MODULES

Lecture Week Module

Week 1 Introduction to Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Week 2 – 3 Mediation and Negotiation; Lok Adalat and Conciliation; Online Dispute
Resolution.
Week 4 – 6 Arbitration Agreement and Parties (Drafting and Types of Arbitration
Agreements), Separability, Kompetenz-Kompetenz, Sole Option, Non-
Signatories, Non-Intervention, Interim Measures and Enforcement - Anti-suit
Injunctions, Security for Cost, Fast- Track, Emergency Arbitration.
Week 7 Procedure of Arbitration: Conduct, Notice, Procedural Order, Case
Management, Dispute Resolution Boards, Expert Determination, Witness
Examination, Cross- Examination.
Week 8 Composition of Arbitral Tribunal: Number of Arbitrators,
Appointment and Challenge of Arbitrators (IBA Guidelines on Conflict of
Interest – 2024, as amended up to date), Diversity and Inclusion.
Week 9 – 10 Jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal, Arbitrability and Arbitral Procedure,
Applicable Laws, Multi-Tier Arbitration Clauses.
Week 11 Arbitral Awards: Forms and Content, Categories, Remedies.

Week 12 Recourse against Arbitral Awards; UNCITRAL Model Law.

Week 13 – 14 Enforcement of Awards (Domestic and Foreign); New York Convention

1958.
Week 15 Review and Revision.
 Topic Readings

Intro to 1. Section 89, Civil Procedure Code 1908.

ADR 2. Afcons Infrastructure v. Cherian Verkey Pvt. Co. Ltd., (2010) 8 SCC 24.

Negotiation, Negotiation:
Mediation, 3. Summary of the Principled Negotiation Process by the Harvard Negotiation
Conciliation, Project.
Lok Adalats4. What is Negotiation?, Daily Blog, PON- Harvard Law School.
5. Fundamentals of Negotiation, Model United Nations
and Online
Dispute
Mediation:
Resolution
6. The Mediation Act, 2023
7. Mediation: Singapore Mediation Convention
8. Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act 2015.
9. Pam Marshall, Would ADR Have Saved Romeo and Juliet?, Osgoode
Hall Law Journal 36.4 (1998) : 771-805.

Conciliation:
10. Conciliation: Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Lok Adalat:
11. The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

Online Dispute Resolution:

12. UNCITRAL Technical Notes on Online Dispute Resolution,2016.
13. Designing the Future of Dispute Resolution: The ODR Policy Plan for India
the NITI Aayog Expert Committee on ODR [October 2021].
14. Online Dispute Resolution, Shifting from dispute to resolutions, ODR
Handbook
 Sections: 7, 8
Introductio
n to 15. Chapter 3, Applicable Laws, Redfern & Hunter: Law and
Arbitration Practice of International Commercial Arbitration 6th Ed.
; Parties & 16. Loukas Mistelis “Reality Test: Current State of Affairs in Theory and Practice
Arbitration Relating to “Lex Arbitri”” American Review of International Arbitration (vol
Agreement 17, 2006) 155.
17. Multi-Tier Arbitration Clauses: Chapter 17- The Multi-tier Dispute
Resolution Influence and Consequences under the Indian Arbitration
Framework; Chapter 18- Recommendations for Drafting an Enforceable
Multi-Tiered Clause in Anjali Chawla, Multi-Tier Arbitration Clauses:
International Trends in Dispute Resolution, Bloomsbury, 2022 (1st Ed).
18. Chapter 4: Understanding the Layers of Multi-tiered Dispute Resolution
Clauses in Anjali Chawla, Multi-Tier Arbitration Clauses: International
Trends in Dispute Resolution, Bloomsbury, 2022 (1st Ed).

Validity of the Arbitration Agreement:

19. In Re: The Interplay between arbitration agreements under the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (N.N. Global III) 2023
SCC OnLine SC 1666
20. Jagdish Chander v. Ramesh Chander, (2007) 5 SCC 719,
21. Caravel Shipping Services v. Premier Sea Foods [Supreme Court, 29
October 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 10800-10801/2018].
22. Enercon India Ltd. v. Enercon GmBH, AIR 2014 SC 3152.

Arbitration Agreements and Inadmissible Document:

23. NN Global Mercantile Pvt Ltd v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd & Ors., (2023).

Non-Signatories/Third Parties to an Arbitration Agreement:

24. Cox and Kings Ltd v. SAP India Pvt Ltd [Judgment dated 06.12.2023 in SLP(C)
No. 8607 of 2022
25. Chloro Controls India (P) Ltd v. Severn Trent Water Purification Inc, 2 (2013) 1
SCC 641
Multi-Tier Dispute Resolution:

26. PT Perusahaan Gas Negara (Persero) TBK v. CRW Joint Operation [2015]
SGCA 30
 Sections: 2(2)
Applicable
Laws &
32. Bharat Aluminium Company v. Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service
Applicability
of Part I Inc., (2012) 9 SCC 552.
33. Union of India v. Reliance Industries, 2015 (10) SCALE 149.

Sections: 9, 17, 18 – 27
Interim Measures &
Conduct of Arbitral 32. Future Retail Ltd. v. Amazon.com Investment Holding LLC 2020
Proceedings 33. Gary Born, Principle of Judicial Non-Interference in International
Arbitral Proceedings, The Anniversary Contributions -
International Litigation & Arbitration, 30 U. PA. J. INT’L L. 999
(2009); available at:
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/jil/vol30/iss4/22

Sections: 44 – 48, 53
Foreign Awards and their
Enforcement 34. National Agricultural Cooperative Marketing Federation of
India v Alimenta SA 2020 SCC OnLine SC 381
35. Centrotrade Minerals and Metals Inc v. Hindustan Copper
Limited [Supreme Court, 2 June 2020]
36. Reliance Industries Limited and Anr v. Union of India, (2014) 7
SCC 603
37. Shin Etsu Chemical co ltd v M/s Aksh Optifibre Ltd & Anr
Civil Appeal No 5048 of 2005

Society Ltd., 1994 SCC OnLine Del 563

29. M/s. Simpark Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaipur Municipal
Corporation, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 2738
30. Geo Miller & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajasthan Vidyut Utpadan
Nigam Ltd 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1137
31. Enka Insaat ve Sanayi AS (Respondent) v. OOO Insurance
Company Chubb (Appellant), [2020] UKSC 38.
 Sections: 2(3), 7
Arbitrability
34. Booz Allen & Hamilton v. SBI Home Finance (2011) 5 SCC 532
35. Vidya Drolia v Durga Trading [Supreme Court, 14 December 2020]
36. A Ayyasamy vs A Paramasivam & Ors, CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8245-8246
of 2016
37. Fulham Football Club (1987) Ltd v Richards [2012] 1 All E.R. (Comm)
1148

Sections: 5, 8, 11, 34
Non-
Intervention 38. Emaar v MGF
39. Ssangyong Construction Limited v NHAI [Supreme Court, 8 May 2019]

Sections: 4, 10, 16
Number of
Arbitrators 40. Lohia vs. Lohia (2002) 1 Arb LR 493 (SC)
41. MMTC Ltd. vs. Sterlite Industries Ltd. (1996) 6 SCC 716
Section 11-16, Schedule V & VII Arbitration and Conciliation
Composition Act, 1996. IBA Guidelines and Emergency Arbitration
of Tribunal,
Appointment 42. Amazon.Com NV Investment Holdings LLC v. Future Coupons
and Challenge Private Limited & Ors, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1279.
of Arbitrators 43. Pravin Electricals Pvt Ltd v. Galaxy Infra and Engineering Pvt
Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 190.
44. Sanjiv Prakash v. Seema Kukreja and Ors., 2021 SCC Online SC 282
45. NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company (2019) 9 SCC 2019
46. Durga Welding Works v. Chief Engineer, Railway Electrification, C.A. 54
of 2019
38. PASL Wind Solutions (P) Ltd. v. GE Power Conversion (India)(P)
Ltd., AIR 2021 SC 2517
39. Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Limited AIR
2020 SC (CIV) 707
 ● Voltas Limited v Rolta India Limited [Supreme Court, 14 February 2014]
● Rajendra Barot and Sonali Mathur, 'Laying old ghosts to rest, or not? – The
'Section 9' enigma continues …', Indian Journal of Arbitration Law (Indian
Journal of Arbitration Law 2016, Volume V Issue 1) pp. 168 - 182
● Christopher Boog, 'Chapter 17, Part II: Commentary on the ICC Rules,
Article 29 [Emergency arbitrator]', in Manuel Arroyo (ed), Arbitration in
Switzerland: The Practitioner's Guide (Second Edition), 2nd edition (Kluwer
Law International 2018)
pp. 2380 – 2398
● Ioana Knoll-Tudor, 'Chapter II: The Arbitrator and the Arbitration
Procedure, Emergency Arbitration: Evidence and Practice from Seven
Arbitral Institutions', in Christian Klausegger, Peter Klein, et al. (eds),
Austrian Yearbook on International Arbitration 2019, Austrian Yearbook on
International Arbitration, Volume 2019 pp. 249 – 276
● Martin Hunter, Shashank Garg, et al., 'Chapter 7: The Conduct of Arbitral
Proceedings in India', in Dushyant Dave , Martin Hunter , et al. (eds),
Arbitration in India, (© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law
International 2021) pp. 123 -144.
Sections: 28 – 33
40. Government of Meghalaya v. M/s BSC- C&C JV
41. Martin Hunter, Simon Weber, et al., 'Chapter 9: Arbitral Awards in Indian
Arbitrations', in Dushyant Dave , Martin Hunter , et al.(eds), Arbitration in
India,(© Kluwer Law International; Kluwer Law International 2021) pp. 173
-194

Suggested:
 Dyna Technologies Pvt Ltd v Crompton Greaves 2020 (1) ARBLR 1 (SC)
Srei Infrastructure Finance Limited v Tuff Drilling Private Limited (2018)
11 SCC 470
Dr. Writer’s Food Products v Cosmos Co-operative Bank [Bombay
HC, 20 September 2019]
Steel Authority of India v. Primetals Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. [Delhi
HC, 12 March 2020]
Sections: 34 – 37
Recourse
Against 42. Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49
Arbitral 43. Ssangyong v NHAI [Supreme Court, 8 May 2019]
Awards 44. Megha Enterprises And Ors v. Haldiram Snacks Pvt Ltd (Judgment dated
March 1).
45. Larsen Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Co. v. Union of India Supreme
Court of India Citation: 2023 SCC OnLine SC 982
Advance Stragies of Arbitration

Course Design and Overview (Weekly Plan)

Week Topics
1 , 2, 3
Principles and rationale of the arbitral jurisprudence and practice in India –
Arbitrability-separability- waiver – Limitation – Arbitration Act as a special legislation (lex
specialis)

4&5
The arbitration agreement – drafting and interpretation – pathology – enforcing an
arbitration agreement – applicable laws

6
The arbitration tribunal – appointment – section 11(6), section 11(9) – challenges to
appointment – legislative framework of sections 12 -15.6 Arbitral Procedure – as under the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act – influence of CPC
and Evidence Act in arbitral procedure – deviations and conformities.

7&8
ARBITRAL AWARDS – MAKING OF AN AWARD – KNOWLEDGE OF AN AWARD –
ACTUAL RECEIPT
OF THE AWARD – LIMITATION TO CHALLENGE – GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE

9 & 10
Arbitration and the Indian Courts

11, 12
Appeals to against the awards and interim measures passed – Appeals to Supreme
Court and the limits to the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 136 and 142.

13 EXECUTION OF FOREIGN AWARDS IN INDIA.

REVISION WEEK

Module Descriptions: Part V Relevant Readings / Essential Readings

I. PRINCIPLES AND RATIONALE

• Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors.
• Lombardi Engineering Limited Vs. Uttarakhand Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited
• National Thermal Power Corporation Vs. The Singer Company and Ors

On arbitrability and separability

• Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Ltd. and Ors.
• Vidya Drolia and Ors. Vs. Durga Trading Corporation

On waiver
• Yassh Deep Builders LL.P. Vs. Sushil Kumar Singh and Another 2024
• Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and Others (2002) SCC
• MSP Infrastructure Limited Vs. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited
• Quippo Construction Equipment Limited Vs. Janardan Private Nirman Limited

II. ARBITRATION AND THE INDIAN COURTS

• Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
• Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. Vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express Pvt. Ltd.
• Gayatri Balasamy Vs. ISG Novasoft Technologies Limited

III. ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

• Disortho S.A.S. Vs. Meril Life Sciences Private Limited
• Jagdish Chander Vs. Ramesh Chander and Ors.
• R.P. Infosystems Private Limited Vs. Redington (India) Limited

IV. THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL

• Narayan Prasad Lohia Vs. Nikunj Kumar Lohia and Others (2002) SCC
• Mayavti Trading Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pradyuat Deb Burman
• M.M.T.C. Limited Vs. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.

V. PROCEDURE
• Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs. Aptech Ltd. MANU/SC/0151/2024
• ASF Buildtech Private Limited Vs. Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited
• Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. MANU/SC/0012/1999

On Bias
• Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Raja Transport (P) Ltd.
• Voestalpine Schienen GmbH Vs. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.

VI. AWARDS
• Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
• Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-Operative Limited Vs. Bhadra Products

VII. EXECUTION
• Sundaram Finance Ltd. Vs. NEPC India Ltd. MANU/SC/0012/1999
• Batliboi Environmental Engineering Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 2025:BHC-
• Board of Control for Cricket in India Vs. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
• Cheran Properties Limited Vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited and Ors.
• Cox and Kings Ltd. Vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
• Hindustan Construction Company Limited and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.
• Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. Vs. General Electric Co.

VIII. APPEALS
• Batliboi Environmental Engineering vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation 2025
• Chintels India Ltd. Vs. Bhayana Builders Pvt. Ltd.
• Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. MANU/SC/0329/2001
• N.S. Nayak and Sons and Ors. Vs. State of Goa and Ors.
• S.B.P. and Co. Vs. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Ors

IX. LIMITATION
• Arif Azim Co. Ltd. Vs. Aptech Ltd. MANU/SC/0151/2024
• Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Navigant Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
• Sesh Nath Singh and Ors. Vs. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.
• Shyama Charan Agarwala & Sons Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.

X. FOREIGN AWARDS
• Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc. Vs. Hindustan Copper Limited
• Coal India Limited Vs. Canadian Commercial Corporation
• Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings Vs. Unitech Limited
• KTC Korea Co. Ltd. Vs. Hobb International Private Ltd.
• Shri Lal Mahal Ltd. Vs. Progetto Grano Spa MANU/SC/0655/2013

WEEKLY COURSE OUTLINE AND READINGS

(Kindly note that the provisions mentioned underneath each topic are merely for reference
purposes, and in no way solely represent the relevance of the concerned statutes to the course.
Students may be required to study more provisions as explained by their Instructors.)

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
MODULE 1:
INTRODUCTION TO
INTELLECTUAL
INTRODUCTION

1. History of IP
2. Rationale and philosophical justifications
3. Economic importance of IP
4. Politics and Criticism of IP
1 5. Major forms of IP
6. The system of International IP

a. Berne Convention; Paris Convention; Universal

Copyright Convention; World Intellectual Property
Organisation (WIPO); WTO’s Agreement on Trade
Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)

PROPERT
2 to 5 COPYRIGHT MODULE 2: LAW ON COPYRIGHTS

1. Rationale and Statutes/International Conventions Covered:

justifications
1. a) Copyright Act, 1957 (“CA 1957”) - r/w
i. What is Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012
Copyright? 2. b) Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct,1988(UK)
ii. What is Subject 3. c) Copyright Act, 1976 (USA) (“US CA 1976”)
Matter of 4. d) BerneConvention
Copyright?
 (Section 13, CA
1957)

2. Types of works
protected under Case discussion:
copyright law
Moral Rights:
i. Literary Works a) Amar Nath Sehgal v. UOI 2005 (30) PTC 253 Del
ii. Musical Works,
including any Fair Use/ Fair Dealing:
accompanying
work 2. b) Campbellv.Acuff-
iii. Dramatic Work, RoseMusic,510U.S.569(1994)
including any 3. c) Authors Guild v. Google Inc., No. 13-4829 (2d
accompanying Cir. 2015)
music 4. d) The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of
iv. Artistic works University of Oxford and Ors. Vs. Rameshwari
v. Cinematographic Photocopy Services and Ors. 235 (2016) DLT 409
films to be read with The Chancellor, Masters &
vi. Sound recordings Scholars of University of Oxford and Ors. Vs.
Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Ors. 233
3. Pre-requisites for a (2016) DLT 279
copyright
Originality Walter v Lane [1900] AC 539
i. Originality
ii. Fixation

WEEK TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING

4. Idea-Expression Dichotomy 6. f) Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural
and Merger Doctrine Telephone Service 499 U.S. 340
5. Authorship, Ownership, (1991)
Transfer (Assignment and 7. g) CCH Canadian v Law Society of
Licence) Upper Canada [2004] 1 SCR 339
8. h)
i. Author; Joint authorship EasternBookCompanyv.DBModak(2
ii. Ownership of Copyrights 008)1SCC1
iii. Contract of service and Contract
for service - Work for Hire Idea-expression Dichotomy:
Doctrine and Status of the
Independent contractor (S.101 9. i) Nichols v Universal 45 F.2d 119
of US CA 1976 and Section 17 (2d Cir. 1930)
of CA 1957) 10. j) RG Anand v Delux Films AIR
1978 SC 1613
6. Economic Rights conferred on
copyright owners (Section 14 Subject Matter and Ownership:
r/w Sections 18 and 51 CA
 11. k) University of London Press v
University Tutorial Press [1916] 2
Ch. 601
12. l) Community for Creative Non-
Violence et. Al v Reid 490 U. S 730
(1989)
1957)
Infringement and intermediary liability:
7. Moral Rights (Section 57 CA
m) Myspace Inc. vs. Super Cassettes
1957)
Industries Ltd., 2017 (69) PTC1 (Del)
8. Copyright Infringement and
Remedies (Chapter XII and
Territoriality:
XIII of CA 1957)
n) SubafilmsvMGM-PatheCommunications

Other cases:

Originality:
a) Baker v Selden 101 U.S. 99 (1879)

b)LadbrokevWilliamHill[1964]1WLR

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
i. Civil, Subject Matter:
Criminal and
Administrati 1. a) Apple Computer, Inc. Franklin Computer Corp.- 714
ve Remedies F.2d 1240
ii. Pecuniary
Remedies (3d Cir. 1983)
iii. Anton Pillar
Orders 2. b) ComputerAssociatesv.AltaiInc,923F.2d.693
iv. Mareva 3. c) Rogers v. Koons- 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992)
Injunction 4. d) AnandaExpandedItalics(Req),re-2002(24)PTC427CB

9. Defences / Public Domain:

Exceptions to
Copyright and 5. e) Eldred v. Ashcroft- 537 U.S. 186
Doctrine of Fair 6. f) Leibovitz v Paramount Pictures- 137 F.3d 109
Use/Dealing
(Section 52, CA Intermediary Liability:
1957)
7. g) MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005)
10. Discussion on 8. h)
Designs as a form ViacomInternationalv.YouTube,Inc.679F.3d19(2dCir.20
of IP and the 12) Lenz v. Universal– 572 F.Supp.2d 1150 (ND Cal
differences with the 2008)
 9. i) Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc 508 F.3d 1146
(9th Cir, 2007)
10. j) Amazon v Amway

Fair Use and Fair Dealing:

11. k) Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v.

Goldsmith et al., 598 U.S. 508 (2023)
Copyright Regime
12. l) Oracle America Inc v Google Inc. (May 26, 2016, US
California Dist Court decision on fair use)

m) Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc- 977 F.2d 1510 (9th

Cir. 1992)

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
MODULE 3: LAW ON PATENTS

PATENTS Statutes/International Conventions

Covered:
1. Rationale and Justification
1. a) Patents Act, 1970 (“PA 1970”)
i. What is a patent? – r/w Patents (Amendment) Act,
6 to 9
ii. What is the origin of patent law 2005
and what is the justification for a 2. b) Agreement on Trade-related
patent? aspects of Intellectual Property
(TRIPS)
2. Patentability Criteria 3. c) Paris Convention

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
i. What can be patented? d) PatentCooperationTreaty
(The Trinity of e) European Patent Convention (EPC)
Conditions – Article 27
of TRIPS) Case discussion:
ii. What cannot be patented?
(Article 27 of TRIPS, What is not Patentable:
Section 3 and 4, PA
1970) 1. a) Novartis v Union of India AIR 2013 SC
iii. Patent Act 1970 – 1311
amendments of 1999, 2. b)
 2000, 2002 and 2005 AssociationofMolecularPathologyv.Myriad
iv. Pharmaceutical products Genetics,Inc.,133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) read
and process and patent with D’Arcy v. Myriad Genetics Inc., [2015]
protection (Section 3(d) HCA 35 (Australia)
PA 1970) 3. c) Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International,
v. Discussion on – 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014)
4. d) Bilskiv.Kappos,561U.S.593(2010)
1. a) Software Patents 5. e) Diamond v. Chakrabarty 447 U.S. 303
(Section 3(k) PA 1970) (1980)
2. b) Business Method 6. f) Harvard College v. Canada
(Section 3(k) PA 1970) (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] 4 S.C.R.
3. c) Gene Patenting 45 read with EPO’s Board of Appeal
(Section 3(b) and 3(j) PA decision in T 19/90 and T 315/03
1970) 7. g) Dimminaco A.G. Vs. Controller of
4. d) Patenting of Micro- Patents and Designs & Ors. (2002) I.P.L.R.
organism (Section 3(j) July 255
PA 1970)
Compulsory Licensing:
3. Revocation of Patents h) BayervUnionofIndia2013IndlawIPAB20

(Section 64 PA 1970)

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
4. Compulsory Infringement:
licensing
9. i) F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd & Anr v. Cipla Ltd- 2008
(Section 84 PA (37) PTC 71
1970)
(Del)
5. Patent Claims
10. j) Kirin-Amgen v. Hoechst [2005] RPC 9
Infringement- and
Remedies XVIII r/w Patents v Plant Varieties:
NuziveeduSeedsLtd.&Orsv.MonsantoTechnologuLLC.,201874)
(Chapter PTC 12 (Del)
Section 47 of PA
1970) Other Cases:

i. What is Spirit of Patent Law:

Patent a) Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal
Infringement? Industries
How is it
determined? AIR 1982 SC 1444
ii. Basic features
of patent Cloning and ethical concerns:
infringement b) In re Roslin Institute (Fed. Cir. May 8, 2014). – Dolly the
 – literal,
doctrine of
equivalents
and purposive
construction
iii. Defences to
infringement
(Section 107,
PA 1970)

a) Research
sheep
exemption – Section
47, PA 1970 and
cloning case
Bolar Exemption
What is Patentable:
2. b) Invalidity
c) Diamond v. Diehr- 450 U.S. 175 d) KSRvTeleflex-398
3. c) First sale
doctrine or
the concept of
exhaustion
(Section
107A, PA
1970)

6. Remedies for
Patent Infringement

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
7. Concept of First to File in Patent e) Lallubhai Chakubhai Jarivala v.
Law Shamaldas Sankalchand Shah 1934(36)
8. Discussion on allied forms of IP BOMLR881

1. a) Plant Varieties and the Compulsory Licensing:

differences with the Patent Regime f) BDR Pharmaceuticals International
2. b) TraditionalKnowledge Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bristol Myers
3. c) Confidential Information and
Trade Secrets Squibb Co. (C.L.A. No. 1 of 2013)
Infringement:

g) Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku

Kogyo Kabushiki Co. 535 U.S. 722
(2002)

h) Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v.

Linde Air Products Co.4 (Graver Tank
 II) 339 S. 605 (1950)

i) Ebay Inc. vs Mercexchange, 547

WEEK TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING

MODULE 4: Trademarks

Statutes/International Conventions
TRADEMARKS
Covered:
1. Definition of a Trademark (Section
1. a) Trademarks Act, 1999
2(m) and 2(zb), TM 1999)
10 to (“TM 1999”) – r/w Trademarks
2. Functions of a Trademark
13 Rules, 2017
3. Historical development of the
2. b) Agreement on Trade-related
concept of trademark and trademark
aspects of Intellectual Property
law- National and International
(TRIPS)
3. c) Madrid Agreement r/w
Madrid Protocol

WEE
TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING
K
4. Need for Protection of Case discussion:
Trademarks
5. Kinds of Trademarks Spectrum of Distinctiveness:
(including unconventional d) Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World,
trademarks) Inc 537 F.2d 4 (2d
6. International Legal
Instruments on Trademarks Cir. 1976)
7. Well known Trademark
Functionality, dilution and Infringement:
1. Registration of Trademark
(Section 9, 11, Chapter III of TM 5. e) Amritdhara Pharmacy v Satyadeo
1999) AIR 1963 SC 449
6. f) Bollinger v Costa Brava Wine Co
1. Spectrum of distinctiveness -- Ltd [1960] 1 All ER 561
Abercrombie Formulation 7. g) LorealvBellure
2. Non-Traditional Trademarks 8. h)
3. Descriptive Marks and CadilavCadila2001(21)PTC541(SC)
Inherently Descriptive Marks (LikelihoodofConfusion)
4. “Likelihood of Confusion” 9. i) Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products
and Polaroid Test Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)
5. Refusal Of Registration of (Functionality)
Trademark: Absolute and
 Comparative Advertisement:
j) Pepsi Co. v Hindustan Coca Cola Ltd., 2003
(27) PTC 305 k)
Relative
HULv.AMUL,BombayHighCourt,2017
6. Procedure for registration of
Trademark: Application -
Passing Off:
l) Reckitt & Colman v Borden [1990] 1 All
E.R. 873
m) Benz v Hybo Hindustan AIR 1994 Delhi
239 (also for

WEEK TOPIC ESSENTIAL READING

intent to use, Opposition, o) TATA Sons v. Greenpeace Intl., IA No
Registration, Abandonment 9089/2010 in CS (OS) 1407/2010

2. Trademark Dilution Transborder Reputation:

p) Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha vs M/S
(Section 29(4), TM 1999) Prius Auto Industries

1. Blurring Limited [SC, December 14, 2017]

2. Tarnishment
3. Comparative International protection: q) HavanaClubcase
Advertisement and
Disparagement (Section Other cases:
29(8), TM 1999)
Transborder Reputation:
3. Rights of Registered
a) Dongrev.Whirlpool1996PTC(16) Reputation
Trademark and Goodwill:
Assignment
licensing of Trademarks (Section b) Anheiser-Busch Inc. v. Budejovicky Budvar
28, TM 1999) [1984] F.S.R. 413 (CA) (U.K.)

4. Infringement of Trademark – Infringement:

(Section 29, TM 1999)
c) F. Hoffmann-La Roche v Geoffrey Manners
1. Defences – Honest and AIR 1970 SC 2062
concurrent use, Exhaustion,
acquiescence etc. (Section 4. d)
30 – 36, TM 1999) CadilaLabv.DaburPharmaLtd,66(1997)
2. Remedies for Trademark DLT741
Infringement - Civil and 5. e) Corn Products Refining v. Shangrila
Criminal Remedies Food Products Ltd- AIR 1960 SC 142
6. f) Estee lauder v fragrance counter- 189
Owners - and F.R.D. 269 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
 7. g) Interstellar Starship Services Ltd v.
Epix Incepix.com- 184 F.3d 1107 (9th
Cir,

Drafting Convecing and Pleading

a. Weekly Course Outline

Teaching Lecture Topic

Week
1 &2 Drafting: Introduction

3
Civil Pleadings I: Plaint
4 Civil Pleadings II: Defence
5 Civil Pleadings III: Miscellaneous

6
Civil Pleadings IV: Appeals, Revision and Review
7
Criminal Pleadings I
8
Criminal Pleadings II
9
Constitutional Pleadings
10-13
Conveyancing: Introduction & Conveyancing I-III
14
Review/Revision Week

b. Weekly/Module-wise Readings

Week 1 &2
Drafting: Introduction

Meaning and Importance ● Forms of Drafting ● General Rules of Drafting ●

Important Steps in Drafting ● Precautions ● Plain Legal Language Movement

Readings:
 1. Dickerson, Reed. “Legal Drafting: Writing as Thinking, or, Talkback from
your Draft and How to Exploit it.” Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 29, no.
4, 1978, pp. 373–379:
https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2527&context=facpub&httpsredir=1&referer=
2. Macdonald, Ros. "Plain English in the law—a new model for the 21st
century" Commonwealth Law Bulletin 30.1 (2004): 922-947.
3. Vidhi Manual on Plain Language Drafting available at
https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/research/manual-on-plain-language-drafting/
4. Vardarajan, Tunku. “Judgment by Thesaurus - Or, a 'Proponement in
Oppugnation' to the Supreme Court's use of language” available
https://thewire.in/law/judgment-by-thesaurus

+ CLASS EXERCISE

Pleadings: Introduction

History and Development of Pleadings in England and India ● Meaning and Importance ●
Functions of Pleadings ● Order VI of CPC ● Essentials of Pleading ● Particulars of
Pleading ● Signing and Verification of Pleading ● Amendment in Pleadings ● Applicability
of Order VI CPC in Other Proceedings ● Understanding Affidavits – Order XIX CPC
Readings:

1. History, Systems and Functions of Pleading, 11 Virginia Law

Review517(1925)2. Excerpts from Chapters 2-6, Mogha, P. C. (2003).
The law of pleadings in India.
16thedition.NewDelhi:Easternlawhouse[orequivalentchaptersoflaterediti
ons]
2. Foley, Brian J., and Ruth Anne Robbins. "Fiction 101: A Primer for
Lawyers on How to Use Fiction Writing Techniques to Write Persuasive
Facts Sections." Rutgers LJ32 (2000): 459.
3. Order VI of the Code of the Civil Procedure and rules of Supreme Court
and Delhi High Court
4. Order XIX of the Code of the Civil Procedure and rules of Supreme
Court

+ CLASS EXERCISE

Week 3
Civil Pleadings I: Plaint

Plaint (Order VII of CPC) ●Frame of Suit ● Parties to a Suit ●Cause of Action●
Reliefs ●Court Fees
 Readings:

1. Excerpts from Chapters 11-14, Mogha,P.C.(2003). The law of pleadings in

India. 16th edition. New Delhi: Eastern law house [or equivalent chapters of
later editions].
2. Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

+ CLASS EXERCISE

Week 4

Civil Pleadings II: Defence

Written Statement (Order VIII of CPC) ● Set Off and Counter Claim
Readings:

1. Excerpts from Chapters 11-14, Mogha,P.C.(2003). The law of pleadings in

India. 16th edition. New Delhi: Eastern law house [or equivalent chapters of
later editions].
2. Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

+ CLASS EXERCISE

Week 5
Civil Pleadings III: Miscellaneous
Injunction Application and Other Interlocutory Application (suggested: Order VII, Rule 10 &
11, Order VI Rule 17)

Readings:

1. Page 26-40, Chapter 2, S.P. Agarwal, Pleadings, 2003 [or equivalent

chapters of later editions]
2. §§36 to 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963
3. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

+ CLASS EXERCISE
Week 6

Civil Pleadings IV: Appeal, Revision and Review

Appeals ● Revision Petition ● Review Petition ● Correction/Re-call applications

Readings:

1. §115 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908

2. §114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908
3. Page 74-89, Chapter 2, S.P.Agarwal, Pleadings, 2003 [or equivalent pages of
the newer edition]
4. §104 and Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
5. §§96 to99 and Order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
6. §§100 to 103and 108 and Order 42 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
7. Section 151 & 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

+CLASS EXERCISE

Week 7
Criminal Pleadings I

Criminal Complaint ● Maintenance Application ● Application for Quashing

an FIR ● Application for Regular Bail ● Anticipatory Bail

Readings:

1. Page 283-300, Chapter 3,S.P.Agarwal, Pleadings,2003[or equivalent pages

of the newer edition]
2. Page308-314,Chapter3,S.P.Agarwal,Pleadings, 2003[or equivalent pages of
the newer edition]
3. §§144-147of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023 (Maintenance)
4. §§ 478-496, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Bail and bonds,
including anticipatory bail)
5. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. The State of Punjab., AIR 1980 SC 1632

+CLASS EXERCISE

Week 8
Criminal Pleadings II

Revision Petition ●Appeals ●Petitions under §528, BNSS (erstwhile §482 of

 CrPC)

Readings:

1. Page304-307,Chapter3,S.P.Agarwal,Pleadings,2003[or equivalent pages of

the newer edition]
2. §§413-435,BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita,2023(Appeals)
3. §§436-445,BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita,2023(Reference and
Revisions)
4. Section 528,Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile,§482ofCr.
P.C.)
5. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal., AIR 1992 SC 604

+ CLASS EXERCISE

Week 9
Constitutional Pleadings

Petition under Articles 136, 32 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution ● Review Petition
and Curative Petition before the Supreme Court

Readings:

1. Page301-303,Chapter2,S.P.Agarwal,Pleadings,2003[or equivalent pages of the

newer edition]
2. Page315-355,Chapter3,S.P.Agarwal,Pleadings,2003[or equivalent pages of the
newer edition]
3. Articles 136, 32 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution
4. Supreme Court Rules on Practice and Procedure

+CLASS EXERCISE

Week 10-13

- Conveyancing: Introduction

History and Development in England and India ● Meaning and Definition ●

Instruments ● Contracts ● Deeds ● Types of Deeds ● Its Components ●
Capacity to Convey ● Precautions ●Law on Registration ● Law on Stamp
duty.

Readings:
1. John R. Wood, The Statute of Uses and the Modern Deed, Michigan Law
Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 109-123
 2. Indian Stamp Act,1899
3. The Registration Act,1908
- Conveyancing I: Immovable Property: Agreement to Sell & Sale Deed ● Mortgage Deed
●Lease Deed

Readings:
1. TransferofPropertyAct,1882(§§54,55,58,60,61,62,63,63A,67,68,72,76,
105,107-108)
2. Bharat Petroleum Corporation v. Chembur Service Station, (2011) 3 SCC 710.

+ CLASS EXERCISE

- Conveyancing II: Gift, Will and Power of Attorney (both GPA and SPA)
Readings:
1. Transfer of Property Act,1882
2. The Gift Tax Act1958
3. The Indian Partnership Act 1932
4. MomanLalv.AnandiBai&Ors,1971 AIR SC 2177

+CLASS EXERCISE

- Conveyancing III: Commercial Contracts, Arbitration Agreement, Partnership Deed etc.

Drafting Indemnity Clauses ● Share Purchase Agreement ●Arbitration Agreement ●

Deed of Assignment of Registered Trademark/ Copy Right ● License to use Patent ●
Joint Venture/Collaboration Agreement ●Lease Finance Agreement ● Partnership
Deed ● Trust Deed (Note: Course Instructors may choose any 3 of these Conveyances
for teaching/assessment purposes)

Readings:
1. §§276-278 and 372 of the Indian Succession Act,1925
2. Indian Registration Act,1908
3. The Powers of Attorney Act,1882
4. Trade Marks Act,1999
5. Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996
6. Indian Contract Act,1872

+CLASS EXERCISE
Week 14

Review Week

Labour Law

a. Weekly Course Outline

Week Topics & module Description

Week 1
LABOUR LAW, ITS PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS & NEW LABOUR
CODES
1. ILO Declaration of Philadelphia (10th May 1944)
2. ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (18 th June
1998)
3. Historical perspectives on labour
4. Evolution of labour laws in India
5. Constitutional framework and industrial relations
6. An Overview of Reforms- Labour Codes

Week INTRODUCTION TO INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT/INDUSTRIAL

2 RELATIONS CODE & BASIC CONCEPTS-I
Definitions

Industry

Industry definition: First part

Cases:
 Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v A.S. Rajappa (1978) 2 SCC
213
 Physical Research Laboratory v K.G. Sharma (1997) 4 SCC 257
 General Manager Telecom v A Srinivasa Rao (1997) 8 SCC 767
 All India Radio v Santosh Kumar (1998) 3 SCC 237
 Coir Board, Ernakulam and Cochin v Indira Devi (1998) 3 SCC 259
 Agricultural Produce Market Committee v Ashok Harikuni (2000) 8 SCC 61
 State of UP v Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1

Industry Definition: Second Part

Week  All India Radio v Santosh Kumar (1998) 3 SCC 237
3  Coir Board, Ernakulam and Cochin v Indira Devi (1998) 3 SCC 259
 Agricultural Produce Market Committee v Ashok Harikuni (2000) 8 SCC 61
 State of UP v Jai Bir Singh (2005) 5 SCC 1
Week Industrial dispute
4 Cases:
 Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v DTE AIR 1958 SC 353
 Workmen v Dharampal Premchand (Saughandi) AIR 1966 SC 182

Workers/Employees (Workmen)
Week Cases:
5  Dharangadhara Chemical Works v. Management AIR 1957 SC 264
(Employer-Employee Relationship)
 Diwan Mohideen Sahib v. Industrial Tribunal, Madras AIR 1966 SC 370
(Whether the workmen who work under the independent contractors are the
workmen of the appellants?)
 Workmen of the Canteen of Coates of India Ltd v. Coates of India Ltd. (2004)
3 SCC 547
 Workmen of Nilgiri Cooperative Marketing Society v. State of Tamil Nadu
(2004) 3 SCC 514 (Existence of employee-employer relationship)
 HussainBhai v. Alath Factory Employees Union (1978) 4 SCC 257 (Whether
the worker hired by intermediate contractors can be considered as employees
of the petitioner?)

Workers/Employees (Workmen)
Week  SK Verma v. Mahesh Chandra (1983) II LLJ 429 1983 (4) SCC 214 (Whether
6 S.K Verma is a worker within the definition of S. 2(a) of the IDA?)
 Miss A. Sundarambal v. Govt. of Goa 1989 (1) LLJ 61 (whether a teacher
employed in a school fall within the definition of the expression 'workman' as
defined in section 2(s)of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947).
 HR Adhyantaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. (1994) 5 SCC 737 (whether the
'medical representatives' as they are commonly known, are workmen/worker
according to the definition of 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the
industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the 'ID Act').)
 SK Maini v. M/S Carona Sahu Company Ltd. (1994) 3 SCC 510 (Whether a
worker or not under Section 2 (s)-Duties- managerial and administrative
functions, supervising the works of other employees subordinate to him for
running the said shop-salary of more than Rs 500 per month).

1. Lay off (Section 2(t), Chapters IX and X)

Week Cases
7  Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate v Their Management AIR 1964 SC 1458
(whether it can be said that s. 25C recognises a common law right of the
industrial employer to lay off their workmen/workers?)
 Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v The Firestone Tyre and Rubber
Co. (1976) I LLJ 493 (SC) (Whether the action of the management to 'lay-off'
seventeen workmen/workers with effect from 5th Feb. 1968 is illegal and/or
unjustified, and if so, to what relief are these workmen entitled?)
 Associated Cement Companies v Their Workmen AIR 1960 SC 56 (Was the
 lay-off of the workers in certain sections of the Chaibasa Cement Works due to
a strike on the part of workmen in another part of the establishment within the
meaning of cl. (iii) of s. 25E ?)
 Papnasam Labour Union v. Madura Coats 1995 (1) SCC 501

Week 2. Strike (Section 2(zk), Chapter VIII)

8 Cases
 Vidyasagar Institute of Mental Health v Hospital Employees Union (2006)
ILLJ 781 (Del) (Right to strike a fundamental right or not)
 TK Rangarajan v Govt of Tamil Nadu AIR 2003 SC 3032 (Right to strike a
fundamental right or not
 B.R. Singh v. Union of India AIR 1990 SC 1(Right to strike a fundamental
right or not)
 PC Roy v. Raycom AIR 1964 Cal 221
 Gujarat Steel Tubes v Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1980 SC 1896 (Strike and
Compensation)
3. Lockout (Section 2(u), Chapter VIII)
Cases
 Kairbetta Estate v Rajamanickam AIR 1960 SC 893(Whether lock-out can be
said to fall within the definition of lay-off)

Week
9 4. Retrenchment (Section 2(zh), Chapters IX and X)
Cases
 Hariprasad Shiv Shankar Shukla v A.D. Divelkar AIR 1957 SC 121 (Scope of
the definition of retrenchment)
 Punjab Land Development Officer v. Presiding Officer (1990) 3 SCC 682
(Scope of the definition of retrenchment)
 Uptron v Shammi Bhan (1998) 6 SCC 538 (whether the services of the
respondent, who had acquired the status of a permanent employee, could be
terminated in the mode and manner adopted by the petitioner) (para 7 of the
case).
 Anand Bihari and others v RSRTC and another 1991 Lab IC 494
5. Closure (Section 2(h), Chapter VB)
 Orissa Textiles & Steel Ltd. V. State of Orissa 2002 Lab IC 570(SC)
6. Unfair labour practices (Section 2(zo), Chapter XII)
 Rohtas Industries v Union (1976) 2 SCC 82 (the case is applicable to both
Trade Union’s Act as well as the Industrial Disputes

TRADE UNION & COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN INDIA

Week  Definition part: Rangaswami v Registrar of Trade Unions AIR 1962 Mad 231
10  Central Machine Tools Institute v. Assistant Labour Commissioner 1979 (38)
FLR 158 Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour (1979)
ILLJ 448 AP Read with Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of
Labour 1995 Supp (3) SCC 653
  Lohia Machines Limited v. Registrar, Trade Unions Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.13658 of 2008

Week
11 1.1. Registration (Sections 5 to 13)
1.2. Recognition through negotiating union or council (Section 14), Recognition by
government (Section 27)
1.3. Immunities (Sections 16, 17 and 18)
2. Bokajan Cement Corpn. Employees’ Union v Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. (2004) 1
SCC 142
3. ACC Rajanka Lime Stone Quarries Mazdoor Union v. Registrar of Trade Unions
AIR 1958 Pat 470 (Rights of the Registrar)
4. Balmer Lawrie Workers Union, Bombay v. Balmer Lawrie and Company Ltd
(1985) I LLJ 314
5. MRF United Workers Union v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Writ Petition No. 17991 of
2008 Read with MRF Employees’ Union v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu Writ Petition No.
24228 of 2016
6. Quinn v. Leatham [1901] UKHL 2
7. Rohtas Industries v Union (1976) 2 SCC 82

Week CODE ON WAGES

12 Equal Remuneration
Cases:
 Randhir Singh v. UOI 1982 AIR 879
 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235
 Mackinnon Mackenzie v. Audrey D’Costa 1987 AIR 1281
 State of AP v. G. Sreenivasa Rao 1989 SCR (1)1000

1. Minimum Wages
Week 2.1 Minimum wages
13 2.2 Fair wages
2.3 Living wages
Cases:
 People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. UOI (1982) 3 SCC 235
 Workmen v. Management of Reptakos Brett AIR 1992 SC 504

REVISION WEEK
Week
14

Human Rights

Module Outline

PART A: FOUNDATIONS
Module 1 Introduction to the Human Rights Theory, Concept of Human Rights,
& Historicising Rights
Module 2 The United Nations Human Rights System
Module 3 Regional human rights protection
Module 4 Nature of human rights obligations
Module 5 Limitations and derogations

PART B: CONTEXTS

Module 6 Equality and Non-discrimination

Module 7 Freedom of Religion or Belief
Module 8 Freedom of Expression
Module 9 Prohibition of torture
Module 10 Gender and Human Rights
Module 11 Economic and Social Rights
Module 12 Climate change and Human Rights
Module 13 Critique of Human Rights
Module 14 Revision

PART A: FOUNDATIONS

Module 1: Introduction to the Human Rights Theory, Concept of Human

Rights, and Critique of Human Rights
What do we mean by human rights? In this module we will understand how the idea of
human rights was perceived at different periods of history. We will also examine some of the
critiques
associated with human rights.

Essential Readings:
• Wheatley, S., “What We Mean When We Talk about ‘Human Rights”, Chapter 1, ‘Idea of
International Human Rights Law’, (OUP 2019) p. 17-34
• Mutua, M., The Complexity of Universalism in Human Rights, Chapter 2, Sajo, A., ‘Human
Rights with Modesty: The Problem of Universalism’ (Springer 2004)

Audio/Visual resources and Newspaper sources:

• “What are the universal human rights? -– Benedetta Berti”, TED-ED, 15 October 2015.
• “Cyrus Cylinder: How a Persian monarch inspired Jefferson”, BBC News, 11 March
2013.

Discussion Questions:
1. What are rights? Are they the same as human rights?
2. Were human rights applicable to everyone equally? Who did they protect and from who?
3. Why was an exclusion made? What is an example of this and how?
4. Name two Conventions and two Declarations that have been instituted by the UN since
1980.
How are they different?
5. Identify the role of Optional Protocols. What do they establish?
6. Why is the Enlightenment era important? Why is the history of rights important to
understand?
7. How is the death of Jean Calas and the subsequent action important for a reading on
Western
thought of the era? How similar are these concepts, articulations and interpretations and
implementation of rights similar to the notion of human rights today?
8. How many similarities are there between the UDHR and the English, French and American
human rights documents? How should we then consider the UDHR’s claim to be universal?

Module 2: United Nations Sponsored Treaty Framework and Charter Based

Mechanisms
The aim of this module is to transition the history and theory of human rights to its translation
into law. The module will deal with numerous international legal instruments and institutions,
introducing the students to the international system for the protection of human rights.
Students
will be introduced to treaty bodies, commissions, councils, rapporteurs, and courts. Further,
the
aim is to examine the UN HRC’s newest procedure – the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The UPR was established in 2006 to avoid the politicization that plagued the former UN
Human Rights Commission. The UPR provides a means for the periodic examination of
every UN member state’s human rights record, regardless of the treaty ratifications of a
particular state.

Essential Readings:
• What Are Treaty Bodies? https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies
• Jane Connors, ‘19. United Nations’ in Daniel Moeckli and others (eds), Jane Connors,
International Human Rights Law (Oxford University Press 2017) pp.6-9 and 21-36
• Watch “What is the UPR?”

International Human Rights Instruments:

• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
• UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)
• UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW)
• Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)
• Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers (CRMW)
• International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
(CPED)

Cases, Reports, and Materials for class:

• India’s National Report for the Fourth Cycle
• Compilation of UN Information
• Summary of Stake Holders
• Questions in Advance
• Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review
• Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replied
presented by the State under review
• Periodic Reports Submitted by India to CERD in 1996 and 2006
• Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in
1996 and 2007
• Mahali Dawas & Yousef Shava v. Denmark, CERD Communication No. 46/2009, Doc No.
CERD-C- 80-D-46-2009
Discussion Questions
1. How did the international human rights framework develop?
2. What are the different enforcement mechanisms under the International Human Rights
framework?
3. What is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism? How does it work?
4. How was it established?
5. What is the value, if any, of the UPR?
6. What are the benefits and drawbacks of states examining the human rights records of other
states?
7. What role do NGOs play in the UPR?
8. What do you think about India’s National Report as submitted to the UPR? Do you think it
adequately reflects the human rights situation in the country? Compare and contrast the State
Report of India with Stakeholders summary.
9. What do you think of the Decision on the Outcome of India? Do you think it is realistic?
What
do you think the chances are for implementation at the domestic level?
10. How effective is the UPR process?

Module 3: Regional human rights protection

This Module we will survey the regional human rights protection systems. We will identify
regional instruments and the differences they contain that support or detract from the full
implementation of international human rights globally.

Essential Readings:
• Huneeus, A and Madsen, M. Between universalism and regional law and politics: A
comparative history of the American, European, and African human rights systems,
International Journal of Constitutional Law, 16 (1) 2018

Regional Protection Framework:

• European Convention on Human Rights (1953)
• The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1986)
• The Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (1978)
• The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (1990)
• The Arab Charter of Human Rights (2004)
• ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights (2012)

Discussion Questions
1. What are the different regional mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights?
2. What are the differences between the regional and United Nations mechanisms?

Module 4: Nature of human rights obligations

In this module, we examine how to identify international human rights law. We will identify
the special sources in IHRL, and how they interact with the traditional sources of law. We
will also examine what makes human rights obligations ‘special’ compared to other
obligations under international law. It is recommended that students skim through their
material on the Sources of International Law from their Public International Law classes to
better appreciate this material covered this Module.
Essential Readings:
• UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment, No. 31: The Nature of the Genera Legal
Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. Adopted 29th March 2004 pp. 1-3
• UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 3: The
Nature of States Parties’ Obligations. Adopted 14th December 1990. pp. 1-5
• CCPR General Comment No. 24: Issues Relating to Reservations Made upon Ratification
or Accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in Relation to Declarations
under Article 41 of the Covenant adopted 4 November 1994. pp.1-7
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, articles 19 – 23.

Cases:
• Belilos v Switzerland, ECHR
• Rawle Kennedy v Trinidad and Tobago, Communication No. 845, CCPR/C/67/D/845/1999
• Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide, International Court of Justice, 1951

Discussion Questions:
1. What is a “source” of international law and why do human rights lawyers and advocates
need to have a good understanding of these sources?
2. What is customary international law?
3. What is treaty law?
4. What is soft law? Give examples of both international human rights law treaties and soft
law instruments.
5. Can a norm be a norm both of treaty law and customary international law? If so, how?
How
do you think this works?
6. Which human rights norms qualify as peremptory norms of international law? How, if at
all, does peremptory status (jus cogens norms) contribute to better protection of human
rights?
7. What are erga omnes obligations? How important are they in human rights law?
8. How is a treaty drafted? How does it come into force? How are domestic legal obligations
established?
9. Are all states bound under the complaints hearing mechanism? Does this differ between
treaties?
11. What is the role of General Comments/Recommendations?
12. What is the legal status of a General Comment/Recommendation? How effective are
both the decisions of treaty body complaints hearing mechanisms and general
comments/recommendations in securing change?

Module 5: Limitations and Derogations

Human Rights are not absolute in nature. States may, after fulfilling certain legal criteria,
limit
(restrict) the enjoyment of these rights or temporarily suspend them. During this module, we
will explore the legal framework that allows states to either limit or derogate certain
substantive rights.

Essential Readings:
• UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 29, States of Emergency (2001).
• The Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights UN Doc. No. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985)
Available here: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/siracusaprinciples.html ;
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-7/key-issues/derogation-during-public-
emergency.html (overview)

Cases and Comments

• Lawless v. Ireland, 1 ECtHR. 15 (1961)
• Lucia Sala de Touron v. Uruguay, Communication No. 32/1978, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1
at 61 (1984)
• The Greek Case, 1969 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on H.R. 71-72, Eur. Comm’n on H.R.
• Brannigan and McBride v.UK, ECHR Application No. 14553/89 (1993)
• Seven Individuals v. Sweden, ECHR

Discussion Questions:
1. When, how and for what reasons can states justifiably limit rights? What procedure must
be followed?
2. What is “derogation”? What is “limitation”?
3. What rights are contained in Articles 6, 9, 18, 19, and 21 of the ICCPR? Are these
derogable or non-derogable? If they are non-derogable what can states still do?
4. Are there any rights that can never be subject to limitation?
5. Under what circumstances may a state derogate from international human rights law?
6. Consider the case law discussed this Module and discuss how public emergency has been
defined by the European Court of Human Rights.
7. What is the procedure for states wishing to derogate from the ICCPR?
8. Can a state derogate from the ICESCR?PART B: Substantive Rights

Module 6: Equality and Non-discrimination

This Module, we will examine how the concepts of equality and non-discrimination have
evolved since the UN Charter and UDHR to move beyond formal equality to now push
towards a more transformative and participative model. We will identify cases that highlight
the historical shortfalls in equality law interpretation and application and how state
obligations have evolved as a corrective action against formal equality. We will also examine
positive action/positive discrimination. There will be a particular focus on equality and non-
discrimination from the Indian perspective – caste-based discrimination. This Module, we
will examine how the concepts of equality and non-discrimination have evolved since the UN
Charter and UDHR to move beyond formal equality to now push towards a more
transformative and participative model. We will identify cases that highlight the historical
shortfalls in equality law interpretation and application and how state obligations have
evolved
as a corrective action against formal equality. We will also examine positive action/positive
discrimination.

Essential Readings
• Fredman, S., “Substantive Equality Revisited”

Cases and Comments:

• Briefly, as discussed in class:

o Plessy v Ferguson 163 US 537 (1896)
o Brown v Board of Education 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
• A.T. v Hungary A/60/38 (part 1 Annex 3) Communication 2/2003, CEDAW Committee,
decision 26-Jan-2005
• "The Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252 Relating to Certain Aspects of
the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium" V. Belgium (Merits) 1 EHRR
252 (1968)
• D.H. & Othrs. Czech Republic ECHR Grand Chamber 2007
• CERD General Comment 29
• Concluding Observations of the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination –
India, CERD/C/304/Add.13 (17.09.1996)
• CERD General Recommendation 32, 75th Session: The Meaning and Scope of Special
Measures in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Racial
Discrimination (2009)

Discussion Questions:
1. Describe the notions of Formal and Substantive Equality and point out the key differences
between the two.
2. What elements have been identified to constitute indirect discrimination in the
jurisprudence of human rights bodies and courts?3. What are some of the limitations of
formal equality?
4. What does finding a ‘comparator’ mean? When would this be necessary and when would it
be difficult?
5. In what case will the differentiation in treatment of individuals be considered justified?
6. What tests are generally employed by international human rights bodies to determine direct
discrimination?
7. What does Megret mean by a “tripartite” obligation of implementation of international
human rights law?
8. How do the different categories of implementation under the tripartite system differ?
9. Link together the cases with the nature of state obligations and how states (i) defined
whether discrimination had taken place and (ii) how this treatment related with a state
obligation to respect/protect/fulfil human rights.
10. What does CERD aim to achieve? Have the contents of CERD and its emphasis changed
over time?
11. Does the CERD have a complaints hearing mechanism? Does it need an Optional
Protocol to hear cases? If yes/no is this different to other international human rights law
treaties?
12. What do General Recommendations 32 and 35 tell us about the pursuit of eliminating
racial
discrimination?

Module 7: Freedom of Religion or Belief (FoRB)

This module explores the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion under Article
18 of the ICCPR. We will examine the legal foundations of these rights and engage with
contemporary debates on secularism, tolerance, and value pluralism. By analyzing key cases,
students will gain insight into the complex relationship between state authority and individual
religious freedoms, and how these dynamics are addressed in different legal systems. The
goal is to develop a nuanced understanding of religious freedoms in international law and
their impact on global human rights.

Essential Readings:
• Article 18 ICCPR, article 9 ECHR.
• General Comment 22 on Article 18 ICCPR

Cases and comments:

• Leyla Sahin v Turkey ECHR 2005 ECHR 819 / (2007) 44 EHRR 5
• SAS v France ECHR
• Sonia Yaker v. France
• Lautsi v Italy (2011)
• Bikramjit Singh v France CCPR/C/106/D/1852/2008 (4 February 2013)
• Hudoyberganova v Uzbekistan CCPR/C/82/D/931/2000 (5 November 2004)

Discussion Questions:
1. Are the rights to religion, and expression derogable according to Article 4 of the ICCPR.
Under what circumstances may states derogate from articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the ICCPR?
2. Under what circumstances can states limit/derogate from articles 18, 19 and 21 of the
ICCPR? What test must they meet in order to ensure that any limitations are in accordance
with international human rights law?
3. The separation of the state from religion and a secular approach to policy and law is often
seen as progressive and as respectful and tolerant of difference. Is there a singular definition
of what secularism means?
4. Is there a coherent notion of religious freedom in international legal theory? If not, why?
5. Different complaint hearing mechanisms have given different opinions on whether a
restriction on wearing religious clothing constitutes discrimination. Compare and contrast the
work of these mechanisms.
6. How could principles of direct and/or indirect discrimination be relevant to the cases?
7. Which state obligation (from respect, protect, or fulfil) would be most relevant to advance
human rights centred arguments to allow the wearing of religiously motivated
clothing/symbols.

Module 8: Freedom of Expression (FoE)

This module focuses on the essential civil and political freedom of expression as outlined in
Articles 19 and 20 of the ICCPR. We will explore the boundaries of this right, particularly
when it intersects with freedom of religion. The concept of hate speech, which is not
protected under freedom of expression, will be critically examined to understand how speech
can be lawfully restricted. Through key legal texts and landmark cases, students will analyze
how freedom of expression and religion can both complement and limit each other, gaining a
nuanced understanding of their application in international law.

Essential Readings:
• Joseph, S. and Castan, M., Chapter 18, “Freedom of Expression - Articles 19 and 20”, in
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Cases, Materials, and
Commentary, 3rd ed., (2013) pp.1-35

Cases and comments:

• Handyside v. United Kingdom, ECHR, 7 December 1976
• Otto Preminger Institut v Austria, ECHR.
• Faurisson v. France, Communication No. 550/1993, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993(1996)
• TBB-Turkish Union in Berlin v Germany, CERD Communication No. 48/2010, Doc No.
CERD-C-82- D-48-2010 and the dissenting opinion by Mr. Carlos Manuel Vazquez
• CERD General Recommendation 35, 83rd Session: Combating Racist Hate Speech (2013)

Discussion Questions:
1. What is protected by article 19 ICCPR?
2. What is the relationship between freedom of thought, expression, association and religion?
3. Are the rights to religion, and expression derogable according to Article 4 of the ICCPR.
Under what circumstances may states derogate from articles 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the ICCPR?
4. Under what circumstances can states limit/derogate from articles 18, 19 and 21 of the
ICCPR? What test must they meet in order to ensure that any limitations are in accordance
with international human rights law?
5. What is hate speech? How can we define it?

Module 9: Prohibition Against Torture

During this session we examine the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment and punishment which is a core and non-derogable human right that
protects the integrity of the human person.

Essential Readings:• Articles 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, 17 of the ICCPR

• UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment
• Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment
• Manfred Nowak, What Practices Constitute Torture: US and UN Standards, 28(4) Human
Rights Quarterly 809

Presentation and Cases:

• Ireland v. United Kingdom, 25 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) 25 (1978);
• Harminder Singh Khalsa et Al v Switzerland, 2011
• Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. The State of Israel (H.C. 5100/94)
• Gäfgen v Germany, ECHR
• Chahal v UK (1997)
• Guengueng et al. v. Senegal, CAT/C/36/D/181/2001

Discussion Questions:
1. Within the essential readings a moral absolutist perspective is presented promoting the
absolute abolition of torture, largely for moral reasons. How strong are these arguments?
When do you think this argument was most influential, do you feel the argument still has the
same level of support that it had then?
2. International prohibition is a customary international law. It has also been codified in
international treaties. Despite this there is wide recognition that many states torture. Relying
on the readings and class discussions substantiate this claim. What is the cause of this gap?
3. Give some examples of acts that amount to a) torture b) cruel, inhumane and degrading
treatment or punishment.
4. Are state obligations to prevent torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment or
punishment positive or negative or both? Provide examples for both.
5. What does the right to life actually protect? Is every killing a violation of the right to life?
If not, why not?
6. What is a disappearance? What human rights are potentially violated when a person is
subject to an enforced disappearance?
7. How do we understand the idea of shifting standards for torture? Is this flexibility desirable
in a Human Rights Regime?
8. The ‘ticking-bomb’ theory has often been used as a potential justification for torture, on
what basis is this argument convincing, if it is?
9. Optional: Why do you think the USA has not ratified the UNCAT but has ratified the Inter-
American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture?

Module 10: Gender and Human Rights

This Module we will analyse gender and human rights with an emphasis on Indian and other
Asian geographies and how they differ from international cases. We will identify where to
find
international human rights laws that, in Gable’s model, refer to either reproductive rights
(RRs), or right to health (R2H), and which collectively form the right to reproductive health
(R2RH). The implementation of these laws will then be analysed from a patient-centric,
gender-sensitive perspective.

Essential Readings:
• MacKinnon, C., “Are Women Human?” in ‘Are Women Human? And Other International
Dialogues’, pp. 41-43, (2007).
• Charlesworth, H., “The Hidden Gender of International Law”, 16 TEMP. INT’L & COMP.
L.J. 93 (2002)
• Gable, L., “Reproductive Health as a Human Right” 60 CaseWResLRev 957 (2010), pp.
985-994

Cases:
Access to Abortion International Comparative Perspectives and conception of life:
• Mellet v Ireland, Human Rights Committee, Doc No: CCPR/C/116/D/2324/2013, 31
March 2016
• Maria de Lourdes da Silva Pimentel (Alyne) v Brazil, Communication No. 17/2008 decision
30 Nov 2007 Doc. No. CEDAW/C/49/D/17/2008
• Tyasic v Poland
• Devika Biswas v. Union of India, (2016) 10 SCC 726

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

• Toonen v. Australia, Communication No. 488/1992, U.N. Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992
(1994)
• Case of Dudgeon v UK, 1981 (ECHR) 5
• G v Australia, 2017
• Uttam Mondal v Sweden, 2011, CAT (deportation of a gay man to Bangladesh)• Vladimir
Ivanov v Russian Federation, HRC, 2021 (Unjustified restrictions to the right of peaceful
assembly; discrimination against LGBT people; pride event in the Crimea prohibited by
Russian authorities under ‘anti-propaganda’ law)

Discussion Questions:
1. How, and where, are rights (such as the right to life, the right to the highest attainable
standard of health) articulated regarding reproductive rights?
2. How present are men and women’s reproductive needs articulated within IHRL?
3. Why do women have a disproportionate need for reproductive health rights? How can
support for women only services be justified using an equality-based framework?
4. How, according to Gable, may the ICCPR be used to develop a right to reproductive
rights?
5. How, according to Gable, may the ICESCR be used to develop a right to reproductive
health?
6. Has a right to reproductive health been recognised in IHRL and/or by courts? Demonstrate
with reference to a source of law/judgment. Has Gable’s conception been expanded by
complaint hearing mechanisms?
7. Compare and contrast the articulations of health between the ICESCR and CEDAW.
8. How do you feel courts should interpret the right to equality between men and women with
regard to reproductive health services?

Module 11: Economic and Social Rights

What are economic and social rights? Are they justiciable in courts? This Module, we will
focus on economic and social rights. We will first analyse the difference between positive
obligations and negative obligations. We will then move on to familiarize ourselves with the
normative content within these rights, specifically the right to adequate housing and
education.

Essential Readings:
• CESCR General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990)
• CESCR General Comment 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights.
• Fredman, S. Human Rights Transformed: Positive Rights and Positive Duties (Oxford
University Press 2008). Chapter 8: Socio-economic rights.
• ICESCR Article 6, 9, 13 & 14
• CRC Articles 28 and 29
• CEDAW Article 10
• CRPD Article 24

Cases and comments:

• CESCR General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990)
• Unni Krishnan, J.P. & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. AIR (1993) SC 2178 33
• Olga Tellis & Othrs. v Bombay Municipal Corporation & Othrs. AIR (1986) SC 180.
• Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others vs. Grootboom, 2001 (1) SA 46
(CC), 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC).
• Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign, Constitutional Court of South Africa,
Case CCT 8/02, 5 July 2002 in as far as it deals with progressive realisation.
• IDG v Spain, CESCR
• CESCR General Comment 3: The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (1990)

Discussion Questions:
1. What is the scope of the right to education? Does it mean there should be state funded free
education for all children and adults?
2. What has the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child said about the quality of
education?
3. How does the right to education intersect with other human rights, including the right to
life, religion, expression and the prohibition of non-discrimination?
4. What practical challenges do states face when attempting to implement the right to
education at the domestic level?
5. What do ‘multiplier’ and ‘cornerstone’ refer to with reference to socio-economic rights?
6. How does Fredman draw distinctions between legal and policy (distributive) obligations?
How does this claim affect socio-economic rights’ justiciability?
7. What is the significance of the Unni Krishnan case?
8. Does a “progressive realization” standard apply for implementation of all ICESCR Rights?

Module 12: Climate Change and Human Rights

Climate change is believed to be the largest human rights issue in the 21st century. Still, there
is a shortage of both soft and hard laws to protect human rights affected by climate change. In
the last 5 years, there have been references to climate change under 'right to life' Article 6,
Comment Number 36; Committee on Rights of Children, in the context of inter-generational
equity, and the Committee on Economic and Social Rights. We utilize this Module to
understand the developments in the linkage between climate change issues and human rights.

Essential Readings:
• Lavanya Rajamani, Climate change, as in Moeckli, D. et al. (eds.) International Human
Rights Law
• Hall, Margaux Janine and Weiss, David C., Avoiding Adaptation Apartheid: Climate
Change Adaptation and Human Rights Law (June 16, 2012). 37 Yale Journal of International
Law 309 (2012), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2087790

Cases and Comments:

• Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand (advance unedited version), CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016, UN
Human Rights Committee (HRC), 7 January 2020.
• Daniel Billy v Australia, CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019
• Greta Thunberg et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany & Turkey, Communication to
the Committee of the Rights of the Child, (Sep. 23, 2019),
• Human Rights Council, 48/14. Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
protection of human rights in the context of climate change
• Human Rights Council, 35/20. Human rights and climate change
• Verein Klimaseniorinnen Scweiz and Others v Switzerland [Grand Chamber, ECtHR, April
9, 2024]

Discussion questions:
1. How does climate change impact the right to life as articulated in Article 6 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)? In what ways have recent
legal interpretations expanded this understanding?
2. In the context of inter-generational equity, how has the Committee on the Rights of the
Child addressed the impact of climate change on future generations? What legal arguments
support the recognition of climate change as a human rights issue for children?
3. Analyze the case of Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand. How did the Human Rights Committee
approach the issue of climate-induced displacement and its implications for the right to life?
4. Discuss the concept of "Adaptation Apartheid" as presented by Hall and Weiss. How does
climate change adaptation intersect with human rights law, and what are the risks of unequal
adaptation measures?5. In what ways do the cases of Daniel Billy v. Australia and Verein
Klimaseniorinnen Schweiz v. Switzerland illustrate the challenges and opportunities for
advancing human rights protections in the context of climate change?
6. Evaluate the role of the Human Rights Council in addressing climate change as a human
rights issue. How effective are the mandates and resolutions (e.g., 48/14 and 35/20) in
promoting and protecting human rights in the face of climate change?
7. How does the case of Greta Thunberg et al. v. Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany &
Turkey challenge traditional notions of state responsibility in the context of climate change?
What implications could this case have for future climate litigation?
8. What are the limitations of existing international human rights frameworks in addressing
climate change? How can both soft and hard law be strengthened to better protect human
rights in the face of global environmental changes?

Module 13: Critiques of Human Rights Law

This Module, we will explore literature that addresses the inherent contradictions in the
Human
Rights Narrative.

Essential Readings:
• Dembour, M. (2022). 3. Critiques. In Oxford University Press eBooks (pp. 43–62).
https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780198860112.003.0003
• Mutua, M. “Savages, Victims and Saviours: The Metaphor of Human Rights” Harv. Int'l L.
J. 201 (2001)

Discussion Questions:
1. Countries like the UK, France and Belgium had conflicting political interests. What were
these and what emerged as a consequence of these?
2. The UK and other states lobbied for certain IHRL provisions to not be codified. What were
these and why were they against the UK’s political interests?
3. Independence movements in colonised states often relied on the principle of self-
determination to assert a legal right to independence. Where was the mention of the right to
self-determination found? Who were parties to the document? What was the intended
applicability of the principle and was the understanding of potentially broader application
common to both state leaders or did they have different interpretations?
4. How does Mutua construct the idea of a good or bad state? What would a state’s voluntary
re-structuring of its internal laws to be compatible with IHRL provisions more closely align
with?
5. How does Mutua define the concept of a victim within IHRL?
6. How does Mutua refer to the Christian crusades? What relevance might this have for IHRL
today?
6. Do you feel the current international human rights structure to blame for inequality
today or are there other more influencing factors?

Module 14: Review (2 Classes)Last Module is dedicated for revision of class materials