1.

Introduction

Poverty is a state or condition in which a person or community lacks the financial resources and
essentials for a minimum standard of living. Poverty means that the income level from employment is so
low that basic human needs can't be met. Poverty-stricken people and families might go without proper
housing, clean water, healthy food, and medical attention. Each nation may have its own threshold that
determines how many of its people are living in poverty.

According to the World Bank, India accounted for the world's largest number of poor people in 2012
using revised methodology to measure poverty, reflecting its massive population. However, in terms of
percentage, it scored fairly lower than other countries holding large poor populations.[34] In July 2018,
World Poverty Clock, a Vienna-based think tank, reported that a minimal 5.3% or 70.6 million Indians
lived in extreme poverty compared to 44% or 87 million Nigerians. Till 2019, Nigeria and Congo
surpassed India in terms of total population earning below $1.9 a day.[35][36] Although India is
expected to meet the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals on extreme poverty in due time, a
very large share of its population lives on less than $3.2 a day, putting India's economy safely into the
category of lower middle income economies.

Indian response to tackle this menace

Although any government can claim jurisdiction to a crime committed on the high seas, regardless of the
nationality of culprit, the international response to piracy has been largely confused and ineffective.

Pirates have been the scourge of mariners since ancient times, and locations as widespread as the
Caribbean, the Barbary Coast, and even the western seaboard of India have been known, historically, for
their depredations. Contrary to the romantic, swashbuckling image projected by Hollywood, pirates
were actually ruthless renegade cut-throats whose motivations were entirely mercenary.

Little has changed with time. Piracy had always tended to impact negatively on seaborne trade and
commerce, but with the modern day grid-locking of international markets, and the utter dependence of
economies on steady energy supplies, the effect of maritime perturbations such as the recent upsurge in
piracy off Somalia can become exponentially magnified.

Lawless Waters

Dominated by the Horn of Africa (HoA), the Gulf of Aden forms a funnel for 24,000 merchant ships
annually transiting the Suez Canal carrying energy and raw material to Europe and finished goods to
Africa and the Middle East. The abjectly poor Somali Republic, which occupies most of the Horn, has
been in a state of turmoil for nearly two decades, and is only notionally governed by a Transitional
Federal Government.

International Reaction

From just 10-15 incidents in 2004, the waters of the Gulf of Aden saw acts of piracy and hijacking
spiraling rapidly to 80 in 2008, and growing increasingly audacious in nature. In an attempt to tackle this
menace, the UN Security Council first adopted Resolution 1816 in June 2008, authorizing nations to
deploy warships for counter-piracy operations in Somali territorial waters. This was followed by
Resolution 1838 in October 2008 urging all maritime states to despatch naval units to fight piracy, off
the HoA.

Despite two NATO and EU naval task forces (and recently one each from the PLA and Russian Navies)
and many individual warships having been deployed, piracy continues unabated, leading to great unease
amongst seafarers world-wide. Should this trend persist, shipping companies and marine insurers will be
forced to hike up their rates. This could deal a further blow to the tottering world economy, and India
will suffer too. According to U.S. Navy sources, about 30% of the hijacked vessels are dhows, either
registered in Gujarat or carrying Indian crews. Furthermore, as a major maritime nation in the Indian
Ocean, India is expected to uphold law and order in its neighbourhood.

India’s Stakes

India has had encounters with piracy earlier, but like other maritime nations, she has been very
reluctant to take resolute action against Somali pirates, despite the persistent urgings of the Indian
Navy. Perhaps this has something to do with the complexities of legal, jurisdictional and sovereignty
issues, as two examples will show.

In October 1999 the Japanese owned & manned bulk carrier Alondra Rainbow plying under the
Panamanian flag was hijacked in Indonesian waters. Having set the master and crew adrift, the pirates
changed the ship’s name to Mega Rama and set sail westwards for the open waters of the Indian Ocean
with $14 million worth of cargo. The Singapore piracy reporting centre raised an alarm and the disguised
vessel was sighted in Indian waters off Kochi. After a dramatic high seas chase involving first the Indian
Coast Guard and then the Indian Navy, the vessel was captured and the pirates brought to justice.
However, six years later, the pirates were set free by an Indian court for technical lacunae in the
prosecution case.

Poverty Inequality relation

As with measures of poverty, measures of inequality have also been characterised in terms of whether
they satisfy certain desirable axioms for making inequality comparisons. According to the relative
definition of inequality, inequality is deemed to be unaffected if all incomes change by the same
proportionate amount. An inequality measure satisfying this property is 'scale invariant'. Although this
relative view of inequality is the
one most often used in applied literature, an "absolute" definition has also been proposed and studied
more extensively in the theoretical literature. According to this view, inequality is deemed to be
unaffected if all incomes increase or decrease by the same absolute, or additive, amount. Equivalently, a
measure satisfying such a property is 'translation invariant'.Contrary to the heavy focus on relative
inequality in the applied literature, there is in fact no theoretical justification for preferring this relative
view over the absolute view (Bosmans et al., 2011). Rather, the choice between them is a normative
one. Amiel and Cowell (1999a, 1999b)find, using questionnaire responses from a series of simple
experiments,that people do indeed disagree on these views of inequality. They found that 40% of the
university students they surveyed (in Israel, the UK and US) think about inequality in absolute rather
than relative terms. In similar studies to some of the Amiel and Cowell experiments, Harrison and Seidl
(1994) and Ravallion (2016) have generally found similar splits between the relative and absolute views.
Interestingly, Ravallion notes that in his sample "the "absolutists" are a clear majority when the stylised
incomes are "low" but the "relativists" become the majority when the incomes are "high".

2.

Introduction - Law of Nations and why is it so important

It is an ancient and a salutary feature of the Anglo-American legal tradition that the Law of Nations is a
part of the law of the land to be ascertained and administered, like any other, in the appropriatecase.
This doctrine was originally conceived and formulated in Eng-land in response to the demands of an
expanding commerce and under the influence of theories widely accepted in the late sixteenth, the
seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. It was brought to America in the colonial years as part of the
legal heritage from England. Itwas well understood by men of legal learning in America in the eight-
eenth century when the United Colonies broke away from Englandto unite effectively, a little later, in
the United States of America.In the ensuing years of national growth, some of its postulates
wereabandoned in political controversy; and some became blurred, chieflyin consequence of an
increasing absorption in problems of internaldevelopment. Others took firm root to become unique
features ofAmerican federalism. All this may be understood if we begin with at least a brief sketch of the
original heritage. With the heritagebefore us, we should be prepared to consider in somewhat greater
detail its influence upon the formation and the implementing of thenational constitution. Thereafter, in
a sequel to the present paper,we shall review the progress of the Law of Nations in the UnitedStates,
taking account both of ideas which were abandoned or mod-ified and of ideas which have become
firmly established in what maybe described fairly as the American constitutional tradition.

II

It is to be emphasized at the outset that the Law of Nations inthe eighteenth century embraced a good
deal more than the body ofpractice and agreement which came later to be called public inter-national
law. In the De Jure Belli ac Pacis of Hugo Grotius and in the treatises of his successors, it had been
expounded as a universal
law binding upon all mankind.' In countries of the common law, at least, arbitrary distinctions between
private and public right or duty were still far in the future. The universal law was law for individuals no
less than for states. As such, it was concerned somewhat in-discriminately with matters between
individuals, between individuals and states, and between states. As yet unhindered by the dogmas of
more restrictive classification, its major divisions were essentially the product of historical evolution.
English lawyers were accustomed to identify the major divisions as the law of merchants, the law
maritime,and what, for want of a better name, we may call the law of states.

Just War

Just war theory deals with the justification of how and why wars are fought. The justification can be
either theoretical or historical. The theoretical aspect is concerned with ethically justifying war and the
forms that warfare may or may not take. The historical aspect, or the "just war tradition," deals with the
historical body of rules or agreements that have applied in various wars across the ages. For instance,
international agreements such as the Geneva and Hague conventions are historical rules aimed at
limiting certain kinds of warfare which lawyers may refer to in prosecuting transgressors, but it is the
role of ethics to examine these institutional agreements for their philosophical coherence as well as to
inquire into whether aspects of the conventions ought to be changed. The just war tradition may also
consider the thoughts of various philosophers and lawyers through the ages and examine both their
philosophical visions of war’s ethical limits (or absence of) and whether their thoughts have contributed
to the body of conventions that have evolved to guide war and warfare.

Saint Augustine of Hippo

13 November 354 – 28 August 430 AD)[22] was a Roman African, Manichaean, early Christian
theologian, doctor of the Church, and Neoplatonic philosopher from Numidia whose writings influenced
the development of the Western Church and Western philosophy, and indirectly all of Western
Christianity. He was the bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa and is viewed as one of the most
important Church Fathers of the Latin Church for his writings in the Patristic Period. Among his most
important works are The City of God, De doctrina Christiana, and Confessions.

According to his contemporary, Jerome, Augustine "established anew the ancient Faith".[a] In his youth
he was drawn to Manichaeism and later to neoplatonism. After his baptism and conversion to
Christianity in 386, Augustine developed his own approach to philosophy and theology, accommodating
a variety of methods and perspectives.[23] Believing that the grace of Christ was indispensable to
human freedom, he helped formulate the doctrine of original sin and made seminal contributions to the
development of just war theory. When the Western Roman Empire began to disintegrate, Augustine
imagined the Church as a spiritual City of God, distinct from the material Earthly City.[24] His thoughts
profoundly influenced the medieval worldview. The segment of the Church that adhered to the concept
of the Trinity as defined by the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople[25] closely identified
with Augustine's On the Trinity.
Hugo Grotius

(Huig de Groot, or Hugo de Groot) (April 10, 1583 – August 28, 1645) worked as a jurist in the Dutch
Republic and laid the foundations for international law, based on natural law. He was also a theologian,
philosopher, statesman, Christian apologist, playwright, and poet. His masterwork, De lure Belli ac Pacis
(“On the Law (and Rights and Wrongs) of War and Peace,” 1625) secured his reputation as the founder
of the theory of “natural law.”

Grotius removed natural law from the jurisdiction of moral theologians and made it the business of
lawyers and philosophers, by asserting that by their very nature, natural laws were authoritative in
themselves, with or without faith in God. He held that the moral ethics of natural law applied to all
social and rational beings, Christian and non-Christian alike. Grotius also promoted the concept of “Just
War” as war which was required by natural, national and divine law under certain circumstances. He
developed a series of rules for “right conduct” of war, based on the principle that actions in a war should
“serve the right." Grotius also wrote De Jure Praedae (“On the Law of Prize and Booty”), one chapter of
which, defending free access to the ocean for all nations, was reprinted and widely circulated under the
title Mare Liberum.