HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIMES OF ARMED CONFLICTS

The present contribution deals with the issue of human rights in armed conflicts versus the concept of war. This distinction was made in Article 2, and the same in all four Geneva Convention of 1949. In this article, the distinction is made between the universal system of human rights and the International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts (IHLAC). The difference of application between these two sets of law relies on the fact, that the universal agreements of human rights always apply, both in armed conflict and peace when the IHLAC applies only in times of armed conflicts. There is a difference between them in the regulation. Human rights regulate the relationship between the state and persons under its jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality and the IHLAC applies to states and individuals or armed groups distinguishing between a civilian or a veteran. About the compliance control, it is a different system too, for the IHLAC, it is the ICRC and criminal tribunals, and for human rights, there are different committees of tribunals like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The exam of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows, that it does not make a distinction between a state of war and peace, which is called the humanization of the law of armed conflicts. Also, the very important question of the fragmentation of international law is examined, based on the jurisprudence of the ICJ.

Impact of Shimla Agreement on the Application of UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Analysis under International Law

The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyze the impact of the Shimla Agreement on the application of the United Nations’ resolution on Jammu and Kashmir with special reference to the International law. The conflict of Jammu and Kashmir has been a longstanding conflict for right to self-determination for people of Jammu and Kashmir. There are almost twenty resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP on Jammu and Kashmir and the issue is still pending in the United Nations Security Council. However, there has been a debate on the impact of the Shimla agreement on the applicability and validity of the resolutions of the United Nations in post 1972 scenario. This paper will critically analyze and objectively review the various legal dimensions of the Shimla Agreement in juxtaposition with the leading principles of International law as well as decisions of the ICJ on similar matters. Moreover, this paper will also analyze the nature, scope and applicability of the resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP in the light of the International law. The findings of this research work are based upon the critical review of the existing literature on the Shimla Agreement and its impact on the UN Resolutions. This study will suggest the effective analysis and will address all the questions pertaining to the nature, scope and legal impact of the Shimla Agreement on the nature and scope of applicability of UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. This study can be very useful and relevant in future to analyze the nature of the Shimla agreement and the binding nature and applicability of the resolutions of the United Nations on Jammu and Kashmir.

Towards Deeper Judicialisation: Explaining Thailand’s Increasing Engagement with International Adjudication

This paper calls attention to a little-noticed phenomenon about the Thai government’s increasing involvement in international adjudication over the last two decades. For the first time, it has participated in the advisory proceedings before the ITLOS, and made oral statements in the advisory proceedings before the ICJ. It has faced the first treaty-based arbitration by a German investor. There has also been an attempt to initiate the proceedings at the International Criminal Court against Thai officials. All of these parallel the government’s extensive participation in the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO. What accounts for such developments? The paper argues that Thailand’s constantly increasing engagement with international adjudication should be understood as part of the judicialisation of international relations. Specifically, it is shaped by four main conditions. First, the Thai government has cautiously yet constantly expanded its acceptance of jurisdiction of courts and tribunals. Second, the number of potential claimants has exponentially increased. Third, the composition of the international litigator communities has changed, resulting in the significant increase in the number of lawyers willing to pursue new cases. Fourth, Thai government officials are learning to strategically make themselves more visible in the litigator communities.

R. LEMKIN'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

This article presents the significance and impact of Lemkin's concept of genocide on the development of international law. We will randomly present the jurisprudence of international courts such as the ICJ, the ICC, the ICTY and the ICTR, which analyzed the concepts of genocide, including cultural heritage crimes. Residual functions of the ICTY, including oversight of sentences and consideration of any appeal proceedings initiated since 1 July 2013, are under the jurisdiction of a successor body, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT). The article also invites attention to the impact on R2P and the human rights, as well as international state responsibility and the individual responsibility.

Arbitral Award of Oct. 3, 1899 (Guy. v. Venez.) (Decision on Jurisdiction) (I.C.J.)

On December 18, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) handed down its decision on the jurisdiction of the Court in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela). By a 14–2 majority, the Court ruled that it has jurisdiction to decide certain elements of the application submitted unilaterally by Guyana against Venezuela, while it concluded unanimously that it lacks jurisdiction over other aspects of Guyana's application. Having established jurisdiction over certain elements of Guyana's application, the ICJ will now proceed to hear the merits of the claims.

Evaluation of outcomes following subtotal colectomy for the treatment of idiopathic megacolon in cats

OBJECTIVE To evaluate outcomes in cats undergoing subtotal colectomy for the treatment of idiopathic megacolon and to determine whether removal versus nonremoval of the ileocecocolic junction (ICJ) was associated with differences in outcome. ANIMALS 166 client-owned cats. PROCEDURES For this retrospective cohort study, medical records databases of 18 participating veterinary hospitals were searched to identify records of cats with idiopathic megacolon treated by subtotal colectomy from January 2000 to December 2018. Data collection included perioperative and surgical variables, complications, outcome, and owner perception of the procedure. Data were analyzed for associations with outcomes of interest, and Kaplan-Meier survival time analysis was performed. RESULTS Major perioperative complications occurred in 9.9% (15/151) of cats, and 14% (12/87) of cats died as a direct result of treatment or complications of megacolon. The median survival time was not reached. Cats with (vs without) a body condition score < 4/9 (hazard ratio [HR], 5.97), preexisting heart disease (HR, 3.21), major perioperative complications (HR, 27.8), or long-term postoperative liquid feces (HR, 10.4) had greater hazard of shorter survival time. Constipation recurrence occurred in 32% (24/74) of cats at a median time of 344 days and was not associated with retention versus removal of the ICJ; however, ICJ removal was associated with long-term liquid feces (OR, 3.45), and a fair or poor outcome on owner assessment (OR, 3.6). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE Results indicated that subtotal colectomy was associated with long survival times and a high rate of owner satisfaction. Removal of the ICJ was associated with less favorable outcomes in cats of the present study.