lOMoARcPSD|57217201

Public International LAW - Lester

Public International Law (Karnataka State Law University)

Scan to open on Studocu

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])
 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

KSLU - VII SEMESTER
Prepared By: - Lester Vinal Lasrado
IV Year BALLB – SDM Law College

Disclaimer
1. These notes are meant to give you a basic idea, however by using these notes you can
be a Lawyer but not a Great Lawyer.
2. To become really good at Law, it's a good idea to read more detailed books about
these topics. You can find these books in libraries.
3. To become a great lawyer, you need to do a lot of research, think deeply, and use
many different resources, not just these notes.
4. While these notes can help you learn, they are not a replacement for your law
professor's guidance. Try your best in class, ask questions, and learn from many
different sources.
5. Aim to be a great lawyer by participating in class discussions, getting help from your
professor, and using many resources to learn about the law.
6. These notes are a good start to explore the interesting world of law. Each topic you
read about here will help you understand more about the law.
7. Enjoy the satisfaction of understanding complex legal ideas and start your journey to
becoming a legal expert.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

SYLLABUS
PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW
VII SEMESTER

Objectives:

The course includes the study of general principles of international law including law of
peace. Third world concerns in respect of security and development and the role of U.N. and
International Agencies in structuring solutions in the context of changing balance of power
are also to be appreciated.

Course contents:

UNIT-I

Nature, definition, origin and basis of International Law; Sources of International Law;
Relationship between Municipal and International Law; Subjects of International Law.

UNIT-II

States as subjects of International Law: States in general; Recognition; State territorial

sovereignty.

UNIT-III

State Jurisdiction: Law of the sea; State Responsibility; Succession to rights and obligations.

UNIT-IV

State and Individual Extradition, Asylum and Nationality; the agents of international
business; diplomatic envoys, consuls and other representatives; the law and practice as to
treaties.

UNIT-V

The United Nations Organisation Principal organs and their functions; World Trade
Organisation- Main features; International Labour Organisation.

Prescribed Books:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

 Starke, J.G, An Introduction to International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013).

 Sands Philippe and Pierre Klein, Bowett's Law of International Institutions, 6th
Edition, (Sweet & Maxwell, 2009)

Reference Books:

 Clapham, Andrew, Brierley's Law of Nations: An Introduction to the Role of

International in International Relations, 7th Edition, (Oxford: 2012)
 Harris D.H, Cases and Materials on International Law, 7th Edition, (Sweet and
Maxwell, 2010)
 Oppenheim, International Law, 9th Edition, (Oxford, 2008)
 Kapoor, S.K, International Law, Human Rights (Central Law Agency, 2009).
 Das, Bhagirathlal, An Introduction to World Trade Organization Agreements (Zed
Books, [998).

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

UNIT 1

SYLLABUS

 Nature, definition, origin and basis of International Law; Sources of International Law;
Relationship between Municipal and International Law; Subjects of International Law.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS – 10M

1. Define International Law. Explain the various theories Regarding the basis of
International Law

International law, the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply
between sovereign states and other entities that are legally recognized as international actors.
The term was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832).

Various eminent scholars, international jurists, subject experts gave their interpreted
definition of International law. Most popular among them are as follows:

According to Prof. L. Oppenheim, "Law of Nations or International Law is the name for the
body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by the
civilized states in their intercourse with each other."

As per Torsten Gihl, "The term International Law means the body of rules of law, which
apply within the International Community or society of States."

 Theories Regarding the Basis of International Law:

a) Theories as to the Law of Nature: In the 16th and 17th centuries, jurists proposed that
international law is based on natural law principles, which derive from universal notions of
justice and morality. According to this theory, states adhere to international law because it
reflects higher moral principles, such as reason, justice, and the common good. However,
critics argue that the concept of natural law is vague and ambiguous, making it difficult to
establish clear legal norms based solely on abstract principles.

 b) Positivism: Positivist theory asserts that the basis of international law lies in the actual
practices and consent of states. According to this perspective, international law is binding
because states have agreed to abide by its rules through treaties, customary practices, and
diplomatic relations. Positivism emphasizes the importance of state sovereignty and the

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be respected). However, it fails to fully
account for the binding force of customary rules and the complexities of state behavior in
the international system.
 c) Other Theories: Apart from natural law and positivism, several other theories attempt
to explain the basis of international law, including the theory of consent, auto-limitation
theory, pacta sunt servanda, and the theory of fundamental rights. These theories
highlight different aspects of state behavior, such as consent, self-restraint, and adherence
to agreements. However, each theory has its limitations in fully capturing the dynamic
nature of international law and its evolution over time.
 Implications and Criticisms: Theoretical debates regarding the basis of international law
have significant implications for understanding its nature, authority, and effectiveness.
While natural law emphasizes moral principles and universal norms, positivism focuses
on state consent and legal positivism. Critics argue that both approaches have limitations
in explaining the complexities of state behavior and the enforcement mechanisms of
international law. Additionally, theories such as auto-limitation and fundamental rights
offer alternative perspectives but face challenges in reconciling state sovereignty with
international legal obligations.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, international law plays a crucial role in regulating interstate relations and
promoting global cooperation and peace. Theoretical debates regarding its basis reflect the
diverse perspectives and interpretations of legal scholars and practitioners. While natural law
emphasizes moral principles, positivism emphasizes state consent and legal positivism. Other
theories offer alternative explanations but face challenges in fully capturing the complexities
of international law. Ultimately, understanding the theoretical foundations of international
law is essential for analyzing its evolution, authority, and effectiveness in the contemporary
world.

2. Explain the difference between Muncipal Law and International Law

Introduction:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

Law, in its essence, serves as the backbone of society, establishing a framework within which
rights and duties can be delineated. At the global level, International Law bridges the gap
between nations, facilitating interstate relations and promoting peace and security.
Conversely, Municipal Law governs within the confines of a sovereign state, addressing
domestic affairs and regulating interactions among individuals and entities within its
jurisdiction. Despite their distinct scopes and objectives, the relationship between
International Law and Municipal Law remains a subject of theoretical debate and practical
significance. This essay aims to elucidate the disparities between Municipal Law and
International Law, exploring their fundamental differences and the implications of various
theoretical frameworks.

Municipal Law:

Municipal Law, also known as domestic or national law, encompasses the legal norms and
regulations within the boundaries of a sovereign state. It governs the conduct of individuals,
organizations, and institutions within the state's jurisdiction, addressing matters ranging from
criminal law to property rights. Municipal Law derives its authority from the state's
legislative bodies, such as parliaments or congresses, and is enforced by the state's judiciary
through courts and legal institutions.

Key Characteristics of Municipal Law:

 Territorial Application: Municipal Law operates within the territorial boundaries of a

sovereign state, exerting authority over individuals and entities residing or operating
within that jurisdiction.
 Legislative Sovereignty: States possess the autonomy to enact, amend, and repeal laws in
accordance with their constitutional frameworks, reflecting the will of the people or
governing authorities.
 Enforcement Mechanisms: Municipal laws are enforced through state institutions,
including law enforcement agencies, courts, and administrative bodies, which administer
justice and adjudicate disputes based on domestic legal principles.

International Law:

International Law governs the conduct of sovereign states, international organizations, and
other subjects of international law in their interactions with one another. It encompasses a

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

broad array of legal principles, treaties, customs, and conventions aimed at regulating
interstate relations, promoting cooperation, and maintaining global order. International Law
addresses diverse areas, including diplomatic relations, human rights, armed conflict, trade,
and environmental protection.

Key Characteristics of International Law:

 State Sovereignty: International Law respects the sovereignty of states, recognizing them
as equal members of the international community entitled to certain rights and
obligations.
 Sources of Law: International Law derives from various sources, including treaties,
customary practices, general principles of law, judicial decisions, and scholarly writings,
reflecting the consensus and practices of states over time.
 Enforcement Mechanisms: Unlike Municipal Law, International Law lacks a centralized
enforcement mechanism and relies primarily on the consent and cooperation of states for
compliance. Enforcement mechanisms may include diplomatic negotiations, international
tribunals, arbitration, sanctions, and collective security measures.

Difference between Municipal Law and International Law:

 Scope and Jurisdiction: Municipal Law operates within the territorial boundaries of a
state, governing domestic affairs and interactions among individuals and entities within
that jurisdiction. In contrast, International Law transcends national borders, regulating the
conduct of states and international actors in their interactions on the global stage.
 Legislative Authority: Municipal Law is enacted and enforced by sovereign states
through their legislative bodies and legal institutions, reflecting the internal legal
framework and political dynamics of each state. Conversely, International Law is shaped
through the collective actions, agreements, and practices of states, international
organizations, and other subjects of international law.
 Enforcement Mechanisms: Municipal Law relies on state institutions, such as courts and
law enforcement agencies, for enforcement within a state's jurisdiction. In contrast,
International Law lacks a centralized enforcement mechanism and relies on state
compliance, diplomatic negotiations, and international cooperation to ensure adherence to
legal obligations.

Theoretical Perspectives on the Relationship:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

 Monism: Monist theory posits that International Law and Municipal Law form a unified
legal system, with International Law automatically incorporated into Municipal Law upon
ratification or adoption. In monist states, International Law holds supremacy over
conflicting domestic laws, and international legal principles can be directly invoked and
applied by domestic courts.
 Dualism: Dualist theory maintains that International Law and Municipal Law are distinct
and separate legal systems, requiring explicit incorporation or transformation of
international norms into domestic law for enforcement. Dualist states treat International
Law and Municipal Law as independent spheres, with domestic courts applying
international legal principles only when incorporated into domestic legislation.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the disparity between Municipal Law and International Law lies in their scope,
sources of authority, and enforcement mechanisms. While Municipal Law governs within the
confines of a sovereign state and reflects domestic legal frameworks, International Law
regulates interstate relations and addresses global issues through collective agreements and
practices. Theoretical perspectives such as Monism and Dualism offer contrasting views on
the relationship between these legal systems, influencing the manner in which states
incorporate and apply international legal norms within their domestic legal frameworks.
Understanding the dichotomy between Municipal Law and International Law is crucial for
navigating the complex terrain of global governance and ensuring compliance with
international legal obligations while upholding state sovereignty and domestic rule of law.

3. Define International Law and trace the Origin and development of

International Law

International law, the body of legal rules, norms, and standards that apply
between sovereign states and other entities that are legally recognized as international actors.
The term was coined by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832).

Various eminent scholars, international jurists, subject experts gave their interpreted
definition of International law. Most popular among them are as follows:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

According to Prof. L. Oppenheim, "Law of Nations or International Law is the name for the
body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by the
civilized states in their intercourse with each other."

As per Torsten Gihl, "The term International Law means the body of rules of law, which
apply within the International Community or society of States."

Origin and development of International Law

1. Contributions of Ancient Civilizations :

Various ancient civilizations, including those of the Middle East, contributed to the
development of international legal norms through the negotiation of pacts and
agreements. These early practices formed the basis for later legal frameworks governing
interstate relations.

2. Influence of Greek Political Philosophy:

Greek political philosophy provided valuable insights into governance and interstate
relations, laying foundational concepts that influenced the development of international
law. Ideas such as natural law and governance structures contributed to the evolution of
legal principles.

3. Roman Legal Contributions:

The Roman Empire introduced the concept of jus gentium, governing relations between
foreigners and Roman citizens. This concept, alongside the notion of universal
application of law, had a significant impact on the development of international legal
norms.

4. Fusion of Natural Law and Religion in the Middle Ages:

During the middle Ages, natural law principles were fused with religious doctrines,
providing the intellectual foundation for the law of nations. Influential thinkers like
Moses Maimonides and St. Thomas Aquinas contributed to this fusion, shaping the
development of international law.

5. Renaissance Resurgence and European Expansion :

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

10

The Renaissance period witnessed a resurgence of intellectual inquiry, facilitated by the

exchange of ideas through the dissemination of knowledge. European exploration and
colonization expanded the reach of European norms, necessitating the regulation of
interstate relations and the emergence of modern legal principles.

6. Impact of Modern Historical Events:

The establishment of the United Nations following World War II marked a significant
milestone in the institutionalization of international law. The Cold War era saw the
proliferation of regional organizations and ideological divisions, influencing the
development of international legal norms.

7. Globalization and Expansion of International Law :

Globalization in the late 20th and early 21st centuries necessitated the expansion of
international law to encompass the rights and obligations of diverse actors. This led to the
negotiation of multilateral agreements and treaties on issues such as environmental
protection and trade, reflecting efforts to address the challenges of globalization.

In summary, the development of international law, spanning from ancient customs to

contemporary frameworks, underscores its dynamic adaptation to evolving global
circumstances. Guided by influential figures such as Hugo Grotius and shaped by significant
historical events like World War II, international law serves as a vital instrument for fostering
peace, cooperation, and justice among nations. As globalization deepens, the continued
relevance of international law is indispensable for addressing modern challenges and
nurturing a more equitable and harmonious global community.

4. States alone are the subjects of International Law – Discuss

Introduction:

The subjectivity in international law pertains to entities capable of bearing rights and duties
under its framework. Historically, states have held a dominant position as the primary
subjects of international law. However, the evolving global landscape has raised questions
about the exclusive subjectivity of states and has prompted considerations for the inclusion of
individuals and certain non-state entities. This essay critically examines the roles of states,

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

11

individuals, and non-state entities as subjects of international law, addressing the theoretical
perspectives, historical developments, and contemporary legal principles.

 States Alone as Subjects of International Law:

The traditional view posits that states are the sole subjects of international law. Advocates of
this perspective argue that international law primarily regulates state conduct, reflecting their
sovereignty and equality in the international arena. This theory, although historically
dominant, has faced criticism for its failure to accommodate the evolving dynamics of
international relations and the emergence of new actors on the global stage.

 Individuals Alone as Subjects of International Law:

Contrary to the exclusive subjectivity of states, proponents of this theory assert that
individuals are the primary subjects of international law. They argue that the rights and duties
of states are ultimately extensions of the rights and duties of individuals. This perspective
finds support in international legal instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and the Genocide Convention, which directly address the rights and responsibilities of
individuals. However, critics argue that while individuals possess rights under international
law, their subjectivity remains limited compared to states.

 States, Individuals, and Certain Non-State Entities as Subjects of International

Law:

A more inclusive perspective acknowledges states as the main subjects of international law
but recognizes the legal personality of individuals and certain non-state entities. This
approach aligns with contemporary trends in international law, which emphasize the
interconnectedness of diverse actors in the global community. International organizations,
non-governmental organizations, and multinational corporations play significant roles in
shaping international relations and are increasingly recognized as subjects of international
law.

 The Place of Individuals in International Law:

In contemporary international law, individuals occupy a significant place, albeit with certain
limitations. While states remain primary actors, the rights and responsibilities of individuals
are increasingly recognized and protected. Legal instruments such as the United Nations

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

12

Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and various human rights conventions
underscore the importance of individual rights within the international legal framework.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the notion of subjectivity in international law extends beyond states to

encompass individuals and certain non-state entities. While states continue to play a central
role, the inclusion of individuals and non-state actors reflects the evolving nature of global
governance and the recognition of diverse interests and rights within the international
community. As international law adapts to contemporary challenges, ensuring the protection
and promotion of human rights and global cooperation remains paramount, highlighting the
shared responsibilities of all subjects of international law.

5. Discuss various sources of International Law- with reference to Custom

Law

Introduction to Sources of International Law: International law derives from various sources,
both formal and informal, guiding the conduct of states and other international actors. Among
the primary sources are treaties, customary practices, and general principles, while judicial
decisions and juristic writings serve as secondary sources

Primary Sources of International Law:

Primary sources hold formal authority and include treaties, customs, and general principles.
Article 38(1)(a-c) of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) statute enumerates these sources,
recognizing their significance in shaping international legal norms.

1. Custom as a Source of International Law:

Customary international law, rooted in longstanding state practices and opinio juris, serves as
one of the oldest and most fundamental sources of international law. Custom evolves over
time through consistent state behaviour, reflecting shared legal obligations within the
international community.

2. Convention as a Source of International Law:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

13

Treaties and conventions constitute another vital source of international law. These
agreements, whether multilateral or bilateral, establish legal obligations between states,
governing various aspects of international relations and cooperation.

3. General Principles of International Law:

General principles of law, recognized by civilized nations, form another primary source of
international law. These principles, applicable to state relations, provide a framework for
addressing new situations where treaties or customs may be lacking.

Secondary Sources of International Law:

Secondary sources, such as judicial decisions and juristic writings, serve as evidence of
international law rather than formal sources. While not binding, these sources offer valuable
insights and interpretations of legal principles, contributing to the development of
international law.

4. Judicial Decisions as Secondary Sources:

Courts, including the ICJ, rely on previous decisions as evidence of international law. While
not binding, these decisions inform legal interpretations and provide guidance in resolving
disputes, emphasizing the importance of precedent in international jurisprudence.

5. Juristic Writings and Teachings:

The writings and teachings of eminent jurists, such as Gentili, Grotius, and Vattel, serve as
valuable sources of international law. While not creating law themselves, these works provide
scholarly interpretations and explanations of legal principles, filling gaps in international law
where treaties or customs may be insufficient.

In conclusion, international law draws from a diverse array of sources, including treaties,
customs, and general principles, judicial decisions, and juristic writings. Understanding and
synthesizing these sources are essential for navigating the complexities of the international
legal landscape and promoting cooperation and justice among states and international actors.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

14

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS – 6 M

1. Individual as Subjects of International Law

Introduction:

The question of whether individuals should be considered as subjects of international law has
been a subject of debate among legal scholars. While traditional views have emphasized the
primacy of states as subjects of international law, the Fiction Theory proposed by Prof.
Kelsen and others challenges this notion by asserting that individuals are the fundamental
unit of national and international activities, with states serving as mere agents of individuals.

1. Relevance of the Fiction Theory: The Fiction Theory argues that states are created for the
welfare of individuals and are essentially composed of individuals. Therefore, individuals
should be recognized as the primary subjects of international law, with states acting on
their behalf. This perspective highlights the interconnectedness between state and
individual interests in the international legal system.
2. International Agreements for Individual Welfare: Many international agreements and
treaties are concluded with the primary aim of promoting the welfare and benefit of
individuals. These agreements address various issues such as human rights,
environmental protection, and humanitarian assistance, underscoring the significance of
individuals in the international legal framework.
3. Recognition of Individual Rights in International Judicial Bodies: Several treaties grant
individuals the right to participate as parties in proceedings before international judicial
bodies. For instance, under the Treaty of Versailles and other conventions, individuals
have been granted the opportunity to seek recourse before international arbitration
tribunals, affirming their status as subjects of international law.
4. Legal Precedents and International Instruments: Legal precedents, such as the Nuremberg
and Tokyo Trials, have held individuals criminally liable under international law, further
supporting the notion that individuals are subjects of international law. Additionally,
international instruments like the Genocide Convention explicitly state that individuals,
including rulers and public officials, can be held accountable for certain criminal acts
under international law.

In conclusion, the Fiction Theory challenges the traditional understanding of international

law by emphasizing the central role of individuals as subjects of international legal norms.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

15

Through various legal precedents, international agreements, and judicial decisions,

individuals are increasingly recognized as active participants in the international legal system,
highlighting the relevance and significance of their status as subjects of international law.

2. Basis of International Law

Introduction: The basis of International Law encompasses various theories that have evolved
over time to explain the foundation upon which international legal norms are established.
Traditionally, two main theories have been prominent: the Theories as to Law of Nature and
Positivism or the Doctrine of Positivism. Additionally, other theories such as the Theory of
Fundamental Rights, Consent Theory, Auto Limitation Theory, and the Doctrine of Pacta
Sunt Servanda contribute to shaping the basis of International Law.

 Theories as to Law of Nature:

The Theory as to Law of Nature posits that there exists a set of natural laws or divine laws
that govern human conduct, including relations between states. This theory, supported by
jurists like Hugo Grotius and Thomasius, suggests that certain fundamental rights are
inherent in both individuals and states, contributing to the development of international legal
norms.

 Theory of Fundamental Rights:

Derived from the Theory as to Law of Nature, the Theory of Fundamental Rights asserts that
when a state becomes a member of the international community, it inherits certain inherent
rights. These fundamental rights, such as independence and equality, are believed to exist
prior to the formation of states and are crucial in understanding the legal framework of
international relations.

 Positivism or the Doctrine of Positivism:

Positivism holds that International Law consists of rules and regulations established by
sovereign states, which bind themselves through consent. Within positivism, three theories
emerge to explain the basis of International Law: the Consent Theory, Auto Limitation
Theory, and the Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda.

 Consent Theory:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

16

According to the Consent Theory, the basis of International Law lies in the consent of states.
States abide by international legal norms because they have expressly or implicitly consented
to them, either through treaties or customary practices. However, this theory faces criticism
for its inability to fully explain the formation and binding nature of customary international
law.

 Auto Limitation Theory and Pacta Sunt Servanda:

The Auto Limitation Theory, also known as Self-limitation theory, posits that states, as
independent entities, voluntarily restrict their own powers and sovereignty. On the other
hand, the Doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda, derived from Roman law, emphasizes the binding
nature of treaties. Parties to a treaty are obligated to uphold its terms in good faith, reflecting
the importance of mutual agreements in international relations.

In conclusion, the basis of International Law is multifaceted, encompassing theories that

range from natural law principles to positivist doctrines. These theories provide insights into
the origins, development, and enforcement of international legal norms, shaping the conduct
of states and individuals in the global arena.

3. Monism and Dualism

I. Monism Theory:

Monism, advocated by jurists like Martens Kelson and Lauterpacht, posits that municipal law
and international law are essentially one and the same, forming integral parts of a single
universal legal system. Several reasons support this theory:

 Unified Legal System: Monists argue that both municipal and international law belong to
a unified legal system, where they function as species of the same genus.
 Regulation of Conduct: Both legal systems ultimately regulate the conduct and relations
among individuals, emphasizing their interconnectedness.
 Shared Sources: Municipal and international law derive their sources from the same
foundation, whether through legislative enactments or treaties and customary practices.
 Essential Identity: Despite their distinct applications, monists assert that municipal and
international law are fundamentally identical in nature.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

17

 Individual-Centric: At the core of both legal systems lie individuals, whose actions and
rights are subject to regulation and protection under both municipal and international law.
 Equal Supremacy: Monism holds that neither municipal nor international law holds
supremacy over the other, as they coexist within the same legal framework.
II. Dualism Theory:

In contrast, dualism, supported by jurists like Anziloti and Trieple, posits that municipal and
international law are distinct and separate legal systems, each operating within its own sphere
of authority. Key points supporting dualism include:

 Divergent Sources: Municipal law primarily emanates from legislative bodies within
states, while international law derives from treaties and customary practices among
sovereign states.
 Sanctions and Enforcement: Municipal law typically has stronger enforcement
mechanisms and sanctions compared to international law, which relies on weaker
enforcement mechanisms and voluntary compliance.
 Dependence on Will: Municipal law reflects the will of the state's sovereign authority,
whereas international law is based on the collective will and agreements of sovereign
states.
 Law of Subordination vs. Coordination: Municipal law is often viewed as a law of
subordination, where the state commands its subjects, while international law functions as
a law of coordination, facilitating cooperation among sovereign states.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the debate between monism and dualism revolves around the relationship
between municipal and international law. While monists emphasize their essential unity
within a single legal system, dualists stress their distinctiveness and separate spheres of
operation. Both theories offer valuable insights into the complex nature of legal systems and
their interaction at the domestic and international levels. Ultimately, understanding the
implications of each theory is essential for comprehending the dynamics of contemporary
legal frameworks in a globalized world.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

18

UNIT II

SYLLABUS

 States as subjects of International Law: States in general; Recognition; State territorial

sovereignty.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS – 1OM

1. Discuss the De Jure and De Facto recognition. Is there any difference

between the two? Explain with the decided cases

De Jure and De Facto Recognition:

Recognition of statehood under international law is a complex and nuanced process, often
characterized by two main modes: De Jure and De Facto recognition. These two modes entail
distinct legal implications and have been subject to significant debate and analysis within the
realm of international legal scholarship. In this essay, we will delve into the intricacies of De
Jure and De Facto recognition, elucidating their differences through a comprehensive
examination of legal principles and pertinent case law.

De Jure Recognition

Legal Criteria for De Jure Recognition:

• De Jure recognition constitutes the formal and legal acknowledgment of a newly formed
state by existing sovereign entities. This recognition is premised on the fulfillment of
essential conditions of statehood, as delineated in international law. According to Article 1 of
the Montevideo Convention of 1933, a state must possess a permanent population, a defined
territory, a government, and the capacity to engage in international relations in order to
qualify for De Jure recognition.

Implications of De Jure Recognition:

• The De Jure mode of recognition bestows upon the recognized state the full rights,
privileges, and obligations of international statehood. This includes the capacity to enter into
diplomatic relations, conclude treaties, and participate in international organizations such as

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

19

the United Nations. De Jure recognition solidifies the sovereign status of the recognized state,
affirming its permanency and legitimacy within the community of nations.

Case Study: Bangladesh's De Jure Recognition:

• One illustrative case that exemplifies the significance of De Jure recognition is the
establishment of Bangladesh in 1971. Following its declaration of independence, Bangladesh
received De Jure recognition from India and Bhutan within a relatively short period. This
recognition underscored the fulfillment of essential statehood criteria by Bangladesh, thereby
affirming its legal standing as a sovereign entity in the international arena.

De Facto Recognition

Understanding De Facto Recognition:

Contrary to De Jure recognition, De Facto recognition constitutes a provisional and factual

acknowledgment of statehood. It is often regarded as a preliminary step towards attaining full
De Jure recognition. De Facto recognition is granted based on observable indicators of
statehood, such as effective control over a defined territory, notwithstanding the absence of
formal legal recognition by other sovereign states.

Characteristics of De Facto Recognition:

• De Facto recognition is characterized by its temporary and contingent nature. It does not
confer upon the recognized entity the complete rights and privileges associated with De Jure
recognition. Instead, it serves as a pragmatic acknowledgment of the entity's de facto
existence as a state, subject to further evaluation and consideration by the international
community.

Case Study: Israel's De Facto Recognition:

• A notable example of De Facto recognition is the case of Israel. Upon its establishment in
1948, Israel received De Facto recognition from several states, despite not meeting all the
criteria for full statehood at the time. This provisional recognition allowed Israel to function
as a sovereign entity in practice, albeit without the legal status conferred by De Jure
recognition.

Distinguishing Between De Jure and De Facto Recognition

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

20

While both De Jure and De Facto recognition entail the acknowledgment of statehood, they
differ significantly in terms of their legal implications and consequences. The following
points elucidate the distinctions between these two modes of recognition:

1. Legal Status: De Jure recognition confers legal status upon the recognized state, granting
it full rights and obligations under international law. In contrast, De Facto recognition
acknowledges the factual existence of the state without necessarily endorsing its legal
status.
2. Permanency: De Jure recognition is permanent and irrevocable, affirming the enduring
sovereignty of the recognized state. On the other hand, De Facto recognition is
provisional and subject to reassessment based on evolving circumstances.
3. Rights and Obligations: De Jure recognition endows the recognized state with
comprehensive rights and obligations in international relations, including the capacity to
engage in diplomacy and treaty-making. De Facto recognition, while acknowledging the
entity's de facto existence, does not confer the same level of rights and obligations.
4. State Succession: States recognized through De Jure recognition are eligible to undergo
state succession, facilitating the transfer of rights and obligations from predecessor states.
De Facto recognition does not necessarily afford the same privilege of state succession.
5. Revocability: De Facto recognition is inherently revocable, contingent upon changing
circumstances or reassessment by the recognizing states. De Jure recognition, once
granted, is typically non-revocable, establishing a permanent legal relationship between
the recognized state and the international community.
6. Diplomatic Immunities: States recognized through De Jure recognition enjoy full
diplomatic immunities and privileges conferred by international law. De Facto
recognition may not afford the same level of diplomatic protection and immunity.
7. Mode of Recognition: De Jure recognition is typically expressed through formal
declarations or diplomatic communications, affirming the legal status of the recognized
state. De Facto recognition may be expressed or implied through actions or conduct that
acknowledges the existence of the entity as a de facto state.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the distinction between De Jure and De Facto recognition lies at the heart of
the recognition process under international law. While both modes of recognition
acknowledge the existence of a state, they differ in terms of their legal implications,

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

21

permanency, and consequences. De Jure recognition confers full legal status and rights upon
the recognized state, whereas De Facto recognition is provisional and contingent upon factual
indicators of statehood. Through an analysis of legal principles and relevant case law, we
have elucidated the nuances of De Jure and De Facto recognition, highlighting their
significance within the framework of international relations and statehood.

2. Discuss the different modes of acquisition of and loss of territory in

territorial sovereignty

Introduction: Territory stands as a fundamental element of statehood, embodying sovereignty

and providing the physical space over which a state exercises jurisdiction and control. The
acquisition and loss of territory are critical processes that shape the geopolitical landscape
and international relations. In this essay, we delve into the various modes of acquiring and
losing territory in territorial sovereignty, exploring the legal, political, and practical
implications of each.

Modes of Acquisition of Territory:

 Occupation: Occupation, in international law, entails the appropriation of territory by a

state that does not belong to any other sovereign entity. It requires effective control and
possession, demonstrated through direct evidence and actual authority. Notably, effective
occupation is essential for acquiring sovereignty over a territory, as highlighted in legal
precedents like the U.S.A vs Netherlands case of 1929.
 Prescription: Prescription occurs when a state exercises continuous control over a
territory for an extended period without interruption, leading to its acquisition. Peaceful
possession, absence of interruption, and possession for a definite period not less than 20
years are crucial conditions for prescription. This mode of acquisition underscores the
significance of long-term territorial control in international law.
 Accretion: Accretion refers to the addition of new territory, primarily through natural
causes, to existing territory under the sovereignty of the acquiring state. It can occur
through artificial or natural processes, such as land reclamation or the shifting of
coastlines, and reflects the dynamic nature of territorial boundaries.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

22

 Cession: Cession involves the transfer of sovereignty over a definite territory from one
state to another, either voluntarily or under compulsion. This mode of acquisition often
occurs through agreements between states, such as gifts, sales, exchanges, or leases of
territory, and plays a significant role in diplomatic negotiations and international
relations.
 Annexation: Annexation refers to the acquisition of territory through military force,
typically during times of war. While historically prevalent, annexation is restricted by
international norms and legal frameworks, such as the prohibition outlined in Article 2(4)
of the UN Charter, which prohibits member states from acquiring territories by
annexation.

Modes of Losing Territory in Territorial Sovereignty:

 Cession: Cession involves the loss of territory when one state acquires it at the
expense of another through the transfer of sovereignty. This can occur through
various means, including gifts, sales, exchanges, or leases of territory, and often
reflects shifts in geopolitical power and diplomatic relations.
 Operation of Nature: Natural phenomena, such as earthquakes or coastal erosion, can
lead to the loss of territory for a state. Entire coastlines or islands may disappear due
to these natural events, resulting in the reconfiguration of territorial boundaries and
jurisdiction.
 Subjugation: Territories may be lost through subjugation, where another state acquires
control over them, often through annexation or military conquest. This mode of
territorial loss highlights the vulnerability of states to external aggression and the
challenges of maintaining sovereignty in contested regions.
 Revolt: Territories may gain independence as a result of revolutions or revolts,
leading to the loss of control by the former ruling state. This mode of territorial loss
underscores the dynamics of internal conflict and self-determination, shaping the
emergence of new states and altering existing geopolitical configurations.
 Renunciation: Renunciation involves a state voluntarily relinquishing its claim or
control over a territory, often through formal treaties or agreements. This mode of
territorial loss may reflect diplomatic compromises, strategic withdrawals, or shifts in
national priorities, illustrating the complexities of state decision-making in territorial
matters.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

23

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the acquisition and loss of territory in territorial sovereignty are multifaceted
processes that encompass legal, political, and practical dimensions. Understanding the
various modes of acquisition, such as occupation, prescription, accretion, cession, and
annexation, sheds light on the complexities of territorial governance and international
relations. Similarly, recognizing the diverse ways in which territories can be lost, including
through cession, natural events, subjugation, revolt, and renunciation, underscores the
dynamic nature of state boundaries and sovereignty. These mechanisms shape the
geopolitical landscape, influence diplomatic negotiations, and reflect the evolving dynamics
of statehood in the contemporary world.

3. What is recognition? Discuss different types of recognition.

Introduction:

Recognition of states under international law is a crucial process that determines a political
entity's status as a member of the international community. It involves the formal
acknowledgment or acceptance of a new state as an international personality by existing
states. This essay explores the intricacies of recognition, theories surrounding it, modes,
forms, and withdrawal of recognition, shedding light on its legal and political implications.

Recognition of States:

Definition and Essentials:

Recognition of statehood is the formal acknowledgment or acceptance of a new state as an

international personality by existing states. According to Article 1 of the Montevideo
Convention of 1933, a state must possess a permanent population, a defined territory, a
government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states to qualify for
recognition.

Legal Effects:

Recognition confers certain rights, obligations, and immunities upon the recognized state,
including the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations, conclude treaties, enjoy the
privileges of international statehood, undergo state succession, and participate in international
organizations like the United Nations.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

24

Theories of Recognition:

 Consecutive Theory:

Propounded by jurists like Oppenheim and Hegel, this theory posits that recognition by
existing states is necessary for a political entity to attain the status of an international person.
It suggests that only after recognition does a state acquire exclusive rights and obligations
under international law.

 Declaratory Theory:

Advocated by scholars such as Wigner and Hall, this theory asserts that the existence of a
state is independent of recognition by other states. According to this theory, a state exists
once it fulfills the essential criteria of statehood, and recognition merely formalizes its status
as an international personality.

Modes of Recognition:

 De Facto Recognition: De facto recognition is a provisional and factual

acknowledgment of statehood, often serving as a preliminary step towards full de jure
recognition. It is granted based on observable indicators of control over territory and
can be conditional or unconditional.
 De Jure Recognition: De jure recognition is the legal acknowledgment of a new state
by existing states, affirming its fulfillment of all essential criteria of statehood. It
grants the recognized state full rights, privileges, and obligations of international
statehood, including participation in diplomatic relations and international
organizations.

Forms of Recognition:

 Expressed Recognition: Express recognition occurs through official declarations or

notifications by existing states, formalizing the acknowledgment of a new state as an
international personality. It is typically done through diplomatic channels and
signifies de jure recognition unless stated otherwise.
 Implied Recognition: Implied recognition occurs through actions or behavior that
indicate acceptance of a new state as an international person, without explicit official

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

25

declarations. It can vary in form and intensity and is often inferred from diplomatic
interactions and conduct.
 Conditional Recognition: Conditional recognition attaches certain conditions to the
acknowledgment of statehood, such as adherence to human rights norms or
democratic principles. While controversial, conditional recognition reflects concerns
about the new state's compliance with international standards.

Withdrawal of Recognition:

 Withdrawal of De Facto Recognition: De facto recognition can be withdrawn if a

recognized state fails to fulfill essential conditions of statehood or stability. It can be
revoked through official declarations or communications with the recognized state.
 Withdrawal of De Jure Recognition: Withdrawal of de jure recognition is rare and
contentious. It may occur in exceptional circumstances, such as the recognized state
losing essential characteristics of statehood or engaging in egregious violations of
international norms. Withdrawal is typically done through public statements or
diplomatic channels.

Conclusion:

Recognition of states in international law is a multifaceted process with significant legal and
political implications. Whether through de facto or de jure recognition, states acquire rights,
obligations, and privileges crucial for their participation in the international community.
Theories of recognition, modes, forms, and withdrawal of recognition shape the dynamics of
statehood and international relations, reflecting the complex interplay between law, politics,
and diplomacy on the global stage.

6. It is the duty of a state to not interfere In the affairs of another state-

examine the statement with exception, if any.

Introduction:

The principle of non-interference in the affairs of other states is a cornerstone of international

relations, enshrined in various legal instruments and customary practices. This essay
examines the statement that it is the duty of a state to refrain from interfering in the affairs of
another state, exploring the rationale behind this principle, its exceptions, and its implications
in contemporary international law.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

26

Rationale for Non-Interference:

The principle of non-interference is rooted in the fundamental principles of sovereignty,

equality, and self-determination of states. Sovereignty entails the exclusive right of each state
to govern its own territory without external interference. Equality among states implies that
no state has the authority to dictate or impose its will on another. Additionally, the principle
of self-determination affirms the right of peoples to freely determine their political status and
pursue their economic, social, and cultural development without external interference.

Legal Basis and International Instruments:

The duty of non-interference is reflected in various international legal instruments, including

the United Nations Charter. Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly prohibits the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, emphasizing the
principle of non-interference. Moreover, the principle is further elaborated in the Declaration
on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among
States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Exceptions to Non-Interference:

While the duty of non-interference is a fundamental principle of international law, there are
certain exceptions where intervention may be justified:

 Self-Defence: States have the inherent right to defend themselves against armed
attack, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This allows for intervention in
response to imminent threats to a state's security or territorial integrity.
 Humanitarian Intervention: In cases of grave humanitarian crises, where states fail to
protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, or crimes
against humanity, the international community may intervene to alleviate suffering
and protect human rights. However, such intervention must be authorized by the UN
Security Council or conducted in accordance with international law principles.
 Collective Intervention: Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council
may authorize collective intervention to maintain international peace and security in
situations of aggression or threats to peace. This allows for multilateral action to
address threats to global security.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

27

 Treaty Obligations: States may intervene in the affairs of another state to enforce
treaty obligations or uphold international law principles, such as preventing the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction or combating terrorism.
 Implications and Contemporary Challenges: While the duty of non-interference
remains a fundamental principle of international law, its application in practice faces
various challenges in the contemporary world. The rise of transnational threats, such
as terrorism, organized crime, and pandemics, blurs the lines between internal and
external security, raising questions about the scope of non-interference. Moreover, the
tension between sovereignty and human rights often complicates decisions regarding
humanitarian intervention, as seen in debates over the responsibility to protect (R2P)
doctrine.

Monroe Doctrine:

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by President Monroe, signifies America's policy of

opposing European intervention in the Americas. It asserts that the American continent shall
not be subject to colonization, and the US will not interfere in European wars. Any European
intervention in the Americas is deemed unfriendly and may prompt US action. While the
doctrine has political significance, its legal validity has been debated, especially in light of
the UN Charter.

Drago Doctrine:

The Drago Doctrine, named after Argentine Foreign Minister Drago, complements the
Monroe Doctrine by prohibiting European intervention in the Americas on the grounds of
public debt collection. It was a response to European states using military force to enforce
debt claims against American countries. This doctrine underscores the principle of non-
intervention and seeks to protect the sovereignty of American states.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the duty of non-interference in the affairs of other states is a fundamental

principle of international law, grounded in the principles of sovereignty, equality, and self-
determination. While there are exceptions to this principle, such as self-defence, humanitarian
intervention, and collective action, these interventions must be conducted in accordance with
international law and authorized by appropriate bodies, such as the UN Security Council.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

28

Striking a balance between respecting state sovereignty and addressing global challenges
remains a central challenge in contemporary international relations.

7. Define States, and different Kinds of States

Introduction:

In international law, states are the primary actors with legal personality and sovereign
authority. The concept of statehood is fundamental to the functioning of the international
legal system, and different kinds of states exist based on their status and characteristics. This
essay aims to define states and explore the various kinds of states in international law.

Different Kinds of States:

1. Sovereign States: Sovereign states are entities that enjoy full and complete independence.
They are not subject to the control or authority of foreign powers and have the autonomy
to govern themselves. Sovereign states possess defined territories, permanent populations,
functioning governments, and the capacity to enter into international relations. They are
considered equal entities under international law and enjoy the highest degree of
autonomy.
2. Not-Fully Sovereign States: This category includes entities that, while recognized as
states, may not possess full sovereignty. These states might have limitations on their
independence due to historical, political, or legal factors. Certain territories with limited
self-governance fall into this category, as they may be subject to the authority of a more
significant state or an international governing body.
3. Non-Typical States: Non-typical states refer to entities that do not fit the conventional
criteria of a sovereign state. This category includes entities with unique legal or political
statuses that deviate from the traditional understanding of statehood. Examples include
the Holy See (Vatican City) and certain international organizations with a degree of
sovereignty.
4. Recognized States: Recognized states are entities widely acknowledged by the
international community as sovereign actors. Recognition is a political act symbolizing
acceptance of a state's legal personality. Criteria for recognition can vary, often involving
political, historical, and strategic considerations among states.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

29

5. De Facto States: De facto states control territories and have functioning governments but
lack universal international recognition. These entities operate with a degree of autonomy
but face challenges in attaining global acceptance as fully sovereign states.
6. Microstates: Microstates are characterized by their small size, both in terms of territory
and population. Despite their diminutive scale, microstates enjoy full rights and
responsibilities of sovereign states in the international arena.
7. Failed States: Failed states are unable to perform basic functions such as providing
security and public services, often plagued by internal conflicts. Examples include
Somalia during the 1990s, which struggled with a breakdown of governance structures.

Conclusion:

Understanding the various kinds of states in international law is essential for comprehending
the complexities of global politics and diplomacy. While sovereign states represent the
conventional model of statehood, there are diverse entities with unique legal statuses and
characteristics. The classification of states in international law is dynamic, influenced by
political, historical, and legal factors. Ultimately, the recognition of statehood and the
determination of a state's status are matters of consensus among the international community,
reflecting the evolving nature of the global legal landscape.

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS – 6M

1) Monroes Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by President Monroe, signifies America's policy of

opposing European intervention in the Americas. It asserts that the American continent shall
not be subject to colonization, and the US will not interfere in European wars. Any European
intervention in the Americas is deemed unfriendly and may prompt US action. While the
doctrine has political significance, its legal validity has been debated, especially in light of
the UN Charter.

1. Historical Context: The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by President James Monroe in 1823,
represents a cornerstone of American foreign policy. At the time of its proclamation,
numerous Latin American nations had recently gained independence from European colonial
powers. Concerned about potential European efforts to reassert control in the Americas,
Monroe asserted the principle that the American continent should be free from European

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

30

colonization and intervention. The doctrine also declared that the United States would refrain
from interfering in European wars or internal affairs.

2. Legal Validity and Debates: The legal validity of the Monroe Doctrine has been the subject
of considerable debate among scholars and international legal experts. While it holds
significant political significance as a guiding principle of American foreign policy, its legal
status is less clear. Critics argue that the doctrine lacks formal legal recognition and is not
enshrined in any international treaty or convention. Moreover, the principle of non-
intervention, while widely accepted in international relations, does not have the same legal
force as treaties or customary international law.

3. Relationship with International Law: The Monroe Doctrine intersects with principles of
international law, particularly those related to sovereignty, non-intervention, and self-
determination. It reflects the broader principle of sovereignty, asserting the right of nations to
govern themselves without external interference. However, its unilateral declaration by the
United States raises questions about its compatibility with the principles of multilateralism
and collective security enshrined in the United Nations Charter.

4. Impact on International Relations: Throughout its history, the Monroe Doctrine has
influenced diplomatic relations between the United States and other nations, particularly
those in Latin America and Europe. While it initially aimed to prevent European intervention
in the Western Hemisphere, the doctrine has evolved to encompass broader principles of
hemispheric solidarity and non-interference. However, its unilateral nature has sometimes
strained relations with Latin American countries, which perceive it as a form of American
hegemony.

5. Relevance in the Modern Era: In the contemporary international landscape, the Monroe
Doctrine continues to inform American foreign policy, albeit in a modified form. While the
explicit opposition to European intervention remains, the doctrine's legal and political
significance has evolved alongside changing global dynamics. The rise of multilateral
institutions like the United Nations has prompted the United States to engage in cooperative
efforts to address regional and global challenges, shifting away from the unilateralism
associated with the original Monroe Doctrine.

Conclusion: The Monroe Doctrine represents a significant historical and political landmark in
American foreign policy. While it has influenced diplomatic relations and shaped perceptions

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

31

of American hegemony, its legal validity remains subject to debate. As the international
community continues to navigate complex geopolitical dynamics, the principles underlying
the Monroe Doctrine will continue to inform discussions on sovereignty, non-intervention,
and collective security in the Western Hemisphere and beyond.

2) Temple of Preahvihar case

 In the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, Cambodia brought a complaint
against Thailand, alleging that Thailand had occupied Cambodian territory surrounding
the Temple and requesting the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to declare Cambodia's
sovereignty over the Temple and order Thailand to withdraw its armed detachment
stationed there since 1954.
 Thailand raised preliminary objections to the Court's jurisdiction, which were dismissed
in a judgment on May 26, 1961. Subsequently, the Court rendered a judgment on the
merits on June 15, 1962.
 The Court noted that a Franco-Siamese Treaty of 1904 established the boundary between
the two countries in the area of the Temple, based on a map created by a Mixed
Delimitation Commission. This map indicated that the Temple was located on the
Cambodian side of the boundary.
 Thailand argued that the map was not binding, claiming that it had never accepted it or, if
it had, it did so under a mistaken belief regarding the boundary line. However, the Court
determined that Thailand had indeed accepted the map, and therefore, the Temple was
situated within Cambodian territory.
 The Court ruled that Thailand was obligated to withdraw any military or police forces
stationed at the Temple and to return any objects removed from the ruins since 1954 to
Cambodia.
 The case of the Temple of Preah Vihear underscores the importance of historical treaties
and maps in determining territorial sovereignty, as well as the obligation of states to abide
by international legal decisions.
3) Write a note on retrospective effect of recognition

Definition of Retroactive Effect:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

32

The term "retroactive effect" refers to extending the scope or effect of a law, decision, or
action to a time before its enactment or imposition. In simple terms, if a law or decision is
retroactive, it applies from a date preceding its approval. Merriam-Webster Dictionary
defines retroactive effect as being effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or
imposition.

Legal Basis of Retroactive Effect: Jurisprudential Insights

In the context of recognition in international law, various jurists argue that de jure recognition
carries a retroactive effect. This means that after a state is officially recognized, its actions
and decisions made prior to recognition are also acknowledged and validated by other states.
According to J.M. Jones, this principle is grounded more in the policy of states rather than
any strict legal logic.

Policy Considerations Behind Retroactive Effect: Understanding the Rationale

The retroactive effect of recognition serves the purpose of establishing and maintaining
friendly relations between states. When a state extends recognition to another, it often
acknowledges the past actions and decisions of that state. This approach fosters goodwill and
cooperation between nations, contributing to stability and trust in international relations.

Extent of Retroactive Effect: Determined by Intention

The extent to which retroactive effect applies depends on the intention of the recognizing
state. By recognizing a state, the recognizing state implicitly acknowledges the validity of
past actions and decisions of the recognized state. However, the precise scope of this
recognition may vary based on diplomatic, political, and legal considerations.

Case Law Illustration: Civil Air Transport Incorporated Co. v/s Central Air Transport
Corporation, 1953 A.C. 70

A notable case illustrating the concept of retroactive effect of recognition is Civil Air
Transport Incorporated Co. v/s Central Air Transport Corporation, 1953 A.C. 70. In this case,
the appellants, a corporation registered in the United States, and the respondent, an institution
under the national government of China, were involved in a dispute over property ownership.
Following political changes in China, the government of Chiang Kai-Shek fled to Formosa,
while the respondent corporation declared loyalty to the Peking government. The court had to
determine whether the actions of the Chiang Kai-Shek government, including the sale of

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

33

property, were valid. This case underscores how the retroactive effect of recognition can
impact legal disputes involving the rights and obligations of recognized states.

In conclusion, the concept of retroactive effect of recognition plays a significant role in

shaping the legal relationships between states in international law. It reflects the pragmatic
approach of states in acknowledging and legitimizing the actions of other states, contributing
to the maintenance of peaceful and cooperative international relations.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

34

UNIT III

SYLLABUS

 State Jurisdiction: Law of the sea; State Responsibility; Succession to rights and
obligations

IMP QUESTIONS 10 M

1. Explain the responsibility of a state for International delinquencies

Introduction

International law governs the conduct of states in their interactions with each other and with
foreign individuals and entities. One crucial aspect of state behavior under international law
is the concept of state responsibility for international delinquencies. This essay will examine
the principles and doctrines that define state responsibility for wrongful acts committed by
state agents or private individuals, the conditions under which states may be held
accountable, and the legal implications of such responsibility.

 Definition and Scope of International Delinquencies

International delinquencies, also known as breaches of international obligations, encompass

actions or omissions by a state that violate its duties under international law. These breaches
may occur in various contexts, including injuries to foreign citizens abroad, improper arrests,
denial of justice, or failure to provide adequate protection for foreign individuals or their
property.

 Imputability: Bridging the Gap between Individual and State Responsibility

Imputability is a fundamental concept in determining state responsibility for international

delinquencies. It involves attributing the wrongful conduct of a state agent or official to the
state itself, thereby making the state internationally responsible for the actions of its agents.
Imputability ensures accountability by linking the individual wrongdoing to the state's
obligations under international law.

 Conditions for Imputability

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

35

Imputability hinges on two key conditions: First, the conduct of a state organ or official must
breach an obligation defined in a rule of international law. Second, international law must
attribute the breach to the state, establishing a direct link between the individual's actions and
the state's responsibility. These conditions clarify when a state becomes liable for the
wrongful acts of its agents.

 Examples of Imputable Acts

Instances where state responsibility arises include actions of state agents exceeding their
authority, such as unlawful arrests or use of excessive force against foreign citizens.
Additionally, failures to provide proper judicial remedies or protection for foreign nationals
can lead to state liability for international delinquencies.

 Responsibility for Acts of State Agents

States may be held responsible for acts committed by their agents, even if those acts exceed
the agent's authority, provided there is a genuine connection to state activities. This principle
ensures that states are accountable for the actions of their representatives in both domestic
and international contexts.

 Responsibility for Acts of Private Citizens

State responsibility may also extend to actions committed by private individuals if the state
fails to prevent or adequately respond to wrongful acts, such as mob violence or attacks on
foreigners. States must uphold their duty to protect foreign individuals within their
jurisdiction from harm by private actors.

7. Exhaustion of Local Remedies

Before seeking international redress for international delinquencies, foreign individuals

generally must exhaust local remedies available within the state where the harm occurred.
This requirement ensures that domestic legal avenues are pursued before resorting to
international adjudication, promoting respect for state sovereignty and domestic legal
systems.

 Exceptions and Special Cases

Certain circumstances, such as nuclear activities or denial of justice, may warrant exceptions
to traditional principles of state responsibility. For example, strict or absolute liability may

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

36

apply in cases involving nuclear accidents, where the dangers posed to the international
community necessitate special legal considerations.

Conclusion

State responsibility for international delinquencies is a core principle of international law,

ensuring accountability for wrongful acts committed by state agents or private individuals.
Through the concept of imputability and adherence to legal principles such as exhaustion of
local remedies, the international community seeks to uphold the rule of law and protect the
rights of foreign individuals and entities. By understanding and applying these legal
principles, states can fulfill their obligations under international law and promote a more just
and orderly international order.

2. Discuss different types of Jurisdiction available to the States

Introduction

Jurisdiction is a fundamental concept in international law, granting states the authority to

regulate and adjudicate legal matters within their territories and beyond. This essay aims to
explore the various types of jurisdiction available to states under international law, focusing
on territorial jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction, and immunities from jurisdiction. By
analyzing key cases and principles, this essay seeks to provide a comprehensive
understanding of how states exercise their authority in different contexts.

1. Territorial Jurisdiction

Territorial jurisdiction is derived from a state's sovereignty over its territory and encompasses
its authority over individuals, property, and events occurring within its borders. This form of
jurisdiction is fundamental to state sovereignty and is recognized as a core principle of
international law.

Case Example: UK versus Norway (North Atlantic Fisheries Case)

In this case, the UK sought to challenge Norway's territorial claims over certain waters in the
North Atlantic. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) upheld Norway's jurisdiction,
affirming its consistent application with international law principles regarding territorial
sovereignty.

2. Criminal Jurisdiction

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

37

Criminal jurisdiction pertains to a state's authority to prosecute individuals for offenses

committed within its territory or by its nationals abroad. This type of jurisdiction is crucial for
maintaining law and order and holding individuals accountable for their actions under the
state's legal system.

Case Example: SS Lotus Case

In the SS Lotus case, France challenged Turkey's jurisdiction over a French national involved
in a maritime incident. The ICJ ruled in favor of Turkey, asserting its authority to arrest the
French official under the Treaty of Lausanne and highlighting the principle of concurrent
jurisdiction between states.

3. Types of Criminal Jurisdiction

 Territorial Jurisdiction: This type of jurisdiction relates to crimes committed within a
state's geographical boundaries. Courts have authority to prosecute offenses that occur
within their territorial limits.
 Nationality Jurisdiction: States may exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by their
nationals abroad, ensuring that citizens are held accountable for their actions regardless of
where the offense occurs.
 Comprehensiveness Jurisdiction: The universality principle allows states to prosecute
certain crimes regardless of where they were committed, reflecting the global consensus
on combating serious offenses such as war crimes and terrorism.
 Cross-Frontier Jurisdiction: This form of jurisdiction involves cooperation between states
to address transnational crimes and resolve disputes that span multiple jurisdictions.
Courts may recognize jurisdiction based on the location of the offense or the nationality
of the perpetrator.
4. Immunities from Jurisdiction

Despite the broad scope of state jurisdiction, certain immunities protect states and their
officials from legal proceedings in foreign courts. These immunities are essential for
maintaining diplomatic relations and preserving state sovereignty.

 Sovereign Immunity: States enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts,
shielding them from legal action except in specified circumstances.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

38

 Diplomatic Immunity: Diplomatic agents are granted immunity from criminal and civil
jurisdiction in the host state, allowing them to perform their official duties without fear of
prosecution.
 Consular Immunity: Consular officials are afforded similar immunities to diplomatic
agents, enabling them to represent their state's interests abroad without interference from
the host state's legal system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding the various types of jurisdiction available to states under

international law is essential for promoting legal order and resolving disputes effectively.
Territorial jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction, and immunities from jurisdiction are key
components of state sovereignty and contribute to the peaceful coexistence of nations in the
international community. By upholding these principles and respecting each other's legal
authority, states can foster cooperation and uphold the rule of law on a global scale.

3. Discuss the limitations on territorial jurisdiction

Limitations of Territorial Jurisdiction in International Law

In the complex landscape of international law, the concept of territorial jurisdiction serves as
a cornerstone for the regulation of state conduct and the resolution of disputes. Territorial
jurisdiction grants states the authority to enforce their laws and exercise control over persons,
property, and events within their boundaries. However, this authority is not absolute and is
subject to various limitations imposed by principles of international law, diplomatic norms,
and the sovereign equality of states. This essay delves into the nuanced limitations of
territorial jurisdiction in international law, exploring the principles that circumscribe state
authority and the mechanisms used to resolve jurisdictional disputes.

1. Extraterritoriality:

While territorial jurisdiction traditionally extends only to activities occurring within a state's
borders, the principle of extraterritoriality allows states to assert jurisdiction over conduct or
events that have a significant connection to their interests or nationals. This principle was
affirmed in the landmark case of SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), where the Permanent Court of
International Justice held that states may exercise jurisdiction over acts committed outside
their territory if they have a genuine and effective link to the state's interests.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

39

2. Effects Doctrine:

The effects doctrine recognizes that certain actions originating outside a state's borders may
have substantial effects within its territory. This principle allows states to regulate and assert
jurisdiction over activities such as environmental pollution, cybercrimes, and economic
activities that produce significant effects within their jurisdictional boundaries. By invoking
the effects doctrine, states can address transnational issues and protect their domestic interests
despite the extraterritorial origin of the conduct.

3. Principle of Non-Interference:

A fundamental limitation on territorial jurisdiction is the principle of non-interference, which

prohibits states from unduly interfering in the internal affairs of other states. This principle
ensures respect for state sovereignty and promotes peaceful relations among states by limiting
the exercise of jurisdiction to matters within a state's legitimate sphere of authority.
Violations of the principle of non-interference can lead to diplomatic tensions, international
disputes, and challenges to the legitimacy of jurisdictional assertions.

4. Sovereignty and Equality of States:

Territorial jurisdiction must respect the sovereignty and equality of states under international
law. States are entitled to exercise authority within their borders without undue interference
from other states, and any assertion of jurisdiction must be consistent with the principles of
sovereign equality and mutual respect. The recognition of state sovereignty and equality
serves as a fundamental principle of international law, shaping the contours of territorial
jurisdiction and guiding state conduct in the international arena.

5. Comity and Respect for State Sovereignty:

The principle of comity requires states to exercise restraint in asserting extraterritorial

jurisdiction to avoid conflicts and promote cooperation among states. Comity entails a mutual
recognition of each state's authority and a willingness to accommodate the interests of other
states within the bounds of international law. By respecting state sovereignty and refraining
from excessive assertions of jurisdiction, states can foster goodwill, trust, and cooperation in
their international relations.

6. Balancing State Interests:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

40

A crucial aspect of territorial jurisdiction is the need to balance state interests with the
interests of other states and the broader international community. States must consider the
potential impact of their jurisdictional assertions on global stability, economic relations, and
diplomatic relations. By striking a balance between national interests and international
obligations, states can navigate jurisdictional issues effectively and contribute to the
harmonious functioning of the international legal system.

7. International Agreements and Treaties:

States may voluntarily limit their exercise of territorial jurisdiction through international
agreements and treaties. These agreements serve as mechanisms for resolving jurisdictional
conflicts, establishing rules for state conduct, and promoting cooperation among states. By
entering into treaties and agreements, states can clarify their jurisdictional boundaries,
mitigate conflicts, and enhance the predictability and stability of the international legal order.

8. Jurisdictional Disputes Resolution:

Disputes over territorial jurisdiction are often resolved through international arbitration,
adjudication, or diplomatic negotiations. International tribunals and courts play a crucial role
in interpreting relevant legal principles, assessing state claims, and adjudicating jurisdictional
disputes in a fair and impartial manner. By submitting jurisdictional disputes to independent
and neutral adjudicators, states can uphold the rule of law, resolve conflicts peacefully, and
maintain the integrity of the international legal system.

In conclusion, while territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental attribute of state sovereignty, it is

subject to various limitations and constraints imposed by principles of international law,
diplomatic norms, and state practice. By respecting the principles of sovereignty, equality,
comity, and non-interference, states can navigate jurisdictional issues effectively, promote
cooperation, and contribute to the peaceful resolution of disputes in the international arena.

4) Analyze the rights of coastal states on their continental shelf

The concept of the continental shelf has become increasingly significant in international law,
particularly concerning the rights and jurisdiction of coastal states over these submerged
landmasses. This essay will delve into the various aspects of the rights of coastal states on
their continental shelf, addressing key points derived from legal principles, conventions, and
case law.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

41

 Sovereign Rights and Jurisdiction:

Coastal states enjoy sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the exploration and exploitation of
the natural resources found on their continental shelf. These rights are inherent to the coastal
state's sovereignty over its land territory and extend into the adjacent seabed and subsoil. The
exercise of these rights is subject to international law and conventions governing the use of
maritime resources.

 Extent of Jurisdiction:

The extent of a coastal state's jurisdiction over its continental shelf is delineated by the outer
edge of the continental margin. This boundary is determined based on geological and
geographical factors, including the depth of the superjacent waters and the sedimentary
characteristics of the seabed. Coastal states are required to establish the outer limits of their
continental shelf in accordance with international agreements and submit relevant
information to the competent authorities.

 Legal Framework:

The legal framework governing the rights of coastal states on their continental shelf includes
international conventions such as the Geneva Convention of 1958 and the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982. These conventions provide guidelines
for the definition, delimitation, and exploitation of the continental shelf, ensuring equitable
access to maritime resources while respecting the sovereignty of coastal states.

 Geneva Convention of 1958:

The Geneva Convention established the foundational principles for defining the continental
shelf and delineating the rights of coastal states. It recognized the seabed and subsoil adjacent
to the coast as part of the continental shelf, extending up to a depth of 200 meters or beyond,
where exploitation of natural resources is feasible. This convention laid the groundwork for
subsequent developments in international law regarding the continental shelf.

 UNCLOS of 1982:

UNCLOS expanded upon the principles outlined in the Geneva Convention, providing a
comprehensive framework for the regulation of maritime affairs, including the rights of
coastal states over their continental shelf. It defined the continental shelf as extending to the

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

42

outer edge of the continental margin and established procedures for delimiting and managing
overlapping claims between coastal states.

 Exclusive Rights and Responsibilities:

Coastal states have exclusive rights and responsibilities for the exploration, exploitation, and
conservation of natural resources on their continental shelf. These rights include the authority
to regulate and control activities such as mineral extraction, fishing, and scientific research
within their jurisdictional boundaries. Coastal states also bear the responsibility to ensure
sustainable management of marine resources and environmental protection.

 International Adjudication and Dispute Resolution:

Disputes over the rights of coastal states on their continental shelf may arise due to
overlapping claims or conflicting interpretations of international law. International
adjudicative bodies, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and arbitral tribunals,
play a crucial role in resolving these disputes through legal interpretation and application of
relevant conventions and customary law principles.

 Case Law and Precedents:

Judicial decisions, such as the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases and the Continental Shelf
Libya Arab Case, have contributed to the development of jurisprudence regarding the rights
of coastal states on their continental shelf. These cases have clarified principles related to
sovereignty, delimitation, and equitable utilization of maritime resources, setting precedents
for future disputes and legal interpretations.

In conclusion, the rights of coastal states on their continental shelf are governed by a complex
framework of international law, conventions, and judicial precedents. These rights encompass
sovereign jurisdiction over natural resources, exclusive rights to exploration and exploitation,
and responsibilities for environmental stewardship. Effective management and resolution of
disputes are essential for ensuring equitable access to maritime resources and promoting
sustainable development in coastal regions.

5) Define Territorial Jurisdiction of a state. Who are exempted from the

territorial jurisdiction of a state?

Introduction:

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

43

Territorial jurisdiction refers to the authority of a state under international law to govern
persons and property within its territory according to its domestic laws. While states
generally have exclusive jurisdiction within their own territory, there are exceptions and
limitations to this principle, particularly concerning certain individuals and entities exempted
from the state's territorial jurisdiction. This essay will delve into the concept of territorial
jurisdiction and explore the exemptions to it in international law.

Territorial Jurisdiction of a State:

 Definition: Territorial jurisdiction is the power of a state to enact and enforce laws within
its geographical boundaries. It encompasses both the legislative power to prescribe rules
and the executive power to enforce them within the territory.
 Exclusive Authority: Every state typically exercises exclusive jurisdiction within its own
territory, allowing it to regulate all persons and property within its borders according to
its laws.
 Relationship with Sovereignty: While territorial jurisdiction is closely linked with state
sovereignty, it is not entirely co-extensive with it. Sovereignty refers to the supreme
authority of a state to govern itself and its territory, while territorial jurisdiction
specifically pertains to the state's legal authority within its borders.
 Illustrative Example: An example illustrating territorial jurisdiction is a case where a
French naval vessel in British territorial waters commits a crime. Even though both the
perpetrator and victim are British nationals, the British courts may lack jurisdiction to try
the case if the offense occurred on the French vessel, flying the French flag.

Exemptions from Territorial Jurisdiction:

 Diplomatic Agents: Diplomatic agents enjoy certain privileges and immunities,

including immunity from the jurisdiction of the receiving state's civil and criminal
courts. These immunities are granted based on the special functions performed by
diplomatic agents rather than their physical location within the receiving state's
territory.
 Foreign Embassies: Foreign embassies are often considered extensions of their home
states and, therefore, may be exempt from the jurisdiction of the host state. While
embassies are physically located within the host state's territory, they enjoy
immunities and privileges to facilitate diplomatic functions.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

44

 Foreign Sovereigns: Foreign sovereigns are often treated as exempt from the
jurisdiction of other states. This principle of sovereign immunity, developed in
international law, grants foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of another
sovereign state's courts.
 Historical Precedents: The principle of sovereign immunity was established through
historical precedents, such as the case of the Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon
(1812), where a French naval vessel was held exempt from U.S. jurisdiction while in
Philadelphia for repairs.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, territorial jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of state authority under

international law, allowing states to govern persons and property within their borders.
However, this jurisdiction is not absolute, and certain exemptions exist, particularly
concerning diplomatic agents, foreign embassies, and foreign sovereigns. These exemptions
are rooted in principles of diplomatic immunity and sovereign equality among states.
Understanding the nuances of territorial jurisdiction and its exemptions is crucial for
navigating international legal relations and maintaining diplomatic protocols

6) Explain the history and development of claim over territorial waters

Introduction:

Territorial waters have been a subject of contention and legal evolution throughout history.
This essay delves into the historical context and the progressive development of claims over
territorial waters, elucidating key milestones and legal frameworks that have shaped
contemporary maritime jurisprudence.

 Early Notions of Territorial Waters: Ancient civilizations, such as the Phoenicians and
Greeks, asserted control over adjacent seas for security and economic purposes,
establishing rudimentary maritime boundaries to safeguard their interests and regulate
maritime activities.
 Emergence of Maritime Jurisprudence: During the 17th century, maritime jurisprudence
witnessed significant developments with the emergence of customary international law
governing territorial seas. The "cannon-shot rule," attributing a three-mile limit from the
coastline as sovereign territory, became a widely accepted norm among maritime nations.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

45

 Codification of Territorial Waters: The post-World War II era necessitated the formal
codification of maritime laws to address increased maritime activities and competing
territorial claims. Efforts were made within the United Nations to codify existing
customary laws and resolve maritime disputes through international cooperation.
 United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS): Adopted in 1982,
UNCLOS represents a landmark achievement in the regulation of territorial waters and
maritime boundaries. It delineates various maritime zones, including territorial waters,
contiguous zones, and exclusive economic zones (EEZ), providing a comprehensive
framework for the governance of oceanic resources and activities.
 Key Provisions and Principles of UNCLOS: Under UNCLOS, coastal states are entitled
to sovereignty over their territorial waters, extending up to 12 nautical miles from the
baseline. The convention also recognizes the principle of innocent passage, allowing
foreign vessels the right of passage through territorial seas under specific conditions.
 Contemporary Maritime Disputes: Despite the codification efforts, contemporary
maritime disputes continue to pose challenges to the enforcement of territorial claims.
Notable conflicts, such as the South China Sea dispute, underscore the complexities of
balancing national interests with international legal obligations.
 Challenges and Complexities: Modern maritime activities, including resource extraction,
navigation, and environmental protection, have introduced new challenges to the
governance of territorial waters. Balancing competing interests while upholding
principles of sovereignty and international law remains a persistent challenge for coastal
states and the international community.

Conclusion:

The history and development of claims over territorial waters reflect the evolving dynamics
of maritime law and international relations. From ancient precedents to modern conventions,
the regulation of territorial seas has evolved to accommodate the complexities of
contemporary maritime activities while upholding principles of sovereignty, cooperation, and
peaceful resolution of disputes.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

46

7) What are high seas? What are the freedoms of High seas?

Introduction:

The concept of the high seas and the freedoms associated with them have been central to
international relations and maritime law for centuries. This essay delves into the legal aspects
of the high seas, exploring their definition, historical context, and the various freedoms they
entail.

Definition of the High Seas:

The term "high seas" refers to those parts of the ocean that lie beyond the jurisdiction of any
individual state. These vast expanses of water constitute a global commons, accessible to all
nations regardless of their coastal proximity. The high seas are characterized by their freedom
from exclusive national sovereignty, allowing for unhindered navigation and utilization by
the international community.

Historical Evolution of the Freedom of the High Seas:

Throughout history, the freedom of the high seas has been a contentious issue, particularly
during the age of colonial expansion and maritime dominance by European powers. Early
conflicts between nations such as the Dutch, British, Portuguese, and Spanish underscored
differing interpretations of maritime sovereignty and the extent of territorial claims over
oceanic territories.

Codification of High Seas Freedoms:

The principle of the freedom of the high seas gained broader recognition in the 18th and 19th
centuries, coinciding with the rise of industrialization and the ascendancy of Great Britain as
a maritime superpower. International legal frameworks, including treaties and conventions,
began to codify the freedoms associated with the high seas, laying the groundwork for
contemporary maritime law.

Contemporary Legal Framework:

Today, the freedoms of the high seas are enshrined in international agreements such as the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Article 87(1) of UNCLOS
explicitly declares that the high seas are open to all states, irrespective of coastal or

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

47

landlocked status, and outlines specific freedoms pertaining to navigation, overflight,

submarine cables, artificial islands, fishing, and scientific research.

Freedom of Navigation

One of the fundamental freedoms of the high seas is the right of navigation. This
encompasses the freedom for vessels of all states to traverse the high seas for peaceful
purposes, regardless of flag state or propulsion method. The principle of freedom of
navigation extends to merchant ships, warships, and other types of vessels, ensuring
unimpeded maritime transport and commerce.

Freedom of Fishing:

Another important freedom on the high seas is the right of fishing. While states have the right
to exploit marine resources within their exclusive economic zones (EEZs), the high seas offer
opportunities for fishing beyond national jurisdictions. Article 116 of UNCLOS recognizes
this freedom, albeit subject to certain restrictions aimed at sustainable resource management
and conservation efforts.

Freedom to Lay Submarine Cables and Pipelines:

States also enjoy the freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines on the high seas,
facilitating communication networks and resource extraction activities. This freedom,
delineated in Article 112 of UNCLOS, underscores the importance of international
cooperation and coordination in the management of underwater infrastructure.

Freedom of Overflight and Scientific Research:

Additionally, the high seas afford freedoms of overflight and scientific research. Aircraft of
all states are permitted to traverse the airspace above the high seas for peaceful purposes, as
stipulated in international agreements. Furthermore, states have the right to conduct marine
scientific research in the high seas, contributing to our understanding of oceanic ecosystems
and resources.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the high seas represent a vital component of the global maritime domain,
governed by principles of freedom and shared responsibility. The freedoms associated with
the high seas, as outlined in international conventions such as UNCLOS, play a crucial role in

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

48

facilitating international cooperation, economic development, and scientific exploration. As

custodians of the world's oceans, it is incumbent upon states to uphold these freedoms while
promoting sustainable and responsible ocean stewardship.

8) Explain theories and kinds of State succession?

Introduction:

State succession under international law is a complex and multifaceted subject, encompassing
the transition of one state to another in terms of international relations and legal
responsibilities. This essay explores the various theories and types of state succession,
shedding light on the historical background, legal frameworks, and contemporary
perspectives surrounding this intricate topic.

1. Historical Background:

Before delving into the theories and types of state succession, it is essential to understand the
historical context in which these concepts emerged. Prior to the 20th century, the political
landscape was characterized by monarchies and kingdoms, where annexation and territorial
changes were commonplace. However, the lack of established rules and treaties led to a
myriad of issues, including frequent changes in governance and sovereignty.

2. Role of International Organizations:

In the aftermath of World War II, the need for a structured approach to state succession
became apparent. While the International Law Commission (ILC) failed to codify laws
governing state succession, the United Nations (UN) established guidelines to address the
challenges arising from the formation of new states. These guidelines aim to maintain peace,
stability, and cooperation among nations undergoing succession.

3. Types of State Succession:

State succession can be categorized into two main types: partial and universal succession.

 Partial Succession: In partial succession, one or more new states emerge from the
predecessor state, while the predecessor state continues to exist in some form.
Examples include the separation of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh from British
colonial rule.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

49

 Universal Succession: Universal succession occurs when the predecessor state is

completely dissolved, and one or more successor states emerge from its territory.
Examples include the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the division of the Soviet
Union.
4. Theories of State Succession:

Several theories have been proposed to explain the legal implications of state succession:

 Universal Continuity Theory: Also known as the popular continuity theory, this
perspective posits that the rights and obligations of the predecessor state automatically
transfer to the successor state without alteration. Critics argue that this theory lacks
clarity and practical applicability.
 Organic Substitution Theory: This theory suggests that the new state continues to
adhere to the legal norms and regulations of the predecessor state without significant
alteration. However, it has been criticized for its impracticality and lack of clear
implementation.
 Self-Abnegation Theory: Advocated by scholars such as Jellinek, this theory
emphasizes the moral obligation of the successor state to uphold international law and
fulfill the obligations of the predecessor state.
 Negative Theory: According to this theory, the successor state is entirely free from the
rights and obligations of the predecessor state, allowing for the creation of new legal
norms and regulations.
 Communist Theory: This theory suggests that the successor state inherits certain
rights and obligations from the predecessor state, particularly in terms of political and
economic agreements. It stands in contrast to the negative theory by emphasizing
continuity in certain areas of governance.
5. Matters of State Succession:

State succession entails various legal and practical considerations, including treaties,
membership in international organizations, debts and loans, public and private property, and
other rights and duties. The resolution of these matters requires careful negotiation and
adherence to international norms and principles.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

50

Conclusion:

In conclusion, theories and types of state succession are integral components of international
law, shaping the legal landscape of transitioning states. While various theories offer different
perspectives on the implications of state succession, practical considerations such as treaty
obligations, membership in international organizations, and debt management require
nuanced approaches and careful diplomacy. As the international community continues to
evolve, the study of state succession remains relevant in understanding the dynamics of
global governance and interstate relations.

IMP QUESTIONS 6 M

1. Continental Shelf
 Definition: The continental shelf refers to the shallow, submerged edges of a
continent that extend from the coastline to the shelf break, where the ocean floor
drops off steeply.
 Geological Formation: It was formed over millions of years by the accumulation of
organic and inorganic materials during glacial periods when the sea level was lower,
and then submerged during interglacial periods.
 Economic Importance: The continental shelf holds significant economic resources
such as oil, natural gas, minerals, sand, and gravel. It also supports important habitats
for marine life and provides valuable fishing grounds.
 Legal Framework: International law, including conventions like the Geneva
Convention (1958) and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982),
recognizes each coastal state's right to explore and exploit the natural resources of its
continental shelf.
 Rights and Responsibilities: Coastal states have sovereign rights over the exploration
and exploitation of the continental shelf resources within their jurisdiction. Other
states may have rights to lay submarine cables and pipelines with consent.
Delimitation of continental shelf boundaries between neighboring states may be
determined through agreements or international legal mechanisms.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

51

2. State succession to contractual obligations

State succession to contractual obligations is a complex legal issue that has gained
prominence since World War II due to the emergence of numerous new states and the
dissolution of existing ones. This essay seeks to analyze the legal framework surrounding
state succession to contractual obligations, examining attempts to codify or legislate the law
of state succession, prevailing legal doctrines, and specific provisions such as the Vienna
Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties (Vienna I) and the Vienna
Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives and Debts
(Vienna II).

 Attempts to Codify or Legislate the Law of State Succession The International Law
Commission (ILC) and various international conventions have addressed the issue of state
succession, including the Vienna Conventions on state succession in respect of treaties
and state property, archives, and debts. However, despite these efforts, the law of state
succession remains largely uncodified, with a lack of consensus among legal scholars and
practitioners.
 Legal Doctrine Legal doctrine regarding state succession presents different approaches,
including the continuity theory and the clean slate doctrine. The continuity theory
advocates for the transfer of rights and obligations from the predecessor state to the
successor state, while the clean slate doctrine suggests a complete break in legal relations
between the two states. However, recent practice indicates a preference for continuity,
ensuring the preservation of legal relationships at all levels.
 State Succession State succession occurs when one or more international persons replace
another international person due to changes in the latter's condition. This can occur
through various circumstances such as decolonization, dismemberment, secession,
annexation, or merger. The determination of state succession relies on the recognition of
the new state by the international community and is often subject to negotiation and
agreement between the successor and predecessor states.
 What is State Succession? State succession involves the transmission of rights and
obligations from a predecessor state to a successor state. The Vienna Conventions provide
definitions and guidelines for state succession, emphasizing the replacement of one state
by another in the responsibility for international relations. This process may involve the
transfer of state property, archives, debts, and other contractual obligations.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

52

 Succession to State Debt and State Property: Negotiated Settlements The Vienna
Convention on Succession of States in Respect of State Property, Archives, and Debts
outlines principles for the succession of financial obligations, including debts owed to
other states, international organizations, and other subjects of international law.
Provisions within the convention address the equitable division of debts among successor
states, with exceptions for newly independent states to ensure the preservation of
sovereignty over wealth and natural resources.

In conclusion, while state succession to contractual obligations remains a complex and often
contentious issue, international efforts to codify and regulate this area of law have provided
some guidance. However, challenges persist in achieving consensus among states and legal
scholars, highlighting the need for continued dialogue and cooperation in addressing state
succession issues on a case-by-case basis.

3. Anglo Norwegian fisheries case

Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (Summary on Customary International Law)

The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, adjudicated by the International Court of Justice in

1951, revolved around the delimitation of Norway's territorial sea and fisheries zone. The
United Kingdom contested Norway's method of drawing baselines for measuring its
territorial sea, arguing that it contravened customary international law.

The Court's findings shed light on several principles of customary international law:

 Formation of Customary Law: The Court emphasized the importance of positive state
practice and the absence of contrary state practice in confirming the existence of a
rule of customary international law. It noted that the "ten-mile rule" regarding the
length of a baseline across a bay had not attained the status of a general rule due to
varying state practices.
 Persistent Objector Rule: The Court recognized Norway as a persistent objector to the
ten-mile rule. Norway consistently opposed the application of this rule to its coastline,
expressing its objection as early as 1870 and maintaining it consistently until the
dispute. This established the principle that a state could reject the application of a
customary law rule to itself through persistent objection.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

53

 Contrary State Practice: Despite Norway's deviation from the general practice, it
maintained that its delimitation method was in conformity with international law. The
Court found that Norway's practice, backed by consistent state practice and lack of
objections from other states, did not contravene international law.
 Relationship between International and National Law: The Court acknowledged that
while states have the authority to undertake unilateral acts like delimitation, the
validity of such acts depends on international law. Delimitation must consider
practical needs and local conditions, but it cannot violate established international
norms.

The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case contributes significantly to the understanding of

customary international law, particularly regarding the persistent objector rule and the
relationship between international and national law in maritime disputes.

4. Youman’s case

Background:

 Three American citizens killed by a mob in Angangueo, Mexico, in 1880.

 Occurred during a dispute with a Mexican laborer while working on a tunnel project.

Incident Details:

 Dispute over wages escalated into violence, leading to a confrontation between

Americans and the mob.
 Mexican troops opened fire on the Americans' house, resulting in casualties.

Legal Proceedings:

 United States filed a claim against Mexico for failing to protect its citizens and ensure
justice.
 Evidence included diplomatic reports and official records.
 Commission found Mexico liable and awarded damages to the United States.

Key Points:

Highlights Mexico's obligation to protect foreign nationals within its borders.

 Raises questions about state responsibility and justice for crimes against foreigners.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

54

 Demonstrates the importance of upholding international norms for the treatment of

foreign citizens.
5. State responsibility in case of Mob Violence

Under international law, states have a responsibility to protect individuals within their
jurisdiction from mob violence and other forms of harm. This responsibility is derived from
various sources, including customary international law, treaties, and principles of human
rights. While there isn't a specific treaty or convention solely dedicated to addressing mob
violence, several legal principles and instruments establish the basis for state responsibility in
such cases:

 Human Rights Treaties: Many international human rights treaties, such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), guarantee the right to life, liberty, and security of
person. States that are parties to these treaties have an obligation to ensure these rights
are protected and upheld within their territory, including taking measures to prevent
and address mob violence.
 International Customary Law: Customary international law, which arises from
established state practice and opinio juris (the belief that certain actions are legally
required), imposes a duty on states to protect individuals from violence and ensure
their safety. Over time, state practice and international jurisprudence have recognized
the state's obligation to prevent and respond to mob violence.
 Responsibility to Prevent: States have a responsibility to take proactive measures to
prevent mob violence from occurring. This may include enacting laws, implementing
policies, and deploying law enforcement or security forces to maintain public order
and protect individuals from harm.
 Responsibility to Investigate and Prosecute: When mob violence occurs, states are
obligated to conduct thorough and impartial investigations to identify perpetrators and
hold them accountable under the law. This includes prosecuting those responsible for
inciting or participating in violence, as well as providing reparations to victims.
 Responsibility to Protect Vulnerable Groups: Certain groups, such as minorities,
migrants, refugees, and marginalized communities, may be particularly vulnerable to
mob violence. States have a heightened responsibility to protect these groups from

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

55

violence and discrimination, including taking affirmative actions to prevent and

address violence targeting them.
 International Humanitarian Law (IHL): In situations of armed conflict or civil unrest,
international humanitarian law applies. States are required to adhere to the principles
of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, which govern the conduct of hostilities
and aim to minimize harm to civilians, including from mob violence.

Overall, under international law, states have a duty to protect individuals from mob violence
and ensure their safety and security. This obligation encompasses prevention, investigation,
prosecution, and protection measures aimed at upholding human rights and maintaining
public order.

6. Note on State succession to public debts

State succession to public debts is a complex and contentious issue within international law,
particularly in situations where states undergo significant changes such as dissolution,
reunification, or emergence from decolonization. The process of determining how public
debts are apportioned among successor states involves legal, political, and practical
considerations.

 Legal Framework: While there is no universal codification of rules governing state

succession to public debts, international law provides some guidance. Treaties,
customary international law, and principles of equity and fairness are often invoked to
address these issues.
 Continuity vs. Clean Slate Doctrine: Debates surrounding state succession to public
debts often center around two main theories: continuity and clean slate. The
continuity theory suggests that successor states inherit the legal rights and obligations
of the predecessor state, including public debts. This approach is rooted in historical
legal principles and the concept of universal succession. On the other hand, the clean
slate doctrine proposes that successor states should not be automatically bound by the
debts of their predecessors. Instead, they should have the opportunity to renegotiate or
repudiate these debts, starting with a clean financial slate.
 Practical Considerations: Determining the extent to which successor states are
responsible for public debts involves practical considerations such as the division of
assets and liabilities, the financial capacity of each successor state, and the impact on

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])

 lOMoARcPSD|57217201

56

creditors. Successor states may negotiate agreements or arrangements to apportion

debts fairly, taking into account factors such as population size, territory, and
economic resources.
 International Recognition: The recognition of successor states by the international
community can also influence the apportionment of public debts. States that are
recognized as the continuation of the predecessor state may inherit its debts, while
new states arising from secession or dissolution may face challenges in assuming or
repudiating debts.
 Resolution Mechanisms: In cases where successor states cannot reach agreement on
the division of public debts, international arbitration or mediation mechanisms may be
employed to facilitate resolution. These mechanisms aim to ensure that debts are
apportioned equitably and in accordance with legal principles and international
norms.
 Legal Precedents and Practice: While there is no universally accepted approach to
state succession to public debts, legal precedents and state practice provide guidance.
Past cases of state succession, as well as international conventions and treaties
addressing the issue, can inform the resolution of contemporary disputes.

In conclusion, state succession to public debts is a complex and multifaceted issue that
requires careful consideration of legal, political, and practical factors. While there is no one-
size-fits-all solution, international law offers principles and mechanisms to guide the
apportionment of debts among successor states in a manner that is fair, equitable, and
consistent with legal norms.

Lester Vinal Lasrado

Downloaded by P MEGHAKALYANI . (meghakalyanibc2235@[Link])