A country stands strong when the laws are said to be sturdy. When autocracy grinds its way towards democracy, or let’s just say when there is the rule of law. It’s said so because there’s an elementary understanding that once the laws are made and dark written on those sheets, it is implemented. It is obeyed in its very core. Nepal, a nature surrounded land completed the era of monarchy and has landed within the concept of multiparty, prioritizing vested power on people.
Since then it has ratified a number of treaties, it has been signatory to a number of conventions, it even changed the whole functioning of the land from unitary system to federalism by structuring a small area into three more tiers. Despite all these efforts, pursuant to a report of 2019, Nepal has been ranked 113 out of 180 countries having a score of 34/100 for 100 being the least corrupt as declared by the transparency international.
Moreover despite the fact that Nepal has ratified 7 core human right treaties and has also ratified 3 optional protocols, Nepal has been ranked in tier 2 since decades pursuant to a report by the US department of State for the trafficking in persons in Nepal.
This position couldn’t be an option in the longer run as this would eventually affect the opportunity of foreign aids in Nepal and would indirectly affect the diplomacy between other countries. So as my topic announces, where are we lacking? I believe we are lacking in the originality. We are lacking in understanding the importance of ratifications. We are vexing to portray a fake picture in the international platform and that our deceits are being caught through these reports.
The constitution of Nepal 2072 has enlisted 31 fundamental rights. These rights include the rights that are ratified from the ICCPR convention. These include the right to food, right to education and other basic form of rights that an individual must be accounted to. In addition the right to dignity is the right provided in Article 16 of the constitution that forbids us from capital punishment and also provides us the privilege to live our life with dignity with respect to the elimination of all forms of discrimination. The right to equality is also a right provided by Article 18 of the constitution. The concept of constitutionalism, independence of judiciary, separation of powers are the materialised concept adopted in our constitution. Inclusiveness and reservation policies are strictly approved in our constitution in order to maintain equity.
Yet the adult female literacy rate has grown by just 0.8%in 2018 with respect to the report of 2011. Further the youth female literacy has gone down from 68.7 to 63.8 in the year of 2015 with respect to the year of 2011. So all these years what went wrong? Regardless of the tireless efforts our situation has not materialised and this is very much frustrating.
Every single thing in this world differs from one another. Every land and its functioning differs. A resolution that might be reasonable for someone could not be rational for somebody else. Similarly A elucidation that might work well for a country might not work well for the other country. From all those above sentences, all I am trying to convey is that rather than looking around the world and its work processes, we need to identify the originality of our country. We need to understand the results of a certain work in our country. We need to identify the best possible solution.
I personally believe that bringing federalism just complicated the whole nature. Countries like India and US that follow federalism have a large wide area and population. In order to properly function they adopted federalism. Federalism as a mindful concept is good and proper but not just for our country which has a small area and where maximum of the manpower leave for foreign businesses. The constitution of Nepal of 1990 was regarded as the best constitution till its history as it reflected originality and reality.
International resolutions are generally regarded as the soft law as it lacks sanctions. Many jurists as John Austin do not even regard international law as a law as it lacks sanctions. I believe it is a substantial law and that the domestic law always come above them.
I personally believe that ratification of those laws is a good step yet not a compulsory step. If a country has already provided those rights to their citizens, those ratifications aren’t needed. However those ratification do provide a basic concept of what is required and needed to be done. I personally believe that now is the time where Nepal needs to focus in its implementation and the extent. It should make sure that everyone is a party to those rights. This way diplomacy will take a new turn and development will call its way through.
By : Alangkrita Upadhayay