Introduction
The Democratic Republic of Sri Lanka, commonly referred to as Sri Lanka, follows a dualist approach to the implementation of international law within its domestic jurisdiction. The 1978 Constitution of Sri Lanka provides the core legal framework, supplemented by various legislations and case law jurisprudence developed by the country’s apex courts, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka. This legal system continues to reflect the colonial legacy inherited following independence from the United Kingdom.
The following sections highlight key legal developments in Sri Lanka during 2023 that hold significant implications for international law. As a state party to multiple international and regional legal instruments, Sri Lanka remains actively engaged in the evolving landscape. This State Practice section on Sri Lanka covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2023. The year 2023 has been particularly significant as the country continued to grapple with the aftermath of the 2022 people’s struggle, which arose due to democratic deficits and the resulting economic crisis.
This State Practice report examines Sri Lanka’s international obligations, assessing both positive and negative outcomes in the areas of human rights, the relationship between domestic and international law, and the country’s engagement with international organizations. Notably, it highlights Sri Lanka’s cooperation with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the steps taken to fulfil its commitments in addressing the economic crisis, promoting good governance, and fostering economic growth.
Treatment of International Law by Domestic Courts
Madawatte Kammale Samel Sirisena and Others v. Madawatte Kammale Matheshamy
Despite the above limitations, courts through their judicial activism, have given effect to norms of ratified international treaties, especially when they have dealt with issues relating to human rights. This fact was elaborated by the Court in Madawatte Kammale Samel Sirisena and Others v. Madawatte Kammale Matheshamy [SC APPEAL NO: SC/APPEAL/82/2010] where the Court stated that ‘[w]hile international law instruments may not be directly used to modify the domestic law, the importance of interpreting the law considering the international standards’ is something permissible.
Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption v. Indiketiya Hewage Kusumdasa Mahanam and Others
In the case named Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery or Corruption v. Indiketiya Hewage Kusumdasa Mahanam and Others [SC TAB 1A and 1B/2020], among other things, the Court investigated the concept of fair trial. It referred to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and how it has recognized the concept and made an analysis on how such has been defined under Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The ICCPR was domesticated through the ICCPR Act No. 56 of 2007 where the substance of Article 14 of the ICCPR is found in section 4 of the Act. The Court also looked at the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in its analysis and pointed out that in neither of domestic legal provisions nor the international human rights based legal provisions has a clear answer as to whether there is an implicit right coming under the broader right of a fair trial to include within it ambit a ‘need for a lawful investigation based upon which a criminal prosecution could be founded upon and for a lawful investigation to be a condition precedent for a fair trial’ (at 115). The Court finding this lacuna then showed its activism by stating ‘it is necessary to consider whether this lacuna in international treaty and domestic statutory law, needs to be filled by judicial pronouncements resulting in the development of the common law’ (at 115).
The above judgment can be appreciated for its far-reaching desire to develop the law, especially on right to a fair trial by trying to fill in a gap which is not addressed in both international and domestic law. Starting with Bulankulama v. Secretary, Ministry of Industrial Development and Others [3 Sri L R 243(2000)] the Courts tried to divert from following a strict dualist approach which was cut short by the decision in Singarasa v. Attorney General [Sri L R 245(2013)] where the Court went back to a stricter dualist approach. Despite this, the courts have often tried to move towards a monist approach and to utilize international law, especially international human rights norms in the interpretation of fundamental rights.
This shift towards monism was visible in Mohamed Razik Mohamed Ramzy v. B.M.A.S.K. Senaratne Chief Inspector of Police Officer-in-Charge Computer and Forensic Training Unit [SC / FR Application No. 135/2020] where the Court made the following observation,
This case concerned about a post that was posted on Facebook. According to the revealed facts, the post related to the applicant has requested the Muslim community to a ‘ideological Jihad (ideological war) by using the mainstream media, social media and all other space’. The issue which confronted the Court was whether such expression was allowed or prohibited under freedom of speech and expression. Looking at this issue from a broader perspective, the Court looked at Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which was acceded to by Sri Lanka in 1980. It is important to note that Sri Lanka, while having made an enabling legislation to give effect to ICCPR by enacting the ICCPR Act No. 56 of 2007, did not give full effect to the ICCPR at the municipal level, including providing provisions for Article 19 of the ICCPR. Despite this, the Court, with its activism, devised a plan to interpret the ambit of Article 14 (1) (a) of the Constitution considering Article 19 of the ICCPR. The Court also referred to Article 4(a) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The Court did not try to justify such reference by pointing out the need to respect the obligations arising out of Article 27 (15) which requires the fostering of respect for international and treaty obligations undertaken by Sri Lanka. This case clearly illustrates the modern approach which has been taken by the Courts in moving away from a strict dualist approach to a more monist one.
Treaties
Making and Concluding Treaties
Pursuant to the Constitution of Sri Lanka, under Article 33(h), treaty ratification is the domain of the executive and does not require consultation with the legislature. According to the information provided by the treaty section of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sri Lanka for the year 2023, Sri Lanka has signed 36 agreements, including Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). Among these, Sri Lanka has signed MOU s between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and for the elimination of double taxation with respect to income, and the prevention of tax evasion and avoidance. These MOU s were signed in January and February of 2023, respectively. In July 2023, a Joint Declaration of Intent between the Ministry of Agriculture of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka and the Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying of the Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying of the Republic of India was signed for Cooperation in the field of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Additionally, Sri Lanka deposited the instrument of ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) with the UN Office of Legal Affairs (UNOLA) on 25 July 2023 at the UN Headquarters in New York, becoming the 178th State to ratify the CTBT. By depositing CTBT instrument of ratification, Sri Lanka’s status as a signatory is elevated to a complete State Party to the Treaty. On 19 September 2023, Sri Lanka acceded to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The Minister of Foreign Affairs, M.U.M. Ali Sabry, deposited the instrument of accession with the UN Secretary-General during a high-level ceremony in New York, reaffirming Sri Lanka’s dedication to nuclear disarmament and international peace.
Settlement of Disputes
Legal Solution of Disputes
Economic Crisis Case
Sri Lanka faced a severe economic crisis in 2022, consisting inter alia a rapid depreciation of the currency, critical fuel shortages, frequent power cuts, depletion of foreign reserves, essential medicine and food. In 2022, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka as public interest litigations, stating that several key figures of the government caused the said economic crisis. The judgment was made in 2023. The Court found that the former President Gotabaya Rajapakse, former Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapakse, former Finance Minister Basil Rajapakse, the former Governors of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka, former Secretary to the President, and former Secretary to the Treasury caused the economic crisis by violating Article 12(1) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka and the public trust doctrine, in the administration of the country’s economy.
The Court, in its determination, acknowledged that the events that led to the said economic crisis were directly and significantly influenced by the Respondents’ conduct and actions. It was noted that the Respondents had a duty to acknowledge the potential economic consequences of their choices owing to their positions within the state, which necessitated action to be taken to prevent or lessen such negative effects. In spite of the overwhelming duty to protect the state’s best interests, they instead chose not to take such action and exacerbated the issue. The Court also emphasised that public officers have a fundamental responsibility to fulfil their duties with a dedication to the public good whilst ensuring that their actions are in line with the well-being of the populace. In furtherance of this, the Court highlighted that the Respondents were bestowed with such high power in order to uphold the public trust doctrine, and are therefore obligated to perform their duties per the Constitution. Therefore, the Respondents cannot circumvent their responsibilities by merely presenting that the decisions they took were policy decisions. The determination found that the Respondents had the necessary authority and capability to prevent the development of the disastrous crisis, but they chose not to, despite having complete knowledge of the possible repercussions of their actions. Therefore, despite the urgent need for intervention, the Respondents’ failure to move decisively and effectively to address the worsening situation depicts a glaring lack of action in the public interest. Thus, it was held that the cumulative effect of both actions and inactions on the part of the Respondents resulted in the crisis. It was further illuminated upon that the idea of public trust is a basic expectation made of all public officials, not a special or high standard that is only applied to the Respondents, and consequently, they had an apposite obligation to act with responsibility and care.
An issue that was raised by the Respondents in this case was that a parliamentary select committee had been established in order to ascertain the causes of the said crisis, and as it should be considered as an ongoing inquiry by the legislative branch of the state, the judiciary should refrain from hearing the case. However, the majority of the bench reaffirmed the supremacy of the judiciary within its designated sphere and emphasised that the Court retained full jurisdiction to exercise its powers in relation to fundamental rights cases. The only exception to this principle, as noted by the Court, was the specific instance in which the legislature itself was permitted to exercise judicial power directly in matters concerning breaches of parliamentary privilege. Furthermore, the Court explicitly held that any alteration to this established arrangement could only be effectuated through a constitutional amendment. The majority proceeded to refer to British parliamentary practice, a framework that the Sri Lankan Parliament may draw upon, and underscored the fact that, in such instances, it is the Parliament that must yield to the judiciary when litigation is pending, in accordance with the “sub judice” rule. In its final observations on this issue, the Court noted that the parliamentary select committee had only been constituted several months after the Court had already granted leave to proceed with the petitions, and therefore, consequently, the Court rejected the argument that it should abstain from exercising its jurisdiction. It is noteworthy that the dissenting opinion did not challenge the majority’s reasoning on this particular point.
International Economic Law
Sri Lanka has been a member of the International Monetary Fund since 1950 and the year 2023 signifies how the country was immensely benefited by its IMF membership. The year 2023 marked a significant turning point in the country’s economic recovery, following a severe crisis in 2022 that led to its declaration of bankruptcy. The debt restructuring programme was subject to both praise and criticism.
International Financial Institutions
The IMF and Other Entities Involved in Debt Restructuring
In March 2023, the IMF’s Executive Board approved a 48-month Extended Fund Facility (EFF) arrangement, granting access to USD 3 billion. This programme aimed to support Sri Lanka’s fiscal consolidation and debt restructuring, stabilize prices, rebuild reserves with flexible exchange rates, safeguard financial sector stability, and address corruption vulnerabilities. Under the EFF program, $670 million was disbursed in two tranches in March and December 2023, reflecting progress in its implementation. The Sri Lankan Government also held a key forum with the Heads of Mission from Paris Club member countries and India to seek support for the IMF process while awaiting China’s assurances.
International and Regional Trade Treaties and Bodies
Free Trade Agreements, Preferential Trade Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding
The Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement (FTA), effective since 1 May 2018, faced delays in implementation due to domestic opposition in Sri Lanka but resumed progress on 1 January 2023. The FTA encompasses investment, goods, services, trade facilitation, government procurement, telecommunications, e-commerce, and dispute resolution. As per the FTA, Sri Lanka eliminated customs duties on 50% of tariff lines, with plans to increase this to 80% over 14 years, while maintaining duties on the remaining 20%.
In 2023, Sri Lanka finalized the Sri Lanka-Thailand FTA, resumed negotiations for FTA s and Preferential Trade Agreements (PTA s) with India, Bangladesh, and Indonesia, and began the process of joining the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). In October 2023, Sri Lanka renewed its Trade and Investment Framework Arrangement (TIFA) with Australia. Additionally, it signed several Memoranda of Understanding (MOU s) with China, including a key agreement on cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative. As part of its “Look Africa Policy,” Sri Lanka hosted business forums in February and March 2023, led by the Foreign Minister and attended by business leaders. Meanwhile, negotiations progressed on Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements with Turkey, the UAE, Lebanon, Belarus, and Oman.
Agreements on Avoidance of Double Taxation
Sri Lanka actively engaged in negotiations on Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAA s) in 2023. The DTAA and its protocol with Saudi Arabia were signed in January, while discussions with Austria and a second round of virtual negotiations with the Maldives progressed during the year. Additionally, Sri Lanka finalized DTAA s with Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Ukraine, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and India.
Foreign Investment Law
Finalization of a Fair and Just Investor-State Dispute Settlement Mechanism under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III
In 2023, Sri Lanka actively participated in discussions under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III to reform the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism. These efforts focused on creating a fair and just system by addressing issues such as the lack of independence and impartiality of arbitrators, third-party funding, and the excessive duration and costs of proceedings.
Air Law and Law of Outer Space
Sri Lanka’s Aviation or Space Policy and Legislation
Carriage by Air (Amendment) Act, No. 8 of 2023
The Carriage by Air Act, No. 29 of 2018, was enacted to implement the provisions of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, commonly known as the Montreal Convention. In 2023, an important amendment to this Act was introduced, empowering the Minister to periodically determine and specify the applicable limits of liability for non-international carriage by air. These limits, which may vary depending on the circumstances, can now be established through orders published in the Government Gazette. This amendment provides greater flexibility and ensures that the liability framework for domestic air carriage is kept up-to-date and consistent with evolving standards and needs.
Human Rights
The human rights situation in Sri Lanka remained highly challenging in 2023, as the country continued to grapple with the aftermath of the 2022 people’s uprising, which was driven by widespread discontent over undemocratic governance and economic hardships. Despite the significant events of the previous year, the government persisted in suppressing dissent by introducing new legislation that faced strong criticism from human rights activists and the general public.
Freedom of expression, particularly on social media, was subjected to stringent controls, further exacerbating concerns about shrinking democratic space and the erosion of fundamental rights.
Protection under International and Domestic Law
Online Safety Bill and Determination
The Legislature of Sri Lanka drafted the “Online Safety Bill”, which was subsequently published in the Gazette on 18 September 2023. The Bill sought to introduce a legal regime to regulate online activities performed within and outside Sri Lanka to protect the abuse of children and adults on internet platforms, and to establish an “Online Safety Commission”. Propelled by criticisms on the alleged draconian nature of the Bill, petitions were filed in the Supreme Court, invoking its jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of the Bill, and the hearing commenced on 18 October 2023. However, at the commencement of the hearing, the learned Additional Solicitor General, who appeared for the Attorney General, submitted a draft of the proposed amendments of the Bill to the Court, stating it was already approved and agreed upon by the Ministry of Law and Order. The main issue submitted by the petitioners was the alleged violation of their fundamental rights by the Bill, specifically their freedom of expression.
The Court noted that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees the freedom of expression. Sri Lanka, following the dualist tradition, enacted an enabling legislation subsequent to the accession to the Covenant, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Act, No. 56 of 2007, and is therefore bound to fulfil its obligations. The diluted nature of the Act and its alleged draconian application, specifically regarding minorities, is expanded on below. The ICCPR General Comment No. 34 clarifies that the protection of freedom of expression applies online in the same way as it applies offline. The Court noted that it also requires state parties to consider the rapid development of information technology, and the consequent dramatic changes in communication practices, especially on the internet. Therefore, it noted how “tailored” approaches for responding to illegal practices on the internet should be developed within the state parties’ legal frameworks.
The Court recognised that the freedom of expression is not an absolute right both per the ICCPR and the Constitution of Sri Lanka. Article 14(1) of the Constitution guarantees every citizen of Sri Lanka the freedom of expression as a fundamental right. However, Article 15(2) of the Constitution states that it could be restricted in the interests of racial and religious harmony or in relation to parliamentary privilege, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Furthermore, the Court also noted that the Bill contained provisions relating to the regulation of the internet in respect of racial and religious harmony, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Article 19(3) of the ICCPR allowing the restriction for the respect of the rights and reputation of others; and or the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals, was also noted. However, it must be emphasized that the ICCPR General Comment No. 34 explicitly highlighted that in the event state parties enforce restrictions on this right, those may not jeopardize the right itself; and that “the relation between right and restriction and between norm and exception must not be reversed”.
Another issue that was raised was the independency of the Online Safety Commission. The Commission is to be appointed at the sole discretion of the President, which raises concerns as to the possible unfettered discretion held by the President regarding the appointment and removal of its members. Even the proposed amendments during the hearing which included the phrase “approval of the Constitutional Council” is questionable, as recommendations and approvals remains within the exclusive jurisdiction of the President, which in the President having full control over who is recommended for “approval”. This would result in the inability to consider suitable candidates outside the President’s recommendations, which undermines the role of the Constitutional Council, thus violating Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
The Court however held that the Bill delineates criteria for appointing members, thus preventing the President from acting arbitrarily in their appointment. It also held that making appointments based on the recommendation of the Commission or enacting legislation without any reference to the Constitutional Council is a policy matter of the Government. It further expounded that the law requires criteria to be specified to prevent inconsistencies with Article 12(1), and therefore the impugned clause of the Bill does not infringe Article 12(1) of the Constitution.
Another issue submitted was that certain provisions of the Bill are vague and overbroad, which would lead to the arbitrary exercise of powers by the authorities, which would be inconsistent with Article l2(1) of the Constitution that provides that all persons are equal before the law and are entitled to the equal protection of the law. The Court noted that the intention of the Bill is to prevent offences committed on the internet, which are exacerbated using rapidly advancing technology. The Court therefore held that it is sensible to use existing words in the statutes of Sri Lanka and other jurisdictions, as jurisprudence also exists as to the interpretation of such words. The Court then specifically held that the impugned words and/or provisions and their context are not ambiguous, and therefore do not violate Article 12(1).
It is, however, appreciated that the Bill introduces a specific legal framework to regulate the protection of children and adults from being abused on the internet through activities carried out online within and outside Sri Lanka, which was a lacuna that existed within the legal system of Sri Lanka until this point.
The Court concluded its determination stating that over thirty clauses in the Bill and certain omissions in the Bill were inconsistent with Article 12(1), and in some cases, Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution, and therefore it could only be enacted by Parliament with a special majority, unless the recommended amendments by Court were introduced to the Bill in Parliament, in which case it could be enacted by Parliament with a simple majority.
National Policy and Action Plan for Migration for Employment
Amid the economic crisis, Sri Lanka has witnessed a surge in migration, with nearly 300,000 Sri Lankans leaving the country for employment abroad in 2023 alone. In response, the government launched the National Policy and Action Plan for Migration for Employment (2023–2027) in October 2023 – a pivotal initiative aimed at enhancing migration governance. The policy underscores Sri Lanka’s commitment to developing a globally competent workforce while safeguarding migrant workers’ rights, freedoms, and dignity, ensuring their meaningful contribution to national and global development. Aligned with the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration (A/RES/73/195), this framework reinforces Sri Lanka’s dedication to sustainable development and the protection of migrant workers, with continued support from international stakeholders to strengthen national migration policies.
Specific Human Rights Incidents or Cases
Cases Decided in Relation to the ICCPR Act of Sri Lanka
The ICCPR Act of Sri Lanka has been a subject of contention since its enactment. Sri Lanka acceded to the ICCPR in 1980, but despite the requirement of an enabling legislation to give effect to its international obligations, owing to its following the dualist tradition, an Act was enacted only in 2007. The Act has been widely criticized for its diluted nature, as it contains only seven Sections, compared to the Convention, which has fifty-three articles. Additionally, in 2023, two significant events took place vis-à-vis the Act, re-prompting the argument that the Act has been selectively used as a weapon against minorities in the name of blasphemy, or rather expressions “against” Buddhism, and thereby distorting the purposes of the ICCPR. Therefore, the criticism that the ICCPR Act, or its application, suppresses civil and political rights rather than protects them has come under renewed focus.
Case concerning Nathasha Edirisooriya
Nathasha Edirisooriya, a Sri Lankan comedienne, was arrested on 27 May 2023, and charged under Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act, which provides that “no person shall propagate war or advocate national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, due to her allegedly defaming Buddhism, the religion followed by the majority of the country, during her comedy show. The Colombo High Court delivered the judgement on this matter. It noted that Section 3 of the Act aligns with Article 20(2) of the ICCPR, and should be interpreted in light of Article 19 of the ICCPR, which guarantees the freedom of expression. The Court then emphasised on the United Nations Strategy and Plan of Action on Hate Speech, which categorizes hate speech into three tiers, and that for a statement to be considered as hate speech, there must be (1) incitement to discriminate, (2) a hate speaker, (3) an audience, and (4) a target group facing an imminent threat of hostility. In light of this, the Court held that no evidence existed of the presence of such an imminent threat of hostility towards a targeted group by Edirisooriya. The Court also made reference to the “Rabat Plan of Action”, which specifies that hate speech should be considered in the context of the remark made, the speaker’s social standing, intent, substance, extent, and likelihood of incitement when ruling on the issue, and noted that in the present case, the “original information report” made no reference to a conflict regarding or concerning Buddhists during the period Edirisooriya allegedly made her statement. The Court strongly emphasised that, despite certain statements having the capacity to offend certain groups of people or communities, mere hurt or insult caused by a careless or irresponsibly made statement does not allow such a statement to be brought within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act. The Court reminded the importance placed by the then Minister of Home Affairs who presented the Bill of the ICCPR Act to the Parliament, namely that law enforcement and justice agencies must act in a way that satisfies the legislature’s intent while taking international accountability into account, whilst parallelly emphasising the duties of the judiciary and investigating officers in the pursuit of justice.
Mohamed Razeek Mohamed Ramzy Case
In the case named Mohamed Razik Mohamed Ramzy v. B.M.A.S.K. Senaratne Chief Inspector of Police Officer-in-Charge Computer and Forensic Training Unit [SC/FR Application No. 135/2020], Mohamed Razeek Mohamed Ramzy, a social media activist, based on his opinion that a vicious campaign against the Muslim community is being spread on the incorrect notion of them being responsible for spreading the COVID-19 pandemic, posted a text on Facebook that sparked controversy. It said Sri Lankan Muslims should prepare for an “ideological jihad” through social and mainstream media by taking up the pen and keyboard as arms. He was subsequently arrested under the ICCPR Act, and a fundamental rights petition was filed in the Supreme Court on his behalf, and its determination was delivered on 14 November 2023. The Court, stating that in the determination of whether an expression falls within Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act, police officers/prosecutors must consider several factors, provided the following guidelines:
whether the speech, in its entirety and with reference to specific words, constitutes advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred manifesting as incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence;
the attendant circumstances, including the context in which the speech was made;
the associated conduct of the person, including prior and subsequent statements linked to the impugned utterance;
the relationship between the speaker and the target audience, particularly the influence the speaker had over them;
the overall motive and specific intent of the speaker, and whether they sought to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence;
whether such acts occurred as a result of the speech and whether a causal link exists; and
even if no harm occurred, whether the speech posed an imminent danger of inciting such consequences.
The Court then determined that there exists no basis to conclude the petitioner’s intent to cause any incitement to harm to the society, and that his advocacy was for a counter-campaign by the Muslim community against a vilification campaign alleging their responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic. His encouragement was to use the “pen and the keyboard” for an “ideological Jihad”, and not to incite discrimination, hostility, or violence. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was no factual or legal basis that he violated Section 3(1) of the ICCPR Act, ergo, no action could justifiably be taken against him on the grounds that he had committed an offence under such Section
Conclusion
As discussed above, the year 2023 marked a crucial period in Sri Lanka’s legal and political landscape, reflecting both progress and challenges in fulfilling its international obligations. As examined in this report, the country’s engagement with international law, particularly in the areas of human rights, economic governance, and institutional reforms, has been shaped by domestic political dynamics and the broader global context.
While Sri Lanka has demonstrated efforts to align its legal and policy framework with international commitments, persistent challenges remain, particularly in balancing national interests with international expectations. The government’s cooperation with international organizations such as the IMF signals a commitment to economic recovery and governance reforms. However, the effectiveness of these measures will depend on sustained implementation and adherence to legal and democratic principles.
As Sri Lanka continues to navigate the post-crisis recovery process, its approach to international law will be a key determinant of its legal and economic trajectory. The developments of 2023 serve as a pivotal reference point in assessing the country’s evolving state practice, offering insights into both progress achieved and areas requiring further attention in the years ahead.