INTRODUCTION:

"International law is the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other
entities that are legally recognized as international actors."

International law is also called Public International Law and Law of Nations.

The term was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832).

DEFINITIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

There is still no consensus among academics and other interested parties as to what international law is. There
are some who argue that there is no such thing as international law as it is not imposed by a sovereign authority.
However, it is not a very strong argument because all laws are not necessarily imposed by sovereign authorities. A
very good example is the customs, which are practices of people. Furthermore, all relevant sectors in the
international community act as if international law exists.

1. Classical Definitions:
• Bentham: International law is a collection of rules governing relations between states.
• Oppenheim: Law of nations or international law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules
which are considered legally binding by the civilized states in their intercourse with each other.
2. Modern Definitions:
The earlier definition was that international law is a system of law that regulates the activity of states.
However, this is not a modern definition because international law does not confine itself to States.
Therefore, modern definitions for international law have been introduced. For example,
 Prof. J. G. Starke has stated that: “International law consists of a system of laws, the majority of which
applies to states but also regulates activities of individuals and international organizations when it
becomes the concern for the international community.”
 Schwarzen Berger: International law is body of legal rules which apply between sovereign states and such
entities which have been granted international legal personality.

LAW:
Law is an English word, derived from German word “Lag” which means Constant Unmovable, Static and Plane. 

DEFINITIONS OF LAW:
 Aristotle: “Whatever the ruling party enacts is called law”
 John Austin: “Law is the command of sovereignty”
 Woodrow Wilson: “Thought which has distinct & in shape of uniforms backed by authority & power of state”
 Holland: “Law is general rule of external action enforced by sovereign political authority”
 J.C. Carter: “Law always has been still is and will forever continue to be custom”
 Sir Henry Maine: “Law is accepting norms of society and state has to implement those laws”
 Salmond: “The body of principles recognized & applied by the state in the application of justice”
So,
 Law should be uniform.
 It should be universal.
 Its jurisdiction should be compulsory.
 There should be system of course.

DIVISIONS OF LAW:
1- Municipal Law (with in the country)
2- International Law (out of the country)
DISCIPLINES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:
 Public International Law, which governs the relationship between provinces and international entities. It
includes these legal fields: treaty law, law of sea, international criminal law, the laws of war or international
humanitarian law and international human rights law.
 Private International Law or conflict of laws, which addresses the questions of which jurisdiction may hear a
case, and the law concerning which jurisdiction applies to the issues in the case.
 Supranational Law or the law of supranational organizations, which concerns regional agreements where the
laws of nation states may be held inapplicable when conflicting with a supranational legal system when that
nation has a treaty obligation to a supranational collective. The two traditional branches of the field are:
1. Jus Gentium — law of nations
2. Jus Inter Gentes — agreements between nations

SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

International law is the vital mechanism without which an interdependent world cannot function properly and
within the bounds of law. It does not only control the states by overseeing their conduct in relation with other
states, like the law prohibiting the use of armed force to settle dispute, but also maintains laws regarding
individuals (e.g. human rights).
Furthermore, international law is fundamentally bound up with diplomacy, politics and conduct of foreign affairs;
it is not, at all, based on an adversarial system of law, meaning thereby that many of the rules have been evolved
from the practice of the states and do not bind the states in any course, which tends to make international law
more flexible. Also, international law leaves a state with so many options rather than with merely one course of
action, which serves as an advantage for a system so bound up with politics and diplomacy.

GLOBAL SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

According to Bentham's classic definition, international law is a collection of rules governing relations between
states. It is a mark of how far international law has evolved that this original definition omits individuals and
international organizations—two of the most dynamic and vital elements of modern international law.
Furthermore, it is no longer accurate to view international law as simply a collection of rules; rather, it is a rapidly
developing complex of rules and influential—though not directly binding—principles, practices, and assertions
coupled with increasingly sophisticated structures and processes. In its broadest sense, international law provides
normative guidelines as well as methods, mechanisms, and a common conceptual language to international actors
—i.e., primarily sovereign states but also increasingly international organizations and some individuals. The range
of subjects and actors directly concerned with international law has widened considerably, moving beyond the
classical questions of war, peace, and diplomacy to include human rights, economic and trade issues, space law,
and international organizations. Although international law is a legal order and not an ethical one, it has been
influenced significantly by ethical principles and concerns, particularly in the sphere of human rights.
• Refugee laws • International trade development
• Narcotics/Drugs treaties • Independent guarantee and letter of credit.
• Human trafficking • Protocol on road signs and signals 1947
• Obscene publication • Contract of carriage of goods by roads.
• World health treaties

SCOPE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN PAKISTAN:

As far as the scope of international law in Pakistan is concerned, it is expanding with the passage of time. Pakistan
is under an obligation to follow its international commitments arising out of any treaty, convention or
international agreement, ratified by it. Further, after having ratified a treaty, it is mandatory for Pakistan to
incorporate it into domestic laws by enacting implementing legislations. For instance, Dangerous Cargos Act and
Maritime Zones Act, 1996 of Pakistan aim at translating its international obligations into the domestic laws.
Similarly, United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea has been ratified by Pakistan and to ensure its
enforcement, corresponding domestic legislation is required.

Merits of International Law:

1. Protection of states’ interests: It is doubtless that International Law has protected the interests of the states.
It helps those states, which have no such power to protect their interests. It also protects states from
suffering of loss. It provides them rules and regulations for which states are bound to follow. It relates with
the boundaries, society, morality, ethics, and religious matters. Kuwait was protected by International Law.
2. Welfare of human being: In fact International Law plays an important role in the welfare of human being.
Submission of these rules brings prosperity to Mankind. It has different institution that performs its functions.
3. Equality: International Law gives importance to equality. It gives the same status of equality to small state as
the big state. In international relations all are equal. One state has no superiority over other one. In
international matters, every state plays its role.
4. Individuality: International Law also gives individual importance to each state. All the other states also
recognize it. International Law has covered almost all the world and formed a society and promoted
brotherhood. Individuality has importance in it.
5. Unity and strength: This law has created the environment of the unity and strength among the different
states. It has taken all the states in a line. No one state can separate her from others. Every state has become
the need of other one and plays an important role in unity and strength.
6. Development of social values: This law has also played an important role in the development of social values.
International Law has tried best to promote the social values.

Demerits of International Law:

1. Limited scope: In the present circumstances it seems ambiguous and of limited scope. There is no solid organ
of International Law, which can resolve the matters of states equitably. It could not devolve person into state.
2. Ambiguous law: Some of its rules and regulations are not only uncertain but also ambiguous. Pace of its
development and promotion is deadly slow. It cannot combat with changing environment of the society.
3. No apparent authority: There is not executive class who can enforce the laws. It lacks the force of law, which
enforces the law, and gets exercised. Only International Court of Justice exists. There is not existence of
special courts that can decide the particular disputes. International Court of Justice cannot settle certain
matters. States do not allow International Court of Justice in the settlement of disputes. After the decision is
given, there is no such power that may get it enforced.
4. No administration power: No administrative power behind it that can get its decisions enforced.
5. Little enactment: It has little room of enactment. Mostly matters such as excise, intercourse between two or
more states, taxes, and market etc. are excluded from its scope.
6. Non-interference: IL does not intervene in the matters, which takes place in any member state.
7. Uncertainty about facts: There may be a genuine uncertainty about the facts. For instance, before one who
decide whether United States participation in the Vietnam fighting is legal or illegal, has to decide whether the
National Liberation Front in South Vietnam represents spontaneous internal revolt or whether it represents
subversion from North Vietnam.
8. Uncertainty about law: There may be a genuine uncertainty about the law. For instance, some states think it
is lawful to nationalize foreign property without compensation, others disagree. When dispute arises between
a state in the first group and a state in the second group, each will be convinced that it is in the right, and it is
impossible to predict how an international Court would decide the case.
9. Internal disintegration: Sometimes international dispute may cause internal disintegration such as demand
for the increase of wages in employment. However wages are fixed by the contract of employment and
contracts can be altered by mutual agreement.
10. Unfriendly legal act: International Law does not prevent a state increasing its tariffs on goods coming from
another state, even though the result may be to cause severe unemployment in the other state.
11. Dualism: Dualism can easily be observed in the solution of the international disputes. Dispute of North
Tamour has been solved whereas dispute of Kashmir stands unresolved. Terrorism in Israel has not been
condemned while liberation struggle of Palestine is condemned.

INTL. AND MUNICIPAL LAW

Apparently there seems no relationship between international law and municipal law. Bet if examined with
philosophical eve then it would be seemed that there is a relationship between both the legal orders. The test as
to observe the relationship between the two systems may be conducted in case of a conflict between the two
legal orders. The situation would arise that what law shall be applicable to the case in question.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUNICIPAL LAW AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. DUALISTIC THEORY:
According to the followers of this theory Municipal law and International law are two separate, distinct and
self-contained legal orders, independent from each other. Both the orders enjoy its own spheres and each
one is the supreme in its own sphere. They accept the separate and independent existence because,
according to them, there are following points of distinctions between both the orders:
i. Sources: The sources of both the systems are quite different. Municipal law has its source in the land
legislature, while International law has its sources in treaties, entered into by different sovereign
states, international customs and general principals of law etc.
ii. Subject: The subjects of both the systems are different. As for as, Municipal is concerned that is an
order of the sovereign of the state addressed to the individuals, while at the other hand the subjects
of the international law are the states, and to the lesser extent other actors including individuals. In
other words Municipal law is between the individuals and intl. law is between the sovereign states.
iii. Principles: Municipal law is the aggregate of the principles of state legislature, while International law
is obeyed because of principle “Pacta sunt servanda.” At the other hand, municipal law has a legal
sanctity while International is obeyed because states are morally bound to observe.
iv. Dynamism: It is a unique characteristic of International law that it continuously changes and expands
while municipal law remains limited. So, on the basis of the following points of distinction between
the two legal systems the supporters of Dualistic Theory contend that they both are separate and
distinct orders having separate spheres of application.
2. MONISTIC THEORY:
According to the followers of this theory International law is not distinct and autonomous body of law, rather
there exists only one sets of legal system i.e. the domestic legal order. They have criticized the view adopted
by Dualists, and also rejected the alleged distinction between Municipal law and International law as pointed
out by the dualists. According to them both the international law and municipal law are related with the same
legal system. And it is not possible to treat them severely.

 HARMONIZATION THEORY:
Dualistic and Monistic both are the extreme views. They both are opposite to each other. But the
Harmonization theory impliedly accepts the distinction between the two legal orders but they contend that
the differences or conflicts between them may be harmonized. They are of the view that both the systems
have been framed ultimately for the conduct of human behavior, so both of them are supreme in that sense.
As far as the conflicts are concerned they may be harmonized and should be harmonized. The areas where
both the systems are contradicted should be brought to test of harmonization. But such contradiction shall
not mean that one of them is void. They exert a duty on the judges of both municipal courts as well as
international courts, to point out those points at which the two systems are colliding with each other.
 According to them the two systems are not like a gear, but like two wheels revolving upon the same axis.
According to this theory, neither Municipal law nor International law has supremacy over each other.

PRIVATE IL AND PUBLIC IL

PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW:
That branch of International law which determines that which law is to be applied to a specific case containing a
foreign element is called Private International law.
From the above definition it is evident that private international law is to regulate those cases where a foreign
element involves in the matter and the difficulty arose that which law shall be applicable to the case, in other
words when it becomes difficult for a domestic court that the law of which state shall be applicable to a certain
case because the case contains an element of a foreign state/states law. In such a case private international law
comes to help because it determines that which law shall be applicable to a certain case.

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW:

A body of legal rules which regulates the relation of states inter se as well as their relations with other non-state
entities is said to be Public International law.
From the above definition it may be concluded that Public International law is a set of legal rules which not only
regulates the relations between the Nation States but also regulates their relations with other non-state entities.
In other words it is a body of rules which regulates the relationship of the international actors with each other.
These international actors may be given as under: States, individuals, NGO’s, IGO’s, Multi-National Corporations
and Movements.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRIVATE INTL LAW AND PUBLIC INLT LAW:

PRIVATE
It deals with the individuals of one, two or more
countries.
The rules of Private International law are the outcome
of state or state laws.
It differs from state to state.
It has been enacted by the legislature of the state or
states.
It is more civil in nature.
It is enforceable by the concerned state executive.
PUBLIC
It deals mainly with the relationship of states with
each other.
The rules of Public International law are the outcome
of International customs, treaties and other sources.
Public International law is same for all the states of the
world.
It comes into force of treaties, customs, international
agreements or decisions of arbitral tribunals.
It is both civil and criminal in nature.
It is enforceable by the adverse view of nation of the
word and fear of war or breakage of diplomatic
relations etc.
INTL LAW IS A TRUE LAW OR NOT
There are two School of Thoughts. One believes that the Intl. Law is a true law while the other consider it as a
Positive Morality and not a law. The two School of Thoughts are:

 John Austin View

 Prof. Oppenheim View

AUSTIN’S VIEW / POSITIVIST APPROACH / IMPERATIVE THEORY:

Austin and Thomes Hobbes insist that law is the command of a determinate superior and that constantly no law
can exist where there is no supreme law giver and no coercive enforcement. If there is no sovereign authority
then the rules could not be legal rules but rules of moral or ethical validity. Austin and his subscribers say that it is
not true law but Positive International Morality or rules of conduct of moral force only, for there is not supreme
lawgiver and no coercive enforcement in it. In that time Austin was rigid. International Law is not a true law but in
this time International Law is part of our law, and must be administrated by the courts of justice of appropriate
jurisdiction. He defines law as a Command by a Superior with a proper enforcement authority. According to him:
 Law is a Command  Law comes from Legislative
 Command by a Sovereign  Law implemented by Executive
 Back by Sanctions  Law imposed/interpreted by Judiciary

He believed that intl. law lacks element of Command and it is the law among equals that is why there is no
command. Intl. law is an auto limitation and every country accepts it according to their power and standing. Intl.
Law is based on treaties and there is no legislative body to it.
Here the important point to note down is that the time John Austin presented his point of view, there was no
concept of UNITED NATIONS. It was before the creation of UN.

PROF. OPPENHEIM VIEW:

Prof. Oppenheim presented the other side of the definition of law. According to him a Law is created by a
community with mutual consent and that community regulates the law by itself. To rebuttal Austin point of view
about the bodies for legislature, executing and judiciary, he presented General Assembly as Legislative body,
UNSC as Executive Body and ICJ as judicial organ of International Community.
He believed that Law is permissive in nature and that is why every law is not a command and mostly people obey
the law because of the sentiments of people and opinion. He believed that the Nation States is the community
and treaties show the consent of the community.
 Community  General Assembly
 Consent of community  Security Council
 Rules regulating the community  Intl Court of Justice

CONCLUSION:
International law (keeping in view of complex global community) is a very weak law because international Politics
cannot be separated from international law. In developed countries it is about wish and will. It is also a weak law
because its violation is more than its implementation.
EVOLUTION OF INTL. LAW
1. FIRST STAGE: (ANCIENT AND PRIMITIVE PERIOD)
 EGYPTIAN CIVILIZATION/BABYLONIAN
In thirteenth century B. C. a contract took place between Egyptian and Syrian King after a war. It was
consisted on conditions of peace & co-operation and land acquisition. It was written on silver plate.
o They used to send diplomats and recorded to respect the diplomats.
o Law is customary in nature. The Example of customary IL nature is diplomatic Values.
o There was also diplomatic representation and respect of same race and same religion.
o Disputes were settled with arbitration. There was tradition of asylum in that age.

 GREEK CIVILIZATION
Greek nation was reluctant to maintain relationship with non-Greeks. They were habitant to make slaves
others. They had thought that only Greeks are born to be rulers. In words of Aristotle, “nature has created
non-Greeks only for to be slaves.” States either democratic or imperial had mutual relationship and rules and
regulations among them.
o They created city states called “POLIS” and had a rough form of IL called “JUS JENTIUM”.
o They had different law for their own citizens called “JUS CIVILLE”.
o They applied rules relating with peace and war.

2. SECOND STAGE: (AGE RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS CAME INTO FORCE)

 ROMAN PERIOD
After the evaluation of big state founded, Relations were developed with Persia while making the treaties
with others. Romans were taken into consideration.
o They made a treaty for common defense of states. Non-member states could not enjoy such facility. War
was formerly declared.
o Treaties were taken into consideration without which existence was impossible. Principles they had
formed played an important role in International Law even today.
They had nothing to contribute to international law due to the reason that they kept them from development.
They created the HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE and were the supporters of Imperialism.
o Roman emperors used to bribe the clergy for the decision in their favour.
o Supremacy of the church and Feudalism and One Holy Roman Empire had all of the Europe.
o One Monarchy consequently couldn’t develop Intl Law.

 CHRISTIAN PERIOD
This era eliminated the question of International Law. Christian priests declared all the agreements prohibited
with Muslims from religious point of view. The crusades were remaining in operation till long. Despite of the
fact, agreements were made.

 ISLAMIC INFLUENCE:
They founded state, which became first Islamic State over the global map (Atlas). Muslims were martyred and
concurred in wars. Moral values were taken into consideration. Killing of women, children, and aged people (if
they remain peaceful), transgression of limits, devastation of crops, destruction of buildings and houses, ruin
of gardens, killing of animals, and arson of public places became prohibited. Weaker people were remitted.
Muslims were spread over from east to west. One the basis of last sermon of Prophet SAW, The universal
declaration of Human Rights and international humanitarian law is established.
3. THIRD STAGE: (13 th
and 14th Century)
 Development of Sea Trade  League of Trading Nations

 Renaissance and Custom of standing armies (as there were mercenaries before)
 The Custom of keeping and receiving permanent diplomatic missions (The major Merchant used to be on
diplomatic Mission)

4. FOURTH STAGE
It was the time of HUGO GROTIUS and TREATY OF WESTPHALIA(1625).

Hugo Grotius was a Dutch Scholar who wrote a book “THE LAW OF WAR AND PEACE”. It is the first ever book on
the International Relations and Law.
The Treaty of Westphalia brought end to the 30 years of wars. Sovereign nations were emerged. It was the first
attempt to make an international organization.

5. FIFTH STAGE
It was the 19TH Century Period.
 The Congress of Vienna 1850, Regarding Diplomatic relations, Legitimacy and sea navigation.
 Geneva Convention on Law of War 1863 (Non Combatants).
 Paris Convention of rules of war 1850 and rules of Sea Warfare.
 Alabama Arbitration Case 1872.

6. SIXTH STAGE
It was the 20th Century Period.
 League of Nation
 United Nations
 WWI/WWII
 International Humanitarian Law
SOURCES OF LAW
1. Formal sources
2. Material source

FORMAL SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

 Legal procedures
 Methods for the creation of rules of general application, which are legally binding on the addressees.
 Parliament rules
 Decisions of the International Courts,
 Unanimous resolutions of General Assembly

MATERIAL SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

 Customs.  Decision of judicial or arbitrate tribunals,
 Treaties.  Juristic work.

 Decision or determinations of the organs of international institutions.

CUSTOMS
Most part of International Law consists of customary rules. Article 38 refers to “international custom, as evidence
of general practice accepted as law” and briefly remarks that “what is sought for is a general recognition among
states of a certain practice as obligatory.” The international community evolves it after long historical process
achieved recognition. A custom in the intendment of law is such a usage, as hath obtained the force of law.
 DIPLOMATIC REGULATIONS BETWEEN STATES: There are the acts or declarations by statesmen, opinions of
legal advisors to state government, bilateral treaties, and now press releases or official statements by govt.
spokesmen may all constitute evidence of usage followed by states.
 PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANS: Conduct or declaration of international organs such as ILO who has
power to regulate internationally the conditions of labour of persons employed in an international disputes
and UNO are the good example of practice of international organs.
 STATE LAWS, DECISIONS OF STATE COURTS and STATE MILITARY OR ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES: A British
vessel Scotia was collided in mid-ocean with the American vessel Berkshire, which was not carrying the lights
required by the new law. As a result, the Berkshire sank. It was questioned that whether the old law of Britain
or new customary rules should decide this matter or International Law evolved through the wide spread
adoption of the British regulations. It was held that new law would govern the dispute.

TREATIES:
‘LAW MAKING’ treaties lay down rules of universal or general application. These are of two types.
o Enunciating rules of universal International Law, e.g., the United Nations Charter.
o Laying down general or fairly general rule.
‘TREATY CONTRACTS’ is a treaty between two or few states dealing with special matter concerning with these
states exclusively. Examples of treaty contracts are CETO, CENTO, WARSA PACT, SAARC etc.

DECISIONS OF JUDICIAL OR ARBITRAL TRIBUNALS

Decisions of courts and tribunals are a subsidiary and indirect source of International Law. Article 38 of the Statute
of International Court of Justice provides that, subject to certain limitations, the Court shall apply judicial decisions
as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. They are not strictly speaking a formal source, but in
the some instances  at least they are regarded as authoritative evidence of the state of the law and the practical
significance of the label “subsidiary means” in Article 38(1)(d) is not to be exaggerated (overstated or distorted).
Under Article 59 of its Statute the courts decisions were to have “no binding force except between the parties and
in respect of that particular case.”
JURISTIC WORK
The Statute of the International Court of Justice includes among “the teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations.” These opinions are used widely. It is indicative of the present potentialities of
that particular source that the Court has so far found no occasion to rely on it. No doubt that juristic work played
very important role in the development of International Law, but juristic works are not an independent “source”
of law, although sometimes juristic opinion does lead to the formation of International Law. According to experts,
juristic opinion is only important as a mean of throwing light on the rules of International Law and rendering their
formation easier.

DECISIONS OR DETERMINATIONS OF THE ORGANS OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Decisions and determinations of the organs of international institutions or international conferences, may lead to
the formation of rules of International Law in a number of different way. They may represent intermediate or final
steps in the evolution of customary rules. Declaration of Charter of General Assembly and Elimination of All Forms
of Racial Discriminations are the examples of decisions of international organs. Resolution of the organs may
formulate principles or regulations for the internal working of the institutions may have full legal effect and
binding on members. Some organs are empowered to give general decisions or directives of quasi-legislative
effect, binding on all whom they are addressed. If the embassy is on fire, can a host State allow to her army to
enter in an embassy? However half of the population may affect from the incidence, army cannot cross the doors
of an embassy, without permission. IL says let the population burns out but army is not allowed to enter in.

PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. DOCTRINE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
Theory of Fundamental Rights is based upon the thoughts of pre-historic era. However state being a
separate entity has some Fundamental Rights which include integrity, equality, liberty, respect, and mutual
co-operation. Theory of Fundamental Rights has played an important role in the development of
International Law. Relationship of states is based upon the alliance and mutual co-operation. If states don’t
observe Fundamental Rights then peace of world can’t come into force.
2. CONSENT THEORY
Oppenheim propounded (introduced, proposed, presented) this consent theory. According to him
International Law is collection of rules which states feel to observe them and recognize them with mutual
consent. If they don’t agree upon certain law, then no law can be developed. It exists either in customary
law or conventional law, in both cases it is consent. Customary laws are developed with mutual consents of
states. They are bound to observe them in different ways and act upon. With the passage of time its roots
got strengthen and applied on different states. It was recognized compulsorily. Now the consent of state
became unimportant whether it will be applied on it. The customary rules of International Law have grown
up by common consent of the states, i.e., the different states have acted in such a manner as to imply their
implied consent to these rules. The intercourse of states with each other necessitated some rules of
international conduct. Now states, which come into existence and are admitted into the Family of Nations
through express or implied recognition thereby, consented to the body of rules for international conduct in
force at the time of their admittance. It is therefore not necessary to prove for every single rule of
International Law that every single member of the international community has consented on it.
TREATY
 Oppenheim: Treaties are agreements of a contractual character between states or organizations of states,
creating legal rights and duties or obligations between the parties.
 Sehwarzanberger: Sehwarzanberger states that treaties are agreements between subjects of International
Law creating a binding obligation in International Law.
 Vienna Convention 1969: In is convention, treaty is defined as “an agreement concluded between states in
writing form and governed by International Law.”

TYPES OF TREATIES
Treaties may be bilateral or multilateral and also may be law making treaties or treaty contracts.

1. LAW MAKING TREATIES:

 Either of declaring their understanding of what the law is on a particular subject, or
 Of laying down a new general rule for future conduct, or
 Of creating some international institutions.

Adopted by all or most of the great states:

A treaty should be adopted by all or most of the great states as then the rules approved by such states “have very
great weight in practice even among states which have never expressly conducted to them.”
General norms for the future conduct: Treaties create “general norms” for the future conduct of the parties in
terms of legal proposition.
Direct source of International Law : The provisions of a lawmaking treaty is direct a source of IL. This is not so with
treaty contracts which simply purport to lay down special obligations between parties only.
International Legislation: There is no legislative organ in the field of IL comparable to legislature within the state,
but the lawmaking treaties fulfill the gap quite sufficiently and are labeled as Intl Legislation.
Example of lawmaking treaties:
 Declaration of Paris 1856.
 The Geneva Convention of 1864, 1906, 1929, & 1949.
 The Suez Canal Convention 1888.
 Hague Conventions of 1899 & 1907.
 The Convention of the League of Nations 1919.
 A great treaty for the renunciation of war and the charter of the United Nations 1945.

2. TREATY CONTRACTS
INDIRECT SOURCE: In contrast to lawmaking treaties, treaty contracts are not directly a source of IL. They may,
however, as between the parties of signatories thereto, constitute particular law.
LEAD TO THE FORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: Such treaties lead also to the formation of International Law
through operation of the principles governing the development of customary rules.
A SERIES OR RECURRENCE (REAPPEARANCE, RETURN) OF TREATY CONTRACTS: A series or a recurrence of
treaties laying down similar rule may produce a principle of customary Intl Law to same effect.
GENERALIZED BY SUBSEQUENT ACCEPTANCE OR IMITATION:
It may happen with a treaty originally concluded between a limited number of parties only that a rule in it be
generalized by subsequent independent acceptance or imitation of other states.
CRYSTALLIZED INTO LAW BY INDEPENDENT PROCESS OF DEVELOPMENT:
A treaty may be of considerable evidence such as to the existence of a rule which has crystallized into law by an
independent process of development.

IMPORTANCE OF TREATIES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW:

1. Industrial and economic changes: Modern industrial and economic changes have brought states into closer
intercourse with each other which can be regularized only by treaties.
2. To meet the urgent demands: The lawmaking treaties are the only source by which IL can meet urgent
demands of international society of states for regularization of the common interests.
3. Effective regulation of international communication, trade, travel etc.: Treaties effectively regulate the
international communications, trade, travel, and other important activities.

TERMINATION OF TREATIES BY ACT OF PARTIES

1. By mutual agreement: By mutual agreement in the same way as they concluded it.
2. By denunciation (charge, blame): A party may terminate its treaty obligations by act of denunciation if this
right was provided in treaty or with consent of other parties if it is not provided in the treaty.

TERMINATION OF TREATIES BY OPERATION OF LAW

1. Extinction of either party: Extinction of either party to a bilateral treaty may discharge the instrument. Thus
treaty between USA & Tripoli ceased to exist when Italy annexed latter in 1912.
2. Expiration of the specified period: A treaty specifically concluded for a fixed period of time.
3. Fulfillment of the object: In case of treaties imposing no continuing obligation, they cease to operate on the
fulfillment of the object.
4. Non-performance of certain essential conditions: If a treaty is conditioned on the happening of a certain
event or on performance of certain act, the treaty will be not operative until such happening or performance
& if a performance becomes impossible the treaty will become void.
5. Obligations incompatible with the charter of UN: Article 103 of the charter specifically provides that in the
event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the UN and their obligations under any other
agreement, their obligations under the charter shall prevail.
6. Impossibility of performance: When the performance of obligations imposed becomes impossible.
7. Outbreak of war: Treaties may come to an end on the outbreak of war between the parties. The modern
view, however, is that the outbreak of war does not necessarily bring a treaty to an end.
8. Number less than required for convention: If successive denunciation (charge, blame) of a treaty reduces
states parties to less than number provided for by convention, treaty ceases to be in force.
9. Doctrine of rebus sics stantibus (major change in the state of fact): Treaties may be discharged as a result of
the rebus sics stantibus doctrine. According to this doctrine a treaty may become null and void in case there is
a fundamental change in the state of facts which existed at the time, when treaty was concluded.
10. Doctrine of jus cogen: According to this doctrine, a treaty may be declared void if it conflicts with peremptory
(authoritative) norms of general IL. Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 lays
down, that a treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, if conflicts with a peremptory norm of general IL.

RATIFICATION OF A TREATY
It is an act of adopting an international treaty by the parties thereto. In other words, “ratification” implies the
confirmation of the treaty entered into by the representatives of the different states.
J.G. Starke: In theory, ratification is the approval by the Head of State or the government of the signature
appended to the treaty by the duly appointed plenipotentiary.
Rational grounds for ratification: The practice of ratification rests on the following rational grounds:
1. Opportunity of re-examining: States are entitled to have an opportunity of re-examining and reviewing
instruments signed by their delegates before undertaking obligations specified therein.
2. Sovereignty: A state is entitled to withdraw from participation in any treaty if it desires.
3. Approval of parliament: The time between the signature and actual ratification affords an opportunity to
obtain the approval of parliament.
4. Consult public opinion: It also gives the government an opportunity to consult public opinion.

CONCLUSION OF TREATIES
1. Accrediting (charge, assign) of representatives: Once a state has decided to commence negotiations with
another state or other states for a particular treaty, the first step in the appointing representatives of a state
is provided with a very formal instrument given by the Head of State. It shows his authority to conduct such
negotiations, which is known as the Full Power.
2. Negotiation: The plenipotentiaries exchange their full powers or a copy thereof before entering upon their
task. They then proceed with negotiation. In case of bilateral treaties negotiations are conducted through
pour-parlors but they take shape of diplomatic conference when multilateral treaty is to be adopted.
3. Signature: The signature is affixed at a formal closing session. A treaty generally comes into force on signature
by ministers of the contracting states unless states desire to subject it to ratification. Treaties and conventions
are generally always sealed.
4. Ratification: The delegates who signed the treaty or convention refer it back to their governments for
approval if such further act of confirmation be expressly or implied is necessary.
5. Accession and adhesions: A third state can become a party to an already existing treaty by means of
accession. This may be brought about by formal entrance of the third state with the consent of the original
contracting parties. Adhesion denotes the entrance of a third State into an existing treaty with regard to
certain stipulations or certain principles only embodied in the treaty.
6. Entry into force: The treaty, unless where ratification is necessary, comes into force on the date of signature.
In case of ratification the treaty comes into force after the exchange or deposit of ratification by the state
signatories. Multilateral treaties come into operation on the deposit of a prescribed number of ratification
and accessions.
7. Registration and publication: Article 102 of the UN Charter provides that treaties and international
agreements entered into by members of the United Nations Organization shall “as soon as possible” be
registered with the secretariat of the organization and be published by it.
8. Incorporation in Municipal Law: The final stage of the treaty making process is the actual incorporation,
where necessary of the treaty provisions in the municipal law of the state parties.

RULES FOR INTERPRETATION OF TREATIES

1. Grammatical interpretation: Words and phrases are in the first instance to be construed according to their
plain and natural meaning. However if the grammatical interpretation would result in an absurdity, or in
marked inconsistency with other portions of the treaty, it should not be adopted.
2. Intention of the parties: It is legitimate to consider what was the “purpose” or “plan” of the parties in
negotiating the treaty. What must be ascertained is the ostensible intention of the parties, as disclosed in the
Four Corners of the actual text.
3. Object and context of treaty: If particular words and phrases in a treaty are doubtful, their construction
should be governed by the general object of the treaty and by the context.
4. Reasonableness and consistency: Treaties should be given an interpretation in which the reasonable meaning
of words and phrases is preferred, and in which a consistent meaning is given to different portion of the
instrument. In accordance with principle of consistency, treaties should be interpreted in light of existing IL.
5. The principle of effectiveness: This principle requires that the treaty should be given an interpretation which
“on the whole” will render the treaty “most effective and useful”, in other words enabling the provisions of
the treaty to work and to have their appropriate effects.
6. Recourse (support) to extrinsic (foreign, external) material: Normally, the interpreting tribunal is limited to
context of treaty but following may be resorted to, provided that clear words are not thereby contradicted:
 Past history, and historical usage, relevant to the treaty.
 Preparation work, i.e., preliminary drafts, records, etc.
  Interpretative protocols, resolution, and committee reports, setting out agreed interpretations.
 Subsequent conduct of state parties, as evidencing intention of parties and their conception of the treaty.
 Reservations and Notes.

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE
1. The dispute must be between states.
2. The disputes must relate to reasonable well-defined subject matter.
3. The dispute must lead to some action by the aggrieved state.

KINDS OF SETTLEMENT
AMICABLE OR PEACEFUL SOURCES OF SETTLEMENT:
1. NEGOTIATION
The term negotiation signifies intercourse between states for the purpose of arriving at a settlement of the
dispute. According to Starke, full fledge sovereign states alone are the regular parties to international
negotiation. Such negotiations are carried on either by the heads of the states or by their accredited
(recognized, accepted, admitted) agent. There are many international transactions but negotiation is the most
important. Negotiation is conducted:
(1) With a view to reaching an agreement.
(2) Conferring, discussing, or bargaining to reach an agreement.
Case: Permanent International Court of Justice in the case of Railway Traffic v Lithuania and Poland, and in the
case of North Sea Continental Shelf, emphasized on the obligation of the parties to negotiate and to purge
them as for as possible with a view to concluding agreement. The various attempts made by India and
Pakistan to settle some of their outstanding differences by exchange of note, such as, Indo-Pak Agreement on
Minorities, 1950 and Indo-Pak Water Treaty, 1960.

2. ENQUIRY
Enquiry is also a method of amicable means of international disputes whereby facts are investigated. It may
be noted that it is not an independent method and often used along-with other methods. In case of
navigation disputes, enquiry report is sent to UN. The main object of enquiry is to make investigation of the
relevant matters so as to establish fact, which may help the ultimate solution of the problem. For example,
often Enquiry Commission is appointed in relation to the settlement of boarder disputes. The commission
clarifies the facts after making enquiry into the relevant facts, for example, North Sea incident enquiry.

3. GOOD OFFICES
When two states are not able to resolve their disputes, a third state may come forward and tender its good
offices for the purpose of conciliation. International organization or some individuals may also offer these
offices. The third state creates such an environment as may be conducive for the settlement of disputes.
Some general suggestions may also be put forward but the third party does not take active part in the
negotiation. Certain examples can be referred in this regard such as:
(1) Role-played by the Russian Prime Minister Kosigin at Tashkent between India and Pakistan.
(2) Settlement of Shaat-al-Arab River boundary between Iraq and Iran in 1975 through good offices.
(3) UN SG offered its good offices in disputes between Indonesia and Netherlands in 1947.
(4) France offered its good offices to end the Vietnam War.

4. MEDIATION (REFLECTION, CONSIDERATION)

In the case of mediation third party not only offers its services but also actively participates in the talk to resolve
the disputes. The suggestions of mediators are not binding and parties are free to accept, reject, or modify them
according to their own reservations.
Role of American President Roosevelt, as a mediator in the Russia-Japanese War is good example of this sort of
peaceful settlement. Also Pakistan offered to America Government to play role of mediator between India and
Pakistan to settle Kashmir dispute.
5. CONCILIATION
It implies various methods adopted by a third party to amicably settlement between two or more states. Often
matter is referred to a commission or committee, which submits its report and recommends certain measures for
the settlement of disputes. These proposals are, however, not binding upon parties. In the words judge Hudson,
conciliation is “a process of formal proposals of settlement after an investigation of facts and an effort to re-
conciliate to accept or reject proposals formulated.”
Example: The 1965 Convention of the Settlement of investment disputes between states and the national of other
states which provides for conciliation commission for the settlement of dispute.

6. ARBITRATION
This is very important method of resolving international dispute by peaceful means. By arbitration we mean the
method through which a dispute referred to certain persons called arbitrators. Their decision is known as award.
The parties to the dispute select these arbitrators. Although they are selected or appointed on the basis of the
consent of the parties to a dispute, their decisions or awards are binding upon the parties. Article 15 of the Hague
Convention of 1899, provides, “international arbitrator has for its object the settlement of differences between
states by judges of their own choice and on basis of respect for law.” Following examples can be put to clarify the
importance of arbitration:
(1) Argentina - Chile Frontier Arbitration.
(2) Run of Kutch Arbitration.
(3) Alabama Claims Arbitration, 1872.
(4) The most important decision or award given by permanent Court of arbitration are:

(i) Mascot - Dhouis Case, 1905.

(ii) North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case, 1910.
(iii) Savarkar Case, 1911.

7. JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT
At present International Court of Justice occupies the most important place so far as the settlement of
international disputes through judicial process is concerned. Article 38 of the statute of International Court of
Justice enunciates that the function of the Court is to decide in accordance with the International Law, such
disputes as are submitted to it and represented by the states. The decisions of International Court of Justice
have not binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular matter. Following are the
good examples of the judicial settlement:
 Settlement of I. D. Anglo Iranian Oil Dispute, 1953.
 Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case, 1951.

8. UNDER THE AUSPICES (MEDIUM, MEANS, POWER, INSTRUMENT) OF UN ORGANIZATION :

As successor to the League of Nations, the United Nations Organization, created in 1945, has taken over the bulk
of the responsibility for adjusting international disputes. One of the fundamental objects of the Organization is
the peaceful settlement of differences between states, and by article 2 of the United Nations Charter, Members of
the Organization have undertaken to settle their disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from threats of war or
the use of force. The General Assembly is given authority, subject to the peace enforcement powers of the
Security Council, to recommend measures for the peaceful adjustment of any situation, which is likely to impair
general welfare of friendly relations among nations.

TERRITORY
MODES OF ACQUIRING TERRITORY
1. OCCUPATION
Occupation is the intentionally acquiring sovereignty over such territory not under the sovereignty of another
State. Discovery of new land gives a good title over it. Example: Australia, America, Canada etc. New land
occupied should be open, public and the State authority over it should be for a long continuous period.
Forceful occupation does not give rightful title to the occupier. Example: Iraq occupying Kuwait. Related Cases
 Island of Palmas Arbitration (22 AJIL (1928) 379)
 Eastern Greenland Case (PCIJ 1923 Series A/B No 53
 Andaman Islands Issue: Mere proximity to the land does not give another country to claim title over it
2. PRESCRIPTION
Long, continuous, uninterrupted use and enjoyment since time immemorial gives a good title over such land.
The prescription should be public, peaceful and uninterrupted. Validity of title grows over time. Related Case
is Chamizal Arbitration (US vs. Mexico) (1911)
3. ACCRETION
Accretion is the formation of new lands (islands) because of natural acts such as volcanoes, floods etc. Related
Case is Chamizal Arbitration (US vs. Mexico) (1911).
4. CESSION
Cession is the surrender of a territory by one country to another. Cession can be voluntary or by a forceful act
(such as a war). Example is India ceased Berubari and gave it to Pakistan
5. ANNEXATION / CONQUEST
Annexation is the process of adding an additional area by a State with or without force. Examples are
 China annexed Tibet
 Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait
 Sikkim, an independent country, voted to join and get annexed with India
6. LEASE
A State can lease a part of its territory to another on some certain term. Examples are
 China leased Hong Kong to Great Britain for a period of 99 years
 Some islands of Cyprus are leased to Great Britain
7. PLEDGE
A State can pledge a land to another for a loan which should be repaid it with interest on certain date.
Example is Republic of Geneo pledged the Island of Corsica to France
8. PLEBISCITE
Plebiscite is a decree of the people to join a territory with another State. Example is Maharaja of Kashmir
made a treaty to add Kashmir to India but Pakistan claimed Plebiscite
9. PURCHASE
 Purchase is the process of paying money or another territory by one country with another. Example is Soviet
Russia sold Alaska to USA
10. NEWLY BORN STATES
Sometimes territories get separated and they themselves declare independence. Examples are
 Soviet Russia split into many individual countries
 Bangladesh declared its independence
11. AGREEMENTS
Colonies, as seen in those of Great Britain, declare independence by way of an agreement

MODES OF LOSING TERRITORY

1. CESSION
It is a Process in which a state loses a part of its territory which is not acquired by another state. Losing part,
after severance, will gain a new and a separate international personality. Peaceful secession: Latvia, Lithuania,
Estonia etc. became independent from USSR. Secession by revolt: Bangladesh separated from Pakistan.
2. SUBJUGATION
Subjugation is the process in which one group of people dominates another group by taking away their
freedom. Sometimes, it involves defeating the other by using force. It is after annexation.
3. OPERATION OF NATURE
It is mainly because of earthquakes or the change of the course of rivers.
4. PRESCRIPTION
Acquisition of sovereignty over a territory through continuous and undisputed exercise of sovereignty over it
during such a period as is necessary to create under the influence of historical development the general
conviction that the present condition of things is in conformity with international order.
5. OCCUPATION
It is taking possession of a newly discovered or conquered country with the intention of holding and ruling it.
6. DERELICTION / ABANDONMENT / RELINQUISHMENT
An owner relinquishes / frees a territory and releases the sovereign rights over it. Two essential events:
 First: Abandonment of a territory
 Second: Intention of giving up sovereignty over it
7. REVOLT
Granting of independence
 This is generally done to a colony by the imperialist / metropolitan state
 A state loses territory without acquisition by another state
 Colonies generally acquire new and separate international personality after severance
8. LEASE
9. PLEDGE
10. PLEBISCITE
Plebiscite is the vote of the entire people, (that is, the aggregate of the enfranchised individuals composing a
state or nation,) expressing their choice to join or merge with another territory.
11. SELLING
Selling of Louisiana from France to USA
12. VANISHMENT / DISAPPEARANCE
Natural calamities such as earthquakes and volcanoes might result in the loss of territories, particularly those
of islands. A 25 km radius island called Ghormara Island near West Bengal, India was lost due to soil erosion.
STATE
DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENTS OF STATEHOOD
There is no exact definition of the term “State” in International Law. However in this law, the essential criteria for
statehood are well settled.  Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933
provides the following: 
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications:
 A permanent population;
 A defined territory;
 Government; and
 Capacity to enter into relations with other states

1. A PERMANENT POPULATION
The existence of a permanent population is naturally required as an initial evidence of the existence of a
State.  This requirement suggests a stable community.  Evidentially it is important, since in the absence of the
physical basis for an organized community, it will be difficult to establish the existence of a State. The size of
the population, however, is not relevant since International Law does not specify the minimum number of
inhabitants as a requirement of statehood.  Nevertheless, an acceptable minimum number of inhabitants is
required with regard to self-determination criterion.
2. A DEFINED TERRITORY
The requirement of a permanent population is intended to be used in association with that of territory.   What
is required by a defined territory is that there must be a certain portion of land inhabited by a stable
community.  A defined territory does not suggests that the territory must be fixed and the boundaries be
settled since these are not essential to the existence of a State, although in fact all modern States are
contained within territorial limits or boundaries.
The past practice shows that the existence of fully defined boundaries is not required and that what matters is
the existence of an effective political authority having control over a particular portion of land.   In 1913,
Albania was recognized as a State by a number of States even though it lacked settled boundaries, and Israel
was admitted to the United Nations as a State in spite of disputes over its existence and territorial delineation.
The existence of a particular territory over which a political authority operates is essential for the existence of
a State.  For this reason, the “State of Palestine” declared in November 1988 at the conference of Algiers was
not legally regarded as a valid State since the Palestine Liberation Organization had have no control over any
part of the territory it was claiming. A State continues to exist as long as a portion of land is retained.
3. A GOVERNMENT
For a stable community to function reasonably effectively, it needs some sort of political organization. It is
required that an effective government be created, and this political authority must be strong enough to assert
itself throughout the territory of the State without a foreign assistance.  The existence of an effective
government, with some sort of centralized administrative and legislative organs, assures the internal stability
of the State and of its ability to fulfill its international obligations.
However, the requirement related to the existence of an effective government having control throughout its
territory although strictly applied in the past practice, it has been subjected to certain modification in modern
 practice.  In certain cases, the requirement of an effective government was not regarded as precondition for
recognition as an independent State.  The State of Croatia and the State of Bosnia and Herzegovina were
recognized as independent States by the member States of the European Community, and admitted to
membership of the United Nations at a time when substantial areas of the territories of each of them,
because of the civil war situations, were outside the control of each government. In other cases, the
requirement of an organized government was unnecessary or insufficient to support statehood.
4. A CAPACITY TO ENTER INTO RELATIONS WITH OTHER STATES
The capacity to enter into relations with other States is an attribute of the existence of an international legal
personality. A State must have recognized capacity to maintain external relations with other States.  Such
capacity is essential for a sovereign State; lack of such capacity will avert the entity from being an
independent State.  Capacity distinguishes States from lesser entities such as members of federation or
protectorates, which do not manage their own foreign affairs, and are not recognized by other States as full-
members of the international community.
5. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
 Independence  Self-determination
 Sovereignty  Recognition

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF A STATE

Rights and duties of a State have been the primary concern of International Law.  The formulation of a list of the
so-called fundamental or basic rights and duties of a State has been a persistent preoccupation of international
conferences and bodies.  The Montevideo Convention of 1933 on the Rights and Duties of States was the first
attempt in the process of such formulation. This attempt was followed by the preparation of the International Law
Commission of the United Nation “the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States of 1949”, and the
adoption of the General Assembly of the United Nations the Resolution 2625 of 1970 entitled the “Declaration on
Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States in Accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations.”

RIGHTS OF A STATE
The rights of a State are those inherent rights which a State is entitled to under International law.   These rights
exist by virtue of the international legal order, which is able to define the rights of its subjects.

1. THE RIGHT OF INDEPENDENCE

Apart of being a requirement of statehood as mentioned previously, independence is an outstanding
fundamental right of a State. Independence as defined by the Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of
States of 1949 is the capacity of a State to provide for its own well-being and development free from the
domination of other states. However, any political or economic dependence that may in reality exist does not
affect the legal independence of the State, unless that State is formally compelled to submit to the demands
of a superior State, in such a case a dependent Status is involved. The right of independence in International
Law includes a number of rights, such as, the right of territorial integrity, and the right to have an exclusive
control over own domestic affairs.
2. THE RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY
The right of sovereignty is a fundamental right of a State. All States must enjoy such right.   Sovereignty has
twofold meaning. Firstly, sovereignty means that a State has the supreme undivided authority over its
territory--this concept of sovereignty is known as territorial sovereignty.  Secondly, sovereignty means the
capacity of a State to enter into relations with other States, such as sending and receiving diplomats and
engaging in treaty making, and the enjoyment of certain immunities and privileges from the jurisdiction of
other States--this concept is connected with the concept of international personality.
3. THE RIGHT OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
The Right of Territorial Jurisdiction is derived from the right of sovereignty.  This right entitles a State to have
the absolute and exclusive authority over all persons, property and events within the limits of its national
 territory.  This authority implies jurisdiction of the State to enact the law, to enforce the law and to adjudicate
persons and events within its territorial land, its internal and territorial water, and national air space.
4. THE RIGHT OF SOVEREIGN EQUALITY
Sovereign equality means that all State have equal rights and duties, have the same juridical capacities and
functions, and are equal members of the international community, notwithstanding differences of an
economic, social, political or other nature. Sovereign equality is mentioned in the Charter of the United
Nations as the principle on which this Organization is based.
5. THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE
The right of self-defense to which a State is entitled is recognized by Customary International Law as well as
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.  However, this right cannot be exercised by a State unless an
armed attack occurs against it and until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security.  In invoking this right, the State must comply with the requirements of
Customary Law, which are the use of peaceful procedures—if they are available, necessity and
proportionality.

DUTIES OF A STATE  
In correlation to the rights of the States, there are duties binding the States.   All States are bound to observe their
duties under International Law.  Non-compliance of a State with its duties constitutes a violation of International
Law for which it is responsible under this Law.  Among the duties of a State are the following.

1. THE DUTY TO REFRAIN FROM THE THREAT OR USE OF  FORCE

A State is under a duty to refrain in its international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State. This duty includes within its scope certain
recognized duties, such as, the duty to refrain from propaganda for wars and aggression, the duty to refrain
from organizing or encouraging the organization of irregular forces or armed bands for incursion into the
territory of another state, the duty to refrain from organizing, assisting or participating in acts of civil strife or
terrorist act in another State and the duty to refrain from forcible action which derives peoples from their
rights to self-determination, freedom and independence. However, the use of force is accepted and
considered lawful under International Law only if it is exercised in case of self-defense and in accordance with
the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
2. THE DUTY TO SETTLE INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES BY PEACEFUL MEANS
A State is under a duty to settle its international disputes with other States by peaceful means in such a
manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered.  The Charter of the United Nations,
in Chapter 6, provided the machinery for the fulfillment of this duty by the States. Accordingly, States must
seek a just settlement of its international dispute by any of the peaceful means stated in the Charter or by any
peaceful means agreed upon by them.   In case of their failure to reach a peaceful settlement by themselves,
they are under a duty to comply with the actions taken by the United Nations.
3. THE DUTY NOT TO INTERVENE IN THE AFFAIRS OF OTHER STATES
A State is under a duty not to intervene, directly or indirectly, for whatever reason, in the internal or external
affairs of any other State. It constitutes a violation of International Law any use, encourage the use or threat
to use of military, economic, political or any other form of intervention against a State or against its political,
economic and cultural elements.
4. THE DUTY TO CO-OPERATE WITH ONE ANOTHER
A State is under a duty to co-operate with other States, irrespective of the differences in their political,
economic and social systems, in various spheres of international relations, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations.  Accordingly, a State should co-operate with other States in the economic, social, cultural,
educational and scientific fields, as well as, in fields of peace and security, and human rights and freedoms.
5. THE DUTY OF A STATE TO FULFILL ITS OBLIGATIONS IN GOOD FAITH
A State is under a duty to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by it under the Charter of the United
Nations and the International Law, including international treaties.  The concept of good faith implies that a
 State should perform its assumed obligations honestly, without malice and defraud, and without seeking
unconscionable advantage.

STATE JURISDICTION
State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to prescribe and enforce the rules of law.   It is
derived from the State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and central feature.  It is the authority of a State over
persons, property and events which are primarily within its territories (its land, its national airspace, and its
internal and territorial water).  This authority involves the powers to prescribe the rules of law, to enforce the
prescribed rules of law and to adjudicate.  The powers related to State jurisdiction raise the question regarding
the types and forms of State Jurisdiction. 

State jurisdiction may extend beyond its territory over persons and things which have a national link.   This
extension raises the question regarding the grounds or the principles upon which the State can assert its
jurisdiction within and beyond its boundaries.

Nevertheless, there are certain persons, property and events within a State territory which are immune from its
jurisdiction.  This limitation to a State jurisdiction raises a question regarding the immunity from jurisdiction. 

TYPES OF STATE JURISDICTION:

State jurisdiction implies the competence to prescribe rules of law, the jurisdiction to enforce the prescribed rules
of law and the jurisdiction to adjudicate accordingly, it is of three types: legislative jurisdiction, executive
jurisdiction and judicial jurisdiction.

1. LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION
Legislative jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to prescribe rules of law (the power to legislate).   A State has
the supremacy to make binding laws within its territory. It has a legislative exclusivity in many areas.   This
supremacy is entrusted to constitutionally recognized organs. Although legislation is primarily enforceable
within a State territory, it may extend beyond its territory in certain circumstances.  International Law, for
example, accepts that a State may levy taxes against persons not within its territory as long as there is a real
link between the State and the proposed taxpayer, whether it is nationality or domicile. The question of how
far a court will enforce foreign legislation is a matter within the field of Private International Law (conflict of
laws).  It is common practice of States that a State enforces civil laws of another State, but it is rare to enforce
the penal or taxes laws of another State. The legislative supremacy of a State within its territory is well
established in International Law. However, this supremacy may be challenged in cases where a State adopts
laws that are contrary to the rules of International Law.   In such cases, a State will be liable for a breach of
International Law.   A State may also be liable for a breach of International Law if it abuses its rights to
legislate for its nationals abroad.
2. EXECUTIVE JURISDICTION
Executive jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to act and to enforce its laws within its territory .Generally,
since States are independent of each other and possess territorial sovereignty, they have no authority to carry
out their functions on foreign territory. No State has the authority to infringe the territorial sovereignty of
another State.  In this sense, a State cannot enforce its laws upon foreign territory without the consent of the
host State; otherwise, it will be liable for a breach of International Law.
3. JUDICIAL JURISDICTION
 Judicial jurisdiction is the capacity of the courts of a State to try legal cases. A State has an exclusive authority
to create courts and assign their jurisdiction, and to lay down the procedures to be followed.   However, in
doing so, it cannot by any means alter the way in which foreign courts operate.
There are a number of principles upon which the courts of a State can claim jurisdiction.   In civil matters, the
principles range from the mere presence of the defendant in the territory of a State to the nationality and
domicile principles.  In the criminal matters, they range from the territorial principle to the universality
principle.  These principles are the subject of the following section

PRINCIPLES OF JURISDICTION:
Generally, the exercise of civil jurisdiction by courts of a State has been claimed upon far wider grounds than has
been the case in criminal matters.  The consequent reaction by other State with this regard has been much
mild.  This is partly because public opinion is far more vigorous where a person is tried in foreign territory for
criminal offences than if a person is involved in a civil case.  In addition, International Law does not impose any
restrictions on the jurisdiction of courts in civil matters. In Common Law countries such as the United States and
United Kingdom, the usual ground for jurisdiction in civil cases is the service of a writ upon the defendant within
the country, even if the presence of the defendant is temporary and incidental. In Civil Law countries, the usual
ground for jurisdiction is the habitual residence of the defendant in the country. In some countries such as
Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden, generally courts assert their jurisdiction if the defendant possesses assets in
the country; however, in matrimonial case commonly accepted ground for jurisdiction is domicile of the plaintiff.
1. THE TERRITORIAL PRINCIPLE
The territorial principle is derived from the concept of State sovereignty. It means that a State has the primary
jurisdiction over all events taking place in territory regardless of nationality of person responsible.  It is
dominant ground of jurisdiction in IL.  All other State must respect the supremacy of State over its territory,
and consequently must interfere neither in its internal affairs nor in its territorial jurisdiction.
The territorial jurisdiction of State is over its land, national airspace, internal water, territorial sea, national
aircrafts, and national vessels. It encompasses not only crimes committed on its territory but also crimes have
effects within its territory.  In such a case a concurrent jurisdiction occurs, a subjective territorial jurisdiction
may be exercised by the State in whose territory the crime was committed, and an objective territorial
jurisdiction may be exercised by the State in whose territory the crime had its effect.
Although jurisdiction is primarily and predominantly territorial, it is not exclusive.  A State is free to confer
upon other States the right to exercise certain jurisdiction within its national territory. States are free to
arrange the right of each one to exercise certain jurisdiction within each national territory.   The most
significant recent examples of such arrangements are: the 1991 France-United Kingdom Protocol Concerning
Frontier Control and Policing, under which the frontier control laws and regulations of each State are
applicable and may be enforced by its officers in the control zones of the other; the 1994 Israel-Jordan Peace
Treaty, under which the Israeli criminal laws are applicable to the Israeli nationals and the activities involving
only them in the specified areas under Jordan’s sovereignty, and measures can be taken in the areas by Israel
to enforce such laws.
2. THE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
The nationality principle implies that a State jurisdiction extends to its nationals and actions they take beyond
its territory. It is based upon the notion that the link between the State and its nationals is personal one
independent of location. Criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality principle is universally accepted.   While
Civil Law countries make extensive use of it, the Common Law countries use it with respect to major crimes
such as murder and treason. The Common law countries, however, do not challenge the extensive use of this
principle by other countries. A State may prosecute its nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the world;
the ground of this jurisdiction is known as active nationality principle. Also, it may claim jurisdiction for crimes
committed by aliens against their nationals abroad; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as passive
nationality principle. This last principle has been viewed as much weaker than the territorial or active
nationality principle as a basis for jurisdiction. It has been considered as a secondary basis for jurisdiction, and
 a matter of considerable controversy among States.  However, in recent years this principle has come to be
much acceptable by intl. community in sphere of terrorist & other internationally condemned crimes. 
3. THE PROTECTIVE PRINCIPLE
The protective principle implies that a State may exercise jurisdiction over an alien who commits an act
outside its territory, which is deemed prejudicial to its security and interests.  It is universally accepted,
although there are uncertainties as to its practical extent, particularly as regard to the acts which may come
within its domain.  It is justified on the basis of protection of State’s vital interests, particularly when the alien
commits an offence prejudicial to the State, which is not punishable under the law of the country where he
resides and extradition is refused.
Although the protective principle is used as a secondary basis for jurisdiction and in a narrower sense than the
territorial or the nationality principle, it can easily be abused, particularly in order to undermine the
jurisdiction of other States.  In practice however, this principle is applied in those cases where the acts of the
person which take place abroad constitute crimes against the sovereignty of the State, such as plots to
through a government, treason, espionage, forging a currency, economic crimes and breaking immigration
laws and regulations  .This principle is often used in treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional grounds with
regard to specific crimes, such as the 1979 Hostage Convention and 1970 Hague Aircraft Hijacking Convention.
4. THE UNIVERSALITY PRINCIPLE
The universality principle, in its broad sense, implies that a State can claim jurisdiction over certain crimes
committed by any person anywhere in the world, without any required connection to territory, nationality or
special State interest.   Before the Second World War, such universal jurisdiction has been considered as
contrary to International Law by the Common Law countries, except for acts regarded as crimes in all
countries, and crimes against the international community as a whole such as piracy and slave trade.
After the Second World War, universal jurisdiction has been universally recognized over certain acts
considered as international crimes.  International crimes are those crimes committed against the international
community as a whole or in violation of International Law and punishable under it, such as war crimes, crimes
against peace and crimes against humanity. In recent years, crimes such as Hijacking of aircraft, violation of
human rights and terrorism, have been added to the list of international crimes.
Today under the universality principle, each State and every State has jurisdiction over any of the
international crimes committed by anyone anywhere.                   

IMMUNITY FROM JURISDICTION

The concept of jurisdiction is derived from the concept of sovereignty, and is connected with the principles of
equality and non-interference in domestic affairs of other States. The grounds for jurisdiction are related to the
duty of a State under International Law to respect the territorial integrity and political independence of other
States.  Immunity from jurisdiction is grounded on this duty, and constitutes derogation from the host State
jurisdiction. Under International Law, immunity from jurisdiction is granted to certain persons, namely States
(sovereigns) and their diplomatic and consular representatives, and international organizations.  

1. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY
In International Law, sovereign immunity refers to the legal rules and principles determining the conditions
under which a State may claim exemption from the jurisdiction of another State.  Sovereign immunity is a
creation of customary International Law and derives from the principles of independence and equality of
sovereign States; since States are independent and legally equal, no State may exercise jurisdiction over
another State without its consent.  It is a limitation imposed by IL upon the sovereignty of a State.
Historically, the head of a State (a sovereign) was associated with the State. The head of a State continues
today to enjoy such absolute immunity, even for his private activities, a State nowadays enjoys only qualified
(restrictive) immunity.  Under the qualified immunity, a State enjoys immunity only in respect of its
governmental acts (acts jure imperii), not in respect of its commercial acts (acts jure gestionis).
 In practice, sovereign immunity arises on two levels. 1st level concerns immunity of a State from jurisdiction of
courts of another State; courts of a State cannot adjudicate a claim against a foreign State.   The 2nd level
concerns immunity of State from execution of enforcement measures undertaken by courts of another State.
Sovereign immunity covers the head of a State as well as the State itself, its government, its departments, and
its agencies.  It embraces the acts of these entities, their property and assets.  This immunity may, however,
be voluntarily waived by a State.  A State may waive its immunity from jurisdiction and consequently submits
itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign court. However, such submission (waiver of jurisdictional immunity),
although gives the court of a State the competence to adjudicate and enter a judgment against a foreign
State, it does not authorize the execution of the court’s decision against such State.  In case of execution,
another waiver is needed, namely a waiver of immunity from execution.  Waiver must be express; however,
implied waiver is accepted if indicated by the circumstances.
2. DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY
The rules of diplomatic immunity are the most accepted and uncontroversial rules of International Law.   They
are essential for the maintenance and efficient conduct of relations between States.  Prior to the 1961 Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic law, especially privileges and immunities were based upon
custom as well as contained in bilateral treaties and national statutes.  Nowadays, most of the modern law of
diplomatic immunity is contained in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which both codified
existing customary law and established others.
Under this convention, “a diplomatic agent” (the head of the mission and any member of the diplomatic staff
of the mission) enjoys complete immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State;  also, he enjoys
immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of real action relates to private
immovable property situated within the receiving State, action related to succession matters in which he is
involved as a private person, and action related to professional or commercial activity, in the receiving State,
outside his official functions. No measures of execution may be forced upon him, except in the above
mentioned cases. He cannot be obliged to give evidence as a witness.  His person is inviolable. He cannot be
arrested or detained.  All appropriate steps should be taken by the receiving State to protect him and prevent
any attack on his person, freedom and dignity.  He is exempt from all dues and taxes, except in certain cases.
The premises of the mission and the private residence of a diplomatic agent as well as their archives,
documents, papers, official correspondence and other property are inviolable.
A diplomatic agent enjoys immunity from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on
proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when his appointment is
notified to the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.  He also enjoys such immunity when passes through or is in the
territory of third State on proceeding to take up or to return to his post or when returning to his own country.
The immunity granted to a diplomatic agent is immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving State and not
from liability.  He is not immune from the jurisdiction of the sending State.  Moreover, he can be sued in the
receiving state after a reasonable time elapses from the ending of his mission.
The immunity of a diplomatic agent from jurisdiction of the receiving State may be waived by the sending
State.  The waiver must be express.  However, such waiver of immunity from jurisdiction does not imply
waiver of immunity in respect of the execution of a judgment; in such case, a separate waiver is
required.  Immunity may also be waived by the diplomatic agent himself, by submitting voluntarily to the
jurisdiction of the court of the receiving State.
Members of the family of a diplomatic agent, if they are not nationals of the receiving State, likewise enjoy
the same immunity from jurisdiction.  The same immunity, with certain exceptions, is enjoyed by members of
the administrative and technical staff of the mission, together with members of their families forming part of
their respective households, if they are not nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State.   Members
of the service staff who are not nationals or permanent residents of the receiving State enjoy immunity only in
respect of acts performed in the course of their official duties.
3. CONSULAR IMMUNITY
A consular officer, like a diplomatic agent, represents his State in the receiving State.  However, unlike a
diplomatic agent, he is not concerned with political relations between the two States, but with a variety of
 administrative functions, such as issuing visas and passports, looking after the commercial interests of his
State, and assisting the nationals of his State in distress.  Thus, he is not granted the same degree of immunity
from jurisdiction as a diplomatic agent. Notably nowadays, many States combine its diplomatic and consular
services.  Thus, a person who acts simultaneously as a diplomat and consul enjoys diplomatic immunity.
Under the 1963 Vienna Convention on the Consular Relations, a consular officer (the head of the consular
post and any person entrusted to exercise consular functions) is immune from an arrest or detention pending
trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority.   He is
immune from imprisonment or any other restriction on his personal freedom saves in execution of a final
judicial decision.  If criminal proceedings are instituted against him, he must appear before the competent
authorities.   The proceedings must be conducted in a manner that respects his official position and does not
hamper the exercise of consular functions, and with the minimum delay.
A consular officer is immune from the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving
State only in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.  He is exempt from all dues and
taxes, except in certain cases.  In addition, the consular premises, archives and documents are inviolable.
A consular officer enjoys the immunities from the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State on
proceeding to take up his post or, if already in its territory, from the moment when he enters on his duties.
The same immunities are enjoyed by members of the family of the consular officer from the date which he
enjoys his immunities.
The immunities of a consular officer may be waived by the sending State. The waiver must be
express.  However, the waiver of immunity from jurisdiction for the purposes of civil or administrative
proceedings does not imply waiver of immunity from the execution of a judicial decisions; in such case, a
separate waiver is required.  Immunity may also be waived by the consular officer himself, by submitting
voluntarily to the jurisdiction of the court of the receiving State.
4. IMMUNITIES OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
It is uncertain which immunities and to what extent international organizations enjoy under customary
International Law; the position of this law is far from clear.   Actually, immunities are granted to international
organizations by treaties, or by headquarters agreements concluded with the host State where the
organization is seated.
The purpose of immunity granted to international organizations is purely functional. Immunity is regarded as
functionally necessary for the fulfillment of their objectives. It is not a reflection of sovereignty, as it is in case
of a State, except only indirectly when aiming to protect interests of the member States of the organization.
Probably the most important example of treaties providing immunities to international organizations is the
1946 General Conventions on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which sets out the
immunities of the United Nations and its personnel. The United Nations enjoys complete immunity from all
legal process. Its premises, assets, archives and documents are inviolable. It is exempt from direct taxes and
customs duties. Its staff is exempt from income tax on their salaries.
The U.N Secretary General and the Assistant Secretaries General enjoy diplomatic immunity. Other staff
members enjoy limited immunities, such as immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts.
Representatives of member States attending the United Nations meetings are granted almost the same
immunities as diplomats, except their immunity from legal process applies only to their official acts.
An example of treaties providing immunities to representatives of States in international organizations is the
1975 Vienna Convention on the Representatives of States in their Relations with International Organizations
of a Universal Character.  This treaty applies to representatives of States in any international organizations of
a universal character, irrespective of whether or not there are diplomatic relations between the sending State
and the host States.
Under this treaty, the representatives of States in universal international organizations enjoy similar
immunities to those provided in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.   They enjoy immunity
from criminal jurisdiction, and immunity from civil and administrative jurisdiction in all cases, save for certain
exceptions.  The mission premises, archives, documents and correspondence are inviolable.  
SUCCESSION OF STATES
 Succession of states: By “state succession” is meant the factual situation, which arises when one state is
substituted for another over a given territory.
 M. P. Tendon: “Succession of states” means the replacement of one state by another in the responsibility for
the international relations of the territory.

Predecessor state and successor state: The state which has been replaced by another state on the occurrence of
a succession of state is termed as the “predecessor state” while the state which has replaced is called the
“successor state”.

Succession to rights and obligations: Starke mentions that we are principally conceived with the transmission of
right or obligations from states which have altered and lost that identity to other states or entities. Therefore, the
terminology “state succession” is somewhat inappropriate and the terminology “succession to right and
obligations” looks more suitable.

KINDS OF SUCCESSION:
1. UNIVERSAL SUCCESSION: Universal succession takes place when one state is completely absorbed by another
either through conquest or through voluntary merger or by breaking into independent parts.
2. PARTIAL SUCCESSION: Partial succession takes place when a part of the territory of a state, for instance,
breaks off in a result and by winning independence becomes itself a new state or when one state acquires a
part or the territory of another state, or when a protectorate becomes a full sovereign state.

STATE SUCCESSION:
1. Succession to treaty rights and obligation: There is no general rule that all treaty rights and obligations pass.
But when a treaty has acquired the force of customary International Law, it will be binding on the new state.
It seems to be a generally accepted that the legal treaties devolve automatically upon the new state, as about
boundaries; devolve automatically upon the new state, a servitude, or quasi servitude.
2. Succession to non-fiscal contractual treaties and obligations : The extent to which those pass is highly
debatable. The Successor State must respect contractual right, which is nature of acquired right. A contractual
right, which is solely of nature of claim to un-liquidated damages, does not survive the change of sovereignty.
3. Succession and concessionary contracts: The general weight of practice and opinion lies in the direction of
holding the obligation under concessionary contacts are terminated upon changes of sovereignty resulting in
the extinction of the predecessor state, unless indeed the successor state renews the concession.
4. Succession and public debts: There is a great divergence of opinion on the question whether the successor
state is obliged to take over public debts. But it appears that the most commonly applied principle is that he
who takes the benefit must also take the burden. So where an identified region has benefited by public
 expenditure to an ascertainable extent, then whoever takes over that part of the territory also takes over part
of public debt which corresponds to the benefit.
5. Succession and private or municipal law rights : Such of these rights as have crystallized into vested or
acquired rights must be respected by the successor state more especially where the former municipal law of
predecessor state has contained to operate, subject to alteration, as though to guarantee sanctity of rights.
6. Succession and claims in tort: There is no general principle of succession to edictal liabilities. According to the
principles annunciated in two well-known cases The Robert E. Brown claim and the Hawaiian claims, the
successor state is not bound to respect an un-liquidated claim for damage in tort.
7. Succession and public funds and property: It is generally recognized that the successor state takes over the
public funds and public property, whether moveable or immovable of the predecessor state.
8. Succession and nationality: The problem here is whether and to what extent the successor state can claim so
its nationals’ citizens of the predecessor state. Prima facie, person living or domiciled in the territory, subject
of change, acquires the nationality of the succession.

RECOGNITION
ACCORDING TO FENWICH: Recognition is a formal acknowledgement by an existing member of the
international community of the international personality of a state or political group not hitherto (previously,
formerly) maintaining official relations with it.
Recognition of state may be defined that the free act by which one or more states acknowledge the existence on
a definite territory of human society politically organized, independent of any other existing state which is capable
of observing the obligations of International Law. Recognition is, one of the most difficult topics, in International
Law. It is a confusing mixture of politics, International Law, and municipal law.

ELEMENTS OF NEW EMERGED STATE REQUIRING RECOGNITION:

New emerged state, which requires recognition, must have certain elements such as, population, territory,
government, sovereignty, and capability of agreement.

LEGAL NATURE OF RECOGNITION:

Recognition is as the practice of most states shows much more a question of policy then of law.

1. CONSTITUTIVE THEORY: Holland and Oppenheim: According to constitutive theory, it is act of recognition
alone which creates statehood, or which clothes a new government with authority or status in intl. sphere.
2. DECLARATORY OR EVIDENTIARY THEORY: According to this theory, statehood or the authority of a new
government exists as such prior to and independently of recognition. The act of recognition is merely a formal
acknowledgement of an established situation of fact.

GERMAN – POLISH ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL 1929:

The tribunal observed that recognition of a state is not a constitutive but merely a declaratory act inasmuch as
(because, since, due to the fact that, for the reason that) the state exists by itself. Recognition is nothing but the
ascertainment (estimation, conclusion, measurement) of that existence.

RETROACTIVE (BACKWARD) EFFECT OF RECOGNITION:

Recognition of state has retroactive effect and dates back to the time when the recognized community possesses
the necessary elements of statehood.

MODES OF RECOGNITION:
1. EXPRESS RECOGNITION:
 Recognizing state may make the act of recognition expressly through mere declaration to that effect.
Normally, when a state recognized another state or government, it says so expressly.

2. IMPLIED RECOGNITION:
Implied recognition is very much a matter of intention of the state said to have given recognition. It is
sometimes said that recognition cannot be implied from a state’s conduct unless the state intends that it
should be implied but law may deduce intentions from behavior, which are different from a state’s real
intention. It is just as a person who signs a contract without reading it will be deemed by the law to have
intended all sorts of things, which he never intended in fact. The implication is made solely when the
circumstances unequivocally (openly, frank) indicate the intention to establish formal relations with the new
state or new government. Implied recognition may be inferred from:
 Entering some form of relations with new  Participation in an international conference.
state or government.  Initiation of negotiation between a
 Common participation in multilateral treaty. recognizing and recognized state.

3. DE FACTO RECOGNITION:
Recognition de facto means that in the opinion of the recognizing state, provisionally and temporarily and
with all due reservations for the future, the state and government recognized fulfills the requirement laid
down by International Law for effective participation in the international community.
4. DE JURE RECOGNITION:
Recognition de jure means that according to the recognizing state, the state or government recognized
formally fulfills the requirements laid down by International Law for effective participation in the international
community.
5. CONDITIONAL RECOGNITION:
The grant of recognition by an existing state to a newly born state stipulated on fulfillment some conditions in
addition to the requirements of statehood is said to be conditional recognition. As for as, the recognition is
concerned it is itself conditioned with the fulfillment of the essentials of statehood, that is to say, the new
state must occupy some territory, has some population, government and sovereignty. If these requirements
have been complied with by the new state, then that should be recognized by existing states. But as far as, the
recognition is concerned it is usually based on some political considerations. So, in the pursuance of these
considerations the existing states sometimes declare recognition but stipulated with certain other conditions
for the recognized state to be fulfilled.

CONDITIONS FOR RECOGNITION:

1. Politically organized community. 4. Free and independent community.
2. Community must have a specific territory. 5. Establishment of constitutional system.
3. Strong occupation.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DE FACTO AND DE JURE RECOGNITION:

AREAS DE JURE DE FACTO
Durability De jure is permanent and durable. De facto is temporary and transitory
Revocation De jure cannot be revoked. De facto can be revoked.
Succession Legally or constitutionally recognized De facto recognition does not follow
government succeeds former government. succession.
Status State having de jure recognition can sue. State having de factor recognition
cannot sue.
Diplomatic relations De jure recognition enjoys diplomatic De facto Diplomats do not enjoy
relations and immunities as well. immunities.
 Demand of property State, which is recognized de jure, can
demand her share in state property.
Treaties State may make treaties with other states.
De facto recognition lacks demand of
property.
De facto State cannot make treaties
with other states and if so, temporarily
and with due reservations.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF RECOGNITION:

1. Right to sue: Right of suing in the courts of the recognizing state.
2. Effect on enactment: Have effect of its legislation by these courts.
3. Certain immunities: May claim immunity from suit in regard of its property and its diplomatic representatives.
4. Right to demand property: Entitles to demand and receive property.
5. Certain privileges: Privileges of membership of international community.
6. Right of treaties: Capacity to conclude treaties.
7. International obligations: Subject to various obligations under International Law.

NATIONALITY
 J. G. Starke: “Nationality” is a status of membership of collectively of individuals whose acts, decisions, and
policy are vouchsafed (accord, bestow) through legal conception of state representing those individuals.
 L. Oppenheim: Nationality of an individual is his quality of being a subject of a certain state, and therefore its
citizen. It is not for International Law but for Municipal Law to determine who is, and who is not, to be
considered a subject.

MODES OF ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY: 

1. BY BIRTH: The nationality is acquired by birth, a person becomes national of that state when he borne.
 Jus Soli: Means territory of birth, person may acquire nationality of that state, in which territory he borns.
 Jus Sanguinis: Jus Sanguinis means that the nationality of the parents at birth. Most of the states gives the
nationality to children of their nationals notwithstanding whether they born in its territory or not.
2. BY NATURALIZATION: Naturalization is an administrative act of the state conferring citizenship or
nationality on an alien. A person may acquire the nationality of a state on the following bases.
 By marriage: Many states give the right that to wife or husband of his national may assume the
nationality of his or her spouse.
 By legitimization: A person may acquire the nationality of state on application on the basis of long
residence in its territory or having the domicile of that state.
 By official grant: Nationality may be acquired by official grant of nationality on application to the state.
3. INHABITANTS OF A CONQUERED TERRITORY:  The inhabitant of a subjugated or conquered state or
territory may assume the nationality of the conquering state.
4. BY RESUMPTION: If the national of a state loses the nationality of that state on any ground, he may resume
the nationality of that state. This is called resumption of nationality.
5. INHABITANTS OF ACCEDED TERRITORY: The inhabitants of a acceded territory or state may acquire the
nationality of that state to which the territory is ceded (transferred, conveyed).
6. INHABITANTS OF A NEWLY EMERGED STATE’S TERRITORY : The inhabitants of the territory of a newly
emerged state may assume the national of that new state.

LOST OF NATIONALITY: 
1. BY RELEASE: A person may loss nationality of a particular state by release. For example, by deed signed and
registered at a consulate, or by declaration of alienate under British statute.
2. RENUNCIATION: For, example some states declare a child born of foreign parents on their territory to be
their natural born subject, although he becomes at the same time, according to the Municipal Law of the
home state of the parents. A subject of such state, give the right to such child to make, after coming of age, a
declaration that he desires to be a citizen.
3. BY DEPRIVATION: A state may deprive a person from its nationality, for example, under special
denationalization laws passed by the state of which the person concerned is a national.
4. ACCESSION OR CONQUER: Inhabitants of acceded or conquered state may lose the nationality of that
acceded state and her inhabitants.
5. SUBSTITUTION OR ACQUISITION OF OTHER STATE’S NATIONALITY:  A person may lose its prior
nationality on acquisition of other state’s nationality. According to the law of many states, the nationality of
their subject is extinguished ipso facto by their naturalization abroad.
6. SENTENCE OR PUNISHMENT: A state may deprive the person from its nationality by way of sentence or
punishment of a crime, e.g., treason etc.
7. LONG RESIDENCE ABROAD OR EXPIRATION:  A person may lose his nationality on account of long
residence abroad.

STATELESSNESS: 
Statelessness is a condition of a person having no citizenship and no official belonging to any country.
 J. Russell: It was observed by J. Russell in the case of Stoeck v The Public Trustee that statelessness is a
condition recognized by English law.
 L. Oppenheim: Oppenheim observed that “a person may be destitute of nationality knowingly or
unknowingly, intentionally or through no default of his own.” A stateless person vis-a-vis a person without
nationality is peculiarly (highly) open to persecution and general hardships.

CASES OF STATELESSNESS: 
1. By birth: Oppenheim says, that even by birth a person may be stateless. Thus an illegitimate child born
in Germany of an English mother is actually destitute of nationality, because according to German law, it does
not acquire German nationality, and according to British law, it does not acquire British nationality.
2. After birth: Statelessness may also take place after birth, i.e., by deprivation of nationality. All individuals who
have lost their original nationality without having acquired another are in fact destitute of nationality.

REMEDIAL ACTIONS FOR STATELESSNESS: 

HAGUE CONVENTION OF 1930: The Hague Convention of 1930 on the conflict of nationality laws not doubt
desired to end the state of statelessness and double nationality, but the provisions contained therein did not help
much for want of ratification on the part of the states. The convention relating to the status of stateless persons
signed in New York on September 28, 1954 conferred important benefits on stateless persons. The subject of
statelessness, and of remedial action in regard to it, has been under study by the International Law Commission,
1953, and by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

1. NATIONALITY OF A CHILD: The convention provided that a child whose parents are unknown or who have
no nationality or whose nationality is unknown is to have the nationality of the country of birth.
2. IMPOSING DUTIES UPON STATES: Statelessness can be remedied by imposing duties upon states to
regard a certain nationality as lost.
3. OBLIGING STATES TO REFRAIN FROM DENATIONALIZATION : Remedial action for the condition lies in
obliging states to refrain from denationalization measures unless there is just cause.
4. CONFERMENT (GIVING) OF NATIONALITY BY LIBERAL MINDED STATES:  Statelessness can be too
much extent remedied by conferment by liberal minded states of their nationality upon stateless persons.
5. ARTICLE 15 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS:  It is provided in Article 15 that
everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality.
6. NATURALIZATION: The process of naturalization can remedy statelessness but it can easily be happened or
done when the states will encourage it.

ASYLUM
To provide shelter and protection by a host state to a citizen of another state is called asylum.

The grant of asylum is an old international doctrine. But lacking general rules for its regulation in the premises of
international law. Asylum is the extension of shelter and protection to an alien by a sovereign in case where there
is a danger to the life of the alien or he is in fear of being prosecution in his state by the his opponent government
due to the divergent political, social or religious views as between him and his government.

The philosophy behind asylum is the generally accepted international rule that each state is sovereign in its
territorial jurisdiction. No other state has a right of jurisdiction on the territory of any state.
Asylum is granted in consideration of national security because the rebel of today may be the ruler of future. So, if
he is not given the asylum the relations may become adverse if the person, seeking asylum, comes in power in
future.
Asylum is opposite to another legal doctrine namely, extradition. In which case the person is not granted the
asylum but is handed over to the requesting state. As pointed out hereinbefore, that there is no generality of rules
on the subject of asylum in international law, even though, there are certain declarations and customs which
stress on fact that every person should be given asylum. But as such declarations are not binding in nature so the
grant of asylum is dependent totally on the discretion of the granting state.

KINDS OF ASYLUM:
 Territorial Asylum
 Extra-territorial Asylum

TERRITORIAL ASYLUM:
The grant of asylum by a state on its own territory is said to territorial asylum. As for as, every state has exclusive
right of control and jurisdiction on its territory, so it the discretion of that state weather to extradite the person or
to grant asylum to him because every state has territorial sovereignty over all persons on its territory, whether
they are its subject or aliens.

EXTRA-TERRITORIAL ASYLUM:
The grant of asylum by a state outside its own territory is said to be extra-territorial asylum. In other words the
grant of asylum on places not forming its physical territory, is said to be extra-territorial asylum. Extra-territorial
asylum may be given at any of the following places:
  ASYLUM IN LEGATION OR DIPLOMATIC ASYLUM: The grant of asylum by a state in its embassy premises
situated in foreign state is said to be asylum in legation or diplomatic asylum. It is so because the embassy
premises are considered to be excluded from the territorial jurisdiction of the state where it is situated.
 ASYLUM IN CONSULATES: In consulates also the asylum may be granted to any person in the same way as
in the case of asylum in legation premises.
 ASYLUM IN WARSHIPS: Asylum may also be granted in warships, because men of war and public vessels
of a foreign are exempted from the jurisdiction of the state in whose ports or waters may be found.
Rather, they are under the jurisdiction of the flag state.
 ASYLUM IN MERCHANT VESSELS: In merchant vessels the asylum cannot be given except where there is a
treaty between the states. The reason that merchant vessels cannot grant asylum is that, they are not
excluded from the jurisdiction of the state in whose waters or ports it is found.
 ASYLUM IN THE PREMISES OF INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: Asylum may also be granted in extreme
danger to life in the premises of international institutions.

EXTRADITION
 Lawrence: Lawrence defines extradition as “the surrender by one state to another of an individual who is
found within the territory of former and is accused of having committed a crime within the territory of latter.
 L. Oppenheim: “Extradition” is the delivery of an accused or a convicted individual to the state on whose
territory he is alleged to have committed, to have been convicted of, a crime, by the state on whose territory
the alleged criminal happen to be for the time being.
A criminal may take refuge in a state which has no jurisdiction to try him, or in a state which is unable or unwilling
to try him because all the evidence and witnesses are abroad. To meet this problem, International Law has
evolved the practice of extradition, individuals are extradited, i.e., handed over, by one state to another state, in
order that they may be tried in the latter state for offences against its laws. Extradition also includes the surrender
of convicted criminals who have escaped before completing their punishment.

OBJECT OF EXTRADITION: 
Since extradition is the delivery of an accused or convicted individual to the state on whose territory he is alleged
to have committed, or to have been convicted of, a crime, by the state on whose territory he happens for the time
to be. The object of extradition can be any individual, whether he is a subject of the prosecuting state, or of the
state which is required to extradite him, or of a third state.

EXTRADITION IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXTRADITION TREATY: 

Reciprocity or courtesy: In the absence of a treaty or statute, the grant of extradition depended purely on
reciprocity or courtesy. No government is understood to be bound by positive law of nations to deliver up
criminals and fugitives from justice who has sought an asylum within its limits.

COMMON RULES:
1. EXTRADITABLE PERSONS: There is uniformity of state practice to the effect that the requesting state may
obtain the surrender of its own nationals or nationals of a third state. But most states usually refuse the
extradition of their own nationals who have taken refuge in their territory, although as between states who
observe absolute reciprocity of treatment in this regard; requests for surrender are sometimes acceded to.
2. EXTRADITABLE CRIMES: Serious crimes generally, states extraditing only for serious crimes, and there is an
obvious advantage in thus limiting list of extradition crime since procedure is so huge, heavy and expensive.
3. SPECIAL PRINCIPLE: This means that an extradited person cannot be tried for a crime other than that for
which he was extradited, until he has been given a chance to leave the country to which he was extradited.
4. DEFINITION OF EXTRADITABLE OFFENCES: Extradition is usually confined to serious crimes, which must
also be crimes under law of both of the states concerned (double criminality principle). This object can be
met in one of two ways. First, the treaty may apply to all crimes, which are punishable in both countries by
so many months or years of imprisonment. EXEMPTED OFFENCES: 
 Political Offences.  Religious offences.
 Military offences e.g. desertion (escape).  Media Offences

5. PRINCIPLE OF SPECIALTY: This principle means that the requesting state is under a duty not to punish the
offender for any other offence than that for which he was extradited. This principle is approved by the
Supreme Court of the United States. In Great Britain its application is a little uncertain.
6. RULE OF DOUBLE CRIMINALITY: As regards the character of the crime, most states follow the rule of
“double criminality”, i.e., that it is a condition of extradition that the crime is punishable according to the law
both of the states of asylum and of the requesting state.
7. REASONABLE PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE: There must be reasonable prima facie evidence of guilt of
accused.

INTERVENTION
 Oppenheim: “Intervention” is dictatorial interference by a state in the affairs of another state for the purpose
of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things.
 Lawrence: “Intervention” is an interference with the proceedings of a sovereign state by another state or
group of states. The interfering state endeavors to compel it to do something which, if left to itself, it would
not do, or refrain from doing something which, if left to itself, it would do.
 J. G. Starke: “Intervention” means something more than mere interference and much stronger than
mediation (reflection) or diplomatic suggestion. To fall within the terms of their prohibition, it must be
dictatorial interference, in opposition to the will of the particular state affected.

KINDS OF INTERVENTION: 
1. Internal intervention: It is the interference by one state between disputing sections of the community in
another state either for protection of the legitimate government or the insurgents (rebel).
2. External intervention: It is the intervention by one state in the relations generally of the hostile relations of
other states. It is, in other words, an intervention in the foreign affairs of another state.
3. Punitive intervention: It is a punitive measures falling short of war and it in the nature of a reprisal (revenge)
for an injury suffered at the hands of another state.

WHEN INTERVENTION CAN BE PERMITTED – GENERAL RULE: General rule is that intervention is not allowed
under International Law. Use of force by one state against another state, is always unlawful.

GROUNDS OF INTERVENTION:
1. SELF-PROTECTION: The supreme interest of the state overrides law. A state has a right to interfere in the
affairs of another state where the security and immediate interests of the former are compromised.
2. ENFORCEMENT OF TREATY RIGHTS: A state is justified in interfering in the affairs of another state if the
provisions of any treaty oblige the former to preserve the independence or neutralists of the latter.
3. INVITATIONAL INTERVENTION: As regards invitation by the lawful government of the state to intervene in
its international affair, the matter is not free from difficult. It is again highly controversial whether the
invitation from the government could be legitimately regarded as from the lawful government in such cases.
4. GROUNDS OF HUMANITY: Another justification for intervention is based on the ground of humanity.
Lawrence observes that in the opinion of many writers such interventions are legal, but they cannot be
brought within the ordinary rules of International Law.
5. BALANCE OF POWER: Preservation of the balance of power has been as undoubted maxim of European
diplomacy from the middle of the seventeenth century. But the intervention on this ground has been
condemned by jurists of all ages.
6. PROTECTION OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY: Protections of the persons, property and interests of its
nationals may provide justification for intervention. The necessity for protection may arise due to gross
injustice or due to injury caused by unfair discriminations.
7. INTERVENTION IN CIVIL WAR: With the establishment of the United Nations there is no justification for
intervention by individual states in the civil wars of other states.
8. PROTECTOR’S AFFAIRS: A state has at International Law a legitimate right of intervention in the affairs of a
protectorate (colonial state) under its dominion.
9. REMOVAL OF INTERNATIONAL NUISANCE: An intervening state may justify its intervention on the ground
of removal of international nuisance.
10. COLLECTIVE INTERVENTION: Collective intervention at the present time is in pursuance of the provisions of
the United Nations that is the enforcement action under the authority of the United Nations Organization.

DIPLOMATIC AGENTS
In order to develop relationship states send their representatives to other states. These representatives are called
diplomatic agents. Diplomatic agents in other states are called officials or recognized representatives. Ambassador
is a person who is sent to abroad to take care of interest of his state.

KINDS OF AGENCY:
 Formal representatives
 Political representatives: Interim representation and Permanent representation.

CLASSIFICATION OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS:

 Ambassador  Minister resident
 Extra ordinary envoy  Charge affairs.

DUTIES OF DIPLOMATS:
1. Talks and relationship. 5. Protecting his nationals within limits of Intl. Law.
2. Awareness of circumstances. 6. Explanation of state’s policies.
3. Observation. 7. Conversation for extradition.
4. Protection of interests.

IMMUNITIES AVAILABLE TO DIPLOMATS:

1. Protection of diplomatic envoys. 9. Right of worship.
2. Fundamentals of diplomatic immunities. 10. Right of self-jurisdiction.
3. Immunity from criminal jurisdiction. 11. Freedom of communication.
4. Immunity from civil & admin. Jurisdiction. 12. Freedom of movement.
5. Immunity from giving evidence. 13. Exemption from taxes.
6. Immunity as to residence. 14. Right of diplomatic asylum.
7. Immunity from police rule. 15. Duration of immunities and facilities.
8. Immunity from arrest and detention. 16. Travelling facilities

TERMINATION OF DIPLOMATIC MISSION:

1. Call back by Head of State. 3. Completion of mission.
2. Termination of Head of the State. 4. To preserve peace and prosperity.
5. In case of death. 8. Change of Head of State.
6. Persona non grata. 9. Merger or extinction of state.
7. In case of undesirable act. 10. Drastic change in country

AMBASSADORS:
The personal representatives of the Head of the state are said to be ambassadors. And in the common wealth
countries the representatives are said to be the High Commissioners. As for example, the representative of
Pakistan in India is called High Commissioner. The appointment of the ambassador is subjected to the assent of
receiving state. In other words the person who is going to be appointed as a diplomatic envoy in a country it is
necessary that he must persona grata, for the receiving state. Otherwise he should be refused. So, it is a duty of
the sending state to send a report regarding the person to be appointed as diplomatic envoy to the receiving
state. Once a person has been accepted as envoy he should be given certain rights and immunities. As for
example, he has a right to claim the title of ‘Excellency’.

MINISTERS:
Ministers are other diplomatic officials accredited to the other countries, but ministers are not the personal
representatives of the Head of the state. So, they receive fewer honors as compared to ambassadors. And they
are not entitled to claim the title of ‘Excellency’. But if they were given this title it would be a matter of courtesy
but not as a matter of their right. In other respects they are almost equal with ambassadors.

CHARGE D’ AFFAIRS:
The officials accredited to foreign state by the foreign office to the foreign office. They are less important as
compare to ambassadors and ministers. They do not enjoy honor and title as are available to ambassadors and
ministers. They may either be appointed permanently or temporarily. But usually they are appointed temporarily.

FUNCTIONS OF DIPLOMATIC AGENTS:

1. REPRESENTATION: The most important function of the diplomatic agents is to represent the state from where
they have been sent in the state to which they have been sent. They are actually the mouthpiece of the Head
of the home state because they communicate with the host state the affairs of the home state.
2. NEGOTIATION: The other most important function which the diplomatic agents have to perform is the
negotiation. They negotiate on various aspects on behalf of the sending state with the state to which they are
accredited in order to maintain friendly relationship between the two. They are required to communicate the
outcome of the negotiations to the sending state from time to time.
3. PROTECTION: Diplomatic agents protect the interests of the sending state and also of its nationals and their
property within the limits permitted by International Law but by the municipal law and regulations of the
sending state within which an envoy affords protection.
4. OBSERVATION: Diplomatic agents are required to observe those happenings and events which may take place
in the state where they are accredited, especially those which may have effecting the state by which they are
sent. After making observations they are required to make periodical reports as well as special reports
thereon to the government of the sending state.
5. PROMOTION OF FRIENDLY RELATION: Diplomatic agents are required to promote friendly relations between
the sending state and the receiving state. They also have a function to develop the economic, cultural and
social relations between the two states.

COMPOSITION OF STAFF OF DIPLOMATIC MISSION:

1. DIPLOMATIC STAFF:
• The Head of the Mission and Attaches • Military, naval and air attaches
 • First, second and third secretaries • Secretaries in charge of archives

2. ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL STAFF:

• Administrative assistants & Clerical services • Accountants, Translators, Typist
3. SERVICES STAFF:
 Drivers, couriers, doorman, elevator operators, janitors,
 Other persons performing domestic service functions in the mission.

PRIVATE SERVANTS:
This category of the staff of the diplomatic mission are not the employees of the mission, rather they are the
servants in the domestic service or personal service of the members of the mission.

NATIONALITY OF THE EMPLOYEES:

In case of diplomatic staff: The nationals of the sending state and the national of the receiving state or a third
state only with the assent of the receiving state. In case of other categories of mission and private servants the
employees or the members may be the nationals of: Sending state, receiving state, or Any third state.

NEUTRALITY
In its popular sense, neutrality denotes the attitude of a state, which is not at war with belligerents, and does not
participate in the hostilities. In its technical sense, however, it is more than an attitude, and denotes a legal status
of a special nature, involving a complex of rights, duties, and privileges at International Law, which must be
respected by belligerents and neutrals alike.

RATIONAL BASIS OF NEUTRALITY: 

1. That it serves to localize war. 3. That is enabling states to keep out of war.
2. That it discourages war. 4. That is regularizes international relations.

KIND OF NEUTRALITY:
1. Perpetual / Permanent Neutrality: The status of states permanently neutralized by special treaty.
2. Partial Neutrality: General neutrality covers the territory of an entire State, but circumstances may exist in
which only a part of its territory is neutral, for example, by treaty.
3. Voluntary Neutrality: In some instances a state is bound by treaty; in all others the status is purely voluntary.
4. Armed Neutrality: The status of a state which takes military measures to protect its neutral status.
5. Benevolent Neutrality: An obsolete term for less than neutral behavior
6. Perfect Neutrality: State remains completely impartial and doesn’t assist any belligerent.
7. Qualified Neutrality: When a state while remains neutral, helps or favor a belligerent.

NEUTRALITY AND THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER: 

Member states of the United Nations have no absolute right of neutrality. By article 41 of the United Nations
Charter they may be under a duty to apply enforcement measures against a state or states engaged in war, if so
called upon pursuant to a decision by the Security Council. Neutrality is not, however, completely abolished.

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF NEUTRAL STATES: 

1. ABSTENTION (RESTRAINT): Neutral state must give no assistance – direct or indirect – to either belligerent
side, e.g. it must not supply troops, furnish, guarantee loans or shelter for a belligerent'’ armed forces.
2. PREVENTION: The neutral state is under a duty to prevent within its territory or jurisdiction such activities
as the enlistment of troops for warlike measures in its territory or territorial waters.
3. ACQUIESCENCE (COMPLIANCE): The neutral state must acquiesce in the acts of belligerent states with
respect to the commerce of its nationals if the laws of war duly warrant them. For  example, the seizure of
vessels under its flag for the carriage of contraband, adjudication by Prize Courts, and so on.
4. REPARATION: If a neutral state contravenes the above mentioned duties, it may be held liable to pay
compensation for the same. E.g. Alabama Claims Arbitration 1872.

DUTIES OF BELLIGERENT STATES:

1. ABSTENTION (RESTRAINT): A belligerent state must not commit warlike acts on neutral territory or enter
into hostilities in neutral waters or in the airspace above neutral territory, nor may it interfere with the
legitimate intercourse of neutrals with the enemy, nor may it use neutral territory or waters as a base for
belligerent operation, or as a starting point for an expedition.
2. PREVENTION: A belligerent state is duty bound to prevent the ill-treatment of neutral envoys or neutral
subjects of injury to neutral property on enemy territory occupied by it.
3. ACQUIESCENCE (COMPLIANCE): A belligerent state must, for  instance, acquiesce in internment by a
neutral state of such members of its armed forces as take refuge in neutral territory, or in the granting of
temporary asylum by neutral ports to hostile warships so that necessary repairs may be affected.

A NEUTRAL COUNTRY in a particular war is a sovereign state, which officially declares it to be neutral
towards the belligerents. A Non-Belligerent state does not need to be neutral. The rights and duties of the neutral
state are defined in section 5 and 13 of the Hague Convention of 1907.

NEUTRALITY is a policy adopted by a State unilaterally in face of a particular war and for no specified period.
Thus, Ireland and Sweden during World War II had chosen to remain outside the conflict. In fact, because of her
particular situation, Sweden has been able to stay out of war for 150 years and she is considered a "traditional
neutral." She was a member of the League of Nations, and joined also the United Nations.

NEUTRALIZATION is the outcome of international agreement. Belgium, for example, was neutralized by the
Powers in 1831 on their own initiative and without her request. Her supposedly "permanent neutrality" lasted
until World War I. Switzerland, "permanently neutral" by international agreement at her own request ever since
the Congress of Vienna (1815), in a classic example. Once a member of the League of Nations, Switzerland now
holds that her neutrality is incompatible with membership in the United Nations. Nevertheless, like Sweden, she is
a member of many non-political and non-military international organizations.

NEUTRALISM as distinct from neutrality refers to a foreign policy of non-alignment in international relations.
It is sometimes compared with the policy of "no entangling alliances," pursued by the USA until World War I. By
adhering to this policy, and occasionally formalizing it in the legal sense through declarations of neutrality, the
USA aimed at maintaining freedom of trade with all nations whether in peace or war, without renouncing the
right to make war when that was in her interest.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEUTRALITY AND NEUTRALIZATION:

AREA NEUTRAL STATE NEUTRALIZED STATE

Nature It is Temporary in nature. It is Permanent in nature.

Commencement It Commences and End with War. It continues after the end of war.

Status It has a status during the War Time. It has the status after war.
 Guarantee It is not Guaranteed by Other States. It is Guaranteed by Other States.

REFUGEE LAW
REFUGEE:
Article 1(A) (2) of the 1951 Convention defines a refugee as an individual who is outside his or her country of
nationality or habitual residence who is unable or unwilling to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution
based on his or her race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

RIGHTS OF REFUGEES:
Refugee law and international human rights law are closely intertwined; refugees are fleeing governments that
are either unable or unwilling to protect their basic human rights. Additionally, in cases where the fear of
persecution or threat to life or safety arises in context of an armed conflict, refugee law also intersects with IHL.
1. NON-REFOULEMENT
The basic principle of refugee law, non-refoulement refers to the obligation of States not to refoule, or return,
a refugee to “the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race,
religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” Non-refoulement is
universally acknowledged as a human right.
Additionally, both regional and domestic courts have interpreted the rights to life and freedom from torture
to include a prohibition against refoulement. The principle of non-refoulement prohibits not only the removal
of individuals but also the mass expulsion of refugees. There are two important restrictions to this principle.
 Persons who otherwise qualify as refugees may not claim protection under this principle where there
are “reasonable grounds” for regarding the refugee as a danger to national security of host country.
 Where the refugee, having been convicted of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the
host community.
2. FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
At the regional level, the rights to seek asylum and freedom of movement can be found within the text of the
same article. The rights are closely related, since the inability to return to one’s country is the basis of an
asylum claim while the ability to leave one’s country is a prerequisite for claiming refugee status under the
1951 Convention.
Freedom of movement, however, is also a key right for refugees within their host country. International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 12 and Article 26 of the 1951 Convention provides that States
shall afford refugees the right to choose their place of residence within the territory and to move freely within
 the State. Meanwhile, Article 28 obliges States parties to issue refugees travel documents permitting them to
travel outside the State “unless compelling reasons of national security or public order otherwise require.”
3. RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY OF THE PERSON
The right to liberty and security of the person is important in the context of how asylum seekers are treated
within the intended country of refuge. The national laws of several countries provide for the detention of asylum
seekers at one point or another during the adjudication of their claims. The detention of asylum seekers is a
contentious issue because of the conditions found in the detention facilities of several countries.
4. RIGHT TO FAMILY LIFE
The family is seen as the “natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society
and the State. In respect of this right, a number of countries provide for the granting of derivative status to
dependent relatives. Thus, where an individual is granted asylum, his or her dependent relatives will also receive
protection through him or her.
5. OTHER RIGHTS
 To education
 Access to justice and employment, and other fundamental freedoms

LAW OF SEA
TERRITORIAL WATERS: Waters adjacent to the territory of a state may be either national or territorial.
Territorial waters lie within a definite maritime zone or belt adjacent to a state’s territory.
NATIONAL WATERS: It consists on internal ports, rivers, lakes, canals, gulfs, bays, and harbors etc.
MARITIME BELT: It is the part under the sway (power, authority, dominance, influence, control) of the
littoral (beach, coast) states. There is considerable unanimity of opinion that the open sea cannot be state
property and only such part as stated above of the sea would be the state property of the littoral states.
MARGINAL BELT: Territorial waters are also termed as “marginal belt” over which the littoral state has
completed territorial sovereignty.
TERRITORIAL SEA: The Intl. Law Commission of UN has expressed a preference for term “Territorial  Sea”
over “Territorial Waters” for maritime belt of coastal waters, because the latter term may include inland waters.

EXTENT OF JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORIAL WATERS: 

1. RANGE OF CANNON SHOT: Bynker Shoek published his work, (Essay on Sovereignty over the Sea), in which he
adopted the rule that the littoral state could dominate only such width of coastal water as by within range of
cannon shot from shore batteries; and the territorial sovereignty extends as far as the power of arms carries.
2. THREE MILES LIMIT: The three mile limit was suggested by France in certain eighteenth century negotiation
with demand as a compromise between the cannon shot rule and the Scandinavian measured belt.
3. UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED RULE: The three mile rule is so universally accepted as a minimum that one may
safely postulate (assume, suppose, and presume) a customary rule of International Law that the recognized
minimum breadth or width of the maritime belt is three miles.
4. GROTIUS: He introduced principle of limiting dominion to distance to which protection could reach the shore.
5. ACCORDING TO VALTEL: Valtel observed that in general the dominion of the state over the neighboring sea
extended as far as her safety rendered it necessary and her power was able to assert it.
6. ENGLISH LAW: Great Britain by enacting S.7 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1879, also prescribed
the width of the belt as one maritime league, i.e., three geographical miles from the low water mark and
extended the jurisdiction of English Court over offences committed in the territorial waters.
7. SEA CONVENTION ADOPTED BY THE LAW OF SEA CONFERENCE, 1982, SIGNED BY 117 COUNTRIES: The
convention provides for a twelve nautical (naval) miles territorial sea in which a coastal state can exercise its
sovereign power with few exceptions. But foreign vessels would be allowed “innocent passage” through these
waters for purposes of peaceful navigation.
8. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE LAW OF SEA held in Geneva in March 1958, the consensus
(agreement) of opinion approved to be to prescribe the breadth of territorial width to six miles.

RIGHTS OF THE COASTAL STATE OVER THE TERRITORIAL SEA:

1. An exclusive right to fish, and to exploit the resources of the seabed and subsoil of the territorial sea.
2. Exclusive enjoyment of air space above the territorial sea, unlike ship, foreign aircraft have no right to
innocent passage.
3. The coastal state’s ships have the exclusive right to transport goods and passengers from one part of the
coastal state to another.
4. If the coastal state is neutral in time of war, belligerent (hostile) states may not fight, or capture merchant
ships, in the coastal state’s territorial sea.
5. The coastal state may enact regulations concerning navigation, health, customs duties, and immigration,
which foreign ships must obey.
6. The coastal state has certain powers of arrest over merchant ships exercising a right of innocent passage, and
over persons on board such ships.

BASELINE
Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along the coast as marked
on large-scale charts officially recognized by the coastal state. This is either the low-water mark closest to the
shore, or alternatively it may be an unlimited distance from permanently exposed land, provided that some
portion of elevations exposed at low tide but covered at high tide (like mud flats) is within 12 nautical miles (22
km; 14 mi) of permanently exposed land. Straight baselines can alternatively be defined connecting fringing
islands along a coast, across the mouths of rivers, or with certain restrictions across the mouths of bays. In this
case, a bay is defined as "a well-marked indentation whose penetration is in such proportion to the width of its
mouth as to contain land-locked waters and constitute more than a mere curvature of the coast. An indentation
shall not, however, be regarded as a bay unless its area is as large as, or larger than, that of the semi-circle whose
diameter is a line drawn across the mouth of that indentation". The baseline across the bay must also be no more
than 24 nautical miles (44 km; 28 mi) in length.

INTERNAL WATERS
Waters landward of the baseline are defined as internal waters, over which the state has complete sovereignty:
not even innocent passage is allowed without explicit permission from said state. Lakes and rivers are considered
internal waters. All "archipelagic waters" within the outermost islands of an archipelagic state such as Indonesia
or the Philippines are also considered internal waters, and are treated the same with the exception that innocent
passage through them must be allowed. However, archipelagic states may designate certain sea lanes through
these waters.

TERRITORIAL SEA
Territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, is a belt of coastal waters
extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a
coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although foreign ships (military
and civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, or transit passage for straits; this sovereignty also extends
to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international law, maritime
delimitation. A state's territorial sea extends up to 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from its baseline. If this
would overlap with another state's territorial sea, the border is taken as the median point between the states'
baselines, unless the states in question agree otherwise. A state can also choose to claim a smaller territorial sea.
Conflicts have occurred whenever a coastal nation claims an entire gulf as its territorial waters while other nations
only recognize the more restrictive definitions of the UN convention. Claims which draw baseline in excess of 24
nautical miles (two 12 nm limits) are judged excessive by the U.S. Two conflicts occurred in the Gulf of Sidra
where Libya drew a line in excess of 230 nm and claimed the entire enclosed gulf as its territorial waters. The U.S.
exercised freedom of navigation rights twice, in the 1981 and 1989 Gulf of Sidra incidents.

CONTIGUOUS ZONE
The contiguous zone is a band of water extending farther from the outer edge of the territorial sea to up to 24
nautical miles (44.4 km; 27.6 mi) from the baseline, within which a state can exert limited control for the purpose
of preventing or punishing "infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within
its territory or territorial sea". This will typically be 12 nautical miles (22 km; 14 mi) wide, but could be more (if a
state has chosen to claim a territorial sea of less than 12 nautical miles), or less, if it would otherwise overlap
another state's contiguous zone. However, unlike the territorial sea, there is no standard rule for resolving such
conflicts and the states in question must negotiate their own compromise. The United States invoked a
contiguous zone out to 24 mi from the baseline on 29 September 1999.

EXCLUSIVE ECONOMIC ZONE

An exclusive economic zone extends from the baseline to a maximum of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km; 230.2 mi),
thus it includes the contiguous zone. A coastal nation has control of all economic resources within its exclusive
economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources. However, it cannot
prohibit passage or loitering above, on, or under the surface of the sea that is in compliance with the laws and
regulations adopted by the coastal State in accordance with the provisions of the UN Convention, within that
portion of its exclusive economic zone beyond its territorial sea. Before the United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea of 1982, coastal nations arbitrarily extended their territorial waters in an effort to control activities
which are now regulated by the exclusive economic zone, such as offshore oil exploration or fishing rights (see
Cod Wars). Indeed, the exclusive economic zone is still popularly, though erroneously, called a coastal nation's
territorial waters.

CONTINENTAL SHELF
Article 76 gives the legal definition of continental shelf of coastal countries. For the physical geography definition,
see the article continental shelf.
The continental shelf of a coastal nation extends out to the outer edge of the continental margin but at least 200
nautical miles (370 km; 230 mi) from the baselines of the territorial sea if the continental margin does not stretch
that far. Coastal states have the right of exploration and exploitation of the seabed and the natural resources that
lie on or beneath it, however other states may lay cables and pipelines if they are authorized by the coastal state.
The outer limit of a country's continental shelf shall not stretch beyond 350 nautical miles (650 km; 400 mi) of the
baseline, or beyond 100 nautical miles (190 km; 120 mi) from the 2,500 meters (8,200 ft.) isobaths, which is a line
connecting the depths of the seabed at 2,500 meters.

The outer edge of the continental margin for the purposes of this article is defined as:

 A series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles (110 km; 69 mi) apart where the thickness of
sedimentary rocks is at least 1% of the height of the continental shelf above the foot of the continental slope;
 A series of lines joining points not more than 60 nautical miles apart that is not more than 60 nautical miles
from the foot of the continental margin.

The foot of the continental slope is determined as the point of maximum change in the gradient at its base.

EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF: The portion of the continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile limit is also
known as the extended continental shelf. Countries wishing to delimit their outer continental shelf beyond 200
nautical miles have to submit scientific information for the basis of their claim to the UN Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf. The Commission then validates or makes recommendations on the scientific basis for the
extended continental shelf claim. The scientific judgment of the Commission shall be final and binding. If validated
extended continental shelf claims overlap any demarcation between two or more parties are decided by bilateral
or multilateral negotiation, not by the Commission.
Countries have ten years after ratifying UNCLOS to lodge their submissions to extend their continental shelf
beyond 200 nautical miles, or by 13 May 2009 for countries where the convention was ratified before 13 May
1999. As of 1 June 2009, 51 submissions have been lodged with the Commission, of which eight have been
deliberated by the Commission and have had recommendations issued. The eight are (in the order of date of
submission): Russian Federation; Brazil; Australia; Ireland; New Zealand; the joint submission by France, Ireland,
Spain and the United Kingdom; Norway and Mexico.

RIGHTS OVER THE CONTINENTAL SHELF

Articles 77 to 81 define the rights of a country over its continental shelf.
A coastal nation has control of all resources on or under its continental shelf, living or not, but no control over any
living organisms above the shelf that are beyond its exclusive economic zone. This gives it the right to conduct
hydrocarbon exploration and drilling works.

PIRACY
 Pirates (sea robber) are enemies of mankind: A pirate is an enemy of the whole human race “hostis humani
genris”. He is outlawed (unlawful, illegal, prohibited, and wrong) by the law of all nations, his act being one
directed against the whole body of civilized states.
 Kenny: Piracy is any armed violence at sea that is not a lawful act of war.
 Story: Robbery or forcible depredation (stealing, theft) upon the sea is piracy.
 L. Oppenheim: Piracy, in its original and strict meaning, is a much unauthorized act of violence committed by
a private vessel on the open sea against another vessel with intent to plunder (robbery or theft).

If the members of the crew revolt and convert the ship, and goods thereon, to their own use, they are considered
to be pirates, although they have not committed an act of violence against another ship. If unauthorized acts of
violence, such as murder of persons on board attacked vessel, or destruction of goods thereon, are committed on
open sea without intent to plunder, such acts are in practice considered to be piratical.

OBJECT OF PIRACY: 
The object of piracy is any public or private vessel, or the person or the goods thereon, whilst on the open sea. In
the regular case of piracy the pirate wants to make booty, it is the cargo of the attacked vessel, which is the centre
of his interest, and he might free the vessel and the crew after having appropriated the cargo.

PIRACY ACCORDING TO THE INTL. LAW COMMISSION: 

Piracy consists of an illegal act of violence, detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by
those aboard (on board, loaded, shipped) a private ship or private aircraft, and directs either on the High Sea,
against a ship or persons or property thereon, or, in the territory or waters of nature of terra nullius.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF PIRACY: 

1. It is an act performed by a person sailing the High Sea.
2. Such an act is without the authority or commission of any state.
3. Actual robbery is not an essential element in the crime of piracy; frustrated attempt to commit robbery is
equally piracy jure gentium.
4. Such act of robbery is committed by a private vessel against another vessel or by the mutinous (rebellious,
seditious) crew against their-own vessel.
5. The essence of piracy consists in the pursuit of pirate, as contrasted with public, ends.
UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION: Piracy subject to universal jurisdiction is one, which comes under the jurisdiction of
all states wherever it is committed. It is treated as a delict jure gentium and all the states are to apprehend and
punish the offenders.

PROTECTION OF FLAG STATE: By this conduct, the pirate is deemed automatically to lose the protection of his
flag state and any privileges due to him virtue of his nationality.

PIRATICAL ACTS AUTHORIZED BY A GOVERNMENT: Professor Hyde maintains that “national authorization of

the commission of piratical acts would not free pirates from their intentionally illegal aspects.”

RIGHT OF VISIT AND SEIZURE OF PIRATE SHIP: All warships (aircraft carrier) are entitled to visit a vessel
deemed to be piratical for the purpose of ascertaining her true character.

OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY IN PIRACY: A robbery by piracy does not deprive the rightful owner of his
property, which has to be restored to him when recaptured.

UN CONTENTION (CONTEST, STRUGGLE) ON THE LAW OF SEAS, 1982: Article 102 of the convention lays
down that the act of piracy committed by a warship, government ship, or government aircraft, whose crew has
mutinied  (revolt, sedition) and taken control of the ship or aircraft are assimilated (amalgamated) to acts
committed by a private ship or aircraft.

RIGHT TO ARREST PIRATES AND SEIZE PIRATE SHIP: Article 105 further provides that on the High Seas or in
any other place outside the jurisdiction of any state every state may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship or
aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board.

DECISION BY THE COURT IN GOOD FAITH: The courts of the state which carried out the seizure may decide
upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to ships, aircraft, or
property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith.

ARTICLE 105: Further provides that where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
affected without adequate grounds, the state making the seizure shall be liable to the state the nationality of
which is possessed by the ship or aircraft for any loss or damage caused by the seizure.

ARTICLE 107: States that a seizure on account of piracy may only be carried out by warships or military aircraft or
other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being a government service and authorized to that effect.

STATE SERVITUDE (SLAVERY)

 J. G. Starke: Stake defines an international servitude as “an exceptional restriction imposed by treaty on the
territorial sovereignty of a particular state whereby the territory of that state is put under conditions or
restrictions serving the interest of another state.”
 L. Oppenheim: International servitude is that exceptional restrictions through which a state may exercise
certain rights over the territory of another state. State servitudes are those exceptional restrictions made by
treaty on the territorial supremacy of a states by which a part or the whole of its territory is in a limited way
made perpetually to serve a certain purpose or interest of another state.
RIGHTS IN REM: The right arising out of servitude is one in rem. It follows that the servitude remains in force
whatever happens to territory of state bound by the servitude, e.g. If it be annexed or merged in another state.

KINDS OF SERVITUDE: 
1. Military servitude: Military servitude is a servitude acquired for military purposes, such as, the right to keep
troops in foreign territory or to send armed forces through foreign territory.
2. Economic servitude: Economic servitude is a servitude which is acquired for the purpose of commercial
interests, traffic, and intercourse in general, such as the right of fisheries in foreign territorial waters, or to
enjoy the advantages of a free zone for custom purpose, to build a railway-line on foreign territory.
3. Positive servitude: It means that a state has to perform certain acts on territory of another state, e.g.
 Building and operating a railway in a certain territory.
 Construction of a customhouse.
 Having fishery rights in the territorial waters of another state.
 Lay down telegraph cable through foreign territory and such like.

Positive servitude is also termed as “active or affirmative” servitude.

4. Negative servitude: Negative servitude connotes that the state is bound by the servitude must refrain from
doing something on that territory or abstain from exercising its territorial rights in some ways. For  instance,
it may permit a state to demand that a neighboring state shall not fortify its frontiers or increase its naval on
land armament beyond a certain limit.

SECURITY COUNCIL:  
The Security Council consists of fifteen member-states. Five are permanent members—China, France, the United
Kingdom, the USA, and the USSR. The other ten members of the Security Council are non-permanent, elected for
two years by the General Assembly.
The number of non-permanent was increased from six to ten on January 01, 1966, as a result of an amendment of
the Charter; as the membership of the United Nations increased. It was considered that the membership of the
Security Council should also be increased, in order to give more states an opportunity of sitting on those two
Councils.

There is an informal understanding that five of the non-permanent places should be filled by Afro-Asian states,
two by Latin American states, one by an Eastern European state, and two by Western European and other states.

FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL: 

1. MAINTENANCE OF INTERNATIONAL PEACE: In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the UN, its
members confer on UNSC primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and
agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the Security Council acts on their behalf. The
Security Council’s principal functions consist on making recommendations for peaceful settlement of disputes
and taking enforcement action to deal with threats to peace, breaches of peace, and acts of aggression.
2. BINDING DECISIONS: The members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the
Security Council in accordance with the present Charter. The Security Council thus has a power to take binding
decisions, which member-states are under a legal obligation to obey.
3. SETTLEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES: UNSC is responsible for pacific settlement of intl. disputes.
4. TO CALL PARTIES IN DISPUTES: The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary call on the parties to a
dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger peace and security, to settle that dispute by
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, action by regional agencies or
under regional arrangements or other peaceful means.
5. INVESTIGATION POWER: The Security Council may investigate not only any kind of dispute, but also
situations which are such that they may lead to international friction or give rise to a dispute, in order to
determine whether the dispute or situation is likely to endanger peace and security.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SETTLEMENT: During the course of any dispute or situation, the continuance of
which is likely to endanger peace and security, the Security Council may recommend appropriate procedures
or methods of settlement. If all the parties to any such dispute so request, the Security Council may
recommend terms of peaceful settlement.
7. ENQUIRY POWER: The Security Council may investigate not only any kind of dispute, but also ‘situations’,
which are such that they may lead to international friction (wearing away) or give rise to a dispute, in order to
determine whether the dispute or ‘situation’ is likely to endanger peace and security.
8. PREVENTIVE MEASURES: Security Council is also responsible to take preventive or enforcement action to
maintain peace and security.
9. REGIONAL AGREEMENTS: Security Council has to take care of regional agencies and regional agreement.
10. CONTROL AND SUPERVISION: Security Council is responsible for the control and supervision of trust
territories classified as ‘strategic areas’.
11. REGULATION OF THE MEMBERS: The admission, suspension, and expulsion of members.
12. LEGISLATIVE POWERS: Security Council has power to amend the Charter.
13. ELECTION OF THE JUDGES: The election in conjunction with General Assembly, of fifteen judges of the ICJ.
14. VOTING POWER: Each member of the Security Council has one vote.
15. VETO POWER: Members have also veto power as to binding on all the members of the United Nations.

INTL COURT OF JUSTICE

COMPOSITION:
1. Strength: The Court is consisted of fifteen judges. And not more than one judge shall be elected from one
state, for the Court at a given time.
2. Qualifications: The candidate for the office of judge in the Court shall possess the following qualifications:
a) He should be independent.
b) He should be a person of high moral character.
c) He must be qualified for the appointment of the highest judicial offices in his country.
3. Nature of the office: The nature of the office of judge for the Court is elective. In other words the judges for
the Court shall be elected in General Assembly and Security Council.
4. Election: General Assembly and Security Council shall conduct the election of the judges of the Court
independently, but simultaneously. These two organs shall elect the judges from the list of nominees
prepared by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
5. Term of office: - The term of the office for the judge of the Court is nine years, however, five of them shall be
retired after each three years and so, for such vacancies election shall also be conducted after each five years
as to maintain the strength to fifteen.
6. Obligations of Judges: - Any person who has so been elected as a judge of the Court is bound to;
a) refrain from all political and administrative functions,
b) refrain from being council, agent or advocate in any case, and
c) Not participate in any case in which he has previously has taken part as agent, counsel or advocate for
one of the parties.
7. Quorum of the Court: The quorum of the Court is fixed at nine judges.
8. President of the Court: After each period of three years the Court shall elect its president. The president shall
chair the cases of the Court. But if in a case any party is his national he shall not be entitled to as act as
president.
9. Voice-President of the Court: Along with the election of the president shall also elect its voice-president. Voice
president shall act as president in a case where president is not present or where president is not entitle for
presidency due to one of the parties to the case is being his national.
10. Chamber: The Court is entitled to form a chamber, composed of not less than three members or which the
Court may think fit. Different chamber may be declared by the Court to deal with different cases. The Court
may constitute a chamber to deal with a particular case. The Court shall itself along with the approval of the
parties to the case determine the chamber.
11. Ad hoc Judges: - The statute of the Court reveals that ad hoc judges may be appointed in those cases where
there is no national judge of the party to a case. That party can appoint a national judge in that particular
case.

JURISDICTION OF ICJ:
1. Contentious Jurisdiction 2. Advisory Jurisdiction

1. CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION:
That jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of which the Court decides any case with the consent of the parties
to the case, is called ‘Contentious Jurisdiction.’ It is fundamental principle of international law that without
the consent of any party to a case, the same shall not be referred to mediation or arbitration. The same rule
is, with some restriction, is applicable to the jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, the Court is not entitled
to initiate any proceeding merely because one party files a case, rather the consent of both the parties are
necessary that dependent is also required to give consent to the case. Contentious Jurisdiction is of three
kinds which may be given as under:
 Voluntary Jurisdiction.
 Ad hoc Jurisdiction.
 Compulsory Jurisdiction.

VOLUNTARY JURISDICTION: That jurisdiction which the parties by virtue of an agreement or treaty confer on
Court is called Voluntary Jurisdiction. In other words, when the parties to a treaty or a contract stipulate that
if any dispute arise in respect of such treaty or contract the dispute shall be referred to the Court for
settlement, this type of jurisdiction of the Court is said to voluntary jurisdiction. So, in voluntary jurisdiction
the parties to a dispute give their assent for the jurisdiction of the Court in advance.
AD HOC JURISDICTION: That jurisdiction of the Court when the parties, after the occurrence of the dispute,
confers on Court and in which the Court has no right to take up the case, is said to be Ad hoc Jurisdiction.
COMPULSORY JURISDICTION: Compulsory Jurisdiction means that type of jurisdiction which the Court enjoys
without the consent of the parties. In classic international law there is no concept of the Compulsory
Jurisdiction of the Court, but recently it has been contended that no the time has reached to confide the Court
with compulsory jurisdiction. In case of Compulsory Jurisdiction, the Court is to be empowered to take up a
case without the consent of the parties like municipal Courts. But once again, the application of the
Compulsory Jurisdiction at universal level depends on the approval of the Nation States. The procedure for
the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the Court has also been laid down.

2. ADVISORY JURISDICTION:
Advisory Jurisdiction means that the jurisdiction of the Court by which it may only give an advisory opinion on
a question of law. This does not require the consent of the parties to a case but when any International
Institute (General Assembly or Security Council) ask the Court to give an advisory opinion on the question.
This opinion is not binding on the parties. So, the case may be referred by an international organization or by
any organs within the scope of their activities 

ICJ AND PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION

International Court of Justice and Permanent Court of Arbitration have been recognized by the International law
to settle the disputes among the Nation States.

ICJ Permanent Court of Arbitration

It is a permanent Court It is neither a court nor permanent. The title given is
totally opposite to its nature and function.
It is governed by a statute, enacted for its predecessor It has no procedural law; rather the procedure of
namely, the Court International Justice. proceedings is to be determined by parties to the case.
Its judgment is called the legal Decisions.
Its judges are elected by the General Assembly and SC.
Judges represents the main forms of civilization and the
world legal system.
It shall decide the case in accordance with treaties,
customs and general principles of law and other
sources.
It being of a permanent performs a number of
functions as annexed with its nature.
It is open to all the states.
Its proceedings are open to the public, and its
proceeding are published and recorded.
It is a principal organ of United Nations.
Its judgment is called the Award by the Court.
Its judges are to be appointed by parties to the dispute.
Its members shall never be the representatives of the
world community.
The rules making the award are to be decided by the
parties to the disputes. It may apply the general
principles of law and equity.
It being a temporary tribunal does not perform other
functions.
It is not open to all the states.
Its proceeding is not open to public. Its awards shall not
be published if the parties are not agreeing thereto.
It is not a principal organ of the United Nations. 

GENEVA CONVENTION, 1949

PRISONERS OF WAR:
1. The treatment of prisoners of war.
2. The amelioration (amendment, correction) of the condition of wounded and sick in Armed Forces in field.
3. The Amelioration of condition of wounded, sick and shipwrecked (sinking) members of Armed Forces at sea.
4. The protection of civilian persons at the time of war.

PRISONERS OF WAR:
One of the convention concluded at Geneva in 1949 related to the treatment of prisoners of war, which applies to
any armed conflict recognized or unrecognized arising between the contracting parties.

PERSONS TO BE TREATED AS PRISONERS OF WAR:

1. Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps
forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of organized resistance movements.
3. Persons who accompany the armed forces with actually being members thereof.
4. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by
the Detaining Powers.
5. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who, on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to
resist the invading forces.

TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR: With regard to POW they must be cared for and treated with humanity.
IT PROHIBITS VIOLENCE TO LIFE: The Geneva Convention of 1949 prohibits violence to life.
IT PROHIBITS HUMILIATING TREATMENT: Humiliating or degrading treatment with the prisoner is prohibited.
PHYSICAL OR MENTAL TORTURE: No physical or mental torture is allowed to inflict on prisoners to compel
them to give information. After capture the POW have to be removed from the danger area.

TERMINATION OF CAPACITY: Capacity may be terminated by repatriation, accommodation in natural

countries, release, escape, or death of prisoners.

SICK AND WOUNDED: The convention for the amelioration (editing, amendment, correction, or improvement)
of the condition of the wounded and sick in Armed Forces in the field provides that sick or wounded persons
officially attached to armies must be respected. They also have to be protected and cared to without distinction of
nationality, religion, race, sex, or political opinion.

HOSPITAL ZONES: The convention also provides for the possibility of establishing by agreement of the parties’
hospital zones for protecting the wounded and sick.

TREATMENT OF DEAD SOLDIERS: Article 15 & 16 relate to the treatment of the dead soldiers. They have made
an obligatory provision for reciprocal and speedy communication by the belligerents of the names and identity of
the wounded and dead and for collection and transmission of articles found on the battle field or on the dead.

MEDICAL TRANSPORT: Article 36 of the convention protects aircraft used as a means of medical transport for
the time they are used in transporting medical personnel and material and evacuating (void, remove) wounded
and sick.

LEGALITY OF U.S. DRONE STRIKES IN PAKISTAN

U.S. drones have struck targets in Pakistan an estimated 140 times since 2004, with 44 strikes already this year.
Property and homes have been destroyed and unknown hundreds, perhaps thousands, have been killed or
injured. While many challenge U.S. drone strikes as a matter of strategy, there are also serious concerns over the
fundamental legality of such strikes. The U.S. is not at war with Pakistan, yet conducts air strikes in its territory on
a near daily basis. Individuals are targeted for killing without any due process of law or attempts to detain. Almost
nothing is known about how the program operates or what measures are taken to ensure compliance with
international law. This paper highlights and analyzes four key areas of concern in an effort to help structure the
debate over the legality of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan.

PAKISTANI SOVEREIGNTY:
U.S. drone strikes are frequently assailed as violations of Pakistani sovereignty. Under international law, states are
prohibited from using force in the territory of another state unless the target state has consented, or the attacking
state is acting in legitimate self-defense. But Pakistan has effectively, if not publicly, consented to drone strikes.
Reports indicate that Pakistani officials not only consent to such strikes, but share relevant intelligence and even
allow drones to use Pakistani airfields. While important questions remain regarding the scope and substance of its
consent, Pakistan has never advanced formal complaints in any international forum. Pakistan’s failure to avail
itself of international remedies or formal means of protest strongly suggests—and perhaps actually constitutes—
consent to the strikes. However, statements by various U.S. officials suggest that they do not consider the legality
of the strikes to rest exclusively upon Pakistani consent. According to the U.S., the drone strikes are also justified
by self-defense. However, another version of the self-defense argument is also available to the U.S. in the context
of Pakistan: that its attacks are justified as acts in collective self-defense of its ally Afghanistan. Seen through this
lens, the drone strikes in Pakistan are in defense of Afghan sovereignty and part of an ongoing armed conflict with
well-organized armed groups operating in Afghanistan. Such an argument would be more territorially
circumscribed, against a more well-defined party, and consistent with international law. In fact, despite U.S.
emphasis on drones as a weapon against al-Qaeda, less than 20% of targets in Pakistan since 2004 have been al-
Qaeda members. The majority of attacks target Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Afghan Taliban, or other militant
groups such as the Haqqani network. These groups, particularly the Haqqani network and Afghan Taliban, are
closely tied to the conflict in Afghanistan, providing logistical and financial support, training, fighters, and also plan
and execute operations against Afghan and US forces. Likewise, al-Qaeda, though supportive of operations
elsewhere in the world, also plays an operational role in Afghanistan. Of course, this self-defense justification
applies only to strikes against those individuals or groups sufficiently involved in operations in Afghanistan to
deem them combatants—mere political support or affiliation is insufficient. Moreover, the disparate and complex
nature of militancy in northern Pakistan means that one cannot paint all groups with the same brush—some
operate only in Pakistan, some only in AFG, some in both, and some elsewhere in the world.
PAKISTAN’S HUMAN RIGHTS OBLIGATIONS:
One legal issue too often overlooked is Pakistan’s legal obligations when it comes to drone strikes. Even if Pakistan
has consented to such strikes, obviating concerns regarding national sovereignty, Pakistan still has a responsibility
to respect and protect the human rights of its own citizens and other individuals within its territory. Extrajudicial
killing is prohibited under international law and Pakistan cannot support or even acquiesce in the extrajudicial
killing of individuals within its territory by other states unless certain conditions are met. If Pakistan were itself
engaged in armed conflict with those groups or individuals being targeted by U.S. drones, then it could consent to
such killings. For some groups, such as the TTP, it seems clear that Pakistan is in a state of armed conflict and
could legally target members of the group as combatants. However, it seems doubtful that Pakistan is in a state of
armed conflict with many other groups targeted by U.S. drones, such as al-Qaeda or the Haqqani network.
Pakistan may therefore be violating its obligations under human rights law in consenting to the extrajudicial killing
of members of such groups.

DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN:
 Nationality and Domicile
 Domicile and Citizenship
 Nationality and Citizenship

NATIONALITY AND DOMICILE

As we know that nationality is the relation of the person with the state which provides him protection and all
rights annexed thereto. While at the other hand domicile is place of residence of person. In other words due to
nationality a person becomes the member of that community while domicile is merely the land where he has
residence. Nationality may be acquired due to domicile. For such acquisition of nationality different states have
different laws.

DOMICILE AND CITIZENSHIP

The most unique distinction between domicile and citizenship is that domicile connotes the civil rights of a person
while citizen ship is a political status of a person. In other words a person having domicile may not be called
citizen of a state, because he only enjoys certain general civil rights in the consequence of his domicile. While a
citizen of a state enjoys all civil as well as political rights of that state. The reason is that in case of domicile the
person is merely affiliated with the state by tie of his residence in that state, but in case of citizenship the person
has a political tie with the state and the state, that is to say, the state’s policy will affect his political life.

NATIONALITY AND CITIZENSHIP

As it obvious that nationality is a relation of a person with the nation of which he has nationality while at the
other hand citizenship is the relation of a national with the law of the state. In other words national enjoys certain
legal rights while citizen enjoys absolute rights in the state. So, nationality may be the subject of international law
as well as, municipal law, while at the other hand citizenship is the exclusive subject of municipal law.