If anything, Pakistan’s lawyers made it clear through their points that there is indeed a dispute between the parties over the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
India’s refusal to accept the 1984 pogrom as genocide is problematic, given the absence of prescribed domestic standards to test such a claim.
When it comes to international law, it is mutual respect for rights that is paramount.
By creating a “hub and spoke” model to counter international terrorism, the US today has a veto on its legal regime, its proscribed actors and use of military force.
When US rivals committed atrocities in Aleppo, Western talking heads were appalled. But when the US supports them in Mosul? Silence.
The era of ‘positivism’ in international law, which championed state supremacy in international affairs (chiefly through the executive), appears to be in its final days.
The impressive credentials of the other nominees is proof those countries understand the role international law plays in world affairs – even as India sees the ILC as just another parking slot for a person from the ‘parivar’.
Pakistan’s responsibility under international law for terrorist acts in Uri, and for “training, financing and supporting terrorist groups” turns on the evidence Delhi can gather.
According to the UN Charter, a state can use force against another state if authorised by the UNSC, if it is a matter of self-defence or if the other state has invited it to do so.
Recent apex court judgments show a misunderstanding of the relationship between international law and domestic Indian law. Greater conceptual clarity on this is critical.
Anti-terrorist action is not conducted exclusively by the armed forces but also by the police, who are also protected from vexatious litigation by regular law.
It would make more sense for Beijing to explore some of the peaceful coexistence options that have been hinted at by Manila.
India can take Pakistan to the International Court of Justice for denying it consular access to a citizen accused of espionage.
Nations including Japan, India and the US called for greater respect for international law to resolve worsening tensions over the South China Sea, a dig at Beijing, which has said it will not accept any ruling by a UN-backed court on the dispute.
The White House said President Barack Obama plans to veto the bill.
Indian lawmakers would do well to remember that we cannot ignore progressive international legislation when it comes to gender-based violence.
The FCRA law, governing foreign funding to certain NGOs and CSOs in India, is not in conformity with international law, principles and standards, Kiai has argued.
What international law tells us about how a guerrilla army should legitimately fight a technologically superior opponent, employing justifiable and proportionate means and tactics