Floreat Issue_April2017

Floreat Editor Special Edition
GEORGE FERNANDO FAMILY AND SCHOOL
Floreat Design & Concept
LOCHANA PREMARATHNA ACHIEVEMENTS
DINESH PERERA TRIBUTES

1

Editorial

Professor Christopher Gregory (Christie) Weeramantry passed away on the 5th of January, not long after his 90th
birthday. One of the brightest stars of Royal College’s firmament of alumni, he was a world renowned legal
academic and Jurist. He had been Patron of Royal College Old Boys Association Australia (RCOBAA) since 1997. This
edition of our Floreat magazine is a commemorative volume, dedicated to the memory of Justice Weeramantry. In
this publication, we have suspended our usual content to share with our readership insights of the Justice’s days at
Royal including a school report written by the principal E L Bradby MA (Oxon), and perspectives of his life and legal
achievements.

Born 17 November 1926 in Colombo, Ceylon, Christie Weeramantry distinguished himself at Royal College, where
he was a senior prefect, editor of the Royal College Magazine, Chairman Senior Literary Association and won many
class and school prizes as well as the Governor's Scholarship, Principal's Prize, the Dornhorst Memorial Prize, 1943
and the Empire Essay Prize for 1943 awarded by the Royal Empire Society. He became Ceylon’s youngest Supreme
Court justice in 1967, which post he left to assume an academic career at Monash University in 1972 as Sir Hayden
Starke Professor of law. He was appointed a judge of the International Court of Justice from 1991 to 2000, serving
as its Vice President from 1997 to 2000.

A humanist, Judge Weeramantry’s interests spanned the broad area of law, society, and justice. His writings cover
a broad spectrum: he was the author of more than thirty books on topics as diverse as cross-cultural understanding
and education, Islamic jurisprudence, intergenerational equity, law and scientific advancement, apartheid, human
rights, nuclear disarmament, and the environment. In a landmark dissenting judgement at the International Court
of Justice he argued that the use of nuclear weapons cannot be legal under any circumstances (dissenting from the
majority view that though generally unjustified, nuclear weapons may be legal under some exceptional
circumstances). Later he served as the President of the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms.

Royal College, Sri Lanka, and indeed the world has lost one of its finest sons, a champion of true justice for all. He
campaigned for the comradeship of mankind, the oneness of humanity and peace on earth. But sadly, this guiding
light is no more.

We dedicate this volume of Floreat to his memory.

We greatly appreciate the support and assistance that Judge Weeramantry’s family lent us in compiling this
publication. Our heartfelt thanks to the Weeramantry family.

Indrajit (Inji) Wijegunaratne George Fernando
President, RCOBAA Editor, Floreat

2

Family and School

Children’s message

Whether having lost a husband, a father, a grandfather, a
relative, a teacher, a mentor, a scholar, an inspiration, a
visionary or a genuine and most humble friend, we all would
acknowledge that we have lost one of the world’s most
extraordinary global citizens. A citizen who spoke out,
without fear, prejudice or prejudgment, with a disarming
faith in humanity, to develop and protect the rights of all
humankind, to support the powerless against the powerful,
and to develop principles that would preserve the world for
future generations. A citizen who did all he could to protect
the environment, to build bridges that would enable cross
cultural understanding, and to put religion at the forefront of our thoughts and actions. And through all of this, he
had the time to be the most devoted and loving husband, father and grandfather.

As we think and pray with heavy hearts about whom we have lost, we must also celebrate the incredible life of an
incredibly intelligent, humane, erudite, compassionate, spiritual, loving and ever loyal individual. He walked and
was heard in the courts of royalty, diplomacy and justice. At the same time, he just as happily empathized and
shared thoughts, laughed with and listened to those of lesser privilege.

He will never be forgotten on the world stage for his decisions on the International Court of Justice, much of which
stood at odds with the majority of the Court but which struck a cord and formed the fount of inspiration for
multitudes in all corners of the globe concerned with fairness, justice and the plight of humanity. He will be
remembered as one of the leading proponents of the global movement against nuclear weapons and the
development of the modern doctrine of international environmental law. He will remain a towering authority on
the beautiful island of his birth, Sri Lanka, for his treatise on contract law and his decisions on the Supreme Court.
He will be remembered as a professor of law at Monash University whose deep respect for the law gave life to it
not just as strict black letter rules but as a vast and vital store of rights and obligations that held together the fabric
of society. His guidance and mentorship will influence the lives of all those who worked with him at WICPER, his
Centre for Peace Education and Research.

And he will always be cherished by his family for his love, care, affection, kindness, devotion, gentleness and
thoughtfulness.

His interactions on all these levels was always infused with his natural politeness, humility and tranquility – this
struck you as he spoke his first words to you with a gentle smile and endured throughout your time with him,
whether this be over five minutes or five decades. It is rare to encounter a person who is more humble and serene.

While we feel great sorrow of his passing we have also much gratitude that this humble, gentle and extraordinary
man has lived an incredible life that has touched and influenced not just our lives but literally millions of others for
the better.

On behalf of his family, all those he met, taught or worked with during his life, those who have read his work with
awe and inspiration and for the future generations that he was always so conscious for us not to forget, we thank
you Christopher Gregory Weeramantry, our father, for the treasure of wisdom, love and affection that you have
left with us.

3

Grandchildren’s message

When I opened up my laptop to write this, my
computer seemed to have caught some kind of virus.
My screen was flashing and programs were shutting
down. Surely this was a sign from Siya, he who wrote
his entire catalogue of books with the humble pen and
paper. He never really did understand “the computer
machine” as he called it.

As young kids we knew Siya did important work and
met important people. But, when at home with his family, our beloved H.E. C.G. Weeramantry came to be known
affectionately as A.M.P – Absent Minded Professor.

Whether this label was coined after Siya accidentally drove his family down a set of stairs, or whether it was after
he accidentally served decorative pot pourri onto his plate of rice and curry thinking it was acharu, we’ll never
know. His innocent foibles kept us laughing.

Every morning without fail, Siya delivered a tea to Archi in bed. The only problem was that sometimes Archi could
expect an accidental dollop of orange juice in her tea instead of milk or a teaspoon of salt instead of sugar.
Speaking of kitchen matters, it was rare Siya knew what he was doing when in one. He sometimes liked to explain
to us, in great detail, how to cut a kiwi fruit or how to boil a kettle. But, whenever teased about his lack of
household knowledge, Siya was quick to remind us that he once cooked a meal for the family in 1975.

At home, Siya took most pride in entertaining us with his piano concerts. And just like his commitment to his work,
Siya’s commitment to the same eight or so songs, including The Maiden’s Prayer, You Are My Sunshine and Danny
Boy, was unwavering.

One day Siya accompanied the grandkids to Blockbuster Video to select a movie. Unimpressed by the selection of
new releases, Siya marched up to the video store attendant behind the desk and asked in the polite manner he
always employed, “Excuse me, where is the historical section? I would like Alexander the Great”. Unfortunately, it
wasn’t meant to be for Siya that night at Blockbuster. No Alexander the Great. No historical section.

However, the walk back home via Curry and Chips was more successful for Siya. It was impossible for him to walk
past that place without picking up a pan roll and whatever enticed him at the counter – usually a packet of
thalagoolis.

Siya’s penchant for potato chips was a nightmare for Archi who always kept Siya on a healthy diet so her chagrin
was clear when they moved within walking distance of a Coles convenience store with a well-stocked chip aisle.
Siya loved going for walks with us, cap on, holding our hands tightly and impressing us, and himself, with how
athletic and fast-paced his walking style was. However, our route always tended to gravitate towards the Coles, and
more specifically, the chip aisle. Siya liked to inspect all the packaging, but invariably always zeroed in on Sea Salt
flavored Kettle chips. Oftentimes, you could see Siya hearing Archi’s voice in the back of his head, and he’d put the
chip packet down and leave. But other times, he was braver and withstood the inevitable telling off from Archi.

Many a grandchild of this family sat down to a computer to type for Siya as he read out his hand-written notes.
While we were young, we’d blindly type away the words we heard Siya use, often stumbling upon his lexicon. As
we’ve grown older, it’s been one of the best lessons in life to unravel and truly understand Siya’s thoughts.

4

Some of our oldest memories are of Siya reading us bedtime stories of the ancient Greek classics and historical
monarchies. Siya used to pretend to us that he too could grow to be a giant like Cyclops and Zeus.

Well here we are, and according to us – yes – our Siya is somewhat of a mythical thing. An amazing man, who
helped the world, but also took time off to play with his wildly noisy bunch of grandkids in sheet forts we’d build in
his study. He never silenced us, but relished our presence and noise. He was the Siya that, together with Archi, took
great care of us, took us on trips to the Myer windows and to Legoland. He was the man who experienced great
rewards for his passionate work for others but was also the same man who would play the piano to his family with
such vigorous trills that we often feared he might fall off the piano stool. Though Siya entrenched himself in work, it

in no way compromised the love and affection he
showed us.

One of the first things Archi does when she lands in
Melbourne is visit the nursery to buy flowers for her
garden. In amongst the cardboard trays of lilies and
daisies, Archi always buys yellow-flowered plants as it is
the only colour Siya, being colour-blind, could really
see. In no better way is Siya’s love for his family
demonstrated than with his love for Archi, and hers for
him.

And this is the most important thing Siya taught us – to
have a big, happy, helping heart and love family
unconditionally. We are beyond grateful to have had Siya as our Siya.

The Family Man

I have been privileged to know Judge Christie Weeramantry, not just as a prominent citizen of the world, but as an
uncle. He had a keen interest in many things in life but nothing was more important to him than family. Uncle
Christie was the youngest of three brothers – sons of Gregory and Lilian Weeramantry. All three were proud to call
themselves Royalists who, between them, swept away many of the top prizes during the war years, as attested by
the names on the hallowed college hall walls over this time. Lucien was a well-known lawyer in Colombo who also
served in the UN and worked in the USA for some time. Douglas was the academic, who would later go on to
become the principal of Alexander College in Colombo. My contemporaries at the University of Colombo will
remember him as the slightly eccentric but affable mathematics professor who taught us analytical mechanics in
the seventies.
The Weeramantrys were a large clan but, for the last ten years or so, Uncle Christie (90) and my mother, Joyce (nee
Weeramantry) (88) were the only two surviving cousins in their generation. My mother would always look forward
to visiting him in Colombo and told me how he would always drag her to the piano where he would play and join in
singing the grand old songs of years gone by, such as ‘Home on the Range’ and ‘Old Black Joe’. These were songs
that I well remember my grand-uncles sing during the many family gatherings when I was knee high. She will miss
him dearly.

Uncle Christie leaves behind his wife, Aunt Rosemary, and five children – Ravi, Shala, Roshi, Romesh and Nili. The
Weeramantry name will live on through Ravi’s three sons who live in Melbourne.

Rohan Jayaratne
Dr Rohan Jayaratne is Judge Weeramantry’s nephew. He is also an Old Royalist. He lives in Brisbane and is the
founder President of the Queensland Old Royalists Association.

5

School Years

* Photograph of Form 3A, C G Weeramantry is seated 4th from left. Form Master is Mr B J Bandara.

6

* Mr E L Bradby’s letter and school photograph are taken from “Memoirs of Judge C G Weramantry, Volume 1”
7

Life and Achievements

Leaving the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
in 1972

FAREWELL TO THE
HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER GREGORY WEERAMANTRY

PUISNE JUSTICE
in the Ceremonial Court, Hulftsdorp May 1972

The Hon. Victor Tennekoon, Q.C.

My Lords,
We are met today to say farewell to Justice Weeramantry. I recall a day in December 1967 on which the Judges of
this Court assembled in the book lined room that adjoins this chamber in readiness for a ceremonial sitting. I
happened myself to be one of that number. While we awaited the hour of 11 o'clock there walked in almost
apologetically a young man also fully robed and bewigged like ourselves - the new Judge who was being formally
welcomed by the Bar that day. This was Justice Weeramantry - aged 41 years, small of build, a Doctor of Laws and
newly appointed to the Supreme Court Bench.

There were of course, among those who did not know him, a few eyebrows raised at the appointment of a lawyer
at so early an age to the highest court in the country.

I myself then had only a slight acquaintance with the new Judge. I remember however one of our greatest lawyers,
now no longer with us, speaking of the new appointment in words which seemed to echo those of Belario to the
Duke of Venice on an occasion which I am sure no one can fail to recall –

I beseech you to let his lack of years be no impediment to let him lack a reverend estimation for I never
knew so young a body with so old ahead.

Five years have passed since then. Five years in which the public, the profession and his fellow Judges have
recognized in Justice Weeramantry a Judge of more than ordinary calibre.

Many of these present here are perhaps accustomed on occasions such as this to speeches which do not sting the
superlative. I try to avoid them myself, for they have become, with the much use, incapable of being meaningful to
the listener. And so lest it be thought that the nature of the occasion has produced in me an undiscriminating and
eulogistic attitude of mind, I will let the words of others speak for me. Many of those present here will recall that
Justice Weeramantry's book on The Law of Contracts received praise in practically every legal journal that reviewed
it. The Law Quarterly Review, the South African Law Journal, the Juridical Review and the International and
Comparative Law Quarterly were some of them. As an example, this is what the Law Quarterly Review said:

In the generous size and scope this work can only be compared among works on the Roman-Dutch Law of Contract
with the learned and magisterial treatise of Wessels... an ambitious work courageously undertaken and admirably
executed. It is certain to have an enduring success.
And again:
It embodies an immense amount of research which has been carefully synthesised and clearly presented. It is a
thoughtful book,
Justice Weeramantry's scholarship, his erudition, clarity of statement and his literary finesse can be seen in the
judgments that came from his pen during his brief stay on the Bench which ends today. Many of them are reported
in our Law Reports. Your Lordship's judgments - one observes are characterised by an almost Holmesian approach -

8

that is, of seeking the answer to new questions by discovery of starting points through historical investigation.
Many of these judgments, though sufficient in themselves to deal with the point in issue in the case, can form the
basis for a new treatise on the wider principles that have come under consideration in them. It is somewhat rare
for a judgment of the Supreme Court of Ceylon to be cited or examined in the courts of other lands or in their
journals. I was therefore pleasantly surprised to find Professor de Vos of South Africa, in his latest edition of the law
of unjust enrichment, commenting on Justice Weeramantry's judgment in de Costa v. The Bank of Ceylon which
dealt, among other things, with that branch of the Roman-Dutch Law. The writer comments that Justice
Weeramantry's view on this matter is to be preferred to that contained in one of the leading South African
judgments.
Justice Weeramantry is of course one of our Judges with not merely a national reputation. He has lectured in the
U.S.A. and at distinguished gatherings of lawyers in other parts of the world. The last conference he attended was, I
think, the one held by the Law Council of Australia in Melbourne in the middle of last year, at which he was a
principal guest of honour. It is perhaps the impression he created on these occasions that has led to the present
position where the country loses one of its most promising Judges.
Your Lordship Justice Weeramantry leaves the Supreme Court Bench to assume a Chair at an Australian University.
It is in a way a return to one's first love, for Your Lordship has been for some time a Lecturer and Examiner at the
Ceylon Law College. However that may be, it seems undoubtedly true that Your Lordship is turning to a sphere of
legal activity which not only holds great attraction for you, but to one in which you have distinguished yourself.
I am sure that with the facilities and opportunities provided by life at a University you will be able to apply your
undoubted industry, scholarship and talents to the writing of more treatises on legal topics. The Ceylon Law will, I
am certain, receive your Lordship's attention more than any other.
My Lord, on behalf of the Bar, may I wish Your Lordship success in the new sphere of life which Your Lordship is
turning to and also good health and happiness without which nothing else is worthwhile.

9

Appointment to the International Court of Justice

CEREMONIAL SITTING
OF THE

SUPREME COURT OF SRI LANKA

at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 30th January 1991 for the
purpose of felicitating

Professor Christopher Gregory Weeramantry Judge-
elect of the International Court of Justice

Address by the Chief Justice

PRESENT:

His Lordship. The Chief Justice, the Hon. Parinda Ranasinghe
The Judges of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka
The Judges of the Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka
The Judges of the High Court, the District Court and the Magistrate's Courts of the Colombo District
Retired Judges of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal
Queen's Counsel and President's Counsel
Members of the Bar of Sri Lanka
Members of the general public

The Hon. Attorney-General
Mr. Desmond Fernando, President, Bar Association of Sri Lanka;
Professor C.G. Weeramantry, Judge Elect, International Court of Justice.

We have, Professor Weeramantry, assembled here this morning at a Ceremonial Sitting of this Court, to take
cognizance of your outstanding achievement and to felicitate you on being elevated to the membership of the
highest and the most prestigious international judicial tribunal in existence today.

Although the origin of Ceremonial Sittings of the Supreme Court seems a trifle misty, such sittings seem to have
been held from early times. They have added colour and dignity to the proceedings, and enriched the traditions of
this Court.

The Bench and the Bar are all too familiar with the events which occasion such Sittings. Such Sittings, however,
have also been held on very rare occasions for very special reasons.

It is with such a Ceremonial Sitting, steeped in tradition, that we honour you, Christopher Gregory Weeramantry,
who were once a distinguished member of this Court. If this sitting is unprecedented, it is so for the simple reason
that the occasion, which has moved us to do so, is itself unprecedented.

The International Court of Justice, to which you have been elected, we know is an institution established by the
Charter of the United Nations; that it is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations; that it is composed of a
body of independent Judges from amongst persons of high moral character who possess the qualifications required
in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial office, or are juris consults of recognized
competence in International Law; that in electing a person to serve as a Judge, the electors have to bear in mind
not only that those to be elected should independently possess the qualifications required, but also that, in the

10

body as a whole, the representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world
is assured.

You are one of the most distinguished products of Royal College; and your academic and professional qualifications
are all too well known. They include degrees in Law and Arts, a Doctorate in Law from the University of London,
and also a Doctorate in Law Honoris Causa of the University of Colombo. You are also an Associate Academician of
the International Academy of Law in Paris; and a member of the Bars of Sri Lanka, Victoria, Fiji and Papua New
Guinea.

After a distinguished career at the Bar, which spanned a period of seventeen years and in the course of which you
figured in many important cases which gripped the attention of not only all Hulftsdorp but also of the general
public, and also achieved high eminence in the profession, you were appointed a Commissioner of Assize in 1965.
Not long thereafter, in 1967, you took your seat on the Supreme Court Bench, being one of the youngest ever to be
appointed to the highest judicial tribunal in this Island.
You displayed your intellectual poise, your sense of detachment, your legal and constitutional knowledge in full
measure during your tenure of office. Your learning and your inborn talents were ideally suited to the enunciation
and formulation of legal principles and concepts. You never allowed precedents to paralyse thought and the
powers of reasoning. Your lucid and robust analysis of complex intellectual problems, and your appreciation of the
value of the comparative approach helped you to clarify the law in many areas, adding to it a distinction of your
own. A rare combination of clarity of vision and practical common-sense was one of your outstanding assets. The
instinct of doing justice has been in the inmost fibres of your being.

Then, after only a short spell of five years on the Bench and to the surprise of not only the members of the legal
profession and the Bench, but also of all those who knew you, you resigned your seat on the Supreme Court Bench.
You remain, up to date, the only Judge of the Supreme Court of this land who has resigned from the Bench of your
own free will, whilst you were still capable of holding that post for a long period to come. Having laid down the
robes of office you then set out on the long and arduous, but exciting, path which has now led you to The Hague,
the seat of the International Court of Justice.

It was during your period of office on the Bench that you brought out your treatise on the Law of Contract, which is
a comparative study of the Roman Dutch, the English and the customary laws of contract in Ceylon - your Magnum
Opus for which you were awarded the degree of LL.D. of the University of London.

You then accepted the position of Sir Hayden Starke Professor of Law of Monash University at Melbourne. During
this period, in addition to your busy schedule as Professor, you found the time to bring forth several publications
on such wide-ranging topics as Human Rights and Scientific and Technological Development; Islamic Jurisprudence;
Nuclear Weapons and Scientific Responsibility; studies of national and international sources of danger to the rule of
law; international and domestic erosion of human rights by modern technology; apartheid; Why the law is in crisis
throughout the world and how lawyers and laymen can meet such crises.

You have also to your credit several United Nations related activities such as: Co-ordinator of Human Rights
workshops held by the United Nations University in association with the Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, on
Science and Technology and Human Rights; Editor of two United Nations University volumes on Human Rights and
Technology; Member of the Panel of three Human Rights Experts from Western, Communist and Third World
selected by the Human Rights Commission to conduct seminars in various countries; Member of the Steering
Committee of UN University Projects; Lecturer at UNESCO Seminars; Member of the UN University Task Force on
Human Rights in Tokyo.

You have also delivered keynote addresses at several major international seminars and conferences in capital cities
all over the world.

You are also a member of several International Associations, such as the American Association of Arbitrators;
American Society of International Law; International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms; Commonwealth
Law Association; World Association of Law Professors; World Peace through Law; World Association on the
Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy.

11

You served as the Chairman of the Nauru Commission of Inquiry - which was an independent Commission of Inquiry
set up in 1987 by the Government of Nauru to examine inter alia the question of responsibility under international
law for the rehabilitation of the phosphate lands of Nauru mined out during the period of international trusteeship.

Several of us on the Bench, who have attended international conferences, have had the pleasure of seeing for
ourselves the regard in which you are held by the international legal community. We are proud of you. We are
grateful to you. We realise full well that the reputation which you have gained for yourself at the bar of world legal
opinion will operate to enhance the prestige of both the Bench and the Bar of Sri Lanka.

Although Sri Lanka had, from time to time, contested elections held to fill vacancies in the International Court with
varying success, coming on one occasion very near to achieving success and on other occasions with not very
encouraging results, it was, however, left to you to win this most coveted office and bring inestimable credit to our
Island home.

You will, in Sri Lankan judicial circles, be considered a trail-blazer, clearing the path for others to follow; and, as we
scan the legal firmament, I believe we could see in the distant horizon one or two with great potential who we
hope will follow you; if not in your footsteps at least in your wake.

As you yourself have stated in one of your learned articles: "today the status of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights is such that it is universally looked upon as laying down a minimum universally recognised set of norms by
which all laws can be tested" and "there is a growing tendency for national courts to have regard to these
international norms for the purpose of deciding cases where the domestic law - whether constitutional, statute or
common law - is uncertain or incomplete ...". Against this background, we in Sri Lanka are proud and privileged
that, in this the last decade of the twentieth century, which has been declared by the General Assembly to be "the
UN Decade of International Law" - and in which one of the main purposes is said to be "to promote means and
methods for the peaceful settlement of disputes between States, including resort to and full respect for the
International Court of Justice" - you should take your seat in that august assembly as a nominee of our homeland.

In our opinion the honour which has been conferred on you has never been more deservedly won. This recognition
of your undoubted merit is a crowning glory of a brilliant record of a long and distinguished service in the cause of
law and justice.

On behalf of the Judiciary of this your homeland, I now wish you all success in your new sphere of judicial
responsibility, in the knowledge that you are bound to achieve such success in super abundance. Once that success
is achieved, there will be a niche in the temples of fame, and of justice, in which you will be placed by the common
acclamation of all.

We wish you good health and strength to discharge the solemn functions and responsibilities which have now been
entrusted to you by the international community.

12

70th Birthday Volume

The following two commentaries, by the then Chief Justice of
Australia, and the President of the International Court of
Justice, on the occasion of Judge Weeramantry’s 70th birthday,
have been sourced from “Legal Visions of the 21st Century:
Essays in honour of Judge Christopher Weeramantry” Edited by
Anthony Anghie and Garry Sturgess, Kluwer Law International,
1988. ISBN 90-411-1116-6
- Sir Gerard Brennan AC KBE, Chief Justice of Australia

Judge Weeramantry brings to his office a wide experience of international affairs and a comprehensive knowledge
of legal principles - not only the principles of international law, but the principles of several systems of domestic
law. This is a formidable rock on which to build the work of a Judge of the International Court of Justice. But, just as
the rock in the Sinai desert was unproductive until Moses struck it with his rod, so the rock of technical capacity is
unproductive until it is struck by the personal qualities and individual genius of the Judge. In the International Court
of Justice, where the law must engage in a continuing dialogue with the changing phenomena of international
relations, the personal qualities and individual genius of the Judge are of public interest and international concern.
In this volume, the reader will perceive something of the intellect, personality and genius that are combined in the
Vice-President of the Court. I would add a personal appreciation gleaned from the privilege of knowing him and
from reading his remarkable reflection on The Lord's Prayer, a prayer which he sees as expressing the dignity of
every person and requiring a social order to which all humankind would aspire.

First, Judge Weeramantry has a respectful appreciation of the unique dignity of every man and woman, irrespective
of nationality, position, colour, age, race, wealth, learning and birth. He perceives what he calls "the seamless web
of humanity", dignified by their direct relationship with God and their relationship with one another, each person
being an end in himself or herself. This view of humanity leads to the recognition of those rights-human rights -
which inhere in every individual by virtue of his or her being a human being. Secondly, mankind collectively is seen
to be aspiring to and moving towards inter-cultural and inter-religious understand that will inform the goals which
mankind must set itself if it is to emerge into a universe of peace. There is hope for the future, for the spirit of
mankind responds to the God Who links all men and women to their common Creator by ties of affection and
authority. Thirdly, he contrasts justice with legalism and rejects an arid positivism that would justify a demolition of
human rights. He calls for an exercise of the human will to reject the values and practices that deny the kingdom of
heaven - the trespasses for which mankind requires forgiveness - and suggests that that kingdom is "not a distant
dream, but a reality lying within human reach more closely now than ever before". He shows that the notion of
human rights must not be distorted by a failure to acknowledge duties. He describes insightfully the evils calling for
eradication, including the "concealed trespasses" of new colonialism, underdevelopment and corporate
wrongdoing. Judge Weeramantry derives the dignity of every man and woman, religious values, and the true scope
of law by a rigorous exegesis of the Lord's Prayer. This is not merely a pious exercise; it is a jurisprudential
framework for law in the world in which we live. As he says:

Whoever studies law needs to study the concept of justice. Whoever studies justice needs to be versed in
morality. Whoever studies morality needs to know something of religious teaching. Religion, morality,
justice and law feed each other in ways too numerous to mention.

Judge Weeramantry sets his face against the secularism of the western world and offers a vision of hope for
international peace in the next century. And this from a man who, better than most, is familiar with the
countervailing forces. He is committed to the development of international law by which ideals may be translated
into accepted and binding norms. This accords with a dominant feature of legal development throughout the ages -
a constant traffic of ideas from the ideal order to the judicial order.

The community of Nations is well served by a Judge whose approach to his judicial function is at one with his
private conscience and who finds, by a rigorous and logical search in the depth of that conscience, the wellsprings
of peace in the World that is forever changing, always becoming.

Chief Justice's Chambers
High Court of Australia, Canberra.

13

Judge Stephen M. Schwebel

President, International Court of Justice

Christopher Weeramantry, Judge and Vice President of the International Court of Justice, brings to the Court an
unmatched breadth and depth of scholarship. He is learned not only in international law and in the common law.
He is at home in comparative law, in comparative religion, and in philosophy, ethics and the law of human rights.
He has read widely and written deeply in these spheres and in others. He not only writes as a jurist and for the
scholar. He has the facility to attract and address a far broader readership, as his writings on religion attest.

Judge Weeramantry also brings to the International Court of Justice experience as a judge in Sri Lanka. The large
majority of the judges of the Court are former senior government officials or professors of international law or
both; relatively few have national judicial experience. That experience may afford the international judge insights
that he or she otherwise may lack.

Christopher Weeramantry has a vitality and physical vigour which undergird his multiple intellectual and
organizational contributions to the work of the Court. Those contributions have been publicly manifested in his
outstanding separate and dissenting opinions, and in his conception and organization of the Colloquium in 1996 in
celebration of the 50th Anniversary of the Court. They are no less reflected in the inner workings of the Court.

Christopher Weeramantry has a heart that matches his mind. He is a man of quite exceptional gentility and grace,
of sweetness of soul and devotion to family. He is not liberal in principle and illiberal in practice (how often one
encounters such characters in national and international life); he practices what he preaches in the routine of his
activities and encounters. He thereby brings to the Court elements of character that influence it no less
beneficently than do his intellectual contributions.

As the current President of the Court, it is my good fortune, as it is that of the Court as a whole, to have Christopher
Weeramantry as Vice President and a Vice President who plays a particularly influential role in the work of the
Court. On behalf of my colleagues as well as myself, let me say how profoundly pleased I am to record the esteem
and affection that surround him in The Hague. On his 70th birthday, we wish him and his family - and the cause of
international justice - many happy returns.

On the Publication of his memoirs

Review of Judge C. G. Weeramantry’s Memoirs Volume 1: Towards One World: The Sri
Lankan Years

Reviewed by Dr. Wickrama Weerasooria (November 20, 2010 – The Island)

Next Wednesday, 24th November at a memorable function, Judge C.G.Weeramantry’s friends and well–wishers will
launch the first volume of his two volume Memoirs. I gladly agreed to a request for a pre–launch review for this
newspaper. The moment I received and commenced reading a proof copy of the book of a little over 500 pages, I
could not put it down. It was so well written and the contents so absorbing, I could not stop reading page by page
until I suddenly realized I was given the book for a review and not to read and keep. However, this book reminded
me, once again, of the well-known saying, "There is nothing really called a good book or a bad book. A book is
either well written or badly written". This book is so well written. Judge Weeramantry is too well known both
nationally and internationally for me to even attempt to outline his achievements. So in this review, I will not talk
about the man – the legend – except for a few interesting anecdotes he relates about himself in the book. Rather, I
will concentrate on the book as a whole.

The Memoirs are in two volumes and this review is on Volume One called "The Sri Lankan Years". Volume Two
which is to appear shortly, is on the author’s life in Australia and on the Bench of the International Court at the

14

Hague, popularly known as the World Court. Volume One, with an excellent Foreword by Mr. Sam Wijesinha,
Retired Secretary General of Parliament and Chancellor of the Open University of Sri Lanka, can be neatly
compartmentalized into two sections. Chapters one to twelve (consisting of 228 pages) is about Judge
Weeramantry’s beginnings from his birth in 1926 to his marriage in 1952, his parents, his two brothers and the
other members of "the extended family" who moulded his life. In this same part under headings such as, "Setting
the Scene" and the "Social Picture during Childhood", the author gives an excellent and authoritative account of the
social, political and economic life in Ceylon of that period. This is a period which many of us and certainly our
younger generation are now hardly aware. These pages of the narrative took this reviewer as well down "memory
lane" of an interesting pre–independence period of Sri Lanka.

Judge Weeramantry’s accounts of his parents (Gregory and Lilian), his uncle and aunt (Henry and Enid), and his two
elder brothers (Lucian and Douglas) are very emotional. They engross the mind and grip the heart. The ‘closeness
and the togetherness’ of this family is enviable and is perhaps what made Judge Weeramantry the Sri Lankan icon
he is. Heredity and family background is important in building anyone’s character. In two chapters entitled "Home
and Family" and ``My Father’s Life and Work", Judge Weeramantry talks of his indebtedness to both his parents,
Gregory and Lilian; how both of them got well qualified from Cambridge examinations which at that period of time
was "the sign of excellence". His mother, Lilian was not only a lover of English literature but an accomplished artist.
The father (Gregory Weeramantry) was a born educationist who later taught at well-known denominational
schools, such as St. Anthony’s (Catholic), Ananda (Buddhist) and Zahira (Muslim). He was also the Founder and First
Secretary of the All Ceylon Union of Teachers and also founded Alexandra College in 1940 where well known Sri
Lankans taught from time to time. Of Alexandra College, Judge Weeramantry states: ``Alexandra College played a
significant role and discharged a very useful function on the Sri Lankan educational scene. Many eminent Sri
Lankans – judges, doctors, civil servants, lawyers, international officials and cabinet ministers – were greatly helped
in their careers by this institution. Although it was a fee-levying private educational institution, there were quite a
few students whose fees were completely waived by my father because he felt their parents could not afford the
cost. Some of these students rose to high positions in public life and always acknowledge that this would not have
been possible but for the assistance they received". On his father’s 100th anniversary in March 1994, a former
Minister of Education, Mr. Nissanka Wijeratne, paid a glowing tribute to Gregory Weeramantry under the title "A
life of service devoted to education". This tribute is published as an Appendix to the Memoirs. Judge Weeramantry
also tells us that he and his two elder brothers also taught at Alexandra College and this teaching experience helped
them to advance their careers in later years. His eldest brother, Lucian, took to law and became well known in
international law and from 1962 served in several global Institutions affiliated to the United Nations. The main
institution that Lucian Weeramantry served was the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) which was then the
leading international institution on Human Rights. At that time, advocating Human Rights was a difficult task. As
Judge Weeramantry himself states in his book - "I myself sometimes wondered why my brother Lucian was
spending so much effort at the ICJ on putting together so many judgments which did not have the force of law but
only expressed aspirations – so great was the entrenched feeling in the legal profession that human rights were not
law. I recollect that once, when I was a young lawyer watching proceedings in our Appeal Court in the early 1950’s,
a lawyer cited to a Judge some provision of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. He was immediately asked
"Are you seriously suggesting that this is the law of this country?" No judge in the world would do that today, just
as any judge in any court in the world might well have asked that question at that time in legal history. However,
Lucian’s book on The International Commission of Jurists. The Pioneering Years, published by Kluwer International
of Holland in 2000 became the standard pioneering work on the subject".

It was also Lucian Weeramantry who defended Reverend Somarama, the Buddhist monk who shot Prime Minister
S. W. R. D. Bandaranaike in September 1959. Lucian later (1969) wrote an excellent book on the trial entitled "The
Assassination of a Prime Minister".

Two other members of the Weeramantry family that had a major influence and impact were the well-known lawyer
and later Supreme Court judge, Justice Thomas de Sampayo. He was one of the country’s most respected judges of
the period 1910 – 1925. The other was Mr. D. J. Wimalasurendra, the Engineer, who later became famous for the
Laxapana and Norton Bridge electricity power projects. The Weeramantry Memoirs contains valuable accounts
about both of them which any future historian can use.

Moving from Judge Weeramantry’s parents, two brothers and family, the author’s accounts of Sri Lanka’s Heritage,
about the different races and the religions, the country’s social, political and

15

economic landscape of the period between 1900 – 1948 while we were still under British rule – is all fascinating
reading. No doubt the events and facts about which Judge Weeramantry writes about, has been written about
earlier by several of our historians. However, what is significant is that these topics have not been written about in
the way expressed in the Weeramantry Memoirs. Remember, Judge Weeramantry is now writing about all these
historical facts in 2010. His wide experience and mature age, has enabled him to talk of the same events and
people in an amazingly different way. That is what is important about this book – the man writing it.

With the superb literary prowess he has acquired over the years by writing over thirty books and hundreds of
articles and through his academic lectures, the description that Judge Weeramantry gives of Sri Lankan Festivals
and Events like Vesak, Christmas, Ramazan, Vel, The Kandy Perahera,Sinhala and Tamil New Year are also so
readable unlike many of the scholarly works written about these events, where the technicality has dulled the
readability.

Weeramantry also focuses and writes of the Fabric of Sri Lankan Society of the early period 1900 – 1948 in a way
and manner this reviewer has seldom read before. His accounts of racial harmony between the Sinhalese, the
Tamils, the Muslims and the Burghers are literary master pieces that even our current Reconciliation Commission
chaired by former Attorney-General, Mr. C.R. de Silva may care to look at. How the Ceylonese of that period
comprising of Natukottai Chettiars, Colombo Chetties, Parsees, Bharatas, Gujaratis, Sindhis, Memons, Malayalees
and Chinamen, despite all their religious and racial differences, all lived together in reasonable amity. Judge
Weeramantry’s message is clear; the majority must look after the minorities whatever the outcome. That is how
nations survive and develop. We must avoid conflict.

Everyone who has worked with or knows Judge Weeramantry or knows of him, is fully aware that he bears no
prejudices, racial, religious or cultural. He is blind to any such prejudice. In this connection it is significant and of
anecdotal interest that Judge Weeramantry is also colour blind. He says this in his book stating that this is one of
the reasons he gave up the suggestion to be a doctor. In his Memoirs he says (at p. 205).

"My ambition of becoming a doctor was rendered unreal by the fact that I was seriously colour blind. I thought to
myself that there might indeed be occasions when I might not be able to distinguish blood from some other dark
fluid and I realized that this just would not do for a doctor. Imagine a doctor who could not spot blood when he saw
it! This might have dire consequences for some poor patient. So, that grandiose idea was laid to rest".

Judge Weeramantry’s account of what was then (and even now called in Colombo circles) the "April Holidays", how
the rich and affluent fled to the hills in Nuwara Eliya, is worth repetition in a newspaper column. So also, his
account of horse racing and the Turf Club where the ladies of Colombo Society showed off their fashions.
Colombo’s five star hotels have replaced the Colombo
Race Course – which now houses research and educational institutions like the National Archives, part of the
Colombo University and extensions of Royal College.

One chilling account by Judge Weeramantry of the Martial Law Period of 1915, which was one of the darkest hours
of British rule, will interest anyone. It is about how Pedris, a Sri Lankan Police Officer from a well-known family was
executed by the British by a firing squad for allegedly not controlling the rioters in Colombo. Pedris, who at that
time was not on official duty or in uniform, was innocently at the scene of some rioting. Some Englishmen had
identified him and reported the matter. He was arrested for complicity and despite all pleas for clemency by his
immensely wealthy family and by influential native Ceylonese of that time, he was executed. A statue is now
erected to Pedris at the park near Dickman’s Road.

Next, and most significantly, we come to an event that perhaps changed Judge Weeramantry’s life and made him
the legend he has become. To use a legal term it was a "landmark decision". That was marrying Rosemary de
Sampayo. When he had been in practice for about eight years, at the age of 32, he had met her at a function in
1958. It was love at first sight. As he himself says in his book, "I realized that this was the young lady I had been
looking for. I wasted no time in showing my interest which was reciprocated and things moved rapidly and by 1959
we were married. (The author does not tell us how he showed his interest or how the gracious lady reciprocated).
However, we all know that the couple had, in rapid succession, five children – two sons and three daughters and
they are now also blessed with eleven grandchildren.

16





emerging global issues. As Sir Gerard Brennan, former Chief Justice of Australia writes in the introduction, the
Monash years gave the Judge opportunities to develop his vision of the law as a normative influence in society, not
by philosophical reflection alone but by observing sensitively and insightfully, social phenomena which illustrated
the informing values of the law. A hallmark of his approach to his work was his insatiable interest in the world
around him. This prompted him to move from one major emerging legal field to the next, and it is reflected in the
number and scope of the areas in which he made his mark. To name but a few of these;
In 1975 Professor Weeramantry wrote The Law in Crisis: Bridges of Understanding, a significant volume in the
annals of law which addressed his concern with the growing distance between the law and the layman, and
between lawyers and the public they serve.

The book inspired the establishment of “Law Week” in Australia, an event that is now an annual feature in the legal
calendar and whose aim is bring the law and legal procedure in closer contact with the general public. Today, this
event is marked in many countries across the world including Sri Lanka. It has been held in Australia each year for
more than 30 years. In 1976, America celebrated its bicentennial. To mark this occasion, the International
Association for the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy held the World Conference on Equality and Freedom,
in order to highlight these central values from the American constitution and their integral value to the world.
Judge Weeramantry’s presentation to this conference, on the Third World perspective, broke new ground in
drawing attention to the rich traditions of equality in Hindu, Buddhist and Islamic thought. Commentary at the time
referred to his paper as “a Magna Carta for the Third World.”.

In 1979, Judge Weeramantry’s expertise in Roman Dutch law, along with his work on the Law in Crisis led to him
being invited to a Visiting Professorship at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. This was, as the book notes,
almost inconceivable. Stellenbosch was recognised as being at the apex of the world of white South Africa and the
invitation came at a time when apartheid was seen as one of the world’s most intractable human rights problems.

Judge Weeramantry accepted the invitation on condition that he could speak and move freely. In addition to his
lectures, he used the opportunity to explore with white students the whole question of apartheid and its
infringement on human rights. He recorded his views, including a series of “heads of action” in a book entitled,
Apartheid – the closing phases. The book was launched in Australia by Bob Hawke, who later went on to become
Prime Minister of Australia. The book was banned in South Africa, but it was twice published secretly in the
country. It was recognised as having made an important contribution to the anti-apartheid movement.
A recurring theme in this memoir is Judge Weeramantry’s abiding interest in the relationship between law and
human rights. When he first took up his position at Monash in 1972, human rights were still very much in the
category of “soft law”. Judge Weeramantry took a leading role in designing and teaching one of the first courses on
human rights in Australia. Over the years he made significant contributions to discussions on the translation of
human rights to “hard law” as well as to the intersection between ethics, human rights and modern scientific
advances.

This was the theme of his seminal work The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of
Technology” which was referred to in a memorandum to the 1992 World Conference on Human Rights by the then
UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros Ghali. The Secretary-General’s strong endorsement of the work prompted a
new focus by the UN on this important emerging area.

Judge Weeramantry’s increasing stature on the international stage led to his 1987 appointment as the Chairman of
the Commission of Inquiry into the Worked-Out Phosphate Lands of Nauru. The Commission was an important final
step in resolving the final vestiges of UN trusteeship over Nauru, which had achieved independence in 1968. The
Commission’s findings laid the basis for a claim by Nauru against Australia, as a former trustee power, in the
International Court of Justice.

The Nauru Commission case made Professor Weeramantry a household name among jurists worldwide and
prompted his eventual nomination and selection to the International Court of Justice in 1990. In a somewhat ironic
twist, he was a member of the Court when the Nauru case was heard, and the Court ruled against Australia. For
over a decade at the ICJ, Judge Weeramantry would be part of the international body that set some of the most
significant legal precedence of our time, eventually becoming Vice President. But this is a subject for another
volume of memoirs!

19

After retirement, the Judge returned to Sri Lanka and in 2002 set up the Weeramantry International Centre for
Peace Education and Research. In addition to legal research, the centre held workshops that brought together
students from all parts of Sri Lanka to foster inter-cultural understanding. The networks that these workshops
created continue to engage in their communities in various parts of the country.

Judge Weeramantry is the recipient of many awards for his services and contributions. His birth country has
bestowed on him its highest honour of “Sri Lanka Abhimana” (Pride of Sri Lanka). In 2003 he was appointed as a
member of the Order of Australia for his services to the law. As Former Australian Chief Justice Sir Gerard Brenann
said, in fact “his service is truly to the whole human family". He is also the recipient of the UNESCO Prize for Peace
Education in 2006 and the Right to Livelihood Award by the World Future Council for his advocacy of the rights of
future generations.

In recognition of his extraordinary contributions to the life of the university and its body of academic work and
teaching, Monash University keeps an office available for Judge Weeramantry where he continues to be a visiting
Emeritus Professor As I said earlier, this memoir covers an extraordinary range of academic and legal achievement.
It documents just one chapter of a life lived on a very broad canvas and which has been marked by the ceaseless
pursuit of more knowledge.

As Judge Weeramantry himself puts it: “The range of experiences to which I was exposed, during my Australian
years, bring to mind the observation of Socrates that “I know nothing except the fact of my own ignorance”. The
more information one acquires, the more one realises the truth of this observation, for every new fact one learns
makes one aware of a hundred new questions to which does not know the answers.

In reading the book myself, I was struck by a key theme - how easy it is to lose sight of the bigger picture when you
are focused on the minutiae of your daily endeavours. While Judge Weeramantry makes this point in relation to the
law, it applies equally to any profession or discipline.

At its core, Judge Weeramantry’s memoir contains a resounding call to the legal profession to lift its gaze and seek
a broader perspective so that the value and order of the law can be brought to bear across the global spectrum. I
think it’s fair to say that all of us would benefit from applying this principle to our own lives and pursuits.
As the Judge observes, “life is the story of a constant quest for knowledge and the more one knows the more the
wonder grows”. We and countless others who have benefited from his work are very fortunate that Judge
Weeramantry has managed to both live life according to this maxim, but also to document the results of his work
and his experiences, so that others can benefit from his quest for knowledge, and share in the wonder it has
brought. On that note, it gives me great pleasure to launch this volume “The Memoirs of Judge CG Weeramantry,
Volume II: The Australian Years” here in Sri Lanka.
Thank you.

Towards One World: The Memoirs of C.G.Weeramantry. Volume III: The International
Court and Thereafter’

Stamford Lake Publications 2014 Reviewed by Antony Anghie, December 20, 2014, 12:00 pm

This is the third volume of the memoirs of C.G.Weeramantry (`Christie’ to his many friends all over the world, Judge
Weeramantry to international lawyers, and `Professor’ to me). The first volume dealt with his childhood and early
career in Sri Lanka and the second with his time as a Professor of Law at Monash University in Australia. This
volume continues his story from his time on the International Court of Justice to the present. It tells of his
experiences on the ICJ and the improbable circumstances in which he was elected. It also covers his time as a
visiting professor at Harvard, and the many activities he was involved in after his time on the ICJ, when he returned
to Sri Lanka and established the Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education Research, a vehicle by
which he pursued his campaign for peace and sustainable development in his own country and attempted to
translate theory into practice.

His career following his time on the ICJ has been extremely demanding, as organizations all over the world have
sought his expertise in causes ranging from the promotion of the rule of law and judicial independence to the

20

banning nuclear weapons and the promotion of environmental sustainability. His work in the cause of international
peace has won international recognition in the form of the many degrees and awards bestowed upon him,
including the UNESCO Peace Award and the Right Livelihood Award (the `Alternative Nobel Prize’). Now in his
eighties he continues to work and travel indefatigably, trying as best he can to respond to the many demands on
his time. This is an extraordinary life of someone who can surely claim to be one of the greatest individuals Sri
Lanka has ever produced.

The book is rich in its accounts of events and personalities, but here, I will focus on his work as an international
jurist, simply because it is such a major theme of this volume. Further, despite all the esteem he enjoys in Sri Lanka,
I think it is possible that the real nature of his originality and achievement and the battles he fought in articulating a
Third World vision of international order, may not be very well known or understood.

The volume begins with Professor’s campaign, his second, for a position on the International Court of Justice. It still
seems incredible that, despite overwhelming odds, it succeeded. Daya Perera P.C was Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to
the UN at the time, and his hard work and effervescent personality were crucial parts of the campaign as was the
high esteem in which Sri Lanka was then held in international circles. In our meetings with Ambassadors, Shirley
Amerasinghe was always mentioned with great affection and respect. I should add that the campaign team,
consisting of personnel from Sri Lanka’s embassy and a few of Professor’s friends and colleagues, produced its own
documents: no public relations firms were needed.

In order to win election, any candidate for the ICJ has to gain a majority of votes in both the General Assembly and
the Security Council. Several rounds of voting are sometimes needed, as candidates are gradually eliminated. As
the voting commenced, and as it became slowly apparent that Professor could actually win, as the Assembly and
then the Council gradually changed their positions over successive rounds, almost as though the great globe itself
was slowly shifting and wheeling around, there was a strange and palpable sense that that history being made,
destiny being fulfilled (it also happened to be Professor’s birthday).

It is fair to say that the sitting Judges of the ICJ, though welcoming and cordial, had few expectations regarding this
obscure lawyer from a very small country who had somehow won election to the Court. Professor had not followed
the conventional route to the ICJ, one that usually involved serving on the International Law Commission and, very
often, holding high Diplomatic Office. Professor himself was somewhat uncertain about how he would meet the
challenges he confronted of proving himself worthy of such an august position. But he had faced a similar
challenges before, when first going to the Bar (one of his potential clients had, on meeting him, refused to entrust
`this schoolboy’ with his case - he tells the story in Volume One), when assuming his position on the Supreme
Court, and then, when taking up his professorship at Monash. He applied himself to the work of the Court with his
usual dedication and single-mindedness, extremely sensitive to the enormous responsibility he had to discharge -
establishing and applying the international rule of law in addressing some of the most fundamental challenges
confronting the international community - territorial disputes, environmental degradation and, inevitably, war and
peace.

His impact on the Court was astonishing. Within a few years he established himself as an outstanding jurist with a
distinctive, powerful and eloquent voice, and his bold and visionary jurisprudence was greatly appreciated by the
many international lawyers who felt that the Court was timid and slow in responding to the massive changes taking
place in international affairs.

How did he do it? As always, he worked extraordinarily hard. And then, it became apparent that he had a rich
judicial experience and a set of intellectual resources that in fact made him uniquely qualified to serve on the
International Court of Justice. His time at the Sri Lankan bar had honed his forensic and analytic skills, forged by the
challenge of arguing against the likes of his colleagues such as H.V Perera (whom he still regards as the finest
lawyer he has encountered in any jurisdiction). His years on the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka had made him
completely familiar with the practicalities of the judicial process. The President of the Court, Stephen Schwebel,
pointed this out appreciatively, as the majority of ICJ judges had been academics and diplomats rather than judges.
Very importantly, Professor’s time in Sri Lanka had acquainted him with both the civil and common law systems,
while virtually every other Judge on the Court was a product of one of these major traditions. He was an expert in

21







would not be criminal but in the language of morality and ethics it would be highly capable to honour and work on
an intention to commit a criminal act.

Moreover, the maintenance of a nuclear arsenal involves the construction, refinement and testing of such weapons
before their actual use. This causes environmental damage both present and potential, which can last for
thousands of years. This is indeed an act which causes actual damage and is therefore culpable both morally and
legally.

It is said that previous conquerors like Attila and Jenghiz Khan used to proclaim that not even a dog or cat or mouse
would be left alive when they destroyed the cities which defied them. Our generation with the nuclear weapon in
its hand is far more brutal and primitive than any of those conquerors of the past, however barbaric they might
have been. We will carry our cruelty much further than they ever did for we would eliminate every trace of life
down to the humblest worm and ant and insect in any territory that defies us. This would exceed any of the items
in the “dark lamentable catalogue of human crime”.

Q: How strong do you perceive the rule of international law and the influence of the International Court of
Justice in world politics?

A: International law can be the strongest weapon for the establishment of the International Rule of Law, if only the
nations of the world, especially the most powerful nations, give it due recognition. What is lacking is a general
awareness on the part of the people of the world of the importance and potential of international law as this is a
grossly neglected subject in all educational curricula. This is what I am striving to remedy, because a citizenry who
are aware of the importance of international law will not allow their leaders to flaunt it as they currently do.

I could give you numerous instances of international law and the International Court avoiding armed conflict but
these are never highlighted in the media nor are the occasions highlighted when judgements of the International
Court are obeyed even by states with powerful armies. For example, in the case of Libya v Chad, the Court in effect
ruled that the powerful Libyan army should withdraw from a territory known as the Aouzou strip. The Libyan army
in compliance with international law duly respected the order and vacated the territory, although the International
Court did not have a single soldier at its disposal to enforce its decree. The international press scarcely mentioned
this though there would have been blazing headlines if Libya had violated the court order.

Q: Have you ever regarded yourself not only as a judge but a politician, too?

A: As a judge, I have attempted to the best of my ability to follow the law and expand its scope of operation so as
to make it a more effective instrument of international justice. Some politicians also strive to achieve a world of
justice through their political actions. Both law and politics aim to achieve the advancement of the human
condition towards the rule of justice. There may often be objectives that are common to law and politics. Whatever
I have done as a judge has always been within the scope of the law as I understand it.

Lawyers and judges have their own sphere of activity and politicians have theirs and in an ideal world they would
both strive by different means to reach their common objective of promoting human welfare.

Q: What judicial decision do you regard as the most important one?

A: I would think that the decision the Court was asked to make by the General Assembly on the illegality of nuclear
weapons was the most important decision the Court was ever asked to make. This is because it involved the entire
future of humanity and civilisation. At the same time, there are numerous other decisions, as for example decisions
on sustainable development and the powers of the Security Council, which are of great importance. Several
potential wars have been averted through decisions of the Court.

In relation to the nuclear weapons case, it generated such world-wide interest that the Court received petitions and
memorials signed by so many millions of signatories that we had no room in our storage facilities to accommodate
them. Many of them had to be housed elsewhere. Furthermore, a larger number of states took part in the active
proceedings than in any other case in the court’s history.

25

Q: You state that international law has – often ancient – roots in many countries. Could you give us some
examples?

A: International law is not a modern construct. Nor is it the product of any one civilisation. Ever since civilisation
began, it has been the subject of thought by the great thinkers of each age and from at least four or five thousand
years ago they have visualised a world community of nations living under an overarching system of law to which all
states and rules were expected to conform.

In the nuclear weapons case, for example, I was able to support my argument of illegality by drawing upon the
teaching of Hindu law over four thousand years ago which had decreed that a hyper destructive weapon which
could ravage the enemy’s countryside and destroy large sections of its population could not be used in war because
it went beyond the purposes of war. War is intended to subjugate one’s enemy and live in peace with him
thereafter, not to ravage his countryside and to destroy his population. This was the advice given to the Indian
prince Rama, when Rama’s generals advised him of the availability of such a weapon and accordingly he did not use
it. Elaborate rules of conduct in warfare and duties of rulers in peace time existed in the Hindu law books.

Likewise, in the world of Islam there was much thought and writing about what we would today call international
law – the treatment of prisoners of war, conduct on the battlefield, the sanctity of treaties, the privileged position
of diplomats and the likes. All of these were elaborately discussed on the basis of the Holy Qu’ran and the
numerous traditions of the Prophet Mohamed known as the Hadiths, dealing with these matters. These were
assembled in treatises on international law by writers like Al Shaibani which appeared around eight centuries
before the work of Hugo Grotius, the celebrated Dutch Jurist whose great work on War and Peace in 1625 is often
considered to be the point of commencement of modern international law.

An important part of modern international law is the law relating to sustainable development. In this area, the
wisdom of conservation of the environment for the benefit of future generations has been very closely worked out
and observed in numerous ancient cultures, for example, the culture of the native Australians going back thirty or
forty thousand years showed a deep respect and reverence for the environment and for Mother Earth which
sustains us all. If the environment prospers, the community prospers with it and if the environment is damaged, the
community is damaged. Elaborate rules were worked out for the protection and custody of the environment.
Likewise, the Native Americans had worked out the principle that no important decision relating to the
environment could be taken without considering the interests of seven generations to come. Decisions which
neglect these perspectives are lop-sided decisions, and traditions to this effect are to be found in ancient cultures
wherever one may turn.

Q: Where might the perspective of a Sri Lanka judge differ from those of a western judge? (How international is
international law?)

A: The perspectives of a Sri Lankan judge differs from those of a Western judge mainly owing to the cross-cultural
perspectives which the Sri Lankan judge is so immersed in.

In Sri Lanka, we grow up in the midst of four major religions – Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, all of
which have substantial segments of the population as their followers. Consequently, we grow up imbibing their
culture and participating in their festivals and enjoying each other’s fellowship as neighbours. A Western judge
tends largely to grow up in a mono-cultural setting and does not in general have this diversity of background.

When it comes to administering the law this diversity of background gives the Sri Lankan judge the advantage of a
great deal of tradition and cross-cultural perspectives.

Some western judges do indeed have this but they are in a distinct minority.

To my way of thinking the law can be greatly advanced, especially to suit the needs of the 21st century, when we
are moving in the direction of being global citizens with common problems such as the environment, common
aspirations for a peaceful world and a set of universally shared values. This diversity of background can assist
greatly in enriching the law.

26

Q: What are the obstacles you have had to overcome?

A: One encounters obstacles at all stages of one’s career. There are many obstacles a young lawyer encounters
which of course are common to young lawyers across the world. Many of them can be overcome by determination,
integrity and hard work but of course there is the chance element in all of this.

However, when one crosses from the domestic stage to the international, there are numerous problems one
encounters especially if one comes from a small country like Sri Lanka. The rest of the world often has the
impression that it is the large countries that should take the lead note in international affairs and representatives of
smaller countries attempting to enter this arena encounter much resistance. It requires hard work and much multi-
cultural understanding to overcome this barrier. But when it is overcome, there is much appreciation of the
different perspectives one can open up from the standpoint of a small country in the developing world – a
perspective not often seen by those in a privileged position.

Especially in seeking election to the International Court of Justice, there are many problems that one encounters as
it is often assumed that the two or three places available on the court for one’s region should go to the larger
countries in the region. However, these can all be overcome but here as well there is an important element of
chance and other factors which could affect the result.

Q: What are the flaws in our international law system?

A: It is true that the international legal system does not have an enforcement system backed by military force. Yet
this would not be a weakness if there is sufficient desire on the part of the world community to comply with what is
deemed obligatory on all members of the world community.

Already there is the well accepted principle that treaties are sacred and this has led to the widespread acceptance
of the fact that no country likes to be seen as a treaty breaker. If there is more general respect for international
law, the same would apply to all departments of international law and no country would like to be seen as a
violator of international law.

We can never have an international system where international
law is strong enough in a physical sense to impose its will on the
powerful sovereign states of the world, for international law can
never command an army more powerful than theirs. It is through
the build up of the moral strength of international law that this
result can be achieved.

One of the weaknesses of modern international law is that it
tends to be mono-cultural and Eurocentric. It has not taken
enough note of the deep roots which its fundamental principles
have in all the major cultural traditions of the world.

International law needs therefore to be universalised and I have devoted much effort to doing what I can to
universalise international law and enrich it by making it more receptive to the varied cultural traditions of the
world. At the same time this makes it more acceptable to the entire world community.

Q: Your Co-Laureate Percy Schmeiser is fighting a legal battle. Do you think patents of life and the abusive
practices of corporations like Monsanto with their devastating effects on farmers especially in 3rd World
Countries could become a case at the International Court of Justice, setting an example for the whole world?

A: Practices which have a devastating effect on farmers, on the quality of life, on the environment, and on future
generations are eminently justiciable cases.

Q: Who could bring up a case like this?

27

A: The International Court of Justice can only be approached either through a claim by one nation state against
another, or through a request for an advisory opinion.
It might be possible in certain cases to have a state affected by these practices appearing as the complainant
against the state which permits and encourages such practices. Having regard to the way developing countries are
affected by this sort of activity that may not be impossible especially if the activity has the support and approval of
the host state of the perpetrator.
More importantly however an available procedure would be for these affected to interest a body like the General
Assembly or the World Health Organisation sufficiently to induce them to bring the matter before the international
court in the form of a request for an advisory opinion. It was in this way that the question of legality of the use of
nuclear weapons was brought before the International Court.
The experience of those who have used this procedure has been however that a reference such as this requires a
long process of lobbying to interest the organisation sufficiently to take the cause before the International Court.
It will be through procedures such as the above that the Court can be approached as the Court has no jurisdiction
to entertain a dispute between private parties.

28

Nuclear Reactor Catastrophe in Japan1

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE WORLD’S ENVIRONMENTAL MINISTERS By C.G Weeramantry

Former Vice President, International Court of Justice, The Hague President,
International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms Founder Trustee,
Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education & Research March 14th 2011

The earthquake in Japan and the resulting damage to nuclear power plants have sent shock waves and a dire note
of warning to the world’s entire population. Despite their obvious dangers, nuclear reactors are proliferating
worldwide and sowing the seeds of pollution and congenital deformities for a thousand generations to come (the
half-life of Plutonium 239, one of the bi-products of nuclear activities is 24,100 years).

Unborn generations are just as much members of the human family as ourselves but have no voice to speak for
themselves. We take advantage of this and are damaging them catastrophically by our breach of trust of this
environment of which we are custodians and not owners. Every single citizen is a trustee of the environment. All
the more are Governments trustees, and in particular the environmental ministers of the world bear a special
responsibility in this regard. We are in default of our duties if we continue to keep open such possibilities and
create more, despite our knowledge of their dreadful consequences. Our generation and particularly those who are
specially entrusted with the care of the environment will have to answer before the bar of history for our default
and abuse of trust. Indeed, we are committing the gravest possible crime against future generations and are doing
so with a full consciousness of the effects of our actions.

If people of the Stone Age had been able to cause damage to the environment and cause congenital deformities to
our generation, we would have condemned them as savages, brutes and barbarians. Yet, even if they could have
caused such damage, they could have had no idea of the irreparable harm they were causing to generations yet
unborn. We, on the other hand, who are fully aware of the catastrophic damage we are causing to unborn
generations, still proceed regardless, pursuing activities which, it is patently clear, will release these dangers sooner
or later. We continue to build nuclear reactors all over the world.

Even a school child is aware that no power on earth can insure against earthquakes, tsunamis, wars, insurrections,
negligent management and other disasters. These will inevitably occur over a period of years and not only do we
know this as a virtual certainty, but we know also that there is no known means of eliminating them. This makes us
savages, brutes and barbarians several times over. In a supposedly enlightened age, we are, with total disregard of
any sense of responsibility, proceeding to build more reactors, pursuing short term advantages while being fully
aware of the long-term perils we are inflicting on our own posterity. Solar and other renewable energy sources
provide all the energy the world needs but we neglect them, for there are great profits for those few who are
engaged in the nuclear energy enterprise, whatever the costs to the vast majority and the generations yet to come.

As a result we have become the most destructive generation in all of human history, regardless of the fact that we
are destroying the undoubted birthright of billions of human beings for whom we hold the environment on trust.

I take the liberty of addressing you on this matter as I have for over 30 years campaigned against the dangers of
nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste. As early as 1985, I toured the major cities of Japan at the
instance of the Japan Scientists’ Association delivering lectures on the dire dangers to humanity resulting from
nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors and nuclear waste.

Also, nearly thirty years ago, in The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology,
Penguin 1983, pp 139-141, I foreshadowed this danger, referring to leakages from nuclear reactors and the
possibilities of major accidents threatening our very survival. I referred also to the possibility that, if the residents
of a city were exposed to radioactive contamination through a serious nuclear accident, the national interest may

1 Open letter by Judge Weeramantry to the world’s environmental ministers in the aftermath of the Nuclear power plant
incident in Fukushima on 11th March 2011.

29



It is not only traditional wisdom we disregard. We disregard also the wisdom of the great religions of the world,
which are likewise united in their concern for the people of the future. Jesus Christ warned that it would be better
for those who place obstacles in the way of children to have a millstone around their neck and to be drowned in
the ocean. The Koran states that the true followers of the Almighty are those who tread lightly on the earth.
Buddhism teaches that not even a sovereign is the owner of land, but only a trustee, and Hinduism prescribes
detailed duties lying on the sovereign to look after every department of environmental protection. Judaism
likewise, in numerous teachings, elevates protection of the environment to the level of a primary duty.
All these are aspects which must necessarily engage the attention of ministers charged with care of the
environment, in an age when the environment is being threatened as never before during the hundreds of
thousands of years of humanity’s existence on the planet.
I urge on you, as custodians of our environment, the need for immediate action to halt the construction of new
reactors, explore alternative energy systems and phase out the existing ones. Populations throughout the world
need to be alerted to the dangers we are facing. The one-way flow of information on the benefits of nuclear
reactors needs to be reversed.
Failure to take these steps will result in the commission of crimes against future generations and a gross betrayal of
the trust which we owe to our children and our children’s children. You are in a position to play a leadership role in
this crisis. This is an appeal to you, as those primarily responsible for the care of our planet, to do all within your
power to avert the catastrophes that loom ahead.
Time is running out. Please act now.

31

Lanka’s own crusader against apartheid

Sunday Times, Sri Lanka December 15, 2013
As Nelson Mandela is laid to rest today, Smriti Daniel speaks to internationally renowned legal luminary
and human rights activist C.G. Weeramantry whose experience in apartheid South Africa instilled in him
the great need for change in the way he knew best; a book titled, 'Apartheid: The closing phases?'

Among all the pens carried in to South Africa in the early 1980s was one that concealed a secret. Hidden in its
casing was a microfilm, a mini-reproduction of an extraordinary book that would soon be printed and distributed
widely through underground, anti-apartheid networks. Published originally by a Sri Lankan professor in distant
Australia, it was titled, ‘Apartheid: The closing phases?’ Banned in South Africa soon after its publication, the book’s
most notable feature lay in the contents of chapter 8, which asked a loaded question: ‘What can be done?’ Its
author, a certain C.G. Weeramantry, had a few ideas. In fact, he had 51 of them.

Seated on a couch in his apartment, the book in his hand

illuminated by a flood of natural light from a nearby window,
Judge Christopher Gregory Weeramantry remembers meeting

Nelson Mandela at an international conference. “Suppose

there’s a room like this, filled with 50 people, when Mandela

comes, there’s a kind of glow that spreads all over the room.

You can see the room transform, he had that sort of personality

– always with a smile; he exuded good will.” By the time the

two men encountered each other in person, people had paid in

blood and tears to shut an evil system down. Though these

were better circumstances under which to finally meet, if he

had had his way Judge Weeramantry would have met Mandela

years ago. Unfortunately, in the 1970s the latter was behind

bars, imprisoned on Robben Island and out of the reach of a

foreign lecturer in law.

C.J. Weeramantry: Recalling his days in South Africa. Pic When Stellenbosch University invited Judge Weeramantry to
by Indika Handuwala

become a Visiting Professor, they also offered him the security

of being an ‘honorary white man.’ It was a confirmation, if he had needed it, that the University lay at the heart of

the Afrikaner establishment. Overwhelmingly white in both its demographic and official stance, it counted among

the ranks of its graduates successive Prime Ministers of South Africa. Having summarily turned down the dubious

distinction of being included in the ruling class, Judge Weeramantry made his own terms clear: he would speak as
he wished in the lecture room, he would meet whomsoever he wished to meet and he would go wherever he

wished to go.

The University, keen to have an acknowledged expert on the Roman Dutch law of contracts, share his knowledge,
accepted his terms, and to their credit they upheld them – even when they discovered there was a dissident in
their midst. For his part, Judge Weeramantry knew he was placing himself in a dangerous situation – he was
stepping into a society divided and he was disinclined to self-censor. Still, this was an opportunity not to be missed,
for someone so interested in human rights must necessarily be interested in examining their “total violation” as
manifest in apartheid in South Africa. Extending their support to him, the University of Monash, then his
employers, allowed him a leave of absence and Judge Weeramantry got on a plane.

Writing about his arrival in South Africa, he would later note: ‘the visitor’s first impact with apartheid is an
unforgettable experience.’ From this point on, everything he would see would be divided: from signs on public
toilets to entire neighbourhoods, the distinction between ‘coloureds’ and ‘whites’ was absolute. In the days that
followed, he would come to know the country well – and he was unequivocal in his verdict. “Apartheid was totally
opposed to every principle of human rights and equality. Remember, I had the freedom to go where I wanted and
meet whoever I wanted. I went down into the mines and met the people there, I went into the black dormitories

32

and saw how they lived. I went to the heights of power where even the Supreme Court judges would entertain me.
So I saw it from top to bottom, as few other people had seen it.”

Escaping the confines of Stellenbosch University’s grounds, Judge Weeramantry would head out, escorted by an
ever rotating cast of people who were sympathetic to the anti-apartheid movement (that there were a number of
extremely committed white activists is something he takes care to highlight). He visited the black homelands and
centres of influence, met leaders of the community and witnessed the appalling conditions in the shanty towns first
hand. He even met with members of the Indian community. What he saw made a deep impression on him: it was a
system rife with brutality, corruption and exploitation, built on the humiliation and utter degradation of an entire
people. It was a system that could not be allowed to continue.

Already, heroes of the resistance had been identified. “When I was there, Mandela’s name was on everyone’s lips,
he was already outstanding,” says Judge Weeramantry. Though he tried to see him, he discovered that Robben
Island was impenetrable. Prisoners were beyond the reach of even their families. However, even with the likes of
Mandela behind bars, change was in the wind. Writing in his memoirs, Judge Weeramantry noted ‘whereas on the
surface it seemed that apartheid was solidly established and apparently set to last indefinitely, the observations I
was able to make on the ground enabled me to see that things were moving and that there was not merely an
element of hope but a certainty of change.’

Returning to Australia, Judge Weeramantry began writing the volume that
he eventually titled ‘Apartheid: The closing phases?’ It began with
vignettes, potent literary snapshots of what it was like being in South Africa
under apartheid. What followed was a comprehensive assessment of the
situation. Beginning with the puncturing of the various rationales
supporting apartheid, the author went on to examine its cost, assess
obstacles to black equality and analyse the political scenario. He presented
‘White South Africa’ and ‘Black South Africa’ side by side, thereby providing
a shocking contrast. He exposed the hypocrisy of its ruling class and then,
step by step, outlined what could be done to demolish the entire vile
institution

His aim throughout was a peaceful transformation of the country and in

that he had the most amazing allies: people like Nelson Mandela and

Desmond Tutu; leaders of transcending grace and wisdom without whom

such a thing could not have even been imagined. While some of his

At the launch of 'Apartheid: The closing suggestions had been made before, this was perhaps the first time they
phases?' in Australia: Former Australian had been compiled into so thorough a list.

Prime Minister Bob Hawke (right) C.G.

Weeramantry (centre) and Sir Richard Reading from them now, you can see that no stone was to be left unturned

Eggleston, Chancellor of Monash University – trade unions all over the world should mobilise; South Africa should be

made to feel the brunt of disinvestment, declined bank loans and patent

applications; the Church should cast the full weight of divine disapproval on apartheid, while individuals should

write letters, stage boycotts and pursue fact-finding missions to see for themselves what the system entailed.

Foreign policy must be shaped to condemn apartheid across all the nations of the world, while legal systems should

be tapped to challenge apartheid in the courts. Last but not least, all that could be done to awaken the Afrikaner

conscience should be done.

It was his intention, says Judge Weeramantry, to demonstrate how a powerful and concerted protest could
overturn even the most entrenched of systems and in that he succeeded. Though itwas long since he left, his
friends in the country would write to tell him of the impact his book had had. It was secretly reprinted twice and
when he returned to South Africa after the end of apartheid, it was to discover it had been unbanned. The sea-
change the country had undergone was captured in a single picture. Judge Weeramantry remembers the moment
well: standing alongside lecturers from Stellenbosch University, smiling and proud, they openly held copies of
‘Apartheid: The closing phases’ up for the inspection of the camera.

33

Tributes

Judge Christopher Weeramantry Dr Nihal Jayawickrama

In all the tributes paid to the late Judge Weeramantry, no reference appears to have
been made to the pivotal role he played as Chairperson of the Judicial Integrity Group
that developed the universal code of judicial conduct.

In the late 1990s, credible evidence began to surface that people in many countries, on
many continents, considered their judicial systems to be corrupt. Those who
participated in public perception surveys considered the judiciary to be only somewhat
less corrupt than the police. Litigants who responded in service delivery surveys
claimed to have paid bribes to court officials, judges and, in a South Asian country, even
to the opponent’s lawyer. A presidential commission of inquiry into corruption in an
African country reported that corruption in the judiciary was so widespread that the ordinary citizen had no faith in
the judicial system, with many believing that justice was only for those with money. In Sri Lanka, judges who
responded in a direct mail survey reported at least three incidents of bribery involving judges and relating to the
delivery of judgments.

I was then functioning as Executive Director of Transparency International at its secretariat in Berlin. We took the
initiative to speak with judges, lawyers, academics, justice ministry officials, members of parliament, and civil
society representatives. They all agreed on the need to formulate and implement a concept of judicial
accountability without eroding the principle of judicial independence. The challenge was to determine how the
judiciary could be held to account in a manner that was consistent with the principle of judicial independence.
How does one achieve the right balance between autonomy in decision-making and independence from external
forces on the one hand, and accountability to the community on the other? These were issues that were best
resolved by the judges themselves.

Accordingly, in early 2000, UNCICP Vienna agreed to host a preparatory meeting of Chief Justices from common law
countries, who spoke a common legal language, to discuss this issue. The Chief Justices I communicated with –
from South Africa, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda, Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Bangladesh – and the longest serving judge in
Australia, Justice Michael Kirby, all agreed to attend this meeting, as did the UN Special Rapporteur on the
Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Param Cumaraswamy, and the Chairman of the UN Human Rights
Committee, P. N. Bhagwati, former Chief Justice of India.

We were then faced with a very sensitive problem. Who should preside at this meeting? Will the choice of an
Asian Chief Justice offend their respected colleagues from Africa? Will the choice of a white Australian Judge
offend everyone? It was at that stage that, after consultation with my UN colleagues, I contacted Judge
Weeramantry, the Vice-President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). He agreed, and his leadership was
accepted unreservedly by all the participating Chief Justices. At its first meeting, the Judicial Integrity Group (as this
group came to be known) agreed that the principle of accountability demanded, initially, a universally acceptable
statement of the core judicial values which are capable of being enforced by the judiciary.

At the request of the Group, I prepared a draft statement of principles of judicial conduct. It drew on rules and
principles already articulated in national codes of conduct (wherever they existed), and in regional and
international instruments. When we met in Bangalore in 2001 to consider the draft, Judge Weeramantry placed the
work of the Group in the context of other developments of international law. He emphasized the universality of
the expectation of judicial integrity. He explained that it was important to be alert not only to financial corruption

34

but also to intellectual corruption, given the choice which it falls to judges to make in the discharge of their judicial
duties.

Over the next twenty months, the text of a document that came to be known as the Bangalore Draft was
disseminated among senior judges of both common law and civil law systems in over 75 countries. It was discussed
at several judicial conferences at which Judge Weeramantry, Justice Kirby and I participated. It was reviewed by
the Consultative Council of European Judges in Strasbourg. It was translated into several Eastern European
languages and commented on by the Constitutional Courts of those countries. Finally, in the light of the comments
and criticisms received, the draft was revised. By then, Judge Weeramantry’s term of office on the ICJ had ended.

As 2002 drew to a close, and we were discussing how best to proceed to the next and final stage, Judge
Weeramantry returned to The Hague as an Ad Hoc Judge of the ICJ. Insisting that the draft code, when adopted,
should be one that is universally acceptable, he made three proposals. The first was that the final meeting be held
in the Peace Palace at The Hague, the seat of the ICJ. The second was that we should invite a representative group
of Chief Justices of civil law countries. The third was that we should also invite the Judges of the ICJ.

Accordingly, in November 2002, a Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices drawn principally from the civil law system
– Brazil, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Mexico, Mozambique, Netherlands, Norway, and the Philippines - at which
several Judges of the International Court of Justice – from Madagascar, Hungary, Germany, Sierra Leone, United
Kingdom, Brazil, Egypt and the United States - also participated, was convened in the historic Japanese Room of the
Peace Palace, chaired by Judge Weeramantry. Unlike at previous meetings of common law judges, the working
languages at this meeting were English, French and Spanish. The participation of judges from legal systems other
than of the common law also meant the absence of a common legal language. However, the consummate
chairperson that he was, enabled Judge Weeramantry to complete the proceedings within two days, having
achieved a consensus on several disputed issues. From this meeting emerged The Bangalore Principles of Judicial
Conduct which identified six core values of the judiciary: Independence, Impartiality, Personal Integrity, Propriety,
Equality, and Competence and Diligence. The document then proceeded to state the principle derived from each
value, followed by more detailed statements of the application of each value.

Judge Weeramantry was insistent that we should endeavour to have the Bangalore Principles adopted by the
United Nations as the global standard. That was an almost insurmountable challenge. An instrument not drafted
by representatives of governments had never been accepted or endorsed by the United Nations. The fact that it
had been prepared under UN auspices was of no relevance. The memory of the events of the 1980s, when two
parallel attempts were made to draft the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary was still fresh in our
minds. One attempt was by the UN Crime Committee in Vienna comprising representatives of governments, and
the other in Geneva by the UN Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of
Minorities comprising human rights experts. The latter prepared a much more comprehensive statement of
principles than the government representatives. The two streams did not converge in any real sense, and the UN at
that time ruled that standard-setting was “the business of governments, and not of experts”.

The first attempt to reach the General Assembly was made in 2003 by the UN Special Rapporteur when he attached
the Bangalore Principles to his annual report to the Human Rights Commission. That effort met with mild success.
The Commission merely “noted” the Bangalore Principles. The next effort produced spectacular results. In April
2005, on the initiative of UNODC, the Economic and Social Commission, in a resolution adopted without a vote,
acknowledged the “important work carried out by the Judicial Integrity Group”, emphasized that the Bangalore
Principles of Judicial Conduct “represent a further development and are complementary to the Basic Principles on
the Independence of the Judiciary”, and invited Member States “to encourage their judiciaries to take into
consideration the Bangalore Principles when developing rules with respect to the professional and ethical conduct
of members of the judiciary”. ECOSOC also invited the Group to develop a Commentary on the Bangalore
Principles.

35



Weeramantry’s vision for International Justice and Peace

Anthony Anghie Daily Mirror, Sri Lanka, 07 01 2017

This article discusses the judicial vision articulated by Judge C. G. Weeramantry in his time as a member of
the International Court of Justice. It seeks to trace the development of his vision by examining his earlier
writings, and the factors which shaped his approach to international law. It discusses some of the key
elements of his vision: his sensitivity to Third World concerns, his attempts to create a universal
international law which represents all the world's cultures, and his views of the judicial function and the
international rule of law. The following are excerpts from the article.

Introduction

Christopher Gregory Weeramantry was elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ' or the Court) in November
1990, he left that office, after serving for one term on February 1, 2000. Judge Weeramantry was fortunate to have
been a member of the Court at a time when it heard cases which raised issues of the first importance to
international law - as exemplified by the Lockerbie Litigation,

The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinions, and, most recently, the Yugoslavia Cases. The Dissenting and Separate
Opinions that Judge Weeramantry produced in these and other cases, such as the East Timor case, the Gablkovo
case and the second Nuclear Tests case have received widespread scholarly attention and comment. Furthermore,
elected Vice-President by his colleagues in 1996, Judge Weeramantry served as Acting President to the Court in
several immensely important decisions, including the Lockerbie case and NATO cases.

It is clear that although he served for only one term, he had a profound impact on the jurisprudence of the Court.

The purpose of this short article is not so much to outline the contributions that he has made to international law in
the many fields on which he has written - a large task better left to scholars who have specialized expertise in the
relevant areas, such as maritime boundary delimitations or international environmental law - but to try to identify
and discuss in a preliminary sort of way, some of the overarching themes and concerns of Judge Weeramantry's
work. My basic approach is to place his work in the International Court of Justice within the broader context of his
legal, judicial, and scholarly career which has now spanned more than 50 years. In so doing, my attempt is to trace
the evolution of a judicial vision which found its most elaborate expression in his work on the Court, but which
developed over many decades in areas far removed from international law. The significance and appeal of his
career on the bench lies in something more intangible than the immense learning and erudition he brought to bear
on the issues he had to decide, as in the case of his analysis, for example, of the Necessary Parties Principle in the
East Timor case, for his discussion of the character of a 'counter claim. Rather, it is his deeply humanist vision of
international law and justice and his fearless use of his position on the bench to articulate and realize it, that makes
his work so compelling and his tenure on the Court so distinctive, and my attempt here is to sketch some of the
main elements of that vision.

A JUDGE IN THE MAKING

When he was first appointed to the International Court of Justice in 1990, seasoned Court watchers had reason to
be sceptical about the contribution that Judge Weeramantry could make to the jurisprudence of the Court. Simply
put, he lacked many of the most important pre-requisites which serious candidates for the position were supposed
to possess. First, he had come to intenational law relatively late in his life, it was not until the early 1950s that he

37

began to write on topics of international law. Secondly, he was something of an outsider in the fairly closed world
of international law - the academic, diplomatic, and UN circles from which candidates were supposed to emerge,
he had not acted as legal adviser to his government, and had never even been nominated for the International Law
Commission, a customary and significant stepping stone for any potential candidate for the Court.

Judge Weeramantry's interest in international law evolved over a long period of time. He had been admitted to the
Bar in Sri Lanka at the age of 21 and had practised as a lawyer for 17 years. While practising as an advocate, he also
taught contractual law at the Law College of Sri Lanka - an experience which led him to write a treatise on the law
of contracts which is still regarded as a classic in the field, and which helped establish his reputation as a world
authority on the Roman-Dutch law of contracts. After a brilliant career at the Bar, he was appointed to the
Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the youngest Judge in the history of that Court. He served on the Bench for five years
and wrote several notable judgments on issues such as unjust enrichment and Muslim family law.

Following this, he accepted a position as Professor of Law at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. The next
book he wrote, The Law in Crisis. Bridges of Understanding was, as the title suggested, a broad examination of the
very character of law. it is in this context, interestingly, that he discusses Grotius - not as an international lawyer,
but as a jurist. This book was followed by a number of others which dealt with a very wide variety of subjects.
Equality and Freedom. Some Third World Perspectives in 1976; Human Rights in Japan in 1979, Apartheid: the
Closing Phases in 1980, and An Invitation to the Law in 1980. In 1983, he published The Slumbering Sentinels. Law
and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology, which is among the first books to examine the relationship between
scientific progress and human rights.

An examination of these works suggests some of the major themes that were beginning to preoccupy Judge
Weeramantry at the time.

First, he was deeply concerned about what he recognized as a crisis undermining the law, arising from its failure to
further the cause of justice and its unresponsiveness to the problems of ordinary people, which in turn led such
people to disregard and fear the law.

Secondly, his shift to academia enabled him to examine many of the issues he had focused on as a lawyer and a
judge in Sri Lanka from a broader perspective. The political, social, and economic problems afflicting Sri Lanka could
be seen in the larger context of the problems confronting Third World countries undermined by political
corruption, ethnic divisions, and power struggles within, even while attempting to detach themselves from the
heritage of colonialism and to establish their economic and political independence in a somewhat hostile
international system.

Thirdly, his research led him to believe that the great problems of our time - of war, poverty, the violation of
human dignity and environmental degradation - could only be resolved at the international rather than purely local
level. International Human Rights Law was the subject which attracted his most immediate attention, and this
became the basis of his growing interest in the potential of international law.

Next, at a more technical level, his work as a scholar in contractual law, and the parallels between treaties and
contracts, furthered his interest in international law, given that treaties were the clearest manifestation of
international law; pacta sunt servanda. Indeed, it could be argued that international law depended more on
contract than did domestic law.

Finally, Judge Weeramantry's career as a lawyer and as a Judge had familiarized him with the issue of administering
and developing a legal system that would operate effectively in a pluralistic society. Sri Lanka's legal system
involved a complex combination of English Common Law, the Roman-Dutch Law, the Thesawazhamai Code
applicable to Jaffna, the Muslim Code, Kandyan Law, and the law of the low country Sinhalese - to name some of
the complex local laws that members of the Sri Lankan judiciary had to recognize and apply.

38

He studied these systems in detail and wrote lengthy judgments on, for example, Muslim Family Law. The practice
of law in Sri Lanka, and the work on the Bench effectively required him to become a comparative lawyer. Indeed,
his book on contracts was subtitled "Being a Treatise on the Law of Contracts as Prevailing in Ceylon. And Involving
a Comparative Study of the Roman-Dutch, English and Customary Laws Relating to Contracts. Two themes of
enduring significance seem to have emerged from these experiences. First, he developed a particular interest in the
parallels.

CONCLUSION
Judge Weeramantry came to international law late in his career. His interest in the subject did not develop out of
an ambition to become a diplomat or a statesman, or even an international jurist, and to ascend thereby to a more
glamorous and elevated stage. Rather, his interest was based on the belief that only international law could
address the major problems of war, poverty and the violation of human dignity. His work was informed by a
growing realization that these issues were never purely national in character. He was not so much concerned with
the distinctions between domestic law and international law, but rather with the broader concepts: the
relationships between law and justice, and between law and society - be it a particular domestic society or the
international community itself. For him, what makes international law distinct is its potential for establishing
international justice and it is this view of international law which has shaped his jurisprudence.

It is surely paradoxical that this outsider, trained essentially as a domestic lawyer, has been so eloquent in asserting
the completeness and authority of international law, and who has been so insistent in articulating an international
law that sought to serve the needs of international society. It is also paradoxical that it is a supposedly Third World
jurist who has sought to create a truly universal international law - one that reflects the experiences and aspirations
of the different peoples of the world instead of relying on philosophical ingenuity to suggest that Western doctrines
and ideas are universal.

Yet, his achievement may suggest an advantage of being the outsider, it is the outsider who might be in the best
position to reassess, with his different vision, an institution or a discipline.

Anthony Anghie is the Samuel. D. Thurman Professor of Law at the University of Utah and has served as a visiting
professor at the American University, Cairo, Cornell, Harvard, London School of Economics and the University of
Tokyo. He took his LL.B degree from Monash (Australia) and holds and SJD from Harvard

Appreciation

Sunil de Silva PC, Sunday Times (Sri Lanka) 15th Jan 2017

On January 5, Sri Lanka lost one of her most illustrious sons, Justice Christopher Gregory Weeramantry-who
justifiably earned the iconic Sri Lankabhimanya, for having rendered exceptionally outstanding and most
distinguished service to Sri Lanka-barely six weeks after he celebrated his 90th birthday on November 17. Justice
Weeramantry strode the international legal sphere as a brilliant judge and eminent academic, yet carried his
excellence with utmost humility. His loss is shared by the international community.

Justice Weeramantry, or "Christy as we would refer to him at Hulftsdorp, was the son of Gregory and Lilian
Weeramantry. His father, a highly qualified educationist founded Alexandra College, which Justice Weeramantry
describes as having played a significant role and discharged a very useful function on the Sri Lankan educational
scene. Many eminent Sri Lankans-judges, doctors, civil servants, lawyers, international officials and cabinet
ministers - were greatly helped in their careers by this institution.

39

Justice Weeramantry had two elder brothers, Lucien and Douglas. Lucien
was a lawyer with a wide practice and among his clients was Talduwe
Somarama, the main accused in the Bandaranaike assassination case.

Two other members of the family, Justice Thomas de Sampayo, and D.J.
Wimalasurendra, the architect of the Laxpana hydroelectric scheme were
acknowledged by Justice Weeramantry as role models that inspired him.
Young Christy as he then was, attended Royal College, Colombo where he
displayed his twin skills in academic and literary versatility.

He was the Editor of the College Magazine, and the Chairman of the
Senior Literary Association. In 1943, he was awarded the Empire Essay
Prize. His intellectual acumen won him several class and school prizes and
the coveted Governor's Scholarship and the Principal's Prize.

For his tertiary education, Justice Weeramantry entered the University of Ceylon where he graduated with
B.A(Honours) and then proceeded to obtain an LL.B and an LL.D from King's College London.

Justice Weeramantry was called to the Bar as an Advocate of the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka in 1948. He excelled in
his professional career and I had the privilege of associating with him as a fellow member of the Sri Lanka Bar,
before he began his meteoric rise to juristic excellence.

In 1958 Justice Weeramantry met Rosemary de Sampayo and to use his own words "I realized that this was the
young lady I had been looking for and wasted no time in showing my interest which was reciprocated and things
moved rapidly and by 1959 we were married." They enjoyed a close-knit family life and were blessed with two sons
and three daughters and eleven grandchildren.

Justice Weeramantry describes their life together "Rosemary and I shared all things, all experiences and a series of
wonderful memories. Rosemary was an immense source of support to me in my work, never interfering in it but
always unobtrusively giving me all the support needed. Even when I launched out on the great enterprise of writing
my books on the law of contracts, the amount of time this claimed increased my concentration on legal activities.
Yet Rosemary never grudged this extra time but wove herself into the activities connected with it. When typists
were typing the manuscript or juniors were reading through it or I was busy writing it, she was part of the scene,
supporting us all with refreshments as well as with her company and making less tedious the endless hours spent
on this work".

Justice Weeramantry commenced his judicial career with an appointment as a Commissioner of Assize in 1965,
where he displayed a remarkable ability to guide a lay jury through the complexities of the criminal Law in simple
terms in summing up, that met with the approval of the Court of Criminal Appeal. As junior Crown Counsel
appearing before him, we were kept on our toes by mild but stern warnings of any attempt to overstep the line in
the enthusiastic pursuit of our cause.

In 1967 he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. He retired in 1972, sacrificing the opportunity of
becoming the Chief Justice of Ceylon (as we then were) and migrated to Australia to accept the position of Sir
Hayden Starke Professor of Law at the Monash University in Victoria.

In 1999 Justice Abdul Cader, Prof G L Peiris and I as the panel of Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration
were required to nominate a candidate for election to the Asian seat of the International Court of Justice. We had
absolutely no difficulty in agreeing that Justice Weeramantry had the most outstanding CV of the candidates whose
applications came before us.

Adorning that Court as a Member from 1991 to 1997 and as the Vice-President of the Court until 2000, Justice
Weeramantry when he was interviewed by the Lanka Guardian in 2007, about matters decided by that Court,
identified "I would think that the decision the Court was asked to make by the General Assembly on the illegality of

40

nuclear weapons was the most important decision the Court was ever asked to make. This is because it involved
the entire future of humanity and civilisation”.

In the course of the interview, Justice Weeramantry expressed a view that might be apposite in today's context. In
comparing the perspective of Sri Lankan Judges in comparison to Western Judges Justice Weeramantry said. The
perspectives of a Sri Lankan judge differ from those of a Western judge mainly owing to the cross-cultural
perspectives which the Sri Lankan judge is so immersed in. In Sri Lanka we grow up in the midst of four major
religions - Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam, all of which have substantial segments of the population as
their followers. Consequently, we grow up imbibing their culture and participating in their festivals and enjoying
each other's fellowship as neighbours.

As a Judge on the International Court of Justice, Justice Weeramantry demonstrated the truism expressed by
drawing on his expertise in Roman Dutch Law, Hindu Law and the Islamic Law. In the matter (New Zealand v.
France) the majority of Judges ruled against a request by New Zealand, and left open the question whether it was
lawful for a State to use nuclear weapons in self-defence. But Justice Weeramantry dissented from that ruling, as
he was of the opinion that it left an opening that States could retain their nuclear arsenals and prevent their total
elimination.

He quoted ancient Hindu law that war is intended to subjugate one's enemy and live in peace with him thereafter,
not to ravage his countryside as reflective of the prohibition of the preparation or storing nuclear weapons. He
quoted Islamic Law where there was much thought and writing about what we would today call international law -
the treatment of prisoners of war, conduct on the battlefield, the sanctity of treaties, the privileged position of
diplomats and the likes. All of these were elaborately discussed on the basis of the Holy Qu'ran and the numerous
traditions of the Prophet Mohamed known as the Hadiths, dealing with these matters

In the same case Justice Weeramantry advised that the word "genocide” in the Genocide Convention required that
there must be an intention to target a particular national, ethnic, racial or religious group qua such a group, and not
incidentally to some other act. He went on to identify that nuclear weapons designed to wipe out blocks of
population ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions had little purpose other than to wipe out in whole or
part the national group of the state that was targeted.

Justice Weeramantry was a Judge in several other cases before the ICJ, significantly, the case concerning the
environmental implications of a massive engineering project involving the construction of the Gabcikovo dam on
the river Danube. The case between Hungary and Slovakia. The Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal. v Australia)
and others too numerous to mention by name. Justice Weeramantry was the Chairman of the Commission into
Nauru: The Environmental Damage under International Trusteeship of the UK, Australia and New Zealand. He
authored a ten-volume report on the Inquiry into the Rehabilitation of Phosphate Lands in that country.

Commenting on the efficacy of International Courts which do not have an enforcement system, Justice
Weeramantry accepted the fact that even the most powerful states were reluctant to lose the moral high ground of
not acting in violation of international law and the decisions have averted armed conflicts that may otherwise have
resulted.

Justice Weeramantry was a jurist with a prolific pen. The page on Wikipedia devoted to him contains a list of 27
books authored by him on a range of subjects from the Law of Contracts, Equality before the Law, Human Rights.
Apartheid, Scientific Responsibility, Nuclear Weapons, Islamic Jurisprudence, Universalizing International Law,
Ethical and Legal Concerns over transplantation of cross specie cells.

The most recent was his memoirs in three volumes and I believe he was in the process of completing a fourth.

May he rest in eternal peace.

Sunil de Silva P.C.
Sunil de Silva PC, former Attorney General of Sri Lanka, and Retired Crown Prosecutor, New South Wales.

41



Nauru: Environmental Damage under International Trusteeship. Oxford University Press, 1992.
Nuclear Weapons and Scientific Responsibility, Longwood Academic, New Hampshire, 1987 (also in Japanese,
published by Chuo University Press, Tokyo). Reprinted Sarvodaya, 1999.
Our Lady: A Fount of Inspiration, Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education and Research, 2013
Sustainable Justice: Reconciling Economic, Social and Environmental Law, With Marie-Claire C. Segger. Martinus
Nijhoff, 2005.
The Law in Crisis: Bridges of Understanding, Capemoss, London 1975. Reprinted by Sarvodaya, 2001.
The Law of Contracts: A Comparative Study of the Roman-Dutch, English and Customary Laws of Contract in Ceylon
(2 Volumes, 1965), H.W. Cave & Co., Colombo 1967. Reprinted 1999, 2013
The Lord’s Prayer: Bridge to a Better World, Liguori Publications, 1998 (also in Spanish, German and Japanese).
Reprinted Sarvodaya, 1998.
The Slumbering Sentinels: Law and Human Rights in the Wake of Technology, Penguin, Melbourne, 1983.
The World Court, Its Conception, Constitution and Contribution, Sarvodaya, 2002.
Towards One World: The Memoirs of Judge C. G. Weeramantry, Volume I: The Sri Lankan Years, Weeramantry
International Centre for Peace Education and Research, 2010.
Towards One World: The Memoirs of Judge C. G. Weeramantry, Volume II: The Australian Years, Weeramantry
International Centre for Peace Education and Research, 2012.
Towards One World: The Memoirs of Judge C. G. Weeramantry, Volume III: The International Court and Thereafter,
Stamford Lake Publication, 2014.
Tread Lightly on the Earth: Religion, the Environment and the Human Future, Stamford Lake, 2010.
Universalizing International Law. Martinus Nijhoff, 2004.
Why the Nuclear Danger Grows from Day to Day, 2005.
Xenotransplantation: The Ethical and Legal Concerns. Sarvodaya Vishva Lekha, 2007.

43

RCOBAA Committee

Vice Patrons: Fred Kreltszheim Nihal De Run

Indrajith Wijegunaratne : President General Committee:
Ransi Fernando: Vice President Athula Ratnayake

Chintana Wijeweera : Vice President Venura Welagedara
Dinesh Perera : Secretary Shanaka Perera

Dhammika Perera: Treasurer Aslam Assen
Aynkaran Sivaratnam : Immediate Past President Ranga Perera

Charith Jayathilake: Membership Secretary Lochana Premarathna
George Fernando: Editor Floreat

Shanka Gunawardane: Web Master

Membership List as at 1st May 2017

1. Abdullah Mahmud 37. Chinthana Wijesuriya 73. Gehan Perera
2. Abhaya Udugama 38. Chinthana Wijeweera 74. George Fernando
3. Ajith Jayawardena 39. Churchill L Ferdinand 75. Gishan Bamunusinghe
4. Akila Geethal 40. Clarence Koch 76. Gnanathikkam Emmanuel
5. Akila Weerasinghe 41. Damith De Lanarol Amirthanathan
6. Akvan Gajanayake 42. Dammica Wickramaratne 77. Guy Chadrasena
7. Alexander Lokuge (Don) 43. Darin Mallawarachchi 78. Haris Kumarage
8. Almaaz Alavi 44. Darrell Lieversz 79. Haris Peiris
9. Amal Cooray 45. Dasun Wettasinghe 80 Harsha Aluthge
10. Anil Amarasekara 46. David Kreltzheim 81. Harsha Perera
11. Anil Amunugama 47. Deepal Perera 82. Hasalaka Edirisinghe
12. Anjan Ranasuriya 48. Deva Corea 83. Hasitha Gunasekera
13. Anton Suresh Mahadeva 49. Devindra Weerasooriya 84. Hasitha Perera
14. Anuja Manchanayake 50. Devine De Silva 85. Hemanth Cooray
15. Asanga Perera 51. Dhamindra Kahaduwarachchi 86. Hildon Bevan*
16. Aslam Assen 52. Dhammika Perera 87. Hiran Muttiah
17. Athula Ratnayaka 53. Dhanushka Hettiarachchi 88. Indika Hathurusinghe
18. Aubrey VanCuylenburg* 54. Dilan De Silva 89. Indrajith Wijegunaratne
19. Aynkaran Sivaratnam 55. Dhilharan Sivaratnam 90. Iqram Mohinadeen
20. Bevill Janz 56. Dhilshad Sideek 91. isuru Alagiayawann
21. Binesh Gunaratne 57 Dick Siebel 92. Isuru Kariyawasam
22. Brian Lieversz 58. Dilan Nanayakkara 93. Jafir Dawood
23. Bryan Wickremeratne 59. Dimithri Siriwardena 94. Jahanghir Abdul Majeed
24. Buddhimith Wickramasinghe 60. Dinesh Chelvathurai 95. Janaka Kodithuwakku
25. Cedric Jansz 61. Dinesh Perera 96. Janaka Seneviratne
26. Chaman Ipalawatta 62. Dinesh Weerakkody 97. Janek Ratnatunga
27. Chamath Fernando 63. Dr D L & R Jayasuriya 98. Jayalath Pushpkumara
28. Chameera Buddhadasa 64. Dr. Channa Wijesinghe* 99. Jayantha (Jay) Adihetty
29. Chamith Perera 65. Dulanjaya Wijeratne 100. Jayath Jayarathna
30. Channa Perera 66. Eardley Lieverz 101. Jeewantha Wijesinghe
31. Charavaran 67. Eshan Ranawak 102. Jey Jeyakumar
32. Charith Jayatillake 68. Ethan Imesh Gankanda 103. Jimmy Billimoria*
33. Chathura Liyanagama 69. Feisul Uduman 104. Jivaka Fernando
34. Chehan Senasekara 70. Fred Kreltzheim* 105. Johann Gunasekera
35. Chethiya Dissanayake 71. Gamini Jayasinghe 106 Jumaan Sheriff
36. Chinthana de Silva 72. Ganan Nagaratnam 107. Kandiah Sivapragasam

44

108. Kapila Epasinghe 154. Nandun Thellamurege 199. Samitha De Silva
109. Ken Rajendra 155. Nigel De Kretser 200. Sampath Edirimuni
110. Kingsley Rajasingham 156. Nihal Kodituwakku 201. Sandy (Ranoir) Jesudhason
111. Kumara Karawita 157. Nihal. M. D. de Run 202. Sanjaya Ranaweera
112. Kumares Sandrasegaran 158. Nilupa Suresh 203. Sanjeewa Udumalagala
113. Kusal Fernando 159. Niranjan Tissaverasinghe 204. Sarasi Herath
114. Kushan Athukorala 160. Niroshan Hewakoparage 205 Saru (Sarvendran) Sivarajah
115. Kusinara Perera 161. Niroshan Serasinghe 206. Sasanka Dharmasena
116. Lahiru De Silva 162. P.H.(Piloo) Billimoria 207. Seyed Hassen Murthaz
117. Lakindu Manawasinghe 163. Pasan Balasinghe Mawlana
118. Lakmal Abeyasekera 164. Pasan Gunasekara 208. Shanaka Perera
119. Laksiri Jayasuriya 165. Pasan Manawadu 209. Shanaka Senaratne
120. Lal Goonewardena 166. Pasindu Yasantha 210. Shanka Gunawardana
121. Lalin De Silva 167. Peshan Kurukulasuriya 211. Shantha Arangala
122. Lalin Perera 168. Piloo Rustomjee 212. Shiran De Silva
123. Lalith Hewavitharana 169. Piyal Gunaratne 213. Shyam Sideek
124. Lilith De Silva 170. Prabodha Kulasingha 214. Soba Ranasinghe
125. Lindsay Ferdinance 171. Prasad Herath 215. Sonny (Pradeep) De Silva
126. Lochana Premarathna 172. Pubudu Weeratunga 216. Stuart Roland
127. Lorenz Pereira 173. Pushpika Gamage 217. Sudath Gunatilake
128. Madhava Wijayaratne 174. Rad Rasaratnam 218. Sujeevan Panagoda
129. Madhawa Mutukumara 175. Rajeev Peiris 219. Sujith Satkunam
130. Madushe Jayawickrema 176. Rajkumar Yogalingam 220. Sunil De Silva
131. Mahen Ellawala 177. Ralph Wickremaratne(Ralph 221. Sunil De Zoysa
132. Mahinda Wickramasuriya Wicks) 222. Tharin Peiris
133. Malindra Fernando 178. Ramesh Nadarajah 223. Tharun Delpachitthra
134. Maliq Deane 179. Ranga Perera 224. Theshan De Silva
135. Malith Fernanado 180. Ranjan Muttiah 225. Thila Gunaratne
136. Malith Siriwardena 181. Ranjeev Ekanayake 226. Thilina Gajanayake
137. Mangala Jayawardene 182. Ransi Fernando 227. Timothy Wijesooriya
138. Maurice Anghie 183. Reggie de Silva (Cyril) 228. Tissa Galagedera
139. Maxwell Solomons 184. Rivindu Liyanage 229. Tony Anghie*
140. Melville Knower 185. Riza Muthaliph 230. Uchin Alwis
141. Michael Kreltszheim 186. Rohan Wimalasuriya 231. Umesh Goonawardena
142. Michael La Brooy 187. Roshan Weerawardena 232. Upul Kularatne
143. Mohan de Run 188. Sahan Basnayake 233. Upula Jayasingha
144. Mohan Perera 189. Saji Bahar 234. Varna Amerasinghe
145. Mohan Pillai 190. Sajith Mendis 235. Venura Welegedera
146. Mohan Tisseverasinge 191. Sajitha Amerasinghe 236. Vibodha Sampath
147. Muditha Jayasinha 192. Sam Lawton 237. Vijayalingam Thiagalingam
148. N.Canagasabai 193. Saman Edirisinghe 238. Vinodh Samarasinghe
149. Nadie Gamalath 194. Saman Fernando (Athula) 239. Yasantha Kalupahan
150. Nadika Dias 194. Saman Nanda Ranasinghe 240. Yasiru Samarakoon
151. Namal Fernanado 196. Saman Ranabahu 241. Yogi Thevaraj
152. Nandika Dias 197. Saman Wijeratne 242. Yohan Kumarage
153. Nandun Fernando 198. Samath Wijeyasinghe

The above is the list of members as at 1st May 2017. If you have joined the Association or renewed your
membership and your name does not appear, please contact the membership secretary via [email protected]

* Honorary members

45