Kaiyan Homi Kaikobad

Self determination, territorial disputes and international law: An analysis of UN and state practice

This study attempts to elicit some of the more important principles of self determination examined in the light of territorial disputes between various non‐self governing territories, metropolitan powers and claimant states. The principles elicited constitute the distillation of many years of practice of UN organs, principally the General Assembly as seen in its resolutions in response to these territorial disputes. In drawing out these principles, reference is made to the difficulties of implementing the right of self determination, including the problem of reconciling this rule with the principle of maintaining the territorial integrity of states.

The revision of judgments and awards

Preliminary observations A judicial remedy closely related to, but different from, the interpretation of judgments and awards is that of the revision of decisions, that is to say, the power of a tribunal to revise its judgment or award. In view of the pre-eminent status of the International Court of Justice, perhaps the most authoritative provision on the matter is Article 61 of its Statute, paragraph 1 of which provides the basic rule. It stipulates: An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence. Paragraph 2 provides that the proceedings shall be opened by a judgment in which the Court expressly records the existence of the new fact, recognises that it has such a character as to lay the case open for revision and (accordingly) declares the application admissible on that ground. Paragraph 3 states that the Court may require compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision. Paragraphs 4 and 5 provide temporal limits. All applications are to be made within six months of the discovery of the new fact, and a final overall time limit is placed for applications for revision at ten years from the date of the judgment.

Crimes against International Peace and Security, Acts of Terrorism and Other Serious Crimes: A Theory on Distinction and Overlap

This study attempts to provide guidance in understanding the difference between acts of terrorism on the one hand and war crimes and crimes against humanity, on the other, the latter two collectively referred to as crimes against international peace and security. A clear understanding of the distinction between these two broad categories is important. Not only is there is a need for forensic clarity in doctrinal thought, the fact is that different categories of crimes entail the application of two different sets of laws and precepts, namely domestic criminal systems and international law. The existence, nature, scope and extent of the culpability of the accused will be determined by applying the correct set of legal principles and rules. While it focuses on the major distinguishing features of these two categories of crimes, this study also highlights areas of overlap which cannot be ignored. Analytical conclusions are presented by setting out a number of paradigms with examples. Each paradigm consists of eight essential elements, and the presence or absence of these elements in different combinations in each paradigm can be used to determine not only the legal category of the impugned act but also the existence or otherwise of the culpability of the accused in law.