We have read in the papers that the report by Justice Richard Goldstone on the Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict was released a few days ago. The report has concluded that in the fighting that ensued in the months of November and December, both sides have killed numerous people and are accountable for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

As regards Israel, the report states,

“In its findings on Israel’s conduct, the report noted that the ruinous siege on Gaza, imposed long before the invasion, collectively punished its residents in violation of international law. During the attack, Israeli troops killed civilians without justification, wantonly destroyed civilian infrastructure and private homes, and used weapons illegally. Israeli troops targeted and destroyed Gaza’s last functioning flour mill. Israeli armored bulldozers razed the chicken farm that provided 10% of Gaza’s eggs, burying 31,000 chickens in rubble. Israeli gunners bombed a raw sewage lagoon, releasing 200,000 cubic meters of filth into neighboring farmland. Repeated pinpoint strikes on a water well complex destroyed all of its essential machinery.”

The world order has sprung into action with each country having an opinion on the report. Israel and the United States (obviously siding Israel) have called the report biased and stated that it overwhelmingly focused on Israel’s actions. Even hamas say so. However, the neutralists say that the report seems to bring out the true picture of the situation in Palestine.

The implications of the Report may be graver than they seem at present. There is a possibility that the conflict goes beyond two nations itself and enters a new realm of international law; in this case I am speaking of the International Criminal Court. Even though Israel is not a member to the Rome Statue, the ICC may have jurisdiction if the United Nations refers the matter to the prosecutor. In fact, the Goldstone report recommended that if Israel did not within six months launch fully independent investigations into the “serious violations” of international law it alleges, then the country should face International Criminal Court proceedings.

Be it noted that a case can also be independently investigated by the Prosecutor when using their proprio motu powers under Article 15 (only for a state party though).  The Goldstone report would likely be used as supporting material as part of any investigation initiated under this section,

“The Prosecutor shall analyse the seriousness of the information received. For this purpose, he or she may seek additional information from States, organs of the United Nations, intergovernmental or non-governmental organizations, or other reliable sources that he or she deems appropriate, and may receive written or oral testimony at the seat of the Court.”

However, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo is not ruling out options to prosecute Israel or Israeli authorities. Investigations have begun on behalf of the ICC. In an interview here she said that that since one of the Israeli legal advisers involved in the alleged conflict and commission of war crimes was South African, the ICC could gain jurisdiction through that route as well.  South Africa ratified the Rome Statute on Nov. 27, 2000.

I am unable to decide if this would fall within “law”, but then law–>policy, policy–>law is not a rare phenomenon. Anyway, this opinion in the Hindu by C. Rammanohar Reddy of the EPW makes an interesting read.

While the entire opinion can be found here, the basic issue is the latest application by India to the World Bank for a $ 3 billion loan. Mr. Reddy is of the view that Indian Banks have fared great in the recent financial turmoil primarily because of the Central Bank supervision. They have enough liquidity, indeed, 3 % more than the requirement. But if more is needed for longer term lending, World Bank is not the only option. He cites the example of China which recapitalized about four of its major banks through foreign exchange reserves. According to Mr. Reddy, India can easily pull out $ 3 billion from its $ 465 billion foreign exchange reserve. This way, all arguments of conditionalities relating to the WB loans and its supposedly-capitalist policies of loans and grants (depends on which side of the debate you are) can be avoided and the banks can ensure enough liquidity for themselves and sufficient lending to the Indian public in the years to come.

Here’s an extract from the Hindu Open Page, on the problems facing National Law Schools today (written by Andrew Fernandes) -

…Another reality is that except some of the older NLSs, most of them have failed to make a substantial mark for themselves. They face problems ranging from a lack of adequate infrastructure to a lack of quality teaching methods and, in some cases, even to a lack of experienced faculty members and financial mismanagement. The truth is that establishing NLSs in almost all States would not ensure a robust legal system. What needs to be done is ensuring that quality legal education is imparted and, importantly, at an affordable cost…

The entire article may be found here.

From the BBC News Service :

A POTTED HISTORY OF THE LAW LORDS

The House of Lords will be replaced as the highest court in the land when the doors open for business at the UK’s first separate Supreme Court in October.

As the Law Lords ruled on Thursday that there must be a clarification of the law on assisted suicide, following a legal challenge by multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy, they were handing down their final judgements from the House of Lords.

At the same time, an ancient constitutional anomaly was coming to an end.

In most other democracies the judiciary is separate from the legislature – the people who assess whether laws are being properly applied are different from those who write them.

But in Britain the House of Lords – a legislative body – has also been the nation’s highest court: the supreme court of appeal for the whole of the UK in civil cases and for England, Wales and Northern Ireland in criminal cases.

For hundreds of years appeals heard in the House of Lords were presided over by peers who may not even have been lawyers, let alone judges.

Ennobled judges

This changed with a major shake-up of the court structure in the mid-1870s.

Since then, the judicial work of the House has only been done by professional judges “ennobled” so that they may sit in the House of Lords – the 12 Law Lords.

They became the equivalent of other countries’ Supreme Court judges.

The Law Lords are appointed by the Queen on the advice of the prime minister, usually from the ranks of the senior Appeal Court judges in each part of the UK.

In future justices of the UK Supreme Court will be appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Commission.

The Law Lords work full-time on judicial business. Although they are full members of the House and may speak and vote on all business, they rarely do so.

And they cannot sit on an appeal if they have previously expressed an opinion that is relevant to the case.

Once retired, they remain members of the House and can participate much more freely in debates on legislation and public policy – several do so.

However, in effect their role has been as Supreme Court judges that sit among politicians.

But from October, as a result of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the UK will for the first time have a separate Supreme Court.

When the new UK Supreme Court opens the Law Lords will become its first justices.

In short, the act provides for the separation of the Supreme Court from Parliament and from government.

The gradual, centuries-old separation of constitutional powers within the UK will finally be complete.

The Jet- Airways stand off with its pilots seems to be a very interesting case to study. The history of this situation is that  the airline pilots do not have any union and being contract employees can be shown the door anytime. The current financial crisis may the lives of the younger pilots even tougher with a whole lot of them being laid off.

So when the National Aviators Guild was formed, the Jet Airways management sacked two of its pilots for playing a role in the formation of the Union. Thus, the strike was announced. Jet rushed to the Bombay High Court that ruled the strike to be illegal and prohibited the Union from going on strike by virtue of Sections 22 and 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further, since the matter was pending before the Labour Commissioner, it was asked that the dispute be resolved via that medium as soon as possible.

The Union still went ahead with the strike by taking mass sick/ casual leave as a result of which a large number of people were inconvenienced by virtue of flight cancellations and unavailability in other flights. The NAG at the same time filed petitions in the Madras High Court against Jet Airways on the hiring of expats for the job.

This situation is a revisit of the classic days of socialism where big ole Corporates hated that their employees form unions and took actions against them. I was reading Clarence Darrow on this and am now amused by the strong semblance of his work to modern day times. Those in power always seem to want to bend the law to their advantage and take action against those for whose protection the law is meant. In the case of Jet- Airways, this is possibly being done in the following ways;

1) Till a little earlier, the airline had refused to declare itself an industry under the Industrial Disputes Act(though the SC a few years ago ruled otherwise in the case of Air India). Now they have used it to their advantage and stated that the strike by the pilots is illegal and got an ex parte order from the Bombay High Court restraining the NAG from striking.

2) It has been said that the Centre is planning to invoke the Essential Services Maintenance Act (ESMA) on the situation so as to compel the pilots to fly or else face criminal prosecution. The law is to be in an extremely rare situation.

3) The Centre and the DGCA are also planning to move and Amendment to the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to remove Airline pilots from the definition of workmen from the Act. This way, they can never legally form unions and go on strikes. The apparent rationale being that since they get paid a lot, the benefits of the ID Act should not avail them.

Like I said earlier, I was amused to look at the various ways Jet (the big guys) were planning to use the law to their advantage. The right to form a Union is the essence of any socialist state (including India) and apart from the Constitution, it has also been codified in the Trade Union Act, 1926. The right to form an union has never been in dispute as such. In 1995, the Supreme Court in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v Commissioner of Labour (1995) Supp 3 SSC 653 stated that any group of employees has the right to form an union under the Trade Union Act, the only rider being that it has to be registered. The crucial point is the it uses the word ‘employee’ rather than ‘workmen’ and this rebuts the contention of Jet that they cannot form a Union because they are not workmen under the ID Act.

Thankfully, the standoff has ended and the Jet pilots have decided to start flying with immediate effect. The negotiations ended with the formation of a grievance committee consisting of both pilots and administration members to hear such cases.