“INTERNSHIP WEBINAR REPORT”

by
G SHASHANK RAO
BBA LLB; Division C; PRN 17010324019
Batch 2017-22
 WEBINAR REPORT
 Webinar on United States Sanctions against International Criminal Court
The speaker for this webinar is Assistant Professor of Law at West Bengal National
University of Judicial Sciences, Mr. Atul Alexander.
The objective of this webinar was to educate students about the sanctions imposed against
the International Criminal Court by the United States during the Trump presidency.
These sanctions have now been lifted with the initiation of the Biden presidency. These
actions signify an important shift in the dynamics of International Courts. The webinar
provided the students with an understanding of this important development of International
Law.
Mr. Atul Alexander holds a Master’s Degree in Law focused on International Law and
Organisations accorded to him by Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University. He cleared the
Junior Research Fellowship with an All-India Rank – 12. He specialises in Public
International Law, Law of United Nations, Diplomatic and Consular Law, International
Human Rights Law, and Jus Cogens. He was a Panel Member at the Regional Conference of
Asian Society of International Law, held in Beijing, China and participated in the Asian
Society of International Law Biennial Conference held in Manila, Philippines. He also
organised the ‘Distinguished Lecture Series’ in collaboration with the Ministry of External
Affairs, Government of India.
The webinar will be held on the 17th April, 2021 from 4:30 PM-5:30 PM. E-certificates will
be provided to all the participants post webinar.
On September 2, under Executive Order 13928, the “Executive Order on Blocking Property
Of Certain Persons Associated With The International Criminal Court,” US officials added
Fatou Bensouda, the ICC prosecutor, and Phakiso Mochochoko, the head of a division within
the prosecutor’s office, to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (the
SDN List). This list is maintained by the US Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC).
Their designation had two immediate effects. First, any property held by Bensouda and
Mochochoko (or the property of any entity of which they own 50 percent or more) in the
United States became “blocked.” Although any property they might have in the US has not
been seized, they would not be able to exercise any rights over it, including use or sale. In
addition, US persons or entities located anywhere in the world would not be able to transact
with or provide services to either Bensouda or Mochochoko, unless they received a license to
do so from the US government. US “persons” are defined under the executive order as “any
United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United
States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person
in the United States.”
Second, all property that might belong to Bensouda or Mochochoko that comes within a US
jurisdiction would be “blocked.” Because the vast majority of international trade is conducted
via the US dollar this has potentially broad implications. US dollar-denominated transactions
—even if they are between two non-US parties—usually require a bank under US jurisdiction
to handle the transactions. Thus, any transaction that passes through them, even momentarily,
would also be blocked.
The webinar was very helpful and dealt with the increasing international criminal activity I
the United States. President Trump recently signed Executive Order 13928, which declared that
any investigation of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan by the International Criminal Court (ICC)
poses a threat to the national security of the United States. The order authorizes the U.S. Treasury
Department to impose financial sanctions and travel restrictions on lawyers, judges and other
employees of the court. The sanctions that could be imposed on the ICC, and potentially any parties
aiding the Court in its work, are the same as those imposed on hostile nations, foreign terrorist
networks and international drug traffickers.

The executive order raises serious issues about the use of presidential authority to declare a
national emergency, the jurisdiction of the ICC, and threats to the independence of the
judiciary in the international context. This program will present the legal basis for these
sanctions, as well as information about the ICC investigations that triggered the
unprecedented U.S. action and the implications for the ICC and its staff.

Webinar on Constitutionality of Electoral Bonds in India

Centre for Research in Public Policy and Law (CRPPL) of Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad
is concerned with establishing a concrete research paradigm within our university, and
largely, within the socio-legal community. From conducting Socratic dialogues to
undertaking inter- disciplinary research, the Centre seeks to engage in stimulating
conversations and analyses, which result in an informed understanding of various issues
ranging from citizenship to free speech.
Constitutionality of Electoral bonds is a topic of debate in the present times. The Electoral
bonds scheme introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 allows an individual or any "artificial
judicial person" to purchase Electoral bonds and donate to the political parties of their choice.
The scheme promises the anonymity of the donor. There have been arguments that this
feature is against the right to freedom of the voters under Article 19(1)(a). The phrase "Right
to know" indicates that the voters should have the right to receive informations disclosing
campaign contributions and to know the correct position of the parties they want to support.
The Electoral bond scheme is argued to be unconstitutional as it can give rise to corruption
and illegality. However, the Supreme court has not yet decided on the constitutional validity
of the electoral bonds. 

The Centre is organizing a Webinar on "Constitutionality of Electoral Bonds in India" on

16th April, 2021 (Friday) from 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM to learn more about this topic.

Prashant Padmanabhan has been in legal practice for the last two decades. He is an
Advocate on record of the Supreme Court of India. He has been writing and talking
extensively on contemporary legal and social legal issues in universities, lawyer forums,
television channels and other public platforms. He actively writes and publishes his views on
contemporary legal and constitutional issues. He, as an advocate on record, has assisted
senior advocate Ms. Indira Jaising in the Sabarimala case for the side supporting women
entry at Sabarimala. He has published several pieces on the importance of judiciary and
general pieces of jurisprudence. He has also participated in several channel debates on issues
like Sabarimala, implementation of Supreme Court judgement in the church case, 377
judgement, etc. He has opined on contemporary issues such as Sabarimala judgement and the
Ayodhya judgement, as well on issues in the rest of the world, such as the matters relating to
the US Judiciary. He has adjudged national moots and participated in several engaging
debates on current issue.
The Supreme Court has dismissed petitions seeking to stay the sale of fresh electoral bonds
ahead of Assembly elections in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and Puducherry.
Although the court said there is no justification to stay the current sale, the larger
constitutional challenge to the electoral bonds scheme filed in 2017 is still pending.
Apart from challenging the constitutionality of the electoral bonds scheme, the petitioners
had asked the court to declare all political parties as public offices to bring them under the
ambit of the Right to Information Act and compel political parties to disclose their income
and expenditure. Announced in the 2017 Union Budget, electoral bonds are interest-free
bearer instruments used to donate money anonymously to political parties. A bearer
instrument does not carry any information about the buyer or payee. The holder of the
instrument (which is the political party) is presumed to be its owner. If a party hasn’t
enchased any bonds within 15 days, SBI deposits these into the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund.
The printing of these bonds & SBI commission for facilitating the sale and purchase of the
bonds is paid from the taxpayers’ money by the central government. Anonymity provided to
donors of electoral bonds. Through an amendment to the Finance Act 2017, the Centre has
exempted parties from disclosing donations received through electoral bonds. According to
transparency activists, these infringe the citizen’s ‘Right to Know’ and make the political
class even more unaccountable.