Context: International Big Cat Alliance (IBCA) signed an agreement with the Government of India, formalising India as the headquarters and secretariat of this treaty-based intergovernmental organisation.
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Key facts related to the International Big Cat Alliance.
International Big Cat Alliance
IBCA is a multi-country, multi-agency coalition of 96 big cat range countries, and none-range countries.
Launched by India in 2023 during the 50th year celebrations of Project Tiger.
Focuses on the global conservation of seven big cats and their habits – the tiger, lion, leopard, snow leopard, puma, jaguar and cheetah.
IBCA has become a treaty-based international organisation upon ratification by India, and other founding members.
India has committed Rs.150 crore over five years for infrastructure development, administrative functions, and recurring expenses.
It symbolises India’s commitment to "One Earth, One Family, One Future”, and showcases India’s role as a responsible ecological power.
Objectives of IBCA
Global Collaboration: Create a platform for knowledge exchange, technical assistance, and joint conservation efforts.
Research and Monitoring: Promote data sharing, habitat mapping, and genetic studies for better species management.
Combat Illegal Wildlife Trade: Strengthen intelligence-sharing and enforcement cooperation against poaching and trafficking.
Sustainable Development: Ensure that big cat conservation aligns with the goals of biodiversity, climate action, and local community livelihoods.
Context: The Indian Navy has announced a series of maritime initiatives to bolster cooperation with Africa and the Indian Ocean Region (IOR).
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: Africa India Key Maritime Engagement; IOS Sagar; MAHASAGAR
1. Africa India Key Maritime Engagement (AIKEYME):
Large-scale multinational exercise scheduled to be held with 10 African countries.
The maiden edition of the India-Africa multilateral exercise ‘AIKEYME’ is being co-hosted by: Indian Navy and Tanzania Peoples’ Defence Force (TPDF).
It will be conducted at/off Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania from April 13 to 18, 2025.
Participating nations: Tanzania, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles and South Africa.
Focus on: VBSS (visit board search and seizure) drills, arms firings, helicopter operations, seamanship evolutions, search and rescue missions.
2. India-African Naval Exercise: IOS Sagar
IOS Sagar is an initiative towards continued cooperation with IOR nations.
An offshore patrol vessel INS Sunayna is set to be deployed to the Southwest IOR, from April 5 to May 8, 2025.
Participating nations: INS Sunayna will have a combined crew of India and nine Friendly Foreign Countries (FFC)- Comoros, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, South Africa.
The warship will undertake port calls at Dar-es-Salaam, Nacala, Port Louis, Port Victoria and Male.
Significance: Capacity-building, enhanced interoperability, and regional security cooperation.
3. Mutual and Holistic Advancement for Security Across the Regions (MAHASAGAR):
Announced in 2025, during the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Mauritius.
The MAHASAGAR vision builds on the SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) policy. SAGAR has guided India's engagement with the Indian Ocean Region for the past decade.
It would work towards:
Emphasising trade for development, capacity building for sustainable growth, and mutual security for a shared future.
Ensuring cooperation through technology sharing, concessional loans and grants.
Significance of India’s Maritime Engagement:
Counter China’s influence: The initiatives are against the backdrop of massive inroads by China in Africa through infrastructure projects, and in IOR through naval bases (E.g., Djibouti).
Regional security: Proactive maritime engagement, coordinated patrols, information sharing, naval exercises to boost security in the IOR to counter threats of maritime piracy (Somali pirates) and maritime terrorism.
Secure trade routes: Ensure safe and secure trade routes between India, Africa and other nations, against continued threat from Houthi rebels to global shipping routes.
Soft power diplomacy: Build goodwill through Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) efforts, capacity building and other diplomatic engagements.
MAHASAGAR, IOS Sagar and AIKEYME are aimed at consolidating Indian Navy’s stature as the ‘Preferred Security Partner’ and ‘First Responder’ in the Indian Ocean Region.
Context: India is set to chair the Indian Ocean Rim Association for the next two years, starting November 2025.
Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA)
IORAis an intergovernmental organisation of states on the rim of the Indian Ocean.
Established: 1997
Aim: To strengthen regional cooperation, sustainable development and economic growth among the countries in Asia, Africa, and Australia, connected by the Indian Ocean.
IORA’s apex body is the Council of Foreign Ministers (COM) which meets annually. Council of Ministers has established a ‘Troika’ consisting of the chair, vice-chair and previous chair.
Secretariat: Cyber City, Ebène, Mauritius.
Members of IORA
All sovereign States of the Indian Ocean Rim are eligible for membership of the Association. To become members, States must adhere to the principles and objectives enshrined in the Charter of the Association.
Members: Australia, Bangladesh, Comoros, France (since 2020), India, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Seychelles, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Thailand, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Note: Pakistan is not a member of IORA.
Importance of Indian Ocean Region:
IOR is a crucial part of the broader Indo-Pacific and has significant strategic and economic importance.
It is home to two-thirds of the global population.
Facilitates 75% of global trade and 50% of daily oil consumption.
Contributes $1 trillion in goods and services annually.
Intra-IORA trade reached $800 billion in 2023.
Flagship Projects of IORA
Indian Ocean Dialogue: Track 1.5 discussion diplomacy initiative that fosters an open and interactive platform for dialogue on strategic issues of the Indian Ocean Region.
IORA Sustainable Development Program: Aims to assist Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) within the IORA framework by providing technical assistance and capacity-building support.
Challenges faced by IORA
Funding Constraints: IORA’s annual budget is limited and highly dependent on its members, mostly developing economies, except for Singapore, the UAE, and France. IORA’s focus areas (maritime security, fisheries management, disaster risk reduction, blue economy) require sustained investment.
Conflicting priorities: IORA consists of diverse membership (developed, developing, LDCs and SIDS), with different immediate priorities and challenges. This may hinder regional consensus. E.g., political instability in Sri Lanka.
Environmental threats: Climate change-induced disasters and marine degradation threat specially to SIDS. (E.g., Maldives)
Security concerns: Piracy, terrorism, and human and drug trafficking. The absence of a unified security network poses coordination challenges.
Limited Economic Integration: IORA does not have a comprehensive FREE Trade Agreement unlike EU, or ASEAN.
IORA lacks a legal enforcement mechanism to ensure adherence to agreements.
India and IORA
As India prepares to assume the chairmanship of IORA, India's three key priorities as chair include:
Expanding funding opportunities to increase IORA’s budget (by further involving private sector stakeholders in the maritime industry)
Strengthening the Blue Economy and developing maritime-ready academic courses in collaboration with research institutions.
Integrating technology for efficient data management and policy analysis to improve efficiency and decision-making.
India’s Security and Growth for All (SAGAR) Vision comfortably aligns with IORA’s objectives and offers a roadmap for strengthening regional cooperation.
With a proactive approach, India can strengthen IORA’s role as a key driver of stability and sustainable development in the Indian Ocean Region.
Context: Ranjani Srinivasan, an Indian doctoral student at Columbia University, left the U.S. after her visa was revoked, following accusations of being a "pro-Hamas sympathiser." A Palestinian student activist was arrested in the US for allegedly violating residency terms by supporting a U.S.-designated terrorist group.
These incidents have sparked a debate on whether immigrants have the same right to protest as citizens.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
Mains: Comparison of U.S. First Amendment with Article 19 of the Indian Constitution (freedom of speech and expression), International Human Rights Law.
Do immigrants have the same Right to Protest as citizens under international human rights law?
According to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), freedom of expression is a fundamental human right, and is extended to both citizens and immigrants.
Article 19(2) guarantees the right to seek, receive, and disseminate information across borders through various media.
Article 19(3) permits states to impose restrictions when necessary to safeguard national security or public order.
Additionally, other provisions of the ICCPR explicitly prohibit war propaganda and the advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that incites violence.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:
ICCPR is a multilateral treaty that commits nations to respect the civil and political rights of individuals, including the right to life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, electoral rights and rights to due process and a fair trial.
It was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution and entered into force in 1976.
As of 2024, it has 174 parties (India has signed as well as ratified ICCPR).
ICCPR forms a part of the International Bill of Human Rights, along with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Compliance with the ICCPR is monitored by the United Nations Human Rights Committee.
Extent of Right to Protest depends upon the Host country
While international law affords immigrants the same right to protest as citizens, the extent of this right depends on the host country’s domestic legal framework.
The social contract that binds a government to its citizens does not necessarily extend to non-citizens in the same way, further entangling the legal and political framework governing these rights.
Some states enforce stricter regulations, whereas liberal democracies may adopt a more permissive stance.
First Amendment & Immigrant Rights in the U.S
The First Amendment extends free speech rights to non-citizens, but faces limitations in deportation proceedings. Green card holders have stronger protections than those on temporary visas and past precedents (e.g., Cold War deportations) show how political contexts influence enforcement.
The US Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 authorises the denial of entry and deportation of non-citizens who endorse or support terrorist activities or organisations.
It empowers the Secretary of State to deport foreign nationals if their presence/ activities in the US would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
With no clear definition of what constitutes “adverse foreign policy consequences”, the scope is broad making it highly susceptible to misuse.
In Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court held that independent advocacy or mere membership in a government-designated terrorist organisation is protected speech under the First Amendment.
Impact on U.S. Soft Power & Global Standing
Decline in US Soft power and global influence. Crackdowns on immigrant protests can damage the U.S.'s image as a proponent of democratic values.
Such actions could also contribute to the erosion of democratic and liberal values worldwide.
If the U.S. begins weaponising laws to target individuals it disfavours, it risks legitimising similar actions by governments worldwide. This would contribute to a more repressive global environment.
Context: Recently, the UK High Court has denied Indian government’s plea for extradition of Sanjay Bhandari, on the grounds of threat of custodial torture in India, as India is not a signatory of the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).
Relevance of the Topic: Prelims: UN Convention Against Torture
About UN Convention Against Torture
UNCAT is an international treaty aimed at prevention of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment to detainees, suspects, and individuals in state custody.
The UN General Assembly adopted the convention in December 1984 and currently 173 States are parties to it. India signed it in 1997, but is yet to ratify it.
It defines torture as any act that intentionally inflicts severe degree of pain, both physically and mentally (like threats against family or loved ones) to extract information.
Torture includes a variety of methods, including severe beating, electric shock, sexual abuse, rape, prolonged solitary confinement and deprivation of sleep, food or water.
India and UNCAT
Early Initiatives: India played a key role in the UN General Assembly's Unilateral Declaration against Torture, and has also ratified other human rights instruments, including:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976)
Non-Ratification: Despite these commitments, India has refrained from ratifying the UNCAT, placing it alongside non-ratifying nations such as Angola, Brunei, and Sudan.
India’s reasons for Non-ratification:
Operational needs: Convention might hinder the operational needs of security forces in Kashmir and North East region of India.
Fear of external scrutiny: Ratifying UNCAT would subject India to international review mechanisms, which the government views as an infringement on domestic legal processes.
India argues that provisions of BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) and BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), provide sufficient safeguards against torture.
India’s Constitutional Mandate in this Context:
Articles 51(c) & Article 253: It mandates respect for international treaties.
Supreme Court precedents: In cases like D.K. Basu (1997), Puttaswamy (2017), and Romila Thapar (2018) it has been affirmed that custodial torture violates the right to dignity and privacy under Article 21.
Institutional Recommendations in this context:
Rajya Sabha Select Committee (2010): Recommended a standalone anti-torture law.
Law Commission’s 273rd Report (2017): Proposed a draft anti-torture bill.
National Human Rights Commission: Has consistently advocated for legal reforms to outlaw torture.
Supreme Court: In Tehseen Poonawalla (2018) and Sharaya Bano (2017) case, it emphasised the need for legislative action in this context.
International Obligations
Failure to act contradicts India’s democratic values: A democratic state failing to address torture undermines its moral standing and weakens its soft power.
Erodes global perception: India aspires to be a moral leader in global politics; continued inaction on torture legislation tarnishes this image.
Guantanamo bay: State-sanctioned torture damages democratic credibility and weakens international influence.
India’s reluctance to enact a comprehensive anti-torture law and ratify the UNCAT weakens its legal framework and diplomatic standing. The need of the hour is for India to uphold its constitutional and international commitments and bring its own anti torture legislation.
Context: Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump imposed a 90-day freeze on foreign assistance to assess its alignment with the U.S. foreign policy. This halted the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from disbursing aid, placing most of its 10,000 personnel on administrative leave, except for a few mission-critical staff.
Relevance of the Topic:Prelims: Key facts about the United States Agency for International Development.
About United States Agency for International Development:
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is an independent agency of the U.S. government.
It is responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance.
USAID is a key component of U.S. foreign policy and operates under the guidance of the President, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council.
Establishment and Purpose:
USAID was established in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy to unite existing foreign assistance organizations under one agency.
It was created to administer humanitarian aid programs and counter Soviet influence during the Cold War. Its primary focus is long-term socioeconomic development.
It is one of the largest official aid agencies in the world with a budget exceeding $50 billion.
Functions:
USAID provides assistance to over 100 strategically important countries across Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe.
It leads U.S. efforts to alleviate poverty, disease, and humanitarian needs. It provides food to starving populations and operates a global system for detecting famine.
It manages relief efforts after wars and natural disasters through its Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance.
The agency supports developing countries' economic growth, also assisting U.S. commercial interests.
The agency provides financial assistance to developing country organisations and NGOs through non-reimbursable grants.
It delivers both technical and financial assistance, including technical advice, training, scholarships, construction, and commodities.
Global Impact of the USAID Freeze
The 90-day freeze on USAID funding will have significant global consequences, particularly for developing nations, humanitarian aid programs, and geopolitical stability.
Humanitarian and developmental crisis:
Food security: Programs like Feed the Future that combat hunger and malnutrition will stall, increasing food insecurity in Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. ($500 million in food is at risk of spoilage)
Healthcare disruptions: Efforts to control HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, maternal and child health, and vaccinations may be suspended, endangering millions of lives.
Infrastructure and economic growth: Many nations depend on USAID-backed economic development projects (small business support, education, and employment programs), leading to job losses and economic slowdowns.
Climate change and Environmental protection: Countries benefiting from USAID’s climate initiatives may struggle to sustain clean energy, water conservation, and disaster preparedness programs.
Geopolitical consequences:
Increased influence of China and Russia: With the U.S. stepping back, countries reliant on American aid—Ukraine, Ethiopia, and Afghanistan—may turn to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) or Russian support, shifting current global alliances.
Political instability: Aid-dependent nations like Yemen, South Sudan, and Somalia may face crisis of governance, increasing conflict, terrorism, and refugee influx.
Strained U.S. alliances: Traditional U.S. allies relying on aid (Jordan, Ukraine, and Nigeria) may reconsider their diplomatic and security partnerships.
Economic and institutional Consequences:
UN and NGOs Under Pressure: USAID contributes 42% of UN-tracked humanitarian aid. The UN, Red Cross, and WHO may struggle to maintain operations without U.S. funding.
Job losses: Over 10,000 USAID employees and thousands of partner organizations worldwide could see operations suspended, leading to economic ripple effects.
Foreign policy challenges: The freeze signals U.S. unpredictability, making nations wary of relying on long-term American support.
Effect on India
India’s reliance on USAID has diminished, receiving $1.5 billion in the last decade (0.2%-0.4% of USAID’s global budget).
Health remains the primary sector for aid, with $79.3 million allocated in 2024 for HIV/AIDS, TB, maternal and child health, and immunization programs.
While India may not be severely affected, the fate of ongoing health and environmental projects now depends on government intervention.
Context: TheUS President Donald Trump has passed an executive order to withdraw from the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Organisation based question on WHO and the UN.
Mains: Detailed question on role of WHO and impact of US pull out on working or organisation.
Reasons for the US withdrawal from WHO
Inefficiency allegations: Trump criticises WHO as ineffective agency. E.g., WHO failed to control CoVID-19 pandemic.
Discriminatory in nature: US claims that WHO is discriminatory in nature of its operations, as it focuses more on the developing nations, by extracting funds from the first world nations.
Bias allegations: Trump alleges the WHO to be biased against the interests of the US as it has failed to convey the true picture of CoVID-19 spread to US authorities for timely action.
Chinese influence: Trump alleges the present Director General of WHO is under the influence of China, and China is using public relations and backdoor funding channels to compromise the integrity of the organisation.
Additional burden on exchequers: US funds about 15% of annual funds to WHO making it the largest fund giver. This puts an additional burden on the US economy compromising its nationalistic agendas.
Impact of US withdrawal on WHO
Funding constraints: TheUS contributed about 15% of the WHO annual funding, withdrawal of US will limit the funding of the agency.
Compromised operations: The logistical and funding challenges will have a cascading impact on operations of WHO leaving its initiatives like free vaccine distribution in a limbo.
Degrading reputation: US enjoys a great soft power and diplomatic strength across the world. US withdrawal from WHO may degrade the reputation of WHO across the globe.
Domino action: With the US withdrawal other nations may withdraw in the same fashion from the WHO, either to please the US or to reduce the funding burden on them
Susceptibility to future pandemic: WHO hosts various programs like ‘One Health’ and participates in ‘GAVI vaccine alliance’, withdrawal of US may reduce the power of WHO to handle future pandemic making world vulnerable to future pandemic.
Impacts on India
Restraining developmental work: WHO leads various health initiatives in India like WASH, hampered operations of WHO will negatively impact these initiatives in India.
Diplomatic burden: US can use its power to persuade India to leave WHO to legitimise its action of withdrawal from the agency.
Hampering global vision: India has contributed to WHO in the form of generic medicines and affordable vaccines. US withdrawal will limit the capacity of India to actualise the dream of ‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.’
Funding burden: With the US withdrawal, funding obligations for nations like India may increase to sustain the WHO operations. This will put an additional burden on the Indian economy hampering other welfare targets of the government.
Way Forward
Diplomatic engagements: Nations like India, Germany and France that enjoy cordial relations with the US should engage in finding a middle ground of addressing the US concerns and maintaining operations of WHO.
E.g., Advocating toreform the institutional structure of WHO, making it more democratic in nature by enhancing all members' partnership.
Parallel deals: India can explore a parallel cooperation with the US to gain funds and logistical help for sustaining the already running WHO initiatives.
Long-term investment: India can invest in healthcare, sanitation and vaccine Research and Development to reduce the dependency on WHO initiatives.
About World Health Organisation:
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is a specialised agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.
It was established on April 7, 1948, which is now celebrated annually as World Health Day.
Members: 192 member states (excluding the US)
Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland
Organisational structure of WHO:
Director General: The chief executive officer, responsible for overseeing the day-to-day functioning of WHO.
World Health Assembly: The decision making body of WHO, comprising all the members, meets annually for setting agendas for the year.
Executive board: Composed of 34 technically qualified members elected by the WHA for three-year terms.
Programs and initiatives:
Vaccine and Immunisation: Partnered with organisations like Gavi and UNICEF for the Expanded Program on Immunization (EPI).
Coordinating for global health security as it manages the International Health Regulations (IHR) framework.
Maternal health and child welfare: Manages the International Health Regulations (IHR) framework.
Famous reports and publications: World Health Report, World Malaria Report, Global Tuberculosis Report, World Mental Health Report, Global Nutrition Report, World Health Statistics, International Classification of Diseases (ICD), Noncommunicable Diseases Progress Monitor, Global Vaccine Action Plan Monitoring Reports, and the State of the World’s Nursing Report.
Conclusion: The US decision to pull out from WHO will possibly give a shock to the operations and reputation of WHO. But, deep diplomatic engagement, exploring private funding and alternate institutional mechanisms can help India and the world to maintain the pace of WHO initiatives.
Context: India has recently contributed $2 billion to the New Development Bank, formerly known as BRICS New Development Bank.
Relevance of the Topic Prelims: New Development Bank
About New Development Bank:
The New Development Bank (NDB) is a multilateral development bank established by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS).
The idea for setting up the bank was proposed by India at the 4th BRICS summit in 2012 held in Delhi.
In 2014, the first day of the 6th BRICS summit held in Fortaleza, Brazil, the BRICS states signed the Agreement on the New Development Bank.
Objective: To mobilise resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs).
Initial authorised capital: $100 billion.
Headquarters: Shanghai, China.
India’s contribution to NDB:
India’s contribution to the New Development Bank (NDB) stands at $2 billion from the fiscal year 2015-16 to 2021-22.
As of now, 20 externally aided projects (in areas transportation, water conservation, food management, and connectivity in rural areas) with loan amounts of $4,867 million funded by the NDB are ongoing in India.
Context: International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Defence Minister for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Relevance of the topic: Prelims- International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court vs International Court of Justice
Major Highlights:
The ICC asserts there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the Prime Minister and the former Defence Minister bear “criminal responsibility” for causing “mass starvation” and “deliberately targeting” medical facilities in Gaza.
As the Rome Statute of the ICC has been recognised by 124 countries, the countries would be legally obligated to arrest them if they enter their territories.
The arrest warrants would complicate their ability to travel freely across the globe.
About International Criminal Court
Origin:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established under the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty adopted in 1998. Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries.
It marked the creation of the first permanent, treaty-based international criminal court to address impunity for the gravest crimes threatening the global community.
ICC is an independent international organisation and is not part of the United Nations.
ICC has 18 judges who are elected by the Assembly of State Parties and have non-renewable 9-year terms.
The seat of ICC is in The Hague, Netherlands.
Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court:
ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest crimes of international concern, as defined under the Rome Statute:
Genocide
War crimes
Crimes against humanity
Crime of aggression
Conditions for Exercising Jurisdiction:
The ICC can exercise jurisdiction only under specific conditions:
Territorial or National Jurisdiction:
If the alleged crime occurred on the territory of a State Party.
The UNSC can refer cases to the ICC, even if the crime occurred in a non-State Party.
Declaration of Acceptance:
A non-State Party can accept the ICC's jurisdiction by making a formal declaration.
Principle of Complementarity:
The ICC operates under the principle of complementarity, i.e., it acts as a court of last resort (seeks to complement, not replace, national courts). The ICC can intervene only if national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute crimes.
Limitations of the International Criminal Court:
The ICC does not have a police force to enforce arrests. It relies on State Parties to apprehend individuals.
Trials cannot proceed until the accused is arrested and brought before the court, as the ICC does not conduct trials in absentia.
Parties to International Criminal Court:
As of 2024, ICC has 124 member states.
However, countries such as India, China, USA, Russia etc. have not ratified the Rome Statute and are not members of ICC. Reasons for non-membership include concerns about sovereignty, potential misuse of the court, and conflicts with domestic laws.
Differences Between the ICJ and the ICC
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are two courts with different functions within the international legal system.
ICJ (International Court of Justice)
ICC (International Criminal Court)
Established
1945
2022
UN-Relationship
Highest court of the UN
Not part of the UN
Location
The Hague, the Netherlands
The Hague, the Netherlands
Jurisdiction
UN member-states
Individuals
Types of cases
Legal disputes between states and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions
Prosecutes individuals for the most serious crimes as per the Rome Statute
Appeals
No
Yes
Enforcement power
None - relies on the UN Security Council to uphold judgements, with permanent members having veto power
None - relies on cooperation from member states to enforce its decisions
Context: Israel’s parliament passed bills to ban UNRWA from operating in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The Knesset also voted to designate UNRWA a terrorist organisation, cutting all ties with the agency. This could lead to the breakdown of Gaza's already fragile aid distribution system, intensifying the humanitarian crisis in which nearly 2 million displaced Palestinians are facing severe shortages of food, water, and medicine.
Reasons for Israel’s actions:
Israel has argued that the UNRWA’s role is obsolete, and its work to aid Palestinian refugees and their descendants has been an obstacle to a peace settlement.
However, Israel has itself not meaningfully recognised the foundation of a Palestinian state, thus perpetuating the longstanding territorial conflict.
Israel accusedsome of UNRWA’s employees in Gaza of participating in the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas.
But the agency denies aiding armed groups on purpose. The agency also mentioned that it has been sharing the list of its employees with Israel for a long time.
Bills has passed by Israel’s parliament:
The first Bill bars UNRWA from operating any representative office, providing any service, or conducting any activity, directly or indirectly, in Israel’s sovereign territory.
The second Bill cuts all ties between government employees and UNRWA, and takes away the legal immunities of the agency’s staff.
The Bills will stop UNRWA from operating in Gaza and the West Bank as Israel controls access to both these Palestinian territories and could also force the agency to relocate its headquarters from East Jerusalem.
The ban on the agency will only deepen the suffering of Palestinians.
Since the beginning of the war, almost all of Gaza’s 2 million people have been reliant on UNRWA for basic necessities, including food, water, and hygiene supplies.
Along with the Palestinian Red Crescent, UNRWA handles almost all UN aid distribution in the territory.
The UN agency also recently helped implement an emergency polio vaccination campaign in Gaza to prevent the infectious virus that can cause paralysis from spreading.
In the West Bank, UNRWA currently provides services for 19 refugee camps, more than 90 schools, and several health services, including prenatal care.
Objective: To provide aid to about 700,000 Palestinians who were forced to leave their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Operating since May 1, 1950.
Operating regions: Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank; Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan- where Palestinian refugees took shelter after their expulsion.
What does it do?
It runs education, health, relief and social services, microfinance and emergency assistance programmes inside and outside refugee camps in these areas.
An estimated 5.9 million Palestinian refugees, most of whom are descendants of the original refugees, currently access the UNRWA’s services.
Funds: It is funded mostly by voluntary contributions from donor states such as the United States, Germany, the European Union, etc. It also gets a limited subsidy from the UN, which is used only for administrative costs.
Context:India described the inclusion of a detailed paragraph on Security Council reform in a U.N. summit document as a “good beginning.” New Delhi expressed its anticipation for the initiation of text-based negotiations within a fixed timeframe to address reforms of the 15-member body.
Key takeaways from the news article:
Historic moment:
September 22, 2024: World leaders unanimously adopted the ‘Pact of the Future’, marking a significant milestone in the long-awaited reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The pact promises to enhance the council’s representativeness, inclusivity, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, democracy, and accountability.
Importance of the pact's language:
It includes a detailed paragraph on UNSC reform for the first time in a U.N. summit document. While the pact may not encompass every detail desired, it is a ‘good beginning.’
There is optimism for the initiation of text-based negotiations within a defined timeframe, viewing the current agreement as a foundational step toward meaningful reform.
The 'Pact of the Future' also underscores the commitment to address historical injustices faced by Africa, recognizing it as a special case.
Leaders agreed to improve representation for underrepresented regions, including the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
The pact emphasizes the necessity of enlarging the Security Council to better reflect the contemporary realities of its membership.
The pact advocates for intensified efforts to secure an agreement on the categories of Security Council membership.
It encourages the submission and revision of proposals by states for structured dialogues aimed at developing a consolidated model. This emphasis on a collaborative approach aims to balance the council’s representativeness with its effectiveness.
India's stance on UNSC Reform:
India has been a prominent advocate for UNSC reform, arguing that the current structure is not suited for the challenges of the 21st century.
India rightfully claims a permanent seat on the Security Council, as India has served as a non-permanent member in 2021-22.
The country's position reflects its commitment to a more equitable international order, particularly in light of the Security Council’s polarization on pressing global issues like the Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas situation.
In his address at the 'Summit of the Future', Prime Minister Modi stressed that institutional reforms are crucial for global peace and development. The reform is essential for maintaining the relevance of international institutions.
Need for Institutional reforms:
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres echoed this sentiment, calling for profound reforms to enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of global institutions, rooted in the principles of the UN Charter.
He emphasised that the challenges of the 21st century necessitate contemporary solutions that are inclusive and collaborative.
He noted the disparity between the original 51 member states at the UN's inception nearly 80 years ago and the current 193 members, highlighting the outdated nature of existing peace and security frameworks.
He warned that the Security Council, characterized as ‘outdated,’ risks losing credibility unless its composition and methods are reformed.
The evolving dynamics of international relations necessitate significant reforms to address its inherent limitations. Some of the reasons why reforms are needed in UNSC are:
1. Outdated representation:
The current structure of the UNSC fails to adequately represent the global landscape.
Lack of representation from Africa and Latin America: With 54 countries, Africa remains vastly underrepresented in the UNSC, as does Latin America and the Caribbean. Despite their growing influence on the world stage, these regions have no permanent representation.
Major economies in Latin America and the significant population and resources of Africa highlight the disconnect between the UNSC’s membership and the realities of global power dynamics.
2. Concerns over Sovereignty and Unilateral actions:
Sanctions imposed by the UNSC can lead to severe economic repercussions for nations, often disregarding the interests of those nations.
Key decisions, particularly regarding conflicts in regions like Africa, are made without adequate representation from those directly affected.
Sanctions on Iran have led to a crippling economic crisis, highlighting how the UNSC's actions can have far-reaching effects on a nation’s sovereignty and well-being.
3. Lack of recognition for major contributors:
Countries that play pivotal roles in global peacekeeping and financing are overlooked in the UNSC.
India, Japan, and Germany: These nations are significant contributors to UN peacekeeping missions and UN finances but lack permanent seats in the UNSC.
India is among the top contributors to peacekeeping operations, while Japan and Germany are major financial backers of the UN. Their exclusion from the UNSC reflects an imbalance that undermines their contributions.
4. Ineffectiveness of Veto power:
The veto power held by the P5 (the five permanent members) has often led to deadlocks in critical situations.
Deadlocks: The veto can obstruct consensus and render the UNSC ineffective in times of crisis.
The use of Veto power by the P5 nations to protect their interests illustrate how the P-5 can skew resolutions in their favour, disregarding broader international concerns.
The P5's inability to agree on resolutions regarding the Syrian Civil War has resulted in prolonged inaction, exacerbating human suffering and instability.
5. Discouragement of multilateralism:
The exclusivity and perceived ineffectiveness of the UNSC have eroded trust in multilateralism.
The UNSC's failures discourage countries from engaging in collective efforts to tackle global challenges, undermining international cooperation.
6. Changing geopolitics:
The geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly since the establishment of the UNSC.
Post-World War II composition: The current UNSC composition reflects a bi-polar world that no longer exists, failing to represent the multi-polar reality of today where developing nations have substantial influence.
This misalignment hampers effective decision-making and inclusivity.
The UN chief cautioned the 15-member United Nations Security Council about its outdated nature, highlighting that its waning authority could ultimately lead to a complete loss of credibility unless significant reforms are enacted in both its composition and operational methods. The UN chief issued a powerful call to action, stating, “We cannot forge a future for our grandchildren with a system designed for our grandparents.”
Key highlights from the Summit of the Future, 2024:
World leaders convened at the Summit of the Future (New York) adopted the Pact for the Future, which includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations.
1. Commitment to Sustainable development:
Member States recommitted to accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the 2023 SDG Summit Political Declaration.
Their aim is to eradicate poverty and hunger while ensuring no one is left behind.
The Pact emphasizes the necessity of planning for sustainable development beyond 2030 and addresses the SDG financing gap through enhanced public and private investments.
2. Climate action and Environmental sustainability:
The Pact reiterates the commitment to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and transition from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
It also calls for urgent actions to promote sustainable practices, including a legally-binding agreement on plastic pollution and initiatives to reverse biodiversity loss.
3. Peace and security initiatives:
Leaders emphasized the importance of sustaining peace through national prevention strategies, strengthening international cooperation, and ensuring military spending does not undermine sustainable development.
The Pact commits to protecting civilians in conflict zones and enhancing accountability for serious violations of international law.
4. Disarmament and arms control:
One of the Pact's notable achievements is the reaffirmation of commitment to nuclear disarmament, alongside measures to prevent the weaponization of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.
5. Addressing global inequalities in Science and Technology:
The Pact promotes reducing disparities in science, technology, and innovation (STI) and emphasizes women's and girls' participation in these fields.
It advocates for increased funding for SDG-related research and innovation.
6. Enhancing Multilateral cooperation:
The adoption of the Pact showcases countries' commitment to an international system centred around the United Nations.
It aims to enhance multilateralism to better reflect contemporary global dynamics, fostering collaboration among governments, civil society, and private sectors.
7. Youth and gender equality:
The Pact prioritizes youth engagement in global decision-making and commits to revitalizing the Commission on the Status of Women, ensuring the empowerment of women and girls.
8. Financial architecture reform:
The Pact outlines comprehensive reforms to the international financial architecture, aiming for more equitable representation of developing countries and improved financial safety nets to support economic resilience.
9. Global Digital compact and future generations declaration:
Annexed to the Pact, the Global Digital Compact establishes a framework for digital cooperation that emphasizes human rights and accountability in the digital space.
The Declaration on Future Generations focuses on safeguarding the interests of future populations through long-term governance principles.
10. Outer Space:
On governing outer space, the Pact includes an agreement to strengthen the existing international frameworks including to ensure that all countries can benefit from its safe and sustainable exploration and use, and working with non-State actors where relevant.
The Pact includes follow-up mechanisms, including a high-level review of the Global Digital Compact in 2027 and a comprehensive review of the Pact for the Future in 2028.
Context: The Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge was agreed upon by Diplomatic Conference hosted by World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). The treaty was first proposed in 1999 by Colombia, calling for recognition of intellectual property of indigenous peoples and local communities. The negotiations started in 2001.
Objectives of WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources & Traditional Knowledge (GRATK)
Promotion of efficacy, transparency and quality of patent system in relation to genetic resources and traditional knowledge.
Protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources.
Prevention of patents being granted erroneously for inventions that are not novel or inventive with regard to genetic resources and traditional knowledge related to genetic resources.
International disclosure related to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge in patent applications contributes to legal certainty and consistency
Salient Features of GRATK
Mandatory Patent Disclosure Requirement: The treaty establishes a mandatory patent disclosure requirement requiring patent applicants to disclose the country of origin of genetic resources and/or the Indigenous people or local community providing the associated traditional knowledge.
Sanctions and Remedies:
Failure to disclose required information would be subject to appropriate, effective and proportionate measures.
Patent applicants would have the opportunity to rectify a failure to disclose the requirement information unless
Information Systems:
Voluntary establishment of information systems (ex databases)of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge, in consultation with indigenous people and local communities, wherever applicable.
Genetic resources databases can compile and reference a wide range of information. Ex. Information about genetic resources, associated traditional knowledge, known uses of genetic resources and relevant scientific compilations.
Information systems should be accessible to patent offices for search and examination of patent applications.
Non-retroactivity: No obligations of the Treaty would be imposed in relation to patent applications filed prior to entry into force of this treaty.
Review Mechanism: The treaty provides an in-built review mechanism to allow certain issues to be reviewed like extension of disclosure requirement to other areas of intellectual property and other issues like new and emerging technologies four years after the entry into force of the treaty.
Significance of the GRATK
Significant win for countries of Global South and India which are host bulk of global biodiversity and traditional knowledge. India being a megadiverse country holds 7-8% of global biodiversity and a rich repertoire of knowledge based on genetic resources.
First WIPO treaty to address the interface between intellectual property, genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Also, first WIPO treaty to include provisions specifically for indigenous people and local communities.
Multilateralism: Given the opposition of advanced countries like USA, EU and Japan for this treaty and the divided world we live in, the fact that a consensus treaty could emerge is a win and provides hope of the spirit of multilateralism.
Concerns with the Treaty
Fails to address biopiracy due to weak sanctions regime: The WIPO Treaty suffers from a weak sanctions regime which is not adequate address the issues of bio-piracy. Some issues with the sanctions regime of the treaty are:
No provision for penalties for non-disclosure.
Countries to provide opportunity for rectification of failure to disclose information before implementing sanctions.
No obligation on patent offices to verify the authenticity of disclosure.
No country can revoke, invalidate or render unenforceable conferred patent rights solely on the basis of applicant's failure to provide mandatory patent disclosure.
No provision for revocation of patent except when the information is withheld due to fraudulent intentions. Even in such cases, the treaty leaves it to the State to decide on the sanctions to be imposed.
Silent on positive protection of traditional knowledge for indigenous people and local communities (IPLC):
No recognition of traditional knowledge as intellectual property of IPLC which would have provided indigenous people with exclusive collective rights to control their traditional knowledge.
No fair & equitable sharing of benefits in favour of IPLC in return of use of their traditional knowledge.
Silence on right of attribution and right to use of their own traditional knowledge for IPLC.
Fails to protect traditional cultural expressions i.e., the forms in which IPLC express their traditional cultural practices and knowledge like music, dance, art & handicrafts.
Dilution of India's patent laws: India would need to align its domestic laws like Patents Act & Biological Diversity Act with the WIPO Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. These amendments could potentially dilute existing protections aiming to safeguard traditional knowledge and genetic resources. For example, India's Patent Law already provides for pre-grant opposition against non-disclosure of source of origin and also for a revocation of granted patent for non-disclosure of information.
