DIFF B/N ICJ AND municipal law

Introduction

To understand the relationship between International Law and Municipal Law, it is important to
know the link between the two laws. International Law is a set of rules and actions related to
national behaviour. In other words, International Law is a set of rules that apply when States
interact. On the other hand, Municipal law is also known as the National Law of the country. There
are various theories to recognize the difference between these two laws.

The relationship between international law and municipal law has traditionally been characterized
from a monist or dualist perspective. While this characterization remains contested, the approach a
country adopts has a great significance for the effectiveness and application of international law
within the domestic legal system.

The conflict has led to the emergence of different theories. Prominent among them are as follows :-

1. Dualistic theory

2. Monistic theory

Dualistic theory of relation between International law and municipal laws

According to dualistic theory, International law and municipal laws of the several States are two
distinct, separate and self-contained legal systems. Being separate systems, International Law would
not as such form part of the internal law of a state.

Dualistic view of the relationship between International law and municipal laws was developed by a
prominent German scholar Triepel in 1899. For him, International Law and domestic or municipal
law existed on separate planes and hence, there is a difference between International Law and
Municipal Laws, the former governing international relations, the latter relating between individuals
and between the individual and the state.

The theory was later on followed by Italian jurist Anzilotti. Starke says that the theory represents two
entirely distinct legal systems International Law having an instrinsically different character from that
of State Law. The above authors are of the view that the two systems of law differ from each other
on the following grounds:-

(a) Regarding Sources – According to dualists, while the sources of municipal laws are custom grown
up within the boundaries of the states, the sources of International Laws are custom grown up
among the States and law- making treaties concluded by them.

(b) Regarding Subjects – Municipal law regulates the relations between the individual and corporate
entities, International Law regulates primarily the relations between States.

(c) Regarding Principles – Municipal laws in a state are obeyed because they are the principles of
State Legislatures, International Law is obeyed because of principle of pacta sunt servanda. Thus
International law is followed because States are morally bound to observe them.
(d) Regarding Dynamism of the Subject Matter – Subject Matter of the two systems are also
different. While the subject matter of international law has always remained dynamic, the subject
matter of the municipal law is limited.

Criticisms of Dualist theory of relation between International law and municipal laws

Firstly, the view that international law and municipal law differ from each other implies that
international law cannot be a part of municipal law. It’s not correct because there are certain
fundamental principles of international law which are binding upon a state, even against its own will.

Secondly, it is not correct to say that international law regulates the relations of states only at
present it regulates certain activities of individuals as well.

Thirdly, no doubt, pacta sunt servanda is an important principle of international law, but it cannot be
said that it is the only principle on which international law rests. There are certain rules which are
legally binding on a State.

Monistic theory of relationship between International law and municipal laws

Monistic theory was founded by two German scholars, Moser ( 1701-1785) & Martens ( 1756-1821).

According to Monistic theory, municipal law as well as international law are parts of one universal
legal system serving the needs of the human community in one way or another.

According to Monism, all laws are made for individuals only. While municipal law is binding on them
directly, international law is binding on them through States. Since both the laws are meant to solve
the problems of human beings in different areas; they are related to each other. According to them,
the subjects of both legal systems are ultimately individuals.

According to this theory, relationship betweeninternational law and municipal law should be
considered as manifestations of a single concept of law. Because there is no difference between
these.

Criticisms of Dualist theory of relationship between International law and municipal laws

It is very difficult to disapprove the view of kelsen that man lies at the root of all laws. But in actual
practice, States do not follow this theory. They contend that Municipal law and international law are
two separate systems of law. Further, each state is sovereign and as such is bot bound by
international law. States follow international laws simply they give their consent to be bound and on
account of other reasons.

Application of Rule of Law in International Law (India)

The British said that they were the originators of this concept when Sir Edward Cox stated that the
King obeyed God and the Law, which would eventually abolish the Rule of Law in the business of the
Chief Executive. Professor Albert Venn Dicey later developed this concept. He was an individualist.
He wrote about the concept of the Rule of Law at the end of the golden age of Victoria Laissez-Faire
in England. For this reason, the concept of Dicey’s law is useless.
The doctrine of the rule of law has been classified into three meanings in Dicey’s book. The three
meanings include:

1. The supremacy of law;

2. Equality before the law;

3. The predominance of legal spirit.

Conclusion

Municipal and International legal system operate in their own domain without any presumption of
conflict or hostility to each other. Both International law and municipal laws are related.

Both systems are important and mutually supportive and interactive with each other in
contemporary context in relation to many trans-boundary issues. For example, state has the
secondary responsibility lies with international authority formed under international law.

International law is not concerned at all about domestic law unless domestic law or domestic Act
infringes or violates the assumed or assigned international obligation ( for that State) emanating
from international law. Examples can be taken from forms of government or South African apartheid
policy under article 4 ( discriminates indigenous black voters) of the Electoral Act as well as in the
constitution of South Africa violated an obligation as they assumed by ratifying 1965 UN Convention
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Here the obligation of domestic law comes into conflict
with international obligation.

Kelsen also believes that International Law covers all aspects of human life. Monistic theorists view
that International Law does not come under any Law, rather Municipal Laws are a part of
International Law.

2. trace and origin of IL

International law refers to a set of rules and principles that govern the

relationships and interactions between sovereign states and international

entities.

• It is a system of rules that countries and other international actors agree to follow

in their dealings with each other.

• International law helps regulate various aspects of state behavior, including

diplomacy, trade, human rights, environmental protection, and the use of force.

• Exponents of international law, such as Oppenheim, J.L. Brierly, and

Hackworth, have contributed to defining the field.

• According to Oppenheim, international law, also known as the Law of Nations, is

"the name for the body of customary and treaty rules which are considered

legally binding by civilized states in their intercourse with each other."

• The key components of this definition include the governance of relations

between states, the acknowledgment by states that these rules are binding in

their interactions, and the derivation of these rules from customs and treaties.

Origin and development of international Law :

The following is a broad overview of key milestones in the development of

international law:

Ancient and Medieval Periods:

1. Customary Practices: Early forms of international law were rooted in

customary practices and mutual agreements between ancient civilisations.

For instance, treaties and alliances were common among various city-states in

ancient Greece.

2. Roman Law: The Roman Republic and later the Roman Empire contributed to

legal principles that influenced the development of international law. Concepts

such as "jus gentium" (law of nations) reflected a sense of universal legal

principles.

Middle Ages:

1. Canon Law: During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church played a significant

role in shaping legal norms. Canon law, which governed relations within the

Church, influenced ideas about the universality of certain legal principles.

2. Treaties and Diplomacy: Medieval Europe saw the emergence of treaties and

diplomatic practices among sovereign states. Treaties, often focused on issues of

peace and commerce, laid the foundation for modern international agreements.

Early Modern Period:

1. Peace of Westphalia (1648): The Peace of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty

Years' War, is often considered a watershed moment. It established the principle of

state sovereignty and recognized the independence of states, laying the

groundwork for the modern state system.

2. Hugo Grotius: Often referred to as the "father of international law," Hugo

Grotius, a Dutch jurist, made significant contributions in the 17th century.

His work, such as "The Law of War and Peace" (1625), emphasized natural law

principles and the idea of a community of nations.

18th and 19th Centuries:

1. Emergence of International Institutions: The 18th and 19th centuries saw the

creation of various international institutions, such as the Concert of Europe, aimed

at maintaining peace and stability. The Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) is an

example of diplomatic efforts to establish a balance of power.

2. Codification of Laws: Efforts were made to codify certain aspects of

international law. Notable examples include the Lieber Code during the American

Civil War and the Hague Conventions at the turn of the 20th century.

20th Century:

1. League of Nations: The aftermath of World War I led to the establishment of the

League of Nations in 1920. While the League had limited success, it laid the

groundwork for future international organizations and efforts to promote collective

security.

2. United Nations (1945): The United Nations, founded after World War II, marked

a significant development in international law. Its Charter established principles of

collective security, human rights, and the peaceful resolution of disputes.

3. Post-World War II Developments: The Nuremberg Trials and subsequent trials

for war crimes contributed to the development of international criminal law.

Treaties such as the Genocide Convention (1948) and the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (1948) further expanded the scope of international law.

Contemporary Period:
1. Expansion of International Law: The latter half of the 20th century and the

early 21st century have seen the continued expansion of international law. Treaties,

conventions, and protocols address a wide range of issues, including

environmental protection, trade, and human rights.

2. International Criminal Court (ICC): The establishment of the ICC in 2002

marked a significant step in the pursuit of accountability for individuals responsible

for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes

is interanatonal laew a true law

Introduction

As we delve into International Trade and diplomacy, the concept of

International Law acts as a pivotal element which bridges the diverse interests
and legal systems of nations across the world. But a recurring question that
still arises, Is International Law a True Law? The debate over whether
International Law qualifies as a true law has been a longstanding point of
contention among the legal jurists and practitioners. On the one hand, some
contend that International Law is just a code of moral conduct without the
inherent binding force that characterizes local legal systems. On the other
hand, some contend that International Law should be recognized as a real law,
just like the laws that apply to citizens of sovereign states. In this article we
will dive deep into the main arguments and challenges surrounding this debate
while looking at the particular difficulties associated with establishing law
within the International Community.

Defining International Law

International law does not have a single, widely recognized definition,

although many attempts have been made to define it by eminent jurists.
According to Oppenheim International Law is “Law of Nation or International
Law is the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are
considered legally binding by civilized states in their relation with each other.”

Is International Law a True Law?

International relationships between nations, international organisations, and

individuals are governed by a complex and multidimensional set of rules and
concepts known as international law. It covers a wide range of topics, including
environmental protection, human rights, trade and diplomacy. However, the
fundamental question still remains: Is international law really a "true law," and
how is it different from state legal frameworks?

To understand the debate surrounding International Law, it is essential to

recognize the fundamental differences between domestic legal systems and
international legal frameworks. Within a domestic legal framework, the
government imposes regulations that govern the lives of its citizens. These
rules are established by the legislature, interpreted by the judiciary, and
enforced by the executive branch, often with the assistance of the police to
ensure compliance. However, this structure does not exist in the context of
International Law. The fact that the International Community is not governed
by a single legislature, judiciary, executive branch, or police force raises a
doubt about the nature of International Law as a “true law.”

 Austin’s Perspective

A viewpoint that challenges the legitimacy of International Law is based on the

ideas of John Austin, a 19th century legal scholar. According to Austin, the
essence of law is command of a sovereign authority, with repercussions for
violations. In his opinion, only rules of conduct enacted by a determinate
legislative authority and enforced by physical sanctions can be considered law.
In this context, the real sovereign is the ultimate authority.

As per Austin’s view, the lack of a single sovereign power over the worldwide
community indicates that International Law does not fall under the notion of
law. International agreements and conventions are created through the
consent of states, but they lack the centralized enforcement mechanisms
found in domestic legal systems. According to this viewpoint, international law
is essentially a moral code that has no real legal force behind it.

Oppenheim’s Perspective

On the other hand, there is an alternative viewpoint that offers a more

inclusive definition of law and is supported by legal scholar Lassa Oppenheim.
According to Oppenheim, law is a set of norms that regulate human conduct
within the community and these rules are enforced by external powers based
on common consent within that community. From Oppenheim’s point of view, a
legal system cannot be deemed legitimate unless it possesses a number of
essential components.

The first requirement is the existence of a community, which is essentially the

group of nations and states that make up the International Community, even if
these rules are not necessarily created by a specific legislative authority.
Lastly, there must be common consent within the community that these rules
should be enforced by external powers. This viewpoint takes into account the
unique nature of International Law, where there is no centralized law-making
authority or a universal court to enforce these rules. Instead, it recognizes the
voluntary acceptance of international norms by states, which can give rise to
the concept of law without a traditional legislative structure.

Conclusion
The debate over whether International Law qualifies as a true law remains a
complex and multifaceted issue. While some jurists, following John Austin's
perspective, argue that it lacks the characteristics of a genuine legal system
due to the absence of a single sovereign authority and a centralized
enforcement mechanism, others like Lassa Oppenheim, propose a more
inclusive definition that acknowledges the unique nature of International Law.

Ultimately, the question of whether International Law is “true law” may come
down to interpretation and viewpoint more than a definitive conclusion. Even
though International Law does not easily fit into the conventional framework of
domestic legal systems, it is clear that it plays a role in regulating states’
actions in the International Arena. The ongoing debate highlights the need for
continued discussion and exploration of the evolving concept of International
Law in the contemporary world.

4.VARIOUS SUROCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW:

International law emanates from a number of sources. IL does not come from

national parliaments, but instead consists mostly in agreements freely entered

into

by States to regulate their relations with one another. There is no law-making

body

for international law. Sources of international law come into two categories –
formal

source and material source. Formal being the process or mechanism by which a

binding legal rule or obligation is created. Material being the source which
identifies or specifies the content of the rule. Sources of international law are
vital for establishing the validity of legal rules. In regard to what the sources
of international law are, Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute provides that: “The
Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such
disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:

(a) International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules

expressly recognised by contesting states;

(b) International custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;

(c) The general principles of law recognised by civilised nations;

(d) Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teaching
of the

most highly qualified publicists of various nations, as subsidiary means for the

determination of the rules”.

Formal sources are legally-binding rules are created by two principal
mechanisms, treaties

and custom. Treaties and custom are two key formal sources of international
law.

1. TREATIES

International law is based on consent and when signing a treaty, you have
given consent.

International treaties are also known as conventions (which is the first source
referred to in

Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute), but they’re also known as acts, covenants and
protocols.

Treaties are binding agreements covering any aspect of international relations.

They are

voluntary and are agreements between two or more states. Treaties are only
viable/binding

on states that have signed it. Furthermore, treaties create specific rights and
obligations and

there are sanctions in place should there be a breach of a Treaty.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) Article 2 (1) defines
‘treaty’ as “an

international agreement concluded between states in written form and

governed by

international law…”. Treaties are the most stable source of international law
and a more

formal method of law creation and the only way states can consciously create
intentional

law.

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

Examples of current treaties are the UN Charter, regional treaties, EU treaties

such as the

TFEU, Multilateral and bilateral trade treaties.

STRENGTHS OF TREATIES:

 Treaties are legally binding. States have a legal obligation to enforce and
respect

treaty provisions. They are held liable.

 When a state ratifies an international human rights treaty, it is compelled to
adjust

domestic legislation in order to comply with treaty legislation. If your country

is a state

party to UN human rights treaties, it will have to adjust its domestic law to
adhere to

treaty standards.

WEAKNESS OF TREATIES:

 A treaty is legally binding only on the states that have consented to be

bound by its

provisions. No one can force a state to ratify a treaty. In a sense, a treaty

remains

voluntary to ratify.

2. CUSTOM – AS A SOURCE OF LAW:

- Customs are a more fluid source of law

- Customary international law results from a general and consistent practice of

states followed by them from a sense of legal obligation.

- Custom in legal sense means something more than mere habit or usage.

- Article 38(1)(b) defines CUSTOMS as ‘evidence of general practice accepted

as

law’.

- A custom is distinguished from a mere usage because, unlike usages, custom

involves legal obligation.

- International custom can arise through acts or omissions.

- Customs must have:

1 state practice which is the factual element of a custom.

2 Secondly, they must have belief that such practice is required by law, in
other words

the opinion juris which is the legal element.

- State practice and opinion juris are the two ingredients of customary

international law. Both criteria must be proved in order to establish that a

custom
exists in international law.

- In the Asylum case, the court accepted that a custom could be established

between a few states. This is called ‘regional’ or ‘particular’ custom.

STATE PRACTICE:

 Initial requirement – the actual behaviour of states

 Evidence of state practice:

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

- There must be evidence that states had conducted themselves in the area of
law

in a manner that bound them. The conduct of States was consistent with the

rules that are now deemed as customary rules of law. And instances where a

state’s conduct was inconsistent were treated as breaches rather than as a

recognition of a new rule or no rule at all.

- State practice is the aggregate of how states behave in relation to a

particular

issue

 Extent of state practice:

- Time, per se, is not the essence of custom, but it helps if the custom in
question

has existed for a reasonable length of time.

- It is more important that many states practice a particular custom and that
they

do so consistently.

 NORTH SEA CONTINENTAL SHELF CASE 1969:

- ‘State practice should be both extensive and virtually uniform’ (especially

where

practice in question is for a short duration)

 ANGLO-NORWEGIAN FISHERIES CASE 1951:

- ‘a degree of uniformity of practice is essential not mandatory.’

- In the Asylum case, the court emphasized constancy and uniformity of

practice in
order to prove custom.

- Constant and uniform usage must be accepted as law. This makes the usage
legal.

OPINIO JURIS:

- Opinio juris is a shortened form of the Latin phrase opinio juris sive
necessitatis,

which means “an opinion of law or necessity”.

- OJ is the second element necessary to establish a legally binding custom.

- OJ is the psychological element underscoring state’s belief that they are

under a

legal obligation to do, or to refrain from doing, an act.

- For the OJ element to be satisfied states must believe that the practice is
required

by law – that it has legal force.

- In the SS Lotus case, the PCIJ (permanent court of international justice)

stated

that a mere act of omission for its own sake does not constitute a customary
rule.

- Only an omission based on a belief that there is legal obligation to refrain

constitutes a customary rule.

OR?

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

- In this case it was also established that states must act voluntarily to
constitute

evidence of customary law. If they abstain from acting, it must be because

they

see it as a legal requirement not a matter of choice.

- The Asylum Case 1950:

- Reciprocity is very important.

- North Sea continental shelf cases 1969:

- State practice should be extensive/virtually uniform

- Not voluntary – not a matter of choice

3. RULES OF JUS COGENS

 DEFINITION:

- from Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969:

“A peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and

recognised by the international community of states as a while as a norm from

which no derogation is permitted…”

 CONCEPTS:

- The concept of jus cogens was put forward in the 1960’s by socialist and

developing states, who promoted certain rules deriving from treaty and
custom

as being of a higher rank and status than other rules.

- It is incorporated into the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

Article

53.

 EXAMPLES:

- Examples of jus cogens rules include:

 Prohibition of use of force

 Prohibition of aggression

 Right to self-determination

 Prohibition of genocide

 Prohibition of torture

 IMPACT:

- Jus cogens rules can impact treaty provisions, reservations to treaties and

recognition of states among other things.

4. GENERAL PRICINPLES (OF LAW)

 DEFINITION:

- Article 38(1)c of the Vienna Convention says the court may consider “the
general

principles of law recognised by civilised nations”.

- The phrase, ‘general principles of law’ refers to either general principles of

international law or general principles of national law or both.

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

- River Meuse Case stated, “the principle of equity is applicable to

international

Tribunals that is general principles of equity and fairness within the scope of

paragraph 1(c)”.

5. JUDICIAL DECISIONS:

 COPIED FROM SAM’S BECAUSE I COULDN’T BE BOTHERED:

- Judicial decisions are said to be ‘subsidiary’ meaning for the purpose of

determination of law in Article 38. Academically, international courts do not

make law they merely identify and declare pre-existent law, established by
Article

59 of the ICJ Statute. Article further explains decisions of court will not have
any

binding power but only bind relevant parties in the particular case.

- Practically the issue of whether the courts function really is limited to the

determination of disputes according the existing rule or not. ICJ is more

involved in the process of law creation rather than Article 38 or 59 had
suggested. It is definite that the court will decide all the material in the
dispute submitted to it,from thereon according to the statute the parties are
bound by the decisions.

Ideally although courts are not supposed to participate in any law-making

process in practise this is solely an unrealistic review

5.ESSENTIAL ELEMENS OF STSTE

The definitions highlight the fact that the state consists of four basic components. (1) population,
(2) territory, (3) government, and (4) sovereignty are the four categories (or independence). The
state’s physical or material basis is made up of the first two parts, while its political and spiritual
basis is made up of the last two.

1. Population-The state is a social concept. As a result, the most essential factor is

population. There are no definite rules when it comes to population. Plato and Aristotle,
among other ancient Greek authors, advocated for a small population. A perfect state,
according to Plato, should have 5040 people as its population.

Aristotle established the broad notion that a state’s population should be large enough to be
sufficient yet small enough to allow for good governance. It’s important to recall that they were
both thinking in terms of little city-states.
Rousseau set the figure at 10,000 in contemporary times, inspired by ideas of direct democracy.
States now range in size from the hundreds in Monaco or San Marino to the billions in China or
India. Large states are favoured in today’s world. All that can be argued is that having a big
population is beneficial in terms of military defence.

A huge population, on the other hand, might be a problem if the state’s resources are insufficient
to support it. Overpopulation is one of the most serious issues that developing countries confront.
As a result, there should be a healthy equilibrium between a state’s population number and its
material wealth.

2. Territory: A defined and more or less permanent territory is also considered an essential
aspect of the state. Citizens in contemporary times are linked by their shared living on a
common land. A state’s territory is made up of land, sea, and air space.

There is no limit to area, just as there is no limit to population. Small and big states coexist in the
world. All states, regardless of population or size, have the same status and rights under
international law. Small states are said to be ideal for efficient administration and creating a
sense of unity and affection for the state among the people.

A small state, on the other hand, is at a disadvantage in its ties with larger states. Small states
are influenced by one or more major and strong countries. It is argued in favour of big states
because they are powerful in defence and economically self-sufficient due to resource
availability.

It should be noted that a state’s strength and security are not only defined by the size of its
territory. Other considerations include geographic position, resources, and climate.

3. Government: A group of individuals who occupy a specific region cannot create a state
unless they are politically organised, that is, unless they have a government. The
state’s political organisation is known as the government. It is a tangible and visible
expression of governmental authority.

Government, according to Garner, is the institution that determines common policies and
regulates common affairs. The government is the medium through which the state wills and acts.
Government must be effective; it must be capable of maintaining order and ensuring compliance.
There would be chaos and anarchy without a government, and the state would eventually
dissolve.

The legislature, executive, and judiciary are the three branches of government. The legislature
creates laws, the executive implements them, and the court decides on cases and disputes.
Different states have different types of governance, such as monarchy, democracy, and
dictatorship. Democracies make up the majority of developed countries. India, like many other
developing countries, has democratic governments. Whatever kind of government is used, one
thing is certain: without government, there can be no state.

4. Sovereignty:

Sovereignty is the ability to control one’s own state’s sovereignty is by far the most important
characteristic. It is the feature that sets the state apart from all other institutions. It refers to the
ultimate power or authority over which there is no appeal.

Internal and external components of sovereignty exist. Internally, the state wields absolute
control over all persons and organisations inside its defined territory. It has the power to compel
people to obey its laws and commands. Externally, the state is independent and not in control of
any foreign power. India was not a state before independence since it was ruled by the British.

Similarly, the Indian federation is made up of several component entities referred to as “states,”
but they are not states in international law since they are not sovereign. Similarly, because it is
not sovereign, the United Nations (UN) is not a state.

5. International Recognition-

In recent times, international relations have strengthened, and several international organisations
and institutions have emerged. As a result, some academics contend that international
recognition is a necessary element of statehood. International recognition refers to other
countries acknowledging a new state’s sovereign sovereignty.

However, there is no agreement on how many nations must recognise a new state in order for it
to be recognised as a state under international law. There is also a political dimension to
recognition. China has been a full-fledged country for many years before the United Nations was
founded in 1945.

Absolute sovereignty is impossible to achieve. International laws must be followed by a state.

Otherwise, worldwide anarchy would follow, posing serious challenges to international peace and
security. Unlimited sovereignty, as Laski correctly points out, is a threat to world peace and
mankind.

Conclusion
There are billions of people on the planet, and hundreds of thousands in our state, nation, and
country, each with their own unique perspective on fundamental topics. In most situations,
differences lead to division and conflict. Despite our differences in terms of territorial borders,
ethnic groups, and religion, we all share a similar goal: to enhance the society we live in and the
people who live in it. This is what ties together different states, nations, and countries.

6. UNDERSTANDING DE FACTO AND DE JURE RECOGNITION IN INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

In the complex landscape of international relations, the concepts of de facto and de jure

recognition play crucial roles in determining the legitimacy and status of states, governments,

and territorial entities. These terms, rooted in Latin, are fundamental in understanding how

nations interact with each other and navigate diplomatic relationships. Let's delve deeper into

what de facto and de jure recognition entail and how they shape the global political arena.

De Facto Recognition:

De facto recognition refers to the practical acknowledgment of a state, government, or territorial

entity by other actors in the international community, regardless of its legal status. This

recognition is based on the existence of effective control and functioning governance within a

defined territory, rather than adherence to formal legal norms or international treaties.

In essence, de facto recognition acknowledges the factual reality of a situation on the ground. It

often arises in scenarios where a government or entity effectively exercises authority over a

territory, despite lacking legal recognition or endorsement from the international community.

Examples of de facto recognition include unrecognized states, rebel movements controlling

territory, or governments that have come to power through non-legal means such as coups or

revolutions.

De facto recognition can have significant implications for diplomatic relations, trade agreements,

and regional stability. While it may not confer full legitimacy in the eyes of the international

community, de facto recognition often serves as a pragmatic acknowledgment of political

realities and can pave the way for eventual de jure recognition.

De Jure Recognition:
Contrary to de facto recognition, de jure recognition pertains to the formal and legal

acknowledgment of a state, government, or territorial entity by other sovereign states in

accordance with established international law and diplomatic protocols. This recognition is based

on adherence to specific criteria, including sovereignty, defined borders, effective governance,

and recognition by other recognized states. De jure recognition carries greater weight and
legitimacy in international relations. It signifies

acceptance of a state's legal status and rights under international law, including participation in

international organizations, treaties, and diplomatic conventions. States that enjoy de jure

recognition benefit from diplomatic privileges and protections afforded by the international

community.

Achieving de jure recognition is often a complex and multifaceted process, involving diplomatic

negotiations, bilateral agreements, and sometimes the resolution of territorial disputes or

conflicts. While de jure recognition is typically the ultimate goal for states seeking legitimacy on

the world stage, it may be subject to political considerations, strategic interests, and the
dynamics

of global power relations.

Interplay and Implications:

The interplay between de facto and de jure recognition can shape geopolitical dynamics and

influence the resolution of conflicts and disputes. In some cases, de facto recognition may

precede de jure recognition, serving as a precursor to formal acceptance by the international

community. Conversely, the absence of de facto recognition can undermine attempts to secure
de

jure recognition, particularly in situations where governance is contested or unstable.

Moreover, discrepancies between de facto and de jure recognition can lead to diplomatic

tensions, regional instability, and protracted conflicts. States that lack de jure recognition may
face challenges in accessing international aid, participating in global forums, and asserting their

rights on the world stage. Conversely, states that withhold de jure recognition may leverage their

diplomatic influence to advance their strategic interests or pressure non-compliant entities to

conform to international norms.

In conclusion, de facto and de jure recognition are fundamental concepts in international

relations, reflecting the intricate balance between political realities and legal principles. While de

facto recognition acknowledges the practical existence of states and entities, de jure recognition

confers legitimacy and legal status under international law. Understanding the nuances of these

concepts is essential for navigating the complexities of global diplomacy and fostering peaceful

relations among nations.

6. EXPLAIN DIFFERENT TYPES OF STATES

Kinds of States in International Law: Based

on Status
There are main types of states in International Law based on the
status of the states.
Let’s explore each kind of state in International Law in a bit more
detail:
Sovereign States
Sovereign states are entities that possess full and complete
independence. They are not controlled by foreign powers and have
the authority to make and enforce their own laws within their
territories.
Sovereign states have defined territories, permanent populations,
governments and the capacity to engage in international relations.
They enjoy the highest degree of autonomy and are considered
equal entities in the eyes of International Law.
Not-Fully Sovereign States
This category includes entities that, while recognised as states, may
not possess full sovereignty. They might have limitations on their
independence, often due to historical, political or legal factors.
Non-Typical States
Non-typical states refer to entities that do not fit the conventional
criteria of a sovereign state. This category could include entities with
unique legal or political statuses that deviate from the traditional
understanding of statehood.
Special cases like the Holy See (Vatican City) or international
organisations with a degree of sovereignty can be considered non-
typical. These entities often have specific roles and functions that
distinguish them from standard sovereign states.
Kinds of States in International Law:
General Classification
Recognised States
Recognised states represent entities widely acknowledged by the
international community as sovereign actors. Recognition is a
political act, symbolising acceptance of a state’s legal personality.
The criteria for recognition can vary and it often involves a balance
of political, historical and strategic considerations among states.
De Facto States
De facto states control territories and have functioning governments
but lack universal international recognition. These entities, such as
Taiwan, operate with a degree of autonomy but face challenges in
attaining global acceptance as fully sovereign states.
Microstates
Microstates are characterised by their diminutive sise, both in terms
of territory and population. Examples include Monaco, San Marino
and Nauru. Despite their small scale, these entities enjoy the full
rights and responsibilities of sovereign states in the international
arena.
Failed States
Failed states are those unable to perform basic functions, such as
providing security and public services and are often plagued by
internal conflicts. Somalia during the 1990s serves as a prominent
example of a state grappling with a breakdown of governance
structures.
Emerging States
Emerging states are entities in the process of gaining international
recognition as independent sovereigns. Kosovo, having declared
independence from Serbia, exemplifies an emerging state
navigating the complex landscape of recognition and acceptance.
Member States
International organisations, notably the United Nations, have
member states that enjoy full participation and equal
representation. Each member state contributes to the decision-
making processes of these organisations, forming the basis for
collaborative global governance.
Non-Member States
Certain entities, like the Holy See (Vatican City), may not be full
members of international organisations but hold observer status or
participate in specific capacities. This unique status allows them to
engage with the international community without full membership
privileges.
Conclusion
The diverse kinds of states in International Law underscore the
complexity of the global political landscape. The recognition or lack
thereof, shapes the legal status and role of states in the
international arena.
Understanding the kinds of states in International Law is essential
for comprehending the intricacies of diplomatic relations, the
functioning of international organisations and the evolving nature of
statehood in our interconnected world. As the dynamics of global
politics continue to evolve, so too will the classifications and roles of
states in the international legal system.

1. Explain State responsibility of a state for international

delinquency

Every State has certain obligations under International Law. A State

has a capacity to perform

totality of rights and duties under the International law. Rights and
duties of the States are

correlated with each other. A right of one State is Duty of another

State. In case a State violates

its duties as provided by the rule of International Law, it becomes

responsible for the other State

having corresponding rights as provided by the rule of International

Law.

The responsibility of State may be Direct or Indirect. The aggrieved

party (State) has a right to

claim compensation from other State.

According to Starke. " the rules of International Law as to state

responsibility concern the

circumstances in which, and the principles whereby, the Injured

State becomes entitled to
redress for the damage suffered."

The law relating to State Responsibility is in a developing State and

probably it may be

developed to stages wherein states may be held responsible for the

violation of International Law

and International Crimes. The State responsibility during the war has
been generally accepted in

Article 5 of the Hague Convention, 1907. It provides that if a

belligerent state violates rules of

war, it shall be responsible for the payment of Compensation. It shall

also be responsible for all

acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces.

Kinds of State Responsibility

There are two kinds of State Responsibility one is Direct State

Responsibility and another is

Indirect State Responsibility. State Responsibility may incur in two

ways either by the act of the

State or by the act of Individual. The responsibility of the state for its
own act is called as

original responsibility or direct responsibility and the responsibility

for the acts other than its

own is called as vicarious or indirect responsibility.

Direct Responsibility

Direct Responsibility means the responsibility of the state for its own
act is called as original

responsibility or direct responsibility.

A state is a legal person and it performs its function through

different organs and Agencies, and

if any wrong act is done by any one of them, the state becomes
responsible directly on their
behalf. The organs and agencies of the state includes the following –

a) Executive and administrative organs -

When an act causing injury to another State is committed by the

head of the Government

of a State or official or other individuals, commanded or authorized

by the head of government, a

state becomes responsible for their acts. Some Jurist of International

Law called this act as

"International delinquency". Thus International delinquency may be

caused by the by the higher

authorities or by subordinate officers and employees if they have

been, commanded or

authorized by the former however, the responsibility of the state for

both of them will be the

same.

b) Acts of judiciary -

Judiciary is independent under International Law but if the Court

gives any such

judgment which is contrary to International or obligations of the

State then a State is responsible.

c) Acts of members of armed forces -

A state shall be responsible for all injuries acts of members of its

armed forces if the act

has been commanded or authorized by the State. But if the act is

committed by the members of

its armed forces in the exercise of their official functions without the
command or authorization

of the state it is not regarded as to state act and such act state is
not responsible for such act.

d) Diplomatic representatives -
Diplomatic representatives enjoy immunities in the state where they
are sent and are

excluded from the jurisdiction of the receiving state for their acts
but a State becomes

responsible for those injuries acts which are performed by them are
the command or the

authorization of his home state.

e) Constituent units of Federal States -

It is a fundamental principle of international law that a federal state

is responsible for the

wrongful act of its constituent units. A federal state cannot throw

away its responsibility by

alleging that its constitutional power of control over them is

insufficient.

II) Indirect State Responsibility

Indirect State Responsibility means the responsibility for the acts

other than its own is called as vicarious or indirect responsibility.

Indirect state responsibility is an obligation of the state to prevent

its own subject as well as foreign subject living within its territory
from committing such acts which may cause injury to another State.
If any wrongful act is done by an individual or group of individuals, a
State to

which they belong is held responsible for their acts. Such

responsibility is called indirect responsibility. According to
Oppenheim "if State has not exercised due diligence, it can be

made responsible and held liable to pay damages(Compensation)".

For example - Crime against foreign sovereign or Ambassadors,

Offences to the flag of foreign

State., Injurious propaganda directed against a foreign State. State

responsibility arises only when the organ of the state have not
exercise sufficient care in preventing the offense.
a) State responsibility for the acts of mob violence - A state is
responsible for the harm caused to the aliens by mob violence only
when it has not made due diligence to prevent it. This Principal is
uncertain ambiguous because "due diligence" to prevent mob
violence depends upon the time, to act and circumstances. If the
alien person is some officer of the foreign country then the state
responsibility is more. The responsibility of state also extends to
officers or servant or the International Organisation.

b) State responsibility for the act of insurgents –

It is the responsibility of the State to try to prevent the violent act of

revolutionaries. According to Fenwick, State Responsibility for the
act of insurgent is different from state responsibility for the acts of
mob violence. Calvo Doctrine has reference to state responsibility
for the acts of insurgents.

55.Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case. History[edit] The situation which

gave rise to the dispute and the facts which preceded the filing of
the British Application are recalled in the Judgment. The coastal
zone concerned in the dispute is of a distinctive configuration. Its
length as the crow flies exceeds 1,500 kilometers. Mountainous
along its whole length, very broken by fjords and bays, dotted with
countless islands, islets and reefs (certain of which form a
continuous archipelago known as the skjærgård, "rock rampart"),
the coast does not constitute, (as it does in practically all other
countries in the world) a clear dividing line between land and sea.
The land configuration stretches out into the sea and what really
constitutes the Norwegian coastline is the outer line of the land
formations viewed as a whole. Along the coastal zone are situated
shallow banks which are very rich in fish. These have been exploited
from time immemorial by the inhabitants of the mainland and of the
islands: they derive their livelihood essentially from such fishing. In
past centuries British fishermen had made incursions in the waters
near the Norwegian coast. As a result of complaints from the King of
Norway, they abstained from doing so at the beginning of the 17th
century and for 300 years. But in 1906 British vessels appeared
again. These were trawlers equipped with improved and powerful
gear. The local population became perturbed, and measures were
taken by Norway with a view to specifying the limits within which
fishing was prohibited to foreigners. Incidents occurred, became
more and more frequent, and on July 12, 1935 the Norwegian
Government delimited the Norwegian fisheries zone by Decree.
Negotiations had been entered into by the two Governments; they
were pursued after the Decree was enacted, but without success. A
considerable number of British trawlers were arrested and
condemned in 1948 and 1949. It was then that the United Kingdom
Government instituted proceedings before the Court. Facts[edit] On
28 September 1949, the UK requested that the International Court
of Justice determine how far Norway's territorial claim extended to
sea, and to award the UK damages in compensation for Norwegian
interference with UK fishing vessels in the disputed waters, claiming
that Norway's claim to such an extent of waters was against
international law. Judgment[edit] On 18 December 1951, the ICJ
decided that Norway's claims to the waters were consistent with
international laws concerning the ownership of local sea-space.[1]
The Court found that neither the method employed for the
delimitation by the Decree, nor the lines themselves fixed by the
said Decree, are contrary to international law; the first finding being
adopted by ten votes to two, and the second by eight votes to four.
Three Judges — MM. Alvarez, Hackworth and Hsu Mo appended to
the Judgment a declaration or an individual opinion stating the
particular reasons for which they reached their conclusions; two
other Judges—Sir Arnold McNair and Mr. J. E. Read—appended to the
Judgment statements of their dissenting Opinions.

Introduction

The world is now global and states share resources. International

trade connects the world, and trade economics helps states become
a part of the development processes. In the process, there are
possibilities of conflict in interests. Treaties help in regulating
behaviour and ensure mutual benefits. Through treaties, countries
decide the negotiation points and terms of the agreements.

Definition(s) of Treaties:

Treaty is a kind of agreement between countries or states, mutually

agreed upon. The document provides rights to the parties and
decides obligations. It is sometimes known as a pact or convention.
Treaty must be a written document mutually agreed upon and
signed by the parties. International Laws are regulating the treaty.
“The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’)., is
defined the word ‘treaty’ as:

‘An international agreement concluded between States in written

form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a
single instrument or two or more related instruments and whatever
its particular designation’ (Article 2 (1) (a)).

Check out the complete UPSC Syllabus

Features of Treaties:

Main features of treaties derived from the definition-

1. Treaties are written documents which means the verbal

agreements are not liable. Negotiation points or agreements
should be clearly described and signed by the states/nations
involved.
2. Treaties are regulated by international laws and regulations
and bound states with legal obligations.
3. It might be composed of one or two legal instruments to
describe the terms of agreements in an unambiguous manner.

Types of treaties

International treaties are of two types, Bilateral and Multilateral.

 Bilateral treaties- when only two states are involved in a treaty

agreement with the legal instrument of written law, are called
bilateral treaties. For example, India signed Bilateral
Investment treaties (BIT) with the United Kingdom in 1994 to
promote financially viable activities between the states.
 Multilateral treaties: When three or more three states are
involved in a treaty agreement through legal instruments, it is
called multilateral treaties and such as UNCLOS (united nation
convention on the law of sea, 1982), related to the sea
territories, and Kyoto Protocol 2005, associated with the
reduction of Green-House gases.

Visit to know more about UPSC Exam Pattern

Process of Treaty Formation

The treaty formation has the following steps:

Drafting and Negotiation

It is the first step of the treaty formation. The representatives of the

state present their points/terms for the agreement. Representatives
of the state can be government officials or diplomats; they hold the
power of negotiation on behalf of the state. The parties of the treaty
agreement find the common areas for negotiation. It is a complex
process and takes many rounds of discussion before reaching the
common negotiable terms.

Expressing consent
Taking the consent on the drafted negotiation document is an
important step. It obligated states to follow the rule commonly
decided by the states. VCLT gave two kinds of consent processes
under article 9 and article 11.

 Article 9 – Article 9 deals with the consent of the majority. This

process is more suitable for multilateral treaties or global
conventions. In this process, the treaty is adopted when two-
thirds or a majority of the state representative vote agrees on
it.
 Article 11- The treaty applies to the exchange of signatures
between parties. It includes the exchange of signature, treaty,
or instrument of exchange.

Ratification

When the states accept the treaty, ratification comes into the
picture. Ratification means the treaty is effective in the concerned
states and states need to create some legal rights and obligations.
Article 14 of VCLT deals with the ratification of the treaty.

Reservation

Term reservation refers to the exclusion of some areas of the treaty.

According to the VCLT, the reservation is defined as:

“Reservation is a unilateral statement, however, phrased or named,

made by a State when signing, ratifying, or acceding to a treaty,
whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of
specific provisions of the treaty in their application to that state.

Reservation gives liberty to the states to demand some exclusion for

the benefit of their states. The reservation can only be asked before
the signing or ratification.

Also see: UPSC Question Paper

Termination of Treaties

1. Treaties can be declared invalid in case of fraud, errors, and

corruption of state representatives. Treaties can be terminated
on various grounds.
2. The termination of the treaty by consent. Parties can consult at
any point and mutually terminate the treaties.
3. The parties can withdraw their participation from the
agreement.
 4. Treaty can be terminated based on the material beach; if one
part of the bilateral treaty violates the agreement’s provision,
the other party can terminate the agreement.

If the fundamental nature of the treaty gets changed, the treaty can
be terminated.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’)

defined the ground of termination in part V of the VLCT in section 3.
The comprehensive description of various grounds is explained in
article 60.

Conclusion

In the global world, human communities are bound together. States

exchange various capital and want to flourish. In this context, a
unified legal framework is needed. The Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’) delivers an inclusive legal framework
for international treaties. The codified structure and legitimacy of
VCLT secure the parties’ rights and bind them with the obligations
decided by the involved states.

Brief explanation of extradition in International Law

Concept

Extradition is the act by one jurisdiction of delivering a person who

has been accused

of committing a crime in another jurisdiction or has been convicted

of a crime in that other

jurisdiction into the custody of a law enforcement agency of that

other jurisdiction. It is a

cooperative law enforcement process between the two jurisdictions

and depends on the

arrangements made between them. Besides the legal aspects of the

process, extradition also

involves the physical transfer of custody of the person being

extradited to the legal authority

of the requesting jurisdiction.

The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any
obligation to

surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, because one

principle of sovereignty is that

every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.
Such absence of

international obligation, and the desire for the right to demand such
criminals from other

countries, have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements

to evolve. When no

applicable extradition agreement is in place, a sovereign may still

request the expulsion or

lawful return of an individual pursuant to the requested state’s

domestic law. This can be

accomplished through the immigration laws of the requested state

or other facets of the

requested state’s domestic law. Similarly, the codes of penal

procedure in many countries

contain provisions allowing for extradition to take place in the

absence of an extradition

agreement.[2]Sovereigns may, therefore, still request the expulsion

or lawful return of a

fugitive from the territory of a requested state in the absence of an

extradition treaty.

Definition

The term "Extradition" denotes the process whereby under treaty or

upon a basis of

reciprocity one state surrenders to another state at its request a

person accused or convicted of

criminal offences committed against the law of requesting state,

such requesting state being
competent to try the alleged offender. – J G Starke

It is the surrender by one state to another, an individual accused for

committing the crime in

the state requesting the surrender – Lawrence

Importance of Extradition

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

Brief explanation of extradition in International Law Ajay R 2

The general desire of all state to ensure that serious crimes do not
go unpunished. A

state in whose territory a criminal has taken refuge cannot

prosecute or punish him purely

because of some technical rule of criminal law or for lack of

jurisdiction. Therefore to close

the net round the fugitive offenders, international law applies the
maxim "aut punier aut

didere" (the offender must be punished by the state of refuge or

surrendered to the state

which can and will punish him, or either punish or extradite) Hence,
the necessity of

extradition is due to; A desire that no crime should go unpunished, It

would be better if the

criminal is punished where he committed the crime (territoriality of

criminal jurisdiction) .

Basic Criteria of Extradition

Generally extradition depends on bilateral treaties however, some

multilateral treaties do

exist such as European convention on extradition 1957 and some

convention concerning
suppression of terrorism, e.g. SAARC and European convention on
terrorism. Although there

is no recognised rules of extradition in IL apart from treaty but, in

bilateral extradition treaties

and legislations the following criteria are incorporated for extradition

(including that of

Extradition legislation of Nepal)

1. Generally political, religious or military offenders are not

extradited

2. A crime must be a punishable crime in both states (Principle of

Double criminality)

3. The criminal should be punished only for the crime for which he is
extradited

4. In the absence of an extradition treaty generally extradition is not

granted, if it is

granted than it is a mere courtesy or moral obligation

5. There must be a Prima Facie evidence that the requested fugitive

has committed the

offence (Tarasov case 1963, India)

6. Generally the requestee state will not surrender its own nationals

7. Extradition is not granted unless the person requested to be

surrendered undergoes the

sentence for crimes committed in the requested state

8. Extradition is granted only after the compliance of extradition

treaty and extradition

law (the case of Suchha Singh, Nepal)

9. For extradition there must be extraditable person and extradition

crime (e.g. minimum

level of punishment or for only serious crimes or jurisdiction on the

basis of
nationality like in Continental legal systems, however, Anglo US
systems may allow

Extradition of their own nationals as they regard criminal

jurisdictions essentially

territorial

Therefore, general principles were established that without some

formal authority

either by treaty or by statute fugitive offenders would not be

surrendered nor would their

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

Brief explanation of extradition in International Law Ajay R 3

surrender be requested. There was no duty to surrender or not to

surrender of the fugitive

offenders at international law, so extradition is called as "imperfect

obligation." In absence

of the treaty, extradition depended purely upon reciprocity or

courtesy and the surrender of

the fugitive offender is demanded through diplomatic channel.

However, no uniform practice

is found whether the requesting state may obtain the surrender of

its own nationals or

nationals of a third state. Most of the state refuses extradition of

their own national. Moreover

it depends on reciprocity.

Restriction on Extradition

International Law does not recognize right to extradition apart from

treaty (Julius stone),

however, there are certain conditions in which extradition is not

granted irrespective of
presence or absence of extradition treaty. As a general rule
following offences are not subject

to extradition proceedings:

1) Political Crime: Extradition is granted for political offense. Political

crime is a

controversial topic, it is included in almost all extradition treaty or

statutes, yet

political crime is not clearly defined. Some English cases like Re

Castioni (1891), Re

Meuiner (1894), attempts to explain what political crime is according

to which the

criteria for political crime are; the motive of the crime, the
circumstances of its

commission that it embraces specific offence only, eg treason or

attempted treason

that the act is directed against political organization or such of the

requesting state that

there must be two parties striving for political control in the state
where the offence is

committed, that the offence is committed in pursuance of that goal,

but excludes

anarchist and terrorist acts. (Meuiner 1891)

2) Military offences like refusal to serve in the mandatory military

service or desertion or

draft dodging etc does not constitute extraditable crime, however,

whether a particular

crime is a military crime or not can only be decided after looking at

the material

circumstances of each individual case, same way, religious crime is

a non-extraditable

crime as per the international refugee law.

3) If there is absence of double criminality extradition is not granted.
Double criminality

means the offence of the fugitive criminal must be of criminal

offense in both the

requestor and requestee state. Hence, if any act is considered a

crime in the state

requesting extradition both if it is not a crime in the country of

refuge extradition is

not granted. E.g. in Eisler case 1949 the fugitive Eisler was
convicted for being a

member of CPUSA but managed to flee and reach UK he was

arrested and produced

Downloaded by VARUNKUMAR Kl (www.varusruju@gmail.com)

lOMoARcPSD|12508730

Brief explanation of extradition in International Law Ajay R 4

for trial before the English magistrate, held to be released, on the

ground that the

offence for which he was convicted in USA was not recognised as a

crime in UK.

4) Application of speciality : A fugitive criminal cannot be tried for a

crime other than

the crime for which he was extradited, however, if he escapes and is

rearrested, he can

be tried for other offences too (US versus Rouscher, where the US
supreme court held

that the person extradited could only be tried for the crime
extradited for not for

another, the other leading case is R versus Corrigan, 1931)

5) In some situations extradition may be denied on the basis of

human right issues e.g. if
the fugitive may possibly face death penalty, extradition is not
granted, for instance

optional protocols to ICCPR and European convention on human

rights prohibits

death penalty, therefore if the surrendered fugitive is likely to face

death penalty he

may not be extradited, e.g. In Soering case, UK was prevented by

the European court

of Human right to extradite the fugitive to USA for possible penalty

of death in USA.

6) These institutions are related to the extradition, expulsion and

deportation is

connected with the immigration law of a country but reconduction is

akin to

extradition in a non official sense, it amounts to a police measure

where the foreigner

including unwanted foreigner is returned to the frontier under Police

escort (the cases

of Recondition of Chatre Subba Sharan Devan, Babita Devan),

however, the

sovereign rights of expulsion and recondition must be exercised only

in accordance to

the legal decision on reasons of national security and should never

be made in a

territory where there life and liberty is at risk as per article 13 of

ICCPR and the

doctrine of non-refoulment of the International refugee convention

1951 and its

protocol of 1961.

Conclusion
Extradition though in theory seems to be a phase in Justice Delivery
procedure which

undergo the transfer of an accused/convicted person to the state on

whose territory the alleged

crime has taken place/he has been convicted of a crime, by the

state on whose territory the

alleged criminal happens to be residing for the time being, however

in practice it is very

much influenced by the international Diplomacy. This is an part

where political

considerations play a noticeable role, unless there is an appropriate

bilateral extradition treaty.

The practice of extradition usually involves interposition of the

Judiciary in both countries.

44.United Nations Organization (UNO) is a global organization of

autonomous and independent states, founded on October 24, 1945.

The aftermath of World War2 led to the establishment of the United

Nations Organization to maintain peace and keep nations away from
war and destruction.

Around 51 countries of the world got together to maintain world

peace and security. They agreed to form the United Nations by
signing a treaty known as the United Nations Charter.

The United Nations is headquartered in New York City and has

added offices in Nairobi, Geneva, Vienna, and The Hague.

Primary objectives of the United Nations Organization

The core principles and objectives of the United Nations

Organization are:

 The primary goals of the United Nations Organization (UNO)

are to maintain global peace and security, to promote the well-
being of the world’s peoples, and to achieve these goals via
international and friendly collaboration.
 The United Nations Organization promotes worldwide
cooperation in economically, socially, and cultural
development.
  The UNO objective includes acknowledging all the fundamental
human rights of the people.
 The UN also aims to foster good ties between governments
based on the ideals of equal rights and self-determination.
 And to serve as a commonplace of the centre for coordinating
these national initiatives toward common goals.

United Nations Organization Six Main Organs

To fulfil these initiatives the United Nations Organization has six

main principles that work for the goal of world peace and security.
Each organ has its own set of purposes and works toward
cooperation in United Nations activities.

 Security Council: The core responsibility of this body is

sustaining international peace and security. The Security
Council of the United Nations Organization (UNO) is responsible
for deciding when and where a United Nations peace-related
mission should be conducted.

 General Assembly: The General Assembly’s role is to study,

debate, and make recommendations on issues of global
security and peace, such as development, human rights,
international law, and the peaceful resolution of international
conflicts.

 Economics and Social Council: The council was established

to serve as the UN’s premier platform for addressing global
economic and social issues. The work of the Economics and
Social Council includes resolutions, conducting research,
making meaningful suggestions, and drafting treaties for the
General Assembly’s consideration.

 UN Secretariat: The Secretariat is in charge of carrying out

the legislative and administrative work of the UN as instructed
by the Security Council, General Assembly, and other entities.

 Trusteeship Council: The Trusteeship council’s mission is to

oversee and facilitate the transition to independence and self-
governance of the Axis Powers’ colonies from World War Two
and the League of Nations’ designated areas. It was
decommissioned on November 1, 1994, in conjunction with the
independence of Palau, the last surviving United Nations
Organization (UNO) trustee territory.
  International Court of Justice: It is the primary judicial
body of the United Nations (UNO). It has two primary functions.
Firstly, to decide on legal issues presented by States in line
with international law. And to provide legal advice on matters
presented to it by authorized UN bodies and specialized
organizations.


International Court of Justice Documentation

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the
UN.

 International Court of Justice website

 Established through the adoption of the UN Charter and Statute of the
ICJ in 1945;
 Current status available from the UN Treaty Collection;
 Located in The Hague, The Netherlands;
 Successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice;
 Reports to the General Assembly
o Supplement 4 to the General Assembly Official Records (GAOR)
o A/session/4
o example: A/75/4

The Court has two functions:

 To settle, in accordance with international law, legal

disputes submitted by States, and
 To give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by
authorized UN organs and specialized agencies.

The Court sits in the Peace Palace, along with other institutions concerned
with international law, including the Peace Palace Library. The Peace Palace
Library is not a UN body. It provides excellent research guides on a variety of
international law topics.

International Labour Organization (ILO) – History

The ILO was established as an agency for the League of

Nations following World War I.

 It was established by the Treaty of Versailles in 1919.

 Its founders had made great strides in social thought and
action before the establishment of the organization itself.
 It became the first specialised agency of the United
Nations (UN) in the year 1946.
 The ILO has played a significant role in promoting labour and
human rights. It had held a significant position during the
Great Depression (1930s) for ensuring labour rights.
 It played a key role in the decolonization process and in the
victory over apartheid in South Africa.
 The organization got the Nobel Peace Prize in 1969, for its
efforts to improve peace amongst the classes, and for
promoting justice and fair work for the workers.

International Labour Organization (ILO) Objective

The ILO is the only tripartite U.N. agency. The ILO is a meeting
point for governments, workers and employers of ILO’s
member States to set labour standards, improve upon policies
and create programs that promote decent work for people. The
four strategic objectives at the heart of the Decent Work
agenda are:

 To develop and effectuate standards, fundamental principles,

and fundamental rights at work.
 To ensure that men and women have equal access to decent
work while enhancing opportunities for the same.
 To magnify the coverage and effectiveness of social protection
for everyone.
 To strengthen Tripartism and social dialogue.

International Labour Organization (ILO) – Structure

The basis of the ILO is the tripartite principle. The ILO

comprises the International Labour Conference,
the Governing Body, and the International Labour Office.

 International Labour Conference:

 The progressive policies of the ILO are set by the

International Labour Conference.

 The Conference is an annual event, which happens in

Geneva, Switzerland. The conference brings together all
the representatives of the ILO.

 Function: It is a panel for the review of the important

issues regarding labour.

 Governing Body:

 The Governing Body is the executive body of the

International Labour Organization.
  The governing body meets in Geneva. It meets three
times annually.

 The Office is the secretariat of the Organization.

 It is composed of 56 titular members, and 66 deputy

members.

 Functions:

 Makes decisions regarding the agenda and the

policies of the International Labour Conference.

 It adopts the draft Programme and Budget of the

Organization for submission to the Conference.

 Election of the Director-General.

 International Labour Office:

 It is the permanent secretariat of the International Labour

Organization.

 Functions: It decides the activities for ILO and is

supervised by the Governing Body and the Director-
General.

 The ILO member States hold periodically regional

meetings to discuss the relevant issues of the
concerned regions.

 Each of the ILO’s 183 Member States has the right to

send four delegates to the Conference: two from
government and one each representing workers and
employers, each of whom may speak and vote
independently.T