Christopher Weeramantry

(2007, Sri Lanka)

... for his lifetime of groundbreaking work to strengthen and expand the rule of international law.

About

Christopher Weeramantry is a world-renowned legal scholar and a former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice, who has played a crucial role in strengthening and expanding the rule of international law. His work demonstrates how international law can be used to address current global challenges such as the continued threat of nuclear weapons, the protection of human rights and the protection of the environment. 

Contact Details

Judge Christopher Weeramantry
5/1 Roland Tower
Dharmaraja Mawatha
Colombo 3
SRI LANKA

Fax: +94 11 472 0480

Website

Biography

Career

Christopher Weeramantry was born in Sri Lanka in 1926 and studied at universities in Colombo and London, earning a higher doctorate in laws (LL.D.) from London University. He became a judge in the Sri Lanka Supreme Court in 1967. In 1972, he moved to Australia to be Professor of Law at Monash University, Melbourne (until 1991). In Australia his writings led to the initiation of the annual Law Week, where numerous events are organised for members of the legal profession to discuss with and explain their work to the public.

Weeramantry has held Visiting Professorships in many countries. He is chair of the international council of the Institute of Sustainable Development at McGill University in Canada, President of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and Chairman of the International Chief Justices Working Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity.

During the 1980s, Weeramantry became prominent in helping to unravel international disputes, notably as chair of the Nauru Commission of Inquiry from 1987-88. The Commission was set up by the government of Nauru to investigate responsibility under international law for rehabilitation of the phosphate lands of Nauru, which had been ruined during international trusteeship.

Nuclear weapons have always been a particular concern of his. His book Nuclear Weapons and Scientific Responsibility (1987) has been widely translated and is the major text on the legal responsibilities of nuclear scientists. 

Weeramantry was elected to fill the Asian seat on the International Court of Justice in 1990 and was elected by his colleagues as their Vice-President in 1997, while still a first term member of the court. He retired from the court in 2000, having presided over many cases, including the Lockerbie case.
Weeramantry won the UNESCO Prize for Peace Education in 2006.
In 2008, the Lifetime Achievement Award of The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy was conferred on Weeramantry. He is also a councillor of the World Future Council. 

The illegality of nuclear weapons

When the International Court of Justice made its decision on nuclear weapons in 1996, Weeramantry was a dissenting voice. He strongly disagreed with the majority's decision to leave undetermined the legality of one area of the use of nuclear weapons - nuclear weapons in self-defence when the survival of the state was at stake. His dissenting opinion recognised that this exception would in practice be widely used by the nuclear weapon states, and he categorically asserted their illegality "in any circumstances whatsoever". 

His book-length exposition of international law in this, one of the most important cases in the history of the International Court of Justice, is regarded as his crowning achievement. "The threat and use of nuclear weapons", he says in his opening paragraph, "contradicts the fundamental principle of the dignity and worth of the human person on which all law depends. It violates the fundamental principles of international law, and represents the very negation of the humanitarian concerns which underlie the structure of humanitarian law." 

A global legal scholar and pioneer

Weeramantry has also focused on other areas of cutting-edge jurisprudence, where social questions and theology and philosophy meet, e.g. the impact of technology on human rights, or the environmental principles in international law. According to Weeramantry, international law is "mono-cultural and Euro-centred". He has shown that international law has many other roots. The first writers of systematic texts on international law were the Islamic writers in the 8th century. So Weeramantry has written about Islamic jurisprudence and has repeatedly cited old religious principles as customary law in his judgements. In his book The Lord's Prayer: Bridge to a Better World, he shows how over a hundred principles of human rights and international law lie embedded in the Lord's Prayer.

Weeramantry is still extraordinarily active, travelling widely all over the world to give keynote speeches at major conferences. A book published in association with McGill University's Centre for International Sustainable Development is called Sustainable Justice: Reconciling Economic, Social and Environmental Law, and charts how the concept of sustainable development is becoming important in international law. His book Armageddon or Brave New World: Reflections on the Hostilities in Iraq (2003) was one of the first books to appear on the legal implications of the Iraq War. In this book, Weeramantry makes a very powerful case that humanity will either step back from the error of the Iraq War and reaffirm the essential importance of the UN and the rule of international law, or it will slide into further unilateral wars, and, ultimately, nuclear catastrophe. A second edition was published in 2005.

Another book, Xenotransplantation: The Legal & Ethical Aspects, just published, embodies research done for the Medical Faculty of Harvard University. It deals with the possible dangers to global human rights of the new technique of transplanting animal organs into human bodies.

The Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education and Research

Christopher Weeramantry set up the Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education and Research in Sri Lanka in 2001. It rests on the three pillars of Peace Education, Cross Cultural Understanding and International Law as an Instrument of Peace. The work of the Centre covers all these aspects both locally and globally. In Sri Lanka, the Centre holds camps for school children and university students from different Sri Lankan backgrounds, in order to foster inter-cultural understanding. It also conducts lectures and seminars on these topics, sometimes by itself and sometimes in association with organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Centre has also produced detailed reports for the Sri Lankan Law Reform Commission on both the protection of witnesses and the compensation of victims of crime and terrorism. 

Weeramantry's most recent campaign: A new World Court Judgement
In its 1996 judgement, the International Court of Justice ruled that nuclear weapon states have an obligation under international law to continue and to conclude negotiations leading to the abandonment of nuclear weapons. Weeramantry is currently working on another case to bring back various aspects of these issues to the International Court, including the violation by nuclear weapons states of their obligations as set out by the Court.

Speeches

Acceptance Speech by Judge Christopher Weeramantry

December 7th, 2007

Madam Speaker, honourable guests, Members of the Swedish Parliament, ladies and gentlemen,

I am delighted to be one of the recipients of the Right Livelihood Award for 2007. The receipt of this prestigious award gives me much encouragement to pursue the various areas of service-oriented activity which I have pursued over the past 50 years.

The most urgent challenges facing us today often do not receive the attention they deserve, because the public are not sufficiently sensitized to them and hence remain uninvolved. I have sought to do what I can to bring these issues to the public along with the information necessary to stimulate more interest. 

Among these topics to which I have devoted my attention are 

  1. The illegality of nuclear weapons. It is not commonly known that at least 15 basic principles of international law, achieved through the sacrifice of millions of lives, are absolutely violated by the nuclear weapon. Through my Opinions on the International Court of Justice, through numerous books and articles and through my later Presidency of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) I have sought to explain these principles.
  2. Universalizing international law and making it more acceptable internationally. International law has been cast largely in a monocultural, Eurocentric mould but needs to be broadened so as to take in the wisdom of all the world's cultures. This is a vast reservoir of inspiration which, when drawn upon, will make international law a truly international system, thus increasing its world-wide acceptance and authority.
  3. Seeking to resolve the mutual lack of understanding between the worlds of Islam and Christianity. There is a total unawareness on each side of the richness and inspirational value of the other and in fact a tendency, born of ignorance, to deride the other. This is one of the most powerful sources of potential future conflicts and needs to be urgently addressed.
  4. Peace Education to all levels of the public from schoolchildren right up to the judiciary. There is a vast amount of unawareness of the work of the great peace philosophers of the past, of the peace movements and of the peace conferences. When this knowledge is more generally available there will be a great increase in peace-related activity on the part of the general public.
  5. Science and scientists the world over are racing out of legal control with resulting damage to many aspects of human rights and human dignity. Science careering uncontrolled is one of the greatest dangers that humanity faces in this technological age. I have written several books on these dangers and also conducted for the UN University, a 2-volume study on the positive and negative effects of scientific developments, which was requested by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
  6. Probing the causes of the rich world / poor world dichotomy, and devising ways of promoting better understanding of the problems of the developing world. This also involves a study of the legacies of colonialism and the ways in which they can be corrected. The growing disparity between North and South is a potential cause of major conflicts in the future.
  7. Sustainable development. How can the world's repositories of ancient wisdom be harnessed to strike a balance between the needs of development and the needs of environmental protection. I have referred to this at length in my Opinions in the International Court of Justice and I am presently conducting a detailed study of this topic for the World Future Council.
  8. Racial Discrimination including a detailed study of Apartheid at its height and of the ways of countering it. This work, published in 1986, was immediately banned in South Africa but was secretly reprinted twice by the resistance movement and made some contribution to the struggle against apartheid.
  9. Judicial education. The judiciary throughout the world often lacks sufficient awareness of international law and comparative law and this needs to be remedied through continuing legal education and the evolution of codes of judicial ethics. I have been Chairman of a committee of global judges which has worked out a comprehensive code of ethics for the global judiciary.
  10. Legal professions need to be weaned away from their exclusiveness and remoteness from the people they serve. I have written extensively on this subject and this has resulted in the institution of a Law Day or Law Week in various countries including Australia and Sri Lanka, during which the legal profession goes out into schools and public places to explain the legal system to the general public.
  11. Exploring the common core of all the religions. They all teach the same fundamental values and concepts - peace, human dignity, the unity of the human family, environmental protection, the peaceful settlement of disputes, assistance to those in need, avoidance of waste, greed and ostentation.
  12. Exploring the relationship between religious teachings and peace. Lip service is often paid to religions but religious teachings on peace are not practised by those who profess to follow the various religions.


I have through some of the approaches outlined above, sought to make the legal systems both national and international a more effective instrument for the achievement of equality, peace and justice.

There is a vast amount of suffering, injustice, inequality, oppression discrimination and privation in the world today resulting from lack of attention to these aspects. This is paradoxical in an age in which

  • production has progressed to the level where it can provide a life of comfort and plenty for every citizen on the planet
  • democracy and human rights have progressed theoretically to a level of universal acceptance never realized in world history before
  • communication between people in every corner of the world has become instantaneous and easier than ever before
  • technology has advanced to the level where it can provide effective solutions to most of the problems we face
  • knowledge of people's hardships and needs has become more easily available than ever before
  • legal systems have developed to the point where they cover every form of human activity


In short, the gulf between law and reality, between professions of good intentions and the practice of them, between what is proclaimed in the books and what is practised in the field has grown to abysmal proportions.

I have sought to address these problems through the medium of the law, by seeking to advance the sensitivity of lawyers to their social responsibilities and to divert attention from the letter of the law to the spirit and principles lying behind the letter of the law.

This has involved me in many locations of inquiry and many fields of interdisciplinary research, exploring the much neglected interface area between law and practically every other discipline - philosophy, theology, semantics, economics, physics, chemistry, medicine and many others.

My work has thus taken me to various locations such as South Africa to study apartheid, to Nauru to study environmental exploitation, and to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to study the impact of modern weaponry.

In around 25 books I have tried to explain in popular language what lawyers and the public can do in all these areas, ranging from nuclear weapons to apartheid, and from medical ethics to trusteeship responsibilities under international law. I have delivered addresses on these topics in over 40 countries and written over 200 articles and chapters in books.

I have also written a series of Separate and Dissenting Opinions in the International Court of Justice, seeking to make international law a more universal discipline. These Opinions also provide the basis for informed discussion on such topics as the illegality of nuclear weaponry, the nature of equity in international law and the implications of the important concept of sustainable development.

In short, my work has been wide and varied but it has been on the central theme of using all the disciplines, in combination with the law, to improve the lot of the vast majority of the citizens of the world and to avoid the causes of future conflict which can, in this nuclear age, threaten the very future of civilisation.

Thank you

  Pictures
 Videos

Christopher Weeramantry at Global Movement of Moderates

Judge Weeramantry talks about the International Court of Justice

Interviews

Interview with Judge Weeramantry

Questions asked in 2007

Q: What did you feel when your fellow judges of the International Court of Justice ruled in favour of the legality of using nuclear weapons in self-defence, when the survival of the state was at stake?

A: The majority of the judges of the International Court did not rule in favour of the legality of using nuclear weapons in self-defence when the survival of the state was at stake. What they did was to leave this question open without a determination one way or the other and to affirm the illegality of nuclear weapons in all other circumstances. My disagreement with them was that I did not want to leave any space whatsoever for the use of nuclear weapons.

My feeling on this matter was that if the slightest opening was left for the nuclear powers to argue that the weapon could ever be used legally, this would give them an excuse for retaining their arsenals and this would effectively prevent the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

After all, any use of a nuclear weapon in any circumstance whatsoever violates every rule of humanitarian law that has been evolved, after centuries of warfare and the sacrifice of millions of lives. No argument whatsoever could justify the indiscriminate killing of vast numbers of the population including women and children and the aged and infirm, the elimination of all historical and archaeological treasures, the pollution of earth, air and water for tens of thousands of years and the elimination of all forms of life in the area affected. Genetically it could produce adverse effects for untold generations to come. The possible escalation of the conflict, with nuclear weapons being used in retaliation as could not happen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the creation of a nuclear winter with the blocking out of sunlight owing to the nuclear debris and the possible elimination of all life on Earth are other consequences which must be kept constantly in mind.
    
No circumstances whatsoever could justify this and humanity is doomed unless this question mark hanging over its future is removed. Total prohibition in all circumstances whatsoever was required to achieve this and that is why I was so strong in my affirmation of total illegality in all circumstances.


Q: Are nuclear weapon states criminal states?
 
A: The use of nuclear weapons offends all the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. Should the world order survive after the use of a nuclear weapon and should the use of the nuclear weapon become thereafter a matter for judicial decision, the states using the nuclear weapons would no doubt be found to have committed a criminal act. One assumes of course that the tribunal would not be one which will be set up by the victorious states (if they should survive) to try the vanquished but an independent and impartial tribunal. The self-defence argument, which may be valid in a court considering the conduct of an individual, does not hold where the act of self defence causes death and destruction to third parties, kills vast numbers of innocent bystanders, damages generations yet unborn, and causes irreversible environmental devastation. It would be criminal also in the sense that it would be a crime against future generations.

Nuclear states equip themselves with nuclear weapons and maintain their arsenals on the basis that this acts as a deterrent, and they disclaim the intention to use them. However a careful analysis of this argument shows that, whatever their affirmations, their intention is to use a nuclear weapon should the occasion arise. I repeat that a state which uses nuclear weapons in any circumstances whatsoever will inevitably be the perpetrator of what will possibly be the greatest acts of criminality ever known in the history of mankind.

Should they use it they would have committed an absolutely criminal act. So long as they do not use it they have not reached this situation. But if they mean to use it should a situation arise, they intend to commit an undoubtedly criminal act. However intention by itself without the accompanying act is not criminal. In legalistic language this would not be criminal but in the language of morality and ethics it would be highly capable to honour and work on an intention to commit a criminal act.

Moreover the maintenance of a nuclear arsenal involves the construction, refinement and testing of such weapons before their actual use. This causes environmental damage both present and potential, which can last for thousands of years. This is indeed an act which causes actual damage and is therefore culpable both morally and legally.
    
It is said that previous conquerors like Attila and Jenghiz Khan used to proclaim that not even a dog or cat or mouse would be left alive when they destroyed the cities which defied them. Our generation with the nuclear weapon in its hand is far more brutal and primitive than any of those conquerors of the past, however barbaric they might have been. We will carry our cruelty much further than they ever did for we would eliminate every trace of life down to the humblest worm and ant and insect in any territory that defies us. This would exceed any of the items in the "dark lamentable catalogue of human crime".


Q: How strong do you perceive the rule of international law and the influence of the International Court of Justice in world politics?

A: International law can be the strongest weapon for the establishment of the International Rule of Law, if only the nations of the world, especially the most powerful nations, give it due recognition. What is lacking is a general awareness on the part of the people of the world of the importance and potential of international law as this is a grossly neglected subject in all educational curricula. This is what I am striving to remedy, because a citizenry who are aware of the importance of international law will not allow their leaders to flaunt it as they currently do.

I could give you numerous instances of international law and the International Court avoiding armed conflict but these are never highlighted in the media nor are the occasions highlighted when judgements of the International Court are obeyed even by states with powerful armies. For example, in the case of Libya v Chad, the Court in effect ruled that the powerful Libyan army should withdraw from a territory known as the Aouzou strip. The Libyan army in compliance with international law duly respected the order and vacated the territory, although the International Court did not have a single soldier at its disposal to enforce its decree. The international press scarcely mentioned this though there would have been blazing headlines if Libya had violated the court order.
 

Q: Have you ever regarded yourself not only as a judge but a politician, too?
 
A: As a judge, I have attempted to the best of my ability to follow the law and expand its scope of operation so as to make it a more effective instrument of international justice. Some politicians also strive to achieve a world of justice through their political actions. Both law and politics aim to achieve the advancement of the human condition towards the rule of justice. There may often be objectives that are common to law and politics. Whatever I have done as a judge has always been within the scope of the law as I understand it.

Lawyers and judges have their own sphere of activity and politicians have theirs and in an ideal world they would both strive by different means to reach their common objective of promoting human welfare.


Q: What judicial decision do you regard as the most important one?

A: I would think that the decision the Court was asked to make by the General Assembly on the illegality of nuclear weapons was the most important decision the Court was ever asked to make. This is because it involved the entire future of humanity and civilisation. At the same time there are numerous other decisions, as for example decisions on sustainable development and the powers of the Security Council, which are of great importance. Several potential wars have been averted through decisions of the Court.

In relation to the nuclear weapons case, it generated such world wide interest that the Court received petitions and memorials signed by so many millions of signatories that we had no room in our storage facilities to accommodate them. Many of them had to be housed elsewhere. Furthermore, a larger number of states took part in the active proceedings than in any other case in the court's history.


Q: You state that international law has - often ancient - roots in many countries. Could you give us some examples?

A: International law is not a modern construct. Nor is it the product of any one civilisation. Ever since civilisation began, it has been the subject of thought by the great thinkers of each age and from at least four or five thousand years ago they have visualised a world community of nations living under an overarching system of law to which all states and rules were expected to conform.

In the nuclear weapons case, for example, I was able to support my argument of illegality by drawing upon the teaching of Hindu law over four thousand years ago which had decreed that a hyper destructive weapon which could ravage the enemy's countryside and destroy large sections of its population could not be used in war because it went beyond the purposes of war. War is intended to subjugate one's enemy and live in peace with him thereafter, not to ravage his countryside and to destroy his population. This was the advice given to the Indian prince Rama, when Rama's generals advised him of the availability of such a weapon and accordingly he did not use it. Elaborate rules of conduct in warfare and duties of rulers in peace time existed in the Hindu law books.

Likewise in the world of Islam there was much thought and writing about what we would today call international law - the treatment of prisoners of war, conduct on the battlefield, the sanctity of treaties, the privileged position of diplomats and the likes. All of these were elaborately discussed on the basis of the Holy Qu'ran and the numerous traditions of the Prophet Mohamed known as the Hadiths, dealing with these matters. These were assembled in treatises on international law by writers like Al Shaibani which appeared around eight centuries before the work of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated Dutch Jurist whose great work on War and Peace in 1625 is often considered to be the point of commencement of modern international law.

An important part of modern international law is the law relating to sustainable development. In this area, the wisdom of conservation of the environment for the benefit of future generations has been very closely worked out and observed in numerous ancient cultures, for example, the culture of the native Australians going back thirty or forty thousand years showed a deep respect and reverence for the environment and for Mother Earth which sustains us all. If the environment prospers, the community prospers with it and if the environment is damaged, the community is damaged. Elaborate rules were worked out for the protection and custody of the environment. Likewise the Native Americans had worked out the principle that no important decision relating to the environment could be taken without considering the interests of seven generations to come. Decisions which neglect these perspectives are lop-sided decisions, and traditions to this effect are to be found in ancient cultures wherever one may turn.


Q: Where might the perspective of a Sri Lanka judge differ from those of a western judge? (How international is international law?)

A: The perspectives of a Sri Lankan judge differs from those of a Western judge mainly owing to the cross-cultural perspectives which the Sri Lankan judge is so immersed in.

In Sri Lanka we grow up in the midst of four major religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which have substantial segments of the population as their followers. Consequently we grow up imbibing their culture and participating in their festivals and enjoying each other's fellowship as neighbours. A Western judge tends largely to grow up in a mono-cultural setting and does not in general have this diversity of background.

When it comes to administering the law this diversity of background gives the Sri Lankan judge the advantage of a great deal of tradition and cross-cultural perspectives.

Some western judges do indeed have this but they are in a distinct minority.

To my way of thinking the law can be greatly advanced especially to suit the needs of the 21st century, when we are moving in the direction of being global citizens with common problems such as the environment, common aspirations for a peaceful world and a set of universally shared values. This diversity of background can assist greatly in enriching the law.


Q: What are the obstacles you have had to overcome?

 
A: One encounters obstacles at all stages of one's career. There are many obstacles a young lawyer encounters which of course are common to young lawyers across the world. Many of them can be overcome by determination, integrity and hard work but of course there is the chance element in all of this.

However, when one crosses from the domestic stage to the international, there are numerous problems one encounters especially if one comes from a small country like Sri Lanka. The rest of the world often has the impression that it is the large countries that should take the lead note in international affairs and representatives of smaller countries attempting to enter this arena encounter much resistance. It requires hard work and much multi-cultural understanding to overcome this barrier. But when it is overcome, there is much appreciation of the different perspectives one can open up from the standpoint of a small country in the developing world - a perspective not often seen by those in a privileged position.

Especially in seeking election to the International Court of Justice, there are many problems that one encounters as it is often assumed that the two or three places available on the court for one's region should go to the larger countries in the region. However these can all be overcome but here as well there is an important element of chance and other factors which could affect the result.


Q: What are the flaws in our international law system?
 
A: It is true that the international legal system does not have an enforcement system backed by military force. Yet this would not be a weakness if there is sufficient desire on the part of the world community to comply with what is deemed obligatory on all members of the world community.

Already there is the well accepted principle that treaties are sacred and this has led to the widespread acceptance of the fact that no country likes to be seen as a treaty breaker. If there is more general respect for international law, the same would apply to all departments of international law and no country would like to be seen as a violator of international law.

We can never have an international system where international law is strong enough in a physical sense to impose its will on the powerful sovereign states of the world, for international law can never command an army more powerful than theirs. It is through the build up of the moral strength of international law that this result can be achieved.

One of the weaknesses of modern international law is that it tends to be mono-cultural and Eurocentric. It has not taken enough note of the deep roots which its fundamental principles have in all the major cultural traditions of the world.

International law needs therefore to be universalised and I have devoted much effort to doing what I can to universalise international law and enrich it by making it more receptive to the varied cultural traditions of the world. At the same time this makes it more acceptable to the entire world community.


Q: Your Co-Laureate Percy Schmeiser is fighting a legal battle. Do you think patents of life and the abusive practices of corporations like Monsanto with their devastating effects on farmers especially in 3rd World Countries could become a case at the International Court of Justice, setting an example for the whole world? 

A: Practices which have a devastating effect on farmers, on the quality of life, on the environment, and on future generations are eminently justiciable cases.


Q: Who could bring up a case like this? 

A: The International Court of Justice can only be approached either through a claim by one nation state against another, or through a request for an advisory opinion.

It might be possible in certain cases to have a state affected by these practices appearing as the complainant against the state which permits and encourages such practices. Having regard to the way developing countries are affected by this sort of activity that may not be impossible especially if the activity has the support and approval of the host state of the perpetrator.

More importantly however an available procedure would be for these affected to interest a body like the General Assembly or the World Health Organisation sufficiently to induce them to bring the matter before the international court in the form of a request for an advisory opinion. It was in this way that the question of legality of the use of nuclear weapons was brought before the International Court.

The experience of those who have used this procedure has been however that a reference such as this requires a long process of lobbying to interest the organisation sufficiently to take the cause before the International Court.

It will be through procedures such as the above that the Court can be approached as the Court ha no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute between private parties.

Publications

Books

Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future, Stamford Lake, 2010.

Xenotransplantation: The Ethical and Legal Concerns. Sarvodaya Vishva Lekha, 2007.

Islamic Influences on International Philosophy and Law. Sarvodaya 2006.

A Call for National Reawakening. Stamford Lake, 2005.

Armageddon or Brave New World? Reflections On The Hostilities in Iraq. 2nd Edition, Sarvodaya, 2005.

Sustainable Justice: Reconciling Economic, Social and Environmental Law
. With Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger. Martinus Nijhoff, 2005.

Universalizing International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, 2004.

The World Court, Its Conception, Constitution and Contribution. Sarvodaya, 2002.

Justice Without Frontiers, Vol II: Protecting Human Rights in the Age of Technology. Kluwer Law International, 1999.

The Lord's Prayer: Bridge to a Better World. Liguori Publications, 1998 (also in Spanish and German). Reprinted Sarvodaya ,1998.

Justice Without Frontiers. Vol I: Furthering Human Rights
. Kluwer Law International, 1997.

Impact of Technology on Human Rights: Global Case Studies. United Nations University Press, 1993 - work edited for and commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the United Nations University.

Nauru: Environmental Damage under International Trusteeship. Oxford University Press, 1992.

Human Rights and Scientific and Technological Development. United Nations University Press, 1990 - work edited for and commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Commission and the United Nations University to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Islamic Jurisprudence: Some International Perspectives. Macmillans, London and St. Martin's Press, New York, 1988. Reprinted Sarvodaya, 2002.

Nuclear Weapons and Scientific Responsibility. Longwood Academic, New Hampshire, 1987 (also in Japanese, published by Chuo University Press, Tokyo). Reprinted Sarvodaya, 1999.

Law: The Threatened Peripheries. Lake House, Colombo, 1984.

The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology. Penguin, Melbourne, 1983.

An Invitation to the Law. Butterworths, Melbourne, 1980. Reprinted Sarvodaya 2007.

Apartheid: The Closing Phases? Lantana, Melbourne, 1980.

Human Rights in Japan. Lantana, Melbourne, 1979.

Equality and Freedom: Some Third World Perspectives. Hansa Publishers, Colombo 1976. Reprinted Sarvodaya, 1999.

The Law in Crisis: Bridges of Understanding. Capemoss, London 1975. Reprinted Sarvodaya , 2001.

The Law of Contracts. Being a Comparative Study of the Roman-Dutch, English and Customary Laws of Contract in Ceylon (2 Volumes, 1965), H.W. Cave & Co., Colombo 1967. Reprinted  1999.

Pocket booklets

Why the Nuclear Danger Grows from Day to Day, 2005.

Ahimsa ( Mahatma Gandhi's philosophy of non violence), 2005.

Links

Contact

Right Livelihood Award Foundation

Head office:
Stockholmsvägen 23
122 62 Enskede
Sweden

Phone: +46 (0)8 70 20 340
Fax: +46 (0)8 70 20 338

Geneva office:
Maison de la Paix
Chemin Eugène-Rigot 2, Building 5
1202 Geneva
Switzerland

Phone: +41 (0)22 555 09 55

E-mail: