It is a privilege for me to be invited to the world's largest democracy and to be able to address such a distinguished audience on this unique event. I take this opportunity to thank, on behalf of myself and on behalf of my wife who is present here, Mr.Shri Judish Gandhi and his colleagues at the CMS for enabling us to identify imperatives and formulate action plans on this vital concern which is the safeguard of the future of world's two billion children and generations yet to be born. I feel very honored to be a participant in a conference aiming to protect and defend the rights of children and to make this world a better place for our children of today and the adults of tomorrow.

Children are the nations' assets and the future of any country depends upon the right upbringing of its children. Nevertheless, violations of the rights of child represent a common occurrence in many parts of the world.

The regime of international protection of the rights of children initiated in the beginning of the 20th century and culminated in the convention on the rights of the child in 1989 was not successful in combating torture, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of children, their disappearances, excessive work and labour, prostitution, sexual abuse and slavery. Children also form a significant proportion of the global refugee or stateless population. Millions of children around the world are at serious risk of starvation and malnutrition.

I have been asked by the organizers of this conference to elaborate on the theme of empowering the international court of justice (ICJ) to safeguard the future of the world's two billion children and generations yet to be born, I respond as follows:

The ICJ is the "principal judicial organ of the UN" and its statute is an integrated part of the Charter. It currently is the only general, universal and permanent judicial institution for the peaceful settlement of international disputes between states; but it is no more than a mechanism available for states to the extent that they wish to make use of it.

The contentious jurisdiction of the court derives from the consent of the states parties in dispute. This consent may take different forms: states may agree by special agreement to submit an already specific dispute to the court. They can give their consent to the jurisdiction of the court by treaties, which contain co-promissory clauses providing for recourse to the court in the event of disputes.

States may also accept the courts' jurisdiction by way of a simple Declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory (Article 36/2 of the statute of the court). These declarations of acceptance of the court jurisdiction have been filed by only sixty states, and of the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration.

Reservations are found in most declarations, which means that the court's jurisdiction over a case is restricted to those disputes that states have not excluded from its jurisdiction.

The court jurisdiction is restricted to legal disputes; however, no dispute has ever been rejected because it involved non-legal issues.

It is noteworthy that in several cases the court experienced the phenomenon of the 'non-appearing' defendant. On the other hand, the majority (not all) of ICJ awards are compiled with by the parties.

The advisory jurisdiction is dependant on a request brought forth by a number of organs including the General Assembly, the Security Council and specialized agencies.

Only states can appear into a contentious case before the Court. Individuals are not authorized to bring claims against a state alleging violations of their human rights to the ICJ, and the only mean available for them to do so is to persuade the government of their state to resort to diplomatic protection on behalf of them. In this case, the state is still the sole judge and decides whether its protection will be granted, to what extent it is granted and when it ceases.

Nevertheless, developing human rights jurisprudence emerged from the ICJ. Among judgments and advisory opinions where the Court has expanded on the jurisprudence of international human rights law, reference could be made, in this regard, to the reservation to the Genocide Convention case (1951), the Barcelona Traction case (1964), the Namibia case (1970),the Teheran Hostages case (1980),the East Timor case (1995),the application of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide case (2001), and the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory case (2004).

Despite restrictions on the role the Court can play, it is undeniable that it has made a significant contribution to the settlement of disputes and thus the maintenance of international peace and in development of international law, and all in all, the prospects for the future role of the Court are encouraging. Following the South West Africa cases in 1966, which had a devastating effect on the courts' reputation with the developing countries, less and less states seemed inclined to bring their disputes before the Court. In the 1990, and the confidence of the developing countries in the Court increases after the Nicaragua case and today the Court is busier than it has ever been before. More and more disputes are submitted to the ICJ and this is not only by western countries as it was before, but by states belonging to the different regions of the world.

equests for advisory opinions are also increasing and there are signs of overload and the need now is to ensure that the Court can cope with all the cases referred to it.
Moreover, the ICJ is no longer the only player in the scene and there has been in recent years a marked growth in the number of permanent and ad hoc courts and tribunals. The new permanent international criminal court is authorized to consider specific aspects of child rights as it qualifies the conscription or enlisting of children under 15 years of age into armed forces of groups using them to participate actively in hostilities as a crime.

Today, International law has within its ambit issues traditionally regarded as being exclusively within a states, domestic jurisdiction, such as the treatment of one's own nationals. States always acknowledge international law and some states refer to it in their national constitutions as India did in Article 51 of its constitution.

International law should deal with several challenges humanity faces today such as international terrorism, environmental degradation, poverty and trafficking in persons. The first challenge is endangering the very existence of humankind and should be curbed only by international law not by any state or states claiming that they have the right to act as international policemen.

I conclude by saying that all nations share the same basic values. In my region of the world many genuine efforts are been made towards democratic reform and modernization is taking place. Human Rights are incorporated in the highest norms of the legal hierarchy in the Arab countries and some Arab constitutions provide for an obligation to observe human rights as internationally agreed upon.

Islam is supportive of human right standards and the Muslim world is not alone to experience a conflict between the exigencies of international human rights on one hand and some fundamental characteristics of a particular society on the other.

Although regional conflicts must not be an obstacle for reforms, there is no doubt that the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the situation in Iraq are important elements not only for peace and security in the region and the whole world, but also important factors for the success of any process of democratization and reform in the region.