The Preamble of the UN Charter records the determination of the peoples of the United Nations 'to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war', reaffirming faith 'in the dignity and worth of the human person', and for these ends 'to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors'. This is the foundation for the modern concept of 'world is one family' in a 'global village'. Linkage of world peace with respect for human dignity-the essence of human rights-is established. The subsequent international instruments followed with this commitment for international cooperation with the state responsibility for protection of human rights within its territory through the rule of law.

Future generations comprise of the children, present and those yet to be born. The present population itself is largely young. Globalisation is shrinking physical distances but tends to increase the distance between hearts, in spite of the above commitment. The concept of citizenship of the world in a global village can be realized only by treating all the children as members of one family. The concern for the children everywhere should be universal in the international community. It must not be left to the national governments alone. The voice of the international community is the assurance to prevent failure of the national institutions to discharge their duty of protecting human rights.

II

Article 51 of the Constitution of India contains the directive for promotion of international peace and security. One of the state obligations therein is to 'foster respect for international law and treaty obligations…'. This delineates the relationship between international law and the Indian municipal law. The justiciable fundamental rights are consistent with the assurances in the international law. The Supreme Court of India has progressively read the non-justiciable directive principles into the justiciable fundamental rights to overcome the absence of specific domestic legislation incorporating international law into municipal law to make it enforceable by the national courts.

Thus, except to the extent of inconsistency, the international customary law has become a part of the domestic law enforceable by the national courts, even without specific legislation in that behalf. In India, the difficulty in enforcing international law to this extent has been obviated by judicial creativity. This process commenced with harmonious construction of the domestic law with international law, and has culminated with the decision in the Vishakha case (AIR 1997 SC 3011) holding that the international law can be used also for filling in the gaps and for expanding the scope of constitutional guarantees, except to the extent of any inconsistency between the two.

Articles 14, 21, 23 and 24 in the Indian Constitution have been judicially interpreted expansively to include therein all aspects of human dignity: equality, life with dignity, liberty, right to development, prohibition against human exploitation in any form, and safeguarding the children's rights etc. For this reason, the difficulty of enforcing the rights of the child under the international law in an international forum is not real in India.

III

The 'right to development' of every human person as a basic and inalienable human right is universally recognized, even if not universally honoured. Amartya Sen's thesis of 'development as freedom' is the justification for the aim to secure freedom, well-being and dignity of all people everywhere. Equal respect for the dignity of every individual in the human family is the goal of the human rights movement. Achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) is the answer.

The MDGs identify the core issues of global concern, which are the panacea for all the ills, and also the sure path to world peace. These are: poverty eradication, universal primary education, gender justice, reducing child and maternal mortality, improving maternal health, combating critical diseases, environmental sustainability, and forging global partnerships for development. Targets have also been set for the year 2015. We are already at the mid point, and still a lot remains to be done to achieve the targets.

It is significant that all the MDGs are of vital concern to the children who are the biggest stakeholders in its success, and the present generations are trustees to fulfill that trust. The doctrine of trust and intergenerational equity oblige the present generations to secure a better and livable world for the future generations. The threats posed by global warming and climate change demand urgent preventive measures of judicious consumption of the depleting natural resources with the developing and adopting of effective means to replenish them to save the planet earth. Scientific studies, including the recent report of the UN Panel (IPCC) indicate that concerted human effort with the needed commitment at an affordable cost can prevent the impending disaster. Global partnerships to achieve this result must be forged without loss of further time. This is our foremost duty towards the children, present and yet to be born.

Some other concerns for the protection of the future generations are: drug trafficking, terrorism and militancy, trafficking in women and children, and pedophilia. These are crimes against humanity and need to attract universal jurisdiction for the trial of these offences anywhere.

IV

Accountability is a facet of the rule of law, and the need is of an effective mechanism for its enforcement. The UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan had said in a letter dated 15 May 2000 to the Heads of States, that "expansion of the rule of law in international relations has been the foundation of much of the political, social and economic progress achieved in recent years"; and hailing the creation of the International Criminal Court, he said: "Impunity has been dealt a decisive blow. The time is at least coming when humanity no longer has to bear impotent witness to the worst atrocities, because those tempted to commit such crimes will know that justice awaits them".

The primary responsibility for the punishment of crimes is in the States, and the International Criminal Court will step in only if the national system is unable or unwilling to do so. The jus cogens nature of international crime makes it imperative for States to take universal jurisdiction over the crime committed anywhere, so that there is no safe haven for a criminal anywhere. It is necessary to ensure that political and other extraneous considerations do not obstruct or dominate the legal and humane considerations.

The principle of accountability requires that crimes do not go unpunished and there is end to impunity. The mechanism to administer justice should be empowered to punish equally all crimes against humanity, irrespective of the power of state support available to the criminal. The concept of individual criminal responsibility has developed in international law with the call for universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity gaining momentum. Pinochet and Milosevic cases bring to fore the issue of accountability of even the Head of the State for the crime of genocide.

The International Criminal Court based on the principles of complementarity, state sovereignty, and non-intervention in internal affairs of states, satisfies the felt need of a credible mechanism to enforce the international law whenever the national machinery is unable or unwilling to perform that duty.

However, as indicated, India has a credible and effective justice delivery system with the Supreme Court at the apex level complemented and supported by the National Human Rights Commission to discharge the primary state responsibility of protecting human rights within its territory and for punishing all the violations. The International Criminal Court needs to be empowered to cover the virgin field, if any, for enforcing accountability, wherever needed. Even though not necessary, yet the comity of nations and India's commitment and adherence to the international rule of law require India also to accept the International Criminal Court as a forum for the adjudication of certain disputes, when found necessary.