top of page
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on the Influence of India’s Judiciary on International Investment Law
12:28

Ankit Malhotra's Paper on the Influence of India’s Judiciary on International Investment Law

The first interactions of India’s courts with international law occurred in the context of the Princely States, a set of several hundred independent nations whose merger with a British colony formed the Union of India. The creation of the Indian Republic was an outcome of actions taken through instruments of international law. A brief background is necessary. India became a colony after the UK Parliament passed the Government of India Act in August 1858, bringing India under Britain’s direct control. Territories formerly in possession or under control of the East India Company were vested in the Crown, in whose name India was to be governed. These territories did not include much of what comprises India today. India comprised two distinct political units – British India and the Indian or Princely States. British India included the territory directly governed by the Crown through the Governor-General of India. The Princely States, however, were territories under the suzerainty of the Crown though governed by Indian Rulers. The first interactions of India's newly formed Supreme Court with international law concerned the legal effect of changes in sovereignty that had occurred in the preceding years. Principles laid down in many of these cases are based on widely accepted opinions. They can be regarded as ‘general principles of law recognised by civilised nations’ and, as such, may be applied as international law. As for dispute resolution, while the judiciary is professional and independent, delays are endemic – timelines of 10 years or more in obtaining a final judgment are not uncommon. Further, compared to jurisdictions such as England, Indian courts have much less experience in adjudicating complex commercial disputes.
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Australian and New Zealand Judges of the International Court of Justice
14:38

Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Australian and New Zealand Judges of the International Court of Justice

This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), with a specific focus on provisional measures, advisory opinions, and the role of intervening states, through the lens of contributions from Australian and New Zealand judges. The ICJ, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, plays a pivotal role in the development of international law, resolving disputes between states, and offering advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized international organs and agencies. The unique perspectives of judges from Australia and New Zealand, countries with a rich tradition of engagement in international law, offer invaluable insights into the practice and evolution of the ICJ's jurisprudence. The paper begins by examining the ICJ's mechanism for issuing provisional measures, which are essential for preventing irreparable harm to parties pending the final decision in contentious cases. It evaluates the criteria for granting such measures and their binding nature, highlighted through cases involving Australian and New Zealand participation, either directly as parties or through judges’ contributions. Further, the paper delves into the ICJ's advisory opinions, which, although not binding, carry significant weight and influence on the development of international law. The analysis covers how advisory opinions have been utilized by various international organizations and the impact of Australian and New Zealand jurists on shaping these opinions and their subsequent implications for international law and global governance. Additionally, the role of intervening states in ICJ proceedings is scrutinized. Intervention allows third states with an interest in the subject matter of a dispute to participate in the proceedings. This segment explores the strategic use of intervention by states, including Australia and New Zealand, to influence the outcome of cases and contribute to the development of international legal norms. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the broader implications of the ICJ's jurisprudence for the international legal order, particularly in areas of provisional measures, advisory opinions, and state intervention. It highlights the contributions of Australian and New Zealand judges in enriching the ICJ's jurisprudence and underscores the importance of continued engagement by states in the ICJ's processes to foster the development of a coherent and effective international legal system. Through this analysis, the paper aims to shed light on the dynamic role of the ICJ in addressing contemporary challenges in international law and the significant influence of national jurisprudence in shaping the global legal landscape.
Ankit Malhotra on Determining Legal Correctness of ESCR at the International Court of Justice
25:06

Ankit Malhotra on Determining Legal Correctness of ESCR at the International Court of Justice

This abstract 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.
Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Role of Litigation in the EU's Sustainability Framework
24:09

Ankit Malhotra's Paper on Role of Litigation in the EU's Sustainability Framework

The European Union (EU) is at the forefront of integrating sustainability into its economic framework, demonstrating a commitment to environmental and social responsibility. This paper explores the role of litigation in this transformative agenda, particularly focusing on public participation, access to justice, and the protection of environmental defenders. The EU's approach is anchored in several key initiatives, each contributing to a comprehensive sustainability framework. The EU Taxonomy Regulation, a cornerstone of this framework, introduces screening criteria for sustainable economic activities. It aims to standardize the disclosure of environmental sustainability, realigning investors' incentives with long-term environmental goals. This regulation is instrumental in influencing corporate behavior towards sustainable practices, thereby fostering sustainable corporate governance. Complementing the Taxonomy Regulation is the European Green Deal, an ambitious plan to make the EU a climate-neutral economy by 2050. This broad strategy covers various sectors, including agriculture, energy, and corporate governance. It integrates sustainability into the core of EU policymaking, employing both legislative and financial tools to facilitate the transition to a sustainable economy. The Green Deal ensures food security and promotes responsible consumption and sustainable energy use, representing a holistic approach to sustainability. Another significant component is the proposed EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. This directive introduces rigorous due diligence processes into business operations, emphasizing the safeguarding of human rights and environmental standards globally. It extends the scope of corporate responsibility beyond EU borders, impacting global supply chains and investment decisions. This directive is a crucial step in ensuring that companies operating within the EU are accountable for their environmental and human rights impacts worldwide. Litigation emerges as a critical mechanism within this framework, enforcing sustainability standards and holding businesses accountable. It plays a dual role: a regulatory function reinforcing legal standards and ensuring corporate compliance with sustainability objectives, and a facilitative role in public participation in environmental governance. Litigation ensures access to justice for those affected by corporate activities and offers protection to environmental defenders. This legal approach has become vital in promoting sustainable practices, challenging corporate accountability, and advocating for environmental justice. In conclusion, the EU's strategy, encapsulated in the Taxonomy Regulation, European Green Deal, and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, represents a holistic approach to aligning economic activities with environmental and social sustainability. This strategy integrates regulatory, financial, and legal mechanisms to promote compliance with international law and facilitate a just transition to a sustainable future. Through these instruments, the EU is setting a precedent for sustainable economic activities and influencing global standards and practices in pursuit of a sustainable and equitable world. The role of litigation, within this context, is pivotal in ensuring the effective implementation of these sustainability standards, fostering public engagement, and protecting the rights of those advocating for a sustainable future.
Ankit Malhotra' Paper on Repatriating Colonial Artifacts to Contexts Lacking Preservation Capability
14:55

Ankit Malhotra' Paper on Repatriating Colonial Artifacts to Contexts Lacking Preservation Capability

The concept of restitution in the international law of culture has gained significant momentum, particularly in the context of returning cultural heritage objects removed during colonial periods. This paper explores the complexities and challenges that arise post-restitution, focusing on the return of cultural objects to environments where their preservation may not meet international standards. Using empirical case studies, the paper solidifies the argument that while restitution is a crucial step towards rectifying historical wrongs, it also raises critical questions about the future safeguarding of these repatriated objects. The first section of the paper outlines the evolving definition of restitution within international cultural law, highlighting its role in reversing the unlawful transfer, removal, damage, or destruction of cultural heritage. It emphasizes restitution's application to movable heritage, particularly in cases where objects were removed without the consent of rightful owners or heritage communities. This section also delves into the broader implications of restitution as a tool for restorative justice, aligning with the legal frameworks of transitional justice and its importance for global stability and sustainable development, as underlined in the UNESCO MONDIACULT Declaration (2022). The paper then transitions to an analysis of case studies where restitution has taken place, examining the after-effects and challenges faced by recipient countries in maintaining these objects. Examples include the return of artifacts to African nations from European museums and the repatriation of indigenous objects to communities in the Americas and Australasia. These case studies reveal the practical difficulties encountered in preserving and displaying repatriated items in line with international conservation standards, often due to limited resources, expertise, or infrastructure. Moreover, the paper explores the tension between the moral imperative of restitution and the practical realities of preservation. It discusses the role of international and national norms, including both statutory provisions and soft law standards, in guiding the process of restitution and subsequent maintenance of cultural objects. The paper argues that while restitution is a necessary step towards addressing historical injustices, it must be coupled with sustainable strategies for the long-term preservation of cultural heritage. In conclusion, this paper advocates for a more holistic approach to restitution, one that encompasses not only the return of cultural objects but also ensures their ongoing preservation and accessibility. It calls for greater international cooperation and resource-sharing to support countries receiving repatriated items, ensuring that these objects continue to be preserved as part of humanity's shared cultural heritage. The paper underscores the need for an integrated framework that addresses both the ethical imperatives of restitution and the practicalities of conservation, proposing solutions that honor the past while safeguarding the future of our global cultural legacy.
Ankit Malhotra' Paper on Quantification of Environmental Compensation in International Courts
25:49

Ankit Malhotra' Paper on Quantification of Environmental Compensation in International Courts

In the wake of unprecedented environmental challenges, international law and its judicial organs face a transformative epoch marked by a pressing need to address and resolve complex environmental and climate-related disputes. The evolution of international law in this context is not merely a response to emerging environmental crises but also a testament to the dynamic interplay between legal principles and the pressing demands of a global ecological emergency. This paper explores the multifaceted role of international courts and tribunals in navigating and shaping the landscape of environmental justice, particularly focusing on the quantification of environmental compensation. Historically, environmental concerns have often been relegated to the background in international legal disputes. However, recent decades have witnessed a paradigm shift, driven by the emergence of high-risk transboundary economic activities, the looming threats of climate change, the peril of biodiversity loss, and the increasingly recognized nexus between international environmental law and human rights. This new era demands innovative legal solutions and approaches from international judicial bodies. The response of international courts and tribunals to the environmental emergency is multifarious. Not only do they resolve contentious environmental disputes, but they also issue advisory opinions and precautionary measures to address legal ambiguities and safeguard environmental interests. Furthermore, these courts are instrumental in adjudicating on environmental issues of collective concern, often categorized as erga omnes obligations, thus underscoring their universal significance. Additionally, this paper delves into the specific roles of judicial bodies specialized in human rights or the law of the sea. These bodies are pivotal in reconciling potentially conflicting legal interests and establishing specialized standards for environmental preservation in distinct contexts. This role is particularly crucial in light of the intricate and often overlapping legal frameworks governing environmental protection and human rights. The paper presents an in-depth analysis of potential themes, including the interpretation of international environmental rules by international courts (ICs) and tribunals, the procedural complexities inherent in environmental and climate disputes, the varied dimensions of advisory opinions on climate change, the influence of ICs in shaping the international environmental and climate regime, and the protection of the environment in conflict situations as reflected in international case law. This comprehensive study aims to elucidate the evolving jurisprudence of international courts and tribunals in the realm of environmental law. It highlights the challenges and opportunities in quantifying environmental compensation, which is crucial for ensuring accountability and fostering a sustainable balance between economic development and environmental conservation. The paper underscores the significance of a robust and dynamic international legal framework capable of addressing the multifaceted challenges of environmental degradation and climate change, thereby contributing to the development of a coherent and effective global environmental governance system.
Where is China going in the 2020s
52:21
Impact of COVID-19 on Global Health Law: How to Ensure Legal Protection against Future Pandemics
01:07:01

Impact of COVID-19 on Global Health Law: How to Ensure Legal Protection against Future Pandemics

Gian Luca Burci is Adjunct Professor of international law at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva since 2012. He is also the Director of the joint LLM on Global Health Law and Governance between the Graduate Institute and Georgetown Law School, as well as Academic Adviser in the Global Health Centre of the Graduate Institute. Before this appointment, he served in the Legal Office of the World Health Organization from 1998 to 2016 and was its Legal Counsel from 2005 to 2016. Professor Burci previously worked in the International Atomic Energy Agency (1998-1999) and the Office of the UN Legal Counsel (1989-1998). His courses include the law of international organizations, the role of an international legal counsel and global health law. While in WHO, he was involved in the negotiation and implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, the revision and implementation of the International Health Regulations, WHO's response to the 2009-2010 H1N1 inuenza pandemic and the 2014-2016 Ebola outbreak. Prof. Burci holds a post graduate degree in law from the University of Genova, Italy. His areas of expertise are public international law, the law of international organizations as well as global health governance and law. Prof. Burci is the co-author of the leading English book on WHO, editor of the rst research collection on global health law, co-editor of the rst research handbook on global health law and author of numerous articles and book chapters.