Ballb 304 Min

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi – 110040

(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Semester: Sixth Semester

Name of the Subject:

INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL LAW
LAW
Unit – 1
INTRODUCTION

NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW
• In the long march of mankind from the cave to the computer a
central role has always been played by the idea of law – the
idea that order is necessary and chaos inimical to a just and
stable existence. Every society, whether it be large or small,
powerful or weak, has created for itself a framework of
principles within which to develop. What can be done, what
cannot be done, permissible acts, forbidden acts, have all
been spelt out within the consciousness of that community.
Progress, with its inexplicable leaps and bounds, has always
been based upon the group as men and women combine to
pursue commonly accepted goals, whether these be hunting
animals, growing food or simply making money. Law is that
element which binds the members of the community together
in their adherence to recognised values and standards.
• It is both permissive in allowing individuals to establish their
own legal relations with rights and duties, as in the creation of
contracts, and coercive, as it punishes those who infringe its
regulations. Law consists of a series of rules regulating
behaviour, and reflecting, to some extent, the ideas and
preoccupations of the society within which it functions.
• And so it is with what is termed international law, with the

importantdifferencethattheprincipalsubjectsofinternationallaware
nationstates, not individual citizens. There are many contrasts
between the law within a country (municipal law) and the law
that operates
outsideandbetweenstates,internationalorganisationsand,incertain
cases, individuals. International law itself is divided into conflict
of laws (or private international law as it is sometimes called) and
public international law (usually just termed international law).

• Public international law covers relations between states in all
their myriad forms, from war to satellites, and regulates the
operations of the many international institutions. It maybe
universal or general, in which case the stipulated rules bind all
the states (orpractically all depending upon the nature of the
rule),orregional, where by a group of states linked
geographically or ideologically may recognise special rules
applying only to them, for example, the practice of diplomatic
asylum that has developed to its greatest extent in latin
america.
• The rules of international law must be distinguished from what
is called international comity, or practices such as saluting the
flags of foreignwarships at sea, which are implemented solely
through courtesy and are not regarded as legally binding.5
Similarly, the mistake of confusing international law with
international morality must be avoided. While they may meet
at certain points, the former discipline is a legal one both as
regards its content and its form, while the concept of
international morality is a branch of ethics.

SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
• . Subjects of International Law can be described as those
persons or entities who possess international personality.
Throughout the 19th century, only States qualified as
subjects of international law. After, the Second World War,
more and more new actors emerged in the international
legal arena such as the intergovernmental organizations
created by States, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
created by individuals, multinationals and even natural
persons (i.e. individuals). These can now be considered as
having to a large or sometimes limited extend the capacity
to become international persons. Subject of International
Law is instrumental for searching through the Catalogue.
Special attention is given to our subscriptions on databases,
e-journals, e-books and other electronic resources.

• Handbooks, leading articles, bibliographies, periodicals, serial
publications and documents of interest are presented in the Selective
Bibliography section. Links to the PPL Catalogue are inserted. The
Library's systematic classification → Subjects of international law and
subject heading (subject heading Subjects of International Law is
instrumental for searching through the Catalogue. Special attention is
given to our subscriptions on databases, e-journals, e-books and
other electronic resources. Finally, this Research Guide features links
to relevant websites and other online resources of particular interest.
• According to International Law, there are three theories on the
concept of subject:
• States alone are subjects of International Law
• Individuals alone are subjects of International Law
• States, Individuals and certain non-state entities are subjects of
International Law

• States alone are subjects of International Law
• According to this theory, the States alone are subjects of
International Law and that individuals are not subjects.
• This is a traditional theory
• The International Court of Justice treats States, because they are
sovereign political entities, alone as subjects.
• Corbett supports this theory
• States are entitles who can be legally distinguished from individual
human beings who compose them.
• States are subjects of International Law. Individual people are
objects of it.
• Individuals lack any judicial personality under International Law
because they do not have rights or duties under it.
• Disadvantage
– Does not address the issue of slavery, pirates etc.
– Theory is felt to be inadequate

CODIFICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
• Codification is the process through which rules of law are
committed to written form. It is usually mentioned in one breath
with progressive development. Within the broader topic of the
sources of international law, codification holds a peculiar place. The
process of codification tends to change the law, because
transforming unwritten rules into written rules requires precision,
systematization, and definition of the relevant terms and rules.
These changes can be minor or substantial. As all authors agree,
“pure” codification does not exist; it always involves some measure
of change. When this change is substantial, it is often is called
“progressive development” or “legislation.” History knows both
epic failures and celebrated successes. The former includes the
1930 Hague Conference and some of the projects of the
International Law Commission (ILC). The latter includes the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties and the Vienna Conventions on
Diplomatic and Consular Relations.

• Codification is often seen as beneficial, increasing certainty
through the rule of law and the development, coherence, and
sophistication of international law. Yet, it is also criticized for
decreasing flexibility, creating discord, and creating uncertainty
through the vagueness and generality of provisions in codification
treaties due to the requirement of consensus. Most post-1945
writings on codification also discuss, analyze, and criticize the
work of the ILC, undoubtedly the most influential codifier since its
creation. A final word is due on the sources on codification. The
topic of codification is somewhat esoteric; only one monograph is
dedicated to the topic. The vast majority of papers and chapters
discussing codification are part of a Festschrift, Liber Amicorum,
Essays in Honour of . . ., or other celebratory works. These often
present a somewhat loose discussion on the topic based on the
personal views and experience of eminent scholars of
international law and formehey often do not present an in-depth,
well-researched analysis of the issue proper with an analytical
approach evaluating the definition, role, and purpose of
codification in international law.



INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL LAW
LAW
Unit 2
SOURCES OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW

TREATIES
• A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use
to legally bind themselves . A treaty is the official document
which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the
objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion which acknowledges
the parties and their defined relationships.
• Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly
consistent format. A treaty typically begins with a preamble
describing the High Contracting Parties and their shared
objectives in executing the treaty, as well as summarizing any
underlying events (such as the aftermath of a war in the case of
a peace treaty). Modern preambles are sometimes structured as
a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs
for readability, in which each of the paragraphs begins with a
gerund (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).

• The High Contracting Parties; referred to as either the official title of
the head of state (but not including the personal name), e.g. His
Majesty The King of X or His Excellency The President of Y, or
alternatively in the form of "Government of Z"; are enumerated, and
along with the full names and titles of their plenipotentiary
representatives, and a boilerplate clause about how their
representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers
(i.e., the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their
respective high contracting party) and found them in good or proper
form. However, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
if the representative is the head of state, head of government or
minister of foreign affairs, no special document is needed, as holding
such high office is sufficient.
• The end of the preamble and the start of the actual agreement is
often signaled by the words "have agreed as follows."
• After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the
substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each article heading
usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group
articles under chapter headings.

CUSTOMS
• A central issue regarding the recognition of custom is
determining the appropriate methodology to know what
practices and norms actually constitutes customary law. It is
not immediately clear that classic Western theories of
jurisprudence can be reconciled in any useful way with
conceptual analyses of customary law, and thus some scholars
(like John Comaroff and Simon Roberts) have characterised
customary law norms in their own terms. Yet, there clearly
remains some disagreement, which is seen in John Hund's
critique of Comaroff and Roberts' theory, and preference for
the contributions of H. L. A. Hart. Hund argues that Hart's The
Concept of Law the conceptual problem with which scholars
who have attempted to articulate how customary law
principles may be identified, defined and how they operate in
regulating social behaviour and resolving disputes

• International customs
• Article 38(1)(b) of the ICJ Statute refers to "international custom" as
a source of international law, specifically emphasizing the two
requirements of state practice plus acceptance of the practice as
obligatory or opinio juries save necessitatis (usually abbreviated as
opinion juries).
• Derived from the consistent practice of (originally) Western states
accompanied by opinion juries (the conviction of States that the
consistent practice is required by a legal obligation), customary
international law is differentiated from acts of comity (mutual
recognition of government acts) by the presence of opinion juries
(although in some instances, acts of comity have developed into
customary international law, i.e. diplomatic immunity). Treaties have
gradually displaced much customary international law. This
development is similar to the replacement of customary or common
law by codified law in municipal legal settings, but customary
international law continues to play a significant role in international
law.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES
• The scope of general principles of law, to which Article 38(1) of
the Statute of the ICJ refers, is unclear and controversial but may
include such legal principles that are common to a large number
of systems of municipal law. Given the limits of treaties or custom
as sources of international law, Article 38(1) may be looked upon
as a directive to the Court to fill any gap in the law and prevent a
nonliquet by reference to the general principles.
• In earlier stages of the development of international law, rules
were frequently drawn from municipal law. In the 19th century,
legal positivists rejected the idea that international law could
come from any source that did not involve state will or consent
but were prepared to allow for the application of general principles
of law, provided that they had in some way been accepted by
states as part of the legal order. Thus Article 38(1)(c), for example,
speaks of general principles "recognized" by states

• In earlier stages of the development of international law, rules
were frequently drawn from municipal law. In the 19th century,
legal positivists rejected the idea that international law could come
from any source that did not involve state will or consent but were
prepared to allow for the application of general principles of law,
provided that they had in some way been accepted by states as
part of the legal order. Thus Article 38(1)(c), for example, speaks
of general principles "recognized" by states. An area that
demonstrates the adoption of municipal approaches is the law
applied to the relationship between international officials and their
employing organizations, although today the principles are
regarded as established international law.
• The significance of general principles has undoubtedly been
lessened by the increased intensity of treaty and institutional
relations between states. Nevertheless, the concepts of estoppel
and equity have been employed in the adjudication of
international disputes. For example, a state that has, by its
conduct, encouraged another state to believe in the existence of a
certain legal or factual situation, and to rely on that belief, may be
estopped from asserting a contrary situation in its dealings.

JURIST WORKS
• The decisions of international and municipal courts and the

publications of academics can be referred to, not as a source of
law as such, but as a means of recognizing the law established in
other sources. In practice, the International Court of Justice does
not refer to domestic decisions although it does invoke its
previous case-law.
• the International Court of Justice Statute states that the
'teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various
nations' are also among the 'subsidiary means for the
determination of the rules of law'. The scholarly works of
prominent jurists are not sources of international law but are
essential in developing the rules that are sourced in treaties,
custom and the general principles of law. This is accepted
practice in the interpretation of international law and was utilized
by the United States Supreme Court in The Paquete Habana case.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS,
SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTIONS
• The General Assembly is composed of representatives from all of
the 193 member states. As a deliberative body, they discuss
matters, mainly relating to budgetary issues, and then make
recommendations on these issues. It is widely established that
General Assembly determinations ‘do not impose themselves
upon the Court’2. Byrne & McCutcheon notes that the General
Assembly ‘has no power to compel action by any government, but
its recommendations carry political weight’ 3.Whilst these
recommendations are not binding on UN members, they can quite
often lead to the development of International Law. A good
example of this is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
which was a resolution adopted by the General Assembly in 1948.
As a resolution of the General Assembly, this declaration was not
binding on any of the UN members; however the declaration was
accepted over time as custom, and thus became International
Law.
OTHER SOURCES
• The United Nations Charter : Pursuant to Chapter XVI,

Article 103 of the United Nations Charter, the obligations under
the United Nations Charter overrides the terms of any other
treaty. Meanwhile, its Preamble affirms establishment of the
obligations out of treaties and source of international law.
• State practice : When examining state practice to determine
relevant rules of international law, it is necessary to take into
account every activity of the organs and officials of states that
relate to that purpose. There has been continuing debate over
where a distinction should be drawn as to the weight that
should be attributed to what states do, rather than what they
say represents the law. In its most extreme form, this would
involve rejecting what states say as practice and relegating it
to the status of evidence of opinion juries.



INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL LAW
LAW
UNIT-3
RECOGNITION,
EXTRADITION & THE
LAW OF THE SEA

RECOGNITION
• Diplomatic recognition in international law is a unilateral
political act with domestic and international legal
consequences, whereby a state acknowledges an act or status
of another state or government in control of a state (may be
also a recognized state). Recognition can be accorded either de
facto or de jure. Recognition can be a declaration to that effect
by the recognizing government, or an act of recognition such
as entering into a treaty with the other state. A vote by a
country in the United Nations in favour of the membership of
another country is an implicit recognition of that country by the
country so voting, as only states may be members of the UN.
• Diplomatic recognition must be distinguished from formal
recognition of states or their governments. The fact that states
do not maintain bilateral diplomatic relations does not mean
that they do not recognize or treat one another as states.

• A state is not required to accord formal bilateral recognition to
any other state, and some have a general policy of not doing
so, considering that a vote for its membership of an
international organisation restricted to states, such as the
United Nations, is proof of recognition.
• Some consider that a state has a responsibility not to recognize
as a state any entity that has attained the qualifications for
statehood by a violation of basic principles of the UN Charter:
the UN Security Council has in several instances (Resolution 216
(1965) and Resolution 217 (1965), concerning Rhodesia;
Resolution 541 (1983), concerning Northern Cyprus; and
Resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska) issued
Chapter VII resolutions (binding in international law) that denied
their statehood and precluded recognition. In the 2010
International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's
declaration of independence, the ICJ ruled that "general
international law contains no applicable prohibition of
declarations of independence."

• The Court carefully noted "that in all of those instances the Security
Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation
existing at the time that those declarations of independence were
made; the illegality attached to the declarations of independence thus
stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as
such, but from the fact that they were, or would have been, connected
with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of
general international law, in particular those of a peremptory
character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo, the Security Council
has never taken this position. The exceptional character of the
resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that no
general prohibition against unilateral declarations of independence
may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council.
• States can exercise their recognition powers either explicitly or
implicitly. The recognition of a government implies recognition of the
state it governs, but even countries which have a policy of formally
recognising states may not have a policy of doing the same regarding
governments.

EXTRADITION
• 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.
• Through the extradition process, one sovereign jurisdiction typically
makes a formal request to another sovereign jurisdiction ("the
requested state"). If the fugitive is found within the territory of the
requested state, then the requested state may arrest the fugitive
and subject him or her to its extradition process. The extradition
procedures to which the fugitive will be subjected are dependent
on the law and practice of the requested state.

• Between countries, extradition is normally regulated by treaties.
Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national
jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition.
It is an ancient mechanism, dating back to at least the 13th century
BC, when an Egyptian Pharaoh, Ramesses II, negotiated an extradition
treaty with Hittite King, Hattusili III.
• 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.

• 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.
• No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other
countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties
with Russia, the People's Republic of China, Namibia, the United
Arab Emirates, North Korea, Bahrain, and many other countries.
• Bars to extradition
• By enacting laws or in concluding treaties or agreements,
countries determine the conditions under which they may
entertain or deny extradition requests. Observing fundamental
human rights is also an important reason for denying some
extradition requests. It is common for human rights exceptions to
be specifically incorporated in bilateral treaties. Such bars can be
invoked in relation to the treatment of the individual in the
receiving country, including their trial and sentence. ese bars may
also extend to take account of the effect on family of the
individual if extradition proceeds.

THE LAW OF THE SEA
• Law of the Sea is a body of international law that concerns the
principles and rules by which public entities, especially states,
interact in maritime matters, including navigational rights, sea
mineral rights, and coastal waters jurisdiction. It is the public law
counterpart to admiralty law, which concerns private maritime
intercourse. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, or
"UNCLOS", concluded in 1982 and put into force in 1994, is generally
accepted as a codification of customary international law of the sea.
• Disputes are resolved at the International Tribunal for the Law of the
Sea (or "ITLOS"), a court in Hamburg. In 2017, ITLOS celebrated 20
years of existence, during which time it had settled some 25 cases.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction over all disputes concerning the
interpretation or application of the Convention, subject to the
provisions of article 297 and to the declarations made in accordance
with article 298 of the Convention. The judge are derived from a
wide variety of nations.

• The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the
Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that
resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. The
Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of
nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing
guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of
marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982,
replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year
after Guyana became the 60th nation to ratify the treaty. [1] As of
June 2016, 167 countries and the European Union have joined in the
Convention. It is uncertain as to what extent the Convention
codifies customary international law.
• While the Secretary-General of the United Nations receives
instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides
support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has
no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention.

• There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the
International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling
Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). (The
ISA was established by the UN Convention.)
• UNCLOS replaces the older 'freedom of the seas' concept, dating
from the 17th century: national rights were limited to a specified
belt of water extending from a nation's coastlines, usually 3
nautical miles (5.6 km) (Three-mile limit), according to the
'cannon shot' rule developed by the Dutch jurist Cornelius van
Bynkershoek.
• All waters beyond national boundaries were considered
international waters: free to all nations, but belonging to none of
them (the mare liberum principle promulgated by Hugo Grotius).
• In the early 20th century, some nations expressed their desire to
extend national claims: to include mineral resources, to protect
fish stocks, and to provide the means to enforce pollution
controls.



INTERNATIONAL
INTERNATIONAL LAW
LAW
Unit – 4
CONTEMPORARY
INTERNATIONAL
ISSUES
PROHIBITION OF THE USE OF FORCE
• The prohibition of the threat or use of force constitutes one of the
cornerstones of the modern international legal order. Besides being
laid down explicitly in Art. 2 (4) UN Charter and referred to in many
other treaties, it is today universally accepted as a norm of
customary international law. Moreover, it is agreed by many to
belong to the special category of international ius cogens, which
gives expression to the fundamental importance of the prohibition,
as well as to its general acceptance by the international
community. In the terms of modern politics, the non-use of force
between States represents one of the core values of the
international community.
• Although the use of force is still very much a fact in today’s
international community, in recent years concentrating on the fight
against terrorism, on policing the sea, on restoring order in failed
States, and on upholding human rights vis-à-vis dictatorial regimes,
the debate on each of those incidents hardly ever questioned the
general norm on the prohibition of force.

Instead, what is discussed and is repeatedly the subject of
controversy, are scope and content of certain exceptions to the
prohibition. Also, States justifying their unilateral use of military
force (such as recently Russia against Georgia in 2008 and
Ukraine in 2014, or France and the United States against forces
of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant in Syria in 2014–15)
regularly do so by claiming that one of those exceptions
applies, rather than by denying that there is a rule of
international law that gives rise to the necessity of them
justifying every single act of military force. As the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) aptly pointed out in the Nicaragf a State
acts in a way prima facie incompatible with a recognized rule,
but defends its conduct by appealing to exceptions or
justifications contained within the rule itself, then whether or
not the State’s conduct is in fact justifiable on that basis, the
significance of that attitude is to confirm rather than to weaken
the rule (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against
Nicaragua Case [Nicaragua v United States of America].

• Thus, it appears that international practice, by relying on and
discussing the scope of various exceptions to the rule, in principle
strengthens the rule that the use of military force between States is
generally prohibited. The actual relevance of the prohibition, however,
can only be properly assessed if its historical development (B.), its
scope and content (C.), and the exceptions to it (D.) are taken into
account.
• Historical Development of the

Prohibition
• Limitations to the use of military force by States in their international
relations are clearly an achievement of the 20 th century. Prior to World
War I, virtually no prohibition to resort to force or war against another
State existed on the international plane, the exception being Art. 1
Hague Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of
Force for the Recovery of Contract Debts That restriction upon the
freedom to use force was only a modest one, though, since it applied
only to the recovery of contractual debts and it was subject to the
debtor State’s having agreed to arbitral settlement and complying
with that settlement.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION
• The Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter is
expected to “determine the existence of any threat to
peace, breach of peace, or act of aggression and shall make
recommendations or decide what measures shall be taken
in accordance with Articles 413 and 424 to maintain or
restore international peace and security” (Article 39, UN
Charter). Usually the measures that the Security Council
recommends are called “sanctions.” In the past, the UN
Security Council has imposed sanctions in several cases
such as, Afghanistan,5 Angola,6 Ethiopia and Eritrea,7
Haiti,8 Iraq,9 Liberia,10 Libya,11 Rwanda,12 Sierra
Leone,13 Somalia,14 South Africa,15 Southern Rhodesia,16
Sudan17 and the former Yugoslavia.18 In the event that
sanctions prove to be inadequate in resolving the
international problem, the Security Council can resort to the
use of force.

The United Nations Charter is based on the possibility of the use of
collective force dispensable to the UN Organization in the event that
there is a threat to international peace and security. In the case of the
intervention in Haiti to restore democratic government, the UN
authorized intervention as it “constituted a threat to inter national
peace and security.” The intervention followed the overthrow of Haiti’s
democratically elected government, the first of its kind in Haiti.
Similarly, in Sierra Leone, the UN Security Council authorized the use of
force to implement an arms embargo in order to restore the
democratically elected government. However, in a series of similar
cases where democratic elected leaders were overthrown, in Burma
(1990), Nigeria (1993), Niger (1996) and Pakistan (1999), the Security
Council did not authorize the use of force or sanctions. What explains
this discrepancy?
•There have been several instances where the Security Council was not
able to make recommendations fast enough to stop harm to the
defendant States’ immediate sovereign interests. This incapacity of the
Security Council has been either due to the veto power in the Council
disallowing action in cases where some big power interest is involved

, or merely the lack of adequate time for the Security Council to
make recommendations for action after an attack has occurred. It is
in instances like these that the defendant State is urged to exercise
its inherent “right of individual or collective selfdefense” until the
Security Council responds with legally sanctioned
recommendations.
•the case of the First Gulf War of 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait (2
August 1990), the US acted with military force on behalf of Kuwait
(6 August 1990), as self defense until the Security Council passed a
resolution 678 (29 November 1990) sanctioning force to end the
conflict and the breach of international law by Iraq.
• Self-defense
•Self-defense in inter-State relations may be defined as a lawful use
of force (principally, counter-force), under conditions prescribed by
international law, in response to a previous unlawful use (or, at
least, a threat) of force… The thesis of self-defense as a legitimate
recourse to force by Utopia is inextricably linked to the antithesis of
the employment of unlawful force by Arcadia

RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT
• The principle of the Responsibility to Protect is based upon the
underlying premise that sovereignty entails a responsibility to
protect all populations from mass atrocity crimes and human rights
violations. The principle is based on a respect for the norms and
principles of international law, especially the underlying principles of
law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights, and
armed conflict.
• The Responsibility to Protect provides a framework for employing
measures that already exist (i.e., mediation, early warning
mechanisms, economic sanctions, and chapter VII powers) to
prevent atrocity crimes and to protect civilians from their occurrence.
The authority to employ the use of force under the framework of the
Responsibility to Protect rests solely with United Nations Security
Council and is considered a measure of last resort. The United
Nations Secretary-General has published annual reports on the
Responsibility to Protect since 2009 that expand on the measures
available to governments, intergovernmental organizations, and civil
society, as well as the private sector, to prevent atrocity crimes.
• The Responsibility to Protect has been the subject of considerable
debate, particularly regarding the implementation of the principle
by various actors in the context of country-specific situations,
such as Libya, Syria, Sudan and Kenya, for example. It has also
been argued that commensurate with the responsibility to
protect, international law should also recognize a right for
populations to offer militarily organized resistance to protect
themselves against genocide, crimes against humanity and war
crimes on a massive scale.
• Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its

populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and
crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the
prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through
appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility
and will act in accordance with it. The international community
should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise
this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing
an early warning capability.

• The international community, through the United Nations, also has
the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and
other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the
Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we
are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive
manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the
Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in
cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate,
should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities
manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war
crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the
need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the
responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes,
ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications,
bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law.
We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate,
to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from
genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity
and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and
conflicts break out.
THANK YOU


Ballb 304 Min

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ballb 304 Min

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi – 110040

Semester: Sixth Semester

Name of the Subject:

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

• And so it is with what is termed international law, with the

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Semester: Sixth Semester

Name of the Subject:

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

• The decisions of international and municipal courts and the

• The United Nations Charter : Pursuant to Chapter XVI,

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Semester: Sixth Semester

Name of the Subject:

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Semester: Sixth Semester

Name of the Subject:

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

• Historical Development of the

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

• Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law

You might also like