The New Nation - Internet Edition

Human rights in international law and Islamic law

Md. Mesbahul Islam

Introduction: The title apparently shows the purpose and significance of the article. The object of the instant article is to make comparison between the Islamic Human Rights and International Human Rights with a view to distinguish between the moral and legal basis of both The Islamic Human Rights and International Human Rights. Islam is not just a religion but a complete code of life, which regulates every sphere of human being. The significance and applicability of Islamic Human Rights not merely for the Muslim but for the whole mankind irrespective of colour, sex, race, cast, religion and place of birthe, etc. of the world. The present world has been observing great challenge to develop the Human Rights and challenge against the violation of human rights, as equality in all respects is under political threat and hence the World Human Rights observing a vulnerable situation.

Concept of Human Rights in International Law: Human Rights are birth rights that a human being can enjoy, which are universal. Human Rights start with the birth of a person and he or she is entitled to enjoy the same only because he or she is a human being. It is applicable to all human being throughout the world irrespective of their colour, sex, race, caste, language, place of birth, all other status. Some primary documents with regard to International Human Rights are Magna Carta 1215, Bill of Rights of England 1689, Petition of Rights 1628, Act of Settlement 1703, and Bill of Rights of America 1776.

Recent Development of International Human Rights: There are some contemporary developments of International Human Rights through the legal instruments, the initiatives have been taken by the UN and institutions for the development of human Rights.

UN organs on Human Rights, are as:

* The General Assembly

* The UN Commission on Human Rights

* The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and

* The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities

International Instruments on Human Rights.

The UN Charter

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948

International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966

Human Rights in United Nations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, of the UN has got two categories of Rights, 1) Civil and Political Rights and 2) Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The Civil and Political Rights: The civil and political rights recognised in the Declaration are as; freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, right to recognition every where as a person before the law, equality before the law and equal protection of law right to an effective judicial, remedy, right to be presumed innocent until guilty is proved, freedom from arbitrary arrest, detention or exile, right to a fair trial and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence, freedom from attacks upon honour and reputation, rights to protection of law against such attacks, freedom of movement and residence, right of asylum, right to a nationality, right to marry and to form family, right to own property, freedom of peaceful assembly and association freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of opinion and expression and right to take part in the government and right to equal access to public service.

The Economic, Social and Cultural rights: Right to social security; right to work, right to equal pay for equal work, right to rest and leisure including reasonable limit of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, right to form and join trade unions; right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of a person and his family, right to education and right to participate in cultural life of the community.

Concept of Human Rights in Islam: Islamic human rights start with a person before his or her birth. It is an inalienable right recognised and guaranteed by Allah through Quranic verses and Hadith of Prophet Muhammad (sw). In fact, Islamic human rights are the combination of both Civil and Political rights and at the same time Economic, Social, and Cultural rights. In the International Law the concept of human rights is a recent phenomenon but the same had been started with Islamic law from long since. Al Quran and Hadith contain the principles of human rights. Formal declaration of human rights took places in 610 AD with the prophethood of Muhammad (sw), most importantly in the year 623 AD which was the year of prophetic ascension of state power and promulgation of the Madina Sanad, which was unparallel in the world history.

Islamic Human Rights: The Quran, is the latest testament for the mankind from Allah Almighty. The Islamic Human rights is distinct from International Human Rights in terms of conception and enforcement. The Quranic Principles are unavoidable and unchangeable beyond time and space what soever.

The rights recognised and guaranteed unders the Quran was declared by Prophet (sw) in last Pilgrimage are as follows: a) right to life, b) right to be free from oppression and abuse of mouth against the others, c) right to protect privacy and secrecy, d) right to adequate food, clothing, health care, housing and education, e) right to freedom of expression, f) right to fair education, g) right to freedom of expression, h) right to fair trial and justice, i) right to be innocent unless guilt is proved j) right to be free from undue and unwanted interference, k) right to form family, I) right to woman to possess and protect her honour, and dignity, m) right to participate in politics, n) right to oppressed people to be rescued and be given asylum or refuge, 0) right to live 'in crime and pollution-free environment. These rights include every thing for human being making him or her best among all the living beings.

Necessity of Islamic Human Rights: The people of the world have been enjoying and observing modern approaches of human rights from long since. This is a mockery in the name of the protection and promotion of human rights and so called democracy upon the human society. The latest invasion in Iraq and Afghanistan, Palestine and treatment of the captives in Guantanamo Bay is the glaring evidence of gross violation of human rights by the self declared Human Rights activists. It is indeed to mention that it is a barbaric threat against civilisation.

That is why, it is impossible to study the Islamic concepts of human rights in capitalist or socialist world. It is true that the UN through its Charter and Treaty based organs, universal and regional human right instruments have recently taken some positive approaches for the promotion and implementation of human rights. In Islam human rights is treated as basic right, which is so fundamental that it cannot be separated in any manner.

Justification of Promotion and Enforcement of Islamic Human Rights: Enforcement of Islamic Human Rights is required for the following reasons. The concept of human rights in the present perspectives has become a pen and paper matter which is determined by the superior class to the inferior.

But Islamic Human Rights emphasises on ethical, moral and spiritual values of freedom, justice and equality which are essential for the mankind without any distinction.

The concept of International human rights is a recent phenomenon which is created by man but the same had been introduced as an inalienable right of human being by Islam at least 1400 years ago. Prophet Muhammad (sw) as a ruler of Muslim state had to prove the truthfulness and rightness of the Quranic verses. The main indicator of the success and failure of the concepts of human rights is the material achievement, and the spiritual salvation is the prime concern of the Islamic concepts of human rights.

Concluding Remarks: Whether Islam is the pioneer in declaring and implementing Human Rights or not? Asking of such question is quite meaningless, as Human Rights are coherent and inalienable with Islam. The journey of Islam started with the first man on this earth. In the Western view, there is no such concept of individual rights, what they have is obligation only. However, these views will remain insignificant unless and until the debates are proved by implementing and promoting the Human Rights through an effective mechanism. The debate of being pioneer in introducing Human Rights is less important than the implementation of human rights throughout the world. In fact, world community should come forward for the promotion and implementation of Islamic Human Rights throughout the whole world irrespective of colour, race, caste, sex, gender, language, place of birth in the light of glorious solidarity of Islamic Human Rights knowledge and its education.

End Notes

1. Al Quran, relevant verses on Human Rights.

2. Charter of the United Nations 1945, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966, Optional protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966.

3 . Vienna Declaration 1993.

4. The Cairo Declaration of Islamic Human Rights 1990,

5. Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights 1983.

Registration of very similar trade mark

2008 BLD (AD) 28

M. M. Ruhul Amin, C.J; Md. Tafazzul

Islam and Md. Abdul Matin, JJ

Baby food products Ltd.

v.

Nabisco biscuit and bread

Factory and another

Mark has been registered in favour of the petitioner in violation of statutory prohibition laid down in section 10 (1) & 8( a) of Trade Marks Act, 1940.

While making examination of the application No.21508(a) in class-30 of the petitioner the prohibition as laid down in section of 10(l) and 8(a) was not adhered to by the respondent No.2. The application ought to have been refused registration. Respondent No, 2 has acted against the specific provision of section 10(1) and 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 by ordering the application No.21508 in class 30 of the petitioner to be advertised in the Journal on consideration of two affidavits without sales figures' or advertisements figures or any other documents which could have empowered the Registrar to waive the objection under the aforesaid sections to allow the application to proceed to advertisement under the provision of section 10(2) on the honest and concurnent user. (Para-6)

The Registrar of trade marks ought to have examined the evidence further and ought to have considered the application in the light of statutory objections under sections 10(1) & 8(a) of the Act. The impugned trade mark was allowed to be registered without proper examination as to the register ability of the mark which is otherwise disentitled to be registered. (Para-7)

Respondent No.2 has also allowed registration of almost identical trade mark in the application Nos. 34638, 35138, 36566, 45164, 45284, 45285, and 56085 in class-30 in gross violation of the provisions of the Trade Mark Act, 1940 which show that the Registrar has no respect for the law of which he is the administrator by virtue of his position conferred upon him by the Statute.

(Para-8)

Mr. Ismail Miah, Advocate (appeared with the leave of the Court) instructed by Mr. Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record, For the Petitioner.

Mr. Mahmudul Islam, Senior Advocate,

instructed by Mrs. Sufia Khatun, Advocate on-Record, For Respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2: Not represented.

Judgment delivered on June 9, 2008.

Judgment

Md. Abdul Matin, J. : This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.06.2005 passed by the High Court Division in Trade Mark Application No.13 of 2002 filed by the respondent No.1 under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 allowing the application and making the rule absolute and directing the registered Trade Mark No.21508 dated 18.12.1984 in Class-30 to be varied by way of deletion or omission of the words "NABICO" both in English and

Bangla.

2. The facts, in short, are that the respondent No.1 has been engaged in the business of manufacturing and marketing of biscuits of various types of best possible quality for the last five decades.

3. With a view to distinguishing the products of the respondent from the rest of others, the respondent adopted a trade mark consisting of the word "NABISCO" on a label with a distinctive colour scheme, design and get up for the first time in the whole of erstwhile Pakistan when Bangladesh was a province of Pakistan. However, the respondent applied for registration of the trade mark "NABISCO" to the Trade Marks Registry, Dhaka under application No. 1713,1723, 1733 and 1734, in c1ass-30 in the year 1973. The applications were duly advertised in the Journal. As there was none to oppose the right of property involved in the mark, there was no opposition from any quarter and eventually the trade marks proceeded to smooth registration. In addition to the aforesaid registration the respondent have also obtained registration of associated trade marks of various types of Biscuits.

4. Due to superior quality of the biscuits manufactured and marketed by the respondent, long and continuous use and various sales promotion measures undertaken by the respondent from time to time, the trade mark "NABISCO" acquired great reputation in the market in relation to bread and biscuits of various kinds and the trade marks "NABISCO" attained distinctiveness in the market and became distinctive of the goods covered under the registration, so that any reference as to the trade mark "NABISCO" would always make a reference to the biscuits manufactured and marketed by the respondent No.1 and none else. The trade mark "NABISCO" connotes and denotes to the order as well as to the consumers the property of the respondent and the same has become integrated with the business of the respondent, in fact, the aforesaid trade mark has assumed the property of a great significance to the owner of the trade mark. .

5. The petitioner being a clever person imitated the trade mark of the respondent and secretly filed application for registration of the impugned trade mark consisting of a deceptively similar trade mark "NABICO" under No.21508 in c1ass-30 in the Trade Marks Registry, Dhaka. Inspite of registration of almost identical trade mark of the respondent under Nos. 1713,1723,1733 and 1734, in class-30, the petitioner managed to get the said application No.21508 in class-30 registered in favour of the petitioner.

6. While making examination of the application No.21508 in c1ass-30 of the petitioner the prohibition as laid down in section of 10(1) and 8(a) was not adhered to by the respondent No.2. In that case the application ought to have been refused registration. But the respondent No.2 has acted against the specific provision of section 10(1) and 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 by ordering the application No.21508 in class-30 of the petitioner to be advertised in the Journal on consideration of two affidavits without sales figures or advertisements figures or any other documents which could have empowered the registrar to waive the objection under the aforesaid sections to allow the application to proceed to advertisement under the provision of section 10(2) on the honest and concurrent user.

7. Although the respondent No.1 engaged a lawyer to oppose registration of the impugned trade mark No. 21508 in class-30 he left the proceeding and the application was allowed to proceed to registration. As a matter of fact, the registrar of trade marks ought to have examined the evidence further and ought to have considered the application in the light of statutory objections under sections 10(1) & 8(a) of the Act. It therefore transpires that the impugned trade mark was allowed to be registered without proper examination as to the register ability of the mark which is otherwise disentitled to be registered.

8. The respondent No.2 has not only registered the same mark in favour of the petitioner in violation of the statutory prohibition as laid down in section 10(1) & 8(a) of the Act, but has also allowed registration of almost identical trade mark in the application Nos. 34638, 35138, 36566. 45164, 45284, 45285, and 56085 in class-30 in gross violation of the provisions of the Trade Mark, Act, 1940 which show that the Registrar has no respect for the law of which he is the administrator by virtue of his position conferred upon him by the Statute.

9. On the application filed by the respondent No.1 the High Court Division allowed the same and the High Court Division directed the trade mark of the petitioner to be varied by way of deletion and omission' of the words "NABICO".

10. Being' aggrieved by .the impugned judgment of the High Court Division the petitioner has filed this petition for leave to appeal.

11. Heard the learned Advocate and perused the petition and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division and other papers on record.

12. It appears that the High Court Division has considered the similarity between "NABISCO" and "NABICO" and came to a definite finding that the similarity is such due to which the common consumers are likely to be deceived.

13. We find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.

US military air strikes and international law

Barrister M. A. Muid Khan

(From previous issue)

UN Charter & Use of Force

The United Nations Charter (UN Charter) prohibits the Member States from using any force in their international relations against any other Member State. The Charter specifically prohibits the use of force to topple foreign governments. It goes without saying that all national and international laws forbid the killing of non-combatants (i.e. arguably all civilian Pakistanis, Afghanis and Iraqis). It is submitted that the recent bombing and other use of force in Syria, Pakistan, Afghanistan. Iraq or any other independent state will inevitably kill and injure large numbers of non-combatants. Mass killing of non-combatants is considered by the world community the most egregious of crimes.

The United States, United Kingdom, Syria, Pakistan. Afghanistan and Iraq are all Member States of the United Nations. The Charter of the United Nations imposes on members the binding obligation to settle disputes in a manner that ensures the maintenance of peace and justice. Article 2 of the Charter prohibits the use or threatened use of force against another state. The Article 2 prohibition applies to all force and is a rule of customary international law. As such the Article 2 prohibition is universally binding even on the few states not members of the United Nations.

Article 51 of the UN Charter defines Member States' right of self-defence. This article neither authorises bombing and armed force as self-defence nor bestows legal authority for the US to wage war. Article 51 gives Member States the narrow power to defend themselves against a continuing armed assault until such time as the Security Council intervenes to maintain and restore peace and security. Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (The Charter) does not create any right to make retaliatory attacks or to engage in the use of force to repel anticipated armed attacks.

The right to self-defence in Article 51 is restricted to actions that are necessary to repel and proportionate to an ongoing armed attack and only exists until the Security Council takes measures to restore peace and security. The right to self-defence is restricted to self-defence action and is further restricted to those actions necessary to maintain "international peace and security" and must be carried out in accordance with The Charter. The entire Charter is based on the premise Member States must maintain international peace, security and justice and may not use force to settle international disputes or to remove foreign governments. Therefore, US cannot attack on the Syrian or Pakistani border areas adjacent to Afghanistan on the basis of so-called self-defence.

US Constitution & Use of Force

In addition, the Constitution of the United States of America (Article I, section 8), the supreme law of the land, empowers Congress, not the president, to debate and decide to declare war on another country. The War Powers Resolution provides that the "constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorisation, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions or its armed forces."

Congress has not declared any war on Syria or Pakistan. No statute authorises any invasion on these countries. Syria or Pakistan has not attacked the United States, its territories, possessions or armed forces. Even regarding the Iraq invasion, the Congress did not declare any war against Iraq. Before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush's lawyers concluded that he needs no new approval from Congress. They cited a 1991 Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in the Persian Gulf, and the September 14, 2001 Congressional resolution authorising the use of force against those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This advice was given in violation of the provisions of the US Constitution.

After the September 11 attacks, the United Nations Security Council, the body with primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, did not pass any resolution authorising the USA to use any force against Iraq. Rather it passed two resolutions regarding the September 11 attacks: Resolution 1368 on September 12, 2001 and Resolution 1373 on September 28, 2001. Neither resolution authories the use of force.

These two resolutions do not provide a basis to circumvent Congressional approval for attacking Syria, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan. The January 12, 1991 Persian Gulf Resolution authorised the use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 678, which was directed at ensuring the withdrawal of Iraq from Kuwait. That licence ended on April 6, 1991, when Iraq formalised a cease-fire and notified the Security Council.

The September 14, 2001 resolution authorised the use of armed force "against those responsible for the recent [Sept. 11] attacks against the United States." There is no evidence that Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan were responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.

Resolution 1373 adopted by the Security Council at its 4385th meeting on September 28, 2001 (incorporating the earlier resolution September 12) affirms the responsibility of Member States to take only those measures that are: "in compliance with national and international law including international human rights standards' to "prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and to take action against the perpetrators of such acts."

Security Council Resolution 1373 specifically restricts member states to actions that are authorised by law and in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The September 28th Security Council Resolution #1373 (affirming resolution 1368 of September 12) does not authorise the armed attacks. While this resolution condemns the September 11 attacks and affirms the Charter right to individual and collective self-defense it clearly directs member states to combat threats to international peace and security caused by terrorism in "accordance with the Charter".

Member states are called on to ratify the 11 UN conventions on terrorism and to implement measures to ensure international cooperation in all matters necessary to the investigation, prevention and prosecution of crimes of terrorism. The resolution directs states to cooperate in such activities as information exchanges, criminal investigations and proceedings, bringing terrorist to justice under criminal law statutes and in taking measures "in conformity with…national and international laws including international human rights standards." Nowhere do either of these important Security Council resolutions authorise the use of force against non-combatants or the use of force to overthrow the Taliban government or attack Syrian or Pakistani borders adjacent to Afghanistan.

(To be continued)

NATO & Use of Force

Media coverage also infers that some legal authority for the use of armed force against Afghanistan or the Taliban was created by the resolutions of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). That is entirely false.

NATO, a regional organisation with the goal of restoring and maintaining the security of the North Atlantic area, resolved on September 12, 2001 that the September 11 attacks were covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty and therefore all NATO members will consider the September 11 attacks as an armed attack against all NATO members.

Although this resolution enabled NATO countries to act collectively, countries were restricted to action determined by the North Atlantic Council. The September 12 resolution in clear language barred any action until further decision by the Council. "No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the North Atlantic Council."

On October 5, 2001, NATO at the request of the United States agreed to take eight measures collectively and individually including the provision of "blanket over sight clearances for US. Aircraft" and provide access to ports and airfields to the US military. NATO thereby agreed to facilitate actions taken by the US outside the restrictions of the NATO decision- making process.

The United States rejected this collective approach and put together its own group of 'allies' leaving the US in control of all aspects of the current bombing of Pakistan, Afghanistan and of any future war actions including bombings of additional countries. Lloyd Axworthy correctly described the 'coalition' of which Canada is now an active member as a "hub-and-spoke arrangement, where direction comes from the centre with little input from the outside members." (The Globe and Mail, Monday October 8, 2001)

Article 52 of the Charter restricts regional agencies, including NATO, to activities consistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. The NATO resolutions cannot override the provision of the UN Charter. Yet without authorisation from the Security Council the US- led coalition forces invaded Afghanistan, Iraq and now bombing upon the Pakistani borders. US President Bush is also threatening to bomb other countries. These threats and the threats to "starve" the Taliban are themselves crimes pursuant to the provision of to the Geneva Convention Protocol 1 relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.

The Geneva Convention & Use of Force

The Geneva Convention Protocol 1 is an absolute prohibition against attacks and threats of attacks on civilians. Protocol 1 prohibits all sorts of indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminant attacks are defined as including: attacks by any method or means that will either strike military and civilians' objects without distinction or cause death and injury to civilians disproportionate to the "concrete and direct military advantage anticipated." Reprisals against civilians, starvation as a method of warfare and attacking or destroying objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food, crops, livestock, drinking water and irrigation systems are all strictly and absolutely prohibited.

Multi-lateral agreements against terrorism

Although the international community has not defined terrorism there are 11 international legal agreements that enable the international community to take legal actions to suppress terrorism and to prosecute those responsible for acts of terrorism. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Canada, the UK and the US are all parties to some of these agreements: Syria, Pakistan and Afghanistan has ratified Nos. 1,2 and 3 and signed no. 6; Canada and the US have signed all and ratified all except nos. 6, 8 and 11; the UK has ratified all except No. 6.

While the rhetoric justifying war raids on the borders of Syria or Pakistan (and possibly other countries) suggests there are no laws or law enforcement mechanisms that can respond to the September 11 attacks. That is not true in the face of both international law and its underlying policies. When the US entered Germany in 1945, it was not suggested that millions of German civilians be stripped, gassed and bulldozed into mass graves in retaliation for the holocaust. The crimes that had been committed were so enormous that to even think of retaliation in like kind was unimaginably barbaric. Instead the Nuremberg trials were held, setting up the rule of law as the most powerful opponent of rule by military force.

When Nicaragua claimed that the US was "recruiting, training, arming, supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua….[and] killing, wounding and kidnapping Citizens of Nicaragua", it took these claims to the International Court of Justice. No one suggested that Nicaragua could or should have retaliated with military action against the US.

Again in Congo v Uganda (2005), ICJ ruled that Uganda could not use force under the right of self defense in an action targeted against the irregulars in Congo violating its territorial boundaries. Remember that in these cases, the target states allegedly were supporting the irregulars hiding within their territorial limits. In these cases the attacking states tried to rely on the agency between the target state and the irregulars to claim right to use force. If there is no such support for the hiding irregulars by the target state, the law requires more extensive burdens on the attacking state than mere assumption that the irregulars are found in its territory.

The general notion of law (opinio juris) seems to be that harbouring irregulars is not by itself a justification to violate state sovereignty by use of force unless it amounts to a tacit approval of terrorist attacks by the harbouring state. The only exception to this rule is that where the harbouring state has lost effective writ and has failed to remove the threat of terrorism from its territory.

Before invading Iraq, Cheney and Bush cited the possibility that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for a preemptive strike. Iraq was in violation of Security Council Resolution 687, which requires full cooperation with U.N. weapons inspectors. But this issue involved the Iraqi government and the United Nations. The Security Council did not specify any enforcement mechanisms in that or subsequent resolutions. Only the Security Council is empowered to take "further steps as may be required for the implementation of the resolution." Although the Security Council warned Iraq, in Resolution 1154, of the "severest consequences" if it continued its refusal to comply, the Council declared that only it had the authority to "ensure implementation of this resolution and peace and security in the area."

Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter declare that no member state has the right to enforce any resolution with armed force unless the Security Council decides there has been a material breach of its resolution, and determines that all nonmilitary means of enforcement have been exhausted. Then, the Council must specifically authorise the use of military force, as it did in November 1990 with Resolution 678, in response to Iraq's occupation of Kuwait in violation of Security Council resolutions passed the previous August. The Security Council has not authorised any use of force for subsequent violations involving Iraq.

The recent US air strikes on the territory of Syria and Pakistan should have either of the two legal justifications i.e. either Syria or Pakistan is suspected to support or tacitly approve the acts of terrorists or it has lost writ on its territory and cannot eliminate the threat of terrorism. The newly uncovered "rules of engagement" reveal that the U.S. military gave elite units broad authority long ago to invade the territory of Pakistan to attack terrorist hideouts. Now the recent Congressional Research Committee report has stated that only 30 percent of the country is under the effective writ of the government of Pakistan. There is no real evidence to support this report. The use of force in Iraq was the result of a 'rogue state' having weapons of mass destruction that have never been found. Is Syria or Pakistan a 'failed state' having lost writ on its territory? Are there any other interpretations to the existing ambivalence?

In view of the above discussion, it is evident that any air strike by the US military aircrafts on Syrian or Pakistani border for the stated purpose of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden and others associated with his organisation, is a flagrant violation of the International law. The attacks are also 'a gross violation of these countries sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also undermines the basic norms of international law and contradicts the very basis of cooperation between Syrian and Pakistani security forces and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force), the coalition forces in Afghanistan. No international or national law or policy would legalise these strikes. No resolutions of the United Nations' Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation could provide a legal justification for these attacks and none do.

The world community has, through the United Nations and regional agencies worked to "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war" by prohibiting the use of force as a means of settling international disputes (The Charter); and, developing by global consensus, minimum standards of human rights and international laws that criminalise the crimes most intolerable to the world community including: crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of genocide. Prosecutions of the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks could take place in the national courts of either the US or a number of other affected states. Alternately, the Security Council can create an ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal on the model of the existing International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to conduct the global investigation of the September 11 attacks and the resulting prosecutions and trials.

*(The writer is a Barrister of the Honourable Society of Lincoln's Inn, a Legal Consultant at Carr-Gomm and Appeal Consultant at a London Law firm and an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. He can be contacted at barristermuid@yahoo.co.uk )