WELCOME TO

PUBLIC
INTERNATIONAL
LAW

THE COMPLEX WORLD AND THE LAW

WITHIN IT.
Some BIG questions that need answers

• - Should United Nations headquarters be shifted to

Bangalore?
- Should India be given a place on the Security Council like the
Permanent 5 states?
- Is the world bi-polar / uni-polar / multi-polar?
• - Does USA have the sole responsibility to bring peace in the
world? How do we understand "interventions" and "self-
defence"?
• Why is Africa seen as a place of war, disease and poverty?
Colonial map – circa 1936
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, [2004] ICJ Rep 136

• On 8 December 2003, the General Assembly of the United Nations in its tenth emergency special
session adopted resolution ES-10/14, in which the Assembly requested the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) to urgently render an advisory opinion on: “the legal consequences arising from
the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of
the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including
the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General
Assembly resolutions.
• The Court stated that Israel must put an immediate end to the violation of its international
obligations by ceasing the works of construction of the wall and dismantling those parts of that
structure situated within Occupied Palestinian Territory and repealing or rendering ineffective all
legislative and regulatory acts adopted with a view to construction of the wall and establishment
of its associated régime. The Court further made it clear that Israel must make reparation for all
damage suffered by all natural or legal persons affected by the wall’s construction.
Advisory Opinion on the Accordance with International Law of
Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, 2010
I.C.J. 141

• On 8 October 2008 (resolution 63/3), the General Assembly decided to

ask the Court to render an advisory opinion on the following question :
“Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional
Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with
international law ?”
• In its Advisory Opinion delivered on 22 July 2010, the Court concluded
that “the declaration of independence of Kosovo adopted on 17
February 2008 did not violate international law”. On 9 September 2010,
the General Assembly adopted a resolution in which it acknowledged
the content of the advisory opinion of the Court rendered in response to
its request (resolution 64/298).
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T, Judgment, (Sept. 2,
1998) -- Defined and expanded the scope of Rape in a genocide
• “a physical invasion of a sexual nature, committed on a person under circumstances
which are coercive". This definition represented a significant departure from a
traditional, or mechanical, description which identified the crime in terms of the victim’s
non-consent to sexual intercourse and in terms of parts of the body of the perpetrator
and the victim. And includes acts which involve the insertion of objects and/or the use
of bodily orifices not considered to be intrinsically sexual, such as a piece of wood
thrust into the sexual organs of a woman as she lay dying.
• sexual violence includes forced nudity, may exist even without a physical invasion of the
human body or physical contact. Threats, intimidation, extortion, and other forms of
duress which prey [up]on fear or desperation may constitute coercion. In referring
specifically to genocidal rape, the Chamber compared it to torture, the purpose of
which is to dominate and to degrade the victim. Any inquiry into individual consent to
acts of sexual violence was not even worth consideration, under conditions of
overwhelming force present in a widespread or systematic attack.
TWAIL - Third World Approaches to International Law
• a scholarly community and/or a political movement; a methodology; a set of approaches; a chorus of voices
from Global South; a theory; a network of scholars; a political grouping; a strategic engagement with
international law; an intellectual community; a school of thought; a rubric; breaking hegemony; going
against/beyond eurocentrism!
Natural law and imperialism
• Hugo Grotius The Rights of War and Peace (De Jure Belli ac Pacis) 1625
• Just War? Freedom of the High Seas?

• Emerich de Vattel, Laws of Nations, Book III, chap. 5,1797

• The people, the peasants, the citizens take no part in it, and generally have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy.
Provided the inhabitants submit to him who is master of the country, pay the contributions imposed, and refrain from all
hostilities, they live in as perfect safety as if they were friends: they even continue in possession of what belongs to them.

• Fransisco de Vitoria 'On the law of war made by the Spaniards on the barbarians';1557
• Although the aborigines in question are not wholly intelligent, yet they are a little short of that condition, and so are unfit
to found or administer a lawful State upto the standard required by human and civil claims. Accordingly, they have no
proper laws nor magistrates, and are not even capable of controlling their family affairs .
 Are US drone strikes legal?
The Law of Armed Conflict requires the following principles to be
followed when targeting individuals:
• (1) military necessity, which requires that the use of military force
(including all measures needed to defeat the enemy as quickly
and efficiently as possible, which are not forbidden by the law of
war) be directed at accomplishing a valid military purpose;
• (2) humanity, which forbids the unnecessary infliction of suffering,
injury, or destruction;
• (3) distinction, which requires that only lawful targets—such as
combatants and other military objectives— be intentionally
targeted; and
• (4) proportionality, which requires that the anticipated collateral
damage of an attack not be excessive in relation to the anticipated
concrete and direct military advantage from the attack.
1. Legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos
Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, ICJ,
25th February 2019

2. Obligatios Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation

of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament
(Marshall Islands vs. Republic of India) Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, 2016 ICJ Rep 1 (Oct 5)
 Small Island Developing States UN MEMBERS (38)
Atlantic, Indian Ocean and South China Sea (AIS) NON-UN MEMBERS/ASSOCIATE
(9) MEMBERS OF REGIONAL
Pacific (13) COMMISSIONS (20)
Bahrain
Cabo Verde | Comoros Fiji American Samoa
Guinea-Bissau Kiribati Anguilla
Maldives | Mauritius Marshall Islands Aruba
Sao Tomé and Principe Micronesia (Federated States of) Bermuda
Seychelles Nauru British Virgin Islands
Singapore Palau Cayman Islands
Papua New Guinea Commonwealth of Northern Marianas
Caribbean (16) Samoa Cook Islands
Solomon Islands Curacao
Antigua and Barbuda Timor-Leste French Polynesia
Bahamas Tonga Guadeloupe | Guam
Barbados | Belize | Cuba Tuvalu Martinique | Montserrat
Dominica | Dominican Republic Vanuatu New Caledonia
Grenada | Guyana | Haiti | Jamaica Niue | Puerto Rico
Saint Kitts and Nevis Sint Maarten
Saint Lucia Turks and Caicos Islands
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines | Suriname U.S. Virgin Islands
Trinidad and Tobago
UNIT-I
Nature, definition, origin and basis of International Law; Sources of International Law; Relationship
between Municipal and International Law; Subjects of International Law.

• Public International law: The set of rules that govern the activities of governments in
relation to other governments
• Private International law: rules that regulate the activities of individuals, corporations,
and other private entities when they cross national borders
• Natural law: fundamental rules of the universe. Grotius: a more secularized version:
‘law of nature’ is based on the dictates of reason, on the rational nature of men as social
beings
• Legal positivists: attach primary or major weight to customary and treaty rules,
relegating an insignificant place to the law of nature
 History of International Law
• No system of international law during middle ages. Why?
• Temporal and spiritual unity of Europe under the Holy Roman empire (lesser conflict)
• Feudal structure of Europe hinging on hierarchy of authority-clogged
• emergence of independent nation-states and prevented powers from becoming unitary actors
• In short, we see inter-municipal law, but not modern-style international law.

• 1600s-1700s: Key factor in the evolution of international law is the development of the state system. Sovereignty and secular nations
(Westphalian order) created new conceptions of nation-states, which developed the idea of customary international law
• 1800s: newfound focus on law of war and neutrality as well as growth in habit of making treaties

• Early 20th century: first attempts to legalize international politics

• 1919- Establishment of an ineffective League of Nations
• 1921- Permanent Court of International Justice (to be succeeded by International Court of Justice in 1946)
• ICJ focuses on international conventions, international customs, general principles of law, and court rulings
• ILO established soon after end of WWI

• Mid 20th century: rapid expansion in international law

• UN established in 1946, trying to remedy much of the defects of the League of Nations
• Also IMF and WTO (Bretton Woods institutions),as well as regional trade agreements like EU, NAFTA, ASEAN, etc
• Newfound focus on the individual and individual rights and responsibilities rather than focusing solely on the state. This is often known as
international human rights law. Universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) was the first such document (though not binding).
Perspectives
• Division of World – based on ideology, economy, geography etc.,
• First World or Western Countries: They deserved the credit of developing the
laws of-War & peace; Resolving the dispute through Arbitration; Prior
declaration before the commencement of the war.
• Second World or Socialist Countries: described Law & politics as the means
by which the ruling class maintained their domination of society. Their
Contribution includes Non-intervention in the internal affairs of the others
states; The sovereignty of states, Good neighborhood; International co-
operation;
• Third World or Developing Countries: Concept and Characteristics of Third
World Countries, the demands and achievements of Third World Countries,
Third World Countries and IL
Perspectives
• The third world and community resistance are manifested through peasant movements in Ecuador that demanded the right
to preserve their way of life, class actions on behalf of future generations in the Philippines, transnational tribal mobilisation
against extractive industries across South Asia, law reform recognising the rights of Mother Earth in Bolivia and other
jurisdictions, climate justice demands of sinking small island states, massive environmental protests across China. Each of
these struggles has been instrumental in evolving an innovative and vigorous application of international law. With more than
3000 multilateral and bilateral environmental agreements signed or ratified by the international community, the scope and
ambit of environment has broadened exponentially covering deep ocean, outer space, biodiversity and transboundary
pollution.
• USHA NATARAJAN, THIRD WORLD APPROACHES TO INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE ENVIRONMENT, edited by Andreas Philippopoulos -Mihalopoulos and Victoria
Brooks, Research Methods in Environmental Law: A Handbook 2017, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

• Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, G.A. Res. 1514 (XV) (Dec. 14, 1960).
• The narrative of east and west was being rewritten as decolonized states began to assert their Permanent Sovereignty over
Natural Resources (PSNR), a new doctrine of the free peoples by the UN G.A. Res. 1803 (XVII) (1962).

• Principles of International law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among states in accordance with the
Charter of the United nations G.A. Res. 2625 (XXV) 1970, UN GAOR 25th Sess.

• UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UNGA Res. 61/295, UN Doc. A/61/L. 67 and Add. 1 (Sept. 13, 2007).
 Definitions of International Law
• Definitions: – Two Views - Traditionalist View and Modernist View
• Traditional View: International Law regulates the relations between or among states or states alone are the subjects of International
Law Eg: Oppenheim, J.L. Brierly, Hackworth etc.
• Oppenheim: Law of Nations or International Law is “the name for the body of customary and treaty rules which are considered
legally binding by civilized states in their inter course with each other".
• “There are three components in this definitions.
• (1) Body of rules governing the relations between states.
• (2) States regard these rules as binding on them in their relation with one another.
• And (3) such rules derived from customs and treaties.

Criticism of Oppenheim’s definition:

• Not only states but includes international organizations
• P.E.Corbett: “The future of IL is one with the future of International Organizations.
• Civilized states also criticized. Individuals and other private persons have rights and duties. Not only customary and conventional Int.
Law but also general principles of Law. International Law is not only body of law but also like all living laws.
 Definitions of International Law
• Modern definitions – International Law not only regulates the relations between states but
also International organizations, individuals non – state entities etc. For example:
• J.G.Starke: Int. Law may be defined as that body of law which is composed for its greater
part of the principles and rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe,
and therefore, do commonly observe in their relations with each other, and which includes
also;
• (a) The rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions or organizations,
their relations with each other, and their relations with states and individuals; and
• (b) Certain rules of relating to individuals and non-states entities so far as the rights or
duties of such individuals and non-state entities are the concern of the international
community.
 Nature of International Law
• There are two views on the subject :
• International Law is not a true law: John Austin, Hobbes, Holland, Pufendorf, and
Bentham.
• Austin Definition of Law- Law is a Commend of Sovereign given by political superior to
political inferiors
• International Law is not a true law: Austin’s Classification Laws
• The rules of international law are positive morality:
• Holland Bentham, Brown etc., denied the legal character of international law.
• International law is not law because: No agency for international legislation. No
organised force, No determinate impartial arbitrator,
• The ICJ has no compulsory jurisdiction ipso facto, Some writers have called
international law as a quasi-law
• Starke: International law is a weak law - enforcement and pronouncement
 Nature of International Law
• There are two views on the subject :
• International Law is true law: Louis Henkin: Almost all nations observe almost all principals of IL almost all their
obligations almost all the times.
(a) Objective of any law is implementation
(b) Means & Methods are not so important
Oppenhiem, Brierly, Starke, H.L.A.Hart, Pollock, etc.
Sir Henry Maine – Historical jurisprudence – In primitive societies there was no sovereign political authority yet there
were laws.

Austin’s concept of law denied customary rules of international law.

Treaty and conventions are legislation of international law.
• When international questions states do not rely upon moral arguments but rely upon treaty precedents and
opinion of specialists.
• States do not deny the existence of international law
• As far as sanctions are concerned, International Law does not completely lack it.
• Decisions of ICJ are binding upon parties to the dispute.
Theories of International Law
• Natural Law Theory: According to this school, the Law of Nations are only part of the law of Nature. States relations are
regulated by higher law - “the law of Nature”. For Example: the Romans divided laws into jus civile, jus genetum and jus
naturale
• Pufendrof and Vattel are the chief exponents of this school.

• Positivism: The positivists base their views on the actual practices of states. Growth of International law to treaties and
customs rather than human nature: Law is will of states.
• Chief Exponents of this school are Bynkershoek and Anzilotti

• Grotius Theory : He is the father of International law. His principal work, De Jure Belli ac Pacis, was continually relied upon as
a work of reference and authority in the decisions of courts, and in the textbooks of later writers of standing. Grotius tried to
establish that law governed the totality of relations between states. He secularized the concept of law of Nature and he
further recognized that the individuals and the state composed of the individual were essential identical.
• Grotius maintained a fine distinction between Just and Unjust Wars and developed the qualified Neutrality. Emphasized the
binding force of promises and agreements in international sphere and supported peaceful settlements between
states. Grotius recognized Fundamental Rights and Freedom of the individuals (just war?).
Theories of International Law
• Theory of consent: Supporters of this theory says consents of states in the basis for International Law. States observe IL
because they have given their consent for it.
• Chief exponents of this school – Anzilotti, Tripele, Oppenheim. This theory supported to the positivism.

• Auto Limitation Theory: International law is binding upon states because they have restricted their power through the
process of auto – limitations. Each state has a will, which is completely independent and free from external influence. But
process of limitation they can restrict their powers and follow the international law. Jellinck is the chief exponent of this
theory.

• Pacta Sunt Servanda (treaties myst be kept/honoured): According to Anzilotti the binding force of international law is
based on the supreme fundamental norm or principle. I This means that the agreements entered into by states will be
respect and followed by them in good faith.
• Theory of fundamental rights: this theory is based on Naturalist. According to this, prior to the existence of state, man
lived in natural state; in that state he possessed some fundamental rights such as independence, equality, right of self
preservation. Like man state has possessed their rights because there was no world institution above the state.
 1.
History &
Development 2.

3.
 UN Charter Preamble
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
• to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
• to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and
of nations large and small, and
• to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law
can be maintained, and
• to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
• to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
• to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
• to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common
interest, and
• to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS.
• Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full
powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an
international organization to be known as the United Nations.
 UN Charter Purpose and Principles
Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective
collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for
the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring
about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations
which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate
measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an
economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these
common ends.
 UN Charter Purpose and Principles
Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the
following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith
the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and
security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter,
and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or
enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these
Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are
essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to
settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under
Chapter Vll.
 SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Article 38
1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes
as are submitted to it, shall apply:
• international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly
recognized by the contesting states;
• international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
• the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
• subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly
qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules
of law.
2. This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if
the parties agree thereto.
 SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969
• Entering into force in 1980, the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties set forth a comprehensive set
of rules governing the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties.
• Since helps overcome the costs of bargaining and negotiating treaty rules by codifying them once and
for all. Further, the Vienna Convention codifies customary international law, so it becomes more clear, it
creates a basis for the progressive development of treaty law.
• Membership: 111 states are parties to the Convention.
• The US view of the convention: The US is not a party to the Vienna convention, but it does suggest that
most of the provisions of the convention represent customary int’l law- so even if US is not party to
treaty, it still considers the underlying custom binding.
• Definition of a Treaty: (Article 2)
• “an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international
law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its
particular designation”
• note that the agreement must be in written form and governed by int’l law
• note that oral declarations/agreements can still be binding, but they aren’t considered treaties
 SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
Definition of a party to a treaty: (Article 2)

• “a State which has consented to be bound by the treaty” so non-state actors cannot be parties to a treaty!
• Agreements that are essentially commercial in character are not governed by the convention

• When does a treaty come into force? Determined by the treaty itself- it could be on a date, it could be after a number of countries
have ratified the treaty.

• What happens after a treaty has been concluded? The written instrument is then placed in the custody of a depository. The
deposit of the instruments of ratification then establishes consent.
• For treaties with a small number of parties, the depository will usually be the government of the state whose territory upon
which the treaty was signed. Other times, it’s often an international location- like Geneva. Large, multilateral treaties usually rely
on int’l orgs, like the UN Secretary General, as depository.
Unilateral Statements

• “A unilateral statement is not an agreement but may have legal consequences and may become a source of rights and obligations
on principles analogous to estoppel. It may also contribute to customary law.”

Related case: Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France, ICJ, 1974

• Facts: Australia and New Zealand initiated litigation in the ICJ challenging the legality of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests
conducted by France in the Pacific Ocean. After the cases were filed, the French president announced that France had completed the
course of its tests. The ICJ considered the legal effects of these statements.
• Decision: The ICJ concluded that although “not all unilateral acts imply obligation,” the French president had made a public
statement addressed “to the international community as a whole.” Thus, the ICJ concluded that the statement constituted “an
undertaking possessing legal effect.”
Political Commitments
• Main difference between treaties and political commitments: Treaty has a binding language that acknowledges that it’s legally binding.
Political commitments build expectations of compliance, but they don’t include binding legal language like “shall comply...”
• Ex. The Final Act of th e Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe signed at Helsinki in 1975, which avoids words of legal undertaking and is in eligible for registration under
Article 102 of the UN Charter (Restatement Section 301 Reporter’s Notes) (CB pg. 90).

• Why non-binding political commitments?

• Parties sometimes prefer non-binding agreement in order to avoid legal remedies. They may be attainable when treaties cannot

• Consequences of breaking a political commitment:

• Expectations of compliance may still surround a political commitment, so sometimes even sanctions can be imposed for their violation

• “Soft Law”: Political commitments can sometimes contribute to the development of soft law
• “Good faith”: Political commitments are governed by the general principle of “good faith”

• Examples of Political Commitment:

• Brazil-Turkey-Iran Joint Declaration: It’s drafted similarly to a treaty, and its mean to be as bindin g as possible, but th e conditionality of it (that anoth er set of states, n amely the Vienna Group
composed of the US, Russia, France, and the IAEA, agree to it in order for it be implemented sets it apart from a treaty)

• 2010 G-8 Declaration: there is no signal that the declaration is binding, so the declaration is just a political commitment

• Obligation Not to Defeat the Object and Purpose of a Treaty

• Article 18 of the Vienna Convention: A state is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when:
• It has sign ed the tr eaty and it is su bject to domestic ratification, until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to th e treaty. It has expr essed its consent to be bound by
the treaty, pending entry into force of the treaty

• Eg: Clinton and Bush and the ICC Statute: Clinton signs Rome statute in 2000 even though h e expr essed problems . At that point, US is bound not to under min e object and purpose of tr eaty.
But Bush wants to conduct bilateral treaties with man y states such that US citizens cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of the ICC (wh ich obviously undermines th e object and purpose of th e
ICC statute). So Bush sen ds a letter to the UN Secretary Gen eral letting him know that th e US no longer wishes to become a party to th e treaty, an d then it is no longer required that he doesn’t
undermine the object and purpose of a treaty.
Observance of Treaties
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention expresses the fundamental/widely accepted rule of pacta sunt servada:
• “Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention invokes a corollary to the rule:
• A state “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty.” In other words, a
state cannot use its domestic law as a means to escape international responsibilities
Interpretation of Treaties
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention includes the general rule of interpretation:
A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith and in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in
light of their context as well as object and purpose
The context for the purpose of interpretation shall comprise:
1. The treaty text, including its preamble and annexes (textual/structural interpretation)
2. Any agreement relating to the treaty that was made between the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty
(contextual interpretation)
3. Any instrument which was made by the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty an accepted by other parties as
an instrument of the treaty (Protocols) (contextual interpretation)
Article 32 of the Vienna Convention includes additional means of interpretation if the above leave the treaty’s meaning
“ambiguous” or lead to a result which is “manifestly absurd or unreasonable”:
• Preparatory work (traveaux preparatoires) (historical interpretation) The circumstances of the treaty’s conclusion (contextual
interpretation)
Reservations
1. Definition of reservation: According to Article 2(1)(d) of the Vienna Convention, a reservation is:
“a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to a
treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.”
Why Reservations?
Reduction of decision costs- it’s easier for all parties to agree. So it could lead to more treaties. They may, however, weaken the
overall instrument, even if it doesn’t directly undermine the object and purpose of treaty.
Federalism concerns: a state may want to prevent a treaty’s application from subordinating political entities in a federal system
Compatibility with local law: A state may wish to ensure that a treaty is compatible with peculiarities of its local law
Disagreement with specific points: A state may wish to be a party to a treaty even though it disagrees with some specific
substantive points
Declining from dispute-settlement mechanisms: A state may agree to a treaty but reserve away it being bound to the treaty’s
dispute settlement mechanism (such as the ICJ)
Reservations only apply to multilateral treaties: The issue of reservations does not come up with bilateral treaties. Why? It’s a
counter-offer, they either accept it as part of the treaty or reject it and it will never take effect.
When reservations are not allowed: (Vienna Convention, Article 19)
When the reservation is prohibited by the treaty | When the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the
treaty
Acceptance of reservations: Under Article 20 of the Vienna Convention:
• A reservation specifically allowed by the treaty requires no acceptance
• When the object and purpose of the treaty may be subverted by the reservation, it requires acceptance by all state parties
• An act by a State expressing its will to be bound by the treaty and expressing a reservation is effective as soon as at least one
other contracting state has accepted the reservation (which is assumed if a state raises no objection to a reservation after a certain
period)
Reservations
Effect of reservationson other parties to the treaty
What a reservation does is it modifies the reserving states’ relation to other states on that particular provisions without modifying the
treaties for other parties. So the US, its relationship to other states is changed. So, for example, US reservations on human rights
treaties do not effect another state’s duty to comply with a treaty’s terms.
Reciprocity: when a state enacts the reservation, another state party is not bound to that provision of the treaty vis-à-vis the reserving
state.
Method of communicating reservations: Article 23 of Vienna Convention:
• The reservation and the express acceptance of a reservation must be in writing and communicated to the contracting States and
other states entitled to become a party to the treaty.
Invalidation of Treaties
Articles 46-52 of the Vienna Convention provide for the conditions that justify the invalidation of treaties:
• Coercion: “the invalidity of a treaty procured by the illegal threat or use of force is a principle which is lex lata (as the law is) in
the international law today.”
Other possible justifications: Duress, error, fraud, corruption
Termination and Suspension of the Operation of Treaties
1. Termination vs. Invalidation: Prior obligations are erased through invalidation, whereas termination would only invalidate future
obligations or obligations after termination, but the past commitments still stand. It’s a temporal distinction.
2. When treaties can be terminated: According to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention:
• For bilateral treaties: They may be terminated after a material breach of the treaty by one of the parties
• For multilateral treaties: They may be terminated if after a material breach by one of the parties the other parties unanimously
agree to terminate the treaty. This termination may either be between themselves and the defaulting state, or between all parties
• Impossibility of performance: The treaty may be terminated if it is no longer possible to perform the treaty (Article 61)
• Fundamental changes in circumstances rebus sic stantibus (Article 62)
 Definition of a material breach: According to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention, a material breach consists of:
• A repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the convention
• The violation of a provision essential to the accomplishmentto the object or purpose of the treaty

• What constitute “fundamental changes in circumstances” worthy of treaty termination? The changes in circumstances have
to be essential to the treaty and have to radically change the parties’ ability to perform the treaty.
Withdrawal from or Denunciation of a Treaty (when there hasn’t been a material breach)

• Most treaties include terms providing the bases for withdrawal from, or denunciation of, the treaty, and indeed, these acts are
usually done according to the treaty terms. These terms usually specify the duration or date of termination of the treaty, or the
conditions/events that allow for termination, withdrawal, or the right to denounce the treaty.
• Withdrawal causes in treaties are now common practice, and are recognized by the Vienna Convention.
• Article 54 of the Vienna Convention provides that the termination of a treaty/a party’s withdrawal may take place “in conformity with the
provisions of the treaty” or “at any time by consent of all the parties.”

If the treaty does not contain any withdrawal/termination/denunciation provisions, then Article 56 of the Vienna Convention
provides that such acts are not possible unless:

• It is established that the parties intended to admit the possibility of denunciationor withdrawal,or

• The right to denunciation/withdrawalmay be implied by the nature of the treaty

 Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v. Slovakia) (1997 ICJ Rep 7)

• Facts: Hungary and Czechoslovakia, when under the communist rule of the USSR, had made a treaty regarding a project
of locks on the banks of the Danube river. Hungary terminated the treaty in 1989 arguing it would have a terrible
environmental impact: “it could not be “obliged to fulfill a practically impossible task, namely to construct a barrage
system on its own territory that would cause irreparable environmental damage.” Hungary further argued that due to
“changes of a political nature, the Project’s diminishing economic viability, the progress of environmental knowledge
and the development of new norms and prescriptions of international environmental law,” there had been a
fundamental change in circumstances that justified its termination of the treaty.
• Decision with regards to whether the treaty allowed for termination:
The ICJ found that the 1977 Treaty does not contain any provision regarding its termination, nor was there any
indication that the parties intended to include this, and in fact, the parties seemed to want a long-standing commitment
to the project. Thus, the treaty can only be terminated in accordance with the limited grounds enumerated in the Vienna
Convention, which requires states to “act in good faith.” Since Hungary terminated the treaty in 1992 only six days after
notifying Slovakia without having suffered any injury during this time, the ICJ ruled that “Hungary’s termination of the
treaty was premature.”

• Decision with regards to Hungary’s “impossibility” argument:

The ICJ did not accept Hungary’s “impossibility argument.” The ICJ found that since Hungary was responsible for not
investing in the project in the first place, if the project was no longer viable, it was for Hungary’s own fault. Further,
Article 61 of the Vienna Convention “expressly provides that impossibility of performance may not be invoked for the
termination of a treaty by a party to that treaty when it results from that party’s own breach of an obligation.”
 Customary International Law
• It is convenient to look at customary law as this is both the oldest source and the one which generates rules binding on all States.

• Customary law is not a written source. A rule of customary law, e.g., requiring States to grant immunity to a visiting Head of State, is said to
have two elements. First, there must be widespread and consistent State practice – ie States must, in general, have a practice of according
immunity to a visiting Head of State. Secondly, there has to be what is called “opinio juris”, usually translated as “a belief in legal
obligation; ie States must accord immunity because they believe they have a legal duty to do so.

• ‘Not only must the acts concerned be a settled practice, but they must also be such, or be carried out in such a way, as to be evidence of a
belief that this practice is rendered obligatory by the existence of a rule requiring it. ... The States concerned must feel that they are
conforming to what amounts to a legal obligation.’ (North Sea Continental Shelf cases, ICJ Reps, 1969, p. 3 at 44)

• A new rule of customary international law cannot be created unless both of these elements are present. Practice alone is not enough – see,
e.g., the Case of the SS Lotus (1927). Nor can a rule be created by opinio juris without actual practice – see, e.g., the Advisory Opinion on
Nuclear Weapons (1996).

• But these elements require closer examination. So far as practice is concerned, this includes not just the practice of the government of a State
but also of its courts and parliament. It includes what States say as well as what they do. Also practice needs to be carefully examined for what
it actually says about law. The fact that some (perhaps many) States practise torture does not mean that there is not a sufficient practice
outlawing it.

• Regarding opinio juris, the normal definition of a belief in obligation (see, e.g., the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (1969) above) is not
entirely satisfactory. First, it ignores the fact that many rules are permissive (eg regarding sovereignty over the continental shelf), for which the
real opinio juris is a belief not in obligation but in right. Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is something artificial in talking of the beliefs
of a State. It might be better to consider opinio juris as the assertion of a legal right or the acknowledgment of a legal obligation.

• Once there is sufficient practice together with opinio juris, a new rule of custom will emerge. Subject only to what is known as the “persistent
objector” principle the new rule binds all States. The persistent objector principle allows a State which has persistently rejected a new rule
even before it emerged as such to avoid its application.
 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)
(1984 ICJ 14)

• Facts: In 1984, Nicaragua sued the US over US support for the contras, an insurgent group seeking to
overthrow the Soviet-supported Sandinista Nicaraguan government. Nicaragua claimed that the US was, with
respect to the contras, training them, paying them, supplying them with arms and ammunitions and other
supplies.
• At the time the case was brought, the US had consented to compulsory ICJ jurisdiction via a declaration by
President Truman form 1946, subject to a few reservations.
• Nicaragua had consented to the compulsory ICJ jurisdiction in a 1929 declaration, without reservation (see
CB pg. 312). However, its declaration had been lost at sea, despite contacting the League of Nations by
telegram that it planned to be bound by the jurisdiction of the ICJ’s predecessor, the PCIJ.

• In 1984 the US submits a “notification” to the UN Secretary General, signed by the US Secretary of State,
stating that the US’s declaration did not apply to disputes within any Central American state, effective
immediately.

• Further, the US argued that because one of the reservations in its original declaration included that disputes
arising under a multilateral treaty should not be subject to the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, and that
Nicaragua believes that the US has violated several treaties, including the UN Charter and the Montevideo
Convention, that the ICJ does not have jurisdiction.
 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (1984
ICJ 14)
• Decision on whether Nicaragua had consented to ICJ jurisdiction: Yes, Nicaragua has consented to ICJ jurisdiction. Since in
1945 Nicaragua became a party to the UN Charter in 1945 and to the ICJ Statute, and “in sum, Nicaragua’s 1929 Declaration was
valid at the moment when Nicaragua became a party to the Statute of the new Court; it had retained its potential effect because
Nicaragua, which could have limited the duration of that effect, had expressly refrained from doing so.” Further, “constant
acquiescence of Nicaragua in affirmations, to be found in United Nations and other publications, of its position as bound by the
optional clause constitutes a valid manifestation of its intent to recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.”

• Decision on whether the US’ 1984 “notification” is valid: The ICJ ruled that it wasn’t valid, because it hadn’t provided Nicaragua
with enough prior notice: “the United States purported to act on 6 April 1984 in such a way as to modify its 1946 Declaration with
sufficiently immediate effect to bar a Application filed on 9 April 1984 [...] according to the law of treaties, which requires a
reasonable time for withdrawal from or termination of treaties [...] it need only be observed that from 6 to 9 April would not amount
to “reasonable time”
• Decision on the US claim that this dispute concerns a multilateral treaty dispute outside the ICJ’s jurisdiction: The ICJ held that the
treaties mentioned by Nicaragua simply codify customary int’l law, thus the ICJ could still have jurisdiction over the case, since the
dispute isn’t just about treaties, but customary int’l law, which is not mentioned in the reservations to the US’s optional clause
declaration.

• Final decision: The ICJ has jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s application.

• Subsequent outcomes:

• The US withdrew from the proceedings, and in 1986 the ICJ ruled against the US, stating that the US involvement with the contras
had violated customary int’l law and the FCN Treaty between the two countries.

• In December 1985, the US gave formal notice that it was terminating its 1946 declaration consenting to the ICJ’s compulsory
jurisdiction.
 General Principles
• While treaties and custom are the most important sources of international law, the others mentioned in Article
38 of the ICJ Statute of the ICJ should not be ignored. General principles of law recognized by civilised
nations – the third source – are seldom mentioned in judgments. They are most often employed where the ICJ
or another international tribunal wants to adopt a concept such as the legal personality of corporations (eg in
the Barcelona Traction Co. case (1970 ICJ Rep 3)) which is widely accepted in national legal systems. But
international law seldom adopts in its entirety a legal concept from a particular national legal system; instead
the search is for a principle which in one form or another is recognized in a wide range of national legal
systems.

Judicial Decisions
• Article 38(1)(d) refers to judicial decisions as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. In
contrast to the position in common law countries, there is no doctrine of binding precedent in international
law. Indeed, the Statute of the ICJ expressly provides that a decision of the Court is not binding on anyone
except the partiers to the case in which that decision is given and even then only in respect of that particular
case (Article 59). Nevertheless, the ICJ refers frequently to its own past decisions and most international
tribunals make use of past cases as a guide to the content of international law, so it would be a mistake to
assume that “subsidiary” indicated a lack of importance.
• Article 38(1)(d) does not distinguish between decisions of international and national courts. The former are
generally considered the more authoritative evidence of international law on most topics (though not those
which are more commonly handled by national courts, such as the law on sovereign immunity). But decisions
of a State’s courts are a part of the practice of that State and can therefore contribute directly to the formation
of customary international law.
 Writings
• The writings of international lawyers may also be a persuasive guide to the content of international law but they are not
themselves creative of law and there is a danger in taking an isolated passage from a book or article and assuming without
more that it accurately reflects the content of international law.

Other Sources
• The list of sources in Article 38 of the Statute is frequently criticised for being incomplete. In particular, it makes no mention of
the acts of the different organs of the United Nations. Today there can be no doubting the importance of those acts in shaping
international law, although they perhaps fit within the system of Article 38 better than is sometimes imagined.
• The United Nations General Assembly has no power to legislate for the international community; its resolutions are not legally
binding. However, many of those resolutions have an important effect on the law-making process. Some resolutions are part of
the treaty- making process, attaching a treaty text negotiated in the framework of the United Nations and recommended to the
Member States by the Assembly (this was the case with the Convention against Torture). While it is the treaty which creates the
legal obligation – and then only for the States which choose to become party to it – the importance of the United Nations in the
process of creating that treaty should not be underestimated.
• The studies of international law produced by the International Law Commission for the General Assembly, especially if
adopted by the Assembly, may also have an important effect on customary international law, even if they are not turned into
treaties (the ILC Articles on State Responsibility adopted in 2001 are a good example).
• The position of the Security Council is somewhat different. Decisions taken by the Council under Chapter VII of the Charter and
framed in mandatory terms are legally binding on all States (Article 25 of the Charter). Moreover, under Article 103 of the
Charter the duty to carry out a decision of the Council prevails over obligations under all other international agreements (see
the Lockerbie cases (1992)). However, the Council does not create new laws but rather obligations in relation to specific issues
and it is not a legislature (see the decision of the ICTY in Tadic (1995)).
 Hierarchy of norms?

• A controversial question is whether there is a hierarchy of norms in international law. Article 38 makes no reference to
such a hierarchy but it is possible to discern elements of a hierarchy in certain respects. It is now generally acknowledged
that a few rules of international law are of such fundamental importance that they have the status of jus cogens, that is
peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted. Whereas States can always agree to depart (as between
themselves) from ordinary rules of customary international law, they are not free to depart from or vary a rule of jus
cogens. Thus, a treaty which conflicts with a jus cogens rule is void (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969,
Article 53) and such a rule will prevail over inconsistent rules of customary international law.
• However, it is important to bear in mind that (a) there are very few rules which possess the status of jus cogens (e.g.
the prohibitions of aggression, genocide, torture and slavery) and the criteria for achieving such status are strict –
near universal acceptance not merely as a rule but as a rule from which no derogation is permitted; (b) cases of
conflict are very rare and the suggestion that such a conflict exists should be carefully scrutinised (see, e.g. the
rejection both by the ICJ – Arrest Warrant case (2002) – and the English courts – Jones v. Saudi Arabia (2006) – of the
suggestion that the law on sovereign immunity conflicted with the prohibition of torture).
• A treaty prevails over customary law as between the parties to the treaty but a treaty will not affect the rights of States not
party to that treaty. There is, therefore, no strict sense of hierarchy between treaty and customary law, contrary to what is
sometimes alleged.
Relationship between International Law
and Municipal Law
1. Monist School
2. Dualist School
3. Transformation or Specific Adoption Theory
4. Delegation Theory
5. Harmonization Theory

• The theoretical framework to accept and adopt international law

principles into municipal law forms the cornerstone of monism and
dualism.
Relationship between International Law
and Municipal Law
1. Monist School

• This theory initially was forwarded by Moser and Martens. It was later developed by jurists like
Kelsen, Westlake and Lauterpacht.
• Monism is a doctrine which assumes that International Laws is a unifying factor for municipal law,
such that it overrides domestic law and simply becomes the law of the land directly. Once an
International treaty is signed, the automatic incorporation of international law into domestic law
makes a treaty automatically applicable, and the supremacy of international law over domestic
law in cases of conflict between the two integrates this position.
• To this end, Monism describes a single and comprehensive legal order of direct adoption as
seen in France, Spain, Netherlands and USA.
• However, some states like Germany and Italy might require prior legislative approval or quasi-
automatic incorporation, as a precondition to ratification and a better nomenclature would be
hybrid monist states.
Relationship between International Law
and Municipal Law
2. Dualist School
• This theory was developed by German scholar Triepel in 1899. It was later followed by Italian jurist Anzilotti.
• International law and Municipal law are two distinct, separate and self-contained legal systems. The two systems are
distinct when it comes to sources, subjects, substance of law, principles and dynamism of subject matter.
• Dualism understands and appreciates that international and domestic legal order as separate and independent.
• This distinction is crucial to understand why India is a dualist state. With the doctrine of separation of powers as a
fundamental base, international law governs the relationship between states, municipal law governs the relationship
of persons within state that accords rights and obligations. Therefore, a dualist state cannot give an international
treaty force of law immediately after signature but once ratified, must be incorporated into the domestic law through
the parliament by way of an enabling legislation, as all treaties are non-self executing.
Relationship between International Law
and Municipal Law
3. Transformation or Specific Adoption Theory
• The characteristics of incorporation and transformation are principally dependent on the subject matter and scope
of the law.
• Incorporation is the acceptance of the international treaty as part of domestic law to an extent that the enforcement
is hierarchically below the constitution.
• Transformation as an innovative legal technique is to amend or supplement existing legislation using international
law treaty provisions. This would also mean that the courts use international law as an aid to constitutional and
statutory interpretation to enlarge the rights or to remedy the constitutional violation.
• Common dualist states are Australia, Canada, India and United Kingdom.
4. Delegation Theory: - Supported by monists.

5. Harmonisation Theory- Fitzmauric - Compromise Formula

India and International law
• Pre-constitution: British practice
Constitutional provisions
• (a) General art. 51
• The State shall endeavour to— (a) promote international peace and security;(b)
maintain just and honourable relations between nations; (c) foster respect for
international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples
with one another; and (d) encourage settlement of international disputes by
arbitration.
• (b) Executive Provisions art. 53, 73, & 77 and
• (c) Legislative Provisions art. 245, 253, etc.
• (d) Entries 10 and 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule (union list).
India and International law
• India is a dualist state. As declaratory as it sounds, the direction of the apex court in the application and
interpretation of this doctrine is merely hortatory.
• To begin with, the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal v. Kesoram Industries (AIR 2005 SC 1646)
stood firm while stating “it is true that the doctrine of Monism as prevailing in the European countries does
not prevail in India. The doctrine of Dualism is applicable. But, where the municipal law does not limit the
extent of the statute, even if India is not a signatory to the relevant International Treaty or Covenant. A treaty
entered into by India cannot become law of the land and it cannot be implemented unless Parliament passes
a law as required under Article 253.The executive in India can enter into any Treaty be it bilateral or
multilateral with any other country or countries.
• As regard Article 253 vis-a-vis Article 51 of the Constitution, we may notice that in the case
of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225), Sikri CJ referred to Article 51 in
the following words: “It seems to me that, in view, of Article 51 of the Directive Principles, this Court must
interpret language of the Constitution, if not intractable, which is after all a Municipal Law, in the light of the
United Nations Charter and solemn declarations subscribed to by India”.
India and International law
• Quite famously, Justice Krishna Iyer argued précis in Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin
(AIR 1980 SC 470) that until the municipal law is changed to accommodate the treaty, what
binds the courts is the former and not the latter.
• In Kuldip Nayar case (AIR 2006 SC 3127), the court had affirmed that in case of conflict, the
municipal laws have to prevail.
• Going a step further, while dealing with the issue of reservation, the court expounded in the
Ashoka Kumar Thakur case (2008) 6 SCC 1) that while many states consider the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to be an authoritative interpretation of the UN Charter, for India,
‘the Declaration is not a treaty and is not intended to be legally binding’.
• The official position of the Ministry of External Affairs resonates the same: according to the Indian
Constitutional scheme, making of international treaties is an executive act. A treaty is concluded
with the approval of the Union Cabinet. It is not placed before Parliament for discussion and
approval. However, where the performance of treaty obligations entails alteration of the existing
domestic law or requires new enactment, it would accordingly require legislative action.
 India and International law
• Therefore, India does not have an exclusive legislation to deal with treaty ratification process. Moreover, India is not
a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. It is in this light that the court’s wide interpretation of
International law must be seen when in Ram Jethmalani v. Union of India (2011) 8 SCC 1) , it was recognized that
the Vienna Convention codifies many principles of customary international law.
• However, in Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India (1970) 3 SCC 400) it was held that ‘the power to
legislate in respect of treaties lies with the parliament under Entries 10 and 14 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. If
the rights of the citizens or others which are justiciable are not affected, no legislative measure is needed to give
effect to the agreement or treaty’.
• When the court pronounced that transgenders constitute third gender in the NALSA case (2014) 5 SCC 438), the
scope of expansion also meant ‘the necessity to follow the International Conventions to which India is a party and to
give due respect to other non-binding International Conventions and principles, such that international convention
not inconsistent with fundamental rights must be read into Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 to enlarge the meaning and
content thereof and should be recognized and followed.’ The court reiterated that 'If parliament has made any
legislation which is in conflict with the international law, then Indian courts are bound to give effect to the Indian law,
rather than international law. However, in the absence of a contrary legislation, municipal courts in India would
respect the rules of international law.'
 India and International law
• In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996), the court said that there is no difficulty
in accepting Customary International Law, not contrary to domestic law, as part of the Indian legal system.
• The court took a similar approach to soft law in People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (1997) 3
SCC 433 wherein it was held that it is an accepted proposition of law that the rules of customary international
law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law.
• That being said, when a judge made law on sexual harassment at places of work for women was introduced
through the Vishaka Guidelines (1997) 6 SCC 241) by copying in toto the Convention on Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the judicial attitude was point blank to mean that there
shall be ‘no hesitation in placing reliance on [international commitments] for the purpose of construing the
nature and ambit of the constitutional guarantee of gender equality in our Constitution, to an extent that
regard must be had to international conventions and norms for construing domestic law when there is no
inconsistency between them and there is a void in the domestic law.’
• This Indian judiciary position shows a shift in favour of functional monism with regard to the application of
International law.
Subjects of
International Law
Some fundamentals

A subject of international law is a body or entity that is capable of possessing and

exercising rights and duties under international law – UN Charter Preamble & Article 1

Ian Brownlie - A subject of international law is an entity possessing international rights and
obligations and having the capacity to: a) maintain its rights by bringing international
claims, and b) to be responsible for its breaches of obligations by being subjected to such
claims
States - International Organizations –
Groups - Individuals
States remain the central actors (subjects)
in the field of international law, most
international law is created, interpreted,
complied with, or enforced by the
governments of state.
Realist Theory – Fictional Theory –
Functional Theory