A report published in an international journal argues that the United Nation's Sri Lanka strategy is flawed and Sri Lanka should petition the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the UN's report on Sri Lanka which was the basis for the two resolutions against the country.
In a research paper published in the Foreign Policy Journal, author Dharshan Weerasekera says that one of the principal remedies now open to Sri Lanka was to petition the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an Advisory Opinion on the legality of the UN Secretary General's Panel of Expert's report.
According to the author, If the ICJ deemed the report illegal, all subsequent measures based on that report, including the two US-sponsored resolutions at the UNHRC in March 2012 and 2013, would become illegal, and of no effect in law.
The author, a lawyer by profession, points out that previously, the "accountability" campaign was primarily and principally based on allegations of war crimes contained in the Secretary General's report.
However, since September 2013, it is based on the purported reneging by Sri Lanka on promises to investigate the allegations made in the Secretary General's report, along with certain allegations highlighted in the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report, as well as two videos produced under the auspices of a private TV station (Channel 4) in England.
The change in strategy makes it easier for the critics of Sri Lanka to shift the burden onto Sri Lanka to justify or defend why it didn't investigate the various allegations against it, the author points out.
The strategy allows the critics to focus all attention on Sri Lanka's inadequacies in pursuing allegations, rather than on whether those allegations were worth pursuing to begin with, the research paper points out.
Read the full report: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/04/the-uns-sri-lanka-strategy-and-its-implications-for-international-law/