SPEECH BY SHRI K.R. NARAYANAN, PRESIDENT OF INDIA, WHILE INAUGURATING THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE NEW MILLENNIUM : PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES AHEAD AT VIGHYAN BHAVAN

NEW DELHI, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2001

It is a pleasure and privilege for me to be present at the inauguration of "the International Conference on International Law in the New Millennium" being organized by the Indian Society of International Law. In 1959 at the inauguration of this Society Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru said in his address that he was a little alarmed at the prospect of having to say something about a subject like international law to an audience of experts on the subject. If Nehru was alarmed at the prospect of saying something on international law on that occasion, you can imagine how I am perturbed to-day to say something before this galaxy of luminaries in international law present at this impressive gathering. I am, therefore, a little perturbed and greatly delighted to see here reputed international jurists and scholars from India and abroad. I should like to extend a hearty welcome to all the distinguished guests.

The Indian Society of International Law owes its founding to the vision of Shri V.K. Krishna Menon and it has grown to its present dimension and importance by the devoted work of Shri Ram Niwas Mirdha and his colleagues in the Society. I must congratulate the Society for organizing this important conference and having chosen as its theme – "International Law in the New Millennium – Problems and Challenges ahead". International Law probably more than any other discipline is an evolving subject, though it may not always catch up with the sudden and spectacular changes in the world – changes in science and technology and in the preoccupations and in the values of rapidly transforming world society.

In his Presidential address at the first inauguration of the Society, Mr. Krishna Menon pointed out that humanity had entered an era in which it has to wake up to the implications of the fact that this solar system is a minute fragment in the whole of the galaxy and that this planet is an infinitesimal speck thereof. Inter planetary travel and explorations have made it possible for the powers to compete for the monopoly over the resources of the planets. Such disputes as may arise in the heavens will have to be settled on earth instead of disputes on earth being settled in the heavens. All this, he said, was a portent of the problems that international law will have to face in the near future. That future has already arrived and therefore this conference on the problems and challenges of the new millennium has been called not a day too soon. International law is already grappling with new problems like human rights and environmental concerns, and outer space issues of various kinds that impinge directly upon the future of mankind.

International Law reflected for a long period the interests of the dominant powers which gave rise to the Doctrine of Differential Rights. That doctrine which outlined a set of rights for the dominant powers and another set of rights for the rest reflected the unequal relationship among the nations. In the fifteenth century Portuguese ships were plying to the East, to India. At that time one ship carrying unarmed passengers coming from Mecca after a pilgrimage was attacked without any provocation by a Portuguese ship, looted all the valuables and set fire to it with all the passengers. One Portuguese historian of that time, Mr. Barros, wrote about the incident. The reasons that he gave to justify it were more significant than the incident itself.

He wrote: "It is true that there does exist the common right to all to navigate the seas in Europe. We recognize the right which others hold against us. But the right does not extend beyond Europe. And therefore the Portuguese as Lords of the Seas are justified in confiscating the goods of all those who navigate the seas without their permission." The same doctrine was declared in Asia by the President of the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce, a Britisher, who held that "China can in no sense be considered a country entitled to all the same rights and privileges as civilized nations which are bound by international law". We in India also became a victim of the Doctrine of Differential Rights during British rule. In South Africa Mahatma Gandhi fought for the same rights for Indians as were enjoyed by the Whites in the British Empire.

Indeed the struggle for Indian independence and the whole struggle against colonialism in the world were for the democratisation of international politics and the revision of international law on the basis of equality. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru declared at the Asian Relations Conference held in New Delhi that countries of Asia and Africa have far too long been the playthings of other powers and that phase of history was now coming to an end. Again at the Bangdung Conference of Asian and African nations he said that it was necessary to revise the relations between the East and the West on terms of equality. He further said that without closely examining international law and extending the examined concepts for the benefit of whole of mankind we cannot have a peaceful world order. Arnold Toynbee had remarked along the same line of thought that "The twentieth century will be chiefly remembered…not as an age of political conflicts or technical inventions, but as an age in which human society dared to think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective."

How can one ‘think of the welfare of the whole human race as a practical objective’ if the residue of the Doctrine of Differential Rights still govern International Law? I am afraid the vestiges of this doctrine lurk behind the attitude of the powers to questions like non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the international conventions on ecology and the environment, and world trade.

International Law deals with issues ranging from outer space to the deep seabed. But to be more meaningful, international law making must integrally relate itself to human dignity and the urges, aspirations and anxieties of the suffering people of the world. It is heartening to note that because of the grass roots movements for the protection of environment, human rights and women’s rights, International Law has now a corpus of literature which articulates these concerns more stridently. By taking the examples of the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights one can say that such instruments of international law have made revolutionary impact all around the world in upholding the dignity and rights of the individual. Many principles of the Declaration are considered as part of customary International Law.

As we survey the history of International Law, one is struck by its failure to address the issues of women in the world until the U.N. Charter was adopted in 1945. One may recall that when the first ‘World Anti-Slavery Convention’ was held in London in 1840, and again in 1899 when the first Hague Peace Conference was convened, not a single woman was invited to participate in them. This exclusion would have continued during the adoption of the U.N. Charter. The drafts of the U.N. Charter never referred to the equal rights of men and women; it only referred to the equal rights of men. Lady delegates protested at this exclusion of women and as a result there was a reference to the equal rights of men and women in the U.N. Charter. In this manner the U.N. Charter became the first document in the history of international law which proclaimed gender equality.

In the increasingly globalised world of to-day terrorism has now emerged as a sinister phenomenon threatening our civilised existence. The terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon has revealed to the world the magnitude and seriousness of the problem. India has lost thousands of lives because of cross border terrorism during the last two decades. We were using every forum available in the world to voice our concerns and remind the world that this scourge must be wiped out before it overwhelms us. Nobody paid much heed to us. Now a global coalition is being formed to ‘smoke out the enemy’. I sincerely hope that in this effort to smoke out the enemy let not the international coalition adopt a selective approach.

Terrorists who pose a threat to the civilian population and elected governments must be eliminated wherever they be. If any selective approach is adopted to fight terrorism it will again smack of the Doctrine of Differential Rights which I have mentioned earlier. International law makers may also underline an important point relating to terrorism. It is unfairly said in many quarters that terrorist attack on America represented the so-called clash of civilisations. Every effort must be made to drive home the point that it is not civilisations that clash but barbarism. Civilizations give rise to dialogue, cross fertilisation of ideas and the confluence of different streams of mankind.

In spite of emergence of a pluralistic world order, international law has not taken a definite shape capable of eliminating political and economic conflicts among nations. In this era of geo-economics in which nations and groups of nations are pursuing adversarial goals with commercial means, there is a possibility that nations with lesser economic potentiality may be marginalised. International law must address such issues so that developing countries’ interests are not jeopardised.

The one world in the global society that is emerging is a pluralistic world and a pluralistic society where the identities and sovereignties of nations are not being extinguished. The nation states are now reaching out to a larger identity and to a larger sovereignty. International law must reflect this character of the world today as a pluralist phenomenon based on the democratic concept of equality before law and the equal protection of laws. After India attained independence our first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Premier Zhou Enlai of the People’s Republic of China jointly outlined the philosophy of Panchsheel or the Five Principles as a guide for intercourse among nations.

It focussed on the recognition of sovereignty, non-aggression, and non-interference in internal affairs and projected the idea of peaceful co-existence of nations. These simple principles adopted in the 1950s are today becoming intensely relevant in our increasingly pluralistic world. To-day we talk of globalisation. But globalisation does not mean the extinguishing of the sovereignty of nation states or the establishment of what has been called a borderless world. It does not mean the abolition of the nation states, as it does not mean the abolition of the distinctiveness of human individuality. What it means is that the nation state as a truly democratic state will be the unit of a globalized world which would be a pluralistic world of peaceful co-existence. International law will thus be "the law that leaps the sky" of which Sophocleus spoke, the law that unites this vast and disparate humanity in harmony and justice.

Thank you