Connect with us

Features

International Law Implications of Canadian Parliament’s Motion on ‘Tamil Genocide’

Published

on

By Dharshan Weerasekera

On 18 May 2022, the Canadian House of Commons adopted without opposition a motion introduced by Rep. Gary Anandasangaree recognising 18 May of each year as “Tamil Genocide Remembrance Day” (www.parliament.ca). This follows a Bill adopted by the Ontario legislature in May 2021 calling for the week following May 18th of each year to be celebrated as “Tamil Genocide education week.” However, the Ontario legislature is a provincial body and its actions do not carry the same weight as a national legislature.

The fact that purported ‘Tamil genocide’ in Sri Lanka has been recognised by the Canadian national legislature carries international implications. Most critics of the motion dismiss it as an attempt by the Canadian lawmakers to pander to a vocal minority. However, recognition by the national legislature of a foreign county that genocide is taking place in Sri Lanka has very serious consequences to this country. Unfortunately, there has been little or no discussion on this issue in local newspapers or academic journals and it is in the public interest to begin one.

In this article, I shall briefly discuss, i) the lack of evidence for Tamil genocide, ii) the gravity of what the Canadian legislature has done , iii) the illegality of the act, iv) address two objections and draw the relevant conclusions

The lack of evidence for Tamil genocide

I have discussed at some length the lack of evidence for Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka in an article titled, “Ontario’s Bill 104: Tamil Genocide Education or Mis-education Week?” (The Island, 9 December 2021) and refer the reader to that for more details. However, here I shall focus on a report titled, “Canada’s Inadequate Response to Terrorism: The Need for Policy Reform” (2006) by Martin Collacott, a former Canadian High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and also eminent academic. I wish to draw certain inferences from some of Collacot’s observations.

He says: “According to the records of the consular section of the Sri Lankan High Commission in Ottawa, more than 8,600 Sri Lankans with refugee claims pending in Canada applied for travel documents to visit Sri Lanka in a single year.” (Martin Collacot, “Canada’s Inadequate Response to Terrorism: The Need for Policy Reform,” Fraser Institute Digital Publication, February 2006, p. 34)

He continues: “In comparison with Canada, other countries have accepted relatively few refugee claims from Sri Lankan Tamils as they do not consider them to have been persecuted. In 2003, Canada accepted 1,749 Sri Lankan claimants (UNHCR, 2003, table 8) while the rest of the world combined gave refugee status to only 1,160. Canada’s acceptance rate was 76.3 percent, while the average for other countries was 15.8 percent.” (p. 34)

It would be absurd to suppose that people would visit Sri Lanka if they or their relatives are being subjected to genocide here, or at any rate, it casts doubt as to whether such a thing is happening. Meanwhile, the drastic difference in the number of refugee applications of Sri Lankans being accepted in Canada as opposed to other countries, if true, indicates that there is a difference of opinion on the issue of persecution. It should prompt a reasonable person to review and reassess his or her views as to whether Tamil genocide is taking place here.

The point is that information such as that provided by Collacot is readily available in the public domain and it is reasonable to suppose that Canadian lawmakers are familiar with at least some of it. However, there is no evidence that such information has registered with Canadian legislators because there was not a single voice raised in opposition to the impugned motion. In these circumstances, the inference is irresistible that the Canadian House of Commons has adopted the motion with scant regard to the truth or falsity of the allegation of Tamil genocide.

The gravity of the act

The impugned motion is not just a local or domestic concern of Canadians but is pregnant with consequences for Sri Lankans, because of the following reasons. Genocide is the intentional destruction or attempt at destruction of an entire people. Among other things, it is one of the conditions that would permit an ethnic group within a particular country to invoke the right to external self-determination (i.e. secession) under international law.

For instance, in the seminal Canadian case Reference re Secession of Quebec [1998] 2 SCR 217, widely cited in other countries, the Supreme Court of Canada identifies three conditions that would warrant an ethnic/religious/linguistic group within a country to invoke the right to external self-determination: colonialism, alien subjugation or domination and denial of meaningful access to government to pursue one’s political social and cultural development. (Reference, para 138)

Genocide could be brought under the second or third categories. The Canadian House of Commons represents the entire people of Canada, not different interest groups. So, such a body has now placed on record that conditions exist in Sri Lanka for the Tamils to arguably invoke a right to self-determination under international law. It sets a precedent for other countries to also adopt motions or even resolutions unilaterally alleging Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka with scant regard for the truth.

If a significant number of other countries endorse an invocation of the right to self-determination by an ethnic minority in Sri Lanka, this country will eventually have to capitulate to the demand for a separate State. Sri Lanka is a relatively poor country heavily dependent on foreign aid. It cannot afford to alienate the international community, especially its main donors. Therefore, the impugned motion potentially sets the stage for interested parties to advance their ambitions of creating a separate State within Sri Lanka, with the collusion or connivance of other countries.

The illegality of the act

The UN Charter is the basis of international law. Article 2(4) enshrines one of the principles of the UN It states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

The above provision has two parts: a) refraining from the threat or use of force against other States and b) acting in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the U.N. I wish to focus on the second limb. Articles 1(1) – (1 (4) of the Charter set out the purposes of the U.N. Article 1(2) states: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”

The standard interpretation of the above is that the UN cannot intervene unduly in the internal affairs of nations. More importantly, on the concept of ‘self-determination,’ to the best of my knowledge the international Court of Justice (ICJ) has never yet extended the said concept to cover a right to secession. The court has only held that the concept applies in colonial contexts, non-self-governing territories and that it cannot be used in order to undermine existing state boundaries (See Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975; Namibia, Advisory Opinion, 1976; and Frontier Dispute case, 1986, ICJ Reports 554, respectively.)

There is a profound difficulty in interpreting the ‘right to self-determination’ to include a right to secession, namely, it could lead to a veritable explosion of demands for statehood by various ethnic minorities. The U.N. is well aware of this problem. A panel of U.N. legal experts point out, “If every ethnic, religious or linguistic group claimed statehood, there would be no limit to fragmentation, and peace and security and well-being for all would become even more difficult to achieve.” (“An agenda for Peace,’ UN doc. A/47/277)

In sum, the UN is not permitted to promote the secessionist ambitions of ethnic minorities. The impugned motion does just that, or at any rate sets a precedent that has the potential to lead to an international endorsement of a right to self-determination of a particular ethnic minority in Sri Lanka. It is inconsistent with the letter as well as spirit of Article 1(2) and hence illegal under international law.

Objections

A critic might object that i) the national legislature is not the government of a country and it is only the government that would come under the purview of international law and ii) the impugned act can be justified under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine.

In regard to the first, to the best of my knowledge the Canadian government has not dissociated itself from the act of the legislature or issued a single statement critical of the said act. The well-known legal maxim states, “He who is silent appears to consent (Qui tacit consentire videtur)”. Accordingly, one must presume that the Government is either complicit in the act or tacitly approves of it.

In regard to R2P, the doctrine contends that members of the international community have an obligation to intervene in the internal affairs of nations regardless of the U.N. Charter’s customary prohibitions against such action, if there are horrendous abuses taking place in a country and the citizens of such country have no other means of protecting themselves.

However, a prerequisite for the application of R2P is that the abuses in question must first be reported to the Security Council. No such thing as happened in the instant case. In fact, the Canadian legislature has failed to submit their allegations to any international forum whatsoever and give Sri Lanka a chance to respond. It should be noted that, Natural Justice, which includes the injunction, “Hear the other side!” is an overriding principle (jus cogens) of international law. In these circumstances, R2P cannot justify the impugned motion.

Conclusion

The national legislature of a country should not get a free pass to flout international law at will. If the national legislatures of other countries also start adopting motions alleging ‘Tamil genocide’ with scant regard to the facts, it would pose a danger not just to Sri Lanka but to all countries facing the threat of separatism. It is in the interest of Sri Lankans as well as all friends of international law to vigorously challenge this act and prevent it from setting a precedent.

(The writer is an Attorney-at-Law)



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Ranking public services with AI — A roadmap to reviving institutions like SriLankan Airlines

Published

on

Efficacy measures an organisation’s capacity to achieve its mission and intended outcomes under planned or optimal conditions. It differs from efficiency, which focuses on achieving objectives with minimal resources, and effectiveness, which evaluates results in real-world conditions. Today, modern AI tools, using publicly available data, enable objective assessment of the efficacy of Sri Lanka’s government institutions.

Among key public bodies, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka emerges as the most efficacious, outperforming the Department of Inland Revenue, Sri Lanka Customs, the Election Commission, and Parliament. In the financial and regulatory sector, the Central Bank of Sri Lanka (CBSL) ranks highest, ahead of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Public Utilities Commission, the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission, the Insurance Regulatory Commission, and the Sri Lanka Standards Institution.

Among state-owned enterprises, the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) leads in efficacy, followed by Bank of Ceylon and People’s Bank. Other institutions assessed included the State Pharmaceuticals Corporation, the National Water Supply and Drainage Board, the Ceylon Electricity Board, the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, and the Sri Lanka Transport Board. At the lower end of the spectrum were Lanka Sathosa and Sri Lankan Airlines, highlighting a critical challenge for the national economy.

Sri Lankan Airlines, consistently ranked at the bottom, has long been a financial drain. Despite successive governments’ reform attempts, sustainable solutions remain elusive.

Globally, the most profitable airlines operate as highly integrated, technology-enabled ecosystems rather than as fragmented departments. Operations, finance, fleet management, route planning, engineering, marketing, and customer service are closely coordinated, sharing real-time data to maximise efficiency, safety, and profitability.

The challenge for Sri Lankan Airlines is structural. Its operations are fragmented, overly hierarchical, and poorly aligned. Simply replacing the CEO or senior leadership will not address these deep-seated weaknesses. What the airline needs is a cohesive, integrated organisational ecosystem that leverages technology for cross-functional planning and real-time decision-making.

The government must urgently consider restructuring Sri Lankan Airlines to encourage:

=Joint planning across operational divisions

=Data-driven, evidence-based decision-making

=Continuous cross-functional consultation

=Collaborative strategic decisions on route rationalisation, fleet renewal, partnerships, and cost management, rather than exclusive top-down mandates

Sustainable reform requires systemic change. Without modernised organisational structures, stronger accountability, and aligned incentives across divisions, financial recovery will remain out of reach. An integrated, performance-oriented model offers the most realistic path to operational efficiency and long-term viability.

Reforming loss-making institutions like Sri Lankan Airlines is not merely a matter of leadership change — it is a structural overhaul essential to ensuring these entities contribute productively to the national economy rather than remain perpetual burdens.

By Chula Goonasekera – Citizen Analyst

Continue Reading

Features

Why Pi Day?

Published

on

International Day of Mathematics falls tomorrow

The approximate value of Pi (π) is 3.14 in mathematics. Therefore, the day 14 March is celebrated as the Pi Day. In 2019, UNESCO proclaimed 14 March as the International Day of Mathematics.

Ancient Babylonians and Egyptians figured out that the circumference of a circle is slightly more than three times its diameter. But they could not come up with an exact value for this ratio although they knew that it is a constant. This constant was later named as π which is a letter in the Greek alphabet.

Archimedes

It was the Greek mathematician Archimedes (250 BC) who was able to find an upper bound and a lower bound for this constant. He drew a circle of diameter one unit and drew hexagons inside and outside the circle such that the sides of each hexagon touch the sides of the circle. In mathematics the circle passing through all vertices of a polygon is called a ‘circumcircle’ and the largest circle that fits inside a polygon tangent to all its sides is called an ‘incircle’. The total length of the smaller hexagon then becomes the lower bound of π and the length of the hexagon outside the circle is the upper bound. He realised that by increasing the number of sides of the polygon can make the bounds get closer to the value of Pi and increased the number of sides to 12,24,48 and 60. He argued that by increasing the number of sides will ultimately result in obtaining the original circle, thereby laying the foundation for the theory of limits. He ended up with the lower bound as 22/7 and the upper bound 223/71. He could not continue his research as his hometown Syracuse was invaded by Romans and was killed by one of the soldiers. His last words were ‘do not disturb my circles’, perhaps a reference to his continuing efforts to find the value of π to a greater accuracy.

Archimedes can be considered as the father of geometry. His contributions revolutionised geometry and his methods anticipated integral calculus. He invented the pulley and the hydraulic screw for drawing water from a well. He also discovered the law of hydrostatics. He formulated the law of levers which states that a smaller weight placed farther from a pivot can balance a much heavier weight closer to it. He famously said “Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I will move the earth”.

Mathematicians have found many expressions for π as a sum of infinite series that converge to its value. One such famous series is the Leibniz Series found in 1674 by the German mathematician Gottfried Leibniz, which is given below.

π = 4 ( 1 – 1/3 + 1/5 – 1/7 + 1/9 – ………….)

The Indian mathematical genius Ramanujan came up with a magnificent formula in 1910. The short form of the formula is as follows.

π = 9801/(1103 √8)

For practical applications an approximation is sufficient. Even NASA uses only the approximation 3.141592653589793 for its interplanetary navigation calculations.

It is not just an interesting and curious number. It is used for calculations in navigation, encryption, space exploration, video game development and even in medicine. As π is fundamental to spherical geometry, it is at the heart of positioning systems in GPS navigations. It also contributes significantly to cybersecurity. As it is an irrational number it is an excellent foundation for generating randomness required in encryption and securing communications. In the medical field, it helps to calculate blood flow rates and pressure differentials. In diagnostic tools such as CT scans and MRI, pi is an important component in mathematical algorithms and signal processing techniques.

This elegant, never-ending number demonstrates how mathematics transforms into practical applications that shape our world. The possibilities of what it can do are infinite as the number itself. It has become a symbol of beauty and complexity in mathematics. “It matters little who first arrives at an idea, rather what is significant is how far that idea can go.” said Sophie Germain.

Mathematics fans are intrigued by this irrational number and attempt to calculate it as far as they can. In March 2022, Emma Haruka Iwao of Japan calculated it to 100 trillion decimal places in Google Cloud. It had taken 157 days. The Guinness World Record for reciting the number from memory is held by Rajveer Meena of India for 70000 decimal places over 10 hours.

Happy Pi Day!

The author is a senior examiner of the International Baccalaureate in the UK and an educational consultant at the Overseas School of Colombo.

by R N A de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Sheer rise of Realpolitik making the world see the brink

Published

on

A combined US-Israel attack on Iran.(BBC)

The recent humanly costly torpedoing of an Iranian naval vessel in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone by a US submarine has raised a number of issues of great importance to international political discourse and law that call for elucidation. It is best that enlightened commentary is brought to bear in such discussions because at present misleading and uninformed speculation on questions arising from the incident are being aired by particularly jingoistic politicians of Sri Lanka’s South which could prove deleterious.

As matters stand, there seems to be no credible evidence that the Indian state was aware of the impending torpedoing of the Iranian vessel but these acerbic-tongued politicians of Sri Lanka’s South would have the local public believe that the tragedy was triggered with India’s connivance. Likewise, India is accused of ‘embroiling’ Sri Lanka in the incident on account of seemingly having prior knowledge of it and not warning Sri Lanka about the impending disaster.

It is plain that a process is once again afoot to raise anti-India hysteria in Sri Lanka. An obligation is cast on the Sri Lankan government to ensure that incendiary speculation of the above kind is defeated and India-Sri Lanka relations are prevented from being in any way harmed. Proactive measures are needed by the Sri Lankan government and well meaning quarters to ensure that public discourse in such matters have a factual and rational basis. ‘Knowledge gaps’ could prove hazardous.

Meanwhile, there could be no doubt that Sri Lanka’s sovereignty was violated by the US because the sinking of the Iranian vessel took place in Sri Lanka’s Exclusive Economic Zone. While there is no international decrying of the incident, and this is to be regretted, Sri Lanka’s helplessness and small player status would enable the US to ‘get away with it’.

Could anything be done by the international community to hold the US to account over the act of lawlessness in question? None is the answer at present. This is because in the current ‘Global Disorder’ major powers could commit the gravest international irregularities with impunity. As the threadbare cliché declares, ‘Might is Right’….. or so it seems.

Unfortunately, the UN could only merely verbally denounce any violations of International Law by the world’s foremost powers. It cannot use countervailing force against violators of the law, for example, on account of the divided nature of the UN Security Council, whose permanent members have shown incapability of seeing eye-to-eye on grave matters relating to International Law and order over the decades.

The foregoing considerations could force the conclusion on uncritical sections that Political Realism or Realpolitik has won out in the end. A basic premise of the school of thought known as Political Realism is that power or force wielded by states and international actors determine the shape, direction and substance of international relations. This school stands in marked contrast to political idealists who essentially proclaim that moral norms and values determine the nature of local and international politics.

While, British political scientist Thomas Hobbes, for instance, was a proponent of Political Realism, political idealism has its roots in the teachings of Socrates, Plato and latterly Friedrich Hegel of Germany, to name just few such notables.

On the face of it, therefore, there is no getting way from the conclusion that coercive force is the deciding factor in international politics. If this were not so, US President Donald Trump in collaboration with Israeli Rightist Premier Benjamin Natanyahu could not have wielded the ‘big stick’, so to speak, on Iran, killed its Supreme Head of State, terrorized the Iranian public and gone ‘scot-free’. That is, currently, the US’ impunity seems to be limitless.

Moreover, the evidence is that the Western bloc is reuniting in the face of Iran’s threats to stymie the flow of oil from West Asia to the rest of the world. The recent G7 summit witnessed a coming together of the foremost powers of the global North to ensure that the West does not suffer grave negative consequences from any future blocking of western oil supplies.

Meanwhile, Israel is having a ‘free run’ of the Middle East, so to speak, picking out perceived adversarial powers, such as Lebanon, and militarily neutralizing them; once again with impunity. On the other hand, Iran has been bringing under assault, with no questions asked, Gulf states that are seen as allying with the US and Israel. West Asia is facing a compounded crisis and International Law seems to be helplessly silent.

Wittingly or unwittingly, matters at the heart of International Law and peace are being obfuscated by some pro-Trump administration commentators meanwhile. For example, retired US Navy Captain Brent Sadler has cited Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right to self or collective self-defence of UN member states in the face of armed attacks, as justifying the US sinking of the Iranian vessel (See page 2 of The Island of March 10, 2026). But the Article makes it clear that such measures could be resorted to by UN members only ‘ if an armed attack occurs’ against them and under no other circumstances. But no such thing happened in the incident in question and the US acted under a sheer threat perception.

Clearly, the US has violated the Article through its action and has once again demonstrated its tendency to arbitrarily use military might. The general drift of Sadler’s thinking is that in the face of pressing national priorities, obligations of a state under International Law could be side-stepped. This is a sure recipe for international anarchy because in such a policy environment states could pursue their national interests, irrespective of their merits, disregarding in the process their obligations towards the international community.

Moreover, Article 51 repeatedly reiterates the authority of the UN Security Council and the obligation of those states that act in self-defence to report to the Council and be guided by it. Sadler, therefore, could be said to have cited the Article very selectively, whereas, right along member states’ commitments to the UNSC are stressed.

However, it is beyond doubt that international anarchy has strengthened its grip over the world. While the US set destabilizing precedents after the crumbling of the Cold War that paved the way for the current anarchic situation, Russia further aggravated these degenerative trends through its invasion of Ukraine. Stepping back from anarchy has thus emerged as the prime challenge for the world community.

Continue Reading

Trending