Search results for: atrocity

Authors: Kudrat-E-Khuda Babu

Abstract:

Rohingya refugees are the most marginalized and persecuted section of people in the world. The heinous brutality of Myanmar has forced the Muslim minority community to flee themselves to their neighboring country, Bangladesh for quite a few times now. The recent atrocity of the Buddhist country has added insult to injury on the existing crisis. In lieu of protection, the rights of the Rohingya community in Myanmar are being violated through exclusion from citizenship and steamroller of persecution. The mass influx of Rohingya refugees to Bangladesh basically took place in 1978, 1992, 2012, and 2017. At present, there are around one million Rohingyas staying at Teknaf, Ukhiya of Cox’s Bazar, the southern part of Bangladesh. The country, despite being a poverty-stricken one, has shown unprecedented generosity in sheltering the Rohingya people. For sheltering half of the total refugees in 2017, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina is now being regarded as the lighthouse of humanity or the mother of humanity. Though Bangladesh is not a ratifying state of the UN Refugee Convention, 1951 and its Additional Protocol, 1967, the country cannot escape its obligation under international human rights jurisprudence. Bangladesh is a party to eight human rights instruments out of nine core instruments, and thus, the country has an indirect obligation to protect and promote the rights of the refugees. Pressure from international bodies has also made Bangladesh bound to provide refuge to Rohingya people. Even though the demographic vulnerability and socio-economic condition of the country do not suggest taking over extra responsibility, the principle of non-refoulment as a part of customary international law reminds us to stay beside those persecuted or believed to have well-founded fear of persecution. In the case of HM Ershad v. Bangladesh and Others, 7 BLC (AD) 67, it was held that any international treaty or document after signing or ratification is not directly enforceable unless and until the parliament enacts a similar statute howsoever sweet the document is. As per Article 33(2) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, there are even exceptions for a state party in case of serious consequences like threat to national security, apprehension of serious crime and danger to safeguard state population. Bangladesh is now at a cross-road of human rights and national interest. The world community should come forward to resolve the crisis of the persecuted Rohingya people through repatriation, resettlement, and reintegration.

Keywords: Rohingya refugees, human rights, Bangladesh, Myanmar

Procedia PDF Downloads 186

Authors: Lisa Tragbar

Abstract:

In post-war scenarios, reconstruction is a principle towards creating a Just Peace in order to restore a stable post-war society. Just peace theorists explore normative behaviour after war, including the duties and responsibilities of different actors and peacebuilding strategies to achieve a lasting, positive peace. Environmental peace ethicists have argued for including the role of nature in the Ethics of War and Peace. This text explores the question of why and how to rethink the value of nature in post-war scenarios. The aim is to include the rights of nature within a maximalist account of reconstruction by highlighting sumak kawsay in the post-war period. Destruction of nature is usually considered collateral damage in war scenarios. Common universal standards for post-war reconstruction are restitution, compensation and reparation programmes, which is mostly anthropocentric approach. The problem of reconstruction in the aftermath of war is the instrumental value of nature. The responsibility to rebuild needs to be revisited within a non-anthropocentric context. There is an ongoing debate about a minimalist or maximalist approach to post-war reconstruction. While Michael Walzer argues for minimalist in-and-out interventions, Alex Bellamy argues for maximalist strategies such as the responsibility to protect, a UN-concept on how face mass atrocity crimes and how to reconstruct peace. While supporting the tradition of maximalist responsibility to rebuild, these normative post-Bellum concepts do not yet sufficiently consider the rights of nature in the aftermath of war. While reconstruction of infrastructures seems important and necessary, concepts that strengthen the intrinsic value of nature in post-bellum measures must also be included. Peace is not Just Peace without a thriving nature that provides the conditions and resources to live and guarantee human rights. Ecuador's indigenous philosophy of life can contribute to the restoration of nature after war by changing the perspective on the value of nature. The sumak kawsay includes the de-hierarchisation of humans and nature and the principle of reciprocity towards nature. Transferring this idea of life and interconnectedness to post-war reconstruction practices, post bellum perpetrators have restorative obligations not only to people but also to nature. This maximalist approach would include both a restitutive principle, by restoring the balance between humans and nature, and a retributive principle, by punishing the perpetrators through compensatory duties to nature. A maximalist approach to post-war reconstruction that takes into account the rights of nature expands the normative post-war questions to include a more complex field of responsibilities. After a war, Just Peace is restored once not only human rights but also the rights of nature are secured. A minimalist post-bellum approach to reconstruction does not locate future problems at their source and does not offer a solution for the inclusion of obligations to nature. There is a lack of obligations towards nature after a war, which can be changed through a different perspective: The indigenous philosophy of life provides the necessary principles for a comprehensive reconstruction of Just Peace.

Keywords: normative ethics, peace, post-war, sumak kawsay, applied ethics

Procedia PDF Downloads 78

Authors: Vijayalaxmi Khopade

Abstract:

The Prima facie caste system is intrinsic to Indian society. It is an ancient system of intense social stratification based upon birth and enjoying religious sanction. The uppermost strata and privileges are ascribed and enjoyed by brahmins (priestly class), while the lowest strata are occupied by Dalits who are not ascribed with any privileges. The caste system is inherently hierarchical, patriarchal, and systematic and thrives solely on exploitation justified through means of the Brahminical system of hegemony based singularly on birth. The caste system has extended its tentacles to other religions like Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Islam in South Asia. Term Dalit is colloquially used to categorize persons belonging to lower strata in the caste hierarchy. However, this category is heterogenous and highly stratified, following practices like untouchability and exclusion amongst themselves. The modern Indian legal system acknowledges the existence of Caste and its perils. Therefore, by virtue of the Indian Constitution, provisions for affirmative action for the protection and development of Dalits are made. Courts in India have liberally interpreted laws to benefit Dalits. However, the modern system of governance is not immune from Caste based biases. These biases are reflected in the implementation of governance, including the dispensation of justice. The economic reforms of the 1990s gave a huge boost to the Indian diaspora. Persons of Indian origin are now seen making great strides in almost every sector and enjoying positions of power globally. As one peels off the layer of ethnic Indian origin, a deep seated layer of Caste and Caste based patriarchy is clearly visible. Indian diaspora enjoying positions of power essentially belongs to upper castes and carry Caste based biases with them. These castes have long enjoyed the benefits of education; therefore, they were the first ones to benefit from LPG (Liberalization, Privatization, Globalization) model adopted in the 1990s. Dalits, however, had little formal education until recently. The western legal system, to the best of our knowledge, does not recognize Caste and, therefore, cannot afford protection for Dalits, wherein discrimination and exploitation take place solely on the basis of Caste. Therefore, Dalits are left with no legal remedy outside domestic jurisdiction. Countries like the UK have made an attempt to include Caste in their Equality Bill 2010. This has met with tough resistance from Upper caste Hindus who shy away from recognizing their caste privileges and, therefore, the existence of Caste. In this paper, an attempt for comparative analysis is made between various legal protections accorded to Dalits in India vis-à-vis international human rights as protected by the United Nations under its declaration of Universal Human rights. An attempt has been made to mark a distinction between race and Caste and to establish a position of women in Caste based hierarchy. The paper also makes an argument for the inclusion of atrocities committed against Dalits as a violation of international human rights, their protection by the United Nations, and the trial of their violations by International Courts. The paper puts into perspective the need for an external agency like the United Nations and International courts to interfere in rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution, even with the existence of a modern legal system in a sovereign democratic country.

Keywords: atrocity, caste, diaspora, legal framework

Procedia PDF Downloads 214