@Karan Pradhan, thank you so much for sharing your article. its truly been very insightful and looking forward to reading more of such types. Having read your article there still some questions that linger in mind. hope you can clear them them for me. 1) The United Nations has not yet defined the term terrorism, So then how can CCIT treaty “bind together the existing framework (of counter-terrorism agreements) into a single system and deny safe haven to terrorists”? (a terrorist to one country may not seem a terrorist to another). 2) Can you please further elaborate on what more does the CCIT entail? and how long ago was this treaty proposed? 3) Can you explain what this line, the role of state and non-state actors, and the scope of the CCIT and its relationship with other conventions that dealt with specific terror acts like bombings, mean? 4) Further, when you talk about areas of overlap with international humanitarian law which the Convention cannot overrule. Why can it not? and what are these laws? 5) Moreover, when you talked about Israel is against the convention because it opposes the idea of state-sponsored terrorism, perhaps as a result of its own actions, does this mean they are openly agreeing to the International Community that they give refuge to terrorists? Is that what state sponsored means? 6) What type of economic sanctions can the UN put against the country and use force if necessary—of terrorist groups and fighters who travel from their own countries to conflict zones anywhere else in the world? 7) Lastly, is India pushing for the CCIT only because of what is happening with Pakistan. What exactly is Indias ulterior motive for pushing for this treaty??
Posted on: Sat, 11 Oct 2014 08:11:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015