Posted by: Kiddo January 10, 2013
Login in to Rate this Post:
0 
? 
?
Alternate
I am glad somebody brought up the topic of Universal Jurisdictions (UJ). This is a valid argument.
While, I support the idea behind UJ, I believe it has to be a charter motion in UN and all states need to ratify it before any one state starts blatantly enforcing it. This is no where close to an universally accepted charter, see pointers from various delegates regarding this:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gal3442.doc.htm
Let's talk legality. From what I have read, while Human Rights group advocate torture as one of the criterion where UJ can be invoked, UK law doesn't say so. It includes such things as terrorism, Fraud, Dishonesty etc. They might bring up another angle to fight this case, but the bottomline is it is not black and white.
Last time UJ was discussed in the context of UK, was when an Israeli citizen was about to be charged for some war crime. The case had to be dismissed because the person was not in UK territory, but also because of Israel's powerful pressure against this. Israel was pretty much miffed up about it and UK took heed.
Once UJ has been acknowledged and accepted, I think it will serve good for the mankind. Otherwise, the big fish will keep punishing the small fish. Nepal, as a sovereign nation, should continue pressuring UK on this particular issue.
I am glad somebody brought up the topic of Universal Jurisdictions (UJ). This is a valid argument.
While, I support the idea behind UJ, I believe it has to be a charter motion in UN and all states need to ratify it before any one state starts blatantly enforcing it. This is no where close to an universally accepted charter, see pointers from various delegates regarding this:
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/gal3442.doc.htm
Let's talk legality. From what I have read, while Human Rights group advocate torture as one of the criterion where UJ can be invoked, UK law doesn't say so. It includes such things as terrorism, Fraud, Dishonesty etc. They might bring up another angle to fight this case, but the bottomline is it is not black and white.
Last time UJ was discussed in the context of UK, was when an Israeli citizen was about to be charged for some war crime. The case had to be dismissed because the person was not in UK territory, but also because of Israel's powerful pressure against this. Israel was pretty much miffed up about it and UK took heed.
Once UJ has been acknowledged and accepted, I think it will serve good for the mankind. Otherwise, the big fish will keep punishing the small fish. Nepal, as a sovereign nation, should continue pressuring UK on this particular issue.