Download the Speeches of all Hon'ble Chief Justices & Judges in ...

Hon’ble Mr Justice Leonard EzraUnyolo, Chief Justice of the Republicof Malawi being greeted at theReception organised by Supreme Courtof India Bar Association at New DelhiCurrently there is no institution charged with the responsibility of making international law,which is binding on all nations and peoples of the world. The UN and regional agenciesdo not possess such powers of making enforceable international law. It is a naturalconsequence of the absence of authoritative law-declaring machinery that many of theprinciples of international law, and even more the detailed application of accepted principlesare uncertain. Powerful countries are therefore able to flout the law with impunity underthe pretext that it is vague.Considering that obedience to international law has not really been achieved by diplomaticmeans, more innovative techniques must be established. In this regard enforcement canbe achieved through compulsory litigation before a world court that is given power toenforce compliance. Today’s challenge is to enhance the effectiveness of procedures and institutions established to promoteaccountability of governments in international law.New trends concerning enforcement suggest that the best approach may either be to reform existing bodies in order to givethem expanded mandate or to create entirely new institutions which are representative and with power to compel compliancewith their mandate. Considering that one of the major weaknesses of international law is that there is no representative lawmaking body, it is imperative that the international community moves swiftly towards creating a legislative body to keepinternational law abreast of the legitimate needs of the international community.Similarly, given the increasing need for international law enforcement in cases where international peace and security are atstake, one must recognize the importance of creating a world court with compulsory jurisdiction. The political and geographicaldiversity of the causes of international conflicts may require reactions other than those by the central authority of theSecurity Council. To this end provision must be made for effective international law enforcement in the event of theSecurity Council’s inaction due to its exercise of the veto power.As there is no international court with compulsory jurisdiction to enforce international law, creating such institution underauspices of the UN would be an alternative to reforming an existing body. The new Court would have jurisdiction overinternational law matters. States as well as corporations and international organizations could be parties before the Court.The biggest obstacle to the creation of a forum of this nature would be recognition of its jurisdiction by states. Therecognition of such jurisdiction would mean a further limitation on state sovereignty. However, the task of promotinginternational law is of such tremendous importance that it requires a partial sacrifice on sovereignty. Where protection of theplanet for the sake of children and future generations and state sovereignty clash, the later should give way.Although for a variety of political and practical reasons states prefer to resolve disputes of an international nature indomestic tribunals it should always be borne in mind that most international law problems are planet-wide in scope. Theyconsequently demand global solutions. The recent handling of terror suspects by the World’s major powers clearly exposesthe limitations of domestic legal systems. Moreover, there are several obstacles to enforcing domestically implementedinternational law, namely: sovereignty, the doctrine of standing and the principle of forum non-conveniens.Resolving international global problems at domestic and regional levels would also lead to the proliferation of tribunals. Thiscan have adverse consequences in that it is difficult to maintain uniformity and consistency in the application and enforcementof international law. A global body would also act as a backstop where national courts are unwilling or unable to adjudicatedue to political or other reasons.Some contend that the hope for a secure future lies, not in the building of a few ambitious global institutions of a universalmembership but in regional institutions. However, experience with regional institutions has taught us that principle can besacrificed at the altar of unity and that global problems demand global solutions. Regionalism also tends to undermine theuniversality of international standards.--21--