Churchill - Into the Storm

End of world war two in one hand was the official end of British hegemony and the collapse of British Empire was the starting point of the bipolarization of world order for next 45 years with two super powers Soviet Union and United States. On 11 February 1945, Yalta conference agreed the 'Declaration of Liberated Europe' [1] with free elections and friendly governments to Soviets in Eastern Europe. However the notion of 'friendly' was refers not less than controlled communist government for Soviets. When the Churchill drawn the Iron Curtain between East and West,  Eastern Europe long since has been under the control of USSR. Going back to 1939, it was the second time when British Prime Ministers disappointed in their agreements which they sacrificed and gave concessions. Munich agreement of Chamberlain was also concluded some similar motivations such Yalta conference, to limit the expansion of threat by providing limited concessions. That is may be regarded as innocent as the Yalta accords. Churchill, as one of the most important figure in its critics against the appeasement, at the end of Yalta indicated his trust to its ally by ‘Poor Neville Chamberlain believed he could trust Hitler. He was wrong. But I don’t believe I’m wrong about Stalin’[2].

However his policies toward Soviets did not prevent eventual unification of Eastern Europe with the soviet bloc. By 1949 his ally turned into a 'wicked but much more formidable' enemy than Hitler. This paper while in one hand compare the Yalta concessions with the 1939 appeasement, on the other hand illustrate the fluctuations in Churchill’s approach to the Soviet Union.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDER THE UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) is maybe the most important global convention just because it deals with world’s largest resource. Whereas it is most probable and inevitable that, world’s largest resource, its waters is the very potential area for the emergence of disputes. In regard to these disputes, by the virtue of peaceful settlement of international disputes regime created by charter, UNCLOS in Part XV has established a settlement of disputes mechanism. Part XV foresees a wide range of dispute settlement method from diplomatic settlement methods such as diplomatic negotiations, mediation, good office, enquiry or conciliation to binding jurisdictional methods. It is another importance of the UNCLOS is the creation of an International tribunal for the law of the Sea disputes (ITLOS).  ITLOS’s main function is to adjudicate disputes arising out of the interpretation and application of the Convention. Beyond ITLOS the part XV recognizes other binding adjudication methods such as settlement of disputes by international court of justice or by arbitration courts. The paper therefore firstly outline the essential features of the dispute settlement mechanism put forward by the UNCLOS III, and then will conclude by questioning why a complex, but flexible dispute settlement mechanism needed under UNCLOS III. 

TORTURE ARTICLE OF THE ECHR

Article 3, the most precise article of the convention reads that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Within this short article neither the definition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is given nor does the article provide the exact limits with us to define the torture and other forms of mal-treatment. On the other hand article itself provides an absolute right in which no derogation is permitted even in the war times.[1] Simply “No One” generalization while encompasses everyone, neither does exclude any matters nor any kind of necessity or circumstances. Thus in one hand the nature of article 3 is open ended in the terms of answering what constitutes torture or other forms of mal-treatment, on the other hand it is absolute and specific in the terms of providing absolute guarantee to those it protects. These two important features of the article 3 provide the European Court of Human Rights (Hereafter the Court) with a very broad sense of discretionary interpretation power in the application of article. It’s the Court’s judicial discretion determines the standards and criteria for what constitutes torture or other forms of ill-treatment.

In regard to article 3, The Court has developed a very comprehensive case law. The Court’s case law is the primary source for the analysis of Court’s interpretation of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. In such analysis however an inconsistency easily may be noticed. The Court itself has recognised this fact in the Selmouni v. France case by the reading that “Court considers that certain acts which were classified in the past as “inhuman and degrading treatment” as opposed to “torture” could be classified differently in future.” [2]

However such inconsistency should not be understood as a result of lack of limited and narrow article on the subject. On contrary, this inconsistency may be the inevitable and the positive result of constantly changing definition of nature of the article and as a result the most significant indicator of the dynamic nature of the Court’s interpretation. Therefore the inconsistency in the Court’s interpretation while is the result of a pragmatic and practical approach of the Court to enable the article to be workable and functional to cope with its changing and difficult nature, but also is the most important proof to show us how the convention is a living instrument.