Bosnia is yet to throw off the horrors of its past. But the citizens, especially youngsters, seem ready to embrace a new future.

Engagement at the talks table between the Colombo government and the Tamil Tigers was further bruised by two of the bloodiest incidents of the Sri Lankan conflict. Is a new ceasefire agreement possible, to replace the now-tattered one from 2002?

Working on a paper regarding South Asia and Genocide is treading on very shaky, mostly uncertain territory that has only limited scholarly exploration. Genocide as we know and understand it as a grave crime that threatens peace and security of a country or region and becomes a serious concern to the international community as a whole is not a phenomenon that has been experienced by the South Asian region – or so the debate would be. Then the question would be why talk about a region that is free of the evil and why not hail it as a model to pursue? Simply because it is not. The argument made in this paper is that South Asia is a boiling pot of violence, conflicts, targeted clashes, which center around incessant identity hostilities and aggression. Take any country in the South Asian region (Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) the conflicting/clashing parties and contributing factors might change but the violence is still centered on group – cultural, religious, ethnic, nationalistic – identities. As a prominent Indian journalist, Siddharth Varadarajan, clearly states in his paper on the need for transitional justice in South Asia demographic cleansing (as he calls it) is rife in the region . This includes forced migrations, internal displacement and targeted violence and killings on massive scales either instigated by state or non-state actors. Within this context, the need to study the probability and vulnerability of the region to Genocide or genocidal incidents becomes clear; especially in the light of the theme of the conference – ‘Responding to Genocide before it’s too late: Genocide Studies and Prevention’.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is the biggest achievement in the international sphere since the creation of the United Nations. But even in its teething years, the Court is in the spotlight and the time has come to prove its mettle. The test case is Darfur, Sudan, which was referred to the Court under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593. Several legal and academic observers have commented that the ICC needs Darfur more than Darfur needs the Court. Who needs whom and to what extent is a debate for another paper. This is a discussion and a critical analysis of the role of the International Criminal Court; not just in international criminal law but the larger geo- political international sphere. With the ICC looking at ‘serious’ human rights violations in situations of ongoing conflicts- Sudan, Uganda, Congo- this essay is speculating if the Court is assuming a far bigger role than what the draughtsmen had envisaged- that of conflict resolution or even conflict management; especially in the face of the changing nature of global security. Within these parameters, the issues addressed here will include whether the Court can handle the task of conflict resolution and prevention within its legal framework or is the Court being made a scapegoat by the UN and the international community to show that they are “doing something” when peace is threatened. Is it a case where the ICC is being garbed in the emperor’s new clothes?