Articles

It is a privilege to be invited to address a group of young men and women who are at the threshold of their career in the profession of law. This event marks a watershed in the life of those graduating today, but it is only the beginning of an arduous journey of life. I am grateful to the Chancellor and the Vice-Chancellor for the invitation to deliver this convocation address…

Although Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty (OST) prohibits the deployment of nuclear weapons and any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction in the outer space, owing to serious drafting faults and interpretative conundrums, ground-based Anti-Satellite (ASAT) missiles have been left out of its purview. The failure of the states to adopt an agreed definition of ‘peaceful uses’, stipulated under Article IV, has left scope for attributing the colour of legitimacy to ASAT missile testing. This being the situation, the present paper ponders into the question of legality of testing and deployment of ASAT missiles under the present legal framework. It highlights loopholes in Article IV of the OST, which aid states to transgress the barriers of international law. An exclusive treaty to control or prohibit anti-satellite weapons is a far fetched dream given the nonexistence of such political will among concerned nations. This is evident from United States ‘rejection of the proposal of Russia and China for a new treaty regarding this. Hence the paper suggests plausible solutions to this quandary from within existing international legal framework.

By employing a human rights perspective, this paper focuses on Corporate Social Responsibility (‘CSR’) and its impact and relevance in the globalized, commercialized world. The discussion around CSR takes into consideration three important developments: enormous growth of corporate power (without commensurate accountability), a paradigm shift in the nature of development and emerging claims from victims of corporate activities. The paper responds to these considerations by concluding that CSR has been the preferred model for achieving corporate accountability. The right to development against corporations has also impacted the functioning of corporations and the evolving nature of CSR. The paper also discusses recent examples of measures aimed at protecting victims from corporate activities.

The rules of the game of investment in the stock markets have more to it than what meets the eye. The real position and scope of powers enjoyed by a shareholder vis-à-vis the management of the company is nowhere strictly defined. However the developed markets have incorporated rules governing the relationship between a shareholder and the management of the company. Thus, a huge gap seems to exist between the required results that have been obtained by incorporation of such rules in Indian scenario and the one envisaged by the framers. In the Anglo Saxon system, the management has only one objective, namely to act in the financial interests of the shareholders. The management comprises of individual directors and the shareholders are not a part of the decision-making process of the company. In India, the problem of corporate governance though is much different from its European and American counterparts. There seems to be an inherent problem regarding the conflict of interests between the dominant and minority shareholder. This is coupled with the different corporate structures that characterize the Indian market. The role of institutional investor and financial institutions in ensuring a balance between the powers of the dominant and the minority shareholder seem to be negligible. Even the statutory provisions leave enough space for manipulation, which are misused mainly by the family businesses. This article aims at analysing this problem faced by the Indian markets and provide a India Specific model so as not only to protect the interest of the minority shareholder but also ensure better exercise of corporate governance by the companies.

In French law, an award of damages is a means to enforce human rights, such that the breach of such a right urges the payment of compensation. This situation is reinforced by the fact that the European Court of Human Rights alone has the means to ensure the protection of the rights guaranteed by the European Convention. Moreover, a strong debate has occurred on whether to consider the right to obtain compensation in the form of damages as a fundamental right or a human right. This phenomenon, which may be called ‘fundamentalisation’ (in French: ‘fondamentalisation’) of compensation is the primary focus of this article.

The debate surrounding the Indian Judicial System has been deliberating on the means and ways that can be employed to improve its efficiency and functioning. Ina new development, the theme of these debates has focused on the feasibility of having cameras in courtrooms. This proposal can be traced to the United States of America, where camera access to court room proceedings has been in place for the last three decades with the objective of promoting fairness and public awareness about the judicial system. It is envisaged that by adopting a similar approach in India, the justice delivery mechanism would be improved, the masses would be educated about the working of the Indian Judicial System, thereby promoting rule of law in the society. In the United States of America, there exists no Constitutional Right to broadcast courtroom proceedings, and whenever such broadcasts have been made concerns have been voiced regarding their impact on the citizen’s right to a fair trial and due process of law. In India also, there is no constitutional right to televise court proceedings, however the same is not expressly prohibited either. The possibilities arising from this juxtaposition is fertile ground for academic debate, which shall form the subject matter of this paper. Through this paper we seek to do a cost-benefit analysis of introducing cameras in Indian courtrooms and thereby establish that the existing set up would not be able to sustain such an arrangement.

The German constitution declares in its first Amendment that human dignity is inviolable and declares its protection a duty of the state. The following text explores the concept of human dignity as “a right to have rights” that can be derived from this constitutional passage. References to different decisions of the German Federal Constitutional Court reveal the importance and complexity of this concept and its meaning for the understanding and interpretation of the German Constitution as such.

This paper analyses the Naz Foundation judgment and the reaction of the Indian society to it from a sociological angle.The initial parts of the paper traces the evolution of gay rights movement as a social movement and the past attempts by this movement to use the institution of law and courts of law as an agent of the social change it sought to bring about. Thereafter,the paper concerns itself with the analysis of responses to the decision by English language media in India, which, the author admits, is a reflection of the view points only of the urban elite section of the Indian population. The paper also discusses the heteronormativity of the Indian society that criminalises and suppresses alternate sexualities and the factors shaping the same.

This paper explores the boundaries of international cooperation in criminal matters with respect to the German Constitution. The paper argues that a critical observation of developments in international cooperation in criminal matters is advisable. Cooperation in itself is not a guarantee for the protection of human rights. The guaranteed standard in the involved legal orders should be carefully studied and compared, before competences are “outsourced” to other international legal bodies. With respect to the German legal order, it is especially the guilt principle that raises concerns vis-à-vis other international legal orders.

The principle of inter-generational equity, a recognised legal norm, is being threatened in the current global scene of rapid climate when those human resources which are common property are being destroyed at a very fast rate. At present, countries with more resources and technical knowhow are able to exploit the existing natural resources, thus depriving present as well as future generations of the same. This paper proposes a system of compensation to be paid by those countries which appropriate the earth’s natural resources in the present to compensate those who do not acquire their benefits till a later stage, or at all. This paper shall also demonstrate how this compensation regime is economically sound and promotes sustainable development.