Category: Law

The 7 Universal Laws, the Law of Attraction, the 12 Universal Laws of Success, the 6 Spiritual Laws of the Universe… All those terms, one talks about 6 Laws of the Universe, the other talks about 7 Universal Laws, yet other talks about 12 Laws of Success, I’ve even seen people talking about 21 Spiritual Laws of the Universe, or rather 21 subsidiaries Universal Laws. All sources of knowledge promise the same magic of manifesting and attracting all desires and dreams of people applying one or more of these Laws.

Yet so few people are actually living their desires, dreams, and success. Despite all the available knowledge about the 7 Universal Laws, the Law of Attraction, the 12 Universal Laws of Success, the 6 Spiritual Laws of the Universe and the subsidiary Universal Laws or Spiritual Universal Laws, there’s only a handful of people reaping the benefits that are promised to accompany the application of the Universal Law of Attraction or the interplay of Universal Laws in general.

So why don’t all those people not ‘attract what they desire’, ‘manifesting their dreams’, or ‘achieving the success they’ve always longed for’? Even the hundreds of thousands of people who have seen the movie ‘The Secret’, or the documentary ‘What the Bleep Do We Know’, or read the ‘Attractor Factor’ by Joe Vitale, or the Laws of Success by Napoleon Hill, or the ‘Secrets of the Millionaire Mind’ by T. Harv Eker, or any other popular self-help or self-improvement book, movie, film or other resource? One reason is that there’s no such thing as “effortless attraction”. As much as you’d like not having to put in any effort whatsoever, there’s always a bit of effort involved. But that’s a subject for another time… But there’s another, very important reason.

Here’s what the problem is. People can’t see the forest because of all the trees anymore. They completely lose track of the big picture. There’s just too much information about the 6 or 7 Universal Laws, the Universal Law of Attraction, the 12 Laws of Success, and so on. People don’t know which book, film, movie or other resources to pick. Are there 6 or 7 Universal Laws? Or are there 12 Universal Laws of Success? Or is there just 1 Law of Attraction? Or do you have to know about 21 Subsidiary Laws or Spiritual Laws or whatever?

Who’s right? Well, in a way, none of them are right. Or all of them are right. It depends on how you look at it. Let’s set this all straight.

The Universe is infinite. There are no boundaries and no limitations. As humans, we are aspects of this Universe. In one way, we are the Universe, in another, we are separate aspects of this Universe. This is not the time and place to get into the details of this, but if you want to learn more about this, scroll down and click the link in the bio box.

The truth is that our lives unfold through the application of Universal Laws, among which the Universal Law of Attraction. We can do this either consciously, or unconsciously (as most people do). If you do it unconsciously, life appears to be a series of ‘accidents’, and the big bad outside world appears to be making things hard for you in achieving your success.

However, as you apply the Universal Law of Attraction or the Universal Laws in general consciously, you can engineer your own success. You can set the stage for achieving your desires, and then act accordingly. The acting part is absolutely crucial, and this is where the effort comes in. But what’s important for now, is that you need to be aware of the way in which the Universal Law of Attraction or the Universal Laws work together and the nuances of how they need to be applied.

So, how can all different sources be right? How can there be 6 and 7 Universal Laws at the same time? How can there simultaneously be 12 Laws of Success or 21 Subsidiary Laws of the Universe or Spiritual Laws of the Universe?

The answer is simple. Once again, the Universe is infinite. You can make things as complex as you like. Or as simple as you like for that matter. Make it more complex, and you can easily make up 21 Universal Laws, or 21 Subsidiary Laws. Make it a bit more simple and you can easily get to 12 Laws of Success. Or just stick to 7 Laws of the Universe. Every version may be potentially correct. What’s important is to what extent a resource is right for you.

I always like to make things as least complicated as possible. It’s not that I can’t make things complicated. If you want I can give you at least 100 subsidiary laws of the universe, and call them spiritual or required to attract and manifest whatever it is you want. But that’s not going to help you. A Universal Laws you need to remember, the more difficult you make things for yourself, and the less likely it becomes that you achieve all your desires and dreams.

True enough, just knowing about the Universal Law of Attraction isn’t enough. There are some other Universal Laws to know about and understand if you want to apply the Universal Law of Attraction correctly. However, it doesn’t help you if you must think about a whole bunch of additional Universal Laws, Subsidiary laws, spiritual laws, and so on all the time.

You know, there’s a way around this whole mess of 7 Universal Laws, Subsidiary Laws of the Universe and Spiritual Laws of the Universe, 12 Laws of Success, every average Joe and Jill pretending to be an expert in the Universal Law of Attraction these days, and so on. You can just get yourself an extremely clear and straightforward description of just 6 Universal Laws, or Laws of the Universe if you like. One of these is the Universal Law of Attraction. The fact that there are only 5 others doesn’t mean that this resource is less accurate or comprehensive than the 12 Laws of Success, or the 21 Subsidiary Laws of the Universe, or the 7 Universal Laws, or the ‘100 merry-go-round Spiritual Laws of the Universe Rolodex’, or whatever fancy thing people come up with these days. There’s too much information, a too complex web of knowledge these days already anyway, so the last thing you need is an even more complex and overly detailed description of the Laws of the Universe.

Discussing just 6 Universal Laws, or Laws of the Universe if you will, done in the right, clearest and most straightforward way possible, allows you to automatically cover any subsidiary Universal Law you or any other can possibly think of. These 6 Universal Laws are the main Laws of the Universe or the main Laws of Success. By pulling the levers on these main Laws, you’ll automatically set the stage and create the circumstances for reaping more benefit than you can even imagine possible from your application of the Universal Law of Attraction alone.

And because you don’t make things too hard on yourself by keeping things simple, you don’t need more than that in the form of 12 Laws of Success or 21 Subsidiary Laws of the Universe, or 21 Spiritual Laws of the Universe, or whatever. You can just cut to the chase, apply the Universal Laws and the Universal Law of Attraction in the right way, covering any potential subsidiary law, and you’ll create the life you’ve always wanted in the quickest and most straightforward way possible.

Give yourself a break, and make things easy on yourself for a change. It’s been hard enough for long enough already. Apply the Universal Law of Attraction and the other main Laws of the Universe together in the right way, and start changing your life.

If you think the Law of Attraction is all you need to know about the spiritual law, think again…

Using spiritual power to change your life and the lives of others depend on knowing Spirit (or being aligned with God/universal intelligence) and applying spiritual laws wisely. Much attention has been paid of late to the Law of Attraction due to huge amounts of publicity around “The Secret”, which started as a book, expanded to a DVD, and then became a movie. But there are other spiritual or universal laws that can be studied and applied. The two sets of seven laws that I will describe briefly in this article are probably the best known.

Seven universal laws are attributed to Hermes Trismegistos of ancient Greece. These seven Hermetic laws are quite well known and are generally accepted by many as containing great truths. Other people believe that this is all a bunch of new age hooey; but from my own experience, I believe the truth is indeed there. The best treatment I’ve seen of the Hermetic laws is by Alan Seale in his book, Soul Mission, Life Vision.

The Seven Universal or Hermetic laws are:

• The Law of Mentalism — Also known as the Law of Mind or the Law of Spirit. The law has two aspects. The first aspect states that everything is mind or spirit. Everything arises out of thought or universal consciousness. Thought creates. The second aspect is that everything exists within the mind of God, and the mind of God exists within everything. This is the core idea of many mystical traditions — that there is a great unity or oneness with God.
• The Law of Correspondence — This is often stated as “As above, so below. As below, so above.” The microcosm level of the human being corresponds to the macrocosm level of the universe. The inner level of objects held in thought corresponds to the outer level of objects in reality.
• The Law of Vibration — Also called the Law of Resonance. This law says that everything is in motion. Matter, energy, thoughts… everything is vibration. This law has two subsidiary laws: the Law of Attraction and the Law of Change. The Law of Attraction says that like attracts like — i.e., similar vibrations attract or resonate with one another, and dissimilar vibrations repel one another. For example, health thoughts can attract health; wealth thoughts can attract wealth. The Law of Change says that, since everything is in motion, change is constant and to be expected as normal.
• The Law of Polarity — The subsidiary law is the Law of Relativity, which says that everything is relative and nothing exists alone. Everything is relative to other things. The primary law is that everything exists on a spectrum. What are often referred to as polar opposites are the ends of a spectrum but there are points throughout the spectrum which are degrees between the poles or opposite ends?
• The Law of Rhythm — This law says that all of life, and even non-life (such as planets, moons, and stars), exists within an order or pattern or combinations of cycles and patterns.
• The Law of Cause and Effect — Often described as “As you sow, so shall you reap”. This law states that in interacting systems, actions or events cause or lead to resulting conditions. Cause precedes effect.
• The Law of Gender — This law is often referred to as “yin and yang”, and it has two parts. The first part says that within everything there are masculine and feminine energies… masculine being strong, forceful, and assertive; feminine being contemplative, nurturing, and yielding. The second part is that things come in their own time and that there is a natural gestation period for things to develop and manifest.

Another famous seven laws are the Seven Spiritual Laws of Success from a book of that same name by Deepak Chopra. For many years, I have used these seven laws as subjects for contemplative meditation, and so am quite familiar with them. His seven laws are:

• The Law of Pure Potentiality — Spirit is pure consciousness, and we human beings are pure consciousness. Pure consciousness is pure potentiality — the field of all possibilities. The universe is creative and abundant.
• The Law of Giving — This law says that the universe operates through dynamic exchange. Energy and intelligence naturally flow. From the human point of view, giving and receiving are necessary to participate in this dynamic process.
• The Law of Cause and Effect — Every action generates a force of energy that returns to us in like kind. Giving love brings love to us in return. Giving money or value produces money or value that returns to us in kind.
• The Law of Least Effort — Effort can get in the way of natural participation in the universe. The natural effort — that is, the effort that is true to one’s own nature — is “least” effort.
• The Law of Intention and Desire — Inherent in every intention and desire is the mechanics for its fulfillment; intention and desire in the field of pure potentiality have infinite organizing power. Intention and desire can lead to action (cause) which will produce an effect. Intention and desire are also themselves thoughts (causes) which can create the intended result if clearly focused (attention) in the present.
• The Law of Detachment — Detachment is giving up the attachment to the result. It is being free to step into the unknown, the field of all possibilities, and to surrender to the creative intelligence of the universe. It allows the universe at the quantum level to respond and react. It allows creation to happen most freely.
• The Law of Purpose in Life — Everyone has a purpose in life based on a unique gift or special talent. When we use this unique talent in service of others, we experience the glory of our own spirit accomplishing a divine goal and living a dream of the soul.

There are occasional references to other spiritual laws such as the Law of Love, the Law of Abundance, the Law of Growth, and the Law of Giving — and these may or may not map to the fourteen laws mentioned above. I think they do, but I will leave it to your reasoning (or imagination) to work out how.

Now, the spiritual laws can be (and have been) studied and analyzed for what they mean to us human beings and for their potential consequences. They can and do have many different or subtle interpretations. But the key thing is that the laws have spiritual meaning and also practical usefulness in how they can be applied to benefit us — both spiritually and materially.

The key is learning how to use the spiritual laws effectively. The laws can be applied singly but can be used most effectively when taken together or in combination. True spiritual power is when a person knowingly and wisely applies the spiritual laws to produce further insights, spiritual bliss, peace of mind, loving relationships, health, happiness, abundance, and true enjoyment of life.

Spiritual Take-Away:

Learn about the universal or spiritual laws. Get familiar with the laws — the more you learn about the universal laws, the more you are learning about spirit. The more you know the spiritual laws, the more you can apply them. And the more you can apply all of the laws, the more you will be able to use your spiritual power. Through spiritual power, you will: come to know yourself, get closer to a spirit, change your beliefs, cause new circumstances through your actions, attract what you want in life, feel peace and bliss, and know the spiritual power that connects you to the Universal.

 

the traditional international law does not consider human environmental rights to a clean and healthy environment to be a jus cogen human right. Jus cogens (“compelling law”) refers to peremptory legal principles and norms that are binding on all international States, regardless of their consent. They are not-derogate in the sense that States cannot make a reservation to a treaty or make domestic or international laws that are in conflict with any international agreement that they have ratified and thus to which they are a party. They “prevail over and invalidate international agreements and other rules of international law in conflict with them… [and are] subject to modification only by a subsequent norm… having the same character.” (1) Thus, they are the axiomatic and universally accepted legal norms that bind all nations under jus gentium (law of nations). For example, some U.N. Charter provisions and conventions against slavery or torture are considered jus cogens rules of international law that are nondelegable by parties to any international convention.

While the international legal system has evolved to embrace and even codify basic, not-derogate human rights (2), the evolution of environmental legal regimes has not advanced as far. While the former have found a place at the highest level of universally recognized legal rights, the latter has only recently and over much opposition reached a modest level of recognition as a legally regulated activity within the economics and politics of sustainable development.

1. The international legal community recognizes the same sources of international law as does the United States’ legal system. The three sources of international law are stated and defined in the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (R3dFRLUS), Section 102. The first source is Customary International Law (CIL), defined as the “general and consistent practice of states followed out of a sense of legal obligation” (3) (opinio juris sive necessitatus), rather than out of moral obligation. Furthermore, CIL is violated whenever a State, “as a matter of state policy,… practices, encourages or condones (a) genocide, (b) slavery… (c) the murder or causing the disappearance of individuals, (d) torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment… or (g) a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” (4) To what extent such human rights need to be “internationally recognized” is not clear, but surely a majority of the world’s nations must recognize such rights before a “consistent pattern of gross violations” results in a violation of CIL. CIL is analogous to “course of dealing” or “usage of trade” in the domestic commercial legal system.

Evidence of CIL includes “constitutional, legislative, and executive promulgations of states, proclamations, judicial decisions, arbitral awards, writings of specialists on international law, international agreements, and resolutions and recommendations of international conferences and organizations.” (5) It follows that such evidence is sufficient to make “internationally recognized human rights” protected under universally recognized international law. Thus, CIL can be created by the general proliferation of the legal acknowledgment (opinio juris) and actions of States of what exactly constitutes “internationally recognized human rights.”

2. The next level of binding international law is that of international agreements (treaties), or Conventional International Law. Just as jus cogens rights and rules of law, as well as CIL, are primary and universally binding legal precepts, so do international treaties form binding international law for the Party Members that have ratified that treaty. The same way that some States’ domestic constitutional law declares the basic human rights of each State’s citizens, so do international treaties create binding law regarding the rights delineated therein, according to the customary international jus gentium principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements are to be respected). Treaties are in turn internalized by the domestic legal system as a matter of law. Thus, for example, the U.N Charter’s provision against the use of force is binding international law on all States and it, in turn, is binding law in the United States, for example, and on its citizens. (6) Treaties are analogous to “contracts” in the domestic legal system.

Evidence of Conventional International Law includes treaties, of course, as well as related material, interpreted under the usual canons of construction of relying on the text itself and the words’ ordinary meanings. (7) Often, conventional law has to be interpreted within the context of CIL. (8) As a practical matter, treaties are often modified by amendments, protocols and (usually technical) annexes. Mechanisms exist for “circumventing strict application of consent” by the party states. Generally, these mechanisms include “framework or umbrella conventions that merely state general obligations and establish the machinery for further norm-formulating devices… individual protocols establishing particular substantive obligations… [and] technical annexes.” (9) Most of these new instruments “do no require ratification but enter into force in some simplified way.” (10) For example, they may require only signatures, or they enter into force for all original parties when a minimum number of States ratify the modification or unless a minimum number of States object within a certain time frame, or goes into force for all except those that object. (11) Depending on the treaty itself, once basic consensus is reached, it is not necessary for all to consent to certain modifications for them to go into effect. “[I]n a sense these are instances of an IGO [(international governmental organization)] organ ‘legislating’ directly for [S]tates.” (12)

3. Finally, rules of international law are also derived from universal General Principles of Law “common to the major legal systems of the world.” (13) These “general principles of law” are principles of law as such, not of international law per se. While many consider these general principles to be a secondary source of international law that “may be invoked as supplementary rules… where appropriate” (14), some consider them on an “footing of formal equality with the two positivist elements of custom and treaty”. (15) Examples are the principles of res judicata, equity, justice, and estoppel. Frequently, these rules are inferred by “analogy to domestic law concerning rules of procedure, evidence and jurisdiction.” (16) However, “while shared concepts of of internal law can be used as a fall-back, there are sever limits because of the characteristic differences between international law and internal law.” (17) Evidence of General Principles of Law includes “municipal laws, doctrine and judicial decisions.” (18)

Treaty provisions and their inherent obligations can create binding CIL if they are “of a fundamentally norm-creating character such as could be regarded as forming the basis of a general rule of law.” (19) A basic premise of this article is that the “relatively exclusive ways (of lawmaking) of the past are not suitable for contemporary circumstances.” (20) Jonathan Charney maintains that today’s CIL is more and more being created by consensual multilateral forums, as opposed to State practice and opinio juris, and that “[consensus, defined as the lack of expressed objections to the rule by any participant, may often be sufficient… In theory, one clearly phrased and strongly endorsed declaration at a near-universal diplomatic forum could be sufficient to establish new international law.” (21) This process should be distinguished conceptually as “general international law”, rather than CIL, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has often done.

In like vein, Professor Gunther Handl argues that all multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) of “global applicability” create “general international law”:

“A multilateral treaty that addresses fundamental concerns of the international community at large, and that as such is strongly supported by the vast majority of states, by international organizations and other transnational actors,– and this is, of course, precisely the case with the biodiversity, climate, and ozone regimes, among others-may indeed create expectations of general compliance, in short such a treaty may come to be seen as reflecting legal standards of general applicability… and as such must be deemed capable of creating rights and obligations both for third states and third organizations.” (22)

Notwithstanding, Daniel Bodansky argues that CIL is so rarely supported by State action, that it is not customary law at all. “International environmental norms reflect not how states regularly behave, but how states speak to each other.” (23) Calling such law “declarative law” that is part of a “myth system” representing the collective ideals and the “verbal practice” of States, he concludes that “our time and efforts would be better spent attempting to translate the general norms of international environmental relations into concrete treaties and actions.” (24)

However, a review of the current status of international human rights and environmental law may reveal the mechanisms for raising environmental rights to the level of jus cogens rights. For example, the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS), whose negotiation was initiated in 1972 and signed in 1982, was considered by most countries to be CIL by the time it came into force in 1994. (25)

II. CURRENT STATUS OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT No State today will publicly state that it is within its sovereign rights to damage their domestic environment, much less that of the international community, however most States do not guarantee environmental protection as a basic human right. Currently, environmental law is composed of mostly Conventional International Law and some CIL. The former relies on express consent and the latter on implied consent, unless a State avails itself of the Persistent Objector principle, which precludes it from being bound by even most CIL. Unlike for human rights and international crimes, there is no general environmental rights court in existence today. While the Law of the Sea Tribunal and other U.N. forums (e.g., the ICJ) exist for trying cases of treaty violations, non-treaty specific violations have no international venue at present. Italian Supreme Court Justice Amedeo Postiglione states that

“[T]he human right to the environment, must have, at the international level, a specific organ of protection for a fundamental legal and political reason: the environment is not a right of States but of individuals and cannot be effectively protected by the International Court of Justice in the Hague because the predominantly economic interests of the States and existing institutions are often at loggerheads with the human right to the environment.” (26)

Domestic remedies would have to be pursued first, of course, but standing would be granted to NGOs, individuals, and States when such remedies proved futile or “the dispute raises issues of international importance.” (27) For example, although the ICJ has an “environmental chamber” and U.S. courts often appoint “special masters” to handle these types of disputes, it is clear that the recognition of the human right to the environment needs an international court of its own in order to recognize such a right and remedy international violations in an efficient and equitable manner. (28)

III. THE JUS COGENS NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS Irrespective of specific treaty obligations and domestic environmental legislation, do States, or the international community as a whole, have a duty to take measures to prevent and safeguard against environmental hazards?

Human rights are “claims of entitlement” that arise “as of right” (31) and are independent of external justification; they are “self evident” and fundamental to any human being living a dignified, healthy and productive and rewarding life. As Louis Henkin points out:

“Human rights are not some abstract, inchoate ‘good’; they are defined, particular claims listed in international instruments such as the [U.N.’s] Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the major covenants and conventions. They are those benefits deemed essential for individual well-being [sic], dignity, and fulfillment, and that reflect a common sense of justice, fairness, and decency. [No longer are human rights regarded as grounded in or justified by utilitarianism,] natural law,… social contract, or any other political theory…[but] are derived from accepted principles, or are required by accepted ends-societal ends such as peace and justice; individual ends such as human dignity, happiness, fulfillment. [Like the fundamental rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, these rights are] inalienable and imprescriptible; they cannot be transferred, forfeited, or waived; they cannot be lost by having been usurped, or by one’s failure to exercise or assert them.” (32)

Henkin distinguishes between “immunity claims” (such as ‘the State cannot do X to me’; the hallmark of the U.S. constitutional jurisprudential system) and “resource claims” (such as ‘I have a right to Y’) such that the individual has the right to, for example, free speech, “food, housing, and other basic human needs.” (33) In today’s “global village”, the Right to a Healthy Environment is clearly a “resource claim” and a basic human need that transcends national boundaries.

According to R.G. Ramcharan, there is “a strict duty… to take effective measures” by States and the international community as a whole to protect the environment from the potential hazards of economic development. (34) His position is that the Human Right to Life is a. jus cogens, non-derogable peremptory norm that by its very nature includes the right to a clean environment. This duty is clearly spelled out in such multilateral treaties as the UN Convention on Desertification, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Convention on Biological Diversity. (35) It is expounded in the Stockholm, Rio and Copenhagen Declarations as a core component of the principle of Sustainable Development. It forms the basis of NAFTA’s, the WTO’s and the European Union’s economic development agreements, and the European Convention and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which has been ratified by most countries in the world, including the United States.

The Human Right to a Healthy Environment is explicitly contained in the Inter-American and African Charters, as well as in the constitution of over 50 countries worldwide. Whether it is based on treaties, CIL, or “basic principles”, the obligation of the international community to the environment is today clearly spelled out and enforceable through international tribunals. For example, the Lhaka Honhat Amid Curiae Brief recognized the rights of the indigenous peoples of Argentina to “an environment that supports physical and spiritual well being and development.” (36) Similarly, in a separate decision, the Inter-American Human Rights Commission upheld the right of the Yanomani in Brazil to a healthy and clean environment. (37) On a global level, the UN Human Rights Committee has indicated that environmental damage is “a violation of the right to life contained in Article 6(1) of the [ICCPR]”. (38)

Thus, today, the erga omnes obligation of States to take effective steps to safeguard the environment is a duty that no State can shirk or ignore. If it does, it runs the risk of prosecution by international courts and having to institute measures commensurate with its responsibility to protect its share of the “global commons”. Interestingly, the concept of jus cogens emerged after World War II as a response to the commonly held view that the sovereignty of States excused them from violating any of the then so-called CILs. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, “there is a close connection between jus cogens and the recognition of a ‘public order of the international community’… Without expressly using the notion of jus cogens, the [ICJ] implied its existence when it referred to obligations erga omnes in its judgment… in the Barcelona Traction Case.” (39)

IV. THIRD GENERATION HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT Is environmental protection is an erga omnes obligation, that is, one owed to the international community as a whole as a jus cogens human right?

In a separate opinion to the Case Concerning the Gebecikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia), Judge Weeramantry, the Vice President of the ICJ, expounded on the legal basis for sustainable development as a general principle of international law. In the process, he concludes that environmental protection is a universal erga omnes legal norm that is both CIL as well as a general principle of law per se. In Gebecikovo, ostensibly to have been decided upon the merits of the treaty governing the building of power plants along the Danube, as well as by international customary law, the ICJ held that the right to development must be balanced with the right to environmental protection by the principle of sustainable development. Even in the absence of a specific treaty provision, the concept of sustainable development has become a legal principle that is “an integral principle of modem international law”. (40)

Sustainable development is also recognized in State practice, such as the Dublin Declaration by the European Council on the Environmental Imperative. (41) As such, sustainable development has in effect been raised to the level of CIL.

For example, the Martens Clause of the 1899 Hague Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land has been interpreted in 1996 by Judge Shahabudeen of the ICJ as providing a legal basis for inferring that general principles rise above custom and treaty, having their basis in “principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience”. (42) According to Weeramantry, “when a duty such as the duty to protect the environment is so well accepted that all citizens act upon it, that duty is part of the legal system in question… as general principles of law recognized by civilized of nations.” (43)

Sustainable development acts as a reconciling principle between economic development and environmental protection. Just as economic development is an inalienable right of States’ self-determination, environmental protection is an erga omnes obligation of all States for the benefit of the global commons that all share. “The principle of sustainable development is thus a part of modern international law by reason not only of its inescapable logical necessity, but also by reason of its wide and general acceptance by the global community”, and not just by developing countries. (44)

Drawing upon the rich history of diverse cultures’ legal systems and what he calls “living law”, Judge Weeramantry points out that traditional respect for nature has been a guiding moral and legal principle for economic development throughout history. The ICJ has also recognized these principles in such previous decisions as Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd. (Belgium v. Spain) in 1972. (45) Judge Weeramantry concludes that the “ingrained values of any civilization are the source from which its legal concepts derive… [and that environmental protection is] among those pristine and universal values which command international recognition.” (46)

The first generation of Human Rights were those declared by the “soft law” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person.” Art. 3. It was modeled on the U.S. Bill of Rights and the American Declaration of Independence. This was echoed in the binding ICCPR (“Every human being has the inherent right to life.”, ICCPR, Art. 6(1) (1966)), which the U.S. has ratified, and the American Convention on Political and Civil Rights of the Inter-American System (which draws direct connections between human rights and environmental rights).

The second generation of human rights emerged with the Economic, Social and Cultural (ECOSOC) Rights developed in such treaties as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR; which the U.S. has not ratified), and many foreign State’s Constitutions (e.g., Germany, Mexico, and Costa Rica). These include the right to free choice of work, to (usually free) education, to rest, leisure, etc. Highly complied with in Europe, these rights have additionally been expanded by the EU in their European Social Charter (1961) creating much legislation for the protection of workers, women, and children.

The third and current generation of human rights has emerged from the Eco-Peace-Feminist Movement. These include the Right to Development, the Right to A Safe Environment and the Right to Peace. In essence, this third generation of rights addresses the problem of poverty as a social (and hence legally redressable) ill that lies at the core of environmental problems and violations. The “environmental justice” movement considers cases that demonstrate that environmental pollution is disproportionately prevalent in minority communities, whether at a local or international level. Authors John Cronin & Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., have explicitly entitled their study of environmental pollution along the Hudson River The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim Our Environment as a Basic Human Right. (47) This predominantly U.S. movement focuses on “environmental racism” as a means for seeking remedies or the disproportionate pollution of minority communities as violations of current civil rights legislation by “exploring] the use of the nations’ environmental laws to protect the rights of the poor.” (48)

V. RECOGNITION, COMMITMENT AND ENFORCEMENT OF A RIGHT: THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL AS A MODEL FOR CONSENSUS BUILDING The key mechanisms for establishing binding international law are recognition of an obligation or right, commitment to its protection, and effective enforcement methods. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the “most important precedent in international law for the management of global environmental harms.” (49) It serves as a model for many other environmental concerns that require decision-making in the face of scientific uncertainty, global non-consensus, and high harm-avoidance costs. It was the first international “precautionary” treaty to address a global environmental concern when not even “measurable evidence of environmental damage existed.” (50) Although ozone depletion by chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs) and other ozone depleting substances (ODSs), and the attendant harms of overexposure to harmful ultraviolet radiation, had been suspected by scientists in the early 1970s, it was not until 1985 and the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer that international action was taken to address the problem.

THE VIENNA CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OZONE LAYER At the time of the Vienna Convention, the U.S. represented over 50% of the global consumption of CFCs in a $3 billion market for aerosol propellants alone. Overall, CFC products represented a $20 billion market and about a quarter of a million jobs in America alone. (51) The Clean Air Amendments of 1977 and the 1978 EPA ban on all “non-essential” uses of CFC in aerosol propellants was quickly followed internationally by similar bans by Sweden, Canada and Norway. (52) These actions were a direct response to consumer pressure and market demands by newly environmentally-conscious consumers.(53) Incentives were also provided to the developing countries so that they could “ramp up” at reasonable levels of reductions. (54)

Creative ratification incentives included requiring only 11 of the top two-thirds of CFC producing countries to ratify and bring the treaty into force. (55) As a result of such flexibility, innovation, consensus and cooperation, the Montreal Protocol has been hailed as a major success in international diplomacy and international environmental law. Today almost every nation in the world is a member (over 175 States).

THE LONDON ADJUSTMENTS AND AMENDMENTS OF 1990 By 1990 scientific confirmation of global warming and the depletion of the ozone layer led to the London Adjustments and Amendments. Again, U.S. companies such as Dupont, IBM and Motorola reacted to massive negative media attention and promised to halt complete production by 2000.

Non-compliance procedures were made even more user friendly and no sanction for non-compliance was initiated against a country that was failing to reach quotas while acting in good faith. Technology transfer was made in a “fair and favorable way”, with developed countries taking the lead in assisting developing countries reach compliance. (56) The U.S. instituted “ozone depletion taxes” which did much to get more comprehensive compliance, as well as promoting research into CFC alternatives. (57) To emphasize the vast enforcement mechanisms employed, consider that by early 1998 the U.S. Justice Department had prosecuted 62 individuals and 7 corporations for the illegal smuggling into the emergent CFC black markets. Despite an international crackdown by the FBI, EPA, CIA, and Interpol in the global police effort Operation Breeze, 5 to 10 thousand tons are smuggled annually into Miami alone, second only to cocaine smuggling. (58) In 1992 the Copenhagen Amendments required every State party (practically the whole world) to institute “procedures and institutional mechanisms” to determine non-compliance and enforcement. (59)

VI. CONCLUSION: CRITICAL WEAKNESS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

The critical weaknesses of the existing system include self-serving pronouncements by non-complying States, lack of effective enforcement mechanisms, political limitations such as State sovereignty and the “margin of appreciation”, and the lack of universal consensus on basic human rights terminology and their enforcement. As long as States can ignore commonplace violations of human rights (sporadic instances of torture, occasional “disappearances”) and shun the edicts of human rights judicial decisions, there can be no effective system of international human rights enforcement. Currently, unless a State commits such outrageous acts on a mass scale that affects world peace, such as in Yugoslavia and Rwanda, it can often evade its responsibilities under international human rights treaties.

There are few international agreements that admit of universal jurisdiction for their violation by any State in the world. All CIL, however, is by its very nature prosecutable under universal jurisdiction. “Crimes against humanity” (e.g., War Crimes, Genocide, and State-supported torture) are universally held to be under universal jurisdiction, typically in the International Court of Justice, ad hoc war crime tribunals, and the new International Criminal Court.

While interpretive gaps exist, it is not inconceivable that the right to a healthy environment can be extrapolated from current international environmental treaties and CIL. At the treaty level, the protection of the environment appears to be of paramount importance to the international community. At the level of CIL, there is much evidence that the right to a healthy environment is already an internationally protected right, at least as far as trans-boundary pollution is concerned. In any case, it seems to be universally held that it should be protected as a right. The impression is that there is an unmistakable consensus in this regard. “Soft law” over time becomes CIL.

The U.N. World Commission on Environment and Development released the Earth Charter in 1987. It has yet to be fully implemented on a global scale. Its broad themes include respect and care for the environment, ecological integrity, social and economic justice and democracy, nonviolence and peace. (60) The argument can be made that by now, protection of the environment has reached the threshold of Customary International Law. Whether the nations of the world choose to thereafter recognize the right to a healthy environment as a jus cogens human right will depend on the near universal consensus and political will of most of the nations of the world. Until then, as long as human life continues to be destroyed by “human rights ratifying” nations, how much enforcement will be employed against violators of environmental laws when the right to a healthy environment is not upheld as a basic human right remains to be seen. It will take the cooperation of all nations to ensure that this becomes a non-derogable, unalienable right and recognizing it as essential to the Right to Life.

1. Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 102 cmt. k (1987).
The elements can also be found in the Vienna Convention, Article 53.
2. For example, the Right to Life, to be Free from Torture, Genocide, and Murder.
3. R(3d)FRLUS § 102(l)(a) and cmt. h.
4. Id., § 702 (my emphasis).
5. Mark W. Janis, An Introduction to International Law 6 (3d. ed, Aspen Law & Business 1999).
6. R3dFRLUS § 102(2).
7. Janis, supra.
8. David Hunter, et al., International Environmental Law and Policy, p. 306 (2d. ed., Foundation Press 2002).
9. Paul Szasz, International Norm Making, in Edith Brown Weiss, Ed., ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (1995), as quoted in Id, p. 307.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. R3dFRLUS § 102(l)(c), as presented in Donoho, supra.
14. Supra, R3dFRLUS §102(4).
15. Shabtai Rosenne, Practice and Methods of International Law 69 (1984), as quoted in Hunter, Id, p. 317.
16. Hunter, supra, p. 316 (Foundation Press 2002).
17. Id, p. 316.
18. Janis, supra, p. 29.
19. Id, p. 312.
20. Jonathan Charney, Universal International Law, 87 Am.J.Int’l.L. 529, at 543-48 (1993), as quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 322.
21. Id.
22. Gunther Handl, The Legal Mandate of Multilateral Development Banks as Agents for Change Toward Sustainable Development, 92 Am.J.Int’l.L. 642, at 660-62 (1998), as quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 324.
23. Daniel Bodansky, Customary (and Not So Customary) International Environmental Law, 3 Ind. J. Global Legal Stud. 105, 110-119 (1995), as quoted in Hunter, Id.
24. Id.
25. Id, p. 659.
26. Amedeo Postiglione, The Global Environmental Crisis: The Need for and International Court of the Environment, ICEF INTERNATIONAL REPORT at 33-36 (1996), quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 495.
27. Id., p. 496.
28. Id.
29. Id, p. 1298.
30. Id, p. 1299.
31. L. Henkin, “The Human Rights Idea”, The Age of Rights (reprinted in Henkin, et al., Human Rights, 1999), as presented in Donoho, supra, p. 14-16.
32. Id.
33. Id.
34. The Right to Life, p. 310 (The Hague, 1983), quoted in Hunter, supra, p. 1297.
35. Hunter, supra, p. 341.
36. Id, p. 1299.
37. Id, p. 1294.
38. Id, p. 1295.
39. Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 864. (West 1999).
40. Hunter, supra, p. 339-341.
41. Id, footnotes 1 through 6, pp. 341-342.
42. Id, pp. 317-318.
43. Id, p. 345.
44. Id, p. 342.
45. Id, p. 315.
46. Id, p. 344.
47. In particular, see pages 35, 38, 159, 162, 177-199 and 221 (Scribner 1997).
48. New York Law Journal, January 1993, Friday, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, p. 3. See also, DISCUSSION: REFLECTIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, 65 Alb. L. Rev. 357, 2001.
49. Hunter, supra, p. 526.
50. Id, p. 527, quoting Richard Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy 2 (1998)
51. Id, p. 532.
52. Id, p. 535.
53. Id, p. 542.
54. Id, p. 545.
55. Id.
56. Id, p. 550-54.
57. Id, p. 562.
58. Id, p. 559.
59. Id, p. 566-67.
60. Roland Huber, International Environmental Law Seminar: Human Rights and the Environment, p. 24, in Donoho, Douglas L.

Introduction: This paper endeavors to compare the traditional English law and the European Community (EC) law on jurisdictional values, in that, it seeks to understand and elucidate why the former set of jurisdictional rules value flexibility and justice while the latter values certainty and predictability vis-à-vis the other. It shall analyze their historical or political background, their objectives, and basis for assuming jurisdiction. It shall highlight the areas of differences between these jurisdictional regimes with the assistance of authorities like significant Court cases and books that have besides explaining or simplifying the law have also helped its evolution.

Definition: The word ‘Jurisdiction’ can have several meanings, but if understood in context with the Court of law it generally means the ability or authority of a particular Court to determine the issues before it on which a decision is sought. The rules on Jurisdiction play a pivotal role in determining the Court’s ability to address the issues in a given matter.

Jurisdictional issues become complex on the involvement of more than one Court having jurisdiction. This is certainly an area of concern not only for the international trade or business (who may be put in an invidious position where they are unaware of the extent of their liability) but also the sovereign states that seek to trade with each other without having to spoil their amicable relationship.

The English Law: The English Legal system (having the common law at its core) has had and still continues to have a formidable place in expounding the law on several issues, mostly due to the availability of intellectuals and experts that have helped it in doing so.

Traditional English law (the common law) is basically the case laws that have over the period of time become an authority with regard to the matter determined therein. Prior to entering the European Union (EU) by signing the document of accession in 1978, in the U.K, along with the judge made laws, even legislations played a significant role though it may have been more or less remedial in nature. However, it seems logical to allow the judge made the law to test the legislation whenever it is so required by the change in circumstances which can be given effect to with relative ease as in comparison with the legislation process.

Before the advent of the Brussels/Lugano system and the Modified Regulation, the traditional rules were applied in all cases, and it is their historical roots that make it appropriate to refer to them as the traditional English law/rules.

The jurisdiction of English courts is determined by different regimes:
1. The Brussels I Regulation (hereinafter the ‘Regulation’) (an amended version of the Brussels Convention but notwithstanding the amendments, it applies a similar system of rules on jurisdiction);
2. The Modified Regulation which allocates jurisdiction within U.K under certain circumstances; and
3. The traditional English rules.

There are other sets of rules on jurisdiction like the EC/Denmark Agreement on jurisdiction and the those contained in the Lugano Convention, but their ambit is restricted in application to the cases where the defendant is domiciled in Denmark in a case of the former and in an EFTA member state in case of the latter. There is also the Brussels Convention which applies to Denmark alone.

The EC law: In contrast to the traditional English law, the European Community seems to place more importance on the legislative work than the judge made laws. Apparently, for the EC, it is more important that the basic edifice of their legal system should be based on a codified structure which it defends on the grounds of ease of understanding amongst other reasons. Whereas, English laws seem to put more emphasis on having a common law or judge-made law background. On this anvil, one begins to understand the differences that exist between the respective legal systems and their values, that is, a basic difference in the manner of approaching the issues even in cases where their objectives may be same.

The EC law on jurisdiction is more inclined towards the importance of predictability and certainty in the rules than towards matters like justice and flexibility as can be understood upon reading the 11th recital of the Regulation that states: ‘The rules of jurisdiction must be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction must generally be based on defendant’s domicile and jurisdiction must always be available on this ground save in few defined situations…’

Whereas, the only mention of flexibility in the Regulation is contained in the 26th recital wherein it provides that the rules in the regulation may be flexible only to the extent of allowing specific procedural rules of member states.

According to the EC law on jurisdiction, it seems that this particular requirement of predictability is necessary for parties to a dispute to know exactly within which jurisdiction(s) they can sue and be sued. The EC law gives priority to the primary objective of harmonizing the laws of jurisdiction within the territory of its member states and therefore makes it mandatory to uphold the strict accuracy to its principle while giving secondary status to the objective of justice for the parties. The EC law, as well as the traditional English law, may very well have their own justifications and reasons for following a particular system; but it is submitted that this seems to be not only a matter of difference in manner of approach or attitude but also a matter of prioritization of the objectives by both the EC law and traditional English law on jurisdiction. The list of cases mentioned hereinafter for the benefit of elucidating the topic under discussion is, as shall be evident, decided under the Brussels Convention which can be used for interpreting the rules under the Regulation.

Comparison of EC Law v English Law:
1. Bases of Jurisdiction: The most significant difference that exists between the traditional English laws and the EC law on jurisdiction is the element of discretion that the respective body of law gives to the judges in determining the jurisdictional issues. Under the Regulation, the assumption of jurisdiction is largely mandatory with the court not being free to decline jurisdiction; whereas under the English traditional rules the assumption of jurisdiction is discretionary.

The Regulation applies only to matters that are civil and commercial in nature and not to those that have been explicitly excluded from its application (for e.g. Cases pertaining to arbitration, succession, wills, and bankruptcy have been excluded from the application of the Regulation). Whereas, the traditional English rules apply not only to cases that fall outside the scope of Art.1 of the Regulation but also to those that fall within its scope where the defendant is not domiciled in any member state and the jurisdiction is not allocated by any of the rules which apply, regardless of domicile.

A. In the traditional English rules the court has jurisdiction in three situations:
i. If the defendant is present in England (though the court may stay the proceedings on the ground that another court is a more appropriate forum). Jurisdiction under this situation is dependent on the presence of the defendant in the country whereby the claim form may be served to him.
ii. If the defendant submits to the court’s jurisdiction: wherein the defendant submits by not contesting jurisdiction or by arguing the case on its merits.
iii. If the claim falls within Practice Direction: (CPR PD 6B) (which is dependent on the court giving permission to serve process out of its jurisdiction) where the court considering England to be the most appropriate forum (despite absence of reasons under i. or ii. on the basis of some connection between England and the defendant. There seems on a perusal of this provision, a functional similarity with Arts.5 & 6 of the Regulation.

B. Jurisdiction under the EC Law: Except for certain instances where the applicability of the EC law on jurisdiction does not depend on the defendant’s domicile (Art.22 Exclusive Jurisdiction and Art.23 Prorogation of Jurisdiction) the EC law on jurisdiction rests on the domicile of the defendant, and makes it mandatory for the court of a member state to determine the jurisdictional issues and other issues where the defendant is domiciled in its jurisdiction.

The Brussels Regulation does provide for instances where the defendant can be sued in another Member state though he is not domiciled in that particular state, these cases have been very explicitly outlined in the regulation leaving little or no scope for the exercise of discretion by the judge. However, Art.4 of the Regulation provides that a member state can (subject to the provisions of Articles 22 and 23 of the Regulation) exercise its traditional laws of a jurisdiction in cases where the defendant is not domiciled in any of the member states. This provision while giving scope for the applicability of the traditional rules has at the same time also given rise to the idea that there is now only one source of jurisdictional rules, namely the Brussels Regulation.

C. Mandatory rules under EC law v Forum Conveniens:
Forum convenience: upon bringing an action in England, the claimant has to prove that it is the forum convenient, that is, the matter can be tried therein in the interest of justice; and the relevant factors in considering this are the same as under forum non conveniens. Forum conveniens is determined in two stages, namely:
i. Where in the 1st stage the claimant should show that England is an appropriate forum (considering, among other things, the nature of the dispute, issues involved and in cases where relevant, the availability of witnesses.
ii. At the 2nd stage the claimant must establish that even if there is another forum, justice will not be done there, showing thereby that England is the more appropriate forum.

However, England may not be the appropriate forum where the claimant will only be deprived of some legitimate personal or juridical advantage like a higher compensation award.

Mandatory rules under EC law: Unlike the Traditional English rules, under the Regulation, if the court has jurisdiction under any of the provisions thereof (e.g. Arts.2 or 5) it cannot refuse jurisdiction on the grounds that some other court is best suited to determine the matter, showing the mandatory nature of the rules.

In a case of lis pendens (Art.27) or proceedings in 2 or more states (Art.28) the Regulation gives precedence to the court first seized (Art.29 & 30) regardless of the actual jurisdiction being in the court 2nd seized.

These rules are mandatory in so far as they fall within the scope of Art.1 of the Regulation; no deviation thereof is permitted on the grounds of justice or convenience or any like reason. Paraphrasing the reasoning of the ECJ, the reason for such mandatory compliance is the promotion of legal certainty and predictability and the free flow of judgments amongst the member states on the basis of the codified rules in the Regulation which is not dependent on any judge’s discretion.

2. Forum nonconveniens and lis pendens:

A. Forum nonconveniens: Jurisdiction under the traditional rules also depends on whether the court shall decline jurisdiction or stay the proceedings. An English court shall in determining jurisdiction under its traditional rules try to ascertain which is the more appropriate forum and may even stay its proceedings in cases where it thinks that another forum is best suited for the case and in doing so it employs what may be called the basic test i.e. whether it is in the interest of the parties and would meet the interest of justice.

However, it was the Spiliada Case which promulgated another test i.e. ‘the two stage test’ for deciding the more appropriate forum for determining the case before the court. Where the court considers, in the 1st stage which is prima facie the most appropriate forum (burden being on the defendant) on the basis of connecting factors like (territorial connection) place where the parties reside, the law applicable, the availability of witnesses (if any), balance of convenience (applied in Spiliada itself) and where proceedings between the same parties arising out of the same dispute are pending before a foreign court, show how long the trial has been in existence which would be a strong argument in favour of forum non conveniens where such case is on the verge of resolution one (unlike Art. 27 of the Brussels Regulation, the traditional rules do not endorse a simple ‘first come, first serve’ approach) and whereas in the 2nd stage (burden shifting on the claimant) upon considering the relevant connecting factors it thinks that the dispute is more closely connected with a foreign court.

B. Lis alibi pendens: The doctrine of Lis Pendens under Art.27 of the Brussels Regulation makes it mandatory for the court which is second seized (in proceedings having same cause of action and same parties and the dispute is before the courts of two or more member states) to stay its proceedings in favour of the court first seized until such time till the latter has not established its jurisdiction notwithstanding that the court second seized may actually have prima facie grounds for the exercise of its jurisdiction (For example Arts. 22 and 23).

In contrast to the traditional English law, the Brussels Regulation gives absolutely no discretion to the judge to stay its own proceedings and grant jurisdiction in favour of another court on grounds of availability of a more appropriate forum. For instance, in the Owusu case wherein the European Court of Justice held that Brussels Convention precludes a Court of a contracting state from declining jurisdiction conferred on it by Art.2 on the ground that a court of a non-contracting state would be more appropriate forum for the trial of the action even if the jurisdiction of no other state is in issue or the proceedings have no connecting factors to any other contracting state. This regardless of the fact that the person putting up a plea of forum nonconveniens is able to prove that he may not be able to secure justice in a foreign court or that he is, in fact, devoid of any access to effective justice.

The doctrine of Lis Pendens may seem like a simplified manner of approaching simultaneous proceedings in different courts vis-à-vis the doctrine of forum nonconveniens which is dependent on the judge’s discretion; and also seems logical in cases where there could be a possibility of having two conflicting decisions as may happen under the traditional rules. At the same time, it also seems arbitrary in that it makes mandatory for the court first seized to decide upon its jurisdiction before the court second seized, regardless of any pressing evidence adduced that places jurisdiction elsewhere.

The doctrine of lis pendens seeks to support the object of the drafters of the Brussels Regulation which is to promote confidence in the internal market, to reduce disparities between national laws on the jurisdictional front; and to strengthen the belief of persons domiciled in the member states under the present jurisdictional set-up, so as to safeguard their legal and large monetary interests and this in turn leads to the creation of legal certainty which view or observation is supported by several bearers of intellect in the concerned field of study.

Art. 27 of the Regulation requires the court second seized to stay its proceedings until the court first seized has established its jurisdiction. This provision seems to give ample room for parties to commercial matters, in particular, to take advantage of the loopholes available in the legal framework established under the Brussels Regulation which is best explained by the explanation of the term ‘Italian Torpedo’.

Art. 27 while intending certainly has ended up providing an avenue for a rat race of sorts to the courthouse for the parties having a dispute in civil and commercial matters as well as those that wish to obstruct the course of justice. A party seeking to prolong the outcome of the dispute can approach the court of a member state which otherwise on the merits of the case may not have the requisite jurisdiction to hear it (e.g. Italy); and where the hearing and official determination of only the jurisdictional issues may possibly take long enough to frustrate the objectives of the party seeking an early resolution or remedy for the mischief of the other party.

In the Transport Castelletti case where a Danish shipping company had to contest a jurisdictional issue before the Italian court for eight years when the receiver of the cargo under its Bill of Lading brought proceedings in Italy this notwithstanding the fact that the Bill of Lading which it delivered to an Argentinean shipper for voyage from Argentina to Italy had explicitly mentioned a ‘choice of court clause’ favouring England. This outcome does beg the question if there are any provisions that guarantee a fair and speedy delivery of justice. This requirement seems to have been overlooked even by the European Court of Justice, specially, with regard to the lack of efficiency which the Italian courts have shown in dispensing speedy remedies.

This issue was once again put to test in the Erich Gasser GmbH v MIST Srl which was pertaining to patent rights and also involved a ‘choice of court agreement’ (Art.17 of the Brussels Convention) whereby the parties are free to choose which court shall have exclusive jurisdiction or if the parties require they may even make it a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause by stating the courts that shall have jurisdiction.

Gasser, an Austrian firm and MISRAT an Italian Company had submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of an Austrian court by virtue of statement granting jurisdiction to the Austrian court contained in all invoices transacted under by the parties. But knowing that there was a possibility that Gasser may file a suit under the choice of court agreement, Mist with the intent to prolong the proceedings and the outcome of the case sought to invoke the jurisdiction of the Italian court and filed a suit there thereby making it the court first seized of the matter.

The case was pending before the Italian court for a period of eight years simply to have its jurisdiction established though it could be seen from the invoices transacted between the parties to the dispute that there was an explicit clause which was as per the provisions of Art.23 namely, i. the agreement was in writing; ii. in form with accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves; or iii. in international trade or commerce in a form which accords with a usage of which the parties are ought to have been aware and which is in widely known in such trade or commerce or regularly observed by the parties to the contract of the type involved in the particular trade or commerce.

3. Preclusion of jurisdiction under the English Law and EC law: Under the traditional English law, when the court finds itself to be the more appropriate forum it may grant an anti-suit injunction i.e. an injunction restraining a party from instituting or pursuing proceedings in another court, which is generally sought by defendants in foreign proceedings praying that the matter be decided in England where the grounds for injunction can include: unconscionable behavior, ends of justice and contractual reasons i.e. arbitration agreement.

In contrast to the English law under the Brussels Regulation the court 1st seized will determine its jurisdiction first and the courts 2nd seized shall (despite having jurisdiction over the matter on all relevant grounds) stay its own proceedings and not be permitted to issue any anti-suit injunction and will have to await the determination of jurisdiction by the court first seized. This despite the fact that the proceedings in the court first seized might be brought in bad fait and to frustrate the proceedings of the court second seized. (Based on the view of the ECJ that the states must trust each other, which seems like allowing the interest of justice in favor of an individual, as in Turner v Grovit to be overlain by the interest of the state)

The scope of jurisdiction in recognition and enforcement of judgments: A court cannot recognize or enforce a judgment without the requisite jurisdiction. The set of rules applicable would depend primarily on the country where the judgment was given. Recognition of the traditional law operates without impediments as regards judgments from many countries including many of the Middle Eastern countries, the non-common wealth countries including therein the US, Asia, and Africa. Enforcement of the common law is dependent on bringing ordinary proceedings, whereas, the statutory regimes require specific procedures i.e. Registration.

In contrast to the English law, under the EC law on recognition and enforcement contained in Chapter III of the Regulation, jurisdiction is available only in civil and commercial matters; where the judgment is given by the court of a member state, the EC law will only give recognition and enforce those judgments that are given under the Regulation. Where unlike the common law there is no special procedure for recognition and enforcement; yet the number of defenses, are limited.

Critical Analysis: One critical aspect in favour of forum nonconveniens is the noble and paramount objective namely, the interest of justice, which would have rightly served the need of cases like Gasser and Turner v Grovit had the objective of the EC law been so. In that, the requirement of maintaining comity amongst nations is given preference over doing justice to the parties, a codified structure and interpretation thereof seem to overrule the requirement of practicality and logic.

Due to cases like Gasser, there is a possibility that the reasoning of the European Court of Justice may be able to change the meaning behind the maxim pacta sent servants giving rise to instances where the terms contained in the express contracts like, jurisdiction agreement may be ignored or subverted in pursuance of sinister objectives like causing delays; frustration of commercial enterprise and cause heavy losses.

There are certain provisions in the Regulation (for instance Art.22 (4)) that run contrary to the objective of the EC law as stated hereinbefore while leaving many questions unanswered. It may also be argued that the definition of lis pendens in Art.27 is quite technical and mechanical, being hinged on the 1st seized rule implying a first come first serve basis of justice, whereas in the traditional English laws there is no requirement of a definition; can deal with most problems with the help of discretionary rules. But matters like anti-suit injunctions under the traditional rules run contrary to modern objectives like comity of nations

The Regulation excoriates the application of the domestic laws of the jurisdiction by member states under circumstances where the Regulation is applicable. Though the intention is to help parties to civil and commercial matters discern their rights and liabilities lie; but in doing so the EC law has in fact taken away much of the English Court’s discretionary power, as is evident from the outcome of the Owusu case.

Conclusion: It is submitted that it is not only the difference of attitudes or manner of approach that differentiates the traditional English law and the EC law on jurisdiction; but also the nature of these rules which as regards the EC law on jurisdiction is mandatory unlike- the traditional English law which is discretionary.

There have been instances wherein, on the basis of the traditional rules on jurisdiction, the English Courts have assumed jurisdiction in cases where it was clearly not the most appropriate court as per its two-stage test promulgated in the Spiliada case; yet for the purpose of doing justice to the parties therein it has even given legal aid to the South African citizens on the English tax payers account, which in itself goes to show the extent to which the English court can be flexible.

The objective of the traditional rules is clear i.e. achieving justice for the parties to a dispute regardless of any set parameters; but this very factor makes a party to a commercial dispute uncertain of the jurisdictions it may or may not get sued in, which contingency the Regulation endeavours to clarify for the purpose of achieving its objective of building confidence in the European commercial market.

The short answer is no: God intends for everyone in the world to submit to Christ under the New Covenant, which does not include the Law of Moses, though it shares with Moses fundamental moral values because both are based on the unchanging character of God Himself (compare Leviticus 19:1-2 with Matthew 5:48 and Luke 6:36). To go deeper than the surface, we have to look at what Jeremiah, Jesus, Paul, and the author of Hebrews say about the old and new covenants.

Prophecy of the New Covenant

About 600 years before Christ, the prophet Jeremiah predicted the new covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). He said the new covenant would be different than the old (specified as the one God made with the houses of Israel and Judah when he brought them out of Egypt–definitely referring to the Mosaic Covenant). This time, the laws would be written on the people’s hearts, all of them will know the LORD, and He will completely forgive them. The New Testament book of Hebrews says this is the covenant Christ introduced (Hebrews 8:7-13 and 10:15-18, of which more is said below).

Original subjects of the Law of Moses

According to the Hebrew Scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament), the Law of Moses constituted the covenant God made with the Israelites. Its moral code, priesthood, festivals and other special days, and sacrificial system were all designed for the Hebrew nation. Essential to the covenant the Israelites made with God was their agreement to obey the stipulations of the Law of Moses and to become the objects of its blessings if they obeyed and its curses if they disobeyed. As originally delivered, no other nation was called upon or expected to keep the Law of Moses. According to Jewish tradition, the rest of the nations of the world were still under the covenant God made with Noah.

What changes, if any, took place when the New Covenant came along? How did it affect the application of the Old? Did it take what makes universal what once applied only to the Israelites? Or did it nullify the Old Covenant so that it no longer applied even for the nation of Israel?

Jesus’ teaching about the Law of Moses

According to Galatians 4:4, Jesus was “born under the Law,” which apparently means that He was bound to obey the Law’s commandments and ordinances. As an Israelite, He was just as obligated to keep the Law as every other Israelite. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:17-18), He denies that His purpose is to “abolish” the Law and the Prophets. The Greek word translated “abolish” (Kat also) is “destroy” with an intensifying prepositional prefix, meaning “utterly destroy.” Rather, He says, His purpose is to fulfill the Law, and He says heaven and earth would sooner disappear than the Law until everything is fulfilled. He says that the person breaking or teaching others to break the least of the commandments will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, while those who practice and teach its commandments will be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

His mission in fulfilling the Law seems to have three parts. First, He calls on His disciples to keep the Law even more strictly than the Pharisees and teachers of the law, the most scrupulous religious observers of His time (Matt. 5:20). In the verses that follow (the rest of the Sermon on the Mount — Matthew 5:21-7:27), Jesus reveals what He means: giving to God the obedience of one’s heart, not just one’s actions. Fulfilling the Law then, in this first sense, means explaining it in its fullest meaning. Jesus taught the Law of Moses, but He also kept it perfectly. He fulfilled it, not only by giving its full meaning but by obeying it fully Himself. In this way qualifying to become our perfect sin offering (see John 8:29, 46; Acts 10:38; Hebrews 3:2,6; 4:15; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 2:2).

This leads us to the third part: when God accepts Christ as our substitute, His righteousness becomes ours (1 Corinthians 1:30; 2 Corinthians 5:21), which includes His perfect obedience of the Law. Because He stands in our place before the throne of God, we who have fully committed ourselves to Him–heart, mind, soul, and strength–are regarded as fully obedient under the Law (Romans 8:3-4; 13:10).

Yet even while upholding the Law, Jesus claims to have an authority above the Law, as when He proclaimed that the Son of Man (an indirect reference to Himself) is Lord of the Sabbath (see Mark 2:23-28; parallels in Matthews 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5). The examples He gives confirm that He sees His mission to seek and save the lost as claiming a higher priority than the keeping of the Sabbath. He points out the irony of those who used the Sabbath to plot His murder while accusing Him of breaking the Sabbath to heal a man (Mark 3:1-6; parallels in Matthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11). On another occasion (Mark 7:1-23; parallel in Matthew 15:1-20), He notes that concern for inner purity should claim a higher priority than concern for ritual cleanness, and the gospel writer observes, “In saying this, he proclaimed all foods clean” (Mark 7:19).

At the Last Supper, Jesus tells his apostles that wine represents the blood He is about to shed. In Mark 14:24, He calls it “the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.” (Matthew 26:28 adds “for the forgiveness of sins,” and Luke’s wording is “the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you” (Luke 22:20; compare 1 Corinthians 11:25). This statement of Jesus is an obvious reference back to the moment when Moses said, “This is the blood of the covenant” (Exod. 24:8) during a ceremony confirming the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus says His own blood is what institutes and confirms the New Covenant.

Jesus also demonstrates an openness to Gentiles virtually unique among the Jews of His time. He praises the faith of a Gentile as being greater than any in all of Israel (Matthew 8:10; parallel in Luke 7:9). He likewise praises the strong faith of a Gentile woman (Mark 7:24-30; parallel in Matt. 15:21-28). He predicts the acceptance of Gentiles into God’s kingdom, even at the expense of the Jews (Matthew 8:11-12 and in parabolic form, Luke 14:23-24; 20:16; John 10:16). Although He previously limited His disciples’ proclamation to “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10:6), after His resurrection, He commands them to preach to all nations and to all creation (Matthew 28:19-20; Mark 16:15-16; Luke 24:46-47; Acts 1:8). Jesus tells His apostles to require of their converts faith, repentance, baptism, and continuing obedience but makes no mention of circumcision as a condition of discipleship or salvation.

God led the apostles to a new understanding

In fulfilling Christ’s commission, the apostles first proclaim the gospel only to Jews and Gentile converts to Judaism (called “proselytes”). Only by a series of miracles does God convince Peter to share the Good News with a Roman centurion named Cornelius (read Acts 10:1-48). When Peter defends his actions to the other believers back in Jerusalem, they are convinced that “God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life” (Acts 11:18).

After this, Christians start evangelizing the Gentiles (Acts 11:19-21), especially Saul of Tarsus (later called Paul) and his coworker Barnabas (Acts 13 – 14) on what is known as the First Missionary Journey. Their success among the pagans causes some Jewish Christians to demand that all of the Gentile converts be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas deny that this is required, and the debate becomes so heated that a conference is called of the apostles and Jerusalem elders (Acts 15:1-18). The conference confirms the teaching of Paul and Barnabas, requiring only that Gentile converts observe a few rules that will make their fellowship with Jewish believers less contentious (Acts 15:19-31).

Though many Jewish Christians continued to observe the Law even after this (see Acts 21:20), the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised (see Galatians 2:3-5), since Gentiles, as well as Jews, find acceptance before God by grace through faith, not by works of the Law (Acts 15:9, 11; Galatians 2:16). In other words, they could come to Christ directly, without first becoming converts to Judaism. The apostles recognized that both those whose flesh is circumcised and those whose flesh is not can have a circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:25-29; 4:9-17; Colossians 2:11-13). This is what counts to God (Galatians 6:12-16); even the Law and Prophets recognized heart circumcision as more important (see Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Jeremiah 4:4; 9:25).

Accepting uncircumcised Gentiles into the fellowship of the redeemed, however, was a fundamental departure from the Mosaic Covenant, which required circumcision on pain of excommunication (continuing what had been instituted in the covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17:13-14 — see Exodus 12:48-49, Leviticus 12:3, and Joshua 5:2-8). During the period reflected in the second half of the Book of Acts, a transition of the covenants was taking place, in which practice was lagging behind teaching. The New Covenant had begun, but many were still clinging to the Old.

The change process likely paralleled what happens today with regard to the adoption of new technology. Some were early adopters who led the way in adopting the change, such as those who already were abandoning physical circumcision and Jewish customs (see Acts 21:21). Into this group, we should probably put Stephen and later Paul, who was at the leading (“bleeding”?) edge. Others, such as Peter and John, were middle-of-the-road: they acknowledged the change but did not push it like Paul did. Still, others were late adopters, like James the Elder (half-brother of Jesus), though it may be that James remained in this group only to help the others along (Acts 15:12-21 and 21:22-26; yet see Galatians 2:12).

Paul’s teaching about the Law of Moses

As one who perhaps saw the change more clearly than others, Paul sought to explain the transition in as forceful a way as the scruples of his Jewish fellow-Christians would allow. If he had not struggled with this concern, his teachings may have been more explicit. Nevertheless, he certainly was plain enough for us to understand a change in the covenants was underway. The following are some of the clearest passages, taken in chronological order.

In Galatians, perhaps the earliest of Paul’s letters (c. 50 CE), Paul says the law was our “pedagogue to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24). In Greek culture, the pedagogue was a family slave assigned the task of getting the child to and from school each day. He was also expected to impart practical moral principles that would help the child mature. Paul says the Law had for us a similar function: preparing us for the coming of the Messiah. In the next verse, Paul adds, “Now that faith [i.e., the object of our faith] has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law” (Galatians 3:25). In this metaphor, Paul pictures the relationship between the Law and the Christ as a cooperative one. The Law performs its function, accomplishes its goal, and then steps aside.

In the next chapter of Galatians, Paul turns up the heat. He compares the two covenants, the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, to the relationship between Hagar and Sarah (see Genesis chapter 16 and 21:8-21). He depicts a stormy relationship between the children of the two covenants: “The son born in an ordinary way [representing the unbelieving Jews] persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit [representing the Christians]. It is the same now.” Then Paul unleashes a thunderbolt: “But what does the Scripture say? ‘Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.'” Since the slave woman represents the Mosaic covenant, Paul is using the quoted verse, Genesis 21:10, to say, “Get rid of the Mosaic covenant and its adherents [the Jews who have rejected Jesus as Messiah], for the [‘children’ of the Mosaic covenant] will never share in the inheritance with the [Christians, the ‘children’ of the New Covenant].”

Paul wrote First Corinthians in about 55 CE. In chapter 9 he describes his willingness to be “all things to all men” for the sake of saving some of them. In particular, he says, “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law, I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law, I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law” (verses 20 and 21).

In Second Corinthians, written around 55 CE, in chapter 3, Paul compares the old and new covenants by recalling the shining face of Moses (see Exodus 34:29-35). The Old Covenant he calls letters written on tablets of stone and “the letter” and the ministry of death and of condemnation. By contrast, he describes the New Covenant as written on tablets of human hearts and “the Spirit” and the ministry of righteousness” (verses 3, 6-9). Paul compares the Old Covenant to the radiance on the face of Moses, which was glorious at first and then faded away. In contrast, under the New Covenant, we experience an ever-increasing glory, which comes from our God (verses 9-18). At the time Paul wrote Second Corinthians, then, the Law, represented by the radiance, was fading away.

Paul wrote Romans around the year 57 CE. In chapter 7, verses 1-6, Paul pictures the Christian as a woman and the Law as her husband. The couple fails to have any children, and after the husband’s death, the widow marries a new husband, who symbolizes Christ. With her new husband, the woman has a baby, which apparently represents a righteous heart and life (the “fruit to God” of verse 4). Paul does not directly say that the Law has died, only that she is bound to her husband as long as he is alive and is released from her ties to him when he dies. He then speaks of her release but carefully avoids saying that the Law has died, only that she died to the Law.

This reflects the situation at the time Romans was written. Even though the New Covenant had already been in force for 25 years (ever since the resurrection of Christ and the outpouring of the Spirit on that first post-resurrection Day of Pentecost), people, even Christian Jews, were still clinging to the Law–offering sacrifices, paying tithes, keeping festivals, obeying the kosher laws, circumcising their sons. Yet the Law was dead. Not only was it dead, but it had failed to produce “fruit to God” in the body of the believer. To remain married to a corpse is a grotesque situation Paul does not linger to contemplate. He merely says, “We have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, not in the old way of the written code” (Romans 7:6).

Paul wrote Ephesians in about the year 63 CE, some six years after Romans. In chapter 2, Paul just comes out and says that Christ united Jew and Gentile by destroying the “barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations” (2:14-15). As a result, Jews and Gentiles connected to Christ are “fellow citizens” and “co-members of God’s household,” built together as a new temple for God “in which God lives by His Spirit” (2:19-22). The verb translated “abolishing” (water geo) means “to do away with, use up, render ineffective.”

In Colossians, written at about the same time as Ephesians, Paul says that Christ “canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us: he took it away, nailing it to the cross” (2:14). Christ’s death on the cross is what canceled (exhale pho–wiped out, removed, destroyed) and took away (Cairo–removed, set aside) the “written code, with its regulations.” We know this “written code” is referring to the Law because of the verses that follow, which refer to the observances required by the Law: “Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come: the reality, however, is found in Christ” (Colossians 2:16-17). Because Christ’s death canceled the Law and took it away, these regulations no longer apply.

Hebrews on the Change of Covenants

No book of the Bible more clearly teaches that the Law of Moses is no longer binding on God’s followers today. In fact, that is the basic message of the Book of Hebrews, probably written shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Its original readers were tempted because of persecution (see Hebrews 10:32-34) to forsake Christ and return to Judaism. The message of Hebrews is that Christ is better than Moses, better than the angels who mediated the Mosaic Covenant, better than Aaron the high priest under Moses, and offers a sacrifice infinitely better that those offered under Moses. Hebrews 8 calls up the prophecy of the New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34), concluding in verse 13: “By calling this covenant ‘new,’ he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.”

This prediction of the disappearance of the covenant of Moses found fulfillment when the Jewish nation rebelled against Rome in the war of 67-73 CE. (You can read about this war in the detailed, eye-witness account. The Jewish War by Flavius Josephus.) The Jewish nation lost its temple and its priesthood in that war. Afterward, it was impossible to keep the Law of Moses. The covenant curses for the nation’s disobedience, as recorded in Deuteronomy 28 and Leviticus 26, came true.

Conclusion about the Law of Moses

Some scholars argue that the Law of Moses continues to be valid as far as its moral code is concerned even though its temple, priesthood, and sacrificial system has ceased to exist. But there is no biblical basis for cutting up the Mosaic Covenant, throwing part of it away while trying to keep the rest of it on life support. In fact, James 2:10-11 argues for the integrity of the whole law and against attempts to keep only part of it (see also Galatians 5:3).

To live a harmonious life, you must not only abide by the laws of your country, but also by the natural Laws of the Universe. If we transgress, there will be consequences. Like any country, the universe is also governed by certain laws. We refer to these as Universal Laws or Laws of Nature, ‘whose content is set by nature and is therefore universal.

The Law of Gravity is an example of a Universal Law. So is the Law of Conservation of Energy, that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed from one form to another. However, unlike human laws, which can vary from country to country, Universal Laws are consistent and unchanging. You interact with these laws with every breath you take. They govern your existence.

Nothing about your life has been casual or accidental!

The Universal Laws seem to be mysterious. They have hidden truths. When you identify these hidden truths and utilise them correctly, miracles or amazing results occur in your life. It may manifest as suddenly having money when you need it the most, reversing a life-threatening disease, or succeeding in a particular endeavour. These ‘miracles’, no matter how incredible they might be, are not unbelievable outcomes. They are natural outcomes based on the correct application of specific laws of nature.

Unfortunately, some of the Universal Laws are not as clear-cut as they might seem. There are unnoticed subtleties to the Universal Laws which, when understood and applied, can make all the difference between happiness and misery, prosperity and poverty, peace and conflict, ease and struggle.

It’s easy to think that some people are born to affluence and all good things happen to them. The truth is, these people aren’t simply lucky; good things don’t just ‘happen’ to them. They’re just applying the Laws of the Universe more effectively, whether they’re aware of it or not. The laws are flawless; they work perfectly every time, all the time. If you seem to be doing all the right things, but your results are poor, consider the Laws of the Universe and how you are applying them. This book will help you.

How many laws are there? Many.

These laws govern every aspect of our existence. The supreme Law of the Universe is the Law of Cause and Effect, also referred to as karma or the parable of ‘reaping what you sow’. For every effect there is a cause; for every action there is a reaction. Positive action equates to a positive result. The Law of Cause and Effect transcends time, space or form.

It operates whether you are aware of it or not.

Every human thought, word or deed is a cause that sets off a wave of energy throughout the universe, resulting in desirable or undesirable effects. If there are undesirable effects, it simply means that at some time in the past, there was a thought, word or deed that caused a wave of undesirable energy. As normal, fully-functioning people we are quite literally responsible for everything in our lives. The following excerpt illustrates this concept.

This is the suggestion a man gave to his subconscious mind over a period of about two years: “I would give my right arm to see my daughter cured.” It appeared that his daughter had a crippling form of arthritis together with a so-called incurable form of skin disease. Medical treatment had failed to alleviate the condition, and the father had an intense longing for his daughter’s healing, and expressed his desire in the words just quoted.

One day the family was out for a drive. Their car was involved in a head-on collision. The father’s right arm was torn off at the shoulder. When he came home from the hospital, he discovered that his daughter’s arthritis and skin condition had vanished.

Everyone is subject to these same natural Laws of the Universe, regardless of race, colour, creed or gender. The laws exert their influence without our consent or awareness. When we choose the behaviour, we choose the consequences. Interestingly, the people who are frustrated in life consistently try to defy the natural laws. And, not surprisingly, successful people live in harmony with the natural Laws of the Universe.

Deepak Chopra, an authority in mind-body medicine, identified these issues in his bestselling book, The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success, saying ‘no debt in the universe ever goes unpaid. There is a perfect accounting system in this universe, and everything is a constant “to and fro” exchange of energy’.

All of life is connected; what we do to others, we do to ourselves. According to the principle of karma, any negative or positive thought or action remains that way, until it expends (uses up) its energy by acting upon the originator. The energy you create through your thoughts, words and deeds – either negative or positive – will rebound and act on YOU. But, as it is the nature of energy to expand when it is put out into the world, you will at some point experience much more than you caused others to experience.

If you cause others to experience prosperity and wellbeing, it will come back to you and you will experience it as well, often multiplied. In like manner, if you hurt someone, the energy will eventually return and cause you even greater hurt, unless of course you make amends in some way.

Eighteenth-century German poet and philosopher, Wolfgang Von Goethe wrote:

Nature understands no jesting; she is always true, always serious, always severe; she is always right, and the errors and faults are always those of man. The man incapable of appreciating her, she despises and only to the apt, the pure, and the true, does she resign herself and reveal her secrets.

The Law of Cause and Effect is the IRON LAW of the universe. It is unyielding. If you defy this law, there will be consequences – no ‘ifs, ands, or buts’ about it. It’s fascinating (and often tragic) to observe how many of us try to defy this law, especially when we pursue quick and easy gains. Often we strive for what we want by doing the exact opposite of what is in our best interest.

This beautiful fable illustrates the mystifying and sometimes illusive nature of the Law of Cause and Effect.

The Secret to Creating Affluence

A young man went to the forest and said to his spiritual master, ‘I want to have unlimited wealth, to help and heal the world. What is the secret to wealth?’

The spiritual master said, ‘There are two Goddesses that reside in the heart of every human being: the Goddess of WEALTH and the Goddess of KNOWLEDGE’.

‘Although you love both, you must pursue one of them to the exclusion of the other. Pursue her, love her, and give her your attention. Understand that only the Goddess of Wealth can give you wealth, and you may pursue only one Goddess, not both’.

‘But, here is the secret: If you pursue the Goddess of Wealth, she will be pleased with you because she loves to be chased. The more you pursue her the more she will elude you. However, if you pursue the Goddess of KNOWLEDGE, the Goddess of WEALTH will become extremely jealous and pay more att ention to you. In fact, the more you seek the Goddess of Knowledge, the more the Goddess of Wealth will seek you. She will never leave you. She will constantly shower you with material blessings just to win your attention, and the wealth you desire will be yours forever’.

The human tendency is to pursue the Goddess of Wealth, which seems like the logical choice. However, wealth is simply an effect, and like any effect it has a cause. In the fable, pursuing one goddess gets you the best of both worlds; wealth comes from the acquisition and proper application of knowledge.

So let’s be clear: your goals and dreams will manifest when you and the Laws of the Universe are in harmony!

It’s a scientific fact that the universe operates in absolute harmony with IRREVOCABLE natural laws and principles that have NEVER varied throughout all time. These laws prevail regardless of whether we heed them or not. Those individuals who live in harmony with the Laws of the Universe will emerge victorious. Bestselling author, Bob Proctor, summed it up perfectly when he said,

You are living and working in a dynamic global marketplace that leaves little room for error. In future, only those individuals whose beliefs are sound, in harmony with the laws of the universe, and have been integrated with their behavior, will emerge as real winners.

This much we know with certainty: you have unlimited potential and you can tap into and harness this potential by combining:

1. a deeper understanding of yourself (your power of attraction) with

2. specific efforts towards a desired outcome (your power of action).

In other words, you’ll experience the rewards (the Law of Receiving) when you truly understand that you have immense, untapped ability, and you combine that understanding with deliberate application of the Law of Attraction and the Law of Action.