Kumar: Well, international law is that body of law which, in some ways, governs the relationship between states, and essentially, that’s now … I mean, in today’s context international law pretty much incorporates a variety of body of law, including the international trade law, intellectual property law, a wide range of issues relating to public international law, private international law. So international law is, in some ways, there are a number of aspects of the law which draws upon the domestic law itself, in some ways. So, for example, there are issues relating to conflict of law where, which jurisdictions law will become applicable in a given situation will also be governed. So, I mean, my own interest within the broader field of international law is relating to international human rights law. Now there is, essentially, human rights law could also be domestic constitutional law, which is what, in most countries, human rights is perceived to be. Now what international human rights law does is to understand what are the universally applicable set of rights on the basis of which how one’s rights and liberties can be protected and what are the institutions that could ensure that these rights are protected. In the international human rights context, for example, you inevitably look at the working of the United Nations, the working of the UN Human Rights Committee, the working of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, all these are essentially the key institutions as far as international human rights law is concerned, as well as the international trade law, you already much know the working of the WTO, the World Trade Organization, is the key organization or institution which will govern it.
Discuss
shawn disney on February 14, 2009, 8:06 PM
A Great Idea, but the whole issue is confused by the assumption that it actually exists; it does not, by any reasonable standard. What does exist are international agreements, which may be unilaterally repealed at any time , by any of the parties,without significant penalty. In the last 100 years, something like 100 million people have been killed , precisely because of a total lack of International Law. What we have instead is a charade of pontification, which camouflages the fact the there is no such Law, i.e. no civilised way to settle political disputes, (in the absence of agreements), short of war , or bullying assaults, like embargoes. The reason for this is mainly that people accept that their own leader can have people killed without personal responsibily, but “patriots” reject the idea that their own leaders might be subject to any Laws against murder or other atrocities. A real Law must be perceived as rational, based on agreed on statutes, impartially enforced, preferably by a police like organization, representing everyone, and which has no stake in the outcome. Some sort of Court system is also required. Armies are to kill people, they cannot provide Justice or enforce non-existent Laws; they have little in common with Police except weapons. disigny
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register