Law & Paneir

Rebels, insurgents, paramilitaries, separatists, militants, guerrillas, insurrectionists, fundamentalists... are these all terrorists? Or does terrorism claim its own exclusive niche? The exasperating inability to define terrorism is betrayed in the UN 2006 Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy - "we, the States Members of the United Nations...strongly condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, committed by whomever, wherever and for whatever purposes". The UN has been striving for decades to find a wording for terrorism which, instead of "all its forms and manifestations", narrows down to a specific profile of violence which can be condemned regardless of the circumstances. The absence of an agreed definition matters for many reasons. It blocks the possibility of referring terrorist acts to an international court, as for genocide and other war crimes; it leaves individual countries free to outlaw activity which they choose to classify as terrorism, perhaps

By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor Published: 12:01AM BST 18 Oct 2007 Can we still preserve the rule of law while fighting international terrorism? There are grave threats in some parts of the world to what Dicey called "the absolute supremacy or predominance of regular law as opposed to the influence of arbitrary power". But here in Britain we find a greater willingness to protect the rights of individuals, even those suspected of wishing to undermine the rule of law itself. It is troubling, for example, to find Canada unwilling to rescue one of its own citizens, a former child soldier, from what a US military lawyer described this week as an "Alice in Wonderland" legal process at Guantanamo Bay. On the other hand, our own Government is now willing to take back five other detainees, even though none is British. You may remember that Lord Goldsmith, as Attorney General, fought hard to persuade the US administration that all the B

By Zin Linn Bangkok, Thailand — Leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Thailand last weekend issued a statement saying they had discussed the situation in Myanmar (Burma) and highlighted “that the general elections to be held in Myanmar in 2010 must be conducted in a fair, free, inclusive and transparent manner in order to be credible to the international community.” Burma's Prime Minister Thein Sein told his Asian counterparts on Oct. 24 that the ruling junta could relax the conditions of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi's detention, the Japanese delegation spokesman Kazuo Kodama said. The Nobel Peace laureate had "softened" her attitude toward the military regime since her house arrest was extended in August for a further 18 months, the official quoted Thein Sein as saying. Whereas Thein Sein announced at the regional summit in Thailand that Burma also wants elections next year to be "inclusive," he did not state whether Suu Kyi would be allowed to participate.

By Zin Linn The 15th Asean summit held at a Thai resort town, has given room for hope that the conditions governing the detention of democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi would be relaxed. Her detention figured in the talks Prime Minister Thein Sein had with the Asean leaders on the sidelines of the summit. And the summit also came out with a categorical call to the Junta to hold a free, fair, inclusive and transparent election next year. We don’t know the reaction of Thein to the Asean demand but he must he realized that the regime cannot hope to push its envelop any further with impunity. This much becomes clear from his assurance on the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. Going by the official media version, he also told his interlocutors that the Nobel Peace laureate had "softened" her attitude towards the military regime since her house arrest was extended in August for a further 18 months. Interestingly, the official media

When I looked on rule of law and separation of powers within Malaysia, I am wondering whether these two really exist in Malaysia now. I am not taking any sides. I am not politically motivated to discuss about this matter. But as lay person and as teacher I am confused. When I preached(???) to my students about rule of law and separation of powers and pointing out to them that the parliament is supreme because its actually represents people of Malaysia but what is happening here is pointing out otherwise. So I confused and at the same time confusing my students. Is it right?