Historical Development of International Law

Early Origins

• ⚖️ Ancient Treaties: Around 2100 BC, there was a treaty between the city-states of Lagash and Umma in Mesopotamia. Another early treaty was between Rameses II of Egypt and the Hittite King, showing early respect for agreements.
• 🏛️ Greek Influence: Greece contributed ideas about international relations, especially during conflicts and alliances among city-states.
• 🌍 Roman Empire: Developed two types of law – jus civile (civil law) for Roman citizens and jus gentium (law of nations) for dealing with foreigners.
• ✝️ Religion: Religious beliefs, especially from Christianity, influenced concepts of moral behavior and social order, adding to the early ideas of international law.

Middle Ages

• ⛪ Church’s Role: The Christian Church had significant influence and helped establish laws among different territories.
• 💼 Merchant Law: Rules for trade, known as "Law Merchant," emerged for traders crossing borders.
• ⚓ Rhodian Sea Law: Specific rules for sea travel and trade were established.
• 📜 Treaty of Westphalia (1648): This treaty ended wars in Europe and marked the start of the modern idea of sovereign states – countries recognized as independent and having their own authority within borders.

Modern International Law

• 📚 Key Thinkers: Important figures like Francisco Vitoria, Alberico Gentili, and Hugo Grotius helped shape modern international law ideas. Grotius especially promoted "freedom of the seas," which influenced laws about international waters.
• 🤝 Congress of Vienna (1815): This was a meeting where European countries agreed on many issues after the defeat of Napoleon, making international law more centered on European ideas.
• 🌐 World Wars: After World War I and II, international organizations like the United Nations formed, leading to a more structured international legal system that aimed for global cooperation and peace.

Oppenheim

Oppenheim defines international law as the set of customary and conventional rules that are legally binding for "civilized" states in their relations with each other. This definition mainly considers states as the primary subjects of international law.

Starke

Starke adds that international law consists of rules and principles guiding the conduct of states, as well as international organizations and, to some extent, individuals, especially in how their rights or duties affect the international community.

Jessup

Jessup introduced the concept of "transnational law", which includes not just international law but also other regulations for actions that cross national borders. This approach broadens international law to cover rules beyond just relations between states, acknowledging activities of individuals and organizations.

Whiteman

Whiteman describes international law as a standard of conduct applicable to states and other entities under its jurisdiction at any given time. This definition emphasizes the evolving nature of international law in setting conduct standards.

1. International Law as "Weak Law"

International law is sometimes seen as "weak" because it lacks the same strong enforcement mechanisms as national laws. Countries may agree to rules, but there is no global police force to make sure every country follows them. Instead, international law relies on countries agreeing to follow these rules willingly.

2. Vanishing Point of Jurisprudence

This phrase means that, unlike national law, international law often appears to lack a solid structure. International law can sometimes be unclear or challenging to enforce, making it seem less definite compared to the clear rules and enforcement found in a country's own laws.

3. Law Without Sanction

International law is sometimes called "law without sanction" because it lacks punishments that automatically enforce it. Countries might face consequences, like other countries refusing to trade with them, but there's no strict punishment system. Instead, countries follow international laws to maintain good relations and avoid conflict.

1. Communist Approach to International Law

This approach views international law as a tool that advanced capitalist states use to dominate less powerful countries. The idea here is that international law may support the interests of powerful, capitalist nations rather than promoting true equality and fairness among all states.

2. Third World Approach to International Law (TWAIL)

The Third World Approach emphasizes how traditional international law has often ignored or marginalized Third World countries, mainly due to historical colonization and unequal economic structures. This perspective argues that international law should focus on protecting the interests of developing nations and ensure that these countries have a fair say in international matters.

3. New Haven School of International Law

The New Haven School sees international law as a way to achieve social progress by focusing on human rights and individual well-being. It emphasizes that international law should not only govern states but should also consider the rights and needs of people across borders. This school supports a more inclusive and people-focused approach to international law.

Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Article 38(1) provides a clear guide on the sources of international law. It states that the Court must apply:

• 1. International Conventions: These are agreements or treaties between states that create legally binding rules for the participating countries. Conventions can be broad (covering many countries and issues) or specific (limited to particular regions or topics).
• 2. International Customs: This includes general practices followed by states that are accepted as law.
• 3. General Principles of Law: Principles recognized by civilized nations.
• 4. Judicial Decisions and Scholarly Writings: These are used as supplementary sources to determine rules of law but do not carry binding force between parties unless explicitly decided.

International Conventions

International conventions or treaties are essential as they represent written agreements that states voluntarily enter into, and are legally binding. Examples include the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions. These conventions help to create laws on issues such as human rights, environmental protection, and the rules of war, reinforcing the pacta sunt servanda principle (agreements must be kept).

1. Law-Making Treaties

Law-making treaties are like laws for many countries. They create general rules that all the signing countries agree to follow. These rules apply to everyone involved, not just specific situations or parties. Examples include the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners, which set international standards for behavior across different countries.

2. Treaty Contracts

Treaty contracts are more specific agreements between countries about particular issues or situations. They don’t set broad rules for all countries but rather address specific arrangements. For example, two countries might agree on trade terms or environmental cooperation that applies only between them.

These two types of treaties show how international agreements can either create general rules for many countries or specific contracts between a few.

Customary International Law (CIL)

Customary International Law (CIL) is based on practices and behaviors that countries have consistently followed because they believe these practices are legally binding. CIL consists of two main elements:

1. State Practice

This refers to the actual actions of countries. For a rule to become a custom, many countries must follow it in a similar and consistent way. This practice needs to be uniform, meaning that countries act the same way in similar situations.

2. Opinio Juris

This is the belief that a particular action is done out of a legal obligation. It’s not just about a country following a practice but doing so because it believes that it is required by law.

An example of customary law is the rule that allows ships of all countries to freely navigate the high seas. Over time, as countries consistently followed this practice and believed it to be a legal duty, it became part of customary international law.

North Sea Continental Shelf Cases

• Countries Involved: Denmark, Netherlands, and Germany.
• Issue: The main question was how to divide the North Sea continental shelf among the countries. Denmark and the Netherlands argued for the "equidistance principle," meaning the boundary would be set at an equal distance from each coast. However, Germany argued this was unfair due to the unique shape of its coastline.
• Court's Decision: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) decided that Germany was not bound by the 1958 Geneva Convention's equidistance rule because it had not signed the treaty. Additionally, the court held that the equidistance rule was not a part of customary international law. To create a customary rule, the court emphasized the need for widespread state practice and a general belief that the rule is legally binding (opinio juris).

Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru)

• Countries Involved: Colombia and Peru.
• Issue: The main question was whether Colombia had the right to grant asylum to a Peruvian politician accused of political crimes and whether it could unilaterally define the crime as political for asylum purposes. Colombia argued that it could grant asylum under a regional custom in Latin America.
• Court's Decision: The ICJ ruled that Colombia did not have the right to unilaterally determine the crime's nature for granting asylum. The court found that there was no customary law in Latin America allowing a country to unilaterally qualify an offense for asylum. Additionally, the court stated that Peru was not obliged to give safe passage to the asylee because Colombia could not prove a consistent regional practice on this matter.

Formation of Customary International Law (CIL)

The formation of Customary International Law (CIL) involves two main elements:

1. State Practice (Material Element)

This refers to consistent actions or behaviors by states. For a practice to become part of CIL, it should be widely followed and uniform across various countries. It involves several factors, such as:

• Consistency: States must behave similarly in comparable situations.
• Time: The practice needs to be followed over a period, although the duration may vary depending on the situation.
• Uniformity: Practices should be similar within a state and across states to show a common understanding.

2. Opinio Juris (Psychological Element)

Opinio Juris is the belief or sense that a particular practice is legally required. It means states follow a practice not just out of convenience or habit but because they consider it legally obligatory. This belief converts state practice into a legally binding rule of customary law.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has emphasized that for a practice to become CIL, states must engage in it because they view it as a legal duty, not merely due to political or moral reasons.

Together, these elements—consistent state actions and a shared belief in their legal necessity—form the basis of customary international law.

Essentials of State Practice

• 1. Whose Practice Counts? – Generally, actions taken by high-level state officials, government ministers, and diplomatic representatives are considered part of state practice. The actions of other organizations, such as NGOs or multinational companies, may have an indirect role but are not primary.
• 2. Types of Actions – State practice includes actions like diplomatic correspondence, government statements, military orders, legislation, and decisions by national courts. Even omissions or abstentions, like a state choosing not to prosecute a foreign diplomat, can sometimes count as state practice.
• 3. Uniformity and Consistency – To form a customary rule, the practice should be consistent both within the state itself and among different states.
• 4. Duration – Customary international law does not require an action to be ancient, but a consistent and repeated pattern over time helps establish it as a custom.

Persistent Objector Principle

This principle allows a state to avoid being bound by a new customary international law if it consistently and openly objects to it from the beginning, before the practice becomes a general rule.

For example, Norway, in the Fisheries Case, consistently objected to a 10-mile closing line in bays, so it was not bound by that rule for its own coast.

Opinio Juris

Opinio Juris is the belief that a state’s actions are legally required, not just done out of convenience, morality, or habit. It is a "psychological element" in customary international law, meaning that states follow a certain practice because they feel they are obligated by law to do so, rather than by choice.

Key Points:

• 1. Foundation of Customary Law: Opinio Juris, together with state practice (consistent actions by states), is necessary to form a customary international law. Without a genuine belief in the legal necessity, state actions alone do not make a custom legally binding.
• 2. Examples in Cases:
• In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the ICJ ruled that for a practice to become customary law, states must recognize it as legally binding, not just a convenient choice.
• Similarly, in the Lotus Case, the ICJ held that absence of action could be considered a practice only if states refrain because they see it as a legal duty.

Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), ICJ Rep. 1960

• Issue: Portugal argued that it had a historical right to pass through Indian territory to access its enclaves in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, based on treaties and long-standing practice.
• India's Position: India argued that any historical agreements were outdated and did not apply, as it had sovereignty over the territory.
• Court's Decision: The ICJ recognized Portugal’s right to "passage" for private individuals and goods, based on local custom, but denied the right to move armed forces.
• Outcome: The ICJ upheld the limited right of passage for Portugal, focusing on the historical practice of civilian and official movement.

General Principles of International Law

• Basic Principles: Foundational rules shared by many legal systems worldwide, such as fairness, justice, and good faith. These principles often apply when there are gaps in treaties or customary law.
• Examples in Case Law:
• Good Faith: Emphasized in various judgments, meaning that states should act honestly in international relations.
• Reparation Obligation: In the Chorzow Factory Case, it was held that a state should make reparation for wrongful acts.
• Private Rights Under Law: The German Settlers in Poland Case showed that private rights remain even if sovereignty changes.
• Circumstantial Evidence: The Corfu Channel Case accepted circumstantial evidence as valid proof in international legal matters.

Corfu Channel Case

• Background: In 1946, two British destroyers struck mines while passing through the North Corfu Strait, resulting in significant casualties and injuries.
• Arguments:
• United Kingdom: Claimed the right of innocent passage and argued that Albania should have warned about the mines.
• Albania: Argued that British warships had no right to enter Albanian waters without permission.
• Court’s Decision: The ICJ found that Albania was responsible for not notifying about the minefield and concluded that the mine-laying could not have occurred without Albania's knowledge. Albania was thus obligated to inform ships of the danger, based on principles of humanity and freedom of maritime communication.

Judicial Decisions

Judicial decisions include rulings from the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), national courts, and international tribunals like the International Criminal Court (ICC). These decisions are secondary sources that help interpret and clarify rules but aren’t primary laws themselves.

Key Cases:

• Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case: Defined rules on baselines for territorial waters.
• Reparation Case: Addressed the legal personality of international institutions.
• Genocide Case: Considered reservations to treaties.
• Nottebohm Case: Looked at the concept of nationality.

Judicial decisions assist in understanding and applying international law but are only binding between the involved parties, as noted in Article 59 of the ICJ Statute.

Scholarly Writings

Scholarly writings from respected experts, such as Grotius, Gentili, and Oppenheim, are recognized as sources that contribute to the development and understanding of international law. These works offer interpretations, insights, and theories that guide the application of law.

These teachings provide explanations and foundations for evolving areas of law, and although they are not binding, they help fill gaps where formal international laws or customs might be unclear.

Emerging Sources of International Law

• 1. United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and Declarations: These resolutions, while not legally binding, can indicate state practice and opinio juris (a sense of legal obligation). For instance, the Nicaragua case established that General Assembly resolutions could reflect customary international law if they show a consistent state practice.
• 2. Soft Law: Soft law includes instruments like guidelines, standards, and declarations that are not legally enforceable but shape international norms. Though not strictly law, they influence the development of binding norms over time, as seen in the Pulp Mills case.
• 3. International Law Commission (ILC): The ILC, created by the UN in 1947, helps develop and codify international law. Through draft treaties, reports, and recommendations, the ILC has shaped significant conventions, such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
• 4. Other International Bodies: Organizations like the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) contribute to international norms in specific fields like trade and labor standards.
• 5. Unilateral Acts: Unilateral acts by states, such as declarations or recognitions, can create obligations if done publicly with intent. For example, when a state recognizes another, it may have legal consequences based on the principle of publicity and intent.

Jus Cogens

Definition: Jus Cogens are "peremptory norms" recognized by the international community as a whole, meaning these rules are so fundamental that no state can deviate from them.

Examples: Prohibitions against genocide, slavery, torture, and crimes against humanity are considered Jus Cogens. These norms cannot be overridden by treaties or agreements, as stated in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).

Emergence: For a norm to become Jus Cogens, it must first be recognized as a customary international law. Then, the international community must accept it as a rule from which no derogation (or exception) is allowed.

Obligation Erga Omnes

Definition: These are obligations that a state owes to the international community as a whole, meaning any violation affects all states, not just the directly impacted state. The ICJ introduced this concept in the Barcelona Traction Case.

Examples: Obligations related to the protection of human rights and prohibitions against crimes like genocide fall under Erga Omnes. For instance, in the Genocide Case, it was established that all states have a legal interest in preventing genocide, as it affects the whole international community.

Difference Between Jus Cogens and Obligation Erga Omnes

Jus Cogens focuses on the non-derogable nature of certain laws (substantive focus).

Obligation Erga Omnes relates to the scope and application of these norms, ensuring that any state can hold another accountable for violations, even if it is not directly affected (procedural focus).

International Comity

Definition: International comity refers to the practices and courtesy extended by states to respect each other's legal processes and governance without a binding legal obligation. It’s more about mutual respect and cooperation than enforceable law.

Role: While not legally binding, international comity helps maintain good relationships and smooth interactions among states by observing respectful behavior, such as recognizing foreign judgments or legal systems in appropriate cases.

Resolutions of International Organizations

Purpose: Resolutions, particularly those from bodies like the United Nations General Assembly, can guide international norms even if they are non-binding. They indicate the collective intentions or opinions of member states on various issues.

Influence on International Law: Although not enforceable, resolutions can reflect state practice and contribute to developing customary international law, especially when they are widely adopted and reflect a general legal principle. For instance, certain UN resolutions have helped shape concepts like self-determination.

International Law Commission (ILC) and Codification

Function: Established by the UN in 1947, the ILC aims to codify and progressively develop international law. It drafts and studies treaties, and many international conventions have been influenced by the ILC’s work.

Codification Process: The ILC’s work generally involves preparing drafts, gathering comments from states, and often leading to international conferences that shape these drafts into treaties or recognized legal documents.

Impact: Through codification, the ILC has helped formalize areas of international law, such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which established comprehensive rules for how treaties are created and enforced.

Definition of a Treaty

• Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT): Defines a treaty as “an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law, whether it’s in a single document or multiple related documents.”
• Elements: A treaty must be an international agreement, between states, in written form, governed by international law, and have the intention to be legally binding.

Content of a Treaty

Treaties cover a wide range of issues like trade, human rights, environmental protection, and maritime boundaries. They may also establish international organizations, such as the United Nations or European Union.

The VCLT, often called the "Treaty of Treaties," lays out procedures for drafting, interpreting, and enforcing treaties.

Conclusion and Entry into Force of Treaties

Conclusion: For a treaty to be concluded, authorized representatives (like heads of state or ministers) must sign it.

• Article 9: Adoption of the text of the treaty requires the consent of all states involved. At international conferences, it can be adopted by a two-thirds vote if states present and voting agree.
• Article 11: Consent to be bound by a treaty can be expressed through signature, ratification, acceptance, or accession.

Entry into Force:

• Article 24: A treaty enters into force on a date agreed upon by negotiating states. If not specified, it becomes effective when all parties express their consent.
• Article 25: A treaty can be applied provisionally pending its formal entry into force if states agree on this.

Reservation in the Law of Treaties

A reservation is a declaration made by a state when signing, ratifying, or joining a treaty, intending to exclude or modify certain provisions of the treaty as they apply to that state. This allows a state to be part of a treaty even if it disagrees with specific parts.

Key Points:

• Definition: According to Article 2(1)(d) of the VCLT, a reservation is a "unilateral statement" by which a state aims to exclude or alter the treaty's legal effects for itself in specific areas.
• Purpose: Reservations facilitate treaty participation by allowing states to agree to most of a treaty without being bound by all provisions.
• Acceptance and Objection: Articles 20 and 21 of the VCLT explain that other states may accept or object to a reservation. If a reservation is not objected to within 12 months, it is considered accepted.
• Restrictions: Article 19 of the VCLT states that reservations cannot be made if:
  • The treaty prohibits reservations.
  • The treaty only allows specific types of reservations.
  • The reservation contradicts the "object and purpose" of the treaty.

Interpretation of Treaties

Treaty interpretation relies on fundamental principles to determine the meaning and intent of treaty provisions.

1. Approaches to Interpretation:

• Objective Approach: Focuses on the actual text of the treaty, analyzing the words used.
• Subjective Approach: Considers the intentions of the parties involved in the treaty.
• Teleological Approach: Examines the treaty’s purpose and aims.

2. Article 31 of the VCLT:

Treaties should be interpreted in good faith based on the ordinary meaning of the terms, within their context and the treaty’s objectives.

3. ICJ Case Example:

In the Competence of the General Assembly for Admission of a State to the United Nations, the ICJ emphasized that treaties should be interpreted according to their natural and ordinary meaning in the context in which they were created.

4. Supplementary Means (Article 32, VCLT):

If the interpretation remains ambiguous, supplementary methods like the treaty’s preparatory work (travaux préparatoires) and circumstances of conclusion can be used to clarify meaning.

Amendment and Modification of Treaties

1. Amendment:

• Definition: An amendment formally changes the provisions of a treaty and affects all parties involved.
• Process: The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) Article 40 specifies that an amendment usually requires a formal process, and only parties agreeing to it will be bound by the new version.
• Examples: Many multilateral treaties, such as the United Nations Charter, outline specific rules for amendments, ensuring the updated treaty terms apply only to consenting states.

2. Modification:

• Definition: A modification is an adjustment to certain treaty terms that applies only between specific parties without affecting the entire treaty.
• Conditions: Modifications are permitted if the treaty itself allows or does not explicitly prohibit them. However, modifications cannot be made to parts of a treaty that would undermine its fundamental purpose (object and purpose of the treaty).
• Example: When two or more states in a multilateral treaty agree to different terms among themselves, this creates a modified version of the treaty specific to those states only.

Termination of Treaties

Treaties can end or be suspended based on specific rules set out in Part V of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT). Key points include:

• 1. Termination by Treaty Provisions or Consent: Some treaties include provisions for termination or allow states to mutually agree to end the treaty.
• 2. Withdrawal or Denunciation: If a treaty does not specify termination, parties may withdraw if this possibility was initially intended or implied by the treaty's nature. A notice period, typically 12 months, is usually required.
• 3. Later Treaty: A new treaty on the same subject can replace an older one if all parties to the original treaty agree.
• 4. Material Breach: A serious breach of a treaty by one party can justify other parties in terminating or suspending the treaty.
• 5. Impossibility of Performance: A treaty can end if an unforeseen event makes it impossible to fulfill (e.g., the destruction of a territory crucial to the treaty’s operation).
• 6. Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Rebus Sic Stantibus): If the circumstances that were essential to the treaty have drastically changed, a party may invoke this principle to terminate the treaty.

Consequences of Termination or Suspension

• 1. Release from Obligations: Termination releases the parties from further obligations under the treaty.
• 2. Retention of Existing Rights: Termination does not impact rights or situations created before the treaty ended.

These methods allow treaties to adapt or conclude based on changing international relationships and circumstances.

Theories of the Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law

1. Monism

• Concept: Monism holds that international and municipal (domestic) laws are part of a single legal system. They are interconnected, with international law automatically applicable within the state's domestic legal system.
• Application: In a monist system, international law doesn't require any domestic legislation to be enforced within the state.

2. Dualism

• Concept: Dualism argues that international law and domestic law are two separate legal systems. Each has its own sphere, and they operate independently.
• Application: For international law to apply within a state, it must be formally adopted or transformed into domestic law by legislation. Until this transformation, international law has no direct effect within the state.

3. Specific Adoption Theory

• Concept: This theory posits that a specific act of adoption or legislative measure is needed for international law to become applicable domestically.
• Application: In this view, each treaty or rule of international law must be separately adopted to be binding at the national level.

4. Transformation Theory

• Concept: According to the transformation theory, international law needs to be "transformed" into domestic law to have legal effect within a state.
• Application: This theory emphasizes that domestic legal procedures or legislation are required to make international law enforceable within the country.

5. Delegation Theory

• Concept: This theory suggests that the power to apply international law domestically is "delegated" by international law to domestic authorities, allowing states to implement international obligations within their legal systems.
• Application: The state exercises a degree of discretion in how it integrates international obligations, emphasizing a cooperative approach between international standards and domestic enforcement.

Relevance and Interpretation of International Law in the Indian Legal System – Constitutional Provisions

1. Article 51(c)

This article states that the Indian government must respect international law and treaty obligations. It reflects India’s commitment to follow international norms, aiming to foster peace and cooperation globally.

2. Article 73

This grants the Union government the power to make and implement treaties. It enables India to enter into agreements with other countries, laying the foundation for international relations and obligations.

3. Article 253

Under this article, Parliament has the power to make laws to implement treaties and agreements. This provision means that even if a treaty has been signed, it requires parliamentary approval to be enforceable within India.

4. Judicial Interpretations

Indian courts have referenced international law to interpret domestic laws and uphold fundamental rights when there’s no conflict with existing laws. For example, the Supreme Court in cases like Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan relied on international conventions to frame guidelines on sexual harassment at workplaces, integrating these norms into the Indian legal context without formal legislation.

These interpretations highlight how the Indian Constitution facilitates the integration of international law into the Indian legal system.

Indian Supreme Court Case Discussions Using International Law

1. Gramophone Company of India Ltd. v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR 1984 SC 667

• Background: This case involved the illegal importation of copyrighted gramophone records from India to Nepal. The issue was whether Indian copyright laws applied to goods taken out of the country without permission.
• Role of International Law: The Supreme Court referenced the Convention on Transit Trade of the Land-Locked States (1965), affirming that India’s copyright laws should be respected internationally and that international conventions could aid in interpreting Indian laws.

2. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647

• Background: This case addressed the environmental impact caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu, focusing on sustainable development and pollution control.
• Role of International Law: The Supreme Court cited international environmental norms, particularly the Rio Declaration (1992), to strengthen sustainable development principles within Indian law.

3. Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011

• Background: Vishaka, an NGO, filed public interest litigation addressing workplace sexual harassment in the absence of specific legislation in India.
• Role of International Law: The Court referenced the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to create guidelines for workplace sexual harassment prevention, incorporating international standards into Indian law.

Role of Municipal Law in International Law - Municipal Courts' State Practice (USA and UK)

United States

• Constitutional Basis: International treaties are part of the "supreme law of the land" in the U.S., allowing them to override conflicting state laws once approved by the President and Senate.
• Judicial Application: In Medellin v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that treaties are not automatically enforceable unless "self-executing" or enacted by Congress, reflecting a dualist approach.

United Kingdom

• Customary Law as Part of English Law: Customary international law is automatically part of English law without specific legislation, as established by Lord Denning and cases like R v. Keyn (1876).
• Role of Parliament: In the UK, treaties become national law only after Parliamentary approval, reflecting a dualist approach that requires domestic legislative action for treaty enforcement.

Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)

• Background: Friedrich Nottebohm, a German national who acquired Liechtenstein nationality, was not recognized by Guatemala, which treated him as an enemy alien during WWII.
• ICJ's Decision: The ICJ ruled that nationality must reflect a "genuine link" between the individual and the state. Without a genuine connection, Liechtenstein could not claim diplomatic protection on Nottebohm's behalf.
• Significance: This case introduced the "effective nationality" principle, emphasizing a real bond between nationality and state protection, impacting diplomatic protection and dual nationality issues.

Recent Developments in Nationality Law

1. Armenia v. Azerbaijan (2024)

The ICJ ruled on anti-discrimination cases between Armenia and Azerbaijan, addressing complex issues of nationality and ethnic discrimination.

2. Afghan Women Asylum Cases (2024)

The European Court of Justice ruled that Afghan women could seek asylum in the EU based on gender and nationality, without needing to show specific persecution, recognizing the severity of Taliban-imposed restrictions on women's rights.

3. Anudo v. Tanzania (2018)

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruled that arbitrary deprivation of nationality violates international obligations, reinforcing protections against statelessness.

Right to Innocent Passage

The right of innocent passage allows a vessel from one state to pass through another state's territorial waters as long as the passage does not harm the peace, order, or security of the coastal state. This right, generally recognized under international law, permits navigation without requiring prior permission unless involving warships.

Portugal v. India (1960) - Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case

• Background: Portugal claimed a right of passage through Indian territory to access its enclaves in Dadra and Nagar Haveli, based on local customs of free movement.
• Issue: The dispute centered on whether Portugal had the right to access its territories through India, particularly after India blocked passage in 1954.
• ICJ's Decision: The ICJ recognized a limited right of passage for Portugal for private individuals and civil officials, based on local custom, but denied the passage of armed forces, emphasizing that local custom can confer specific rights without formal treaties.

This case demonstrates the balance in international law between respecting a state’s territorial sovereignty and recognizing peaceful navigation rights of other states.

State Responsibility

State responsibility refers to a state’s accountability when it violates international obligations or commits wrongful acts against another state. When a state breaks these obligations, it is expected to provide remedies, which may include compensating the affected party or restoring the situation as it was before the wrongful act.

Nature of State Responsibility

• 1. Primary Rules: These are specific obligations that a state must follow, such as respecting other countries' borders and refraining from harmful activities against other states.
• 2. Secondary Rules: These rules define the consequences when a state violates its obligations, including the responsibilities of the violating state to address and remedy the breach.

Development and Codification of State Responsibility (ARSIWA)

The concept of state responsibility has been formalized in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), created by the International Law Commission (ILC). These articles represent customary international law, establishing guidelines for when and how a state can be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts, including requirements for reparation to the injured state.

Key Points in ARSIWA

• Article 1: Every internationally wrongful act of a state brings responsibility.
• Article 2: An internationally wrongful act is defined as one that violates an obligation and is attributable to the state under international law.
• Article 3: International law, not the domestic laws of a state, determines whether an act is wrongful.

The ARSIWA articles serve as a key reference in international law, guiding the process of addressing state responsibility to ensure fairness and accountability when states breach international norms.

Scope and the Prohibition of the Use of Force

The prohibition of the use of force is a foundational principle in international law, restricting states from using military force against each other, except in very specific cases such as self-defense. This principle is primarily governed by the United Nations Charter and is recognized as a core norm to maintain peace and security globally.

Scope

The prohibition covers any aggressive use of force by a state that could threaten another state’s sovereignty or political independence. It is also considered a jus cogens norm, meaning it is a fundamental rule from which no state can deviate.

Legal Nature

The prohibition on the use of force is both a binding international law and a peremptory norm (jus cogens). As a universally accepted norm, it mandates all states to adhere to it, essential for global peace and stability.

State Responsibility

State responsibility refers to a state’s accountability when it violates international obligations or commits wrongful acts against another state. When a state breaks these obligations, it is expected to provide remedies, which might include compensating the affected party or restoring the situation as it was before the wrongful act.

Nature of State Responsibility

• 1. Primary Rules: These are specific obligations that a state must follow, like respecting other countries' borders and not engaging in harmful activities against other states.
• 2. Secondary Rules: These define what should happen when a state violates its obligations. They outline the consequences of such actions and how the responsible state should act to address the breach.

Development and Codification (ARSIWA)

The concept of state responsibility has developed over time and has been codified in the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA). These articles were created by the International Law Commission (ILC) and represent customary international law. They establish guidelines for when and how a state can be held responsible for internationally wrongful acts, including the need for reparation to the injured state.

Key Points in ARSIWA

• Article 1: Every internationally wrongful act of a state brings responsibility.
• Article 2: An internationally wrongful act is one that violates an obligation and is attributable to the state under international law.
• Article 3: It is international law, not the domestic laws of a state, that determines whether an act is wrongful.

The ARSIWA articles guide the process of dealing with state responsibility and have become a key reference in international law to ensure that states act fairly and take responsibility when they breach international norms.

Scope and the Prohibition of the Use of Force and Its Legal Nature

The prohibition of the use of force is a core principle in international law that restricts states from using military force against each other, except in very specific situations, like self-defense. This principle is largely governed by the United Nations Charter and is considered a fundamental norm to maintain peace and security among nations.

Scope

The prohibition covers any aggressive use of force by a state that could threaten the sovereignty or political independence of another state. This principle is also tied to jus cogens norms, meaning it is recognized as a fundamental rule from which no state can derogate.

Legal Nature

The prohibition on the use of force is both a binding international law and a peremptory norm (jus cogens). This means it is accepted universally by the international community as essential for the protection of global peace, making it mandatory for all states to follow, regardless of individual consent.

General Principles on State Responsibility

The General Principles on State Responsibility cover the rules and obligations of states when they commit internationally wrongful acts. Here are the main aspects as per the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (ARSIWA):

• 1. Existence of an Obligation: For state responsibility to arise, there must be a binding international obligation that the state has failed to uphold.
• 2. Breach of Obligation: This occurs when an act or omission by the state does not meet its international responsibilities. The breach must be attributable to the state, meaning it is done by state officials or entities acting on behalf of the state.
• 3. Attribution of Conduct: Only actions by state organs or entities exercising governmental authority are generally attributable to the state, not private individuals unless under state direction.
• 4. Consequences: When a state breaches an obligation, it is expected to make full reparation for the damage caused, which may involve restitution, compensation, or satisfaction, depending on the situation.

Attribution of Conduct to a State - Articles 4-7

The attribution of conduct to a state is outlined in Articles 4-7 of the International Law Commission’s (ILC) Articles on State Responsibility, which cover when a state's actions can be considered its responsibility under international law:

Article 4 - Conduct of State Organs

• The actions of any state organ are attributed to the state itself. This applies regardless of whether the organ is part of the legislative, executive, judicial, or any other government function.
• It includes individuals or bodies that act with authority from the state, but excludes actions done by officials when they are "off-duty" or not acting in an official capacity.

Article 5 - Entities Exercising Governmental Authority

• States are responsible for the actions of non-state entities or individuals only if they are empowered by domestic law to exercise governmental authority.
• For example, if a private company is given specific authority by the state to manage certain tasks like border security, its actions in that role may be attributed to the state.

Article 6 - Organs on Loan to Another State

• When one state lends its organs (like military or police forces) to another state, the conduct of these "loaned" organs is attributed to the state receiving them if they are under its control.
• This means if a foreign organ operates under the receiving state's command, the latter state is accountable for its actions.

Article 7 - Acts Beyond Authority

• Even if an entity or individual with government authority acts outside their instructions (ultra vires acts), their actions may still be attributed to the state if done within their role.
• For instance, a government official who oversteps instructions but still acts under their authority may bind the state to their conduct.

Attribution of Conduct to a State under Articles 8-11

1. Article 8 - Conduct Directed or Controlled by the State

The actions of persons or groups may be attributed to the state if they are acting under its direction or control. This means that if a state has control over an entity, like a group, then the group's actions can be legally considered as actions of the state itself.

2. Article 9 - Conduct in the Absence of Official Authorities

When private individuals act in a way that would normally be the responsibility of the government, especially when government authority is missing, these actions can be attributed to the state. This could happen during times of crisis or rebellion when regular authorities are not functioning.

3. Article 10 - Actions of Insurrectional Movements

If an insurrectional movement (rebellious group) succeeds in forming a new government or a new state, its actions before and after taking control are considered actions of the state. This includes any conduct that led to its establishment.

4. Article 11 - Conduct Acknowledged and Adopted by the State

If a state publicly supports or acknowledges actions taken by individuals or groups as its own, even if it didn't initially control these actions, they can become attributed to the state. For example, if a government officially praises an act by a group, that act might be seen as an action of the state.

Articles 12-15 on Breach of an International Obligation

1. Article 12 - Existence of a Breach

A state breaches an international obligation when its actions or omissions do not conform to the duty imposed by that obligation. This applies regardless of the obligation's source or character.

2. Article 13 - Time Factor in Breach

A state’s conduct can only be considered a breach if it violated an obligation that was in force for that state at the time of the act. This is known as the "contemporaneity principle," meaning there is no retroactive liability for obligations not in effect at the time.

3. Article 14 - Continuing Acts

Some breaches are continuous, meaning they extend over time. For example, if a state unlawfully occupies another state's territory, it continues to be in breach as long as the occupation lasts.

4. Article 15 - Composite Acts

Certain wrongful acts consist of a series of actions that collectively amount to a breach, even if individual acts alone would not. Examples include systematic discrimination or human rights violations. The breach is considered to occur when the last act in the series is completed.

Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness - Articles 20-25

1. Article 20 - Consent

If a state gives permission for another state’s actions on its territory or concerning its interests, then those actions are not considered wrongful. For example, allowing foreign troops to be stationed within a state’s borders negates claims of a wrongful act.

2. Article 21 - Self-Defense

Actions taken in self-defense, as permitted by the UN Charter, are exempt from wrongfulness. However, such self-defense must respect international principles of human rights and humanitarian law.

3. Article 22 - Countermeasures

A state may take countermeasures in response to another state’s wrongful acts. These actions must be proportional and should not violate fundamental human rights or humanitarian norms. An example is the Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project case, which highlights the proportionality requirement.

4. Article 23 - Force Majeure

If a state cannot fulfill its obligations due to unforeseen events beyond its control, such as natural disasters or severe emergencies, it may be excused from responsibility. For instance, in the Rainbow Warrior case, this doctrine required “absolute and material impossibility” to apply as a valid excuse.

5. Article 24 - Distress

A state’s actions under extreme distress, such as to save lives, may also prevent responsibility. This typically applies when no other option exists to prevent grave harm.

6. Article 25 - Necessity

If an act is the only means to safeguard an essential interest from severe and immediate danger, and it does not seriously impact essential interests of other states, it may be exempt from wrongfulness. This principle has strict requirements, ensuring that it’s only applied in cases of extreme urgency and necessity.

Articles 34-39 on Reparation for Injury

1. Article 34 - Forms of Reparation

Reparation can take three main forms: restitution, compensation, and satisfaction. The goal is to remedy the damage caused by the wrongful act as much as possible.

2. Article 35 - Restitution

Restitution aims to restore the situation that existed before the wrongful act, provided it is not materially impossible or excessively burdensome. The Chorzow Factory case is cited, stating that restitution should “wipe out all the consequences of the illegal act” as far as possible.

3. Article 36 - Compensation

When restitution isn’t feasible, compensation is required. This covers financially assessable damage, including lost profits. Compensation seeks to make up for the loss in measurable terms.

4. Article 37 - Satisfaction

If neither restitution nor compensation fully addresses the injury, satisfaction may be required. Satisfaction could include acknowledgments, apologies, or other forms of redress. It must be proportionate and not humiliating to the responsible state.

5. Article 38 - Interest

Compensation may include interest from the date of the injury until payment, as required to achieve full reparation. Interest is added when necessary to make the injured state whole.

6. Article 39 - Contribution to Injury

If the injured party contributed to the harm, this contribution should be taken into account. This principle of contributory fault may reduce the amount of reparation owed.

General Provisions under Articles 55-59

1. Article 55 - Lex Specialis

This principle states that if there is a specific rule (lex specialis) that applies to a certain situation, it will take precedence over general rules. This means that a specialized agreement between states would prevail over general international law principles in relevant cases.

2. Article 56 - No Retrospective Responsibility

A state is not responsible under international law for acts that were not considered wrongful when they were committed. This article ensures that new obligations or changes in law are not applied retroactively.

3. State Sovereignty Over Certain Claims

The articles on state responsibility do not interfere with a state’s ability to waive or limit its rights to make certain claims. This respects state sovereignty by allowing a state to choose not to pursue certain claims even if it is entitled to do so under international law.

4. Article 58 - Human Rights Obligations

State responsibility must align with the principles of human rights. This ensures that while states address internationally wrongful acts, they are also required to uphold human rights standards.

5. Article 59 - Finality

This article emphasizes that the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility are intended as guiding principles rather than legally binding rules. They provide a framework for understanding state responsibility rather than imposing strict legal obligations.
These general provisions help ensurelexibility, and respect for state sovereignty within the framework of international law, focusing on specific applications of responsibility while upholding human rights and non-retroactivity.

Rainbow Warrior Arbitration (France v. New Zealand)

This case involved France's responsibility for breaching an agreement with New Zealand regarding two French agents who attacked the Greenpeace vessel Rainbow Warrior. The tribunal addressed force majeure, defining it as a situation of "absolute and material impossibility" rather than merely making performance difficult. The tribunal found France in breach of its obligations and rejected France’s claim to have the agents returned due to the circumstances no longer requiring it.

Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)

This case dealt with the concept of nationality in diplomatic protection. Liechtenstein sought to protect Nottebohm, a national by naturalization. The ICJ ruled that nationality must reflect a "genuine link" between the person and the state. Since Nottebohm's connection with Liechtenstein was minimal, Guatemala was not obliged to recognize his Liechtenstein nationality, setting a precedent for the genuine link in nationality matters.

Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Co. Ltd. Case

This case established the tangible link requirement for corporate nationality. Belgium sought to protect its nationals who were shareholders in a Canadian company. The ICJ ruled that diplomatic protection generally applies to the company’s nationality rather than individual shareholders, thus reinforcing the principle that corporations are nationals of the state where they are incorporated.

Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania)

This case centered on state responsibility when British warships struck mines in Albanian waters. The ICJ found that Albania had a duty to warn other states about the danger, as it was aware of the mines. The ruling reinforced a state's obligation not to allow its territory to be used in a way that harms other states.

Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua v. USA)

The ICJ ruled that the United States had violated international law by supporting contra forces in Nicaragua, breaching Nicaragua’s sovereignty. The case introduced the effective control test for attributing actions of non-state actors to a state, concluding that support must show effective control over the actions of those groups.

LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States)

This case concerned the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The ICJ ruled that the U.S. had violated the rights of the LaGrand brothers, German nationals, by not informing them of their right to consular access. This case reinforced the binding nature of provisional measures ordered by the ICJ.

Case Concerning Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States)

Similar to the LaGrand case, the Avena case dealt with the U.S.’s failure to notify Mexican nationals of their right to consular assistance under the Vienna Convention. The ICJ ruled that the U.S. must review and reconsider the convictions, emphasizing that the Vienna Convention is a binding obligation.

Kulbhushan Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan)

India argued that Pakistan breached the Vienna Convention by not informing Jadhav of his consular rights. The ICJ ruled that Pakistan had violated international law and mandated effective review and reconsideration of Jadhav’s case. The court emphasized Pakistan's obligation to comply with Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.

Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict

In this advisory opinion, the ICJ recognized that while the UN Charter does not specifically outlaw nuclear weapons, their use must comply with international humanitarian law principles. This included proportionality and the need to avoid unnecessary suffering, but the ICJ refrained from a definitive prohibition due to a lack of consensus.

Certain Expenses of the United Nations (ICJ 1962)

This advisory opinion addressed whether expenses related to UN peacekeeping operations were considered “expenses of the organization” under Article 17 of the UN Charter. The ICJ ruled that these expenses were indeed within the scope of the UN, affirming that all member states were obligated to contribute.

Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo

The ICJ provided an advisory opinion affirming that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. The court emphasized that international law does not prohibit declarations of independence, leaving the matter largely to the principle of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Territorial Sea

The Territorial Sea refers to a maritime zone extending from a state's coastline up to a limit of 12 nautical miles. Within this zone, the coastal state exercises full sovereignty, similar to its rights on land. However, this sovereignty is subject to certain international laws, such as the right of innocent passage, which allows foreign ships to navigate through the territorial sea so long as they do not threaten the security or peace of the coastal state.

The rules governing the territorial sea establish that:

• 1. Sovereignty: The coastal state has sovereignty over the air space above and the seabed and subsoil beneath the territorial sea.
• 2. Limit: The maximum limit for the territorial sea is generally 12 nautical miles from the baseline, which is typically the low-water line along the coast.
• 3. Innocent Passage: Foreign vessels have the right to innocent passage through the territorial sea. This passage must be continuous and expeditious, without any activities that would harm the coastal state.

These principles help balance the coastal state’s rights with the freedom of navigation essential for international trade and relations.

Contiguous Zone

The Contiguous Zone is a maritime zone that extends beyond a state's territorial sea up to 24 nautical miles from the baseline of the coast. Within this area, the coastal state has limited control to enforce specific laws in order to prevent or punish violations occurring within its territory or territorial sea.

Key Points of the Contiguous Zone:

• 1. Enforcement Rights: The coastal state can exercise control to:
  • Prevent infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration, or sanitary laws within its territory or territorial sea.
  • Punish individuals who violate these laws within its contiguous zone.
• 2. Limited Sovereignty: Unlike in the territorial sea, the coastal state does not have full sovereignty in the contiguous zone. Its authority here is only for specific enforcement purposes and does not cover full jurisdiction over all activities.
• 3. International Passage: Vessels from other states have the right to freedom of navigation through the contiguous zone, as it is part of international waters. However, they must respect the regulatory rights of the coastal state in this area.

This framework helps coastal states maintain law and order near their borders while balancing international navigation rights.

Continental Shelf

The Continental Shelf refers to the extended perimeter of a state's landmass under the sea, stretching from the coastline to the outer edge of the continental margin.

Definition

The continental shelf includes the seabed and subsoil beyond the territorial sea, up to the limit allowed under international law. It is recognized as part of a coastal state’s territory for certain rights, particularly for exploring and exploiting natural resources.

Outer Limit to Continental Shelf

The outer limit of the continental shelf typically extends up to 200 nautical miles from the baseline or further if the natural extension of the continental margin goes beyond that distance. However, it cannot exceed 350 nautical miles from the baseline or 100 nautical miles beyond the 2,500-meter depth contour (isobath), as defined under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

These guidelines provide coastal states with rights to resources on and beneath the seabed within this zone, promoting resource management while balancing international navigation rights.

Rights of the Coastal State

1. Sovereign Rights for Resource Exploration and Exploitation

The coastal state has exclusive rights to explore and exploit natural resources, including minerals, oil, and gas located in the continental shelf. These rights are inherent, meaning they do not need to be actively claimed or exercised to be valid.

2. Jurisdiction Over Structures

Coastal states may construct, maintain, and regulate installations like oil rigs and other structures necessary for the exploration and exploitation of resources.

3. Protection of the Marine Environment

The coastal state has the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment in the continental shelf area, ensuring that exploration and exploitation activities do not cause undue harm.

Duties of the Coastal State

1. Respect for Freedom of Navigation

While the coastal state has exclusive rights to the continental shelf resources, it must still respect the freedom of navigation for other states over the waters above the continental shelf, as they remain part of international waters.

2. Duty to Avoid Overlap of Rights with Neighboring States

Coastal states are expected to reach agreements with neighboring states when continental shelves overlap to prevent conflicts. This ensures equitable resource sharing based on distance or other negotiated principles.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)

These rights and duties form part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and are essential for maintaining balance between the rights of coastal states and international interests in marine areas.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

Definition

The EEZ extends up to 200 nautical miles from a state’s baseline, beyond its territorial sea. Within this area, the coastal state has exclusive rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage natural resources, both living and non-living, in the waters, seabed, and subsoil.

Legal Status

• 1. Sovereign Rights for Resource Management: The coastal state has exclusive rights to the natural resources within its EEZ. This includes the right to harvest fish, extract minerals, and manage energy resources.
• 2. Jurisdictional Limitations: While the coastal state has specific rights within the EEZ, it must also allow freedom of navigation and overflight for other states, as the EEZ remains part of international waters for these purposes.
• 3. Environmental Protection: The coastal state is responsible for protecting and preserving the marine environment within its EEZ, balancing resource extraction with environmental stewardship.

The EEZ provisions are part of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which provides a balanced framework for resource rights and navigation freedoms.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) - Rights and Duties of Coastal State

Rights of the Coastal State in the EEZ

• 1. Resource Rights:
  • The coastal state has exclusive rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage both living and non-living resources in the waters, seabed, and subsoil within the EEZ.
  • This includes the right to fish, mine, and access oil, gas, and mineral resources.
• 2. Jurisdiction for Certain Activities:
  • The coastal state has the authority to establish and enforce laws regarding the protection and preservation of the marine environment.
  • The state can regulate marine scientific research within its EEZ, permitting or denying research activities by foreign entities.
• 3. Economic Exploitation:
  • The coastal state can authorize the construction and use of artificial islands, installations, and structures for resource extraction, scientific research, or other economic purposes.

Duties of the Coastal State in the EEZ

• 1. Conservation of Resources:
  • The coastal state must ensure that the use of resources, particularly living resources, is managed sustainably to prevent over-exploitation.
  • This includes the duty to adopt conservation measures, often in cooperation with other states, to maintain healthy fish stocks and biodiversity.
• 2. Respect for Rights of Other States:
  • Other states retain rights in the EEZ, particularly the freedom of navigation and overflight, as well as the right to lay submarine cables and pipelines.
  • The coastal state must not interfere unduly with these rights, as the EEZ is still considered international waters for non-resource-related activities.

These rights and duties within the EEZ are established to balance the coastal state's economic interests with international freedoms essential for global maritime activities.

High Seas

Definition of High Seas

The High Seas are parts of the sea that lie beyond any nation’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), Territorial Sea, or any other maritime zone. According to international law, they are open to all states and are not subject to the sovereignty of any single country.

Freedom of High Seas

• 1. Freedom of Navigation: Ships of all states may travel through the high seas without interference.
• 2. Freedom of Overflight: Aircraft of all states may fly freely over the high seas.
• 3. Freedom to Lay Submarine Cables and Pipelines: States can lay cables and pipelines in accordance with international regulations.
• 4. Freedom of Fishing: All states have the right to fish on the high seas, provided it respects international conservation measures.
• 5. Freedom of Scientific Research: States may conduct research, although this is subject to certain regulatory conditions to protect marine life.

Jurisdiction on the High Seas

Jurisdiction over ships on the high seas generally lies with the flag state (the state under which a ship is registered). This principle, established under international law, implies that only the flag state can exercise legal authority over its vessels on the high seas, except in certain circumstances.

S.S. Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), PCIJ, 1927

In the S.S. Lotus case, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) addressed whether a state could exercise jurisdiction over incidents on the high seas involving foreign vessels. The case arose after a collision between a French and a Turkish ship, where Turkey prosecuted a French officer. The PCIJ ruled that international law did not prohibit Turkey from exercising jurisdiction as long as it was not explicitly forbidden by international law, highlighting a degree of flexibility in jurisdiction on the high seas.

Duties of the Flag State

• 1. Ensuring Safety: Flag states must ensure that their ships meet international safety and environmental standards.
• 2. Supervising Crew and Equipment: They must regulate the qualifications and conditions of crews and ensure the vessels’ proper equipment.
• 3. Enforcing Legal Compliance: Flag states are required to enforce international conventions and laws on their ships, ensuring vessels comply with regulations concerning labor, safety, and environmental protection.

Exceptions to Flag State Jurisdiction

• 1. Piracy: Any state can capture and prosecute pirates, as piracy is a crime under universal jurisdiction.
• 2. Unauthorized Broadcasting: Any state can take action against ships broadcasting illegally from the high seas.
• 3. Hot Pursuit: Coastal states may pursue a foreign vessel from their territorial sea onto the high seas if it is suspected of violating the coastal state’s laws.
• 4. Slave Trade and Illegal Drug Trafficking: International treaties permit any state to take action against vessels involved in slavery or drug trafficking.

These principles help balance the rights and responsibilities of states on the high seas, supporting freedom while maintaining international law and order.

Recognition of State and Government

Recognition of State and Government involves acknowledging a new state or government by existing states and is essential for establishing diplomatic and legal relations.

Recognition of State

Recognition of a state occurs when an entity with a defined territory and population demonstrates effective government and capacity for relations. States decide independently whether to recognize a new state, considering factors like stability, control over territory, and independence. Recognition may be de facto (temporary, recognizing control) or de jure (permanent, acknowledging legitimacy).

Recognition of Government

When an existing state's government changes, especially through revolutions or coups, other states may need to decide whether to recognize the new government. Recognition is based on the government’s effectiveness, stability, and compliance with international norms. Recognition of a government does not imply approval of its actions but acknowledges its authority to represent the state in international affairs.

De Facto and De Jure Recognition

De Facto Recognition

This is a provisional form of recognition granted to a state or government when it shows control over a territory and has some stability, but the situation may change. De facto recognition implies that the entity is recognized only for practical purposes, like maintaining limited relations without full diplomatic acceptance. It is usually applied when the new government’s control appears temporary or when the recognizing state prefers a cautious approach.

De Jure Recognition

This is full and formal recognition that an entity is a legitimate state or government under international law. It indicates that the recognizing state acknowledges the permanent and lawful existence of the entity, with full diplomatic relations. De jure recognition is more durable and represents a complete acceptance of the entity’s sovereignty and legitimacy.

Types of Recognition

• 1. Premature Recognition: This occurs when a state recognizes a new state or government before it has clearly established effective control and stability over its territory.
• 2. Implied Recognition: Recognition may be implied through actions that indicate a state accepts the existence or authority of another state or government.
• 3. Conditional Recognition: A state recognizes a new state or government only if certain conditions are met, such as commitments to human rights or democracy.
• 4. Collective Recognition: This occurs when a group of states or an international organization, like the United Nations, collectively recognizes a state or government.

Withdrawal of Recognition

• 1. Reasons for Withdrawal: Common reasons include loss of effective control, violation of international norms, or significant political changes in the recognized state, such as a regime's collapse.
• 2. Consequences: Withdrawal affects diplomatic relations, trade agreements, and legal standings, potentially isolating the affected state internationally.
• 3. Legal Implications: Withdrawal may impact relations and alignments within the international community, especially where multiple states maintain collective recognition or diplomatic stances.

Non-Recognition

Non-Recognition refers to the refusal by states to acknowledge the legitimacy of a particular entity or government as a state or lawful authority, often due to violations of international norms, such as illegal acquisition of territory, military aggression, or lack of democratic legitimacy.

Key Aspects of Non-Recognition

• 1. Application in International Disputes: Non-recognition is commonly used when an entity is established through actions contrary to international law, such as through aggression or occupation. For instance, states may refuse to recognize territorial acquisitions made by force.
• 2. Legal Basis: The principle of non-recognition is based on international legal norms, often codified in United Nations resolutions, which discourage recognition of entities that emerge through illegal means.
• 3. Effects of Non-Recognition: This can lead to isolation of the entity from international relations, trade, and membership in international organizations, effectively limiting its legitimacy and influence on the global stage.

Non-recognition helps enforce international law by discouraging unlawful behavior and maintaining a consensus on legitimate statehood and government.

Legal Effects of Recognition

The legal effects of recognition relate to how a state's recognition of another state or government impacts its legal relationships and international standing. Recognition can lead to several consequences:

• 1. Establishment of Diplomatic Relations: Recognition opens the door for diplomatic and consular relations. Recognized states can set up embassies and consulates, which facilitate international dialogue and cooperation.
• 2. Engagement in International Agreements: Recognized states and governments gain the ability to enter into treaties and agreements, allowing for formal economic, political, and military alliances.
• 3. Legal Standing in International Courts: Recognition enables a state to have standing in international courts and arbitration bodies, which is essential for resolving international disputes.
• 4. Property and Asset Protection: Recognition generally allows the recognized state to claim or protect property and assets located in foreign jurisdictions, as well as benefit from immunity and other international legal protections.
• 5. Reciprocal Rights and Obligations: Recognized states and governments are expected to adhere to the rights and obligations outlined under international law, including respect for diplomatic immunities, treaty commitments, and customary international norms.

These legal effects make recognition a significant step in establishing a state or government’s functional and formal presence in the international system.

State Practices in Recognition for the USA, UK, and India

1. United States

• The U.S. recognizes states and governments based on practical control, stability, and alignment with international norms. Recognition is often conditional on factors like democratic governance and respect for human rights.
• U.S. law allows for the President to recognize or withhold recognition based on foreign policy interests, reflecting both de facto and de jure considerations.

2. United Kingdom

• The UK’s recognition policy traditionally relies on effective control and stability of a government, often making use of de facto recognition initially and upgrading to de jure once the government establishes lasting control.
• Parliament plays a significant role, as treaties and formal recognitions often require legislative approval, aligning the recognition process with national interests and public opinion.

3. India

• India’s recognition of states and governments is based on both political and legal principles, often weighing regional stability and bilateral relations.
• The Indian government follows a pragmatic approach, using recognition as a tool of foreign policy. The practice involves both executive decisions and parliamentary oversight, especially for treaties, ensuring that international commitments align with domestic laws.

Each approach to recognition reflects its political values, historical context, and foreign policy priorities, highlighting different ways in which states can navigate international legal principles of recognition.