1 00:00:00,690 --> 00:00:06,030 I greatly appreciate this opportunity to to address you now the subject, 2 00:00:06,030 --> 00:00:13,860 the title of my talk today is it's called revisiting sovereignty and recognition of oppressive governments with a focus of mine. 3 00:00:13,860 --> 00:00:21,540 But as you shall see, it has relevance even to those events that are taking place in in Europe, 4 00:00:21,540 --> 00:00:25,650 especially with Belarus and potentially even with Ukraine. 5 00:00:25,650 --> 00:00:30,840 I'll leave you guessing until the very end when I address those issues. 6 00:00:30,840 --> 00:00:41,130 Now the picture on your screen is the picture of the signing ceremony of the Westralia treaties of sixteen forty eight 7 00:00:41,130 --> 00:00:48,180 that ended the thirty years war in Europe that has been interpreted by some of the most renowned international lawyers. 8 00:00:48,180 --> 00:00:53,760 International relations scholars and former state officials like Henry Kissinger 9 00:00:53,760 --> 00:00:58,710 as establishing the foundational principles of international law and relations, 10 00:00:58,710 --> 00:01:06,630 namely that the principle of legal sovereignty needs absolute autonomy within the territorial boundaries of the state. 11 00:01:06,630 --> 00:01:12,400 And such autonomy means that there can be no limits on what those who claim to exercise 12 00:01:12,400 --> 00:01:18,030 the sovereign powers of the state can impose on their subjects within their territory. 13 00:01:18,030 --> 00:01:25,470 The Lake Fletcher School jurist Neil Gross, writing in the American Journal of International Law in 1948, 14 00:01:25,470 --> 00:01:35,880 asserted that the acceptance of the UN Charter in 1945 brought to mind its European predecessor, the treaties that constituted a piece of Australia. 15 00:01:35,880 --> 00:01:42,810 And he claimed that it was the first of several attempts in Europe and then ultimately the world to establish an international 16 00:01:42,810 --> 00:01:50,580 community of states essentially focussed on sovereignty over their territories and subordinated to no earthly authority. 17 00:01:50,580 --> 00:01:57,150 We, of course, further asserts that the piece of failure was indeed the starting point of modern international law. 18 00:01:57,150 --> 00:01:58,170 However, 19 00:01:58,170 --> 00:02:08,100 he then proceeded to point out that the legacy of the peace of Westphalia was misinterpreted as establishing the principle of absolute sovereignty, 20 00:02:08,100 --> 00:02:11,790 and that would be the focus of much of my presentation today. 21 00:02:11,790 --> 00:02:20,640 Other reputable scholars who have delved into the Treaty of Westphalia also claim that there was a highly accurate interpretation of the treaties, 22 00:02:20,640 --> 00:02:27,900 and they call for a re-examination of what the real legacy of the Treaty Westphalia should be about. 23 00:02:27,900 --> 00:02:29,550 I join those ranks, 24 00:02:29,550 --> 00:02:38,610 and I claim that the Treaty of Westphalia was not only establishing a limited sovereignty based on an enforceable rule of law for Europe, 25 00:02:38,610 --> 00:02:44,940 it should also be regarded as one of the earliest major international treaties on human rights, 26 00:02:44,940 --> 00:02:52,260 focussing in particular on religious rights, which had enforcement mechanisms, although as history has pointed out, 27 00:02:52,260 --> 00:03:04,500 that not perfectly effective ones now to address another jurist, Benjamin Strawmen, the Austrian, a New York University scholar. 28 00:03:04,500 --> 00:03:14,490 Writing in 2008 in the constellations of all states the following Rather than determining the absolute sovereignty of the princes and their estates, 29 00:03:14,490 --> 00:03:16,650 the people you see in the picture, 30 00:03:16,650 --> 00:03:23,430 having the power to determine the religion of their subjects was fairly treaties expressly said that such sovereignty could 31 00:03:23,430 --> 00:03:32,070 only exist as long as each of the states provided minimal protections of all members of the recognised religious sects. 32 00:03:32,070 --> 00:03:40,830 He added And I quote whatever sovereignty the electors, the princes and the estates of the Holy Roman Empire enjoy in their territory, 33 00:03:40,830 --> 00:03:46,560 the private exercise of religion was no longer subject to the sovereignty. 34 00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:53,100 Indeed, the treaties gave the world just six legal rights, and if they were encroached, 35 00:03:53,100 --> 00:04:04,020 they had the right to go through a form of Internet International Secular Adjudication Court for adjudication of their rights based on the treaties. 36 00:04:04,020 --> 00:04:10,980 Now another writer, David Croxton, writing in the International History Review in 1999, 37 00:04:10,980 --> 00:04:17,040 also says that one of the major parties to the West really treaties France claimed that the treaties 38 00:04:17,040 --> 00:04:23,910 allowed legitimate intervention in the affairs of another state to defend the other's fundamental laws, 39 00:04:23,910 --> 00:04:28,200 granting subjects and intermediate bodies religious rights. 40 00:04:28,200 --> 00:04:33,720 Now, some would claim that this was one of the earliest examples of permitted intervention, 41 00:04:33,720 --> 00:04:42,690 which some would say is reminiscent of the disputed right of humanitarian intervention in modern era disputes. 42 00:04:42,690 --> 00:04:51,780 However, that has to be cautious because as we see that it has also been abused by countries such as Russia in using humanitarian intervention, 43 00:04:51,780 --> 00:05:01,470 as we see today, even in the Ukraine. However, I claim that the West really treaties did not establish the principle of absolute sovereignty. 44 00:05:01,470 --> 00:05:02,400 Unfortunately, 45 00:05:02,400 --> 00:05:11,010 that concept has now been used by the most authoritarian states in the world to claim that that is the foundations of international law, 46 00:05:11,010 --> 00:05:15,450 which should be respected and observed at all at all costs. 47 00:05:15,450 --> 00:05:22,950 Now, modern international lawyers have accepted the concept of absolute sovereignty, pointing, 48 00:05:22,950 --> 00:05:29,220 for example, to some of the earliest writers on international law in the 17th century. 49 00:05:29,220 --> 00:05:37,290 They often quote Hugo Groucho's, who, writing in 60 25, made the following statement The Power Pokéstops, 50 00:05:37,290 --> 00:05:42,840 which is called Sovereign Sumer Protestants, whose actions are not subject to the legal controls. 51 00:05:42,840 --> 00:05:49,800 Another is such that they cannot be rendered void by the operation of another human will. 52 00:05:49,800 --> 00:05:51,960 However, as I just pointed out, 53 00:05:51,960 --> 00:05:59,730 the piece of West Philly itself made the prince subject to the legal control by the imperial courts and indeed subject to the 54 00:05:59,730 --> 00:06:08,340 pledge by France and Sweden to enforce the constitutional provisions of the previous regulation relating to the religious sects. 55 00:06:08,340 --> 00:06:14,100 So what do I assert is the real legacy of the piece of history? 56 00:06:14,100 --> 00:06:24,510 It is that sovereignty under the rule of law in Europe was not absolute and could be contingent both externally and into into internal. 57 00:06:24,510 --> 00:06:29,250 And what I am proposing is the concept of the rule of law in Europe, 58 00:06:29,250 --> 00:06:34,110 which was essentially established by the piece of Westphalia should have been 59 00:06:34,110 --> 00:06:40,990 extended globally to make sovereignty under an international rule of law. 60 00:06:40,990 --> 00:06:49,810 Now, Patrick Melton, another writer, describes the misinterpretation of the Piece of Australia in his 2019 book, 61 00:06:49,810 --> 00:06:58,570 titled The Law of Nations and Natural Law, and he asserts that what was happening with these early architects of modern public 62 00:06:58,570 --> 00:07:05,350 international law writing on the legacy of the failure was really a form of report 63 00:07:05,350 --> 00:07:11,230 proposing an absolutism within the framework of the Empire or as the final stage 64 00:07:11,230 --> 00:07:16,730 of the evolution of the Empire into an overarching system of sovereign states. 65 00:07:16,730 --> 00:07:18,590 Sadly, however, 66 00:07:18,590 --> 00:07:29,190 he and others have pointed out that this misinterpretation started almost immediately after the peace of Westphalia itself was concluded. 67 00:07:29,190 --> 00:07:32,130 Also, he also pointed out, as others have pointed out, 68 00:07:32,130 --> 00:07:41,460 that other great architects of public international law like John Podesta writing in the 16th century or emotive battle, 69 00:07:41,460 --> 00:07:49,020 or writing also in 1758, while they also made statements regarding sovereignty as absolute and perpetual 70 00:07:49,020 --> 00:07:54,150 power or as them with the battle argued for so many quality and non-intervention. 71 00:07:54,150 --> 00:08:00,780 However, even these all the architects, after courteous, was also very, 72 00:08:00,780 --> 00:08:07,320 very firm in their claim that there was no presence in the world who was not subject 73 00:08:07,320 --> 00:08:12,960 to the fundamental laws of their societies and those constitutions of God and nature, 74 00:08:12,960 --> 00:08:18,870 and could give their subjects lawful cause for revolting by their tyranny. 75 00:08:18,870 --> 00:08:21,960 Likewise, in in the modern era, 76 00:08:21,960 --> 00:08:34,070 the legendary jurist Lisa Oppenheim in his landmark text in 1985 made the following statement State sovereignty has become conditional. 77 00:08:34,070 --> 00:08:40,310 To win recognition by other sovereign states and a subsequent membership in the family of nations, 78 00:08:40,310 --> 00:08:46,130 we continue the condition of membership in the family of nations involves a contradiction. 79 00:08:46,130 --> 00:08:49,340 A sovereign state must act in a dignified manner. 80 00:08:49,340 --> 00:08:56,210 It must use its sovereignty with restraint by respecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of its citizens. 81 00:08:56,210 --> 00:09:05,370 In other words, according to Ambassador Oppenheim, it must employ its sovereignty in a non sovereign way now. 82 00:09:05,370 --> 00:09:11,150 Bill Gross, who started the discussion on the misinterpretation of the Treaty of Westphalia, 83 00:09:11,150 --> 00:09:20,630 continued that this interpretation led to an era of absolutist states in Europe who were jealous of their territorial sovereignty. 84 00:09:20,630 --> 00:09:30,320 You claim they were more concerned with the preservation and the expansion of their power than the establishment of a true rule of law in Europe. 85 00:09:30,320 --> 00:09:38,090 Gross continues that in the 19th century, after the Napoleonic Wars and the Congress and consort of Europe, 86 00:09:38,090 --> 00:09:47,390 this misinterpretation of Westphalia continue to lead to the absolutist notion of sovereignty entrenched in The Hague peace conferences, 87 00:09:47,390 --> 00:09:51,110 the League of Nations and ultimately the U.N. charter, 88 00:09:51,110 --> 00:09:57,830 which entrenched the inherent weakness of such a concept of sovereignty in the UN charter itself. 89 00:09:57,830 --> 00:10:02,690 In my book on global governance, human rights and international law. 90 00:10:02,690 --> 00:10:08,420 I assert that the correct interpretation of the legacy of the piece of this failure should 91 00:10:08,420 --> 00:10:15,050 be that it was supposed to be about the legitimation of the exercise of sovereign power, 92 00:10:15,050 --> 00:10:24,530 with limitations on how that power can be exercised against their own subjects and against other states. 93 00:10:24,530 --> 00:10:30,320 Sovereignty and the peace of Westphalia was never intended to be about absolute power, 94 00:10:30,320 --> 00:10:36,710 which includes the right to brutalise his subjects, as many authoritarian governments claim today. 95 00:10:36,710 --> 00:10:41,990 Now, this view is also supported by other modern writers, such as Jean Cohen, 96 00:10:41,990 --> 00:10:49,280 who argues that global legal development has led to a new international piece of political culture of sovereignty, 97 00:10:49,280 --> 00:11:05,680 namely one that has moved from one of impunity to one that focuses on responsibility and accountability. 98 00:11:05,680 --> 00:11:10,090 It is not well known that the first draught of the U.N. charter at Dumbarton 99 00:11:10,090 --> 00:11:16,960 Oaks in 1944 did not contain any real substantial provisions of human rights. 100 00:11:16,960 --> 00:11:24,460 It was only because of the storm of criticism of civil society and middle powers who felt they were left out of the 101 00:11:24,460 --> 00:11:31,390 great powers attempted to impose a self-interest against the interests and structure without the rights protection, 102 00:11:31,390 --> 00:11:39,250 which eventually led to the auditory and aspirational language on human rights in the final version of the UN Charter, 103 00:11:39,250 --> 00:11:47,410 rather than the strong legal language that imposed restrictions on how sovereign states could treat their own subjects. 104 00:11:47,410 --> 00:11:48,670 In contrast, 105 00:11:48,670 --> 00:11:58,960 the 1945 final version of the UN Charter entrenched what I call is the absolutist forms of sovereignty within the clearest legal language. 106 00:11:58,960 --> 00:12:08,200 For example, Article one and Article two four of the charter made territorial integrity political independence of the nation state and 107 00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:17,480 non-interference as a principle conditions of peace and security subject only to the powers of the Security Council. 108 00:12:17,480 --> 00:12:26,630 That body's duty was to enforce a weak global governance system, in my view, this ultimately would mean, as we see today, 109 00:12:26,630 --> 00:12:34,790 that some of the key five permanent members will guarantee not only the absolutist forms of sovereignty of the allies, 110 00:12:34,790 --> 00:12:44,430 but also their own, even if it was the worst atrocities and genocides against their own subjects or the actions of their allies. 111 00:12:44,430 --> 00:12:48,320 And sadly, we are now seeing, even in the context of Europe. 112 00:12:48,320 --> 00:12:54,920 Indeed, this system of protecting the absolutist form of sovereignty showed is early tragic fall. 113 00:12:54,920 --> 00:13:01,820 In my view in the UN Charter with the United Nations Security Council failed to do anything 114 00:13:01,820 --> 00:13:07,670 in the first genocide of the 20th century in East Timor by the state of Indonesia, 115 00:13:07,670 --> 00:13:17,450 which set the stage, in my view, for the inactions leading to the genocidal horrors leader in the Balkans and Rwanda. 116 00:13:17,450 --> 00:13:26,640 So. What I am claiming is that it is now in today in fractured societies that seek to remain democratic, 117 00:13:26,640 --> 00:13:31,320 that we may start seeing finally the democratic world at least. 118 00:13:31,320 --> 00:13:36,030 And I emphasise potentially it is only the democratic world seeking to demand a 119 00:13:36,030 --> 00:13:43,200 re-examination of who and what is entitled to exercise any absolutist forms of 120 00:13:43,200 --> 00:13:50,190 authority and the related issue of whether to refuse diplomatic and legal 121 00:13:50,190 --> 00:13:55,890 recognition of oppressive governments that claim to exercise such sovereign powers. 122 00:13:55,890 --> 00:14:01,660 But keep on suppressing and committing atrocities against their own citizens. 123 00:14:01,660 --> 00:14:03,820 In my view, the two are linked. 124 00:14:03,820 --> 00:14:12,850 And I'd like to quote Eli Louderback, one of the leading exponents of modern public international law that stressed that sovereignty is, however, 125 00:14:12,850 --> 00:14:22,840 more commonly used in its second meaning to describe the jurisdiction and control that those who exercise power in a state may exercise. 126 00:14:22,840 --> 00:14:30,100 So he is drawing a linkage between the notion of sovereignty and the ability of those who want to 127 00:14:30,100 --> 00:14:37,150 exercise the power of the modern state and what they can do in terms of those that those powers. 128 00:14:37,150 --> 00:14:43,150 While the granting of diplomatic and legal recognition of governments by others in the international community, 129 00:14:43,150 --> 00:14:46,750 is often based on criteria which we see now around the world, 130 00:14:46,750 --> 00:14:52,480 such as criterion of effectiveness, for example, control at least of some territory, 131 00:14:52,480 --> 00:15:00,960 the habitual obedience of a majority of the population and perhaps a reasonable prospect of permanence. 132 00:15:00,960 --> 00:15:09,000 However, commentators like Cambridge jurist Federico Prisao have suggested, and I'm like the closest, a sort of mesh, 133 00:15:09,000 --> 00:15:16,530 and I would like to spell out what mesh is a sort of mesh is emerging where a relationship 134 00:15:16,530 --> 00:15:23,430 between effectiveness and legitimacy determines the likelihood of recognition. 135 00:15:23,430 --> 00:15:29,070 I suggest, and I would like to support her view in that the present examples in recent 136 00:15:29,070 --> 00:15:35,610 history show a failure to demonstrate such democratic legitimacy could become 137 00:15:35,610 --> 00:15:45,060 a form of customary public international law against recognition of oppressive de facto governments by major parts of the international community, 138 00:15:45,060 --> 00:15:52,040 and especially regarding the rights of such governments to exercise the sovereign powers of their country. 139 00:15:52,040 --> 00:16:00,420 Now, I am acutely aware that if you're going on public international law especially customary international law, 140 00:16:00,420 --> 00:16:06,990 you also have to obviously satisfy the requirements of practise an opinion yours. 141 00:16:06,990 --> 00:16:13,650 So what are the current examples where there has been a refusal to accept the oppressive 142 00:16:13,650 --> 00:16:18,900 government and an attempt to recognise legitimate governments who have been ousted? 143 00:16:18,900 --> 00:16:20,610 While there are examples, 144 00:16:20,610 --> 00:16:34,650 examples of the non-recognition of oppressive de-facto governments include the following Haiti in the 1991 to the 1994 period Sierra Leone in 1998. 145 00:16:34,650 --> 00:16:41,760 Ivory Coast in 2011. And The Gambia in 2017. 146 00:16:41,760 --> 00:16:47,630 And so we'll discuss. I'm hoping that potentially that could also extend to Belarus. 147 00:16:47,630 --> 00:16:53,000 And whatever happens in Ukraine, perhaps there could also be another example. 148 00:16:53,000 --> 00:16:54,140 In these examples, 149 00:16:54,140 --> 00:17:01,850 where much of the international community sided with an ousted U.S. legitimate government that lacked effective control and the main 150 00:17:01,850 --> 00:17:11,550 goal of the international community in supporting the ousted government was to restore democracy against the illegitimate government. 151 00:17:11,550 --> 00:17:19,080 Now, the pressing the most pressing situation today that demands a refusal to extend recognition, 152 00:17:19,080 --> 00:17:23,700 an oppressive government seeking to exercise the country's sovereign powers. 153 00:17:23,700 --> 00:17:31,890 And instead, the gratitude duly elected officials who have formed a government party in exile and may still 154 00:17:31,890 --> 00:17:39,700 be working in the country should be the situation created by the military junta in Myanmar. 155 00:17:39,700 --> 00:17:44,860 In a report that I and others helped to draught an NGO, a non-governmental organisation, 156 00:17:44,860 --> 00:17:51,490 fortify rights working with the opposition national unity government are asserting 157 00:17:51,490 --> 00:17:55,930 that the atrocities committed by the junta should be brought before the 158 00:17:55,930 --> 00:18:01,000 International Criminal Court by the government in exile and the national unity 159 00:18:01,000 --> 00:18:07,540 government in exile should be regarded as the legitimate body to trigger this process. 160 00:18:07,540 --> 00:18:15,130 Now, some members of the national unity government are outside the country, but key figures, including the acting president, 161 00:18:15,130 --> 00:18:22,340 the prime minister and 70 percent of the cabinet of the national unity government are working inside the country. 162 00:18:22,340 --> 00:18:28,250 No, I referred to you a report where the NGO fortify rights, 163 00:18:28,250 --> 00:18:36,740 and I helped to draught a report outlining the atrocities of the Hunter and the argument that the national 164 00:18:36,740 --> 00:18:44,600 government should be recognised as sufficiently authorised to represent the sovereignty and the people of Myanmar. 165 00:18:44,600 --> 00:18:51,720 I like to put on the screen a picture off the record, which I'll be happy. 166 00:18:51,720 --> 00:18:57,050 I'm sure Oxford University will be happy to send it to anyone who is interested. 167 00:18:57,050 --> 00:19:05,510 This report outlines both the the reasons why the government in exile has should have the right to 168 00:19:05,510 --> 00:19:11,630 represent the sovereignty and the people of Myanmar to gain access to the International Criminal Court. 169 00:19:11,630 --> 00:19:17,930 But what I want to do now is briefly give you some of the most horrendous actions that, in my mind, 170 00:19:17,930 --> 00:19:23,630 my military has been doing since the overthrow of the duly elected government and 171 00:19:23,630 --> 00:19:28,160 as a reinforcement of the type of situation where the international community, 172 00:19:28,160 --> 00:19:32,480 at least the democratic parts of the international community, 173 00:19:32,480 --> 00:19:42,950 should stop thinking about sovereignty in a new light and especially in the context of recognition or non non-recognition of oppressive governments. 174 00:19:42,950 --> 00:19:48,950 So on just reading from this report, which outlines in brief, 175 00:19:48,950 --> 00:19:57,560 there's much more horrific pictures and details about what the good of the junta is doing. 176 00:19:57,560 --> 00:20:04,280 But I'll just give you some of the most of the briefest accounts of some of their worst actions. 177 00:20:04,280 --> 00:20:11,750 So the Myanmar military overthrew the government of Myanmar, duly elected with a huge majority in a coup d'etat on February 1st, 178 00:20:11,750 --> 00:20:17,750 2021, and arrested senior political and civilian leaders and others. 179 00:20:17,750 --> 00:20:24,470 The people of Myanmar immediately protested this takeover with various non-violent tactics, 180 00:20:24,470 --> 00:20:29,930 including through street protests and establishing a national civil disobedience movement, 181 00:20:29,930 --> 00:20:37,310 which which involved many, many, perhaps a majority of government employees refusing to report for work, 182 00:20:37,310 --> 00:20:41,840 essentially bringing to a standstill the daily business of government. 183 00:20:41,840 --> 00:20:48,440 The Myanmar military and police have responded to the peaceful protest and perceived opponents of their rule, 184 00:20:48,440 --> 00:20:55,520 with absolute deadly force murdering and arresting civilians en masse in towns and cities across the country. 185 00:20:55,520 --> 00:21:04,010 The junta and its military and other allied forces have used forced labour, raided and destroyed properties, 186 00:21:04,010 --> 00:21:09,080 blocked and restricts restricted access to the internet and medical facilities. 187 00:21:09,080 --> 00:21:19,010 They've even attacked health care workers and vehicles and terrorised the global population, the general population at the time of writing the report. 188 00:21:19,010 --> 00:21:23,390 There was an acknowledgement that the country had killed more than 900 men. 189 00:21:23,390 --> 00:21:29,570 The latest reports of weapons now coming close to over 2000 and the junta has 190 00:21:29,570 --> 00:21:34,820 arrested and detained more than 9000 people between February 1st and April 15, 191 00:21:34,820 --> 00:21:40,460 2021, alone. That number has dramatically increased to sadly. 192 00:21:40,460 --> 00:21:46,770 However, this this these actions are referred to have not just happened more recently, 193 00:21:46,770 --> 00:21:54,290 it's also happened in the past where they've targeted communities and ethnic states and directly affected millions of people. 194 00:21:54,290 --> 00:22:00,500 If forcefully displaced many of these ethnic communities, particularly along Myanmar's borders, 195 00:22:00,500 --> 00:22:07,940 they have raised thousands of ethnic villages throughout the country and killed untold numbers of people in these ethnic communities. 196 00:22:07,940 --> 00:22:15,650 They have also, as is now well known, engaged in genocidal acts against the Rohingya within the minority. 197 00:22:15,650 --> 00:22:24,830 And essentially, we now see those claims of genocidal acts before the International Criminal Court in an action brought by The Gambia, 198 00:22:24,830 --> 00:22:31,700 which the court has issued its first provisional provisional measure and now is determining whether 199 00:22:31,700 --> 00:22:40,220 to go forward with a fuller discussion of the actions of the country in terms of the genocidal acts. 200 00:22:40,220 --> 00:22:48,650 So given these horrific actions by the oppressive military junta, fortify rights, 201 00:22:48,650 --> 00:23:02,470 and I are claiming that the national unity government should have the authority to represent an act of behalf of my and. 202 00:23:02,470 --> 00:23:10,190 Why the military, why the military is claiming. That it is the legitimate government of the country. 203 00:23:10,190 --> 00:23:19,610 We are claiming that they do not have the exclusive ability to represent the state instead based on the examples which are given Haiti, 204 00:23:19,610 --> 00:23:28,290 Sierra Leone and other examples. If a significant number of states can are recognising the national, 205 00:23:28,290 --> 00:23:34,730 the government rep to represent the sovereignty of the state and the people of international law, 206 00:23:34,730 --> 00:23:42,080 I suggest that it could significantly address some of the atrocities of the Hunter. 207 00:23:42,080 --> 00:23:48,350 Now, the national government already is getting recognition at the highest levels. 208 00:23:48,350 --> 00:23:59,210 They have met with the highest representatives of the US, UK, Japan, France, Ireland, the European Union and many officials of the UN. 209 00:23:59,210 --> 00:24:07,280 Indeed. On June 30th, 2021, one hundred and fifty senators from France signed a resolution to officially 210 00:24:07,280 --> 00:24:12,610 recognise the national unity government as the official government of Myanmar. 211 00:24:12,610 --> 00:24:17,200 The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Lyon, Thomas Andrews, 212 00:24:17,200 --> 00:24:24,970 also seemed to be moving in the direction of recognising the right of the national governments to represent the people of Myanmar. 213 00:24:24,970 --> 00:24:30,610 In a statement to the UN Human Rights Council on July seven, 2021, 214 00:24:30,610 --> 00:24:40,690 it urged member states to have the national government be embraced as laying the groundwork for a new unified my mom. 215 00:24:40,690 --> 00:24:45,280 He claimed that the national unity government has taken the historic step of welcoming, 216 00:24:45,280 --> 00:24:55,480 in particular the Rohingya ethnic minority back into the national fabric of Myanmar and has guaranteed them justice and full citizenship rights. 217 00:24:55,480 --> 00:25:01,720 In addition, they are also coordinating humanitarian assistance into the country and are seeking to get 218 00:25:01,720 --> 00:25:07,210 international justice and accountability for the victims of all the atrocity crimes off the Hunter, 219 00:25:07,210 --> 00:25:14,980 including access through the International Criminal Justice, the International Criminal Court. 220 00:25:14,980 --> 00:25:23,530 If both fortify rights and I are claiming that they should have their sovereign rights to represent the people of Myanmar, 221 00:25:23,530 --> 00:25:30,880 how would that happen with the International Criminal Court now if the direction of the government wants to access? 222 00:25:30,880 --> 00:25:32,920 Of course, they have two options. 223 00:25:32,920 --> 00:25:41,910 The first one is to lodge a declaration under Article 12 sub three of the Rome Statute to specify the jurisdiction of the court. 224 00:25:41,910 --> 00:25:45,840 The second option is to formally accede to the Rome Statute, 225 00:25:45,840 --> 00:25:51,870 which involves proposing the instrument of accession with the UN general secretary general, 226 00:25:51,870 --> 00:25:58,170 who then would have to consider the responses from other states and consider the advice from the General Assembly on 227 00:25:58,170 --> 00:26:05,360 whether the national unity government qualifies as the authorised representatives of a sovereign government of line up. 228 00:26:05,360 --> 00:26:09,320 However, even if accession is successful at the U.N., 229 00:26:09,320 --> 00:26:15,590 there is a chance that a state party in the assembly of state parties to the Rome Statute, which established the court, 230 00:26:15,590 --> 00:26:23,300 could challenge the validity of the accession, that party would then have to decide on how to settle the dispute, 231 00:26:23,300 --> 00:26:31,280 either by a vote or by seeking an action seeking a position at the International Court of Justice. 232 00:26:31,280 --> 00:26:39,980 My advice has been to lodge a declaration on Article three that states that my law exceeds to the jurisdiction of the court, 233 00:26:39,980 --> 00:26:44,840 whose success depends on acceptance of the declaration by the Registrar of the court, 234 00:26:44,840 --> 00:26:50,550 who then transmitted to the Office of the Prosecutor for further consideration and possible 235 00:26:50,550 --> 00:26:56,540 jurisdictional hearing before a trial court in the same manner as was done with Palestine. 236 00:26:56,540 --> 00:27:04,700 And that was that the International Criminal Court, when there was an attempt to have Palestine, accede to the formal jurisdiction of the court. 237 00:27:04,700 --> 00:27:09,950 A declaration by the national government on Article three of the statute could provide 238 00:27:09,950 --> 00:27:14,240 an immediate jurisdiction of the court to address the specific atrocity crimes, 239 00:27:14,240 --> 00:27:20,940 including past crimes, including the genocidal acts against the Rohingya. 240 00:27:20,940 --> 00:27:25,410 In my view, if the court were to accept such a declaration, 241 00:27:25,410 --> 00:27:33,630 I suggest it would be a modern day let a legacy of the peace of Westphalia as properly interpreted. 242 00:27:33,630 --> 00:27:41,220 It should represent a modern-day concept of legal sovereignty that affords the state legal personality in international law. 243 00:27:41,220 --> 00:27:47,370 But it also denies that this confers absolute autonomy on those who govern without interference. 244 00:27:47,370 --> 00:27:51,300 If it commits international crimes against its own citizens, 245 00:27:51,300 --> 00:27:56,430 recognition of the national unity government to stop this process would be to recognise, in my view, 246 00:27:56,430 --> 00:28:02,190 a form of oppositional sovereignty within a country that could and should be recognised as a 247 00:28:02,190 --> 00:28:08,550 growing practise in international and constitutional law at the time of delivering this lecture. 248 00:28:08,550 --> 00:28:16,080 As we all now know, there was a similar situation that has arisen in Sudan, which also has a military usurping power, 249 00:28:16,080 --> 00:28:20,820 even though it too has been involved in the most serious crimes of genocide. 250 00:28:20,820 --> 00:28:34,440 And certainly, we have also seen it with the Belarus, with the refusal of the government to accept the election in that country and if, 251 00:28:34,440 --> 00:28:43,740 sadly, if Ukraine is, which has been invaded by Russia with the aim of establishing a puppet regime in Ukraine, 252 00:28:43,740 --> 00:28:49,020 I fully expect that the democratic community would at least refuse to recognise 253 00:28:49,020 --> 00:28:53,850 that puppet regime and recognise the legitimate government of sovereign state. 254 00:28:53,850 --> 00:29:02,310 In conclusion, I urge democratic states to recognise the sovereignty of the people of Myanmar, as represented by the national unity government, 255 00:29:02,310 --> 00:29:09,750 and support their desire to accede to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under Article three of the Rome Statute, 256 00:29:09,750 --> 00:29:15,240 thereby being an example of the true legacy of the peace of Australia. 257 00:29:15,240 --> 00:29:19,110 So stop it and I welcome the discussion of what I've just been presented. 258 00:29:19,110 --> 00:29:20,952 Thank you very much.