DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT 447

the U.N. Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The Delhi Declaration
has called upon the Commission on Sustainable Development to identity at its next
session "an appropriate mechanism within the U.N. system".
The Delhi Declaration has asserted that forests are inalienable national resuurce
and has called for a U.N. mechanism on forests. The Delhi Declaration has reiterated the
right of the sovereign countries to choose between the various multiple "uses of their
forest resOurces in accordance with their national policies, promises and strategies.
According to the Declaration, the right of the Development must be fulfiled so as to
equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of the present and future
generations." The Declaration also calls upon the international community to seek and
adopt options for sustainable alternative forms of employment opportunities to people
dependent on forests. Further the Declaration has asked the international community "to
work for determining methodologies for the economic valuation of goods and services
provided by forests including inter alia traditional knowledge and technologies, biological
diversities, sequestration of carbon and other ecological processes and the forgone
opportunity costs." The Declaration has also called for "increasing financial assistance
provided by the developed countries and international organisations including a
restructured Global Environmental Facility (GEF) to sustain investment in the Forestry
sector in developing countries within a given time frame through transparent mechanisms
to assist and meet the incremental costs incurred to implement sustainable development
and for "tacilitating open and free international trade in forest products through the
removal of unilateral and discriminatory measures that impede market access, while
ensuring that the sustainability criteria on forest management is equitably applied to all
types of timber."
Landmark International Agreement on Forests.--On 17 December, 2007,
the General Assembly adopted a landmark agreement on international forest policy and
cooperation. It sets a new standard in forest management. After two weeks of intense
negotiations among delegates to the United Nations Forum on Forests, the agreement was
reached in April 2007. Though the new agreement is "non-legally Binding instrument in al
types of forests", it calls for greater international cooperation and national action to
reduce deforestation, reverse the loss of forest cover, present forest degradation,
promote sustainable livelihood and reduce poverty for all forest dependent peoples.
Conference to review the implementation of the decisions taken at
Rio Earth Summit (1992).-A U.N. conference to review the implementation of the
decision taken was held in June 1997. Nearly 160 member states participated in the
Conference. The Conference renewed its commitments and set goals for future. It was
generally agreed that major and crucial part of the recommendations of the Rio Summit
remained unimplemented. One of the main causes for this was that the differences
between developing and developed nations cver several matters still persisted. Yet
another reason for the same was the reluctance of the developed nations to bear the cost
of providing finances or technology at affordable rates to the developing nations to meet
the environment standards fixed for them.
Kyoto Environmental Summit on Global Warming (December 1997)-
N.B.: For this please see Appendix I
Conclusion.-As remarked by Maurice F-Strong, Secretary-General of the United
"The concept of respecting and
Nations Conference on the Human Environment,
the fulfilment of the legitimate,
protecting the human environment has its objective well as the interests of future
immediate ambitions of individuals and nations as

generations. The rectification of past errors,

wherever possible, has as its object the
nt and progress". "Environmental and
provision of better opportunities for devela
towards new goals, or goals which
Ecological Constraints have symbolized our thinking and
have been neglectedunder the influence of a culture of mass production

Orgn., Vol. 26 (1972), p. 169 at p. 172.

70. The United Nations and the Environment", Int.
DIPLOMAriC AGENTS
45

Criticism.-The theory of extra-territoriality was

and very much prevalent up to the past
a number of jurists supported it. But this
theory has now been discarded. A number of
jurists have severely criticizedit. In the view of Prof.
territoriality is not the correct basis of the immunities andOppenheim whichtheory
the of extra-
agents enjoy. In his view, it is wrong to contend that privileges the diplornatic
immunities because they are deemed to be they enjoy these privileges and
outside the territorial jurisdiction of the
receiving State. Fenwick has also criticized the theory of
expressed the view that this theory cannot be the basis ofextra-territoriality and has
enjoyed by the diplomatic agents. It has finally been abandoned inimmunity
and privileges
the Vienna Convention
which offers no theoretical basis for the
De Sieyes,8 the District Court of New York
privileges and immunities it grants." In Bergman v.
held "...that a Foreign Minister is immune from
the jurisdiction,
both criminal and civil of the courts in the
country to which he is
accredited, the grounds that he is the
on
representative, the alter ego, of his sOvereign
who is, of course, entitled to such
immunity, arid that subjection to the jurisdiction of the
courts, would interfere with the performance of
the duties as such minister.
Reference may also be made here to Ex
Court of Australia criticized and discarded the
party Petroff (1971) wherein the Supreme
the view in unambiguous terms that this
theory of extra-territoriality and expressed
cannot be regarded the true basis of the
immunities and privileges enjoyed by the
diplomatic agents in the present period. In this
case two citizens of Australia had thrown
some explosive substances on the Soviet
Chancery situated in Canberra. The proceedings were started against these two accused,
according to the criminal law of Australia. These two persons argued that on the basis of
the theory of extra-territoriality, the Chancery of Soviet Union is outside the territorial
jurisdicion of Australia and therefore they cannot be prosecuted under the law of Australia
The Court had, therefore, to decide whether or not the
Chancery
will be deemed to be out
of the territorial jurisdiction of Australia. The Supreme Court of Australia reveiwed the
earlier law on the point and ruled that it is wrong to say that Chancery is not within the
territorial jurisdictions of Australia and that the accused cannot be punished under the
local laws. Thus the Supreme Couit of Australia condemned and discarded theory of extra-
territoriality and upheld the conviction of the said two accused persons.
Functional Theory.Hn fact, the true basis of the immunities and privileges
enjoyed
by the diplomatic agents is not the theory of extra-territoriality but the special functions
which these agents perform. That is to say, diplomatic agents are given certain immunities
and privileges because of the special functions which they perform. t is thought
necessary and expedient to grant these immunities and privileges to them otherwise they
WOuld be greatly handicapped in the performance of their functions. Thus Diplomatic
Missions are accorded privileges and immunities for functional reasons as is clearly
brought out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
Immunities and privileges of Diplomatic agents'.-As observed by the
International Court of Justice on 15 December, 1979 in Case concerning United States
Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (Provisional Measures), "..... the institution of
diplomacy, with its concomitant privileges and immunities, has withstood the test of
centuries and proved to be an instrument essential for effective co-operation in the

6. L. Oppenheim, International Law, Vol. 1, Eighth Edition, p. 793.

7. Charles G. Fenwick, International Law, (Third Indian Aeprint, 1971), p. 552
8. (1946) 71F Supp. 334, Facts of this case have been mentioned in this chapter under the heading
"Immunity from Civil Jurisdiction."
9. See Statement of Dr. Sayid Mohammad (the then Central Minister of State for Law and Justice) inthe
Sixth Cormmittee on the item concerning Diplomalic Asylum appearing in 1J.L., Vol. 15 (1975). pp. 534
536 at p. 537.
See also for LA.S. (1954),. Q. No. 5: P.C.S. (1975), a Nos. 2 (e) and 9: P.C.S. (1969). Q. No.3(c)
P.C.S. (1971). Q. No. 9; P.C.S. (1983), Q. 10(a); P.C.S. (1985) Q. S(a); C.S.E. (1987), Q. 5(c); P.C.S.
(1995) Q. 8(b); UPPCS (2005) Q.6.