Can someone remind me why Arun Shourie was rejected as a candidate for the policy debate?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6062895079125747933
http://arunshourie.wordpress.com/2008/05/29/quota-is-not-the-way-arun-shourie/
I'm still of the opinion that there's few individuals in this country who could be as valuable to a policy debate as this man
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Arun Shourie
Monday, September 8, 2008
To Celegrim- A challenge!
Did any of you catch Karan Thapar's "How Not to be an idiot" in his HT column last Sunday?
You can read it here:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=ViewsSectionPage&id=7afea3c5-151b-4437-a47c-848abc338428&&Headline=How+not+to+be+an+idiot&strParent=strParentID
It presented a challenge that I felt would be of special interest to law students; especially the etymologically inclined among us (read-Ameya)
To paraphrase, he (Thapar, not Ameya) observes that "idiocy" is defined as the lack of "intelligence" whereas "intelligence" is defined as the absence of "stupidity" and "stupidity" defined as the chief mental attribute of an "idiot" and so on and so forth. There is thus no objective standard or footrule to measure and describe the attribute of either intelligence or idiocy. That we can at best contextually understand them as being distinguished from the other. That while we may agree instinctively that certain behaviour is "stupid" we find it difficult to define why it is stupid without launching into a circular definition.
The Supreme Court recently did attempt to define idiocy as Thapar points out. This is their definition-
"An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals; and those are said to be idiots who cannot count (to) 20, or tell the days of the week or who do not know their fathers or mothers or the like."
You'll agree the definition isn't much.
The challenge to the Society is to define an "idiot" in a manner that does not employ synonyms or antonyms. It should describe the attribute itself in a way that no other concepts such as "intelligence" or "stupidity" need be understood first.
Cheers!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Georgia-Russia now at the International Court of Justice
On 12th August 2008, Georgia instituted proceedings before the International Court of Justiceagainst Russia for “its actions on and around the territory of Georgia” in breach of obligations under the the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). They claim violations of the Convention have occurred over 1990 to August 2008 in three distinct Russian phases of intervention in the Georgian provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Georgians have also reserved their right to invoke Article IX of the Genocide Convention as an additional basis for jurisdiction (For more information see www.icj-cji.com ). Hearings of provisional measures have been fixed for the 8th to 10th of September.
The Georgian claim for invoking jurisdiction is thus primarily based on Article 22 of the CERD. Though they have a better claim to jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, they will have a more difficult (if not impossible) task in proving any substantive claims that genocide has occurred.
The jurisdiction under the CERD will however be a complex issue. Though Article 22 permits all matters ‘with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention’ the clause expressly requires the procedures set out in the Convention to be exhausted.
The Georgian claim for invoking jurisdiction is thus primarily based on Article 22 of the CERD. Though they have a better claim to jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, they will have a more difficult (if not impossible) task in proving any substantive claims that genocide has occurred.
The jurisdiction under the CERD will however be a complex issue. Though Article 22 permits all matters ‘with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention’ the clause expressly requires the procedures set out in the Convention to be exhausted.
This requires the state to follow article 11, which requires that any violations of the Convention be brought to the notice of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination constituted under the convention. This involves referral, negotiations and possibly exhaustion of domestic remedies. Even if they can claim the non-effectiveness/time constraints from excusing them from either of these avenues, they would have had to notify the commission, which I do not believe they have done. These seem like mandatory procedures and the court may therefore not find jurisdiction to proceed.
With regard merits Georgia contends that “beginning in the early 1990s and acting in concert with separatist forces and mercenaries in the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Russian Federation has engaged in a systematic policy of ethnic discrimination directed against the ethnic Georgian population and other groups in those regions”.Furthermore it alleges that “military aggression has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, extensive destruction of civilian property, and the displacement of virtually the entire ethnic Georgian population in South Ossetia”
With regard merits Georgia contends that “beginning in the early 1990s and acting in concert with separatist forces and mercenaries in the Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the Russian Federation has engaged in a systematic policy of ethnic discrimination directed against the ethnic Georgian population and other groups in those regions”.Furthermore it alleges that “military aggression has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, extensive destruction of civilian property, and the displacement of virtually the entire ethnic Georgian population in South Ossetia”
The Convention is worded broadly enough to allow for the Russians to be held in violation of its provisions with regard the charges in the first case (that of persons under Russian direction carrying out ethnic discrimination) under article 2(b).
The second claim is however more important to the Georgians from the context of the current conflict. What the Georgians seem to be aiming at is to declare that the Russian military intervention by itself constitutes a violation of the Convention by showing that their military action resulted in unfair targeting of the ethnic Georgian civilian population. This would gain them large amounts of international legitimacy and push the Russians even further on the back foot in the international public sympathy scenario, hell they might even get a strongly worded judgment in their favour calling upon the Russians to withdraw. The slight problem is that in the August 2008 incident, the Georgians invaded first. Questions to be considered would be the proportionality of the Russian response and the actions of their troops against civilians.
Now to address a point that Rishab brought up, from my reading, the convention is not restricted to a State’s responsibilities towards its own citizens or people within its territory , so it would apply also to Russian actions against Georgian (foreign) citizens even if they occour on Georgian soil. The only requirment is that the actions must be imputed to the Russian state.
The most likely scenario however in my opinion is that the case gets thrown out at the jurisdictional stage itself. The Russians will also probabally bring counterclaims against Georgia as they have been making noises in the media about 'Genocide' against Ossetians and Abkhaz during Georgian rule.
For further info on the political aspects see:
The second claim is however more important to the Georgians from the context of the current conflict. What the Georgians seem to be aiming at is to declare that the Russian military intervention by itself constitutes a violation of the Convention by showing that their military action resulted in unfair targeting of the ethnic Georgian civilian population. This would gain them large amounts of international legitimacy and push the Russians even further on the back foot in the international public sympathy scenario, hell they might even get a strongly worded judgment in their favour calling upon the Russians to withdraw. The slight problem is that in the August 2008 incident, the Georgians invaded first. Questions to be considered would be the proportionality of the Russian response and the actions of their troops against civilians.
Now to address a point that Rishab brought up, from my reading, the convention is not restricted to a State’s responsibilities towards its own citizens or people within its territory , so it would apply also to Russian actions against Georgian (foreign) citizens even if they occour on Georgian soil. The only requirment is that the actions must be imputed to the Russian state.
The most likely scenario however in my opinion is that the case gets thrown out at the jurisdictional stage itself. The Russians will also probabally bring counterclaims against Georgia as they have been making noises in the media about 'Genocide' against Ossetians and Abkhaz during Georgian rule.
For further info on the political aspects see:
The International Herald Tribune: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/27/opinion/edgeorgia.php
A link from a Georgian friend of mine: http://www.stoprussia.ge/
Our own EPW: www.epw.co.in
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)