Search

As the effects of climate change become apparent in line with IPCC projections, the normative aspects of international affairs are being increasingly challenged. The context of rising sea levels, coastal inundation, and salinization in low-lying atoll States points to an unprecedented scenario that beckons revisitations into 'what is natural in international affairs' and 'what turns it into being natural'. Under UNCLOS and a common understanding in international affairs, a State is primarily defined by natural territory. Oppenheim claimed that 'a State without (natural) territory is not possible'. In contrast, Gottmann's instructive approach urges a transition from viewing geographical spaces in a vacuum to understanding the relationship they share with human existence. The article explores the potential of artificial islands such as Hulhumalé in the Maldives as a climate adaptation and human resettlement strategy and their long-term legal identity in international affairs. The article aims to answer two questions: first, what is the role of human inhabitation in the characterisation of geographical spaces as 'natural' in international affairs? and, second, why and how do the definitions around artificial islands need to be revisited amidst contemporary conditions of climate change to offset the normative costs being borne by low-lying atoll States? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As of 2020, close to 1 billion people are living with mental disorders. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed and intensified the shortcomings in guaranteeing the right to mental health, particularly of the marginalized. The article discusses the international human rights framework with the endeavour of highlighting the non-derogability of the right and the obligations imposed on States in pursuance of it. By discussing the Indian experience the article exemplifies that, despite greater normative clarity, practice has not been brought into conformity in most States, resulting in pre-existing lacunae being amplified during the pandemic. The article proceeds to outline recommendations for States to consider by treating India as a global reference. The overarching conclusion is that while the pandemic has made it even more apparent that the implementation of the rights-framework is deficient, it has also provided an opportunity to advance which can only be availed by operationalizing this framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]