This short note has identified few concerns in the teaching and researching of international law from a systemic perspective as experienced within a Private Law School setting. It needs to be underlined here that these are based on personal experiences and it could differ from person to person and setting to setting. Addressing these issues would go a long way in terms of enabling the members of the international law teaching community to put their best legal foot forward.
It is through increased research and publications in Africa, about Africa’s experiences with norms and practices of the international society, that the TWAIL aspirations of alternative narratives and accounts that will compel emerging rules of international law and their institutions to be more just, fair, balanced and equitable to the region, may be realised.
It is my humble opinion that the current syllabus does not represent either the vision of South Asian University nor the Universal human welfare oriented understanding of Jurisprudence. Kindly do not treat it as a complaint it is an opportunity exercised by a fellow academician in discharging the human cum intellectual social responsibility. Especially, for the benefit of present and future generations of student fraternity.
These are some reflections I hope will be valuable to anyone who is committed to facing the challenge of making international legal education relevant given the significant changes we, as people concerned with issues related to global justice, are living. International legal education has undoubtedly much to say in such an “eternal” crisis, one we feel is affecting social relations at national and international levels.
Legal education has begun in Myanmar since 1878 under the administration of British Colonial Government. Rangoon (Yangon) College was founded as an affiliation of Calcutta University (CU), India in 1884-1885. British Government passed the University of Rangoon Act in 1920 through which the University of Rangoon was founded and has come into existence.
The Central Asian States should learn to rely on international law, more proactively and consistently, as a tool for advancing their lawful interests, and for maintaining regional and international peace and security. Kazakhstan’s recent membership in the UN Security Council (2017-2018) was an excellent occasion to promote respect for international law at the regional level. Other recent examples of such reliance include the adoption of a Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea in 2018, or an ongoing reform of criminal law and procedure in Uzbekistan.
In fulfilling this 'global' role, I highlight a growing propensity of sub-national governments to challenge the status quo. More importantly, I argue that as the intermestic nature of trade and investment norms are becoming more evident, the COVID-19 Pandemic offers us an opportunity to reflect on the changing role of sub-national governments as activists and sites of resistance against inequalities in international trade and investment rules.
Tension between investment protection and right to regulate has not been resolved yet and it is even more dangerous when States take measures in order to target health, social and economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic. Facing investor-State dispute resolution reform, an approach from Martha Fineman's vulnerability theory is imperative. Placing human being (vulnerable subject) as the center of the analysis, right to regulate protection should be a pre-stage for building resilience from social institutions. Therefore, States would not be at risk of compromising their budgets in international arbitration or experiencing “regulatory chill
Our ethical conundrum as we think about issues of global distributive justice in the post-pandemic era is that social contract theory fails to provide an adequate framework for conceptualizing duties and obligations of international organizations to individuals, as opposed simply to their member states. The tension comes from the fact that people intuitively have a sense of justice which is offended by the manner in which power is wielded by those at the helm of the global financial order to place the interests of international organizations, banks, and multinational corporations over and above those of individual human beings, particularly those at the margins of the world economy.
Now that the commencement of AFCTA has been postponed in view of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need for a clear conceptualisation of flexibility in relation to the commitments and obligations created in African RTAs including the AFCTA. There is also a need to identify how some narratives that are subsumed in the flexibility paradigm may end up doing more harm than good to informal trade engagements in the continent.