We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 April 2015
Since 11 September 2001, international law and the community it governs are at a crossroads. While the world appears to be besieged by terrorist threats from non-state actors such as the Al-Qaeda, there is also a substantial risk of super-power unilateralism and arrogance. Amidst these crises, South-Asia occupies a sensitive and vulnerable position. The region is also beset with ethnic, religious, and domestic political conflicts which provide substantial threats to regional peace and security. Against the backdrop of the enormous complications faced by South Asia, the present article considers the role of international and regional institutions in developing forums for establishing peace and security for the region, as well greater promotion of human rights. A particular focus is upon the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) which, it is contended, is an organisation capable of providing a suitable platform for peaceful dialogue within South-Asia.
1 The late Rajiv Gandhi, Prime Minister of India, Bangalore, (Public Statement) 18 November 1986.
2 For an insightful view see, Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, “In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security an human rights for All” A/59/2005 (2005); Subedi, S.P., “The UN Response to International Terrorism in the Aftermath of the Terrorist Attacks in America and the Problem of the Definition of Terrorism in International Law” (2002) 4(3) International Law Forum at 159–169 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frank, J.N.B. and Rehman, J., “Assessing the legality of the Attacks by the International Coalition against Terrorism (I.C.A.T) against Al-Qaeda and Taleban in Afghanistan: An Enquiry into the Self-Defense Argument under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter” (2003) 67:5 Journal of Criminal Law at 415–430 Google Scholar.
3 S. Karirya, “Kashmir Standoff-Explosive If Not Yet Cataclysmic” IEEE SPECTRUM 30 July 2003.
4 See Rehman, J. and Roy, N. “South-Asia” in Thornberry, P. et al, eds., World Directory of Minorities (London: Minority Rights Group, 1997) at 535–587 Google Scholar.
5 The International Bill of Rights consists of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) 10 December, 1948, UN GA Res. 217 A (III), UN Doc. A/810 (1948) at 71, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted at New York, 16 December, 1966. Entered into force 23 March 1976. GA Res. 2200A (XXI) UN Doc. A/6316 (1966) 999 U.N.T.S. 171; 6 I.L.M. (1967) 368 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) Adopted at New York, 16 December, 1966. Entered into force 3 January, 1976. GA Res. 2200A (XXI) UN Doc. A/6316 (1966) 993 U.N.T.S. 3; (1967) 6 I.L.M. 360. For further details see Rehman, J., International Human Rights Law: A Practical Approach (London: Longman, 2003)Google Scholar.
6 See Ahson, A., SAARC: A Perspective (Dhaka: Bangladesh, 1992)Google Scholar; Bokhari, I. H., “South Asian Regional Cooperation: Progress, Problems, Potential and Prospects” (1985) 35 Asian Survey 371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Muni, S.D., “SARC: Building Regionalism From Below” (1985) 35 Asian Survey 391 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7 J. Rehman and N. Roy supra note 4 at 534; Rehman, J., “Re-Assessing the Right to Self-Determination: Lessons from the Indian Experience” (2000) 29(4) Anglo-American Law Review, at 454–475 Google Scholar.
8 Ali, K, A New History of India and Pakistan (Karachi: Pakistan Book Centre, 1992)Google Scholar; “South Asia Poorer Than Black Africa” Times 2 May 1997.
9 Hinduism and Buddhism.
10 J Rehman and N Roy, supra note 4 at 534-537.
11 For historical surveys in English see Collins, L. & Lapierre, D., Freedom at Midnight (London: Collins, 1975)Google Scholar; Kuper, L., Genocide: Its Political Use in the Twentieth Century (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Moon, P., Divide and Quit (London: Chatto and Windus, 1961)Google Scholar; Khosla, G., Stern Reckoning: A Survey of the Events Leading up to and Following the Partition of India (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar; Ghai, P.V., The Partition of the Punjab 1849-1947 (New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1986)Google Scholar.
12 D'Souza, F., Crisp, J., The Refugee Dilemma (London: Minority Rights Group, 1985), at 6 Google Scholar; Rehman, J., “Self-Determination, State-Building and the Muhajirs: An International Legal Perspective of the Role of the Indian Muslim Refugees in the Constitutional Developments of Pakistan” (1994) 3 Contemporary South Asia, at 111 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whitaker, B. et al, The Biharis in Bangladesh (London: Minority Rights Group, 1977) at 7 Google Scholar.
13 See J. Rehman and N. Roy “South-Asia” supra note 4 at 534.
14 On Tamils see Schwarz, W., The Tamils of Sri Lanka (London: Minority Rights Group, 1988)Google Scholar; On minority rights in Pakistan see, Rehman, J., Weaknesses in the International Protection of Minority Rights (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2000)Google Scholar; on indigenous peoples rights see Rehman, J., “Indigenous Peoples at Risk: A Survey of Indigenous Peoples of South Asia” in Burman, B.K. Roy and Verghese, B.G., eds. Aspiring to be: The Tribal, Indigenous Condition (Delhi: Konark Publishers, 1998), at 72–121 Google Scholar; Ali, S.S and Rehman, J., Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities of Pakistan: Constitutional and Legal Perspectives (London: Routledge-Curzon Press, 2001)Google Scholar.
15 See Nanda, V.P., “Self-Determination in International Law: The Tragic Tale of Two Cities - Islamabad (West Pakistan) and Dacca (East Pakistan)” (1972) 66 American Journal of International Law, 321 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nanda, V.P., “A Critique of the United Nations inaction in Bangladesh” (1976) 49 Denver Law Journal 53 Google Scholar.
16 Stokke, H., “Nepal” in Human Rights in Developing Countries Yearbook, 1993 (Oslo: Nordic Human Rights Publications, 1993)Google Scholar; Skar, H., “Nepal, Indigenous Issues and Civil Rights: the Plight of Rana Tharu” in Barnes, R., Gray, A. and Kingsbury, B., eds., Indigenous Peoples of Asia (Ann Arbor, MI: Association of Asian Studies, 1995), pp. 173–194 Google Scholar; Dhakal, D.N.S. and Strawn, C., Bhutan: A Movement in Exile (New Delhi: Nerala Publications, 1994)Google Scholar; US Department of State, Bhutan: Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (Washington D.C.; US Department of State, 2004)Google Scholar.
17 See J. Rehman and N. Roy “South-Asia” supra note 4 at 534-537.
18 Adopted at San Francisco 26 June 1945. Entered into force on 24 October, 1945. 1 U.N.T.S xvi; U.K.T.S 67 (1946); 59 Stat. 1031.
19 See Sands, P. and Klein, P., Bowett's Law of International Institutions, 5th. edn., (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2001) at 24 Google Scholar.
20 For a consideration of the meaning of jus cogens see Articles 53 and 64 of the VCLT (1969); (1966) 247-248 YBILC; See Schwelb, E., “Some Aspects of International Jus Cogens as Formulated by the International Law Commission” (1967) 61 American Journal of International Law 946 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Whiteman, M.M., “Jus Cogens in International Law, with a Projected List” (1977) 7 Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 609 Google Scholar.
21 There are currently 191 members States. For a list of the UN member States and the dates of their membership see <http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember> (24 February 2006).
22 While the General Assembly Resolutions are recommendatory and cannot as such establish binding legal obligations, they present evidence of State practice. State practices provide an important ingredient in the development of binding customary law. In this context it is important to note the highly authoritative General Assembly Resolutions such as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (1960) Adopted on 14 December 1960, UN GA. Res. 1514 (XV); UN GAOR 15th. Session, Supp. 16, at 66, UN Doc. A/4684 (1961); Peoples and the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Amongst States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (1970) Adopted on 24 October, 1970, UN GA Res. 2625, 25 UN GAOR, Supp. 28 at 121, UN Doc. A/8028 (1971); 9 I.L.M. (1971) 1292. On the value of General Assembly Resolutions in general international law see Sloan, B., “General Assembly Resolutions Revisited: (Forty Years Later)” (1987) 58 British Yearbook of International Law 39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bleicher, S.A., “The Legal Significance of Re-Citation of General Assembly Resolutions” (1969) 63 American Journal of International Law 444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cheng, B., “United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: “Instant” International Customary Law?” (1965) 5 Indian Journal of International Law 23 Google Scholar. On the value of the Uniting for Peace Resolution (adopted 3 November 1950) UN GA Res. 377(V), GAOR, 5th Sess. Supp. 20, at 10, see Rehman, supra note 6, at 29-30.
23 25 October 1945.
24 For details see <http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember> (24 February 2006).
25 Article 46 UN Charter.
26 The allocation of these seats are on geographical basis. The current membership is based on the following: 15 African States, 13 Asian States, 11 Latin American States, 5 Eastern European States and 10 Western European and Other States.
27 See Commission on Human Rights <http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/chrmem.htm> (2 January 2006).
28 See Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/2/sc.htm (24 February 2006).
29 Article 92, UN Charter.
30 See Articles 36 Statute of the I.C.J.
31 Ibid. Article 59.
32 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion 8 July 1996, [1996] I.C.J. Rep. 66, paras 15 and 35.
33 The current composition is: President Shi Jiuyong (China); Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar); Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone); Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation); Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom); Gonzalo Parra-Aranguren (Venezuela); Pieter H. Kooijmans (Netherlands); Francisco Rezek (Brazil); Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan); Thomas Buergenthal (United States of America); Nabil Elaraby (Egypt); Hisashi Owada (Japan); Bruno Simma (Germany); and Peter Tomka (Slovakia), Ronny Abraham (France) (31 October, 2005) <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/igncompos.html>
34 Article 24, United Nations Charter.
35 See the Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 at paras. 29-30; Gowlland-Debbass, V., “The Relationship Between the International Court of Justice and Security Council in the Light of the Lockerbie Case” (1994) 88 American Journal of International Law 643 at 662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Shaw, M., International Law (Cambridge: Grotius Publications, 1997) at 854 Google Scholar.
37 For analysis and commentaries see Lowe, V “The Iraq Crisis: What Now?” (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; various contributions to “Agora: Future Implications of the Iraq Conflict” (2003) 97 American Journal of International Law 553–642 Google Scholar; Also see Murphy, S.D., “Assessing the legality of invading Iraq” (2004) 92 Georgetown Law Journal 173–257 Google Scholar.
38 Gray, C., Regional Arrangements and the United Nations Collective Security System” in Fox, H., ed., The Changing Constitution of the United Nations (London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1997) at 91–116 Google Scholar.
39 According to Article 21 of the Covenant of the League of Nations: Nothing in this Covenant shall be deemed to affect the validity of international engagements, such as treaties of arbitration or regional undertakings like the Monroe doctrine, for securing the maintenance of peace.
40 Article 52(1) United Nations Charter.
41 Sands and Klein, supra note 19 at 150.
42 See Kelsen, H., “Is the North Atlantic a Regional Arrangement” (1951) 45 American Journal of International Law 162 Google Scholar.
43 See Narine, S., Explaining ASEAN: Regionalism in Southeast Asia (United States: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2002)Google Scholar, Martin, L.G., The ASEAN Success Story: Social, Economic, and Political Dimensions (United States: University of Hawaii Press, 1987)Google Scholar.
44 See Macdonald, R.W., The League of Arab States: A Study in the Dynamics of Regional Organisation (Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hassouna, H.A., The League of Arab States and Regional Disputes: A Study of Middle East Conflicts, (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana Publication, 1975)Google Scholar.
45 See Vincenzi, C. and Fairhurst, J., Law of the European Community (Essex: Longman, 2002)Google Scholar; Craig, P. and de Burca, G., Evolution of EU Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999)Google Scholar.
46 Statute of the Council of Europe adopted 5 May 1949. Entered into force August 1949 E.T.S. 221.
47 Jahan, R., Pakistan: Failure in National Integration (New York: Columbia University Press, 1972)Google Scholar; Choudhury, G.W., “Bangladesh: Why it Happened” (1972) 48 International Affairs 242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Noman, O., Pakistan: A Political and Economic History Since 1947 (London: Kegan Paul International, 1990)Google Scholar.
48 Mascarenhas, A., The Rape of Bangladesh (Delhi: Vikas Publications, 1971)Google Scholar; Macdermot, N., “Crimes Against Humanity in Bangladesh” (1973) 7 International Lawyer 476 Google Scholar.
49 International Commission of Jurists, The Events of East Pakistan: A Legal Study (Geneva) 1972, at 85 Google Scholar. Salzberg, J., “UN Prevention of Human Rights Violations: The Bangladesh Case” (1973) 27 International Organization, at 115 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; According to the then United States Ambassador to the UN, George Bush, the Pakistani military action in March “does not justify the actions of India in intervening militarily and places in jeopardy the territorial integrity and political independence of its neighbour Pakistan”. S/VP. 1611, (12 December 1971), at 11.
50 United Nations (Draft) Security Council Resolution S/10428 (6 December 1971).
51 Uniting for Peace Resolution (adopted 3 November 1950) UN GA Res. 377(V), GAOR, 5th Sess. Supp. 20, at 10.
52 Kuper, L., The Prevention of Genocide (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985) at 58 Google Scholar.
53 In pursuance of the Economic and Social Council Decision of 27 July 1999, the title of the SubCommission on the Prevention of Minorities and Protection of Human Rights was changed to the Sub-Commission on Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. See ECOSOC Decision 1999/256 “Rationalizing of the Work of the Commission” (E/1999/27).
54 Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court provides as follows:
The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: the interpretation of a treaty; any question of international law the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
55 Hussain, I., Issues in Pakistan's Foreign Policy: An International Law Perspective (Lahore: Progressive Publishers, 1988) at 202 Google Scholar.
56 See The Case Concerning the Trial of Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India) [1973] I.C.J. Pleadings pp. 3-7.
57 See The Case Concerning the Trial of Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India) [1973] I.C.J. Rep.at 1. For commentary see Levie, H., “Legal Aspects of the Continued Detention of Pakistani Prisoners of War” (1973) 67 American Journal of International Law 512 Google Scholar.
58 Paust, J.J and Blaustein, A.P., “War Crimes Jurisdiction and Due Process: The Bangladesh Experience” 11 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law (1978), 1 Google Scholar; Press Release, 17 April 1973 reprinted in Paust, J.J., Blaustein, A.P., War Crimes Jurisdiction and Due Process: A Case Study of Bangladesh (Unpublished Documents) 1974 at 54 Google Scholar; India-Pakistan Agreement on Repatriation of Prisoners of War (1973) 12 I.L.M. at 1080-1084.
59 J.J Paust and A.P. Blaustein, supra note 58 at 1.
60 Lamb, A., Kashmir: A Disputed Legacy, 1846-1990 (Hertingfordbury: Roxford Books, 1991)Google Scholar; Azmi, A., Kashmir: An Unparalleled Curfew, (Karachi: Panfwain Printing Press, 1990)Google Scholar; Ataov, T., Kashmir and Neighbours: Tale, Terror, Truce (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002)Google Scholar.
61 For the text of the Act see Mahmood, S., Constitutional Foundations of Pakistan (Lahore: Jang Publishers, 1989) at 31 Google Scholar.
62 Ibid. pp. 31-33.
63 See T Poulouse, Succession in International Law A Study of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Burma, (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1974) at 30-56.
64 On 27 October 1947, Lord Mountbatten, the then Governor-General of India, in accepting the Kashmir Maharaja's offer of accession of the state with India noted as follows: “In the special circumstances mentioned by your Highness, my Government has decided to accept the accession of Kashmir State to the Dominion of India. In consistence with their policy that, in the case of any State where the issue of accession has been the subject of dispute, the question of accession should be decided in accordance with the wishes of the peoples of the State, it is my Government's wish that, as soon as law and order have been restored in Kashmir and her soil cleared of the invader, the question of the State's accession should be settled by a reference to the people”. Letter of His Highness the Governor-General of India addressed to His Highness the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir, 27 October 1947 cited in Hasan, K. Sarwar, ed. Documents on the Foreign Relations of Pakistan: The Kashmir Question (Karachi: Institute of International Affairs, 1966) at 57–58 Google Scholar.
65 Article 2(7) of the Charter provides: Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.
66 For legal analysis of validity of Security Council's Resolution's under Chapter VI see supra.
67 Resolution adopted at the Two Hundred and Twenty-Ninth meeting of the Security Council 17 January 1948 (S/651).
68 For the text of these Resolutions see Sharma, S.K. and Bakshi, S.R., eds. Kashmir and the United Nations (New Delhi: Anmol Publications, 1995) at 44–48 Google Scholar.
69 Resolution adopted at the meeting of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan on 5 January, 1949 (Doc No. 5/1196, para 15, dated the 10 January 1949)
70 Rehman, J. “South-Asia” in Green, R., ed., State of World Minorities (London: Minority Rights Group, 2006) at 116 Google Scholar.
71 See Hussain, I, Kashmir Dispute: An International Law Perspective (Islamabad: National Institute of Pakistan Studies, 1998)Google Scholar; Wirsing, R.G.. “Kashmir Conflict: The New Phase” in Kennedy, C.H. ed., Pakistan: 1992 (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993) at 133–165 Google Scholar.
72 See<http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm> (31 October 2005) for the text of the Declaration.
73 See <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm> (31 October 2005) for the text of the Declaration.
74 Ibid.
75 P. Sands and P. Klein, supra note 19 at p. 227.
76 The current membership of SAARC comprises of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
77 See Information and Publications Division, From SARC to SAARC: Milestones of Regional Cooperation in South-Asia (Vol. 1 and Vol. 2) (Kathmandu: Nepal) 1990 Google Scholar.
78 <http://www.saarc-sec.org/> (31 October 2005); S.C. Kashyap, ed., SAARC (Lok Sabha Secretariat: New Delhi, 1988), at. 7-11; Bhargara, K.K., Nongartz, H. & Sobhan, F.,eds., Shaping South Asia's Future: Role of Regional Co-operation (New Dehli: Vikas Publishing House, 1995)Google Scholar.
79 The full text of the SAARC Charter can be found at: <http://www.nepaldemocracy.org/saarc_charter.html> (31 October 2005).
80 <http://www.saarc-sec.org/main.php?id=14&t=7.1> (31 October 2005).
81 Ibid.
82 For a detailed consideration see Khan, Z.R., ed., SAARC and the Superpowers (Dhaka: University Press Limited, 1991)Google Scholar.
83 <http://www.saarc-sec.org/publication/conv-terrorism.pdf> (31 October 2005).
84 For text of the Convention see <http://www.saarc-sec.org/publication/conv-narcotic.pdf> (31 October 2005).
85 For text of the Convention see <http://www.saarc-sec.org/publication/conv-traffiking.pdf> (31 October 2005).
86 For the text of the Convention see Bassiouni, M.C., International Terrorism (Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers, 2001) at 385 Google Scholar.
87 For an analysis of this principle and of terrorism in general international law see Rehman, supra note 6, at 437-465.
88 <http://www.saarc-sec.org/main.php?t=2.4> (31 October 2005).
89 BBC “Blasts Cast Shadow over Delhi” <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4390420.stm> (31 October 2005).
90 <http://www.saarc-sec.org/main.php?t=2.4> (31 October 2005).
91 <http://www.saarc-sec.org/> (31 August 2003) Chapter 11 Promotion of People-to-People Linkage and SAARC Professional Associations.
92 For a consideration of these conflicts see Rehman and Roy, supra note 4.
93 Bhargava, KK, Bongartz, H and Sobhan, F, Shaping South Asia's Future: Role of Regional Cooperation (New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd, 1995) at 52 Google Scholar.
94 Muni, S.D., “South-Asian Association for Regional Cooperation” in Khan, Z.R. eds., SAARC and the Superpowers (Dhaka: Bangladesh University Press, 1991) 55–73 at 64.Google Scholar
95 In this regard it is encouraging to note that in the aftermath of the terrible earthquake, Kashmiris (on both sides of the border) are being allowed limited opportunities to travel between Indian and Pakistani controlled territories. For further details see BBC, ‘Kashmir Deals Raises Hopes and Fear’ <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4390816.stm> (30 October 2005).
