Peace. A state of harmony consisting of calmness and serenity, the absence of hostility, or a relationship characterised by respect, justice and goodwill. In a society fuelled by hostility and aggression, peace is evidently a utopian ideal: it was not a feature of my forefathers’ generation; nor is it likely to characterise my future. Continue reading “Peace: A Reflection”

Towards the end of February, I had the privilege of attending the Jury International de Conscience pour Le Liban which took place in Brussels over a long weekend. The Jury was charged with investigating the horrific crimes committed by the Government of Israel during the Israel-Lebanon conflict in the summer of 2006. The Jury comprised of five eminent jurists from five separate countries: Colombia, Cuba, Italy, India and Egypt (though the jury was reduced to four after the Egyptian judge was refused a visa to enter Belgium). The tribunal was supported by efforts from all over the world including the US-based International Action Center (founded in 1992 by former US Attorney General Ramsay Clark) and other individuals from Europe and the Arab world. The tribunal took place over three days in the Maison des Associations Internationales in central Brussels. Continue reading “Israel vs Lebanon: Justified Self-Defence?”

The non-participation of a people in the affairs of its country is indicative of an absence of democracy. In Pakistan, democracy was derailed by the suspension of the constitution and the army takeover of October 12, 1999. Ever since, the military government has been more concerned with politics than governance. When General Pervez Musharraf came into power, two of the foremost items on his agenda were bringing back real democracy to the people and promoting freedom of the press. However in his eight years at the helm, he has failed to achieve either. Continue reading “Desperately Seeking Democracy?”

In cases of political conflict, the most difficult task is often separating the good guys from the bad. This can seem impossible as, for one, there is never consensus on the definition of these two terms – it is usually a matter of one’s perspective. Furthermore, solutions cannot be reached simply by identifying an enemy and placing blame. Peaceful resolution of conflict is a product of negotiation and compromise. Continue reading “A tale of negotiation and compromise…”

There are two kinds of people on this Earth: those who find peace with themselves and those who do not. I watched Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain last week, motivated partly by the strong recommendation of friends and partly by the polemic that the last issue of King’s Bench had stirred. A tragic love story about two people deeply in love, but not at all at peace with themselves, Brokeback is one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. Being a big fan of independent cinema, I had encountered films with similar themes before, but still did not expect to be quite so shaken. Continue reading “Peace In My Time”

I was astonished to open King’s Bench (”Homosexuality:  The Big Debate”, Vol. 15, Issue 2, p. 26) and see a debate about whether or not the community to which I belong, the lesbian and gay minority, “pose[s] a threat to the human race”. In the United Kingdom?  In 2008?  “Basil Haady” (a King’s student who seems to have recently arrived from 1958, the year after the Wolfenden Report) concluded that I, other gay men, and lesbian women do pose a threat to the heterosexual majority (because we engage in sexual activity without procreative potential), and that scientists should search for a “cure” for our “abnormality”.  He generously provided that we should not be forced to take this “cure”.  Despite its voluntary and non-fatal nature (cf. the British National Party’s “system of voluntary resettlement”:  “immigrants … will be afforded the opportunity to return to their lands of ethnic origin assisted by generous financial incentives”), Mr. Haady’s hypothetical “cure” bears a chilling resemblance to Nazi policy on discrimination:  despised or misunderstood minorities should not enjoy legal protection against discrimination, but instead should be eliminated for the benefit of the majority.  The most horrific example of this policy was the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”.  Others included the killing of thousands of persons who had disabilities (their lives were deemed “not worth living”), or who were Roma, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or gay (see the “Reich Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion”). Continue reading “Right Of Reply: Do I Need A Cure?”

This was the winning essay in the King’s Bench Essay Prize 2008.

“[E]ven if, in the areas which fall outside the scope of the Community’s competence, the Member States are still free, in principle, to lay down the conditions governing the existence and exercise of the rights in question, the fact remains that, when exercising that competence,…Member States must nevertheless comply with Community law” [1]. This recent assertion by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is yet another illustration of burgeoning judicial and academic initiatives seeking to define the contours of the European Union’s respect of fundamental human rights (FHRs). Nevertheless, this initiative has been disputed, and therefore we must take note of the explicit steps that recent case-law has taken to ensure some EU protection of fundamental human rights. In this rather limited study, we shall therefore address the question of a necessity for such protection in the EU, examining only the paradigmatic debate regarding civil, social and political rights. This shall exclude the semantic debate as to the distinction of “fundamental” versus “human” rights, the former possibly designating the so-called “fundamental freedoms” protected by the EC Treaty. ‘EU’ law denotes all three pillars of the Union structure, and whilst the second and third pillars mainly concern intergovernmental action, through which Member States must respect their obligations under human rights treaties, we shall argue that the possible infringement of right by EU law as a whole necessitates protection. Finally, the notion of “need” rather than “should”, which is not neutral, seeks proof of an objective necessity for the EU legal order to include such a protection, a necessity recognised by positive law. Despite doubts as to the appropriateness of human rights protection at the EU level, the potential for human rights infringement (I) demands that EU law ensure human rights protection (II). Continue reading “Does EU law need to protect fundamental human rights?”

This essay placed second in the King’s Bench Essay Prize 2008.

Although the protection of fundamental human rights has occupied a progressively high status within the European Union, its development within the framework of EU law has been subject to a number of criticisms. A degree of scepticism exists regarding the European Court of Justice’s ability to enforce an adequate system of human rights protection within an entity primarily established as an economic institution. The ECJ has been criticised for attempting to act as another Human Rights Court, when the Strasbourg Court was already created with an express human rights jurisdiction. Similarly, it is argued that the ECJ has attempted to widen Community competences “through the back-door” by manipulating the rhetorical force of human rights to advance the commercial goals of the common market. This article seeks to demonstrate that these concerns only reinforce the necessity for a fully-fledged policy of human rights protection within the EU. A stronger commitment to ensure respect for fundamental human rights would provide the EU with the ethical foundations it has lacked as a result of its origins as a common market. This is reinforced in that the 2007 Reform Treaty confers legally binding status to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and authorises the EU to acquire international legal personality. This allows for EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights, which would ensure consistency in the interpretation and application of human rights, whilst strengthening and legitimising their place within EU law. Continue reading “Does EU law need to protect fundamental human rights?”

This essay placed third in the King’s Bench Essay Prize 2007-2008.

This is a question that has three aspects to it. One avenue, that this question leads us towards, is whether human rights protection through the EU is excessive and unnecessary. Citizens of the European Union are already able to call upon rights granted by the European Convention on Human Rights. However, there also exists a European Charter on Human Rights. We can examine the requirement for additional protections, and find out if there is any gain to be made from having these as a part of the substantive European Union law. Another issue, which is more broad in nature, is to explore the correctness of interventions of the EU into matters such as these and the third aspect is the idea that the EU is compelled to protect fundamental human rights. The intention of this essay is to explore each one of these and it commences with the first matter stated above. Continue reading “Does EU law need to protect fundamental human rights?”

Saturday night was very strange for me. I was completely torn between two emotions. First, I was gutted, totally gutted having watched the Cup I had so strived for over the past 9 months end up in the arms of someone else, even worse was that it was someone from UCL. However, I was also relieved that the day had come and past with relative success - Berrylands was packed with sportsmen and women, cheerleaders and supporters galore. All the games were competitive, hard-fought with much banter and enjoyment evident on the touchlines. Continue reading “Addleshaw Goddard Cup 2008″