INTRODUCTION 13

clentific end Technological Revolutlon

Yet another formidable challenge confronting International Law is as to how to
lop and adapt it in accordance with scientific and logical advancenets which
place with an accelerated speed. The achievements in the fieid of means o
c
rmunication and tele-communication have made it difficult rather impossible to prevent
o m m .

vention
by a state in the afairs and territory of other states. Consequently, the
inteation of concepts such as Sovereignty and Nationality have been shaken.
foundatic

Chall
allenge posed by Depletlon of Ozone Layer as a result of Green
house Effect

Depletion of ozone layer as a result of 'green-house effect poses a very grave

is
Aallenge before the whole world and hence before International Law. This chailenge
cha

robably
more serious than the challenge posed by nuclear weapons. Though ozone
aty has been entered into in 1987 to face this challenge and other measures are also
Heingtaken to solve this problem with a view to meet this challenge as well as to deal with
ther environmental problems, U.N. Conference on Environment and Development
aINCED) popularly known as the Earth Summit was held in Brazil from 3rd to 14th June,
to face this challenge so as to save planet earth. Kyoto Climatic Conference
was
992,
held on December, 1997, to devise means and strategies to meet this challenge.
As of November, 2009, 187 Countries had ratified the Kyoto Treaty on climate
change 1997. But U.S., the biggest polluter of the wortd, has caused the great upset.
America refused to ratify the treaty because according to it, it would harm the economy
India and
and is flowed by the lack of restrictions by emerging economies, China,
Australia. The other developed nations who have no joined the treaty stated that they
were on track to cut
emissions by 30%. Besides this, U.N. Frame work convention on
Members except South
climate change, 1992 has been ratified by 195 countries (all U.N.
Union have ratified the
Sudan. Apart from U.N. Members Nive, Cook lsland and European
Convention.

Reference may be made here to Vienna Convention on the protection of Ozone

it has been ratified by 197 countries (all
Layer, 1985. It entered into force in 1988. So far this treaty has
UN members plus Nive, Cook Islands as well as European Union). Thus,
become universal. Besides this, Montreal Protocol in
Substances that Deplete the Ozone
ratified by 197 countries. Itis
Layer was also adopted. This protocol has also been
16th September, 2009, above mentioned Vienna
necessary to note here that on
in the history of the United
Convention and Montreal Protocol became the first treaties
Nations to achieve universal ratification.

Challenge Posed by Terrorism

that of terrorism. After the
Yet another challenge and indeed really potent, is
have spread all over the world, has led a new
emergence of various terrorist outfits which
dimension to the challenge of terrorism.
is that there is no unity in the
One of the reasons for expansion of its activities,
elimination or destruction. Some countries
international community in respect of its
bombarded some selective places in Syria and iraq
especially America have attacked and
to defeat terrorism, but its approach has been selective and has not proved effective to
countries such as France, Iraq,
resist the of terrorist groups. Some other
Britain etc.expansion
have followed suite to American action and have attacked some places

but their approach has also been selective.

OCCupied by terrorist,
taken upon itself the task of elimination of
Another great power, Russia has also
Errorism. Russia started attacking places ocCupied by terrorist in Syria.
INTRODUCTION
15
fabric of international law for that would have implied a denial of their own
inole
eded to
accorded to them
them under international law. Their approach has been thatof the rejection ngnus
of
of the norms and principles and of 'eclectic' selection of other
some of According to
Robert Friedheim,9 the term "new states" is a misnomer. In his view, Such state3 should
atered as "Dissatisfied" States. In the view of another eminent writer, Syatauw,0 the
new states 's misleading. The term 'new states' should be discarded, particularly t
tem
aken as reterring io those states that have gained their independence since
Not only is the ternm incorrect, it is misleading and therefore detrimental to a clear
lerstanding of the working and development of international law and international
under

any
relations. Man of us have used the term in our writings in the past,especially in the 1950
And the early 1960, the time of the great influx of new Asian and African States. But these
called new states now have a history and experience of some ten, twenty or thirty
sO-ca

yers. They have come to paricipate fully and actively in international affairs. They have
played their partininternational decision-making, often bringing decisive weight to hearon
he deliberations. Thev have provided officials for some of the highest functions in the
the
anised international society such as the Secretary General of the U.N., an increasing
number of Judges of the International Court of Justice and of the members of the
International Law Commission and several mediators or members of committees of good
offices. Thus the term 'new states' is now "outmoded, incorrect and may therefore lead
to serious misrepresentation. And this should at all cost be avoided in a field such as
international law that is sufficiently hampered by misconceptions and misunder-
standings."
A brief reference may also be made here of India's position in regard to the ruies and
principies of international law. Like other new states, India has also sought to reject or
modify sormne of the rules and principles of the traditional international law. india has
neither accepted the whole nor has rejected the entire fabric of the traditional internaiional
law. "India, like many other new nations, has expressed dissatisfaction with some of the
rules of international law as developed in the West. This, however, does not mean that
India's challenge of some of the rules of international law is motivated by any desire to
Subvert the international legal order. Nor is India's opposition of the same kind as that of
the Soviet Challenge."73 Further, In fact, India's argument would seem to indicate that it is
far more infiuenced by the Western rather than Soviet concepts of international law. This
should not be surprising. However, it must not be supposed that India would agree to all
the rules and principles that are identified as international law in the West. Rather, it does
not challenge the doctrine of international law in the same way as the Soviets challenge
it74 Since her emergence as new state after the attainment of independence, India has
made her own contribution for the progressive development of international law. Her

68. See J.J.G. Syatauw. "The Relationship between the Newness of States and their Practice of
International Law". Asian States and the Development of Universal International Law, Edited by R.P.
Anand, pp. 12-18.
69. See Robert L. Friedheim, "The Satisfied and Dissatisftied States Negotiate International Law', World
Politics (October, 1965).
70. JJG. Syatauw, "Old and New States: A Misleading Distinction for Future International Law and
International Relation", LJ.IL., Vol. 15, No. 2 (1975), p. 153.
71. J.J.G. Syatauw, "old and New States: A Misleading Distinction for Future International Law and
Intenational Relation", IJ.I.L.. Vol. 15, No. 2 (1975), p. 153 at p. 171.
72. Ibid, at p. 172.
73. M.K. Nawaz, "Intermational Law in the Contemporary Practice of India: Some prospectives Proc. ASIL,
April, 25-27, 1963, p. 275 at p. 289.
74. M.K. Nawaz, "International Law in the Contemporary Practice of India: Some prospectives Proc. ASIL