top of page
Home
Books
Practitioner's Guide to Int'nl Family La
Re-Imagining the Int'nl Legal Order
Gallery
Papers Delivered
My Writings
Contact
More
Use tab to navigate through the menu items.
Ankit Malhotra
Play Video
Play Video
11:39
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Accountability under Alien Tort Statute& Disarmament Enforcement
This paper explores two innovative, marginal approaches to enforcing disarmament norms: private‐party tort litigation under the U.S. Alien Tort Statute (ATS) and grassroots “algorithmic arms control.” In the legal sphere, NGOs and civilian survivors have invoked the ATS to sue American weapons manufacturers for “aiding and abetting” the production of cluster munitions that violate customary norms against indiscriminate warfare. Notably, a 2021 petition filed on behalf of Yemeni civilians named two U.S. arms producers, alleging that their engineers “knew and intended” civilian harm, thereby contravening the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. Although courts have dismissed these claims on political‐question and foreign-policy preemption grounds, the litigation succeeded in compelling the discovery of internal corporate documents, exposing supply-chain details that had been shielded from public scrutiny. By recasting manufacturers as potential civil-law tortfeasors, plaintiffs are reframing disarmament from a purely inter-state concern to one of private accountability. Parallel to this juridical innovation, digital activists are harnessing open-source intelligence to crowdsource arms-shipment monitoring. Building on platforms like Bellingcat’s tracking of Russian ordnance in Ukraine and Global Fishing Watch’s maritime analyses, volunteers leverage satellite-AIS data, real-time transponder feeds, and encrypted community reporting to map suspicious cargoes. In 2024, a coalition published an “arms-shipment atlas” documenting fifteen dubious transits through the Suez Canal—containers misdeclared as “machinery parts” but laden with light arms destined for conflict zones. The atlas provoked inquiries by export-control authorities in multiple jurisdictions and pressured shipping lines and insurers to refine due diligence protocols. Together, these bottom-up strategies illustrate how disarmament enforcement is migrating beyond diplomatic accords and intergovernmental bodies. By integrating civil-law tort mechanisms with algorithmic data-gathering, non-state actors are forging hybrid enforcement architectures that exert real-world pressure on both governments and private industry. This dual approach promises to fill gaps in traditional arms-control regimes, offering a forward-looking model for accountability in an era of diffuse proliferation.
Play Video
Play Video
14:27
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on International Law, Pharmaceutical Companies and Vaccine Inequity
This paper argues that today’s vaccine inequities are not market anomalies but predictable outputs of a juridical political economy forged in Empire and then constitutionalised through international economic law. Using five pharmaceutical conglomerates with colonial lineages—Wellcome/Burroughs Wellcome (now GSK), Bayer, Merck, and Rhône-Poulenc (now Sanofi)—as an analytic lens, it reconstructs how extraction, racially stratified experimentation, and monopoly privileges matured into treaty-backed exclusivities, culminating in the WTO TRIPS architecture and its TRIPS-plus extensions. It then demonstrates how COVID-19 functioned as a stress test, confirming that concentrated patent rights, guarded know-how, and licensing asymmetries translate into systematic under-provision for the Global South even amid unprecedented public financing. Against this backdrop, the paper maps a counter-trajectory of Southern agency—doctrinal filters against evergreening, compulsory/government-use licensing, waiver diplomacy, pooled procurement, South–South manufacturing, and technology-transfer hubs—treating these not as episodic workarounds but as a coherent decolonizing strategy. The prescriptive claim is forward-leaning: rebalancing requires structural reform—automatic public-health overrides in trade and investment law, binding and time-bound technology-transfer obligations in pandemic instruments, disciplined limits on data exclusivity and investor-state leverage, and reparative investment to build distributed manufacturing capacity. Without such redesign, “equity” remains rhetorical while the colonial logic of protection for capital over care persists.
Play Video
Play Video
17:10
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on State and Commercial Immunity of Vessels: Implications from the S.S. Lotus
This in-depth legal presentation examines the enduring impact of the S.S. Lotus decision (PCIJ Series A No. 10, 1927) on the doctrines of state and commercial immunity in maritime law, with a specific focus on English jurisprudence. Delivered with academic precision, the video explores how the Lotus principle—that jurisdiction is presumed in the absence of a prohibitive rule—continues to shape judicial approaches to sovereign immunity, particularly as it relates to state-owned vessels involved in commercial activity. The discussion opens with a reference to Lord Finlay’s celebrated opinion in the Lotus case, where he observed that "The Law of Nations does not recognize the assumption of jurisdiction for ‘protection’; there never has been any such general consent by the nations of the world." This key insight reinforces the principle that jurisdiction must derive from clear legal authorization—an imperative that English law upholds through the presumption‑of‑jurisdiction default and the specific limitations imposed by the State Immunity Act 1978. Through the integration of this presumption with a precedent-based, predictive legal structure, English courts have emerged as global leaders in balancing sovereign prerogatives with the need for commercial accountability. This is particularly evident in the treatment of state-owned vessels and cargo, where the law distinguishes between acts jure imperii (sovereign acts) and jure gestionis (commercial acts). Key topics discussed in this video include: 1. Presumption-of-Jurisdiction Default in English Law: England inherits the Lotus presumption that jurisdiction exists unless expressly excluded. State immunity survives only where mandated by international or domestic law, streamlining adjudication in maritime commercial disputes. 2. Statutory-Judicial Synergy under the State Immunity Act 1978: Section 10 denies immunity to state-owned vessels engaged in commercial activity. The statute codifies the restrictive doctrine of immunity while permitting courts to interpret carve-outs against a deep well of precedent. Notable case law includes The Parlement Belge [1880], The Porto Alexandre [1920], and The Cristina [1938]. 3. Evolution of the Restrictive Immunity Doctrine: The video traces the gradual shift from absolute to restrictive immunity through major cases such as: The Philippine Admiral [1977] – introducing the commercial activity exception; I Congreso del Partido [1983] – affirming the “nature” test over “purpose”; Alcom v Colombia [1984] – distinguishing sovereign from commercial use; Trendtex v Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] – adopting restrictive immunity for commercial financial instruments; SerVaas Inc v Rafidain Bank [2012] – re-evaluating sovereign use of property at the time of enforcement; Argentum Exploration Ltd v Republic of South Africa [2024] – dissecting the sovereign versus commercial character of salvage operations. 4. Modern Judicial Trends and Maritime Implications: The presentation analyzes how English courts address questions of enforcement jurisdiction, especially in the arrest of state vessels and seizure of cargo. Courts now employ a functional, fact-based test that probes whether property is genuinely used for sovereign purposes or has crossed into commercial territory. 5. Comparative Analysis and International Harmonization: By setting a de facto standard, English case law has influenced other jurisdictions in adopting the restrictive approach. The video explores how domestic and international courts increasingly harmonize their practices by relying on England’s fusion of the Lotus principle and statutory guidance under the State Immunity Act 1978. 6. Policy Considerations in Maritime Jurisprudence: The presentation addresses broader policy concerns: granting immunity to vessels engaged in commerce risks undermining fair competition, eroding environmental safeguards, and destabilizing maritime trade. Equally, the judiciary ensures that immunity is not eroded in core sovereign functions such as humanitarian missions or naval deployments. Conclusion: The Lotus judgment remains foundational in modern international law by articulating a permissive rule of jurisdiction, subject only to clear prohibitions. This presumption is tempered by the restrictive theory of state immunity, which permits scrutiny of acts deemed commercial in nature. English law, through its legislative and jurisprudential developments, exemplifies this balance—preserving sovereign dignity while providing meaningful recourse to private claimants in maritime disputes.
Play Video
Play Video
32:02
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on State Immunity& Arbitration in Africa's Stolen Cultural Heritage
Play Video
Play Video
30:06
Ankit Malhotra's Paper in Cornell University on International Criminal Law& Corporate Complicity
This in-depth analysis explores corporate involvement in atrocity crimes, including genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, while examining regulatory trends from the 1600s to the present day. Corporate complicity in such crimes has a long history, with businesses operating in conflict zones or under oppressive regimes often becoming entangled in human rights violations. Drawing from Annika van Baar’s research, this discussion outlines key legal, historical, and corporate responsibility frameworks that have shaped global responses to corporate participation in mass atrocities. Over the centuries, corporate involvement in crimes against humanity has evolved from state-sanctioned exploitation during colonialism to modern-day corporate partnerships with oppressive regimes. The lack of regulation in the early periods allowed businesses to profit from human rights abuses without consequence. However, with the rise of international law and human rights norms, efforts have been made to hold corporations accountable. From the Nuremberg Trials, which established precedents for prosecuting business leaders for war crimes, to contemporary cases like Lafarge’s involvement in terrorism financing, legal systems have struggled to consistently apply justice to corporate actors. An important aspect of corporate crime regulation is the role of international criminal justice and civil society. While legal accountability remains difficult to enforce, human rights organizations and advocacy groups have played a significant role in pressuring corporations to uphold ethical business practices. The increasing focus on corporate due diligence and human rights compliance has led to the institutionalization of regulatory norms, although challenges persist in ensuring meaningful enforcement. This video provides a structured overview of the historical and legal dimensions of corporate involvement in atrocity crimes. By analyzing key cases—including Shell’s complicity in human rights violations in Nigeria, Blackwater’s role in war crimes in Iraq, and the Lafarge terrorism financing case—this discussion highlights patterns in corporate misconduct and the ongoing efforts to establish accountability. The role of civil society and legal reform is also examined as a crucial factor in shaping the future of corporate responsibility.
Play Video
Play Video
13:46
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Ineffective International Cultural Heritage Law in Indian Courts
Our cultural heritage is under siege—not by war or conquest, but by the insidious plunder of illicit trade. The inability of legal frameworks to effectively safeguard India's heritage has allowed invaluable artifacts, from ancient idols to modernist furniture, to disappear into the international market. Nowhere is this failure more apparent than in the case of Chandigarh’s mid-century modern furniture, designed by Le Corbusier and Pierre Jeanneret, which has been systematically removed from government buildings and auctioned abroad for staggering sums. This is not merely a matter of aesthetics but a glaring indictment of legal shortcomings—both international and domestic—that have enabled such cultural depredation. International cultural heritage law, including the 1970 UNESCO Convention, was established to prevent the illicit trafficking of cultural property. However, the practical enforcement of these laws remains weak. India, despite being a signatory, has faced significant obstacles in reclaiming stolen artifacts, largely due to the non-retroactive nature of the Convention and the burden of proof placed on source nations. Courts in market countries often demand conclusive evidence that an object was illegally exported, shifting the onus onto India to establish clear documentation. This requirement is particularly challenging for objects like Chandigarh’s furniture, which, unlike traditional antiquities, were not historically registered or cataloged as cultural treasures. In several instances, such as the 2008 Paris auction controversy, Indian authorities have been unable to halt sales due to the lack of immediate and definitive proof of illicit export. Beyond international treaties, India’s domestic legal framework is similarly inadequate. The Antiquities and Art Treasures Act of 1972, designed to regulate the export of cultural property, only applies to objects over 100 years old. This arbitrary threshold excludes significant pieces of modern heritage, such as Chandigarh’s mid-century furniture, leaving them unprotected under Indian law. Even for antiquities that qualify under the Act, enforcement has been weak due to poor documentation, lack of awareness, and procedural inefficiencies. Judicial interpretations have further complicated enforcement, as seen in cases like *State v. Bhuwan Chand Joshi*, where legal loopholes and insufficient expert testimony led to acquittals in cases of stolen heritage. India’s challenges in enforcing cultural property laws are compounded by jurisdictional and evidentiary hurdles. Legal action against smugglers and dealers is often slow and cumbersome, allowing stolen artifacts to be dispersed across multiple jurisdictions before legal proceedings can be initiated. The global nature of the illicit antiquities trade demands stronger cross-border cooperation, yet India’s efforts have been largely reactive rather than preventive. Bilateral agreements, such as the 2016 U.S.-India Cultural Property Agreement, have provided some recourse, restricting the import of stolen artifacts into the U.S., but similar agreements with European nations remain limited. To address these deficiencies, a multi-pronged strategy is required. Comprehensive documentation and inventory of heritage assets must be prioritized to establish provenance and prevent illicit export. Strengthening enforcement mechanisms, including specialized art crime units within law enforcement agencies, can enhance vigilance at ports and borders. Legislative amendments to the Antiquities and Art Treasures Act should expand its scope to include historically significant objects regardless of age. Additionally, India must actively engage in diplomatic negotiations for stronger bilateral treaties with major art market countries, ensuring expedited repatriation of stolen artifacts. Public awareness and community involvement are equally crucial. A well-informed populace is the first line of defense against heritage theft, particularly in regions housing vulnerable cultural artifacts. Local engagement in heritage conservation efforts can deter illegal trade and foster a sense of collective responsibility for cultural preservation. The ongoing loss of India’s cultural heritage is not an inevitable fate but a consequence of systemic legal and enforcement failures. By modernizing its legal framework, strengthening enforcement, and fostering international collaboration, India can reclaim its heritage and prevent future losses. The protection of cultural property is not merely a legal obligation but a civilizational imperative—one that demands urgent and decisive action. The fate of our heritage depends not only on the strength of our laws but on the will to enforce them effectively.
Play Video
Play Video
18:30
Ankit Malhotra’s Paper on Heritage& History of the Sikh Empire
Dive into the fascinating history of the Sikh Empire, the last major indigenous power in India before British colonial rule. This comprehensive exploration unveils the remarkable leadership of Maharaja Ranjit Singh, famously known as the "Lion of Punjab," whose vision transformed the Punjab region into a prosperous and united empire. Learn how this iconic empire navigated turbulent times, resisted invasions, and fostered inclusivity, unity, and progress. This video covers the rise of the Sikh Empire, tracing its origins during the decline of the Mughal Empire and the threats posed by Afghan incursions. It highlights Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s extraordinary military strategies, diplomatic acumen, and inclusive governance. Discover how he modernized his army with the help of French and Italian generals, introduced gold and silver Nanakshahi coins, and strengthened the cultural and spiritual heritage of Punjab, including the iconic transformation of the Harmandir Sahib into the Golden Temple. Explore the empire’s revolutionary water resource management, leveraging the fertile lands of Punjab’s five rivers—Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej—for agricultural prosperity. This video also discusses how these practices laid the groundwork for modern irrigation systems and influenced the region’s development under British rule. Understand the critical treaties, including the Treaty of Amritsar, that defined the Sikh Empire’s relations with the British East India Company. Delve into the conflicts, such as the Anglo-Sikh Wars, that led to the empire’s eventual annexation in 1849, marking a turning point in South Asian history. Gain insights into how the Sikh Empire’s legacy shaped contemporary issues like water-sharing disputes and the Indus Waters Treaty. From the historic Koh-i-Noor diamond to the modern implications of resource management, this video connects past and present, offering valuable lessons for leadership, sustainability, and international cooperation. If you're passionate about Indian history, heritage, international relations, and the enduring impact of visionary leadership, this video is a must-watch. Subscribe now and explore the rich history of the Sikh Empire, its achievements, and its lasting influence on South Asia and the world.
Play Video
Play Video
13:04
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Determining the Legal Correctness in the International Court of Justice
This Paper proposes a comprehensive analysis of the landmark case "Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)" before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This case epitomizes the intricate overlay of legal frameworks addressing terrorism financing, racial discrimination, and their broader implications on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR), as well as other human rights violations and crimes. The paper begins by outlining the foundational aspects of the case, where Ukraine accuses the Russian Federation of violating the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism by purportedly providing funds, weapons, and other forms of support to illegal armed groups. These groups have committed acts of terrorism in Ukrainian territory, including the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17. Concurrently, Ukraine alleges violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, asserting that Russia has engaged in systematic discrimination against Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar communities, particularly in the annexed region of Crimea. Our analysis then delves into the procedural and substantive legal arguments presented by both Ukraine and the Russian Federation, highlighting the novel legal questions raised by the case regarding the interpretation and application of the two conventions. It emphasizes the ICJ's role in interpreting these international instruments within the context of contemporary geopolitical conflicts and the challenges posed by asymmetric warfare and non-state actors. Furthermore, the paper explores the connections between violations of the conventions and broader human rights concerns, particularly focusing on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR). It argues that the financing of terrorism and racial discrimination have far-reaching implications for the realization of ESCR, as they can exacerbate poverty, hinder access to education and healthcare, and disrupt social cohesion. By undermining the economic and social infrastructure, these violations perpetuate a cycle of deprivation and discrimination that extends beyond the immediate victims. Additionally, the analysis extends to the interrelation between the alleged violations and other forms of human rights abuses, including the potential for acts of terrorism to constitute crimes against humanity, and the systemic discrimination against ethnic groups to trigger international concerns over genocide and ethnic cleansing. It critically examines how the intersectionality of human rights violations requires a holistic approach to international law that encompasses the protection of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. The paper concludes by reflecting on the broader implications of the case for international legal practice and the enforcement of international human rights norms. It underscores the importance of international judicial mechanisms in addressing complex human rights issues and the need for robust international cooperation to prevent the financing of terrorism and eliminate racial discrimination. The case study serves as a pivotal reference point for understanding the dynamic interplay between different facets of international law and human rights, highlighting the challenges and opportunities for advancing global justice and human dignity.
Play Video
Play Video
02:21
On Remembrance
In this video, we explore the significance of remembrance and its portrayal through broadcasters. How do they shape collective memory, and what happens when remembrance fades? Join us as we delve into the language of remembrance—vergangugeisverithgung—and examine its role in shaping narratives, preserving history, and addressing the gaps left by a lack of remembrance.
Load More
Jindal Society of International Law
This channel is coming soon!
bottom of page