Overview

• Nature and Definition

• Subjects of International Law
• Relation between Municipal law and International Law
• Sources of International Law
- Treatise
- VCLT
- Customary International Law
- General Principle of Law
- Juristic work and Judicial Decision
Overview

• Recognition
• State Jurisdiction
• State Responsibility
• State Succession
• Asylum
• Extradition
• International Organization- UN
• WTO
Overview

• Peaceful settlement of dispute

• Law of Sea
• International Humanitarian Law
• List of cases
[Link] father of ‘International Law’ is Hugo Grotius
[Link] term ‘International Law’ was first used by Jeremy Bentham in 1780.

Prof. L. Oppenheim
Law of nation or International Law is the name of the body of customary and conventional rules that are considered legally
binding upon civilized states in their course with each other

JG Starke
It is the body of law comprised of the greater part of its principle and rules of conduct, which states feel themselves bound to
observe and therefore do commonly observe in their relation with each other and which includes also:
[Link] of law relating to functioning of international institution/organisations, their relations with each other and with state &
individuals

Gray
International law or the law of nations is the name of a body of rules which according to their usual definition regulate the
conduct of States in their intercourse with each other.

JL Brierly
The Law of a nation or International Law may be defined as a body of rules and principles of actions which are binding upon
civilized states in their matter with one another.
•Is international law true law? (Austin)
- Austin’s view
- Criticism of Austin
• International law as weak law? (Starke)
• Reasons:
[Link] effective authority to enforce rules
[Link] lacks jurisdiction (Consent of states)
[Link] of international law suffer from uncertainty
[Link] of effective sanction & frequent violation
[Link] interfere within domestic jurisdiction

• Whether international law is the vanishing point of jurisprudence? (holland)

• Reason: No sovereign & No sanctions
• Difference between Public & Private International law
• Reason: Subjects, Source, Uniformity, Consent
 Basis of International law: Theories:
[Link] theory (Pufendrof)- System of Law emanates from God or reasons or morals. It is part of
law of nature necessary for survival of mankind.

2. Positivist Theory (Bynkershook)- Only those principles are deemed as law which have been
adopted with the consent of the states and enacted by states from their own free will and hence
become binding. Consent and treatise come into existence from express or tacit consent of states.

3. Eclectic theory- Equal importance to both the views appears to be correct.

 History & Development of Public International Law
• The peace treaty between the Mesopotamian city of Lagash and Umma is considered the beginning of
International Law. The concept of governance and international relations were developed by the Greeks, which laid
down the foundation of the International Legal System.
• Treaty of Westphalia, 1648
• Congress of vienna1815- Also known as watershed movement. Chaired by Klemen’s von Metternich
• Paris declaration 1856- This declaration laid down rules relating to naval warfare. The main principle that evolved in
it was to prohibit attacks on undefended people. It was codified by France and Great Britain.
• Geneva convention 1864- It formulated rules and regulations for the protection of victims of armed conflict and
people involved in providing care to them. The first Geneva Convention treaty was adopted in 1864, which was reframed
and amended in 1906, 1929 and 1949. At present, the International Committee of the Red Cross mainly see the
implementation of the Geneva Convention. The killing of wounded soldiers was prohibited in the Geneva Convention
treaty.
• Hague convention 1899 and 1907- Two conventions were held in Hague, Netherlands. The objective was to sort out
International Law for peaceful settlement of International Disputes. This Convention also led to the establishment of
the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
• League of nation 1919- It is also referred to as a child of the First World War. It was established under the Treaty of
Versailles, 1919. The Permanent Court of International Justice was established by the League of Nations. The League of
Nations, for the first time, imposed certain restrictions upon the nations' right to resort to war at their will. According
to the League of Nations Covenant, disputes must be resolved through arbitration, judicial resolution, or council
inquiry before turning to war. Failure of the League of Nations led to the outbreak of the Second World War.
• The united nation 1945- At the end of the second world war a new organization came into existence i.e. The United
Nations. The aim was to protect the world from future war. It was established on 24th October, 1945.
 Subjects of International Law
- State is the main subject of international law.
- Essential Elements of a State.—According to Article 1 of Montevideo Convention 1933, "The State as a
person of international law should possess the following qualifications :
1. A permanent population
2. A definite territory
3. A Government and
4. Capacity to enter into relations with other States

- Oppenheim has pointed out the following essential elements of a State

1. Population
2. A definite territory ,
3. Government and
4. Sovereignty
• States alone are subject of International Law
• Oppenheim and Percy E Corbett are the main supporters of this theory
• According to them States are alone as the subject of International Law.

• Only Individuals are subject of International Law

• In International Law, the duties of the states are ultimately the duties of the Individual. Hence there is no
distinction between International and state law.
• The principle of individual responsibility, in a word, means that there is no impunity for anyone who
commits a crime irrespective of one’s position in the government or the military.
• This principle was articulated in the Charters of the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals and was passed onto
post-cold-war tribunals, such as ICTY, ICTR, ECCC, and ICC.

• States, Individuals and other non-state entities are subject of International Law.
• As per this view all states, Individuals and other non-entities are subject to International Law.
• In Donzing Railway official, the court stated that in any treaty, the Intention of parties is to confer on some
individual with certain rights, which the International will recognize and enforce.
 Relationship between international law and municipal law

Following are some of the prominent theories in this connection

1. Monism
2. Dualism
3. Specific Adoption theory
4. Transformation theory and
5. Delegation theory.
Monism: According to monist belief, international obligation and municipal rules are facets of same
phenomenon, the two deriving ultimately from one basic norm and belonging to the unitary order comprised
by the conception of law. Kelsen, Wright, Westlake

Dualism: international law and State law are two separate laws. Triepel & Anzilotti are its exponents.
Subjects, source and substance are different.

Specifc adoption Theory: According to the positivists, international law cannot be directly enforced in the
field of State law. In order to enforce it in the field of Municipal Law, it is necessary to make its specific
adoption.

Transformation Theory.—The exponents of this theory contend that for the application of international law
in the fie l d of municipal law, the rules of international law have to undergo transformation.

Delegation Theory: State uses its own legal processes to decide when and how treaty provisions
apply, without necessarily “transforming” them first.
 Sources of International Law
Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice:
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law, such disputes as are
submitted to it, shall apply;
1. International Conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by
contesting States.
2. International Custom as evidence of general practice accepted by law.
3. General principles of law recognized by civilized nations.
4. Subject to provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and teachings of most highly qualified
publicist of various nations, as subsidiary means for determining the rules of law.

This provision shall not prejudice the power of the court to decide a case ex aequo et bono
(considerations of fair dealing and good faith), if the parties agree thereto (compromise, conciliation,
etc.), which may be independent of or even contrary to law.

Article 38 not exhaustive.

 Treaties and conventions
• Treatise: (2 Kind)
- Kind 1: Law making- large number of parties, create general or universal norms
- Two Kinds: enunciating universal rules like UDHR or UN Charter & laying down general rules like
Geneve Convention, Vienna Convention or Hague Convention etc..
- Kind 2: Treaty Contracts (Also Particular treaty). Between two or only few states. Dealing with a
special matter. Reoccurrence of treaty on similar rule can produce a principle of Customary
International law. -

• Meaning of treaty
• Oppenheim: International Treatise are agreements of a contractual character between states or
organisations of states creating legal rights and duties.
• Article 2 of Vienna Convention, 1969: A treaty is an agreement whereby two or more states establish
or seek to establish relationship between them governed by international law.
• Article 3: This does not mean that other subjects of international law such as int org cannot
conclude treaty.
• Pacta Sunt Servanda: Basis of the binding force of treatise
• Meaning: States are bound to fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them under treatise.
(law of nature & Moral principle).
• Case: North Atlantic Fisheries case
• Article 26 of Vienna Convention: Principle is universally recognized.
• Article 27 of Vienna Convention: No party to a treaty might attempt to justify its failure to perform
any of its international treaty obligations by invocation of its internal law.
• Exceptions
1. When new states come into existence as a result of revolt.
2. Not obligatory to that part of the state which has been ceded/merged with other state.
3. Rebus sic Stantibus: Agreement is binding only so long as the material circumstances on which it
rests remain unchanged
• Vienna Convention: Preamble, 85 Articles, 8 parts, came into force 27 Jan 1980(ratified by 35
states), applicable to only those treatise which are concluded after entering into force of the
convention. Treatise made before that are still governed by old law.
• Why Vienna Convention important: Codified Jus Cogens & Rebus sic Stantibus
 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
Formation of a Treaty (How a Treaty Comes Into Being)
•The Vienna Convention is an international agreement that gives rules for how states make and
handle treaties.
• According to the Convention, a “treaty” is a written agreement between states, under international
law.
• How a State Agrees (Consent):
• A state must clearly express that it wants to be bound by the treaty. This can happen through:
• Ratification — formally approving the treaty after signing.
• Acceptance / Approval — other formal ways of saying “yes, we agree.”
• Accession — a state joins the treaty later, even if it did not sign originally.
• The person signing on behalf of the state must have “full powers” — i.e., official authority from
that state’s government.
 •When the Treaty Starts (Entry into Force):
•The treaty itself often says when it will become active (“enter into force
•If it doesn’t specify, then it comes into force when all the negotiating states agree to be bound
•A state that gives its consent later (after the treaty is already active) becomes bound from the date
it consented (unless the treaty says otherwise). Provisional Application:
• Sometimes, before a treaty is formally in force, parts (or the whole treaty) can be applied
temporarily (“provisionally”), if:
• The treaty allows it; or
• The states agree to it.
• If a state was applying the treaty provisionally but later decides not to ratify / join, it must notify
the other states (unless the treaty says otherwise).
•Good-Faith Behavior Before Entry:
• Even before a treaty is fully in force, states that have agreed (e.g., signed) must not act in ways
that destroy the purpose of the treaty.
Reservations (When a State Wants to “Opt Out” of Some Parts)
•What Is a Reservation?
• A reservation is a statement by a state, made when it signs, ratifies, or joins a treaty, that it does not agree with certain parts
of the treaty (or wants to change how they apply to it).

•When Can a State Make a Reservation? (VCLT Article 19)

• A state cannot make a reservation if:
• The treaty forbids any reservations; or
• The treaty allows only certain reservations, and the one the state wants is not allowed; or
• The reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty.

•Procedure (How to Do It):

• Reservations, objections, and acceptances of reservations must be in writing.
• If you make a reservation while signing but need to ratify later, you must confirm the reservation when you ratify.
• A state can also withdraw its reservation later (unless the treaty says no).
• The withdrawal only takes effect when other states are notified.
•Effect of a Reservation (Legal Consequence):
• If a reservation is accepted by another state, then between the reserving state and that accepting state, the treaty’s
provisions are modified to the extent of the reservation.
• But for other states (that didn’t make a reservation or object), the treaty remains as it is — the reservation doesn’t change
the treaty for them.
• If a state objects to a reservation, but still becomes a party to the treaty, then the reserved parts do not apply between
those two states (to the extent of the reservation).

Validity of a Treaty (When a Treaty May Be Invalid)

•General Rule:
• A treaty is only invalid (i.e., can be declared void) for certain reasons listed in the Convention itself.
•Grounds for Invalidity: Some of the main ones are:
• Internal Law Violation: If a state’s own internal laws (constitutional or administrative) say that the person who made the
treaty didn’t have the right authority and this violation is very obvious and important.
• Coercion: If a state was forced (by threat or use of force) to sign, that treaty can be invalid.
• Corruption: If the person representing the state was corrupt.
• Jus Cogens: If the treaty conflicts with a “peremptory norm” of international law (a rule so fundamental that no one can
override it), then the treaty is void.
•What Happens if It’s Invalid:
• If a treaty is declared invalid, it has no legal force from the start.
Termination & Suspension (How a Treaty Ends or Pauses)
•Basic Rule:
• A treaty can end (terminate), a state can leave (withdraw), or the treaty’s operation can be suspended — but only
in ways allowed by the treaty itself or by the Vienna Convention.
•How to Do It (Procedure):
• There’s a formal process: a state must give a written “notice” if it wants to terminate or suspend.
• That notice can sometimes be revoked (taken back) if the treaty or the Convention allows.
•Reasons for Ending or Suspending a Treaty:
• Material Breach: If a state seriously violates the treaty, other states may terminate or suspend its effect.
• Impossibility of Performance: If it becomes impossible to carry out the treaty (because of changes in reality),
the treaty can be ended.
• Fundamental Change of Circumstances (Article 62): If something big and unexpected happens (which was
essential for the treaty’s original agreement), the treaty may be suspended or terminated.
• New Jus Cogens: If a new peremptory norm (fundamental rule) of international law emerges and conflicts with
the treaty, the treaty can be ended.
•Effects of Termination / Suspension:
• Even after a treaty ends, some rights or obligations that were created while it was in force might continue,
depending on what the treaty or the Convention says
• If the treaty is ended because of a conflict with a jus cogens norm, the states should try to “undo” what they did
under the treaty and follow the higher norm.
 Important Articles of the VCLT (1969 )
Article Explanation
States must not act against the treaty’s purpose before it fully comes
Art 18
into force.
Art 19 States can make reservations (opt-outs) on certain treaty provisions.
A reservation changes how the treaty applies between the reserving
Art 21
and accepting state.
Art 22 States can withdraw a reservation if permitted by the treaty.

Art 24 Defines when a treaty enters into force.

Treaty can apply provisionally before it formally enters into force (if
Art 25
agreed).
Art 26 Pacta sunt servanda — treaties must be kept in good faith.

“Internal law” (a country’s own laws) cannot be used as an excuse to

Art 27
break a treaty.
Interpretation: read treaties in good faith, in their context, with their
Art 31
purpose.
Article Explanation
Use “supplementary means” (like preparatory works) to
Art 32
interpret unclear treaty parts.
If the treaty is in multiple languages, all versions are
Art 33
equally valid.
If a major violation (material breach) happens, the treaty
Art 60
can be terminated or suspended.
If fulfilling the treaty becomes impossible, parties may end
Art 61
or suspend it.
A major, unexpected change in circumstances can allow a
Art 62
treaty to be ended or paused
Even if diplomatic ties break, a treaty’s legal obligations
Art 63
may still continue.
If a new jus cogens norm (very fundamental rule)
Art 64
emerges, treaties conflicting with it become void
Specifies the procedure for declaring a treaty invalid,
Art 65
terminating it, or suspending it.
 Other points related to treatise

• Parties Competent to make a treaty: States (Both sovereign & non-sovereign),

• Free Consent of Parties (Article 48 of Vienna Convention)
•Modes of expression of state’s Consent (Article 11): By signature, By exchange of instrument, by
ratification, by accession.
• Registration & Publication (required to be registered before sec general of UN Article 102 of UN
Charter)
• Ratification of treaty: Article 2(1) (B). no retroactive effect, when ratification is necessary (Article
14):
• German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (PCIJ 1928): Between the period of signature & ratification
a state is under a duty not to do any act which is likely to defect the object and purpose of treaty
(Article 18).
• Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case (PCIJ 1924): The principle that treaty is effective only after
ratification has become very old.
• Reservation of treaty: Article 2(1) of Vienna Convention
• Genocide Convention Case on reservation (ICJ 1951): if treaty is silent on reservations then only
those reservations are accepted which is compatible with object & purpose of the treaty
(compatibility test).
• Pacta tertis nec nocent nec prosunt: Treaty is binding only to the contracting parties and not to a
third state without its consent (article 34).
•Jus Cogens:
• Certain principles in international law which all the states must observe.
• They cannot be altered by concluding treaty
• Maxim: jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari not potest: public law or right cannot be altered by
the agreement of private persons
• Vienna Convention: Article 53, 64 & 66
- Article 53: Treaty is void if conflicts with preemptory norm of general international law
- Article 64: If new preemptory norm of general international law emerges and existing treaty is in
conflict then it becomes void and terminates
Case Why It Matters (Treaty-Law Point)

The ICJ dealt with how treaty provisions (from the Geneva Convention)
North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany / Denmark / Netherlands)
may reflect or become customary international law.

The Court rejected Hungary’s attempt to end a treaty, saying

Gabcíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary / Slovakia) “fundamental change of circumstances” (VCLT Art 62) must meet very
strict conditions.

The ICJ affirmed its jurisdiction based on a 1955 Treaty of Amity,

Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States)
showing how treaty obligations bind even in use-of-force contexts.

The Court interpreted a 1955 Friendship Treaty to decide boundary

Libya–Chad Territorial Dispute
claims, treating the treaty as legally binding

The ICJ held that the UK must enter into arbitration because of
Ambatielos Case (Greece v. UK)
obligations under the 1886 Treaty of Commerce and Navigation

The ICJ interpreted an agreement on guardianship (a treaty) to resolve

Boll Case (Netherlands v. Sweden)
a dispute over child custody across national borders.
 International usage and customs
• Article 38(b) of the statute of ICJ recognizes ‘International Customs’ as evidence of general practice accepted as law.
• Ingredients or elements of custom
1. Long Duration
2. Uniformity and consistency
3. Generality of Practice
4. Not against the public policy and law

 Usage is the twilight zone of custom. But. two conditions must be satisfied:
[Link] test: A material fact of the actual observance of a line of conduct by the States. This mus. be shown as a fact.
[Link] test: There must be an intention to follow the custom. It reaches a stage of approval 'opinio juris sive necessitatis'
(Jurists' opinion as of necessity). Then, the principle (usage) becomes an International Custom. This is the process of the
consummation of a usage into an international custom.
Case Explanation
ICJ confirmed that a rule of custom requires both state practice and
North Sea Continental Shelf (1969)
opinio juris.

The Court held that the prohibition of the use of force is required
Military & Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. USA, 1986)
under customary international law, not just treaty law.

The Court recognized regional customary norms, requiring uniform

Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru, 1950)
and consistent state practice.

The ICJ recognized a customary right of passage based on long-

Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India, 1960)
standing historical state practice.

the Court (P.C.I.J.) held that the opinio juris must be drawn from all the
the Lotus Case circumstances, & not merely from the facts on hand

held that looking to all the facts & circumstances, there was a uniform
the Paquet Habana practice of giving 'immunity to small fishing vessels from belligerent
action in times of war.
 General principles of law recognized by civilized nations

• Principles so general as to apply within all systems of law that have achieved a comparable state of development.
• Rules which we find repeated in much the same form in the developed system of law either because they have a
common origin or because they express a necessary response to certain basic needs of human association
• Res judicata- a thing or matter settled by judgement (U.N. Administrative Tribunal case ILR 1954)
• Prescription: a claim to a right founded upon enjoyment (Eastern Greenland Case PCIJ 1933)
• Subrogarion- Substitution or stepping into shoes of another (Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case)
• Estoppel (Temple of Preah Vihear case ICJ 1962)
• Equity (Gulf of Maine Boundary case , diversion of water from the muse case)
• Reparation (Chorzow factory case)
Judicial decision
• Judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice and Arbitral tribunals have also acted as a
source of international law.
• Article 59 of the statute of the International Court of Justice provides that the decision of the court
will have no binding force except between parties and in respect of that particular case.
•ICJ DECISIONS: The Fisheries Case (drawing of straight baseline to determine the territorial waters),
and the Reparations case declaring the U.N. as successor to the League of Nations & that the U.N. is an
International Person have laid down new principles of international law.
• Cases: Nicaragua vs USA & Paquete Habana case
• EXAEQUOETBONO - It means equity & good conscience. This saves the situation of helplessness of
the Court.

• Juristic Work: Calvo clause, drago Doctrine

• The classical works of Gentili, Hugo Grotius, Zouche, Pufendorf, Moser, Van Martens, Vattel, etc., are
relied upon. References are made to Oppenheim's treatises, Lauterpacht's writings, and the texts of the
International Law Commission.
 Recognition of States
- At the Global level when a new state and Government are formed, they require recognition for them
to be sovereign which will in a way allow them to form diplomatic relations.
- According to International Law, A state is typically defined as being based on the 1933 Montevideo
Convention.
- According to Article 1 of the Convention, the state as a person of international law shall possess the
following qualifications:
1. Permanent Population
2. Defined territory
3. Government
4. Capacity to enter into relations with other states.
- It is often a unilateral act — one country decides on its own whether to recognize.

Montevideo conventions 1933

- An agreement signed at Montevideo, Uruguay and came into force on 26th December 1933.
- It established a standard definition of state as given above.
 Theories of recognition
Constitutive Theory
- Hegel is claimed to be the pioneer of the constitutive theory.
- Others who supported and propounded it were Anzilloti, Holland and Oppenheim
- According to this theory recognition is defined as a process whereby a state is constituted, therefore
it is stated as a constitutive theory.
- It helps the state in acquiring international personality by becoming a member of the family nation.

Declaratory Theory
- This theory is also known as evidentiary theory.
- Professor Hall, Wagner, Pitt Cobbett and Brierly propounded and supported this theory.
- This theory is based on the concept that recognition requires evidence or declaration.
- This theory contradicts the concept of constitutive theory because according to this theory, first
statehood and then recognition is required.
- Recognition is just a formality to acknowledge an already established state.
 MODES OF RECOGNITION
DE FACTO
- De facto is purely provisional temporary
- De facto can be withdrawn if the existing circumstances show that the new community is no longer
holding the power and status.
- De facto is generally granted looking to the developments as regards insurgents' capacity and
establishment.

DE JURE
- De jure is final and binding.
- De jure recognition is permanent and cannot be withdrawn.
- De jure is given if the granting State is fully satisfied with the international capacity of the insurgent
state.
Example:
1. The U.K. granted de facto recognition to Soviet Govt. in 1921, but gave de jure in 1924.
2. The U.K. granted de facto recognition to the Italian conquest of Abyssinia in 1936 but gave de jure in
1938.
3. The Franco Govt. in Spain was given de facto recognition in 1936, but de jure was granted in 1938.
Case: Arantazazu mendi's case: during Spanish Civil War (1936-38) insurgents had occupied a portion
of territory 'and it was recognised de facto by U. K. Here, Arantzazu rnandi was a ship registered in
insurgent territory. Held, the ship was entitled to immunity as U.K. had given de facto recognition.
 Doctrines of recognition
Two main types of doctrine:

Estrada doctrine
• It was a core foreign policy instrument of the Mexican government.
• It was named after Genaro Estrada, secretary of foreign affairs (1930-32).
• It is believed that foreign governments should not judge, positively or negatively the government or change in
government of other states, as judging them will raise the question mark on sovereignty. The principles behind this
formulation were non-intervention, peaceful resolution of disputes and self-determination of all nations.

Stimson doctrine
• This doctrine is named after Henry Stimson, US Secretary of State.
• This policy followed the principle of non-recognizing the state which came into existence due to aggression.
• The doctrine was an application of the principle of ex injuria jus non oritur.
•Ex injuria jus non oritur is a Latin phrase in international law that means "law (or right) does not arise from injustice". It
implies that illegal acts cannot create legal rights or entitlements.
 State Succession
• Definition: State succession happens when one state (the successor State) replaces another (the
predecessor State) in responsibility for the international relations of a territory
• Key idea: The new state takes over some rights, duties, and obligations of the earlier state.
• Why State Succession Happens
1. Decolonization – a colony becomes independent.
2. Dismemberment / Dissolution – an existing state breaks up (e.g., Yugoslavia, USSR).
3. Secession – part of a state breaks away.
4. Annexation – one state takes over another.
5. Merger – two or more states combine into one.
Types of State Succession

There are two main types:

[Link] Succession (Total Succession)
[Link] entire identity of the predecessor state is extinguished.
[Link], for example, in merger, annexation, subjugation.
[Link] inherits almost everything (rights, obligations) of predecessor.

[Link] Succession
[Link] part of a state's territory separates or changes.
[Link] new state may inherit some, but not all, obligations.
[Link]: a province breaks off after civil war, or a territory is ceded.
 Consequences of State Succession
When succession happens, many legal consequences arise:
•Treaties
•Debt
•Contracts
•Membership of international organizations
•Public property / State property
•Archives
•Responsibility (liabilities)
•Nationality
Consequences — Treaties

•The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (1978) governs treaty succession.
•Clean Slate Doctrine (“tabula rasa”): For newly independent states, they may not be bound by predecessor’s treaties.
•Continuity: In other cases (e.g., merger, cession), the successor State may inherit many treaties.
•The successor may need to notify or expressly declare whether it continues or rejects treaties.
•Some treaties are special: boundary treaties or territorial treaties often continue to bind the successor.

Consequences — Debt

•Public (State) Debt: These are financial obligations (like loans) that the predecessor state had.
•Under the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Property, Archives, and Debts (1983), there
are rules about how debt is handled.
•But: this Convention has not entered into force (many states have not ratified).
•In practice, whether a successor state takes on debts often depends on negotiations: proportional division if peaceful
succession.
•Moral / political obligation: if the successor state benefits from the predecessor’s assets, it often feels morally
compelled to take on debt.
Consequences — Contracts
•There isn’t a single uniform rule. As per jurists, much depends on the nature of the contract.
•Concession contracts (e.g., mining, railways) are typically respected by the successor state, because
they are local and permanent in nature.
•But: successor state has discretion; it may or may not accept the obligations depending on the
agreement.
•Sometimes, not the contract per se is inherited, but the rights under the contract (what has already
been earned) and obligations already incurred.

Consequences — Membership of International Organizations

•When a state succeeds another, membership in international organisations (like the UN) is a key issue
•Example: After the breakup of the USSR, Russia was accepted as continuing the USSR’s membership
(including its UN Security Council seat).
•But not all successor states automatically inherit membership — sometimes they must apply afresh,
depending on the organisation or agreement among states.
Consequences — Public Property and Archives
•State property: Includes immovable (buildings, military installations, airports) and movable
property tied to the territory.
• Under the 1983 Vienna Convention, successor state generally inherits public property in its territory.
• Archives: Historical/state documents of the predecessor state may pass to the successor.
• But the distribution of archives can be subject to agreement — successor and predecessor may
negotiate how to share or transfer archives.

Consequences — State Responsibility / Theories of Succession (Part of Consequences)

•Succession of state responsibility refers to the successor taking on liabilities for past wrongful acts.
• The International Law Commission (ILC) is working on clarifying rules about succession of
responsibility.
• There is no universally accepted rule: depends on state practice, types of obligations, and
negotiations.
Theories of State Succession

[Link] Succession / Continuity Theory

[Link] by Grotius.
[Link]: Successor state inherits all rights & obligations automatically.
[Link]: The state as a “legal person” continues through change.
[Link] application: Some merger cases.
[Link] Substitution Theory
[Link] by Max Huber.
[Link] on “organic bond” between territory + people: even if government changes, the state
“organism” continues.
[Link], the successor is essentially the same “state” in identity, but with a new government form.
[Link]-Abnegation Theory
[Link] by Jellinek.
[Link] successor state voluntarily accepts predecessor’s obligations as a moral/legal duty.
[Link] by other states may depend on such acceptance.
Clean Slate (Tabula Rasa) Theory
•Emphasizes new state’s freedom.
•Newly independent states are not automatically bound by predecessor’s treaties; they start fresh.
•Reflects principle of self-determination.

Communist Theory
•Argues that successor states should inherit political and economic commitments (treaties, debt)
of predecessor.
•Based on ideological continuity (especially relevant in context of socialist/communist states).
Case / Example Relevance to State Succession
Russia claimed to be the continuation of the
Dissolution of the Soviet Union (1991)
USSR; inherited many treaties, seat at UN.

Multiple successor states; complex treaty

Break-up of Yugoslavia
succession; e.g., Croatia-Serbia Genocide Case.

The ICJ used a 1955 treaty to decide boundary,

Libyan–Chad Territorial Dispute (ICJ, 1994)
showing treaty continuity across changes.

Concerned contract rights / arbitration; even

Ambatielos Case (Greece v UK, 1953) after changes, obligations under the treaty were
considered.
 What is State Jurisdiction?
Definition: State jurisdiction = the power or authority of a state, under international law, to make laws
(legislate), enforce laws, and adjudicate (decide) legal disputes.

Jurisdiction has three dimensions:

[Link] jurisdiction – the power to prescribe rules (make laws)
2. Executive jurisdiction – the power to enforce those rules (e.g., via police, administrative actions)
3. Judicial jurisdiction – the power to adjudicate, i.e., bring people before courts and decide cases.

Why it matters: Jurisdiction reflects a state’s sovereignty – its legal control over persons, property, and
events.
Principles / Bases of State Jurisdiction

Territorial Principle
•A state has jurisdiction over acts, people, property within its territory.
• Two variants:
• Subjective territoriality: when an act begins in the state’s territory.
• Objective territoriality: when an act outside has effects inside the territory.

Nationality Principle (Active Personality): A state can regulate (legislate / prosecute) its own
nationals, even when they are abroad.
Passive Personality Principle: A state may claim jurisdiction over crimes committed abroad that
harm its nationals (i.e., if the victim is its national).
Protective Principle: A state may exercise jurisdiction over foreign acts that threaten its security or
vital interests.
Universality Principle (Universal Jurisdiction): For very serious crimes (e.g., piracy, war crimes,
genocide), any state may claim jurisdiction regardless of where the crime occurred or the nationality
of perpetrator / victim.
Types of State Jurisdiction (by Function)

• Legislative (Prescriptive) Jurisdiction

• Making laws that may apply within territory or beyond.
• But this is limited: international law / treaties may restrict a state’s power to legislate
extraterritorially.
•Executive (Enforcement) Jurisdiction
• Enforcing laws: arrest, detain, execute laws.
• Normally, a state cannot enforce its laws in another state's territory without that state's consent.
•Judicial (Adjudicative) Jurisdiction
• Courts of the state decide disputes.
• Could be over persons, acts, or property, depending on the basis (territorial, nationality, etc.).
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (“Beyond Territory”)

•Definition: When a state’s laws apply or are enforced outside its territory.
•Forms:
• Legislative extraterritoriality: making laws that apply to persons or acts outside territory.
• Enforcement extraterritoriality: acting (e.g., arrest) in another state’s territory (rare and
sensitive).
• Judicial extraterritoriality: trying cases in domestic courts even if the act happened abroad.
•Theoretical basis / justification: often relies on one of the international principles (nationality,
protective, universality) to legitimize extraterritorial reach.
•Limits & constraints:
• Must not violate sovereignty of other states, unless consent.
• International law generally disfavors overbroad extraterritorial legislation.
Jurisdiction Based on Nationality
•Active nationality principle: State has jurisdiction over its citizens, even when they commit acts abroad.
•Passive nationality principle: State may claim jurisdiction when the victim of crime is its national, even if crime
happened abroad.
•Genuine link doctrine: International law sometimes requires a “genuine link” or real connection between person and
state for nationality-based jurisdiction to be accepted.

Statelessness & Jurisdiction

•Statelessness defined: A person who is not considered a national by any state under its domestic laws.
•Problem for jurisdiction: If someone is stateless, nationality-based jurisdiction cannot apply (because they have no
nationality).
•Implications in international law:
• Stateless persons may fall “between the cracks” of jurisdiction.
• States may still have territorial jurisdiction if the person is present in their territory.
• Universal jurisdiction could apply if the stateless person commits very serious crimes (but this depends on the
domestic law of the prosecuting state).
•Real-world relevance: Statelessness is a serious international issue (e.g., refugees, persons rendered stateless by
conflict or nationality laws). (You can mention Rohingyas for illustration, though not strictly a “jurisdiction case.”)
Universal Jurisdiction
• What it is: A principle that allows (or requires) states to prosecute certain crimes regardless of any
direct connection (territory, nationality) to the crime.
•Rationale: Some crimes are so grave (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, piracy,
torture) that they concern the entire international community.
•Key international support: Recognized in customary law; many states give universal jurisdiction for
war crimes, piracy, and other grave crimes.
•Limits / safeguards:
• Should be exercised when the territorial or nationality state is unable or unwilling to prosecute.
• Risk of abuse / politically motivated prosecutions.

Examples / Cases:
• Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium, 2002): Belgium issued an arrest warrant under its
universal jurisdiction law.
• Butare Four (Belgium): Belgium tried four Rwandans for genocide even though crime was in
Rwanda.
• Modern example: States investigating war crimes in Ukraine under universal jurisdiction.
Case What It Illustrates

Classic example for territorial jurisdiction. The PCIJ

Lotus Case (France v. Turkey)
recognized objective territoriality (effects doctrine).

Nationality / “genuine link” question: the ICJ rejected

Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, 1955) Liechtenstein’s diplomatic protection because
Nottebohm’s link was not genuine.

Universal jurisdiction: Belgium’s law to try international

Arrest Warrant Case (DRC v. Belgium, 2002)
crimes.
First Belgian use of universal jurisdiction for genocide
Butare Four (Belgium genocide trial)
committed abroad.

Enforcement / executive jurisdiction issues: abduction

State v. Ebrahim (South Africa)
from Swaziland, raised issues of legality.
What Is Extradition?
• Definition: Extradition is the formal process by which one state (the requested state) hands over a
person (accused or convicted) to another state (the requesting state) so that they can face trial or
serve a sentence there.
• It is a tool for international cooperation in criminal justice, balancing respect for national
sovereignty and the need to punish crime across borders.

•Extraditable persons can include:

• Those charged but not yet tried.
• Those convicted and escaped.
• Those convicted in absentia.
Process of Extradition (General Steps)

While the exact procedure depends on domestic law and treaty, a typical extradition process involves:
1. Request: The requesting state sends a formal extradition request to the requested state (usually via
diplomatic channels).
2. Review (Preliminary Stage): The requested state’s authorities check whether the request meets
the requirements (treaty, domestic law).
3. Judicial Hearing / Extradition Hearing: There is often a court or magistrate hearing where
evidence is examined (to see, for example, if there is a prima facie case).
4. Decision by Executive / Government: After judicial review, the government (or relevant ministry)
decides whether to surrender the person.
5. Surrender / Transfer: If approved, the fugitive is handed over to the requesting state.
6. Post-Extradition Safeguards: The extradited person’s rights must be protected (e.g., only tried for
the extradited offense, specialty principle).
Core Principles of Extradition
Here are the main legal principles that guide and limit extradition:
[Link] Criminality (Double Criminality):
[Link] alleged offense must be a crime under both the requesting and requested states’ laws.
[Link] extradition for acts that are not offenses in the country where the person is located.
[Link] (Rule of Speciality):
[Link] person extradited can only be tried or punished for the specific offense(s) for which
extradition was granted.
[Link] cannot be prosecuted for other, unlisted offenses committed before extradition, unless the
sending (requested) state agrees.
[Link] / Proportional Punishment:
[Link] should not be granted if the punishment in the requesting state is grossly
disproportionate, or if it violates human rights.
2.E.g., risk of death penalty or inhuman treatment can lead to refusal.
4. Opportunity of a Fair Trial / Risk of Unfair Trial:
[Link] requested state may refuse extradition if there is a real risk that the person will not receive a
fair trial in the requesting state.
[Link] rights protections (e.g., non-refoulement in the context of extradition) play a strong role.
[Link] bis in idem (Double Jeopardy):
[Link] “not twice in the same thing”: a person should not be tried or punished more than once
for the same offense.
[Link] extradition treaties embed this principle to prevent a second prosecution in the requesting
state if the person has already been judged or punished.
[Link]:
[Link] is often based on mutual cooperation: states extradite because they expect similar
cooperation in return.
[Link] Offense Exception:
[Link], many extradition treaties exclude political offenses (crimes motivated by politics)
from being extraditable.
[Link] serious international crimes (terrorism, war crimes, genocide) increasingly cannot be said to
be purely political; treaties may exclude the exception in such cases.
The “Attentat” Clause (Belgian Clause)
•What is it? It’s a clause in extradition treaties that excludes the political-offense exception for
attacks on heads of state (or their family).
• This means assassination or attempted assassination on a foreign leader is not treated as a
political crime for extradition.
•Origin: The “Belgian clause” comes from Belgium’s 1856 extradition law — it was the first to
explicitly exclude such crimes from political offence protection

Aut Dedere Aut Judicare” Principle

•Meaning: Latin phrase meaning “either extradite or prosecute.” States should either extradite a
suspect or prosecute them domestically for certain serious crimes.
• Applies especially to international crimes: terrorism, torture, crimes against diplomats, etc.
•Sometimes considered or argued as a jus cogens principle for very serious international crimes.
Bars to Extradition (When Extradition Can Be Refused)

Here are common grounds on which a requested state may refuse extradition:
[Link] Offense Exception:
[Link] the crime is classified as political (depending on treaty), the requested state may refuse.
[Link] attentat clause may negate this exception for assassination of heads of state.
[Link] of Unfair Trial / Human Rights Concerns:
[Link] extradition would expose the person to torture, inhuman treatment, or unfair justice, the
request can be denied.
[Link]: European human rights law requires assessment of risk before extradition.
[Link] bis in idem (Double Jeopardy):
[Link] the person has already been tried and convicted or acquitted for the same offense, extradition
might be refused
[Link] treaties or domestic laws explicitly provide this bar.
4. Nationality / Non-extradition of Nationals:
[Link] states refuse to extradite their own nationals (though this depends on treaty or domestic
law).
[Link], under “aut dedere aut judicare,” states may have an obligation to prosecute instead.
5. Proportionality / Disproportionate Punishment:
[Link] the requested sentence is too harsh (e.g., death penalty, very long prison) or violates human
rights, extradition can be denied
6. No Prima Facie Case / Insufficient Evidence:
[Link] requested state may insist there is not enough evidence on the face of it to justify surrender.
Types of Offenders (in Extradition Context)
•Accused / Charged But Not Tried: Persons who are under indictment in the requesting state.
•Convicted But Escaped: Those who have been tried and convicted but fled to another state.
•Convicted in Absentia: Tried and convicted without being present — depending on treaty, extradition may still
proceed.
•International Crime Perpetrators: Terrorists, war criminals, persons who committed crimes under treaties where “aut
dedere aut judicare” applies.

Case Significance / Principle Illustrated

The European Court of Human Rights held that extraditing someone
to face the death penalty in the U.S., when there was real risk of
Soering v. United Kingdom (1989)
“death-row phenomenon” (very long time on death row), would
violate Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment).
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the double jeopardy
(ne bis in idem) principle is important, the extradition hearing is not
Canada v. Schmidt (1987)
a full trial; the focus is on whether there is a prima facie case and
whether extradition would be fair.
The Irish Supreme Court refused extradition on human rights
MJELR v Rettinger (Ireland, 2010) grounds: there must be substantial grounds to believe the person
would face treatment contrary to human rights.
 What Is Asylum?

•Definition: In international law, asylum means a protection (shelter) granted by a State to a person
who has fled their own country, usually because of a well-founded fear of political persecution.
•According to doctrine (e.g., Starke), asylum involves two elements:
• A shelter: more than just a temporary refuge.
• Active protection: the asylum-granting State must exercise some form of protection, not just
let the person in.
•Historically, asylum is linked to State sovereignty: a sovereign state has the discretion to decide
whom to grant asylum.
Important Articles on Asylum
•UDHR, Article 14(1): “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from
persecution.”
•1951 Refugee Convention / 1967 Protocol:
• The core principle of non-refoulement is in Article 33(1): no contracting State shall return
(“refouler”) a refugee to a territory where their life or freedom would be threatened for reasons
like race, religion, political opinion, etc.
• This non-refoulement rule is considered a fundamental obligation.
•Regional / Other Instruments:
• Declaration on Territorial Asylum (UN GA, 1967): prohibits “rejection at the frontier … or expulsion
… to any State where he may be subjected to persecution.”
• Cartagena Declaration on Refugees (1984, Latin America): not a treaty, but influential; reaffirms
asylum and non-refoulement.
Fundamental Principles of Asylum
1. Non-Refoulement
1. As noted, under Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention, a refugee must not be returned to a place where they risk
persecution or serious harm.
2. This principle is widely accepted and considered jus cogens (i.e., a peremptory norm) by many scholars: no
derogation allowed.
3. Human rights law also reinforces it: according to UN human rights bodies, non-refoulement applies broadly.
[Link] / Discretion
1. The decision to grant asylum is often discretionary: States have sovereignty over their territory and can decide
whether to admit asylum-seekers.
2. But this discretion is not unlimited: international obligations (e.g., non-refoulement) constrain it.
[Link] / Risk
1. In some asylum contexts (especially diplomatic asylum), there may be a requirement of “urgent case”: the
asylum-seeker must face imminent danger. (Seen in the Asylum Case before ICJ.)
2. The receiving (asylum) state must assess whether there is real risk to the asylum-seeker if returned.
[Link] of Offense
1. Who decides if the offense (for which the person is fleeing) is “political” is a legal issue. In the ICJ Asylum Case, the
Court held that the asylum state cannot unilaterally and definitively qualify an offense as political vis-à-vis the
territorial state.
2. There must be an interplay between the asylum-granting State and the territorial State.
Kinds (Types) of Asylum
[Link] Asylum
1. Granted within the territory of the asylum-granting State (i.e., once the asylum seeker is on its soil)
2. Based on state sovereignty: the State controls its borders and can decide whom to admit.
3. Very common form in practice.
[Link]-Territorial Asylum
1. Granted outside the asylum-granting State’s territory — e.g., in its embassy, consulate, or on its warship
2. Requires special legal basis because it involves other States’ territory or jurisdiction.
[Link] Asylum
1. A sub-type of extra-territorial asylum: given in diplomatic mission (embassy / consulate) of a State.
2. Based on the inviolability of diplomatic premises (Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations).
3. Not universally accepted: more common in Latin American practice; in some regions it's contested.
[Link] in Warships
1. Another form of extra-territorial asylum: a person is given asylum on a State’s warship.
2. Based on the principle that a warship is under the sovereignty of its flag State.
3. Rare in practice due to diplomatic/military complexities.
[Link] Asylum
1. Provisionally granted to people in emergency situations (e.g., mass displacement due to war, disaster).
2. Not necessarily a full refugee status, but protection for a limited period until a more durable solution is found.
Relationship with Non-Refoulement & Refugee Status
•Non-Refoulement (already covered) is central: states must not return asylum-seekers to danger.
• Asylum is related but not identical to refugee status:
• Asylum is the act of giving protection / shelter.
• Refugee status (as per 1951 Convention) is a defined legal status with particular rights.
•Asylum-seekers may or may not satisfy the 1951 Convention definition of “refugee” — states
evaluate on a case-by-case basis.

Asylum Case (ICJ, 1950): Colombia v. Peru

•Facts: Victor Raúl Haya de la Torre, political leader, was granted asylum by Colombia in its
embassy in Lima (Peru) after a rebellion.
•Dispute: Whether Colombia had the right to unilaterally determine that his offense was “political”
and whether Peru had to grant safe-conduct for him to leave.
 What Is State Responsibility? (Meaning)
• Definition: State responsibility refers to the legal doctrine under which a State is held accountable when it commits an
internationally wrongful act — that is, when it breaches an obligation under international law.
• It is about when, how, and what obligations a State has to repair the harm caused by its wrongful acts.
• The International Law Commission (ILC) codified state responsibility in 59 Articles (2001) called the Articles on
Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA).

Theories of State Responsibility

[Link] / Intent-Based Theory (Culpa Theory)
1. Traditional idea: State responsibility arises when there is fault (intention or negligence) in the State’s conduct.
2. Similar to “tort” or “liability” in national law: you’re responsible because you did something wrong intentionally or
negligently.
2. Objective / Risk Theory (Strict Liability)
1. According to this theory, States can be responsible even without fault: “risk” or “strict” responsibility.
2. Some obligations are such that mere act (or omission) causes responsibility, regardless of intent — especially
where risk is inherent.
3. This theory recognizes that not all international obligations require proof of fault.
3. Institutional / Structural Theory
1. Focuses on the idea that the State as an institution — its organs and agents — must be held accountable, not just
individuals.
2. Responsibility is attached to the State, not personal liability of officials. (Reflected in ILC Articles on attribution.)
4. Systemic / Policy Theory
1. Emphasizes the role of State responsibility in maintaining international order: responsibility ensures that States
do not flout obligations, and that there is a mechanism to restore legal equilibrium.
2. Under this perspective, reparations, countermeasures, and guarantees are not just punitive but corrective and
preventive.
5. Jus Cogens / Special Gravity Theory
1. Some breaches involve peremptory norms (jus cogens) — for example, genocide, torture. The theory here is that
such breaches have special weight, possibly triggering more stringent responsibility.
2. The ILC Articles treat “serious breaches of obligations under peremptory norms” in a special part.
[Link] of State Responsibility (Article 2, ARSIWA)- A state is responsible when:

(a) Act is Attributable to the State

Conduct must be carried out by:
• State organs (executive, judiciary, legislature)
• Entities empowered by law to exercise governmental authority
• Private persons acting under direction/control of the State

(b) There is a Breach of International Obligation

• The state must have violated an obligation it was legally bound to follow.
• Obligation may arise from treaty, custom, general principles.
- No need to prove intention, negligence, or malice. It is enough that the obligation is breached.

Attribution of Conduct to the State (Articles 4–11, ARSIWA)

• Article 4 – Organs of the State
• Includes:
− Central and local government , Armed forces, Police , Judiciary
•Even if an organ acts ultra vires (beyond powers), the act is still attributable.
Article 5 – Entities exercising governmental authority
E.g., privatized water company authorized to supply water on behalf of the State. Article 8 – Control of private actors
•Acts of non-state actors can be attributed if: They act under instruction, direction, or control of the State.

Case Law:
Nicaragua v. USA (1986) – The ICJ held that the U.S. was not responsible for the actions of the Contras because it exercised
insufficient control (introduced the "effective control" test).

Article 10 – Conduct of an insurrectional movement

Acts of a successful revolutionary movement can be attributed to the new government.

Breach of an International Obligation (Articles 12–15)

- Article 12 – Breach defined: Violation of any legal obligation, regardless of its source (treaty/custom).
- Article 14 – Continuing act: Breach continues if the wrongful situation (e.g., occupation) continues.
- Composite acts (Article 15): Some wrongful acts consist of a series of actions over time (e.g., racial discrimination).
These are defenses available to the State: Circumstance
1. Consent (Art. 20) Self-Defense (Art. 21)
Valid consent from the injured state precludes wrongfulness. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
2. Circumstance
3. Countermeasures (Art. 22)
4. Force Majeure (Art. 23) Distress (Art. 24)
5. Necessity (Art. 25)

Explanation
- Lawful if in response to prior wrongful act.
- Impossibility due to unforeseen and uncontrollable event.
- Action needed to save lives of persons under State’s care.
- Only to safeguard essential interest from grave peril, with limits.
- Not all excuses are allowed if the obligation breached is peremptory (jus cogens).
Legal Consequences of State Responsibility (Articles 28–39)

Once a breach occurs:

A. Duty to cease the act (Art. 30(a)): Stop ongoing wrongful conduct.
B. Duty of non-repetition (Art. 30(b)): Prevent the same act in future.
C. Duty to make full reparation (Art. 31)

Invocation of Responsibility (Articles 42–48)

Injured State (Art. 42) : Directly affected state may invoke responsibility and seek reparations.
Non-Injured State (Art. 48) : States can invoke responsibility for violation of:

Obligations erga omnes (e.g., genocide, torture, slavery)

Peremptory norms (jus cogens)
Serious Breaches of Jus Cogens (Articles 40–41)
Such as: Aggression, Genocide, Torture, Slavery

•Obligations of all states:

•Not recognize the illegal situation
• Not aid or assist
• Cooperate to bring an end to the breach

•E.g., Occupation of Crimea by Russia – Widely considered a breach of jus cogens.

•Important Case Laws

1. Corfu Channel (UK v. Albania): ICJ Due diligence in preventing harm; state liable for mines in
territorial sea
2. Chorzów Factory Case PCIJ: Compensation must wipe out consequences of illegal act
3. Nicaragua v. USA Bosnian Genocide Case
From League of Nations to the UN
•League of Nations – Background
• Created after WWI (Covenant of the League, 1919) to prevent war, promote collective security,
disarmament, settle disputes.
• Weaknesses: major powers not always cooperative; failure in crises such as Abyssinia
(Ethiopia) Crisis.
• Ultimately, its inability to prevent WWII showed its limits; replaced by UN.

•Making of the United Nations

• After WWII, countries met (San Francisco Conference) in 1945 and drafted the UN Charter.
• The UN was founded on 24 October 1945, combining international cooperation with stronger
enforcement mechanisms than the League.
Use of Force, Collective Security, Self-Defence
•Prohibition of Use of Force (Article 2(4)):
• States must not use or threaten force against another state’s territorial integrity or political
independence.
•Exceptions:
• Security Council authorization: When SC determines a threat (Art. 39) and then authorizes
force (Art. 42).
• Self-defence (Article 51): States can use force in individual or collective self-defence if
attacked, until the SC takes measures.
• Must report measures immediately to SC.
• Self-defence does not remove SC’s primary responsibility.
•Collective Security: The UN system is designed to enable collective action to prevent conflict or
restore peace.
Prohibition of Force, Use of Force & Self-Defence (Revisited)
•Article 2(4) – Prohibition: All Members must refrain from threat / use of force.
•Article 42: If SC decides force is needed, it can authorize “air, land or sea operations” to maintain
peace.
•Article 51 – Self-Defence:
• States have inherent right of self-defence if attacked.
• Must immediately report to SC
• Defensive actions do not undermine SC authority.

Peacekeeping & Collective Security

•Peacekeeping: Though not explicitly mentioned in the Charter, UN peacekeeping is a practice: SC
authorizes missions to help maintain peace, often with military & civilian personnel. (You can
mention it's based on SC Chapter VII or VI mandates.)
•Collective Security: Key UN concept: States agree that aggression or threat to peace is a concern
for all; SC can act (diplomatically or militarily) to maintain peace.
 International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Jurisdiction of the ICJ

[Link] of ICJ Jurisdiction

[Link] Jurisdiction: This is when two (or more) States have a legal dispute and both
consent to let the ICJ decide it.
[Link] States can be parties in contentious cases; international organizations or
individuals cannot bring a case.
[Link] Court's decision (“judgment”) is final and binding on the parties.

[Link] Jurisdiction: The Court gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by
certain UN organs or specialized agencies.
[Link] opinions are not legally binding, but they carry strong legal and moral weight.
How States Accept ICJ Jurisdiction

•Special Agreement (Compromis): Two States may agree, after a dispute arises, to submit their
case to ICJ.
•Treaty / Conventional Jurisdiction: Some treaties have clauses (jurisdictional clause) that refer
disputes to the ICJ if they arise.
•Declarations (Optional Clause): Some states make declarations under Article 36(2) of the ICJ
Statute, accepting the Court’s jurisdiction in advance for certain categories of legal disputes.
(This is more technical; but note: consent is essential.)
Other Aspects of Jurisdiction
•Incidental Jurisdiction: The ICJ also has power to decide incidental matters such as: whether it
has jurisdiction (“jurisdictional objections”), interim (provisional) measures, and other procedural
matters.
•Subject-Matter (Ratione Materiae): The ICJ can decide on any question of international law
(treaty interpretation, use of force, boundaries, state responsibility) provided the states consent
International Criminal Court (ICC)
The ICC is quite different from the ICJ: it’s a criminal court that prosecutes individuals (not states) for
certain international crimes.

Establishment & Legal Basis

•The ICC was established by the Rome Statute, adopted on 17 July 1998, and entered into force on 1
July 2002.
•According to Article 1 of the Rome Statute:
•The Court shall be a permanent institution and have power to prosecute individuals for serious
international crimes.
•Article 2 links ICC with the UN: the Statute provides for a formal relationship with the UN.
•Article 4 gives the ICC international legal personality — meaning it can operate internationally, has
capacity to function, and can work in the territory of State Parties or other states by agreement.
Crimes (Subject Matter Jurisdiction)
•Article 5 of the Rome Statute defines the four core crimes under ICC jurisdiction:
• Genocide – as defined in Article 6.
• Crimes against Humanity – defined in Article 7.
• War Crimes – defined in Article 8.
• Crime of Aggression – added later; conditions for jurisdiction are set under the Statute

•Complementarity Principle: The ICC only steps in when national courts are unwilling or unable to
genuinely prosecute.
•Jurisdictional Limits:
• Ratione Personae: ICC prosecutes individuals (not states) — no immunity for high officials,
including heads of state.
• Ratione Loci / Territorial: ICC jurisdiction applies if the crime occurred in a State Party’s territory.
• Ratione Temporis (Temporal): Only crimes committed after the Statute entered into force (i.e.,
after 1 July 2002) are generally prosecutable.
Jurisdiction Triggers: The ICC’s jurisdiction can be triggered in three main ways:
- A State Party referral (a State Party to the Rome Statute refers a “situation” to the Prosecutor).
- Prosecutor’s proprio motu: The Prosecutor can initiate an investigation on their own (with
permission from the Pre-Trial Chamber).
- UN Security Council Referral: The SC can refer a situation, even involving non-State Parties.

Admissibility of Cases: The ICC will only proceed if:

•Complementarity test: National courts are not prosecuting genuinely.
•Gravity threshold: The crime is serious enough to warrant ICC’s resources (Statute provides
criteria).
•Interests of justice: Prosecutor may assess whether it's in the interests of justice to pursue the
case.
Cooperation & Enforcement:
•The ICC relies on States Parties to arrest suspects, surrender them, cooperate in investigations,
provide evidence, etc. (ICC has no police force.)
•Also, the ICC has “Rules of Procedure and Evidence” and “Elements of Crimes” (supplementary
texts) to define how trials should work.

•Additional Statutory Articles:

•Article 10: Non-retroactivity – crimes before Statute entry generally not under ICC jurisdiction.
•Article 24: Confirms non-retroactivity (persons cannot be held responsible for conduct before
Statute came into force).
•Article 27: No immunity based on official capacity (leaders, government officials, etc. can be
prosecuted).
•Article 12: Preconditions to ICC jurisdiction (state of crime or nationality, acceptance by non-party
states under certain conditions).
Article Why It Is Important (Simple One-Liner)
Establishes the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of
Article 1
the UN.

Judges must be independent and of high moral

Article 2
character.
Article 3 ICJ has 15 judges.
Article 4 Judges elected by UNGA and UNSC.
Article 9 Judges must reflect the world’s major legal systems.
Article 13 Judges serve for 9 years.
Article 31 Parties can appoint an ad hoc judge.
Only States may be parties before ICJ (not
Article 34
individuals/IOs).
Article 35 All UN Members can access the Court.
 Optional Clause – States may accept compulsory
Article 36(2)
jurisdiction.

Article 38 Sources of International Law applicable by the Court.

Article 41 Provisional measures to prevent irreparable harm.

Article 53 Ex parte proceedings if a party does not appear.
Article 56–58 Dissenting and separate opinions permitted.
Article 59 Judgment binds only the parties to that case.
Article 60 Court has power to interpret its own judgments.
Revision of judgment allowed on discovery of new
Article 61
facts.

Article 62 Third-State intervention allowed if interest is affected.

Treaty-party intervention allowed in treaty

Article 63
interpretation cases.
Article 65 ICJ can give advisory opinions.
WTO
Peaceful Settlement of Dispute
 Law of the Sea
• Evolved during the time of Grotius
• Observed by states as CIL
• Principle: ‘Mare Liberum’- Freedom of the seas (non-regulation & Laissez faire)
• Conflict over Free Sea & Closed Sea (3 NM)
• Geneva Convention on law of sea 1958 adopted four conventions:

1. Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone, which came into force on 10 September
1964,
2. Convention on the Continental Shelf, which came into force on 10 June 1964,
3. Convention on the High Seas, which came into force on 30 September 1962, and
4. Convention on Fishing and Conservation of Living Resources of the High Seas, which came into
force on 20 March 1966
•Sea divided into three parts: Maritime Zones (territorial sea), Contiguous zone & High sea.

• Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone

• The objective of this convention was to define and limit the contiguous zone and the territorial sea.
• Nations cannot prohibit foreign ships from passing through straits utilized for international
navigation between one section of the high seas and another section of the high seas or a foreign
state’s territorial sea.
• Territorial Sea- A territorial sea is a maritime zone that extends up to 12 nautical miles from a
coastal state's baseline. The state has jurisdiction over this area, but foreign vessels are allowed to
pass through it under certain conditions. This is known as "innocent passage.
• A contiguous zone- It is a maritime area that extends up to 24 nautical miles from a coastal state's
baselines, beyond and adjacent to its territorial sea. The coastal state has limited powers in this zone
to prevent and punish violations of its customs, fiscal, immigration, and sanitary laws. A state must
assert its right to a contiguous zone, unlike the continental shelf, which is automatically assigned to
the coastal state.
• Not required: States are not required to maintain contiguous zones, as they are to maintain
territorial seas.
Convention on the Continental Shelf
• The objective of this convention was to delimit and define the rights of States to exploit and
explore the rich natural resources found in the continental shelf.
• The Convention “crystallizes” a relatively short process of forming a customary rule, which
incorporates the notion that the coastal state’s rights over the shelf do not require occupancy or
public proclamation.
• The convention outlined not just what was permissible in continental shelf zones, but also what
could not be done. Such exploration or exploitation must not obstruct shipping, fishing, or the
conservation of the sea’s living resources, or oceanographic or other scientific study, in an
unjustified way.
Convention on the High Seas
• This convention’s goal was to codify the rules of international law governing the high seas.
• The high seas are defined as all areas of the sea that are not part of the territorial sea or internal waters.
• It specifically addresses freedom of the high seas as well as a State’s right to have ships flying its flag under its
control if certain conditions are met- “genuine link”; the flag State’s rights and obligations; piracy; hot pursuit; the
right of visit; and the laying of submarine cables and pipelines.
•It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and non-coastal States:
(1) Freedom of navigation;
(2) Freedom of fishing;
(3) Freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines;
(4) Freedom to fly over the high seas. These freedoms, and others which are recognized by the general principles of
international law, shall be exercised by all States with reasonable regard to the interests of other States in their
exercise of the freedom of the high seas
[Link] Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
- Although UNCLOS I was deemed a success, it left unresolved the critical issue of the territorial
sea’s breadth.
- In order to resolve this issue, a second conference on the Law of the Sea was conducted in 1960
(UNCLOS II), which introduced no significant changes.
- The conference, which drew more than 160 countries, lasted until 1982.
1. The resulting convention went into effect on November 16, 1994.
2. It superseded the four Geneva Conventions of April 1958, which dealt with the
3. territorial sea and contiguous zone, fisheries, the high seas, the continental shelf, and the
conservation of living resources on the high seas, resulting in the establishment of three new
institutions.
4. The three newly formed institutions retained various parts and ideas of the previous four
conventions. The institutions are, namely –
[Link] International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,
[Link] International Seabed Authority, and
[Link] Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf.
•ITLOS is an independent judicial organization created by the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS) to resolve disputes arising from the Convention’s interpretation and application on the Law
of the Sea, and for rendering advisory opinions.
• ITLOS works to protect and preserve the numerous maritime resources and species. It also aids in the
advancement and transfer of maritime technology by promoting and leveraging scientific research.
• The Tribunal is made up of 21 independent members chosen from among those with the best
reputation for fairness and integrity, as well as recognized expertise in the field of maritime law.

• Major changes adopted y UNICLOS Convention of 1982

• 320 Articles & 9 Annexes along with 4 resolution
• Breadth of territorial sea extended
• Innocent passage
• Contiguous zone
• Continental shelf
• Exclusive Economic Zone- 200 NM
• Rights under EEZ- natural resources, artificial islands & Scientific Research
 International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Definition:
International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of armed conflict or law of war, is a set of
rules that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. It protects persons who are
not or are no longer participating in hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare.

Sources:
• Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols
• Hague Conventions (1899 & 1907)
• Customary International Law
• Jurisprudence of International Courts (e.g., ICJ, ICTY, ICC)
• UN Charter (to some extent)
Basic Principles of IHL

1. Principle of Distinction- Parties to conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians. o
Attacks should only be directed at military objectives.
2. Principle of Proportionality- Harm caused to civilians must not be excessive in relation to the
anticipated military advantage.
3. Principle of Military Necessity - Justifies measures not forbidden by international law and necessary
for securing the ends of war.
4. Principle of Humanity- Prohibits unnecessary suffering and ensures humane treatment of all
individuals.
5. Principle of Precaution - Parties must take precautions to avoid or minimize harm to civilians.
6. Martens Clause- Even in cases not covered by specific international agreements, civilians and
combatants remain under the protection of principles of humanity and dictates of public conscience.
 Important Conventions under IHL

1. Geneva Conventions (1949): These are four treaties formulated in 1949 after WWII, which form the core of modern IHL.

GC I: Protection of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field.

GC II: Protection of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked in armed forces at sea.
GC III: Treatment of prisoners of war (POWs). GC IV: Protection of civilians during times of war.
Key Provisions:
• Humane treatment of all persons.
• Prohibition of torture, cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity.
• Right to medical care and religious freedom.
• Protection of Red Cross and medical personnel.

2. Additional Protocols to Geneva Conventions Protocol I (1977):

• Relates to international armed conflicts (IACs).
• Reinforces rules on distinction and proportionality.
• Provides greater protection for civilian populations.
3. Protocol II (1977):
• Applies to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs).
• Provides minimum standards for humane treatment of individuals.

4. Protocol III (2005):

• Introduces an additional emblem (Red Crystal) for medical and religious personnel.

Hague Conventions (1899 & 1907)

Focus:
• Regulation of means and methods of warfare.
• Protection of cultural property and rights/duties of neutral powers.

Important Elements:
• Prohibition on use of poison or poisoned weapons.
• Rights of prisoners of war and wounded.
• Obligations to avoid unnecessary suffering.
• Restrictions on bombardments and sieges.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948
• Adopted by the UN General Assembly: 9 December 1948
• Came into force: 12 January 1951
• Historical Context: Adopted in the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust.
• Drafted under the initiative of: Polish-Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term "genocide."
•Purpose: To recognize genocide as a crime under international law and to prevent and punish its commission in times of both
peace and war.

Article I – Obligation to Prevent and Punish

The Contracting Parties affirm genocide as a crime under international law whether committed in peace or war, and they
undertake to prevent and punish it II. Definition of Genocide (Article II) The core provision of the Convention.
Genocide means acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
1. Killing members of the group
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
3. Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
4. destruction
5. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
6. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Note: Cultural, political, or economic groups are not covered.
Punishable Acts (Article III)
The following acts shall be punishable:
• (a) Genocide
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide
• (e) Complicity in genocide

Persons Liable for Genocide (Article IV) No immunity based on official status:
• Persons committing genocide shall be punished whether they are: Constitutionally responsible rulers, Public officials, Private
individuals

Obligation of States (Article V)

Each Contracting Party undertakes to enact necessary legislation to give effect to the provisions of the Convention, especially:
• To provide effective penalties
• To prevent and punish genocide
Jurisdiction (Article VI)
Persons charged with genocide shall be tried by:
• A competent tribunal of the state where the act was committed; or
• An international penal tribunal with jurisdiction (e.g., ICT, ICC) VII. Extradition (Article VII)
• Genocide shall not be considered a political crime for the purposes of extradition.
• Contracting parties are to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties.

UN Action (Article VIII)

• Any Contracting Party may call upon the UN organs (especially Security Council) to take appropriate measures for the
prevention and suppression of genocide.

Dispute Resolution (Article IX)

• Disputes between States relating to interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Convention shall be submitted to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ).

Reservations (Article XII–XV)

• States may make reservations while signing or ratifying the Convention.
• However, such reservations must not be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Convention.
No. Landmark Judgment Name
1 Corfu Channel Case
2 S.S. Lotus Case
3 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case
4 Barcelona Traction Case
5 Chorzow Factory Case
6 Asylum Case
7 North Sea Continental Shelf Case
8 East Timor Case
9 LaGrand Case
10 Nottebohm Case
No. Landmark Judgment Name
11 South West Africa Cases
Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Project Case
12
(Hungary/Slovakia)
Case Concerning the Arbitral Award Made by the King
13
of Spain
Genocide Case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v.
14
Serbia/Montenegro)
15 Rights of Passage Over Indian Territory Case
Nicaragua v. United States (Military and Paramilitary
16
Activities)
17 Temple of Preah Vihear Case
18 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals Case
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran
19
Case
20 Qatar v. Bahrain Case