Connect with us

Features

Multilateral treaties are tools for global governance

Published

on

UN Headquarters, New York

By Dr. Dayantha Laksiri Mendis

“Multilateral treaties are the bones and sinews of global politic, making it possible for states to move from talk through compromise to solemn commitment.”– Professor Thomas M. Frank

BACKGROUND

The UN system is the catalyst for the creation of multilateral treaties. It is the greatest achievement of the UN system during the last 75 years. These treaties contain binding international rules relating to peace, security, trade, commerce, human rights, international humanitarian law (IHL), protection of the environment, transnational organised crime, cyber-crime, intellectual property rights, international waters, law of the sea and air transport, trafficking in illicit drugs, trade in arms, anti-corruption, money laundering, terrorism, ozone depletion, climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, etc. These multilateral treaties require the consent of States to be bound by them.

The UN Charter of 1945 is the most important multilateral treaty dealing with global governance. It outlaws war, subject to a few exceptions, and recognizes state sovereignty and equality of States. The UN Charter needs to expand the composition of the Security Council to include new regional powers in the UN system. It must incorporate a chapter on Peace Keeping and limit the use of veto powers, restrictively, to three-fourths majority. Unless these changes are made expeditiously, a new global order might emerge very soon as they have emerged already on the horizon

Multilateral treaties are the most important source of international law. They have grown exponentially since World War II. The Australian Jurist, Julius Stone, said in 1954 that in one single year, more treaties were concluded than in the whole of the 19th century. Professor Clive Parry of Cambridge said it is not possible today to understand international law or international relations without the full grasp of multilateral treaties.

Multilateral Treaty is a generic term. It includes conventions, protocols, agreements, concordats, exchanges of letters and note verbales. Treaties relating to Regional Economic Integration, such as EU, CARICOM, ECOWAS, ASEAN, etc., can be treated as multilateral treaties, but they are not universal in their application.

Multilateral treaties must be distinguished from multilateral non-treaty instruments. These constitute Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and the Resolutions of the Specialized Agencies, MOUs, Codes of Conduct, etc. Some of the non-treaty instruments are considered “hard law” and others “soft law”. Hard law is binding on States and soft law is not binding on States. For example, Resolutions of the Security Council or the Resolutions of ICAO or IMO are binding on State Parties. These Resolutions do not require the consent of States.

Legislation giving effect to multilateral treaties and multilateral non-treaty instruments are described as implementing legislation. Such legislation is also referred to as “enabling” or “uniform” legislation. The way in which implementing legislation are drafted are of capital importance for global governance. In monist States, multilateral treaties constitute law at national level on ratification/accession by states. In dualist states, treaties do not constitute law at the national level on ratification/accession by States. Sometimes, it is necessary to enact implementation legislation in monist and dualist states to ensure compliance with international obligations.

Professor James Rosenau has described “global governance” as governance without a government. He said that the United Nations system and national governments are central to global governance, but they are only part of the full picture as many other international organisations are involved in global governance in a similar manner.

Multilateral treaties are an indispensable tool for Global Governance. It is inextricably interwoven with the UN System. Hence, any multilateral treaty violations relating to Israel, Palestine and Ukraine must cease as soon as possible. It is the most important function of the Security Council. Unfortunately, they were unable to implement a good resolution due to veto powers.

In this context, it is necessary to identify the birth and development of multilateral treaties in the global community.

BIRTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF MULTILATERAL TREATIES

The birth of multilateral treaties dates back to the 1815 Concert of Europe. In Vienna, almost all European states, whether big or small, met for the first time to determine the future of Europe after the disastrous Napoleonic wars. The former US Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation on the 1815 Concert of Europe and observed its importance to multilateral relations and diplomacy. In his book, he illustrated the relevance of the Vienna spirit of “give and take” as an indispensable requirement for the negotiation and conclusion of multilateral treaties to arrive at consensus. In drafting the UN Charter 1945 a more liberal give and take approach was adopted than League of Nations 1919. (Henry A. Kissinger, A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822, Literary Licensing, LLC, 2011).

Multilateral treaty drafting is different in today’s world and includes actors such as inter-governmental organisations (IGOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the International Law Commission. It is a protracted process in which the “rolling text” undergoes many changes. A diplomat or a legal practitioner involved in treaty drafting must have a good knowledge of the legal character of treaties and the widely differing functions of treaty provisions. A treaty drafter must have an interdisciplinary knowledge of the subject matter of the draft treaty and the form and structure of treaties, including the final clauses. (Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and Practice, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2000; Jan Klabbers, The Concept of Treaty in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers: The Hague, 1996).

Interpretation of multilateral treaties is crucial for global governance Such interpretation must be undertaken by state parties, legal counsel or by international and national courts and tribunals in accordance with Vienna Rules enshrined in articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT, 1969. It is a moot point (1) whether Article 51 of the UN Charter allows pre-emptive self-defence (Bush doctrine) and the right to protection in a humanitarian crisis; (2) whether the use of drones is legal in the fight against terrorism vis-à-vis international humanitarian law principles; and (3) whether enhanced interrogation techniques fall within the definition of “torture”.

The interpretation of the relevant multilateral treaties has become complex as the global order is threatened by abominable acts – terrorism, aggression, money-laundering and other transnational organised crimes. In Ukraine and Palestine, there is a requirement to apply International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Human Rights Law standards to resolve problems and challenges encountered in Ukraine and Palestine in the long term.

Multilateral treaties are necessary for global governance at national and international level. At the national level, all three organs of the State must play a pro-active role regarding implementation of such treaties and implementing legislation as illustrated by Lord McNair in his monumental work on Law of Treaties. At the international level, state parties, international organisations and international courts and tribunals play an important role in the implementation process.

UNSC is authorised to impose sanctions or engage in the use of force – as Kofi Annan said – if diplomacy fails, in the first Iraq war, under the collective security paradigm. Unfortunately, sanctions have been imposed or concessions have been given to some states selectively for geo-political reasons.

Resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council are also important for global governance. Their binding nature on States is controversial. Sri Lanka has had difficulties regarding Geneva Resolution 30/1 of 2015 and 40/1 of 2021. These Resolutions deal with the establishment of a hybrid court to investigate accountability during the North-East armed conflict which ended in 2009.

These Resolutions have raised constitutional and legal issues regarding their implementation. Unfortunately, Sri Lanka has not raised up to now Article 46 of VCLT 1969 as a defense for non-implementation.

Implementing Legislation contributes to global governance at the national level. It is a specialised branch of legislative drafting. According to Francis Bennion, treaties are transformed directly by incorporating the treaty in a Schedule or indirectly by re-drafting/re-phrasing the treaty in a manner consistent with the style and form of national legislation.

Implementing legislation also plays an important role in global governance at the national level. Literal interpretation is not suitable for the interpretation of implementing legislation as there is a need to harmonise the legislative provisions with treaty norms and standards in the interpretation of implementing legislation. Various Interpretation Acts across the world have been amended to enable the courts and tribunals to consult extrinsic material in the interpretation of implementing legislation. This paradigm shift in the interpretative technique augurs well for global governance.

Implementing legislation are subject to international compliance and control measures by UN treaty regimes. These treaty regimes require submission of reports, establish verification processes, review mechanisms or engage in diplomatic efforts to ensure compliance. Any intervention by treaty regimes with respect to the implementation of treaty standards must not be construed as an infringement of state sovereignty.

IMPACT OF MULTILATERAL TREATIES ON STATE SOVEREIGNTY

The ratification or accession to multilateral treaties impact on state sovereignty as states are bound (pacta sunt servanda) to implement them. State sovereignty and multilateral treaties may collide at times.

These collisions need to be resolved by state parties by reference to treaty law and practice

In monist states, ratification/accession to multilateral treaties requires the consent of Parliament, Congress or the Senate. In the US, the consent of two-thirds of the Senate is necessary for ratification of treaties. It is a difficult process. President Obama was unable to obtain the consent of the Senate for the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982. Likewise, President Woodrow Wilson in 1919 was unable to obtain its consent to ratify the Covenant of the League of Nations as the US Senate was bent on “isolationism”. Perhaps, the history of the world would have been very different in the 20th century if the US Senate had provided its consent.

In dualist States, multilateral treaties require implementing legislation. However, there is an emerging constitutional and parliamentary practice to enact implementing legislation before the ratification of important treaties. Many Commonwealth countries now require States to undertake ratification of multilateral treaties with the approval of Parliament.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Multilateral treaties and multilateral non-treaty instruments impact on global governance and rule-based order. When major multilateral treaties relating to global governance are ratified or acceded by majority of states, it might help the community of states to co-exist without a violent confrontation. No state has a right to override Geneva Conventions or human rights conventions except in exceptional circumstances. Palestine and Ukraine are no exceptions.

The US and Russian exceptionalism to certain international standards and norms create difficulties in the emerging global order. In a multipolar world, it is up to the middle powers and powerful regional economic organisations such as EU, ASEAN, UNASUR, AU, CARICOM, etc., to create a balance between global interest and national interest if these two interests are to co-exist in the emerging world order.

Multilateral treaties and multilateral non-treaty instruments are increasing in volume. At least one-fourth of the Legislative Agenda of Parliaments in developed and developing countries relates in one way or another to these treaties. These two legal instruments are indispensable for international cooperation, international coordination, inter-dependence and above all in maintaining peace and security in a rapidly changing world.

In the 21st century, everything is changing – bit by bit – in front of our very eyes through multilateral treaties and multilateral non-treaty instruments. Unless UNSC is reformed in a multipolar world, UNSC will become a toothless Council in a changing world where new Organisations are emerging to resolve international problems and challenges in a more equitable manner. Unfortunately, USA is losing an opportunity to be the leader of the free world by not balancing the regional interest and national interest in Ukraine and Palestine in an equitable manner

(The author was the former Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations in Vienna, Austria. He served the UN/DTCD, New York, for many years. He is, at present, the President of the Association of Former International Civil Servants (AFICS). Email : mendis_law@yahoo.com

).



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