The Rule of Law and Its Importance
Good
afternoon. It's a great pleasure to be with all of you today. It seems that
tickets to this conference have become a much hotter commodity than we
expected. But I can assure you with absolute certainty that no one had to pay a
bribe to get in.
We've been
talking the last couple of days about the importance of fighting corruption and
the many benefits that accrue from that fight. But I want to talk today about a
broader theme -- that of the rule of law and its importance.
No
anti-corruption strategy, no matter how well-designed and well-intended, can
succeed without a broader commitment to two over-arching requirements: The
first is an independent judicial system based on a rule-of-law regime. And that
includes the concept of due process and the principle that the rule of law
applies equally to everyone -- from the poorest and least-privileged among us
to the highest echelons of government and society. The second requirement is a
government that is open, accountable, and transparent. Here in the United States
we often refer to this idea as "government in the sunshine."
Some of you
may be familiar with the International Crime Control Strategy that President
Clinton released last year. The President spelled out a series of very specific
goals, one of which is to "foster international cooperation and the rule
of law." I want to talk a little about that today, because it really
defines my agenda -- my marching orders, if you will -- as the Under Secretary
with responsibility for our rule-of-law policies.
The
President's strategy spelled out three objectives for furthering the goal I
just mentioned.
One, we should
try to establish a commonly accepted code of global standards for fighting
international and transborder crime. And once it's established, we should very
actively encourage compliance with it.
Two, we should
improve our bilateral cooperation with foreign governments by increasing the
quantity and quality of our collaborative law enforcement efforts with them --
and the training and technical assistance that we can offer them.
And three, we should strengthen rule of
law's position as the foundation of both democratic governments and free
markets that are, if not free of corruption, at least well-insulated against
it. That means, among other things, that court systems must be able to function
independently so that all people can be confident of fair and equitable
treatment. They won't get off, maybe, but they'll get a fair hearing.
This third
objective is, perhaps, the most important one, particularly as it applies to
newly emerging democracies or countries trying to rebuild their democratic
institutions in the aftermath of civil conflict. These countries, as we have
seen, are particularly vulnerable to corruption and transborder crime.
There is a
common theme that runs through all these objectives: it is that erecting laws
and institutions as barriers against corruption is not in itself enough. Laws and
institutions can't work very well in a society that doesn't also have a culture
of trust and an atmosphere of openness and accountability.
Here in the
United States,
we've been working at this for better than 200 years. Certainly, no one would
say that we've got it just right. But we do have two centuries of experience,
and we're eager to share it with countries that share our commitment to the
rule of law.
To that
end, my friend and boss, Madeleine Albright, has made rule of law an integral
part of her agenda as Secretary of State, a commitment her predecessor, Warren
Christopher, articulated, and that she has made a central feature of U.S. foreign
policy.
Secretary
Albright's interest in this derives from two sources. First, she understands
the centrality of the rule of law to so many of our most important foreign
policy goals: promoting democracy and human rights, building free and fair
markets, fighting international crime and terrorism. Second, she and Attorney
General Janet Reno saw that a growing proportion of our international
assistance was going toward rule of law objectives -- training law enforcement
agencies, assisting with judicial reform, providing advice on legislation --
but without a coherent strategy for applying this assistance.
So, with
that in mind, the Secretary this year created a new position in the State
Department that of the Senior Coordinator for the Rule of Law. And we have
filled that position with a highly qualified, highly capable gentleman by the
name of Joe Onek, who is here today and whom I encourage all of you to get to
know.
Joe's role
here has several parts. One is that he will pull together and coordinate the
rule-of-law efforts of the various bureaus here in the State Department and
other U.S. Government agencies. The goal is eventually to produce a blueprint
that all U.S.
government agencies can refer to as they work on our international rule-of-law
programs.
Second,
he'll develop our rule-of-law strategies for a few specific countries, with the
goal of helping this government focus its scarce resources where they can do
the most good. And lastly, Joe is our principal liaison to the NGO community
and to businesses and governments that share our goals. Obviously, he's a very
busy guy, so don't be offended if he doesn't return your phone calls right
away.
I don't
want anyone to think that our appointing a Rule of Law Coordinator this year
means we weren't already working on rule of law issues. In fact, we've been
quite active on this front for decades all over the world.
In some
Latin American nations where, historically, a lot of crimes have simply gone
unpunished, we have actively supported governmental efforts to make their
criminal justice systems more aggressive and more punitive. Needless to say, a
laissez-faire approach to crime and punishment has a terribly corrosive effect
on citizens' confidence in their leaders. So we're quite pleased about the
progress that governments in this hemisphere have made.
Earlier
this month in Guatemala,
for example, three men were sentenced to 28-year prison terms for an atrocious
attack on a group of American college students just a year earlier.
In 1996,
the Organization of American States oversaw the adoption of the Inter-American
Convention against Corruption, which, among other things, requires its
signatories to criminalize cross-border bribery of public officials.
Twenty-five countries have signed the convention and 13 have ratified it.
President Clinton submitted it to the Senate last year, and we're hoping for
ratification very soon.
Then, at
last year's Summit
of the Americas
in Santiago,
heads of states from throughout the Americas put together a clear and
comprehensive "Plan of Action" for stamping out corruption in our
hemisphere.
In the new
independent states of the former Soviet Union
and the former Eastern Bloc, where organized crime has taken root and
flourished, we have put in place several rule of law assistance programs.
In Romania, we're
working with the government to design and implement a long-term,
anti-corruption strategy and to strengthen its capacity to fight organized
crime.
In Bosnia, the United States
has contributed 200 police officers to a UN police task force that monitors the
work of local police and teaches them how to use democratic police procedures.
I cannot overstate the importance of this. You know, for the average citizen,
the cop on the street is his first and maybe only point-of-contact with
government. If that cop is crooked, if he's mean, if he's unfair or just
uncaring, then that citizen may well adopt a very grim and cynical view not
just of that officer, not just of the police department, but of the whole
system of government.
Before I
conclude, I'd like to leave you with some questions to ponder in your panel
discussions this afternoon. As you talk about corruption in the context of the
military, the judiciary, law enforcement and other organs of government, I'd
ask you to consider the following:
How can we, as governments, join forces to bring
about change? What can we do together, bilaterally and multilaterally?
What are some concrete steps we can take after we
leave here today?
And how do we, each of us, address corruption at
both the domestic and international levels?
So, with
that, I'll say thank you again for coming and enjoy your lunch.
The
Story Of Independence
Deep needs to express thought;
Profoundly sickening to compel;
Remain silent at expression;
Limitation of freedom of thought;
Is attack on social rights;
As spiritual force is stronger;
Than any material force;
As thought leash to average conscience;
By the necessities of fatal policy;
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY RESTS ON TWO PRINCIPLES
Sovereign immunity rests on two principles. The one expressed in maxima par in parem non
habet jurisdictionem is concerned with the status of equality. The other principle on which immunity is
based is that of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other States. In the days of trade and commerce, international
interdependence and international opening of embassies, in granting sanction
the growth of a national law in this aspect has to be borne in mind.
. Immunity of foreign States
The interpretation of the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure must be
in consonance with the basic principles of the Indian Constitution. . Immunity
of foreign States to be sued in the domestic forum of another State was and
perhaps still is part of the general international law and international order
and it is not necessary for the present purpose to consider its origin,
development and the trends in different countries. As Professor H. Lauterpacht
writes in "The British Yearbook of International Law 1951" (Volume
28) on "The Problem of Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States"
at page 230 that the assumption of jurisdiction over foreign states by the
domestic court was considered at one point of time to be contrary to the
dignity of the foreign states and as such inconsistent with the international
courtesy and the amity of international relations. This has been in the past a
persistent theme of judicial decisions. It may be noted that in so far as the
doctrine of immunity owed its acceptance to the decisions of the courts of the
United States it is explained to some extent by the fact that it was by
reference to dignity of the states of the Union that their immunity from, suit
was urged insistently and repetitiosly. During the debates preceding the
adoption of the Virginian Convention in 1978, John Marshall stressed the
element of indignity inflicted upon a state by making it a defendant in an action.
(Elliot, Debates - 2nd Ed. 1836, page 555). It may be of historical amusement
specially in the context of Indian Constitution and the growth and the history
of the Indian Constitution to note that in the leading case of Chisholm v.
Georgia, (1793) 2 Dall 419, 425 the main argument for the defendant state was
that it was a 'degradation of sovereignty in the states to submit to the
supreme judiciary of the United States. The courts of the United States
have gone to the length of relying on the argument of dignity in the matter of
immunity of foreign states from taxation. In England, 'dignity', coupled or
identified with 'independence', played an important part as an explanation of
the doctrine of immunity of foreign states.
Righteousness never leaves man’s side
I joined the legal profession in June 1974, Earlier I was supervising my
landed property in district Mainpuri as there was no one to look after the
property after my father’s death in 1971.
Since I have seen the miserable conditions prevalent amongst the farmers
I have always wanted to work for the downtrodden.
The jurisdiction in the courts is like the construction of a building:
it is eitherperfect or has many defects.The final word of posterity depends on
the skill and calibre of the builder. He may desire to build like an expert
builder with Architectonic viruses to amend and add some material both by
method and uniformity .But if the structure itself lacks ventilation and wants
in windows and sufficient light carries any other deficiency then it will
ultimately collapse .
Likewise justice should speak in a language that is easy to understand
.The common man needs to understand and know what is spoken .He cannot
understand anything if the language is not cut out for him.Lastly, I quote a verse
from Manusmriti and other scriptures:’all the members of the court are
considered as wounded, where justice is found wounded with inequity, and judges
do not extract the dart of inequity from justice or remove its blot and destroy
inequity’. In other words if the innocents are not respected and criminals not
punished justice will not play its given role.
In this world, justice and righteousness alone are a man’s friends.
These go with him after death. All other things or companions part with the
destruction of the body and he is detached from all company. But the company of
justice is never cut off.
No comments:
Post a Comment