A SUBMISSION IN DEFENCE OF THE PRESIDENT -WAR CRIMES CHARGES CANNOT STAND DUE TO THE DOCTRINE OF MILITARY NECESSITY DURING

INTERNAL ARMED CONFLICTS Posted on May 24th, 2011 Dr.Telli.C.Rajaratnam (Expert on Internal & International Conflict Resolution & Military Law) Nothing can stand against the argument of military necessity. (General Dwight Eisenhower, Order of the Day, Dec. 24, 1943) World War II. During allied operations in Italy in 1943, the Allies gave various assurances that they would respect churches and religious institutions, provided they were not used for military purposes. The ancient Benedictine abbey at Monte Cassino was included in the list of buildings to be protected. The German Embassy at the Vatican gave assurances that the abbey would not be used by German troops. On 24 December 1943, General Eisenhower issued an order to all commanders drawing attention to the importance of cultural monuments in Italy, stating, among other things: Today we are fighting in a country which has contributed a great deal to our cultural inheritance, a country rich in monuments which by their creation helped and now in their old age illustrate the growth of the civilization which is ours. If we have to choose between destroying a famous building and sacrificing our own men, then our men s lives count indefinitely more and the buildings must go. But the choice is not always so clear-cut as that. In many cases the monuments can be spared without any detriment to operation needs. Nothing can stand against the principle of Military Necessity. That is an accepted principle. But the phrase military necessity is sometimes used where it would be more truthful to speak of military convenience or even of personal convenience. I do not want it to cloak slackness or indifference. The German forces included the ridge on which the abbey stood in their defensive plans, but gave instructions that the abbey itself should not be used. The decision was nevertheless made to bombard the abbey. It was based on erroneous intelligence reports of machine guns, aerials, telescopes and troop movements seen at the abbey and on the supposition that the abbey made such a perfect observation post that surely no army could refrain from using it. On 15 February 1943, the abbey was bombed and shelled, leaving it in ruins and causing the death of an estimated 300-400 civilian refugees. No Germans were killed. (Source: A.P.V. Rogers, Law on the Battlefield, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1996, pp. 54-55, Patrick J. Boylan, Review of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague Convention of 1954), UNESCO document CLT-93/WS/12, Paris, 1993, p. 55, Records of the Conference convened by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization held at The Hague from 21 April to 14 May 1954, published by the Government of the Netherlands, Staatsdrukkerij- en Uitgeverrijbedrijf, The Hague 1961, p. 309.11) The Gulf War, 1991. The Government of Iraq used cultural property to protect legitimate targets from attack. A classic example was the positioning of two fighter aircraft adjacent to the ancient temple of Ur on the theory that Coalition respect for the protection of cultural property would preclude the attack of those aircraft. (Source: US/UK Report on the conduct of the Persian Gulf War.) The War in the former Yugoslavia. Dubrovnik was one of the most beautiful and perfectly preserved walled cities in Europe and a World Heritage Site. On 6 December 1991, it was hit by more than 500 rockets that damaged 45% of the buildings in the old city and destroyed 10%. The 15th century Rector s Palace and St. Saviour s Church were badly damaged.( Source: A.P.V. Rogers, Law on the Battlefield, Manchester University Press, Manchester, 1996, p. 84.) In November 1993, Bosnian Croats shelled and destroyed the Neretva Bridge in Mostar, an ancient landmark of obvious cultural significance. (Source: P. Moss in Crimes of War: What the public should know, R. Gutman & D. Rieff (eds.), W.W. Norton & Co., New York/London, p. 111) There is a discrepancy as to the date of General Eisenhower s order. The Rogers book and Professor Boylan s study on the review of the Convention provide the date of date of 29 December 1943; the Records of the 1954 Conference give the date of 24 December 1943. For this reason, the date of 24 December 1943 is retained; the full quotation is based on the text provided in Professor Boylan s study. South Lebanon, 1997. The Israeli Defense Forces turned the fortress ruins of Karkum (Beaufort castle), originally built in the Middle Ages, into a stronghold. Modern concrete fortifications were poured on top of the old fortifications and a Greek temple that once crowned the hilltop at Karkum. (Source: P. Cokburn, The Independent, 10 December 1997, p. 10.) Afghanistan. In March 2001 the Giant Buddhas of Bamiyan in Northern Afghanistan were destroyed by the Taliban armed forces. The two sandstone statues were carved into Bamiyan s sandstone cliffs. The statues are believed to date back to the

third century with a height of 55 meters (182feet) and 38 meters (125 feet) respectively. The two Buddhas were believed to be the tallest in the world. They were regarded as some of the finest examples of early Central Asian art. UNESCO described them as a unique cultural treasure and called their destruction cultural vandalism. Over a period of days the two statues were gradually reduced to rubble by artillery fire and explosives. Source: CNN. Com/ world website December 6 1997 (background) and March 6, 2001. Internal War The duly elected Executive President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces had to take affirmative action to destroy terrorism. He was morally and legally bound to protect his subjects from all forms of terror. It is in this connection that the offensive action against the LTTE was taken and ultimately the internal was put to an end. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has rightly liberated the Tamil people who have been in bondage in the North. The Exodus is like Moses giving freedom to the Jews from Egypt. But the stunning difference is that the Tamil people were given freedom by President Rajapaksa, whilst the international community has from time to time been misled by those marketing terrorism for their own corporate interests. These civilians have been held captive in the North by the Tamil Terrorists. Territorial Integrity No country has any moral or legal right to interfere or intervene in the internal affairs of Sri Lanka. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has exercised his jurisdiction by protecting the territorial integrity of Sri Lanka and eradicating terrorism in Sri Lanka. The process is not over, the President has to save the Nation from all the Tamil Terrorists.The President is not only duty bound to protect the citizens from the Terrorists in the North but also those who have their Tamil Political Parties with the name Eelam -most of whom have still arms and continue in the act of abductions, kidnapping, murders and extortion. These groups should be disarmed and should be stripped of their eelam identities. It was a necessity to advance militarily in the best interests of the Nation. We are passing through the darkest hours of our history, the dawn cannot be far off. Doctrine of Military Necessity The doctrine of necessity underlies both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Jus ad bellum refers to the legal norms which restrict the circumstances in which states can resort to the use of force, while jus in bellorefers to the placing of limits on the manner in which hostilities are conducted when restraints on the use of force fail. This distinction is reflected in the notion that jus in bello applies at the advent of armed conflict to all parties, irrespective of which party was the aggressor or the basis upon which the armed conflict is waged (jus ad bellum). The relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello is, however, more complex than may be first apparent. Jus ad bellum focuses on the actions of states, and the principle of necessity determines whether a situation warrants the use of armed force.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa with UN Secretary General Ban ki Moon In contrast to the application of necessity in jus ad bellum, necessity in jus in bello has developed to take the form of the more elusive doctrine of military necessity. The nature and scope of this doctrine have long been uncertain. The doctrine is most often used in a sense which requires a balance between the need to achieve a military victory and the needs of humanity. In this sense, necessity has been viewed as a limitation to unbridled barbarity. The application of the doctrine of military necessity makes use of the principle of proportionality as a mechanism for determining the positioning of a fulcrum between these competing poles. Using proportionality thus gives effect to the recognition that the choice of methods and means of conducting war or armed conflict are not unlimited. While in theory necessity and proportionality are applied differently in jus ad bellum and jus in bello, in practice it may be difficult to satisfactorily distinguish and apply these concepts. This difficulty is due to the challenges of relating military necessity as a restraint on actions to the objectives of those actions. The means and methods of conducting war operate to achieve a particular military objective, which consequently assists in achieving a larger political objective. While necessity might determine the legitimacy of the armed attack, proportionality determines the amount of force that might be used. In a sense, necessity operates at a macro level, while international humanitarian law operates at a micro level, though both might lie on the same continuum given the difficulties in the transition between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. This difficulty is most apparent when the principles of necessity and proportionality have been incorporated into conventional international law, particularly international humanitarian conventions. The development of these conventions, and the application of these principles require some consideration if one is to arrive at an understanding of their application in a modern armed conflict. The distinction in the Sri Lanka situation is that it is within our territory. Throughout history, mankind s most basic human nature has restricted the manner in which wars are fought. The earliest writings of ancient civilizations evince attempts to limit the ways of war and to codify the resulting rules.

President Mahinda Rajapaksa & President Barak Obama Bin Laden Velupillai Pirabaharan Military Necessity Military necessity has been described as a basic principle of the law of war, so basic, indeed, that without it there could be no law of war at all. the acceptance that, while the object of warfare is to achieve the submission of the enemy, which may require the disabling of as many enemy combatants as possible, this should only be achieved in a manner that does not cause any unnecessary suffering or damage. This limitation to the means of waging war is not, however, necessarily humanitarian in nature, and much of the early restraints were based on economic, political, and military considerations. However, the need for a balance between the considerations of humanity and the military actions necessary to win a war is regarded as defining the very nature of international humanitarian law, making military necessity a central principle in this balance. Military necessity is here firstly defined in a jus ad bellum context, applying the principle to the measures that are indispensable, and not simply convenient or expedient, to achieve the aim of the actual conflict Military necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God. The principle of distinction is fundamental to humanitarian law, but its precise content varies according to the kind of conflict. In national liberation struggles and international armed conflicts the distinction is between civilians and combatants. Combatants have no right to life under humanitarian law. Every individual is classified as either a combatant or as a kind of protected person, such as a prisoner of war (a captured combatant) or a civilian. An individual s rights change when his classification changes. A civilian has the right not to be targeted for attack and the right to receive some protection from attack. If the civilian joins the armed forces, he exchanges the rights of a civilian for the rights of a combatant. A combatant has the right to take part in hostilities. Every citizen owes his or her allegiance to the Constitution and to the Head of State- the duly elected President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. We don t need people from the international community to cast aspersions on our President and our Government. Vested Interests Our nation has been torn apart by the evils of terrorism and natural disaster. We have all suffered there is no answer there is no justification for the pain. Freedom of choice alone does not guarantee justice. Equal rights are not defined only by political values. Social justice is a triad of freedom, an equation of liberty. Justice is political liberty. Justice is economic independence. Justice is social equality. Due to our internal conflicts which we could have long resolved, external forces with vested interests have all sought to intervene some in the pretext of resolving the conflict but our experience has proved that the gap of resolution of conflict does not seem to be narrower now. The US State department reports have repeatedly reported about the paramilitary forces which are the Tamil militant groups who have been pampered by successive governments to have arms and in addition are provided state security because their militant organizations are registered as political parties. The survivals of these parties are by extortion, abduction and hired assassinations. Some of these Tamil Leaders are WANTED Criminals in India however they hold office regardless of the Rule of Law. Those who finance terror, those who launder their money, and those that cover their tracks are every bit as guilty as the fanatic who commits the final act. We look for diplomacy. But there is no diplomacy with some of those opposed to us. We do not consider them opponents but they oppose every conceivable move we make to develop the country. Who is violating human rights? Sometimes, there is no compromise with such people, no meeting of minds no point of understanding so we would have a just choice -defeat it or be defeated by it. This is where there was a necessity for military intervention. We learnt that however much we strive for peace, we need a strong defence capability where a peaceful approach fails. Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inaction are far greater. Laws will have to be changed not to deny the basic liberties but to prevent their abuse and protect the most basic liberty of all; freedom from terror. The people are terrorized by certain vested interests in their vile pursuits for power committing crimes and targeting a reflex scenario as if the Government was responsible. Terrorism, Tamil Parties & Tamil Diaspora

Lakshman Kadirgamar is remembered to have said A criminal organisation whether involved in rebellion against a State or not must depend for its sustenance outside the law. For its massive operations and massive weaponry, massive collections of funds are continually required. As funds available for criminal activities within a State, especially a developing State, are Inevitably small, and the monitoring of their collection and disbursement relatively simple, fund collection for such activities is carried out abroad through international criminal networks, of course and also, as in all criminal enterprises, through knowing or unknowing front organizations or other entities that now proliferate in many forms, in many countries often in the guise, sadly, of charitable groups or groups ostensibly concerned with human rights, ethnic cultural or social matters .. The many disparate forces for international terrorism do not come together in one monolithic whole. They are variously interconnected in numerous ways and their international networks are extensive. They are mutually supportive and communicate through the global underworld of crime when special missions are afoot. If international terrorism is to be ever removed from our midst, we must begin with the recognition that international terrorism is a form of global criminality. We must not let ourselves be deceived by the artfully crafted cloaks of false pretensions. It is the method of terrorism as in the murder of innocent civilians and the defiance of the sanctity of life that defines terrorism. We must work as a community to ensure that everyone not just a privileged few get the collective ability to further the individual s interests. Terrorism of any sort should be abolished and No one should be above the law. All Tamil militants should be tried for their crimes against humanity. The Tamil militants parties can survive only if there is conflict with the legitimately elected Government and the International community so they contribute through their agents overseas to discredit the Government while holding Office in the Government.We should therefore not be surprised that allegations of civilian casualty in the present times generates from certain corporate interests involved in international trade and terrorism. UN One of the magnificent achievements of the UN, in the last half century, has been the transformation that has taken place in global opinion on the relationship that should obtain between the governing and the governed, between the government and the citizen. It was on the basis of the moral authority of the General Assembly s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the determined endeavours of the Commission on Human Rights, that this transformation was achieved. The dignity of the individual has now, largely as a result of United Nations leadership in the field of human rights, been placed, as it should be, amongst the primary priorities of national and international attention. The duly elected Executive President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka, President Mahinda Rajapaksa, as the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces took a patriotic and bold decision as he is morally and legally bound to protect his subjects from all forms of terror. Military Intervention was a NECESSITY in the interests of the Nation. It is in this connection that President Mahinda Rajapaksa has rightly liberated the Tamil people who have been in bondage in the North, whilst the international community has from time to time been misled by those marketing terrorism for their own corporate interests. Social Democracy The governing idea of modern social democracy is community founded on the principles of social justice. That people should rise according to merit not birth; that the test of any decent society is not the contentment of the wealthy and strong, but the commitment to the poor and weak. Equality & Global Issues We learnt that equality is about equal worth and not equal outcomes. We are not alone in this. All round the world governments are struggling with the same problems. We must have co-operation, determination and consensus. We are a community of people, whose self interest and mutual interest at crucial points merge and that it is through a sense of justice that community is born and nurtured. This is the moment to bring the faiths closer together in understanding of our common values and heritage a source of unity and strength. By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more together than we can alone. We must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose. Let us trace the roots of affirmative action. Let us determine what it is and what it isn t. Let us see where it has worked and where it hasn t and ask ourselves what we need to do now. Media Etiquette Private media freedom is running amok. The news that millions of people in this country including foreign correspondents who convey news overseas receive each night is determined by a handful of men responsible only their corporate employers. The State should have control not to permit abuse of the freedom of the Press. The people love the President. His achievements are remarkable. He has been a stoic in the face of adversity. He has earnestly endeavoured to unify the nation. He is totally committed to serve the people. It is genuine unwavering and it is selfless. Human Rights The Reality The Universal Declaration on Human Rights is not limited in scope to ensuring the observance of human rights by governments alone. The Declaration has a far wider purpose: the observance of human rights by all governmental and non-governmental alike. Article 3 of the Universal Declaration, which requires that everyone has the right to life; and the provisions of article 30 of the Declaration prescribes that: Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any

right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein . An act of terrorism by a non-governmental entity against civilians is surely one of the most heinous violations of the human rights of its victims and, surely, a crime against humanity as well. The Results of Terror We know the horrific direct consequences of terrorism: the carnage; the horror; the thousands of unsuspecting innocent lives lost or maimed, the thousands of families then left bereaved; the countless personal tragedies that terrorism leaves.The horrors of Tamil Terrorism of the LTTE and other Tamil militants or terrorists some of whom are designed as Tamil Political Parties with the label of Eelam working hand in hand together has devastated the country and have cast a heavy burden on successive governments and the Nation including all of us and on humanity as a whole. There are also the larger disruptions of national stability and order as well: of the economy and the customary ways of life. We remember the bombing of the Central Bank, the adjacent Buildings, the Temple of the Tooth Relic and other Temples in Sri Lanka where numerous people of all communities were killed, injured and blinded, the numerous innocent civilians who were killed and each of us would have a story to tell about the injuries sustained or the deaths of our loved ones. The assassination of President Premadasa, Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, Presidential Candidate Gamini Dissanayake, Cabinet Minister Jeyaraj Fernandopulle and two of my relatives Dr.Neelan Tiruchelvam and Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar are some of the few victims cited. However, during the 30 years of Tamil Terrorism not one Tamil Terrorist Leader was killed by the Terrorists. This reveals that there was conspiracy between all the Eelam Militant Groups who conveniently registered their organisations in the same name of their militant Groups as Political Parties but recent history and present observation reveals to us they never changed their attitudes. They convinced those around them that they hated the LTTE and even had suicide cadres to display attempted assassinations. All Tamil Militants have terrorised their own people. They never changed They earned money and still are marketing the ultimate objectives of terrorism by slandering the Government and making derogatory remarks about the Government. We will always be affected by the memories of the damage caused by the Terrorists- we shall carry with us for as long as we live. USA The terrorism of the eleventh of September, in the USA gave rise to a coming-together of the people of the great city of New York in the finest traditions of humanity. We expect the same in the IDP areas for international support to revive and resuscitate the morale of the people affected by the war. So, instead of talking about the dead let us talk of the living who are dying. Let us get together and support them. The government is doing everything possible to help them. Let us hope that such a deep sense of the togetherness of all of humanity at times of great crises will continue to be pervasive. Terrorism is, sadly, no stranger to Sri Lanka. We, in Sri Lanka know terrorism, unfortunately, only too well. We have shown that we could eradicate it but the process is not over. The Tamil Militant groups would have to be banned. The term Eelam denotes a separate state. The doctrine of Military Necessity is often used in a sense which requires a balance between the need to achieve a military victory and the needs of humanity. In this sense, necessity has been viewed as a limitation to unbridled barbarity. The application of the doctrine makes use of the principle of proportionality as a mechanism for determining the positioning of a fulcrum between these competing poles. Using proportionality thus gives effect to the recognition that the choice of methods and means of conducting war or armed conflict are not unlimited. The means and methods of conducting war operate to achieve a particular military objective, which consequently assists in achieving a larger political objective. While necessity might determine the legitimacy of the armed attack, proportionality determines the amount of force that might be used. In a sense, necessity operates at a macro level, while international humanitarian law operates at a micro level, though both might lie on the same continuum given the difficulties in the transition. This difficulty is most apparent when the principles of necessity and proportionality have been incorporated into conventional international law, particularly international humanitarian conventions. The development of these conventions, and the application of these principles require some consideration if one is to arrive at an understanding of their application in a modern armed conflict. The distinction in the situation in Sri Lanka is that it is within our territory. Military Necessity has been described as a basic principle of the law of war, so basic, indeed, that without it there could be no law of war at all. the acceptance that, while the object of warfare is to achieve the submission of the enemy, which may require the disabling of as many enemy combatants as possible, this should only be achieved in a manner that does not cause any unnecessary suffering or damage. This limitation to the means of waging war is not, however, necessarily humanitarian in nature, and much of the early restraints were based on economic, political, and military considerations. However, the need for a balance between the considerations of humanity and the military actions necessary to win a war is regarded as defining the very nature of international humanitarian law, making military necessity a central principle in this balance. Military Necessity admits of all direct destruction of life or limb of armed enemies, and of other persons whose destruction is incidentally unavoidable in the armed contests of the war; it allows of the capturing of every armed enemy, and every enemy of importance or of peculiar danger to the captor; it allows of all destruction of property, and obstruction of the ways and channels of traffic, travel, or communication, and of all withholding of sustenance or means of life from the enemy; Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to the God. The principle of distinction is fundamental to humanitarian law, but its precise content varies according to

the kind of conflict. In national liberation struggles and international armed conflicts the distinction is between civilians and combatants. Combatants have no right to life under humanitarian law. Every individual is classified as either a combatant or as a kind of protected person, such as a prisoner of war (a captured combatant) or a civilian. An individual s rights change when his classification changes. A civilian has the right not to be targetted for attack and the right to receive some protection from attack. If the civilian joins the armed forces, he exchanges the rights of a civilian for the rights of a combatant. A combatant has the right to take part in hostilities. Global Problem We are not alone in this. All round the world, governments are struggling with the same problems. We must have co-operation, determination and consensus. We are a community of people, whose self interest and mutual interest at crucial points merge and that it is through a sense of justice that community is born and nurtured. This is the moment to bring the faiths closer together in understanding of our common values and heritage a source of unity and strength. By the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more together than we can alone. We must reach beyond our fears and our divisions to a new time of great and common purpose. Let us trace the roots of affirmative action. Let us determine what it is and what it isn t. Let us see where it has worked and where it hasn t and ask ourselves what we need to do now. We must not permit a contaminated moral environment. Let us not negotiate out of fear, But let us never fear to negotiate. Allegiance to the President Every citizen owes his or her allegiance to the Constitution and to the Head of State- the duly elected President of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka. Laws will have to be changed not to deny the basic liberties but to prevent their abuse and protect the most basic liberty of all; freedom from terror. The people are terrorized by certain vested interests in their vile pursuits for power committing crimes and targeting a reflex scenario as if the Government was responsible. All Tamil Political Parties with the name eelam should be banned forthwith. All Tamil Militant Groups should be disarmed and tried for their crimes against humanity. We must work as a community to ensure that everyone not just a privileged few get the collective ability to further the individual s interests. There are individuals and groups who may be critical of the President for political gain, but the President has always taken affirmative action within the norms required of the President. No progress can be made unless a common ground is established. To endeavour to establish common ground certain specific responsibilities on the people and political leaders should be imposed. More of our people must set an example. People should be made conscious of their conduct. We must learn to discuss matters with those who are different from us. Not just people who agree with us but with somebody who is different. We cannot restore peace unless we can find some way to bring the nation close together. We must be Patriotic. We must uphold and defend the Constitution and the Head of State-the President. We owe allegiance to the President and the Constitution as Citizens of Sri Lanka. We must uphold the norms of the Constitution apprehend and prosecute those who terrorize us by their actions and threats, then economic prosperity will follow suit. Our destiny lies in our hands Patriotism Our victory as a Nation would be when all the Tamil Militants and their Eelam Parties and their Leaders be defeated and destroyed in the best interests of our Nation! In conclusion, may I cite the great General George S.Patton, Jr., Almighty and most merciful Father, we humbly beseech Thee of Thy great goodness to restrain this immoderate weather with which we have had to contend. Grant us fair weather for battle. Graciously harken to us as soldiers who call upon Thee that, armed with Thy power, we may advance from victory to victory, and crush the oppression and wickedness of our enemies, and establish Thy justice among men and nations. AMEN. For these reasons the President cannot be tried for War crimes. In the meantime we must wisely cast away the Tamil Militant politicians whose every violent violation of human rights by their offences will be attributed to the Government that just sits and watches without apprehending them and trying them in the Court of Law in Sri Lanka. One Nation, One Law and Justice to all. God Bless Sri Lanka! (Dr. Telli C Rajaratnam an international Lawyer, an expert in Criminal jurisprudence, Internal and International Conflict Resolution and Military Law. LL.B(SL).,LL.M(Lond).,Ph.D(Lond).,has practiced as a Solicitor in England & Wales, as a Barrister & Solicitor in Australia as an Attorney at Law in Sri Lanka and the USA and also has been a Lecturer in Laws in various Universities in Colombo, the UK and USA) He is the son of Late Justice T.W.Rajaratnam,SLFP National List MP (1989-1994) and the grandson of Late T.C.Rajaratnam O.B.E., C.B.E., Founder Member of the UNP, Author of The Dawn of Sri Lanka-The Miracle of AsiaSelected Essays of the Legacy of President Mahinda Rajapaksa ) tellicrajaratnam@gmail.com

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2011/05/24/a-submission-in-defence-of-the-president-warcrimes-charges-cannot-stand-due-to-the-doctrine-of-military-necessity-during-internal-armed-conflicts/