Submit your Article

The world is witnessing an AI or a high-tech war rather than just a traditional warfare—be it Russia-Ukraine war or Israel–Palestine conflict, while the conflicting parties have been massively ‘weaponizing technology’ and also undermining basic humanitarian laws. 

If the Israel-Palestine war, unfortunately, escalated over Iran or the Arab World with a shrewd intention of destabilizing the Mideast or disintegrating China initiated Gulf unity, the outcome would be more disappointing or costlier than that in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or Libya in the past.

The massive US funding on the war in Ukraine and Israel, and possibly in Taiwan, instead of rationally investing on peace prospects, could not only induce divisions within the EU, NATO and other alliances, but could also affect the outcome of US election 2024 and impact the Russia-Ukraine war as well. 

Subsequently, it would leave a stronger precedent on the Taiwan issue. China, meanwhile, is widely garnering sustenance by taking advantage of a gradually waning US image, for its global political march. Against this backdrop, the world is most likely to be divided into two poles such that sooner or later every international conflict would ultimately end on Beijing-Washington negotiations, else slip into WWIII. Inviting a war is nothing but just an irrational competition on who would be stupider. Investing in war cannot be a wise ‘strategy’; instead, it is an ‘absurdity’. States, as responsible actors, should take steps for peace and harmony, and win hearts, minds and spirits of their nationals for maintaining a socio-democratic order.

The world is also observing a new version of Cold War centered on ‘democracy’ vs ‘autocracy’ in the form of tech and AI, data colonialism, data harvesting, cyber warfare, tech propaganda, intelligence sharing and spy-tech diplomacy, space race, maritime aggression, diplomatic maneuvering, interference in the internal affairs of states and unfair (and unilateral) tariffs or sanctions inconsistent with international laws. Consequently, global disorder is more disordered today. 

The induced “distrust and polarization of democracies” and disinformation from big tech and social media have been constantly challenging techno-democratic order, while the Russia-Ukraine conflict—that is largely marshaled by tech weaponries—is constantly fuelling for global disorder, and the Israel-Palestine conflict is likely to disunite the Arab World. The US, India and the UK as well as other influencing democracies such as Egypt, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and South Korea are going to polls in 2024, while the challenges to ‘electoral democracy’ following the risk of disinformation or the influence of AI and ethnic nationalism cannot be undermined.

In the past, the West undermined Russian tech, cyber and nuclear capabilities, while the consequence was that the US frequently witnessed vulnerability in its cyber security and is now facing grave challenges to democracy from within and outside. The West is not accepting China’s AI strength and diplomatic clout, including its four initiatives—BRI, GDI, GSI, GCI—while the consequence is that the world is being gradually divided into two poles seeking alternative global orders. The West is also not accepting India’s promising tech and Space strength. This disregard could end up making India an alternative power in the global stage in the foreseeable future.

Nevertheless, all the three influencing powers—China, India and Russia—have had remarkable history cum civilization, grand legacy, abundance of resources, strong national power capability, great population, greater size, rapidly emerging economy, innovative technology and remarkable defense capability, which none of the reigning powers can undermine now. While China has been the strongest of the three due to its AI supremacy, strong defense capability, gamut of intelligence and wider clout on the global stage. India is logically stronger because of its national power capabilities, including “fertile population” or “demographic advantage”, followed by strategic ties with Russia, bulky economic undertakings with China and geostrategic alliance with the US. Russia has become much stronger due to its tactical nuclear capability followed by stronger bilateral and geostrategic ties with China, India and North Korea.

The author is a geopolitical analyst

This article is part 1 of a two-part series

Access to justice is one of the key challenges facing Nepal’s judicial system. 

Factors like a low level of awareness, lack of legal literacy and inherent social and structural systems have made justice inaccessible for a large section of the society, women and members of disadvantaged communities in particular.

For decades, the formal justice system of Nepal included the Supreme Court at the top, and appellate and district courts at the middle and lower rungs. A bureaucratic, formal and costly justice system meant that a large section of the public felt intimidated and scared to approach it, compelling them to suffer injustice in silence.

In order to overcome these impediments, the state did introduce the system of community mediation and justice administration through quasi-judicial bodies. But these bodies have neither been formally institutionalized nor has the public been sensitized about the kinds of services they are supposed to provide. Perhaps to address this gap, the Constitution of Nepal 2015 envisaged separate judicial committees under the local level to work as primary vehicles for a community-based justice-dispensation system. 

Legal provisions

Article 217 (1) of the Constitution of Nepal 2015 provides for a three-member judicial committee in each of the 753 local levels with the mandate to adjudicate, arbitrate and refer cases for mediation at the local level. Article 217 (2) stipulates election of other two members of the committee at village and municipal assemblies. The judicial committees are under deputy mayors in municipalities and vice-chairpersons in rural municipalities.

The Constitution has also provided for mandatory election of male and female as either mayor/chairperson or deputy mayor/vice-chairperson, resulting in the election of women deputy mayors and vice-chairpersons in over 90 percent of 753 local levels. Apparently, these committees are overwhelmingly led by elected representatives, who are women.

Clause 47 (1) of the Local Government Operation Act (LGOA) 2017 elaborates on functional and procedural aspects of the judicial committees, “empowering them to settle disputes related to 13 specific matters.”

Per Clause 47 (2) of LGOA, judicial committees have the right to settle disputes through mediation in 11 other matters. The disputants can directly register cases at the court under Clause 47 (2); they can also move the district court in case of dissatisfaction with the committee’s decisions.

In case of adjudication and arbitration, the committee regards the opinion of the majority as its decision. In the case of mediation, it keeps a roster of mediators and refers the parties to mediation centers at the ward level. 

Challenges aplenty

Since the promulgation of the Constitution of Nepal 2015, local level elections have taken place twice. Elected representatives have come and gone, but the judicial committees’ challenges remain as they are. Some of the problems facing these bodies include lack of institutional mechanisms, insufficient clarity on jurisdictions, lack of procedural clarity, expertise and human resources, administrative capacity and institutional capacity to implement decisions.

Nepal Law Society (NLS) and Rural Development Foundation (RDF) have been conducting different activities like organizing programs to support the functioning of judicial committees. They provided support to the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration in drafting LGOA, apart from conducting a pilot study on the performance of the committees and conducting training sessions for the committees’ functionaries on due process, facilitation between committees and concerned district courts, capacity building through orientations and compiling suggestions from all local level leaders regarding necessary policy/legal reforms. 

NLS has identified a number of challenges facing these committees. They include lack of understanding on distinctive provisions in Clauses 46-53 of the Local Governance Operation Act; lack of awareness on gender, inclusion and legal education; failure on the part of judicial committees to fulfill due processes leading to overturning of their decisions by district courts and lack of mediation skills and insufficient human and physical/financial resources. 

Other challenges include the lack of coordination between judicial committees and the local level in the execution of decisions; domination of judicial committees by mayors/chairpersons; lack of awareness among target groups about the significance of these committees; lack of easy access to the committees among target groups due to lack of awareness or feeling of intimidation; lack of local civil society organizations that can facilitate the target groups’ access to justice and absence of a network connecting these committees for their collective strengthening and dearth of friendly laws.

The author is Executive Director of Nepal Law Society

This article is part 1 of a two-part series

The United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) is the world’s top diplomat. The UNSG’s job is often described as the “toughest job in the world,” a sentiment passed down from the inaugural Secretary-General to his successors. The incumbent UNSG Antonio Guterres is the ninth individual to hold this esteemed position. He formally took office on 1 Jan 2017. Currently in his second term, Secretary-General Guterres is upholding the longstanding tradition of visiting Nepal, including a visit to Lumbini—the birthplace of Gautam Buddha—enlightened son of Nepal. His predecessor Ban Ki-Moon visited Nepal in 2008 and addressed the Constituent Assembly, which was engaged with the task of drafting a constitution. The UN facilitated the peace process by providing technical and electoral support. The intergovernmental organization remains as a valuable development partner for Nepal. 

The present visit comes on the invitation of the Prime Minister of Nepal.  His visit from Oct 29 to Nov 1 signifies a continued commitment to fostering international cooperation and addressing global challenges. As per the press release issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on Oct 27, the Secretary-General will address the joint session of the Federal Parliament on Oct 31. The first-hand observation of the impacts of climate change on the Himalayas and a brief conversation with the affected communities are also on his itinerary.  

Immediately after arrival on Oct 29, he had meetings with Minister for Foreign Affairs, Narayan Prakash Saud, and Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal where he discussed matters, including Nepal’s ongoing peace process, graduation to the status of a developing country from the category of Least Developed Countries, advancement toward the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and the mitigation of climate change impact. Nepal faces the impact of climate change disproportionately. 

The Prime Minister assured the UNSG of Nepal’s commitment to bringing transitional justice process to a logical conclusion through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission of Investigation on Enforced Disappeared Persons in accordance with the rulings and directives of the Supreme Court, related international conventions, and concerns and interests of the victims.  

The UNSG also had separate meetings with former Prime Minister and Nepali Congress President Sher Bahadur Deuba, and opposition leader in the House of Representatives and Chair of the CPN-UML. The meetings reportedly centered on concluding the peace process and addressing the impacts of climate change.  

The UN Security Council (UNSC) picks up UNSG. It means all five permanent members of the UNSC have to agree on the candidate. Mainly the US and Russia have a great deal of sway over the selection. Guterres assumed the office of UN Secretary-General on 1 Jan 2017. He is a former Prime Minister of Portugal and has worked as the chief of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, one of the most essential UN bodies. As a matured and most experienced politician turned world’s top diplomat, he has a fair knowledge of the inner workings of the UN’s cumbersome bureaucracy. He is multilingual and articulate and is considered decent and able, pragmatic and principled.  

Secretary-General Guterres heads the UN at a time when the world body stands at a crossroads, facing the worst institutional crisis. The world body has been made feeble and bypassed in most of the cases. However, the UN, made up of 193 sovereign member-states, has the widest reach, heaviest weight, and global legitimacy. There is no substitute to the universality and unique legitimacy that comes from the United Nations. The UN incorporates the “collective will” of member-states.  Member-states exercise their rights of sovereign equality under the UN Charter, which also acts as the guardian of “inadmissibility of interference” in their internal affairs. 

The UN is a forum where every country presents its national policy, perspectives and positions on contemporary global issues.  It is where there is sovereign equality of nations. The UNSG draws attention to the plight of the poor, the sick and the victims of war. The UN is also a forum where 193 members are often found querulous and demanding on the organizations. Every member country is apparently determined to put national interests before the common good.  

There are institutional limitations to address all their concerns and demands. The UN and UNSG can only influence when permanent five-strong states cooperate, and allow the world body to perform. US President Harry Truman is quoted to have said, “No matter how great our strength, we must deny ourselves the license to always do as we please.” 

Great powers can make the UN work or frustrate all its efforts. If great powers see no economic value or strategic importance, they show callous indifference to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter. Rwanda is one such example. 

The UNSG, though the world’s top diplomat, is the servant of the politically powerful. Former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, delivering a series of high-profile speeches in his final days at the office, said, “America is not working better with other countries—sees it as a lament that might be seen as a sign of his own frustrations, (The Economist, 18 Dec 2006). When the UNSC did not endorse America and its allies for invasion of Iraq in 2003, hostility with the United Nations grew in Washington. Putting all shortcomings or non-performances of individual states at the doors of the UN and its Secretary-General, often referred to as a “scapegoat” (SG)—a phrase attributed to a former Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, does no justice to the office of the UN Secretary-General. The crucial failure of political will on part of the member-states should not be attributed as the fault of UNSG. 

The three pillars

The United Nations has three pillars consisting of economic development, human rights and making and keeping peace. UNSG acts often as a cajoler and fixer, not a global boss. Acting as a neutral arbiter for stopping death and destruction and preventive diplomacy is what the UN does. 

Member-states work within the United Nations to project their positions and use their ability to attract and persuade others to accept their positions, which is often called “soft power.” The United Nations, with all imposed structural imperfections, has no hard or coercive power. But it is the UN that has the universality, legitimacy and acceptability where sovereign states come together, share burdens, address common problems and seize opportunities. 

It was within the vital framework of the principles and purposes of the UN Charter that G20 found a way out to bring warring countries  on board and agree on the most contentious issue—Ukraine. This shows it is up to the member-states what they want to make of the UN—an effective organization or incompetent or a prisoner of rivalries. 

Problems sans passports

The world is simultaneously confronting challenges on all fronts in an age of “problems without passports,” like climate crises, persistent poverty and inequality, pandemic, populism, communalism, growing intolerance and transnational crimes. The world confronted coronavirus and saw havoc with even great powers struggling with serious health problems of their people. The divides growing between the poor and rich, lower and middle-income countries were the most alarming signs.  

The world is burdened with several crises ranging from the Ukraine war to Hamas-Israel war to transnational challenges. There is a development crisis. Desertification is increasing, environmental degradation is staring at us amidst a scarcity of resources. The pervasiveness of poverty is often referred to as “bottom billion.” 

Global problems require global solutions. Complex problems must be dealt comprehensively, in their full economic, social and political dimensions. As no other institutions exist in pursuit of global commons and global good, the UN is the only institution to have global legitimacy. Unilateralism has proved ineffective. Multilateralism with the UN at the center seems to be the only way forward. 

The UN Charter long ago noted that peace and security depend on the social and economic advancement of people. It is often seen that the UN has tackled challenges rhetorically, contributing to its reputation as a talking shop. The UN should rediscover the principle of pragmatism, which is hard work for a real political pragmatism.  The theme chosen for the 78th UNGA this year has been “rebuilding trust and reigniting global solidarity” to accelerate action to speed up the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The Agenda has 17 goals ranging from combating climate change to eliminating hunger and poverty to achieving gender equality, and promoting social welfare. This set of goals was adopted in 2015 to realize them by 2030, after the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals), adopted in Sept 2000 at the UN Millennium Summit reached their deadline.  

The graduation plan

The UN website describes SDGs to be in deep peril, with more people in extreme poverty, development reversing under the combined impacts of climate disasters, conflict, economic downturns and lingering covid-19 effects. As the country plans to graduate to developing status from Least Developed Countries’ (LDCs) status by 2026, the issue of how to make the graduation sustainable and irreversible should figure in discussions with the UNSG.   

Global power is making a historic transition to Asia based on the growth of Nepal’s neighbors—China followed by India. Geopolitical tensions and rivalries are rising to their prominence in Asia and Nepal’s neighborhood. There is a clear distraction from pressing problems, as politics has become explosive and populist, diplomacy, too, stands like a minefield.  Nepal has to be extraordinarily and exceptionally careful and show its wisdom in securing national space and ensuring a decent life for its people. 

Nepal formally joined the United Nations in 1955. Over the years, Nepal has shown unwavering commitment and support to the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and unflinching faith in multilateralism.  The foreign policy of Nepal, as Prime Minister BP Koirala said while addressing the 15th UNGA-1960, “is fully inspired by the principles and purposes of the United Nations’ Charter. We regard the United Nations not only as a bulwark of our independence and security, but also as the protector of our rights and freedom.” 

Nepal’s participation at the highest level at the UNGA and contributions to peacekeeping missions under the aegis of the UN for the cause of global peace and security is a part of this tradition.  Currently, 6308 Nepali peacekeepers are deployed in 13 missions in troubled spots around the world. Nepal ranks first in sending women peacekeepers and second as troops contributing country under the aegis of the UN. 

Time for a revamped UN

The structure of the world body including its main component UNSC does not reflect the existing geopolitical, demographic and economic realities. However, the UN is essential to the world in which we live. The only alternative is to have a more effective and functioning United Nations. 

There is no room for bullying tactics and confrontational style in the 21st century. Without support from 193 member-states, UNSG can do little, and “cut the mustard,” restore excellence, integrity and pride, and make the organization more relevant and effective to the present needs of its members. The job of the UNSG has been described by the inaugural incumbent as “the most impossible task on earth.” Some SGs have been more a doer than a communicator.  

The refugee crisis

As a UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the current Secretary-General facilitated the process of the third-country resettlement of over 100,000 Bhutanese refugees in Europe and America. Bhutan had forcibly evicted these people in the 1980s and 90s.  Resettlement process in different countries was carried out in consultations and coordination with the UN and concerned countries. There are over 6000 refugees remaining in the refugee camps. Either they should return home in dignity or resettled in third countries. It would not be out of place and context to raise the issue with the visiting dignitary, who is fully familiar with the crux of the problem. 

The author is a former Nepali ambassador/PR to the UN

RSS

“Human rights are not negotiable items that companies and governments are permitted to eliminate by contract.” 

That’s a quote from Andrea Shemberg, a former legal adviser to Amnesty International UK. 

Here’s one more, from Maximilien Robespierre, “Any law which violates the indefeasible rights of man is in essence unjust and tyrannical, it is no law.” 

There is virtually no aspect of our work that does not have a human rights dimension. Whether we are talking about peace and security, development, humanitarian action, the struggle against terrorism, climate change, none of these challenges can be addressed by ignoring human rights.

We know that the French Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) was the first document, which referred to social, economic and cultural rights, rights to education, work, property and social protection.

In 1941, the Atlantic Charter was declared, which made way for an International Bill of Rights (1942-45) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on 10 Dec 1948. 

Article 25.1 of UDHR states:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social service and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” 

The International Commission on  Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1976  and International  Commission on Economical, Social and Cultural Rights 1976 oblige signatory nations to ensure human rights and so does UDHR. 

Nepal is also a party to international human rights conventions, covenants and protocols.

Worryingly, appointments made to the National Human Rights Commission, the constitutional rights watchdog, have failed to meet national and international standards, including those outlined in the Paris Principles. 

After conducting a review for two consecutive years, a Ganhri Subcommittee on accreditation (SCA) in October last year recommended downgrading NHRC to the “B’’ category. Notably, one of the commissioners is requesting the government to amend the relevant Act and give NHRC more authority in line with the Paris Principles to avoid this action. The rights watchdog, caught in deep sleep for long, seems to have woken up and has begun blaming the state for failing to defend its appointments. A statement from the appointees reads, “Our appointments alone are not responsible for the downgrading. The government’s failure to strongly defend the appointments before the United Nations Human Rights Committee is primarily responsible for the Ganhri action. 

A bad carpenter quarrels with his tools.

Let’s go back a little bit to understand the crisis better. 

The Constitutional Council under the then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli had  nominated chairpersons and members at various constitutional bodies, including the NHRC, on the basis of the Constitutional Council Act revised through an ordinance on 15 Dec 2020. The then President, Bidya Devi Bhandari, subsequently appointed the chair and four commissioners at the NHRC on 3 Feb 2021 on the government’s recommendations. 

Even during the reign of King Gyanendra, NHRC was not in such a sorry state. The SCA is bound to review the commission’s present status following complaints from several human rights bodies, chiefly over the appointments of NHRC officials. 

In the reviews conducted in 2021 and 2022 also, the Ganhri commission had recommended downgrading NHRC, pointing at the unconstitutional appointment process. NHRC’s ‘inability’ to safeguard minority rights did not help either. Add to it all half-a-dozen writ petitions challenging the ordinance and the appointment process that are sub-judice in the Supreme Court as well as civil society organizations’ dissatisfaction with the working process of NHRC.

Against this backdrop, who will come to the rescue of the constitutional rights body? 

The author is a former member of NHRC