Search

The death penalty has been the subject of controversy for a long time. South Asian countries have found themselves with this controversy by acquiring an ambivalent approach towards the death penalty. Out of eight South Asian countries, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India and Pakistan retain the death penalty law, and firmly believe that the death penalty can deter people from committing future crimes, whereas Sri Lanka and Maldives have chosen to retain the death penalty law but have abolished it in practice. Conversely, Nepal and Bhutan are the only two countries that have abolished death penalty both in law and practice. In this context, this comparative study of death penalty trials explores the approach taken by the judiciary of two South Asian jurisdictions, Bangladesh and India, towards the death penalty. This paper utilizes the findings of two original empirical research projects that explored judges' opinions on the retention and administration of the death penalty in both jurisdictions. Amnesty International death penalty reports along with the case judgements are used, which helped to portray the true approach and flaws in the death penalty trials in both the jurisdictions. The paper will assess the death penalty trials and approach of the different stakeholders in the trial to highlight the distinct approaches taken by the two jurisdictions towards the death penalty. The paper argues that in both countries there is inconsistency in sentencing, the social cry for justice is prioritized over convicts' rights and, from judges to legal representatives, all the stakeholders involved in a criminal trial hold a convictive approach, making a criminal justice system which presumes justice is served by awarding the death penalty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study examines the contemporary legal mechanisms and institutional framework governing the contemporary global food system. The purpose of the study is to explore the rationales behind the exacerbating situation of food insecurity and develop a global food governance model through a legal mechanism and an institutional framework. To do so, this qualitative study uses Theorizing Regulatory Intermediaries model, and Institutional Analysis and Development framework to analyze three categories of international instruments relevant to food security: food safety, standards, and rights. In particular three instruments are examined-- (1) the Codex Alimentarius; (2) the World Trade Organization Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and the Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement (TBT Agreement); and (3) United Nation General Assembly Resolutions. The study affirms that the contemporary global food system is complex and lacks an institutional framework and governance due to multiple international instruments, which are neither strictly binding in nature nor completely lacking in legal significance, and focuses on food safety during food trade instead of building food security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Zero hunger is one of the Sustainable Development goals that the global leaders need to accomplish by 2030. However, the World Economic Forum (WEF) in its Global Risk Report 2020 stated, "food insecurity" will remain as a "societal risk" for the next 10 years and the number of hungry people worldwide can exceed 840 million by 2030. Despite 100 years since the emergence of the concept "food security" and the development of numbers of international guidelines and enactments, "food insecurity" is still a persisting global issue. In this context, this paper examines 100 years of the concept "food security" from which the contemporary international food law has developed. In carrying out this qualitative research, the paper argues the contemporary international food instruments mostly lacks legal significance and addresses food trade, food safety and development. Hence, the contemporary international food law has failed to acknowledge "food security" issues and provide a systematic conceptualization and normative endeavour along with ethical, humanitarian, environmental, and social dimensions. A comprehensive international food law is essential to build a global food system to resolve the global food security issues, and food governance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]