No letter received from UK MP Tulip, says Bangladesh Chief Advisor's Press Secretary on her meeting with Yunus
British MP Siddiq, in the letter, has sought a meeting with Yunus in London to clear up a 'misunderstanding' over corruption allegations against her.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
an hour ago
- Business Standard
Can Israel claim self-defence to justify Gaza war; here's what law says
On October 7 2023, more than 1,000 Hamas militants stormed into southern Israel and went on a killing spree, murdering 1,200 men, women and children and abducting another 250 people to take back to Gaza. It was the deadliest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the country, 'Israel is at war'. The Israel Defence Forces (IDF) immediately began a military campaign to secure the release of the hostages and defeat Hamas. Since that day, more than 54,000 Palestinians have been killed, mostly women and children. Israel has maintained its response is justified under international law, as every nation has 'an inherent right to defend itself', as Netanyahu stated in early 2024. This is based on the right to self-defence in international law, which is outlined in Article 51 of the 1945 United Nations Charter as follows: Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations[…] At the start of the war, many nations agreed Israel had a right to defend itself, but how it did so mattered. This would ensure its actions were consistent with international humanitarian law. However, 20 months after the October 7 attacks, fundamental legal issues have arisen around whether this self-defence justification still holds. Can Israel exercise self-defence ad infinitum? Or is it now waging a war of aggression against Palestine? Self-defence in the law Self-defence has a long history in international law. The modern principles of self-defence were outlined in diplomatic exchanges over an 1837 incident involving an American ship, The Caroline, after it was destroyed by British forces in Canada. Both sides agreed that an exercise of self-defence would have required the British to demonstrate their conduct was not 'unreasonable or excessive'. The concept of self-defence was also extensively relied on by the Allies in the second world war in response to German and Japanese aggression. Self-defence was originally framed in the law as a right to respond to a state-based attack. However, this scope has broadened in recent decades to encompass attacks from non-state actors, such as al-Qaeda following the September 11 2001 terror attacks. Israel is a legitimate, recognised state in the global community and a member of the United Nations. Its right to self-defence will always remain intact when it faces attacks from its neighbours or non-state actors, such as Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthi rebels in Yemen. However, the right of self-defence is not unlimited. It is constrained by the principles of necessity and proportionality. The necessity test was met in the current war due to the extreme violence of the Hamas attack on October 7 and the taking of hostages. These were actions that could not be ignored and demanded a response, due to the threat Israel continued to face. The proportionality test was also met, initially. Israel's military operation after the attack was strategic in nature, focused on the return of the hostages and the destruction of Hamas to eliminate the immediate threat the group posed. The legal question now is whether Israel is still legitimately exercising self-defence in response to the October 7 attacks. This is a live issue, especially given comments by Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz on May 30 that Hamas would be 'annihilated' unless a proposed ceasefire deal was accepted. These comments and Israel's ongoing conduct throughout the war raise the question of whether proportionality is still being met. A test of proportionality The importance of proportionality in self-defence has been endorsed in recent years by the International Court of Justice. Under international law, proportionality remains relevant throughout a conflict, not just in the initial response to an attack. While the law allows a war to continue until an aggressor surrenders, it does not legitimise the complete destruction of the territory where an aggressor is fighting. The principle of proportionality also provides protections for civilians. Military actions are to be directed at the foreign forces who launched the attack, not civilians. While Israel has targeted Hamas fighters in its attacks, including those who orchestrated the October 7 attacks, these actions have caused significant collateral deaths of Palestinian civilians. Therefore, taken overall, the ongoing, 20-month military assault against Hamas, with its high numbers of civilian casualties, credible reports of famine and devastation of Gazan towns and cities, suggests Israel's exercise of self-defence has become disproportionate. The principle of proportionality is also part of international humanitarian law. However, Israel's actions on this front are a separate legal issue that has been the subject of investigation by the International Criminal Court. My aim here is to solely assess the legal question of proportionality in self-defence and international law. Is rescuing hostages in self-defence? Israel could separately argue it is exercising legitimate self-defence to rescue the remaining hostages held by Hamas. However, rescuing nationals as an exercise of self-defence is legally controversial. Israel set a precedent in 1976 when the military rescued 103 Jewish hostages from Entebbe, Uganda, after their aircraft had been hijacked. In current international law, there are very few other examples in which this interpretation of self-defence has been adopted – and no international consensus on its use. In Gaza, the size, scale and duration of Israel's war goes far beyond a hostage rescue operation. Its aim is also to eliminate Hamas. Given this, rescuing hostages as an act of self-defence is arguably not a suitable justification for Israel's ongoing military operations. An act of aggression? If Israel can no longer rely on self-defence to justify its Gaza military campaign, how would its actions be characterised under international law? Israel could claim it is undertaking a security operation as an occupying power. While the International Court of Justice said in an advisory opinion last year that Israel was engaged in an illegal occupation of Gaza, the court expressly made clear it was not addressing the circumstances that had evolved since October 7. Israel is indeed continuing to act as an occupying power, even though it has not physically reoccupied all of Gaza. This is irrelevant given the effective control it exercises over the territory. However, the scale of the IDF's operations constitute an armed conflict and well exceed the limited military operations to restore security as an occupying power. Absent any other legitimate basis for Israel's current conduct in Gaza, there is a strong argument that what is occurring is an act of aggression. The UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibit acts of aggression not otherwise justified under international law. These include invasions or attacks by the armed forces of a state, military occupations, bombardments and blockades. All of this has occurred – and continues to occur – in Gaza. The international community has rightly condemned Russia's invasion as an act of aggression in Ukraine. Will it now do the same with Israel's conduct in Gaza?
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Gaza-Bound Activist Boat With Greta Thunberg On Board Intercepted by Israel
Activist Greta Thunberg aboard the Madleen, which departed from Sicily earlier in June to bring humanitarian aid to forces intercepted a sailboat carrying a group of activists, including climate campaigner Greta Thunberg, who planned to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza in defiance of an Israeli blockade on the enclave. The Israeli foreign ministry said early Monday that the ship was 'safely making its way to the shores of Israel' and that the passengers were expected to return to their home countries. The ministry also posted a video of masked Israeli military personnel handing out sandwiches and bottled water to the activists. 'The maritime zone off the coast of Gaza is closed to unauthorized vessels under a legal naval blockade, consistent with international law,' the Israeli foreign ministry had earlier said in a social-media post. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, the activist group that organized the boat, said Israeli forces had boarded the vessel just after 3 a.m. local time and detained those onboard. The coalition said the interception took place in international waters, posting a set of coordinates north of Egypt's Port Said near the entrance to the Suez Canal. Earlier, activists on the vessel posted videos they said showed the boat being sprayed with an unidentified white substance. The activists gathered in a group holding their hands in the air after throwing their phones overboard, according to a video posted by the group. Asked about the activists' claims, the Israeli military referred to statements from the foreign ministry. The British-flagged 59-foot sailboat, nicknamed Madleen, departed from Sicily earlier in June carrying a cargo of baby formula, flour, rice, diapers, women's sanitary products, water desalination kits, and medical supplies, according to the coalition. Also on board the boat were activists from Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Turkey, and Brazil. Among them is a French member of the European Parliament, Rima Hassan. A previous attempted voyage to Gaza by a flotilla of aid ships in 2010 ended in an international fracas when Israeli commandos boarded the vessels, killing 10 Turkish activists on board. The killings caused a rupture in Israel's ties with Turkey, a major Middle East power that was the first Muslim-majority country to recognize Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later apologized over the incident and Israel paid $20 million in compensation to the Turkish civilians who were killed. Organizers of the new sea mission to Gaza said that while the ship is carrying a small amount of aid, the group's mission is a political attempt to challenge Israel's siege of Gaza and potentially open a maritime corridor for other ships to bring aid to the Gaza Strip. The enclave is seeing a humanitarian disaster unfold after a year and a half of war between Israel and the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas. 'We are doing this because we have to keep our promise to the Palestinians,' Thunberg said at the launch of the boat earlier in June. The Freedom Flotilla Coalition, which organized the 2010 flotilla and this year's boat, includes a range of pro-Palestinian activist groups from across the world, including the Free Gaza Movement, the European Campaign to End the Siege, and the Turkish nonprofit Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH). The charity is seen as having ties to Turkey's ruling party. The activists' attempt to sail to Gaza comes after a year in which the group struggled to get the mission under way. The group attempted to sail last year from Turkey but was stymied when the African nation of Guinea-Bissau withdrew its flag of convenience from a pair of ships involved in the plan. The new aid ship sailed as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is deepening. Nearly half a million people in Gaza are facing starvation, according to a report in May by a U.N.-backed international famine warning system. Write to Jared Malsin at Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Don't let deep sea become 'wild west', Guterres tells world leaders
United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres said on Monday the world could not let the deepest oceans "become the wild west", at the start in France of a global summit on the seas. World leaders are attending the UN Ocean Conference in Nice as nations tussle over contentious rules on mining the seabed for critical minerals and the terms of a global treaty on plastic pollution. US President Donald Trump has brought urgency to the debate around deep-sea mining, moving to fast-track US exploration in international waters and sidestepping global efforts to regulate the nascent sector. The International Seabed Authority, which has jurisdiction over the ocean floor outside national waters, is meeting in July to discuss a global mining code to regulate mining in the ocean depths. Guterres said he supported these negotiations and urged caution as countries navigate these "new waters on seabed mining". "The deep sea cannot become the wild west," he said, to applause from the plenary floor. Many countries oppose seabed mining, and France is hoping more nations in Nice will join a moratorium until more is known about the ecological impacts of the practice. French President Emmanuel Macron said a moratorium on deep-sea mining was "an international necessity". "I think it's madness to launch predatory economic action that will disrupt the deep seabed, disrupt biodiversity, destroy it and release irrecoverable carbon sinks when we know nothing about it," the French president said. The deep sea, Greenland and Antarctica were "not for sale", he said in follow up remarks to thunderous applause. Macron said a global treaty to govern the high seas had received enough ratifications to enter into force and was "a done deal", without specifying a timeline. The agreement struck in 2023 required ratifications from 60 signatory countries to become international law and Macron said the numbers "had been reached, which allows us to say that the high seas treaty will be implemented." Other commitments on ocean conservation are expected on Monday in Nice, where around 60 heads of state and government will join thousands of business leaders, scientists and civil society activists. On Monday, the United Kingdom is expected to announce a partial ban on bottom trawling in half its marine protected areas, putting the destructive fishing method squarely on the summit agenda. Bottom trawling sees huge fishing nets dragged across the ocean floor, sweeping up everything in their path, a process shockingly captured in a recent documentary by British naturalist David Attenborough. Greenpeace welcomed the UK announcement on trawling but said in a statement it was "long overdue". Macron said on Saturday that France would restrict trawling in some of its marine protected areas but was criticised by environment groups for not going far enough. French environment minister Agnes Pannier-Runacher told reporters on Sunday that other countries would make "important announcements" about the creation of new marine protected areas. Samoa led the way this past week, announcing that 30 percent of its national waters would be under protection with the creation of nine marine parks. Just eight percent of global oceans are designated for marine conservation, despite a globally agreed target to achieve 30 percent coverage by 2030. But even fewer are considered truly protected, as some countries impose next to no rules on what is forbidden in marine zones or lack the finance to enforce any regulations. Nations will face calls to cough up the missing finance for ocean protection, which is the least funded of all the UN's 17 sustainable development goals. Small island states are expected in numbers at the summit to demand money and political support to combat rising seas, marine trash and the plunder of fish stocks. The summit will not produce a legally binding agreement at its close like a climate COP or treaty negotiation. But diplomats and other observers said it could mark a much-needed turning point in global ocean conservation if leaders rose to the occasion. "The UN Ocean Conference gives us all an opportunity to turn words into bold and ambitious action," said Enric Sala, founder of ocean conservation group Pristine Seas. np-aag-fcc-fff/gil
