable. A verbal comment about an inappropriate gesture or a touch should not be tolerable. The dragged response by the Kerala government to form a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is a welcome step, but it is not enough. The industry is world-renowned for its progressive nature and the themes it addresses, but the presence of such widespread and systemic problems is a dark spot on its image. Undoubtedly, the dictum of innocent until proven guilty is key at this stage, but what makes the Kerala government stand in the way of justice? If the accused are falsely blamed, the government has more reasons to take a stand and facilitate legal action to ensure that justice is promptly meted out and the truth is revealed. One thing is clear—women need to feel as safe as men do at workplaces. So organizations and the government need to join hands to enforce laws and safety policies if we want to ensure equal participation of women in the workforce. While the POSH Act provides the legal teeth, what’s even more necessary is to create an inclusive and respectful culture among all workers. This can be done only by educating and training the staff. And that is the only way to build a culture where women can voice their opinions and be themselves, free of inhibitions or fear. While the Prime Minister spearheads the campaign of Nari Shakti, where women-driven development is viewed as a key force to push India towards the Viksit Bharat vision, the Kerala episode showcases the existing problems and resistance within the system that seems unwilling to change. Women’s rights and liberty to work without fear and exploitation are not societal ideals but basic necessities. The harrowing news that we witnessed recently, including in Kolkata, should make our skin crawl and open our eyes to these societal ills. The government should stand for higher ideals, not serve its political party and members. This #MeToo moment in the Malayalam film industry should be a wake-up call for everyone, and there is a severe need to revisit and rethink the role of women in the workplace. #Gender #WorkPlace #Safety #WomenSecurity Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 1st September 2024 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/gender-security-in-the-spotlight-post-hema-committee-report Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

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)