Something About The Law

That is the theme for this year’s meeting of the high and mighty in the hamlet of Davos in Switzerland. This year, however, the World Economic Forum has been marked by a significant decrease in the number of helicopter-attendees, celebrities and dishes in the otherwise-lavish buffet spread. Indeed, there are no Richard Fulds or Ramalinga Rajus telling us how rosy the picture is/was/will be. Instead, we have a retinue of delegates and political heads who have barely survived the intense fallouts of ‘the first depression of the global age’ (Gordon Brown).

Gloom has undoubtedly been the redefining sentiment at the WEF this year. The blame game has been doing the rounds, with parallel sessions producing several culpable entities. Many bankers have chosen to remain in their offices in New York, with the Obama administration asking them to stay put and start the reconstruction process. (“How could banks be so stupid?,” several panelists asked, and allow things go so wrong so quickly? - From the BBC). The forum has admittedly been an effective platform to flesh out the possible socio-economic impacts arising from this plaguing crisis (Europe faces the risk of more social unrest unless measures are taken to quickly tackle the global economic crisis - Christine Lagarde, French Finance Minister). Many governments have been left reeling by the credit crunch, with one collapsing (Iceland). Leaders of the world have sought to identify deeper ramifications of the crisis (The economic crisis may aggravate the negative tendencies that are present in global politics - Vladimir Putin)

The efficacy of stimulus programmes and bailout packages have been thrashed about, with no clear mandate or solution to tackling the ever-aggravating crisis. Nonetheless, there may yet be light at the end of the tunnel. As the WEF fizzles down to its bleak end, one participant believes that the irrational exuberance of past years has been replaced by irrational despair. Whether rationality will eventually tide over crisis-management remains to be seen.

Leaders met on the 29^th to discuss climate change and more importantly what they expect out of the upcoming Conference on Climate Change in Copenhagen, Denmark. Panelists included noted speakers like Al Gore and Thomas L Friedman.

(Video may not be accessible to NALSAR Students)

watch?v=r-NKwaB9Xfo

With the Kyoto Protocol being considered to be a failure and global warming becoming perhaps the biggest threat to planet earth, the leaders are meeting in Copenhagen end of this year to frame a binding convention on climate change. The biggest fillip to this comes from the commitment of the Obama Administration to reduction of green house gases and ‘making earth a better place’. Al Gore stated;

time is running out and that a global agreement on tackling climate change is needed this year. “What we most need out of Copenhagen is a clear, shared vision of where the world is going in the future,” Gore said. He added that the new US administration is very serious about the issue and is ready to assume a leadership role. “President Obama is the greenest person [in the White House]. He is pushing hard for a dramatic and bold move in the right direction. If other governments do the same, then we can make the change to a low-carbon future.”

AF Rasmussen, the PM of Denmark stressed that targets, adequate funds and a transparent verification scheme are needed for countries to reach long-term goals. Industrialized countries should reduce their emissions by 80% in 2050, and should help developing countries adapt to climate change through technology transfer and a global fund.

Thursday night saw an incensed debate over Israel’s attack on the Gaza strip with Israeli PM Shimon Peres defending his nation’s actions. The video for the same may be viewed below,

(Youtube videos may not be accessible to NALSAR students )

This open session involved UN Sec General Ban Ki Moon, Arab League Sec General Amr Moussa, Mr. Shimon Peres and Turkish PM Erdogan in what has been termed a very lively discussion. Peres came out strongly on Israel’s right to self defence and brought out the threats that the hamas posed to the jewish nation. He was however alone in his defence as the remaining leaders were vehement in their opposition to the offensive and Israel’s treatment of civilians during the attack of which Mr. Peres offered no apologies or explanation.

The Israeli president unleashed a harsh, unyielding rant that was full of strange statements, truncated arguments and meandering rhetoric. Clearly, he is feeling the effects of his age as his remarks bordered on the incoherent at times. But what was most evident was the choleric tone.

Here are a few of the stranger statements: he claimed that Israel could not accept the Saudi 2002 initiative because “there was a small problem of Iran” which wishes to rule the Middle East. Peres also claimed that Hamas did not win a democratic election. Rather Mahmoud Abbas DID win an election as president of the Palestinians. Peres also claimed there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza; that Israel supplies all the water, fuel and electricity that Gaza needs; and that if there is a problem he would personally intervene to correct it.

Also, during the debate the Turkish PM was not given a chance to reply to Mr. Peres by the Moderator at which he got up and walked out of the room. News items here.

The Webcast of the whole session may be seen here.

This comes as news to all the politicos in Andhra Pradesh wanting to form Telangana.

The AP High Court has now reserved its order on a PIL on whether the government has the power to divide a state into smaller states.

The petition is based on the contention that a state cannot be bifurcated without the consent of its people and going by this; Amendments 5 and 7 to Article 3 of the Constitution should be declared unconstitutional.

“Article 3 of the Constitution gives the power to the Parliament to form a new state or alter areas or boundaries. Under the Constitution, the State legislature has no role to play in this act. Though the President is bound to refer the Bill to the state legislature; in Babulal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51, it was held that the Parliament is not bound to accept or act upon the views of the State Legislature.”

On a political front, this case may have a huge impact on the upcoming AP state elections where Telangana can now again become an issue.

On a legal front, the consequences are much greater. It was after IR Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu that amendments to the Constitution were open to challenge to the basic structure and the rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21. However, it was held that only those amendments after 1973 would be open to challenge.

Challenging the 3^rd and 5^th Amendments now would be against the ruling in Coelho’s case and it would interesting to see how the Court goes about to answer this question. 

PS: The Article was in the TOI issue dated 24th Jan 2009 in the HYD “times city” section. I cannot get the link and shall upload it as soon as i get hold of it.