Burma, Foreign Aid and Crimes against Humanity?

By

In light of the tragic events taking place in Burma, or Myanmar as the ruling military junta renamed it in 1989, a few interesting questions of international law spring to mind. Notwithstanding the fact that urgent need for relief and assistance to the Burmese people takes precedence over legal debates, the very refusal to accept foreign aid workers on its soil by the Burmese junta raises legal questions (the Times has a story on the situation). For instance, is it possible that this denial of foreign assistance could constitute crimes against humanity as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)? Article 7 of the Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity as acts “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack”. For the purpose of this discussion the “acts” referred to in subsection 1 of Article 7 would be “[O]ther inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health”, as defined in Article 7(1)(k). In subsection 2 of Article 7, it is clarified that the “attack” refers to a conduct against any civilian population “pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack”. In this light, it could be argued that the deliberate denial of foreign aid by the Burmese junta, which clearly causes “great suffering, or serious injury to body or mental or physical health” is part of a conscious policy by the junta placing it within the ambit of a “widespread and systematic attack”. Unfortunately, the Burmese junta is not, perhaps not surprising, a party to the Rome Statute rendering the ICC’s jurisdiction illusory. Furthermore, cynics would assert that the Burmese junta is simply exercising its sovereign rights under international law in deciding who and what nationalities get to enter Burma. However, the Rome Statute was specifically set up to hinder impunity from hideous crimes committed under the guise of sovereignty.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The Burmese military say they will distribute the aid themselves. I'm sure they will, but to whom?
10 May 2008 at 13:31
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Constitutional Right to Female Sexual Pleasure?

By
Although a right to “sexual pleasure” usually does not fare among traditional rights enshrined in constitutions, such a right was nevertheless proposed by a female member of the Ecuadorian parliament when debating a forthcoming new constitution. Reuters report that the idea behind the proposal was to facilitate gender equality and to avoid sexual violence. Ultimately, however, and in spite of this noble cause, the proposal failed.
Read more

Movie: HOT FUZZ

By
Image
On Wed, 7 th October at 7pm in Taylor A19 the Legal Research Society will present its first movie night of this academic year with a screening of the film HOT FUZZ, a British action comedy with a huge portion of irony and black humour about the bigotry, hypocrisy and intrigues set in an (superficially) idyllic small town in Britain… Synopsis Sgt Nicholas Angel (Simon Pegg) is a fiercely motivated and successful London copper who finds himself transferred to the sleepy town of Sandford . Almost everyone in this manicured little community seems to know and love each other. But if Sandford is a sleepy market town, it is home to some very real nightmares. Not that local coppers like loveable oaf Danny Butterman (Nick Frost) see anything suspicious about Sandford's absurd number of 'accidents'. Angel is no ordinary constable and launches an investigation, much to the amusement of his bumbling boss and his colleagues. Critics “Refreshingly British come
Read more

Head of State: Legal Debat About The UK's Election. Legal Research Society. 22 April 2010

By
Image
Head of State: Legal Discussion About The UK Election. Legal Research Society. 22 April 2010 There is a general feeling that the recent debate in Britain between the main party leaders was rather staid compared to the more theatrical style of the U.S Presidential debate on which it was modelled. Perhaps the British electorate would prefer the plain-spoken, tell-it-like-it-is politics of Chris Rock's prescient spoof of the U.S Presidential election. "Head of State" starts Chris Rock as an unlikely democratic for the presidency of the United State, who goes on to win over the electorate by shunning the political point-scoring and spin employed by other candidates and speaking forthrightly about issues that really concern people. Could such a tactic work for the political underdog in Britain. The screening of this sassy political satire was followed by a discussion of the recent and the forthcoming political debate in Britain, as well as the General Election that w
Read more