| Introduction: Contextual Introduction Body: Significance of treaty in the fight against impunity & India’s stance on treaty. Conclusion: Way forward |
A dedicated CAH treaty addresses the accountability deficit in international law. Unlike genocide and war crimes, which are governed by the Genocide Convention (1948) and the Geneva Conventions (1949), CAH is only covered under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Significance of a (CAH) Treaty in the Global Fight Against Impunity
- Clearer Definition and Codification: A CAH treaty would provide a universally agreed-upon definition of these crimes, ensuring consistent interpretation and application across different jurisdictions. This would reduce ambiguity and strengthen domestic legal frameworks.
- Strengthened State Obligations: The treaty would explicitly obligate states to prevent, investigate, and prosecute CAH, regardless of where they are committed. This includes enacting domestic legislation, extraditing suspects, and cooperating with other states in investigations and prosecutions.
- Improved International Cooperation: A dedicated treaty would foster greater cooperation among states in the fight against impunity. This could involve sharing evidence, providing mutual legal assistance, and coordinating investigative efforts.
- Addressing Gaps in the Rome Statute: While the ICC is a vital institution, it has limitations. A CAH treaty would complement the Rome Statute by extending jurisdiction to states that are not parties to the Statute and by providing a framework for domestic prosecutions.
India’s Stance on the CAH Treaty and Its Reflection of International Priorities
- Concerns about Sovereignty: India has traditionally been cautious about international interventions that could be seen as infringing on its sovereignty. This concern may extend to the CAH treaty, particularly regarding provisions on universal jurisdiction and extradition.
- Focus on Domestic Legal Frameworks: India has a robust domestic legal system and may prefer to address CAH through its laws and institutions. However, a CAH treaty could provide valuable guidance and support in this regard.
- Balancing Competing Priorities: India’s foreign policy is driven by a range of priorities, including economic development, regional security, and counter-terrorism. While combating impunity for CAH is undoubtedly important, it may need to be balanced against these other priorities.
- Desire for Consensus: India often prefers to act in concert with the international community and may be waiting for a broader consensus to emerge on the CAH treaty before taking a firm position.
Conclusion
A dedicated CAH treaty is a vital step toward global accountability for grave crimes. India’s cautious stance reflects its priorities of sovereignty, strategic autonomy, and addressing terrorism. However, India can strengthen its leadership by adopting domestic legal frameworks for CAH and actively contributing to treaty negotiations, reaffirming its role as a proponent of justice and human rights on the international stage.
