Papers by Dr. Mohammad Ali Hasan
Journal of Law and Legal Reform , 2023
Upon being captured or held captive, an enemy combatant is subjected to
‘POW’ status and hence en... more Upon being captured or held captive, an enemy combatant is subjected to
‘POW’ status and hence enjoys certain rights and protections based on the
Geneva Conventions. Even throughout the period the combatant is in
prison awaiting trial, he/she is to receive humane treatment from the State
or belligerent party which has captured him/her as a suspect during the
war. However, a complication arises with the differentiation of the term ‘enemy combatant’, which applies to both ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful
combatants’. While lawful combatants are automatically considered to
receive ‘prisoners of war’ status regarding unlawful combatants, giving
them a similar classification is frowned upon. As a result, the captured
combatants are exposed to not receiving any rights that a POW may
receive. The term itself has no official existence in the Geneva Conventions
documents but is often used in other writings and has become a matter of
debate. Unfortunately, the expression to address the ones who have taken
part in an armed conflict illegally has made them vulnerable to cruel
punishments and inhuman treatment while in the custody of the enemy.
The question is, should that be the case that a person who has been
captured during wartime and is suspected or proven to be taking part in
hostile activity not be considered a POW or at least receive proper
protection just because the Geneva Conventions do not mention the term
in particular? This research paper discusses the discrimination made
between lawful and unlawful combatants.
International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 2021
The international commercial arbitration system has been gaining quite some popularity in the pre... more The international commercial arbitration system has been gaining quite some popularity in the present times. The methods of dispute resolution that it provides namely the ad-hoc and institutional arbitration systems are two most accepted methods. However, both of these comes with their own advantages and disadvantages, so a debate is sure to ignite on which one is the better method of arbitration when it comes to international commercial disputes. This paper aims to address that issue and tries to find out, which one in fact is the sensible method to choose between the two to resolve a dispute in the field of international commercial arbitration. The paper compares the advantages and disadvantages of the two methods in order to reach to a definite outcome. It also tries to identify the problems that an ad-hoc arbitration contains within its mechanisms.
Int. J. Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, 2021
The freedom of association and collective bargaining are documented human rights as well as labou... more The freedom of association and collective bargaining are documented human rights as well as labour rights. Evidently, violation of one affects the other as they are interconnected. So if the right to freedom of association and collective bargaining are denied to a worker, it simultaneously violates provisions of human rights. Although these rights are parallel, regrettably a division between them still exists. The primary aim of labour rights is to ensure proper treatment of workers at the workplace. This approach loses value when it is yet to be determined whether it is equivalent to human rights or not. This research takes a twofold approach towards proving that labour rights and human rights are in fact the same and should not be separated. Also it aims to show how violation of right to freedom of association and collective bargaining is also violating both labour and human rights.
TEST Engineering & Management, 2020
In recent times the need for the protection of environment from pollution is more important than ... more In recent times the need for the protection of environment from pollution is more important than ever. With the ever rising industries and factories around the world some states are contributing to the pollution heavily and some are being the victims to such pollution. In order to have protection from such pollution any measure which resembles a solid shield cannot be taken, but what can be taken as a measurement is going through the laws to protect the States from being unethically subjected to pollution of others. In order to provide such safeguard and compensation from such pollution there is International Environmental Law (IEL) and the principles of it. The principles of International Environmental Law are fundamental in defending the rights of the countries from being subject to trans-boundary environmental degradation. But what about the national legislations of the countries and do they give recognition to the principles of International Environmental Law? The question is pretty tricky to answer with one solid reply. This paper attempts to look into the root of these questions basing the perspective focusing on the South Asian region. This research mostly focuses on a specific principle of IEL the „Polluter Pays Principle‟ and tries to find out the application of this principle in different legislations of South Asian Countries. Also through this research the different legal systems of the region, concerning the environment are compared with the Bangladeshi perspective of this principle. The situation of this principle in the Bangladeshi legal context is also analyzed and suggestions has been given on how to improve such situation based on comparison with other countries.
Uploads
Papers by Dr. Mohammad Ali Hasan
‘POW’ status and hence enjoys certain rights and protections based on the
Geneva Conventions. Even throughout the period the combatant is in
prison awaiting trial, he/she is to receive humane treatment from the State
or belligerent party which has captured him/her as a suspect during the
war. However, a complication arises with the differentiation of the term ‘enemy combatant’, which applies to both ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful
combatants’. While lawful combatants are automatically considered to
receive ‘prisoners of war’ status regarding unlawful combatants, giving
them a similar classification is frowned upon. As a result, the captured
combatants are exposed to not receiving any rights that a POW may
receive. The term itself has no official existence in the Geneva Conventions
documents but is often used in other writings and has become a matter of
debate. Unfortunately, the expression to address the ones who have taken
part in an armed conflict illegally has made them vulnerable to cruel
punishments and inhuman treatment while in the custody of the enemy.
The question is, should that be the case that a person who has been
captured during wartime and is suspected or proven to be taking part in
hostile activity not be considered a POW or at least receive proper
protection just because the Geneva Conventions do not mention the term
in particular? This research paper discusses the discrimination made
between lawful and unlawful combatants.