Law & Paneir

The aspiration and path of Martin Lurther King and Mahatma Ghandhi finally fulfilled in USA. Race liberalisation and non colour thoughts randomly changed for past few decades. This election has proven that USA is taking a big step. A black President had finally stepped in Oval Office. But for me that 'black' notion should be eroded all together for once for all. Look at his ability and capability to take out USA and the world from this deep rescission. But presumably the world still associate with him with his colour. New hope....the world look at him as its hope. But people still sceptical about him based on his colour, race and upbrings. For me it's does not matter. Why? We cannot judged a person by this. It's totally wrong and unacceptable. We i.e the world need this change. if you look around the world things very much in conservative approaches. We need fresh air and thoughts to change for the benefit of all not a person and a country.

By Makau Mutua On July 17, 1998, a total of 120 countries adopted the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, a permanent tribunal that will investigate and prosecute individuals accused of crimes against humanity, genocide, and war crimes. The United States led seven countries - including Israel, China, and Iraq - in voting against the International Criminal Court. Since then, the US has engaged in a wicked campaign to undermine and destroy the court. What is the International Criminal Court and why is the US, the sole superpower, intent on dismantling it? There is no doubt that the 20th century was one of the bloodiest, with states committing the most abominable atrocities ever known to humanity. While the century closed true to form, it saw the creation of the long elusive international criminal tribunal, a body that may hold accountable the most egregious of human rights violators. An overwhelming number of states have supported the creation of the International Crimina

Why the United States Is So Opposed? By Paul W. Kahn Introduction The opposition of the United States to the International Criminal Court appears as either a puzzle or an embarrassment to many of the nation's traditional supporters. A puzzle, because it is not at all obvious why the United States should feel so threatened by this new court. Supporters of the Court point out that there are ample provisions in the Rome Statute designed to protect a mature democracy's capacity to engage in legal self-regulation and self-policing. To raise the specter of an irresponsible prosecutor before the ICC, or of other nations manipulating the Court's jurisdiction for anti-American political purposes, is to create a straw man. An embarrassment, because the United States appears to be exempting itself from rules of the game that it believes should apply to others. This is singularly inappropriate when the game involves allegations of crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes. The

It has taken many years of negotiations, but on next Wednesday, 25 November 2008, the people of Greenland will finally get the opportunity to decide in a referendum whether the current system of self-administration under the Kingdom of Denmark, should extend to autonomy also in determining economic and foreign policy, and gradually in complete independence from Denmark. Greenland is the largest island in the world, but its northerly location means that is very isolated. Although large in size, it is still colonized by Denmark, the largest remaining European colonial power. The answer to the issue of potential independence of Greenland appears straightforward from international law point of view. Even though Greenland has had a home-rule government under Denmark, like the Faroe Islands, it appears that is time for people of Greenland to exercise their right to self-determination under ICCPR and other international documents and to decide freely on future of their country. The United Na

Contributed by Roger Tan RIGHTS OF ASSIGNORS AND ASSIGNEES TO SUE UNDER AN ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT AND ASSIGNMENT BY WAY OF CHARGE USED AS A SECURITY FOR LOAN Introduction If a borrower acquires a property in which the individual title deed has not been issued and he intends to obtain a loan by using the property as a security, the financier will require the borrower to assign all his rights in the sale agreement with the developer/vendor in favour of the financier with notice of assignment to the former. Likewise, a creditor can obtain a loan by assigning all his rights over a debt to the factor by giving notice of assignment to the debtor. These assigned rights are also known as “choses in action” which simply means things recoverable by action as opposed to a “chose in possession” which entitles a person to have actual physical possession. In the words of Channell J in Torkington v Magee [1902] 2 KB 427 at 430, the expression “choses in action” means “all personal rights of property w