UNIT 1 NATURE, SCOPE AND THEROIES

International law, also called public international law or law of nations, the body of legal
rules, norms, and standards that apply between sovereign states and other entities that
are legally recognized as international actors. The term was coined by the English
philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832). Every society, irrespective of its population,
makes a legal framework (law) under which it functions and develops. It is permissive in
nature as it allows individuals to form legal relations with rights and duties and
restrictive in nature as it punishes the wrong-doers. These laws are referred to as
Municipal laws.
The world today requires a framework through which interstate relations can be
developed. International Laws fill the gap for this. The term ‘International law’, also
referred to as Laws of Nations was first coined by Jeramy Bentham in 1780. Every
country is referred to as ‘state’ in International Law.

International laws are a set of rules, agreements and treaties that are binding between
countries. Countries come together to make binding rules that they believe will benefit
the citizens. It is an independent system of law existing outside the legal framework of a
particular state.

Aim & Objectives of International law

The existence of international law is the result of increased interstate engagement. It
mainly aims to maintain international peace and security among different states. It also
helps in:
1. promotion of friendly relations among the member states (members of the
international community, for example, United Nations),
2. providing for basic humanitarian rights,
3. to solve international problems through international cooperation,
4. to refrain the state from using threat or force over the territory of any other state to
provide for the right to self-determination to people, and
5. to use peaceful methods to settle international disputes are few of its functions.

Realist Theory: -
According to this theory, only the Nation/States are considered to be the subject of
international laws. It relies on the principle that it is for the nation/state that the concept
of international law came into existence. These nations/states are distinct and separate
entities, capable enough to have their own rights, obligations and duties, possessing the
capability to maintain their rights under international law.
Prof. L. Oppenheim being the strong supporter of this theory believes that as the law of
nations is primarily a law between the states, to that extent, subjects of the law should
be nations only.
However, the theory has been criticised on the fact that it fails to explain the case of
slaves and pirates as under international law, slaves have been conferred with some
rights, while the pirates are treated as enemies of mankind.

Fictional Theory
Supporters of this theory suggest that the subjects of international law are the
individuals only and that legal order is for the well-being of the individuals. They firmly
believe that the Nation/state are nothing but aggregate of individuals as subjects.
Prof. Kelsen is the supporter of the theory and believes that the duties of the states are
ultimately the duty of the individuals of the states and there is no difference between
the international law and municipal law and have been made to be applicable on the
individuals only.
Even if the theory of Kelsen appears logically sound, it is seen that the international
law’s primary concern is with the rights and duties of the states.

Functional Theory
Both the Realist and the Fictional Theory take on an extreme course of opinion, but,
according to Functional Theory, neither state nor individuals are the only subjects. They
both are considered to be the subjects of modern International law as they both have
recognized rights, duties and obligations. Along with them, several other entities, like
African Union, have been accepted as subjects of international law.

Branches of International Law

Jus Gentium Referred to as ‘laws of nations’ in Latin, considered to be those set of rules
part of those portions of law mutually governing a relationship between two nations and
do not form part of a legal code or a statute.
Jus Inter Gentes Referred to as ‘law between the peoples’, considered to be those
agreements and treaties, mutually accepted by both countries.

According to Prof. L. Oppenheim, “Law of Nations or International Law is the name

for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered legally
binding by the civilized states in their intercourse with each other.”

UNIT 2 LAW OF SEA

In the context of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and
maritime law, a baseline is an important concept used to determine the outer limits of a
coastal state's territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and
continental shelf. Baselines serve as the starting point for measuring the breadth of
these maritime zones. Here's a brief explanation of baselines and their types:
A baseline is an imaginary or geodetic line that is drawn along the coast, generally
following the low-water mark. It's used as a reference point from which the breadth of
various maritime zones is measured.

Types of Baselines:

UNCLOS recognizes three main types of baselines:

a. Normal Baselines: These are generally used when the coastline is not highly
irregular. Normal baselines follow the low-water mark along the coast.

b. Straight Baselines: In some cases, especially when a coast has deep indentations or
is highly irregular, a coastal state may draw straight baselines connecting suitable points
on the coast without departing to any appreciable extent from the general direction of
the coast. These straight baselines can enclose bays and estuaries.

c. Archipelagic Baselines: Archipelagic states, which consist of groups of islands, may

use archipelagic baselines connecting the outermost points of the outermost islands and
drying reefs to enclose the waters between those islands. This allows the entire
archipelago to be treated as a single unit for maritime jurisdiction purposes.
The primary purpose of baselines is to establish the starting point for measuring the
breadth of the territorial sea, contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and
continental shelf. These baselines are crucial for determining the extent of a coastal
state's sovereignty and jurisdiction over its adjacent waters.

TERRITORIAL SEA:
It is that part of the sea which is directly next to the coastline and bounded by the high
seas. Article 2 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and UNCLOS Article 3
both express that states exercise sovereignty over this zone subject to the provisions of
the respective conventions and other rules of international law.

a. Width of the Territorial Sea:

The limit to exercise jurisdiction over the territorial sea became clear only after the first
world war, Article 3 of the 1982 Convention, however, notes that all states have the
right to establish the breadth of the territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical
miles from the baselines. This is clearly in line with state practice. For determining the
measurement of this range two methods have been laid down which are as follows:
Low water line
It was the Anglo Norwegian Fisheries case which propounded the principle regarding the
determination of the baseline w.r.t geographical realities. In this case, the method
applied by the Norwegians affected the fishing interest of UK because the straight
baseline method applied then created a chance to cover those parts of the sea which
belonged to High sea zone.

The court upheld the straight baseline method applied by Norway due to the peculiar
nature of its coastline. The method that determines the rule regarding the 12 Nautical
miles limit depends mainly on the nature of the state’s geographic position, normally
Low water line is preferred however in cases of countries like Norway straight baseline
method can be applied.

b. The Right of Innocent Passage

The right of foreign merchant ships (as distinct from warships) to pass unhindered
through the territorial sea of coast has long been an accepted principle in customary
international law, the sovereignty of the coast state notwithstanding.

UNCLOS in its Article 19 provides for an exhaustive list of activities for which the
passage is considered as innocent, the main factor to keep in mind is peace, good order,
or security of the coastal State. Article 24 prohibits coastal States from hampering the
innocent passage of foreign ships through the territorial sea unless specifically
authorized by other Articles of the LOSC.
Discrimination among other states or cargoes is prohibited for the Coastal States,
however, when it is found to be that any foreign Ship has committed any violation of the
aforesaid rule of the convention, the coastal states have the power to forbid entry of
such ship or take any measures as they deem necessary for their security.

Contiguous zone: -
It is that part of the sea which is located beyond and adjacent to the territorial waters of
the coastal states. The development of this zone arose due to the need of the state to
strengthen its regulation over the territorial sea.
It extends up to 12 nautical miles from the territorial sea, the object of this zone is only
for certain purposes as provided in the article 24 of the convention like to prevent
infringement of customs, immigration or sanitary laws of the coastal state, or to
conserve fishing stocks in a particular area, or to enable the coastal state to have
exclusive or principal rights to the resources of the proclaimed zone. The formation of
this zone is only for special purposes as prescribed in the convention, it does not provide
any air and space rights to the states.

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ):

The object for this zone arose due to controversy regarding fishing zones. Due to a lack
of regulation of limit regarding fishing zone, states began to claim the wide depth of
region under this zone. In the case of Tunisia vs Libya, the court regarded that the
concept of Exclusive Economic Zone can be associated as a part of Customary
International Law.

Article 55 of the UNCLOS describes the extension of this region from the baseline is up
to 200 nautical miles from the breadth of the territorial sea.

In the case of Coastal states as per article 56 of the convention, these states have
sovereign rights over the Exclusive Economic Zone for the purpose like:

Exploiting and exploring, conserving and managing natural resources

For the establishment of an artificial island, Marine Scientific research

iii. Other rights as specified in part IV of the convention.

In case of other states, it provides rights and duties of that which can be compared to
the high seas such as freedom of navigation, laying of pipelines and submarine cables,
they have to keep in mind the rights and duties of Coastal states during the exercise of
their own power.

Continental Shelf:
This zone arose due to the concept of Geography wherein as per 1982 convention, it
includes a natural seaward extension of a land boundary. This seaward extension is
geologically formed as the seabed slopes away from the coast, typically consisting of a
gradual slope (the continental shelf proper), followed by a steep slope (the continental
slope), and then a more gradual slope leading to the deep seabed floor. The limit up to
which its length extends up to 200 nautical miles.

These three areas, collectively known as the continental margin, are rich in natural
resources, including oil, natural gas and certain minerals.

The coastal states exercise an extensive sovereign-rights over this zone for the purpose
of exploiting its resources. The coastal state may, under article 80 of the 1982
Convention, construct and maintain installations and other devices necessary for
exploration on the continental shelf and is entitled to establish safety zones around such
installations to a limit of 500 metres, which must be respected by ships of all
nationalities.

EEZ and Continental shelf is almost similar in nature however the major point of
difference between the two is that under the 1982 convention a continental shelf can
exist without an EEZ but there cannot be an EEZ without the demarcation of the
Continental shelf.

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the concepts of
the high seas and the deep ocean floor are key components of the international legal
framework governing the use and protection of the world's oceans. Here's a detailed
explanation of both:

High Seas:
Definition:
The high seas, also known as international waters, refer to those parts of the ocean that
are beyond the territorial sea and the contiguous zone of any coastal state. Essentially,
it's the open and unclaimed expanse of the global oceans.
Key Features:
Freedom of the High Seas: UNCLOS establishes the principle of the freedom of the
high seas, which includes freedoms such as navigation, overflight, scientific research,
and fishing. These freedoms are enjoyed by all states and their vessels and aircraft.

Resource Exploitation:
On the high seas, states have the right to explore and exploit the living and non-living
resources, including fisheries and mineral resources, subject to conservation measures.
However, there are international agreements and regional fisheries organizations that
govern the sustainable use of these resources.

Protection of the Marine Environment:

Coastal states and the international community have a shared responsibility to protect
the marine environment of the high seas. UNCLOS sets out obligations to prevent and
control pollution, primarily through the International Maritime Organization (IMO) and
regional agreements.

Deep Ocean Floor:

Definition:
The deep ocean floor, also known as the international seabed area, refers to the seabed
and subsoil beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. It includes areas of the ocean floor
that are part of the high seas.

Resource Potential:
The deep ocean floor is of particular interest due to its potential for valuable mineral
resources, including polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and cobalt-rich
ferromanganese crusts.

Common Heritage of Mankind:

UNCLOS designates the deep ocean floor as the "common heritage of mankind." This
means that the resources of the deep ocean floor are considered the shared heritage of
all nations, and their exploration and exploitation should benefit all of humanity.

International Seabed Authority (ISA):

UNCLOS established the International Seabed Authority (ISA) as the organization
responsible for regulating and controlling mineral-related activities in the deep ocean
floor. The ISA issues exploration licenses, sets rules for resource extraction, and ensures
that activities are carried out for the benefit of all and in an environmentally sustainable
manner.

Principles of Benefit Sharing:

The ISA operates based on principles of benefit sharing, ensuring that the revenue
generated from the exploitation of mineral resources on the deep ocean floor is
distributed equitably among all states, with a particular focus on developing countries.

In summary, the high seas are areas of the ocean that are open to all states, where they
enjoy certain freedoms and rights, including resource exploitation. The deep ocean floor,
as part of the high seas, is subject to the principle of the common heritage of mankind,
with the International Seabed Authority overseeing mineral-related activities to ensure
they are conducted for the benefit of all nations and in an environmentally responsible
manner. Both concepts are central to the governance of ocean resources and the
protection of the marine environment under UNCLOS.

COMMISSION OF CONTINENTAL SHELF:

The Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) is a crucial component of
the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), particularly in relation
to Part VI, "Continental Shelf," of the convention. Article 76 of UNCLOS provides the
legal framework for the establishment of the CLCS and outlines the procedures and
principles governing the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf. Here's a
detailed explanation of the role of the CLCS in accordance with Article 76:
Article 76 of UNCLOS:
Article 76 of UNCLOS sets out the following key provisions related to the establishment
and functions of the CLCS:
Establishment of the Commission:
Article 76 establishes the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) as a
subsidiary body of the United Nations, responsible for assisting coastal states in
determining the outer limits of their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles from
their baselines.

Submission of Data by Coastal States:

Coastal states that wish to extend the outer limits of their continental shelves beyond
200 nautical miles are required to make submissions to the CLCS. These submissions
should be accompanied by comprehensive scientific and technical data supporting the
claims.

Review and Recommendations:

The CLCS is tasked with reviewing these submissions and assessing the scientific and
technical data. It evaluates the geological and geomorphological characteristics of the
seabed, as well as the thickness of sedimentary rock and other relevant factors.

Recommendations on the Limits:

Based on its review, the CLCS makes recommendations regarding the outer limits of the
continental shelf to the coastal state. These recommendations are not legally binding but
carry significant weight and are generally followed by the coastal state.

Settlement of Disputes:
If there are disputes between neighboring coastal states regarding the delimitation of
their continental shelves beyond 200 nautical miles, the CLCS can provide
recommendations to help resolve these disputes peacefully. It facilitates negotiations
and settlement of disputes in accordance with UNCLOS.

Role in the Extension of Continental Shelf Limits:

The recommendations of the CLCS play a crucial role in the extension of the limits of the
continental shelf for coastal states. These extensions have implications for maritime
boundaries, resource rights, and the management of ocean resources in areas beyond
the 200-nautical-mile limit.

The establishment of the CLCS and the procedures outlined in Article 76 of UNCLOS are
fundamental for ensuring the peaceful and equitable delineation of the outer limits of
continental shelves in accordance with the principles of international law, the common
heritage of mankind, and the protection of the marine environment. The work of the
CLCS contributes to the implementation of UNCLOS and promotes cooperation and the
responsible use of ocean resources.

Coastal states submit requests to extend the limit of their continental shelf
beyond the standard 200 nautical mile (NM) limit for various reasons, primarily
based on geological and geomorphological factors. Here are some common
reasons for submitting requests to extend the continental shelf limit:
Natural Protrusion of the Continental Margin: Coastal states may seek an extension
when the underwater geological and geomorphological features of the continental
margin continue beyond the standard 200 NM limit. If the continental shelf extends
further into the ocean, the state may wish to claim the additional area for resource
exploitation or other purposes.

Resource Exploitation: One of the primary motivations for extending the continental
shelf limit is the presence of valuable resources, both living and non-living. This includes
fisheries, hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas), minerals (e.g., polymetallic nodules,
polymetallic sulphides), and rare earth elements. Expanding the limit allows the state to
access and manage these resources.

Sedimentary Rock Thickness: A thicker sedimentary rock layer on the ocean floor can
be a reason for seeking an extension. If the thickness of the sedimentary rock is
sufficient, it may indicate the presence of valuable resources, such as hydrocarbons.

Continuation of Geological Features: Coastal states might submit requests if

geological features like underwater mountain ranges, ridges, and plateaus extend
beyond the standard limit. These features can influence the outer limit of the continental
shelf.

Fisheries Management: For states heavily dependent on fisheries, extending the

continental shelf limit can provide an opportunity to regulate and manage important
fishing grounds. This allows the state to protect its fishing interests and conserve marine
resources.

Environmental and Scientific Interests: Some states may seek an extension to

improve their ability to conduct scientific research or protect the marine environment.
Having jurisdiction over a larger area allows for greater control in these areas.

Geopolitical and Security Concerns: In some cases, states may seek to extend the
continental shelf limit for geopolitical or security reasons. This could involve asserting
control over strategic maritime areas or establishing boundaries that align with their
security interests.

Settlement of Disputes: In areas where neighboring states have overlapping or

conflicting claims, requests for continental shelf extensions may be part of a negotiation
process to resolve these disputes and reach mutually agreed-upon boundaries.

RULES OF DILIMITATION UNDER LAW OF THE SEA:

Seas and Oceans are primary medium for international commerce and communication
including rich living and non-living natural resources such as fish, oil, gas and other
minerals. Considering the increasing interdependency of states on marine resources and
its utility, there must be some rules governing it regarding state jurisdiction, state
sovereignty, rights and privileges, etc.
The maritime delimitation is a principle with regard to aspect of territorial sovereignty
between states, which can be useful for the international sea territorial disputes
resolving.

The delimitation on various territorial extensions is discussed hereunder:

The Territorial Zone:
The sovereignty over the territorial sea is similar to complete legislative jurisdiction on
the land territory. The states can make laws and regulate the area by utilizing all the
resources in the territorial zone. Initially, in the 1958 Convention, there was no specific
provision on the width of the territorial sea of a state. Many coastal states claimed
different limits for their territorial boundaries such as United Kingdom had claimed three
miles wide territorial sea whereas Latin-American nations claimed territorial boundaries
up to 200 miles. The controversies were unending until Article 3, Law of the Sea
Convention, 1982 [2] (hereafter mentioned as “LOSC, 1982″) came to effect which
states for the territorial sea of 12 nautical miles from the baseline for every state.

Due to this, the customary law principles of UK were now codified and confirmed. This
view of the LOSC, 1982 has also been applied in Guinea/ Guinea-Bissau Maritime
Delimitation Case [3] . It is notable that for states claiming for more than 12 nautical
mile territorial boundary, it should be recognized by those states against whose such
rights are claimed.
The wider aspect for the initial starting point of the baselines has to be considered with
respect to the geographical locations of various states. The usual method is the ‘trace
parallele’ method of delimitation wherein the landward edge of the territorial sea would
be the low-water mark on the coast and it will extend towards sea from this point. The
limitation of this method arises for calculation of baselines for such nations which have
rugged or severely indented coastlines which makes the tracing of the baseline
impossible. The solution can be straight baseline method wherein straight lines are
drawn between fixed points from the coast providing a geometric base to calculate the
seaward limit ultimately providing more territorial waters to the states concerned.

Due to the increased territorial waters by straight baseline method, this method was
challenged in Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case [4] . United Kingdom had alleged this
against Norway whereby the ICJ decided that it was against international law principles
and this method is only valid in appropriate cases. The majority decision opined that if
the coast is deeply indented, then the method of straight baseline is permissible only
when if the lines didn’t depart to an appreciable extent from the general direction of the
coast and the waters on the landward side must be sufficiently connected to the land
properly to be correctly regarded as internal waters. In the allied judging criteria, the ICJ
also opined to check the historic economic interest of the region and its utility related to
the coastal state. Lastly, the principle has been incorporated in Article 4, Territorial Sea
Convention, 1958 (hereunder mentioned as “TSC, 1958). This has been also
incorporated in LOSC, Article 7 with modifications for ‘low tide elevations’.

As regards with the delimitation of the territorial sea with opposite and adjacent states,
Article 15, LOSC, 1982 governs it providing that the territorial sea may not extend
beyond the median line which is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines of
the coastal states, except by an agreement between the parties by reason of historic
title or other special circumstances. In such cases, agreement shall be done and tribunal
may be setup to decide such case as in St Pierre and Miquelon Case (Canada/France) [5]
where the ad hoc arbitration court was asked to setup single maritime line for the
division of the territorial sea.

The Contiguous Zone:

The Contiguous zone comprises of 12 nautical miles from the baseline of the territorial
waters. The main aim behind the formation of this zone is the privileges for coastal
states to exercise control for preventing infringement of customs, fiscal, immigration and
sanitary regulations. [6] It is notable that the Contiguous zone is co-extensive with the
territorial zone of 12 nautical miles. It is also notable that two different zones are co-
extensive in same area and this defect has been cured by the extension of the
contiguous zone to 24 nautical miles according to Article 33, LOSC, 1982. As regard to
the privileges, in St Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea [7] , the International
Tribunal for Law of the Sea opined that a coastal state has the power to enforce customs
law in its contiguous zone. Hence, the contiguous zone can give a coastal state certain
additional jurisdiction. However, the dispute arises when the coastal state claims
contiguous zone for security purposes which can cover a broader view to increase the
jurisdiction of the coastal state. Overall, moreover the delimitation rules apply to the
contiguous zone as of the territorial zone between the opposite and adjacent states.

Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ’s) and Continental Shelf:

The EEZ’s is the area adjacent to the coast extending to 200 nautical miles from the
baselines of the territorial sea. Article 56 of the LOSC, 1982 provides the powers of the
coastal state in EEZ’s such as sovereign rights for exploring and exploiting living and
non-living resources, other economic activities, artificial islands, marine scientific
research, etc. Whereas the continental shelf is the extension of the territorial sea
throughout the natural prolongation if the land to the outer edge of continental margin
and to a distant of 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured. The continental shelf shall not exceed 350 nautical miles
from the baselines of territorial sea at maximum or 100 nautical miles from the 2500
metre isobath i.e: depth line.
As far as delimitation is regarded, it shall be on the basis of international law to achieve
an equitable solution. [8] Even, a common maritime boundary can be made between the
adjacent and opposite states with regard to continental shelf and EEZ’s as held in
dissenting opinion of Judge Oda in Tunisia v. Libya [9] . But as per, Judge Gros in
Canada v. USA [10] , the method of common maritime boundary might not be
appropriate according to different legal regimes of each area. The crux of the matter lies
that the continental shelf extends in law to 200 nautical mile limit with the EEZ’s
creating a geographical overlap of the same area. In Denmark v. Norway [11] , it was
held in dissenting opinion of Vice-President Oda that a common maritime boundary shall
never be presumed as both the EEZ’s and the continental shelf have separate legal
regimes and is juridically different which according to him the majority had overlooked.
It is important that an equitable result is achieved and the resources are not exhausted
by the coastal state having wider jurisdiction on the 200 nautical mile zone creating
amicable benefits between the states concerned.
The continental shelf if analyzed without considering EEZ’s, then it would be notable that
according to Article 1, TSC,1958 the shelf is the adjacent area to the coast and deep
ocean floor can be a part of the shelf. Therefore, for an amicable result it is necessary
that if the physical extent goes beyond 200 nautical miles then the coastal state shall
make payments to the International Sea Bed Authority for proper distribution of
resources collected which may exhausts the resources.
The continental shelf can also fall between two or more states on parallel land. In North
Sea Continental Shelf case [12] , it was decide by the ICJ that under Article 6 of the
Continental Shelf Convention, 1958 delimitation must be done by an agreement or in
absence of it, it shall be done by median line equidistant from the nearest points of the
baselines of the territorial sea, subject to exceptions in special circumstances. Therefore,
a state with concave coast could distort a median line resulting to unequal delimitation,
for which it must be by natural prolongation of the land territory by an equitable mode
of bifurcation. As a general rule, in Tunisia v. Libya the ICJ was asked to identify the
rules of delimitation in continental shelves where the ICJ contended that in absence of
any agreement, the delimitation must be by equidistant principles to achieve equitable
result for the opposite and adjacent nations considering the overall geographical aspects
of the coasts of Tunisia and Libya. According to Article 83(1) of LOSC, 1982 states have
to go for an equitable approach but the limitation lies in the mode of executing it as the
statutory provision does not provide for it. Due, to this a flexible approach has been
adopted in the delimitation rules and procedure. To sum up, it can be said that in multi-
zone areas having disputes, common maritime boundary must be made whereas in
other cases equitable solution must be made for the delimitation in absence of
agreement; at last everything shall be in accordance with the principles of customary
and conventional international law.
Deep Sea Bed and High Seas:
The deep sea bed is defined as the sea bed, ocean floor and subsoil thereof beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction as per Article 1(1) of LOSC, 1982. Geographically, it is
found at the outer edge of the continental shelf which is governed by the International
Sea Bed Authority. All the states at the international level which may be coastal or
landlocked can access the deep sea bed under Article 141 of LOSC, 1982. The profits
carved out of the utility of natural resources may be shared with the international
community by the distribution if income from the International Sea Bed Authority which
regulates the area.
The high seas are also open to the enjoyment of every state without any sovereignty
which shall be used for peaceful purposes only. High seas have been defined as those
areas of the seas which are not parts of the internal waters or territorial sea of any
state. The possible dispute that can occur on high seas is of sovereignty over the ships.
The answer to this problem is provided in Article 92, LOSC, 1982 which states that the
state in which the ship is registered shall have jurisdiction over it. If the cases of piracy
are found then, all states share jurisdiction on equal footing as international principles
shall apply for the common good of the mankind.
Conclusion:
The law of the sea, a wide aspect of international law shall be as per proper rules and
procedures to be adopted from the available sources of law which may be treaty or
customary in nature. The 1982 LOS Convention almost is a comprehensive code
covering almost all the aspects of delimitation and possible solutions for various
categories of disputes between the states. Different modes of delimitation such as
principles of equitable distance approach with modification in special circumstantial
cases, respecting the geographical structure of the place with natural prolongation, and
creating baselines on the low water mark on the coasts with regard to all type of
geographical coasts with geometrical models to be followed for equal benefits for the
adjoining nations, etc shall be followed according to the customary and conventional
international law principles keeping in mind the various decisions of the ICJ. Hence, with
the Convention of 1982 and landmark customary laws evolved after years of practice,
there can be a great scope for comprehensive and realistic international regime for the
salubrious governing and management of the oceans and allied resources in salubrious
manner.

SEABED AND SEABED AUTHORITY: -

The seabed and the International Seabed Authority (ISA) are central concepts under the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). They relate to the
management and regulation of activities in the international seabed area, which
encompasses the seabed and subsoil beyond national jurisdiction. Here's an overview of
these concepts:
1. Seabed:
 The seabed, also known as the deep ocean floor or international seabed area,
refers to the portion of the ocean floor located beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction. It is part of the global commons and is considered the "common
heritage of mankind." Key characteristics include:
 Resource Potential: The seabed is rich in valuable mineral resources, including
polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides, and cobalt-rich ferromanganese
crusts. These resources have attracted significant interest for their economic
value.
 Environmental and Scientific Significance: The seabed is of great
environmental and scientific importance. It hosts unique ecosystems and
biodiversity. Scientific research is conducted to better understand these
ecosystems, and conservation efforts aim to protect them.
 Regulation: The seabed is subject to international regulation and governance,
particularly under UNCLOS, to ensure the responsible exploration and exploitation
of its resources and the protection of its environment.
2. International Seabed Authority (ISA):
 The ISA is the organization established by UNCLOS to regulate and control all
mineral-related activities in the international seabed area. Key features of the ISA
include:
 Establishment: The ISA was established as an independent international
organization under the UN. Its role is to manage and administer the resources of
the international seabed area on behalf of humanity.
 Common Heritage of Mankind: UNCLOS designates the resources of the seabed
as the "common heritage of mankind." The ISA operates on the principle that the
seabed's resources are the shared heritage of all nations and should be used for
the benefit of humankind.
 Resource Licensing: The ISA issues licenses for the exploration and exploitation
of mineral resources on the seabed. These licenses are awarded to states and
state-sponsored enterprises, with the condition that benefits are shared among all
states.
 Environmental Protection: The ISA is responsible for ensuring the protection
and preservation of the marine environment of the seabed area. It establishes
regulations to minimize the environmental impact of mineral-related activities.
  Benefit Sharing: The ISA ensures that revenue generated from seabed resource
activities is distributed equitably among all states, with a particular focus on
developing countries and those that do not have access to deep-sea mining
technology.
 Scientific Research: The ISA encourages and coordinates scientific research in
the international seabed area. This includes studying the environment and
biodiversity of the seabed.
 Arbitration of Disputes: The ISA is equipped to resolve disputes related to
activities in the international seabed area through arbitration, following UNCLOS
procedures.
The seabed and the ISA represent a unique approach to the management of valuable
mineral resources beyond national jurisdiction. The legal and regulatory framework
established under UNCLOS aims to balance the economic potential of these resources
with environmental protection, equitable benefit sharing, and the common heritage of
mankind principle. The ISA plays a central role in overseeing and facilitating these goals.

UNIT 3 SPACE LAW

We can describe space laws as the statutory body of law having jurisdiction over all
space-related activities. All the States fall under the purview of Space Laws. In this
regard, they are very similar to International Laws. It is comprised of these:

International Agreements.
Treaties.
International Conventions.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions.
Other Rules and Regulations of International bodies.

Five Important Space Law treaties: -

Outer Space Treaty (OST): Adopted in 1967, this treaty is also known as the Treaty
on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer
Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. It forms the foundation of
international space law and outlines the principles of space exploration, including the
prohibition of placing nuclear weapons in space.

Rescue Agreement: Officially the Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return
of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space, this 1968 treaty
outlines procedures for the rescue and return of astronauts in distress and the return of
space objects to their respective countries.

Liability Convention: The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by

Space Objects, established in 1972, lays out the principles of liability for damage caused
by space objects, including provisions for compensation in case of accidents involving
space debris.

Registration Convention: The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into

Outer Space, adopted in 1976, requires states to register space objects launched into
Earth orbit or beyond with a central space object registry to promote transparency and
facilitate identification of objects in space.
Moon Agreement: The Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and
Other Celestial Bodies, adopted in 1984, outlines an international framework for the use
and exploitation of the Moon's resources, emphasizing that these resources should be
used for the benefit of all countries and prohibiting any unilateral claims of sovereignty
over celestial bodies.

These conventions form the core of international space law and provide a framework for
the responsible and peaceful use of outer space by all nations.

Sources of space law: -

International Treaties and Agreements

Customary International Law
National Laws and Regulations
Case Law and Arbitration
Soft laws

United Nations Principles Relevant to the Use of Nuclear Power Sources in

Outer Space: These principles, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in
1992, provide guidance on the use of nuclear power sources in space activities. They
emphasize safety, transparency, and cooperation.

United Nations Guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space

Activities: Adopted in 2018, these guidelines address the growing concern of space
debris and the sustainability of space activities. They provide recommendations for the
mitigation of space debris, the reduction of operational risks, and the promotion of
responsible space activities.
IADC Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines: The Inter-Agency Space Debris
Coordination Committee (IADC) has developed guidelines for the mitigation of space
debris. While not legally binding, they are widely respected and followed by spacefaring
nations and entities to reduce the generation of debris.

Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer

Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular
Account the Needs of Developing Countries: Adopted in 1996, this declaration
encourages international cooperation in space activities to ensure that the benefits of
space exploration are shared by all nations.

UNISPACE+50 Outcome Documents: The United Nations Office for Outer Space
Affairs (UNOOSA) organized the UNISPACE+50 conference in 2018, resulting in a series
of outcome documents that highlight the importance of international cooperation,
sustainable development, and capacity-building in space activities.

Space Sustainability Rating: While not a formal soft law document, the concept of a
"Space Sustainability Rating" has been proposed to encourage responsible behavior in
space. It would rate space actors based on their adherence to space sustainability
guidelines.

Space Traffic Management Guidelines: Various organizations, including the

International Academy of Astronautics (IAA), have developed non-binding guidelines for
space traffic management to ensure safe and orderly operations in space.

Some key points from the Outer Space Treaty (Treaty on Principles Governing
the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies):

Article I - Peaceful Purposes: Outer space is to be used for peaceful purposes, and
activities on celestial bodies shall be carried out for the benefit of all countries.

Article II - Non-Appropriation: Outer space and celestial bodies are not subject to
national appropriation by any means, including occupation or sovereignty.

Article III - Freedom of Exploration and Use: States have the freedom to explore
and use outer space, and they must conduct their activities for the benefit of all
countries.
Article IV - Prohibition of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Moon and other
celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes, and the establishment of
military bases, weapons of mass destruction, and conduct of military maneuvers is
prohibited.

Article V - International Responsibility: States are responsible for national space

activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities and must
avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

Article VI - Liability for Damage: States are liable for damage caused by their space
objects, and they must avoid harmful interference with the space activities of other
states.

Article VII - Rescue and Return of Astronauts: States must provide assistance and
ensure the safe return of astronauts in distress and return space objects to their
respective countries

Article VIII - Registration of Space Objects: States must register space objects
launched into Earth orbit or beyond and share information about these objects.

Article IX - Agreement to be Binding: Activities in space must be conducted in

accordance with international law, including the Outer Space Treaty.

Article X - Notification and Consultation: States are encouraged to consult with each
other on issues related to the peaceful use of outer space and may engage in
agreements and arrangements.

Article XI - Benefit of All States: States shall cooperate in the use of outer space and
shall conduct activities for the benefit of all countries, especially those of developing
nations.

Article XII - Freedom of Scientific Investigation: States shall conduct scientific

investigation and exploration of outer space and shall share results with the international
community.

Article XIII - Liability for National Activities: Non-governmental entities are subject
to the jurisdiction of the states that are parties to the Outer Space Treaty with regard to
their space activities.

Rescue Agreement (Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of

Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space):
Article I - Rescue of Astronauts: States agree to take all possible steps to rescue and
provide assistance to astronauts in distress, and to promptly inform the launching
authority and other states if an astronaut encounters distress.

Article II - Return of Astronauts: States shall promptly return astronauts to the

launching state if an astronaut's re-entry has landed them on the territory of another
state or on the high seas, beyond the jurisdiction of any state.

Article III - Return of Space Objects: States that discover a space object in their
territory or on the high seas must notify the launching state, which then has a right to
recover the object. However, the state of discovery has the right to request assistance
from the launching state if recovery is not feasible.

Article IV - Responsibility for Rescue and Return Costs: The costs of rescue and
return shall be borne by the state responsible for the space object or astronaut, except
when the rescue or return is due to force majeure.

Article V - Agreement Binding on States Parties: States parties to the Agreement

agree to conduct rescue operations in accordance with its provisions, and it shall be
binding on the parties.

Article VI - Settlement of Disputes: Disputes related to the interpretation or

application of the Agreement shall be resolved through negotiations or other peaceful
means.

The Rescue Agreement aims to ensure the prompt rescue and return of astronauts in
distress and the recovery of space objects, contributing to the safety of space
exploration and international cooperation in case of emergencies.

Important articles of the Liability Convention (Convention on International

Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects):

Article I - Liability for Damage: A launching state shall be liable for damage caused
by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft in flight.

Article II - Persons Liable: The liability of the launching state is without prejudice to
the liability of natural or legal persons who are at fault.
Article III - Elements of Liability: Liability is established if the damage was caused
by a space object of a launching state and the damage occurred in the territory of
another state or in airspace above its territory.

Article IV - Exemption from Liability: A launching state shall not be liable if the
damage was wholly caused by a third state or by natural occurrences of an exceptional
and inevitable character.

Article V - Mitigation of Liability: Liability may be reduced if the damage was caused
due to gross negligence or willful misconduct of the injured party.

Article VI - Limitation of Liability: The maximum amount of liability is determined

based on the space object's mass at launch and the type of space activity.

Article VII - Prompt Compensation: The liability shall be channelled to the launching
state, which must ensure that prompt and adequate compensation is paid.

Article VIII - Relation to Other Conventions: The Liability Convention does not
affect the rights and obligations of states under other international agreements, such as
the law of the sea and international air law.

Article IX - Entry into Force and Settlement of Disputes: The Convention shall
enter into force when a specified number of states have ratified it, and disputes shall be
settled through negotiations or arbitration.

The Liability Convention establishes a legal framework for holding launching states
responsible for damages caused by their space objects and ensures that compensation is
provided to the injured party.

Articles of the Registration Convention (Convention on Registration of Objects

Launched into Outer Space):

Article I - Registration Obligation: States that launch or procure the launch of

objects into Earth orbit or beyond shall register these objects with the appropriate
international registry.

Article II - Information to be Registered: The registration information shall include

the object's name, date and territory of launch, basic orbital parameters, general
function of the space object, and any significant changes in status.
Article III - Reassignment of Registration: A launched space object may be
registered by only one state, which retains jurisdiction and control over the object. If a
space object is transferred to another state, its registration may be reassigned.

Article IV - Entry into Force: The Convention enters into force after a specified
number of states have ratified it.

Article V - Settlement of Disputes: Disputes related to the interpretation or

application of the Convention shall be resolved through negotiations or other peaceful
means.

Moon Agreement (Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon

and Other Celestial Bodies):

Article 1 - Common Heritage of Mankind: The Moon and its natural resources, as
well as other celestial bodies, are the common heritage of mankind, and their
exploration and use shall be carried out for the benefit of all countries.

Article 2 - Prohibition of National Appropriation: No territorial sovereignty can be

claimed on the Moon or other celestial bodies, and their use shall be free for all states.

Article 3 - International Management: An international regime shall be established

to govern the exploitation of the natural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies
when such exploitation becomes feasible.

Article 4 - Non-Interference in Celestial Bodies: States shall refrain from actions

that cause harmful contamination or adverse changes to the environment of the Moon
and other celestial bodies.

Article 5 - Liability for Damage: States shall be liable for damage caused by their
space activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

Article 6 - Authorization and Continuing Supervision: States shall require

authorization and continuing supervision for non-governmental entities engaged in space
activities on the Moon and other celestial bodies.

Article 7 - Settlement of Disputes: Disputes related to the interpretation or

application of the Agreement shall be resolved through negotiations or other peaceful
means.
Article 8 - Ratification and Entry into Force: The Agreement shall enter into force
when a specified number of states have ratified it.

CASES: -

Intellectual Property and Satellite Launch Services Contracts (Lockheed Martin

v. Russian Aviation) (1993): This case involved a dispute between Lockheed Martin
and a Russian aerospace company over a contract for satellite launch services. It raised
issues of intellectual property rights and breach of contract related to space activities.

Galaxy 15 Satellite Interference Incident (2010): The Galaxy 15 communication

satellite experienced a technical malfunction, causing it to drift out of its intended orbit.
This raised concerns about interference with other satellites' signals and the potential
legal implications of satellite malfunction and its impact on other space activities.

The Galaxy 15 Satellite Interference Incident in 2010 was a notable event in the field of
satellite communications. The incident involved the Galaxy 15 satellite, which was
operated by Intelsat, a global satellite services provider. Here's an overview of the
incident:
Background:
 Galaxy 15 Satellite: Galaxy 15 was a geostationary communications satellite in
the C band, which provided various telecommunications services, including
television broadcasting, broadband connectivity, and data transmission.
The Incident:
 Satellite Anomaly: In April 2010, Galaxy 15 experienced an anomaly. The
satellite began to drift from its assigned orbital slot at 133 degrees West longitude.
 Signal Interference: The drifting satellite raised concerns because it risked
interfering with other satellites' signals. Satellite operators carefully coordinate the
allocation of orbital slots to minimize signal interference and maintain a stable
satellite environment.
 Lost Contact: What made the situation more challenging was that Galaxy 15 had
lost contact with its ground control station. As a result, the satellite was
unresponsive to commands from Intelsat.
 Signal "Zombies": Despite losing contact with its operators, Galaxy 15 continued
to broadcast its signals, which raised concerns about signal interference with other
satellites operating in the same frequency range. These unintended signals from
malfunctioning satellites are sometimes referred to as "zombies."
  Response: Intelsat and other satellite operators in the vicinity had to take several
measures to mitigate the interference. They adjusted the frequencies and power
levels of their own satellites to minimize the impact of Galaxy 15's signals.
Resolution:
 Regaining Control: After several months, Intelsat engineers managed to regain
control of Galaxy 15. They were able to stabilize the satellite's orbit and,
eventually, shut it down.
Lessons Learned:
 Frequency Coordination: The incident highlighted the importance of effective
coordination among satellite operators to manage frequency usage and prevent
signal interference.
 Satellite Redundancy: The Galaxy 15 incident also underscored the significance
of redundancy and backup systems in satellite operations. Satellites are typically
equipped with multiple transponders and systems to ensure continued service in
the event of technical issues.
 Response and Recovery: The successful recovery of Galaxy 15 demonstrated
the capabilities of satellite operators and engineers to address complex technical
challenges, even in the absence of direct communication with a malfunctioning
satellite.

The Galaxy 15 Satellite Interference Incident serves as a case study in the field of
satellite communications, illustrating the importance of coordinated management and
technical expertise in addressing satellite anomalies and minimizing the impact of signal
interference on satellite services.

Kosmos 954 Incident (Canada vs. USSR) (1978): The Soviet satellite Kosmos 954
carrying a nuclear reactor for radar calibration re-entered Earth's atmosphere and
scattered radioactive debris over a large area of northern Canada. This incident raised
questions about liability for damage caused by space objects and highlighted the need
for cooperation on space debris mitigation.

The Kosmos 954 incident, also known as the Canada vs. USSR case, was a significant
event in 1978 involving the crash of a Soviet nuclear-powered satellite called Kosmos
954 on Canadian territory. This incident led to a legal and diplomatic dispute between
Canada and the Soviet Union. Here's an overview of the incident:
Background:
  Kosmos 954 Satellite: Kosmos 954 was a Soviet reconnaissance satellite
equipped with a nuclear reactor to power its systems. It was part of the Soviet
RORSAT program, designed for maritime surveillance.
The Incident:
 Satellite's Reentry: In January 1978, Kosmos 954 experienced a malfunction
that caused it to reenter the Earth's atmosphere prematurely. The satellite
contained a significant amount of radioactive material, including highly enriched
uranium.
 Crash in Canada: On January 24, 1978, Kosmos 954 crashed in the Canadian
Northwest Territories, spreading radioactive debris over a vast area, primarily near
the Great Slave Lake.
 Radiation Concerns: The crash raised concerns about the spread of radioactive
contamination in a remote, sparsely populated region. The debris from the satellite
contained radioactive isotopes, which posed potential health and environmental
risks.
Canada's Response:
 Recovery Efforts: The Canadian government, with the support of the U.S. and
other countries, launched a comprehensive recovery effort. This involved sending
teams to collect radioactive debris, and the debris was transported to a secure
facility in the United States for disposal.
 Diplomatic Protest: Canada lodged a formal diplomatic protest with the Soviet
Union, demanding compensation for the costs incurred in the cleanup and recovery
operations, as well as a thorough explanation and assurance of future satellite
safety.
The Legal Dispute:
 The International Court of Justice (ICJ): The dispute between Canada and the
Soviet Union escalated to the International Court of Justice in The Hague,
Netherlands.
 Soviet Denial: The Soviet Union initially denied responsibility for the incident,
claiming that the satellite's reactor had burned up upon reentry. However,
evidence showed that the satellite had not completely disintegrated in the
atmosphere.
 ICJ Ruling: In September 1980, the International Court of Justice issued its
verdict. It found that the Soviet Union was at fault for the crash of Kosmos 954
and the resulting radioactive contamination. The court ruled that the Soviet Union
should pay Canada $3 million in compensation for cleanup and other associated
costs.
Aftermath:
 Compensation: The Soviet Union ultimately agreed to pay Canada the $3 million
in compensation as ordered by the ICJ.
  Environmental Impact: The incident and the subsequent cleanup highlighted the
potential environmental risks associated with the use of nuclear power sources in
space missions. It also spurred discussions and negotiations on space debris and
the safe disposal of satellites.

The Kosmos 954 incident serves as an important case in space law and international
relations. It underscores the legal mechanisms in place for addressing disputes related
to space activities and satellite accidents, as well as the importance of responsible space
practices to prevent potential harm to other nations and the environment.

Skylab Reentry Incident (1979): The re-entry of the US space station Skylab raised
concerns about potential damage and liability if debris fell in populated areas. The
incident led to diplomatic discussions between the United States and affected countries.

Televerket vs. Hughes Communications Galaxy (Sweden vs. USA) (1986): A

Swedish company sued Hughes Communications Galaxy, a US satellite operator, for
damages related to the interference of satellite signals. The case raised legal questions
about satellite operations and interference with other satellite services.

MILITARIZATION OF OUTER SPACE: -

The militarization of outer space is a complex and contentious issue within the
framework of international space law. While there is no specific treaty that explicitly
prohibits the presence of military forces or military activities in space, the Outer Space
Treaty (OST) of 1967, one of the foundational documents of space law, sets the tone for
the use of outer space for peaceful purposes.
Here's an overview of how international space law addresses the issue of the
militarization of outer space:
Outer Space Treaty (OST):
 Peaceful Use of Outer Space: The OST states that outer space is to be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes. This is the foundational principle that underlies
international space law. While the treaty doesn't explicitly ban military activities in
space, it discourages the use of space for aggressive or hostile actions.
 Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: The OST explicitly prohibits the placement of
nuclear weapons in orbit around the Earth or on celestial bodies. This specific
prohibition aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons into space.
 International Responsibility: States that are parties to the treaty are
responsible for their national space activities. This means that if a country engages
 in military activities in space, it is accountable for those actions under international
law.
Other Space Law Agreements:
 Liability Convention: The Convention on International Liability for Damage
Caused by Space Objects holds launching states liable for damage caused by their
space objects, whether the damage occurs in outer space or on Earth. This means
that a country engaged in military space activities could be held liable for damage
caused to other satellites or to Earth's surface.
 Registration Convention: The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched
into Outer Space requires states to provide information about their space objects
to the United Nations. This transparency can help with monitoring and verification
of space activities, including military ones.
SPACE DEBRIS: -
Space debris, also known as space junk or orbital debris, refers to defunct human-made
objects in Earth's orbit, including defunct satellites, spent rocket stages, and fragments
of spacecraft. The proliferation of space debris poses significant challenges and risks for
space activities and the environment in outer space. Space law addresses space debris
through various agreements and guidelines. Here is an overview of how space law
addresses space debris:
Relevant Treaties and Agreements:
 Outer Space Treaty (OST):
 While the OST doesn't specifically address space debris, its principles of peaceful
use and the prevention of harmful contamination of outer space are indirectly
related to space debris mitigation and prevention.
 Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines:
 To address the issue of space debris, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination
Committee (IADC) and other space agencies have developed guidelines and best
practices for space debris mitigation. These guidelines are not legally binding but
provide recommendations for satellite operators and spacefaring nations to
minimize the creation of new space debris.
 Liability Convention:
 The Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects can
apply to cases involving space debris if a space object causes damage to another
object in space or on Earth. This convention establishes liability for the launching
state.

Key Aspects of Space Debris Mitigation:

 Space Debris Mitigation Practices:
  Space agencies and satellite operators are encouraged to implement space debris
mitigation practices, including measures like deorbiting satellites at the end of
their operational life, avoiding intentional explosions, and minimizing collision
risks.
 Preventing Kessler Syndrome: The Kessler Syndrome is a theoretical scenario
in which the density of space debris becomes so high that collisions between
objects create more debris, leading to a cascade effect of collisions. Space debris
mitigation aims to prevent this scenario by reducing the creation of new debris.
 Collision Avoidance: Space law and practice encourage collision avoidance
measures to minimize the risk of satellites and space debris colliding. This includes
coordination of spacecraft movements and notifications of potential conjunctions in
orbit.
Challenges and Ongoing Issues:
 Remediation and Cleanup: The removal and cleanup of existing space debris
are significant challenges. Various concepts and technologies have been proposed
for debris removal, but there is no international consensus on how this should be
organized and funded.
 Responsibility and Liability: Determining responsibility and liability for space
debris incidents can be complex, particularly when debris originates from defunct
satellites or rocket stages. The Liability Convention provides a framework for
addressing damage caused by space objects, but its application in space debris
cases can be intricate.
 Space Traffic Management: As the number of active satellites and space debris
objects in orbit increases, space traffic management becomes more critical.
Coordinating space activities to minimize collisions is essential.
 Future Regulation: The issue of space debris continues to evolve, and
discussions about potential future regulations, including binding treaties or
agreements on space debris mitigation and remediation, are ongoing within the
international community.

UNIT 4 INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

The International Criminal Court is a fixed and stable international court which was
established to investigate, prosecute, and try people charged for committing serious
crimes. The International Criminal Court has power to prosecute individuals for the
international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of
aggression.
The International Criminal Court is situated in The Hague, Netherlands. The International
Criminal Court entered into force on 1st July 2002.

Rome Statute: The Rome Statute also known as the International Criminal Court
Statute, is the treaty which established the International Criminal Court.

The Rome Statute of International Criminal Court was adopted at a conference held in
Rome on July 17th, 1988 and was formally implemented on July 1st, 2002. The
International Criminal Court is self-governing International Court with 123 current state
members. The Rome Statute of the International Court is a conciliatory treaty.

ICC ROME OF STATUE: -

Article 5: - Crimes within the jurisdiction of the court

The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the
international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this
Statute with respect to the following crimes:

1 The crime of genocide;

2 Crimes against humanity;
3 War crimes;
4 The crime of aggression.

Genocide crimes: - Article 6 of the Rome Statute defines genocide crimes as:

1 Killing members of any group.

2 Causing mental harm or serious bodily harm to members of any group.
3 Coercively transferring children of a group to any other group.
4 Imposing measures intended to forbid births within any group.

Genocide was firstly recognized as a crime under International law in 1946 by the United
Nations general assembly.

Crimes against humanity: - Article 7 of the Rome Statute

It means any of the acts when done as part of wide-spread or organized attacks directed
against any civilian population with knowledge of attacks:

1 Murder.
2 Extermination.
3 Deportation or forced transfer of people.
4 Enslavement.
5 Detention or Serious Deprivation of physical freedom in Infringement of International
rules of international law.
6 Torture.
7 Rape; Sexual slavery; Forced prostitution; Forced pregnancy; or any other Sexual
violence of similar gravity.
8 Enforced disappearance of individuals.
9 Crimes of apartheid.
10 Another inhuman act of comparable nature purposely causing great suffering;
genuine injury to body or mental or physical health.

War Crimes: - Article 8 of Rome Statute defines War Crimes:

War crime is an offence that makes a severe violation of the law of war which gives rise
to individual criminal responsibility. War crimes can also be defined as unjustified acts of
violence, infringement of treaties, or violating practices that rule military conflicts.

War crimes include grave breaches of the Geneva Convention.

War crimes are generally committed by army personnel but sometimes it may also be
done by politicians and civilians. Some examples of War Crimes are:

1 Intentionally killing of civilians.

2 Torturing civilians.
3 Destroying civilian property.
4 Taking hostages.
5 Rape.
6 Using child soldiers.
7 Sexual slavery.
8 Pillaging.

JURISDICATION: -

The jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is defined by the Rome Statute,
which is the treaty that established the court. The Rome Statute outlines the specific
situations and cases over which the ICC has authority to exercise its jurisdiction. The
ICC's jurisdiction is primarily centered around four core international crimes: genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and, as of 2018, the crime of aggression.
  Genocide: The ICC has jurisdiction over the crime of genocide, which is defined in
Article 6 of the Rome Statute. Genocide includes acts committed with the intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The ICC
can prosecute individuals for genocide, regardless of where it occurred.
 Crimes Against Humanity: The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes against humanity,
as outlined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute. These include widespread and
systematic acts such as murder, torture, enslavement, sexual violence, and
enforced disappearance when committed as part of a widespread or systematic
attack against any civilian population. Like genocide, crimes against humanity can
be prosecuted by the ICC regardless of the location of the crimes.
 War Crimes: The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, which are specified in
Articles 8 and 8bis of the Rome Statute. War crimes can be committed during
international and non-international armed conflicts and include violations of the
laws and customs of war. The ICC can prosecute individuals for war crimes when
they are part of a situation referred to it or originate from a state party to the
Rome Statute, or when the United Nations Security Council refers the situation to
the ICC.
 Aggression: The jurisdiction over the crime of aggression is a more recent addition
to the Rome Statute, included through an amendment adopted in 2010 and
activated in 2018. The definition of aggression and the conditions under which the
ICC can exercise jurisdiction are outlined in the amendments. Aggression involves
the use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or
political independence of another state, in violation of the United Nations Charter.
The ICC can only exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression if it involves
the nationals or territory of a state party or is referred by the Security Council.

Article 25 and Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal

Court (ICC) are important provisions that pertain to the individual criminal
responsibility and the responsibility of commanders and other superiors. Here
is an overview of these articles:
Article 25 - Individual Criminal Responsibility:
Article 25 of the Rome Statute outlines the principles of individual criminal responsibility
for the commission of international crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. It
establishes the legal basis for holding individuals accountable for their actions, including
genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The key
elements of Article 25 are as follows:
 Individual Responsibility: This article affirms that individuals shall be individually
responsible for international crimes. It establishes that "a person who commits
such a crime" can be held criminally responsible under the Rome Statute.
  Mental Element: It specifies that to be held criminally responsible, the person
must have the mental state required for the commission of the crime. This means
that the individual must have committed the crime with intent (i.e., purpose or
knowledge) or recklessness (i.e., conscious disregard of a substantial risk).
 Superior Orders and Presumption of Knowledge: Article 25(3) provides that an
accused can argue that they were acting pursuant to orders from a government or
superior, but this does not relieve them of criminal responsibility. However, in
certain cases, an accused may be exempted from criminal responsibility if they can
demonstrate they did not know that the order was unlawful, and the order was not
manifestly unlawful.

Article 28 - Responsibility of Commanders and Other Superiors:

Article 28 of the Rome Statute addresses the responsibility of commanders and other
superiors for crimes committed by subordinates under their effective authority and
control. It establishes the principle that superiors can be held criminally responsible for
failing to prevent or punish crimes committed by their subordinates when they had
reason to know about these crimes. Key points from Article 28 include:
 Command Responsibility: This article is based on the doctrine of command
responsibility, which holds that military or civilian superiors can be held criminally
responsible for crimes committed by their subordinates if they had effective
control over the subordinates and knew or should have known about the crimes.
 Reason to Know: Superiors can be held responsible if they knew, or consciously
disregarded information that clearly indicated the crimes were being committed by
their subordinates.
 Measures to Prevent or Punish: Superiors are required to take measures to
prevent or punish the crimes, and their failure to do so can lead to criminal
responsibility.
These provisions of the Rome Statute are crucial for ensuring accountability for
international crimes, as they address the responsibility of individuals and their superiors
for the commission of such crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction.

CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, GENOCIDE, WAR CRIMES UNDER ICC: -

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is responsible for prosecuting individuals for the
following core international crimes: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide.
These are some of the most serious offenses under international law. Here is a brief
overview of each of these crimes:
Crimes Against Humanity:
  Definition: Crimes against humanity are widespread and systematic acts
committed as part of a policy or plan directed against a civilian population. They
involve acts such as murder, torture, enslavement, sexual violence, enforced
disappearance, and other inhumane acts.
 Elements: To qualify as crimes against humanity, the acts must meet several
criteria, including being committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack,
being directed against a civilian population, and being committed with knowledge
of the attack.
 Examples: Some well-known examples of crimes against humanity include the
atrocities committed during the Holocaust, the Rwandan Genocide, and various
instances of ethnic cleansing.

War Crimes:
 Definition: War crimes are violations of the laws and customs of war, committed
during armed conflicts, both international and non-international. They encompass
a wide range of acts, including targeting civilians, using prohibited weapons, and
causing excessive harm to the civilian population.
 Elements: War crimes can be committed by both state and non-state actors during
armed conflicts. They include acts that breach the laws and customs of war, such
as the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
 Examples: War crimes have been committed in numerous conflicts throughout
history, including the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War and the
targeting of civilians in the Yugoslav Wars.

Genocide:
 Definition: Genocide is the most severe of these international crimes and involves
acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial, or religious group. These acts can include killing members of the group,
causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions leading to
physical destruction, and more.
 Elements: Genocide requires a specific intent to destroy a protected group, and
the acts must be committed against members of that group. It doesn't necessarily
require a widespread or systematic attack, unlike crimes against humanity.
 Examples: The Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and the Rwandan Genocide are
some of the most well-known instances of genocide in modern history.

The ICC is responsible for prosecuting individuals accused of committing these crimes
when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so. The court operates on the
principle of complementarity, meaning it steps in when domestic authorities cannot
effectively address these crimes. The ICC has played a significant role in pursuing justice
for victims of mass atrocities and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions on
the international stage.

Katanga and Ngudjolo Cases:

The Katanga and Ngudjolo case, officially known as the Prosecutor v. Mathieu Ngudjolo
Chui and Germain Katanga, is a significant case before the International Criminal Court
(ICC). It dealt with war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Here are the key details about the case:
Background:
 The case revolved around events that took place in the Ituri region of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in 2003. Ituri was the site of intense
conflict involving various armed groups.

Accused:
 The two accused individuals were Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui and Germain Katanga.
Both were Congolese and were allegedly high-ranking commanders in different
armed groups operating in Ituri.

Charges:
 Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was charged with several counts of crimes against
humanity and war crimes, including enlisting and conscripting child soldiers,
murder, sexual slavery, and attacking a civilian population.
 Germain Katanga was charged with similar crimes, including murder, sexual
slavery, and using child soldiers.

Trial:
 The trial of Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui and Germain Katanga took place at the
International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands.
 The trial began in November 2009 and concluded with closing statements in May
2012.
 It was one of the few instances of an ICC trial where the accused were not
charged with crimes of sexual violence.

Verdict:
 In the verdict issued on December 18, 2012, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui was acquitted
of all charges. The judges found that the evidence presented was insufficient to
establish his criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Germain Katanga was convicted as an accessory to one count of a crime against
humanity (murder) and four counts of war crimes (murder, attacking a civilian
population, destruction of property, and pillaging). He was acquitted on other
counts.

Sentencing:
 Germain Katanga was sentenced to 12 years in prison.
 This was one of the first instances in which the ICC issued a conviction related to
war crimes committed by a commander for his actions as an accessory.

Appeals:
 Following the verdict, both the prosecution and the defense filed appeals. The
Appeals Chamber later reduced Germain Katanga's sentence to 8 years, taking
into account time already served.

The Katanga and Ngudjolo case highlighted the challenges in proving criminal
responsibility, especially when it comes to high-ranking commanders in complex conflict
situations. It also emphasized the importance of the ICC's role in holding individuals
accountable for crimes committed in the context of armed conflicts. The case showcased
the ICC's legal processes and its effort to bring justice to victims of atrocities in the DRC.

Al-Mahdi case:
The Al-Mahdi case, officially known as the Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, is a
significant case before the International Criminal Court (ICC). It is notable for being the
first ICC case to address the deliberate destruction of cultural heritage as a war crime.
Here are the key details about the case:

Background:
 The case revolved around events that took place in 2012 in Timbuktu, Mali.
Timbuktu is known for its rich cultural heritage and historical significance.

Accused:
 The accused individual, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, is a Malian national. He was a
member of the militant group Ansar Dine, which had control over parts of northern
Mali during the conflict in 2012.

Charges:
 Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi was charged with the war crime of intentionally directing
attacks against religious and historic buildings in Timbuktu, Mali. The charges were
 related to the destruction of mausoleums and a mosque, which were UNESCO
World Heritage Sites.

Arrest and Surrender:

 Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi was arrested in Niger in September 2015 and later
transferred to the custody of the ICC.

Trial:
 The trial of Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi took place at the International Criminal Court
in The Hague, Netherlands.
 The trial began in August 2016 and concluded with closing statements in
September 2016.

Guilty Plea:
 In a remarkable development, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi pleaded guilty to the
charges during the trial. This was the first time in the ICC's history that a
defendant had pleaded guilty.

Verdict and Sentencing:

 In September 2016, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi was convicted of the war crime of
intentionally directing attacks against religious and historic buildings. He was
sentenced to nine years in prison.
 The court recognized the accused's guilty plea, cooperation with the prosecution,
and expressions of remorse as factors in determining his sentence.

Significance:
 The Al-Mahdi case was significant for several reasons:
 It marked the first ICC case to address the destruction of cultural heritage as a
war crime.
 The case emphasized the protection of cultural heritage and its importance in the
context of armed conflicts.
 Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi's guilty plea and his cooperation with the court expedited
the proceedings and was seen as an acknowledgment of the significance of the
charges.
The Al-Mahdi case demonstrated the ICC's role in prosecuting individuals responsible for
serious crimes, even when those crimes involve the destruction of cultural heritage. It
underscored the importance of protecting cultural heritage during times of armed
conflict and its recognition as a violation of international law.

REPRESSION: -
Repression, in the context of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and international
criminal law, typically refers to the acts or campaigns of systematic and widespread
abuse of human rights, including crimes against humanity. The ICC has jurisdiction over
crimes of repression when they meet specific criteria and fall within the court's mandate.
Crimes Against Humanity: Repression often involves crimes against humanity, which are
one of the core international crimes within the ICC's jurisdiction. Crimes against
humanity include a range of acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack
against a civilian population. These acts can encompass a wide array of abuses, such as
murder, torture, enslavement, sexual violence, and other inhumane acts. Perpetrators of
crimes against humanity can be prosecuted by the ICC when national legal systems are
unwilling or unable to do so.
Examples of repression that could fall under the ICC's jurisdiction include state-
sponsored violence against political dissidents, persecution of minority groups, and acts
of repression aimed at maintaining or consolidating political power.
The ICC's Role: The ICC was established to address such serious international crimes
and ensure that individuals responsible for them are held accountable. The court
operates on the principle of complementarity, which means that it intervenes when
national jurisdictions are unwilling or genuinely unable to prosecute those responsible for
these crimes. The ICC can investigate and prosecute individuals who are responsible for
acts of repression when these acts meet the criteria set forth in the Rome Statute, which
established the court.
Repression and crimes against humanity are grave violations of international law, and
the ICC plays a crucial role in seeking justice for victims and holding perpetrators
accountable for their actions. The court's mandate is to promote accountability and deter
future acts of repression and international crimes.
UNIT 5 N 7 USE OF FORCE AND ICJ

The use of force and non-use of force under international law is primarily governed by
the United Nations Charter, which is the foundational document of the United Nations
(UN). The Charter sets out the principles and rules that guide the use of force in
international relations. Here are the key aspects related to the use of force and non-use
of force under international law with reference to the UN Charter:
Prohibition of the Use of Force (Article 2(4)): Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is a
fundamental principle that prohibits the use of force in international relations. It states
that "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." This means that the
use of force is generally illegal unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the UN
Security Council.

Collective Security (Chapter VII): Chapter VII of the UN Charter provides a

framework for collective security. The Security Council, under Chapter VII, can authorize
the use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. This
authorization can include peacekeeping operations or military intervention in cases of
aggression or threats to international peace.

Right to Self-Defense (Article 51): Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the

inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. States have the right to use force
in self-defense in the face of an armed attack until the Security Council has taken
measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Humanitarian Intervention: Humanitarian intervention is a controversial concept that

involves using force for humanitarian purposes, such as protecting civilians from mass
atrocities. It is not explicitly mentioned in the UN Charter and is subject to debate. Some
argue that it can be justified under the principle of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
when a state fails to protect its own population.

Peacekeeping (Chapter VI): Chapter VI of the UN Charter deals with peaceful

settlement of disputes. Peacekeeping operations, under Chapter VI, involve the
deployment of UN forces to help parties in a conflict reach a peaceful resolution. These
operations are characterized by the non-use of force, except in self-defense.

Armed Conflicts and International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The use of force in
armed conflicts is governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in addition to the
UN Charter. IHL sets out rules for the conduct of armed conflicts, including protecting
civilians and combatants who are no longer taking part in hostilities.

Nuclear Weapons (Article VI): Article VI of the UN Charter calls for the eventual
elimination of nuclear weapons and obliges nuclear-armed states to pursue disarmament
negotiations in good faith.

Preventive War: The UN Charter generally does not support the idea of preventive
war, which involves using force to prevent a potential threat from materializing. The use
of force should be a measure of last resort and in accordance with the principles of
necessity and proportionality.
Certainly, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is a fundamental principle that
establishes the prohibition of the use of force in international relations.
Article 2(4):
"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other
manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
Prohibition of the Use of Force: Article 2(4) clearly and unequivocally prohibits the
use of force in international relations. It does not make any exceptions in its language
and serves as a fundamental norm of customary international law, binding on all UN
member states.

Territorial Integrity and Political Independence: The Article prohibits the use of
force not only against the territorial integrity of a state but also against its political
independence. This means that states are not allowed to use force to alter the
government or political structure of another state.

Exceptions - Self-Defense and Security Council Authorization: While Article 2(4)

generally prohibits the use of force, it recognizes two primary exceptions:
 Self-Defense (Article 51): Article 51 of the UN Charter acknowledges the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed
attack. States have the right to use force in self-defense until the UN Security
Council takes action to restore international peace and security.
 Security Council Authorization (Chapter VII): Under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter, the UN Security Council has the authority to authorize the use of force to
maintain or restore international peace and security. The Security Council can take
measures, including military action, to address threats to international peace and
security.

Purposes of the United Nations: The use of force is also prohibited when it is
inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. The UN Charter outlines these
purposes in Article 1, which includes maintaining international peace and security,
promoting friendly relations among nations, and cooperating in solving international
problems.

Customary International Law: Article 2(4) is not only a provision of the UN Charter
but also reflects a fundamental principle of customary international law. This means that
even non-UN member states are generally bound by this prohibition.

Preventive War: Article 2(4) is often cited in discussions regarding preventive war. The
principle implies that the use of force as a preventive measure, without a clear and
imminent threat, is inconsistent with the UN Charter. The Charter emphasizes that the
use of force should be a measure of last resort and must adhere to the principles of
necessity and proportionality.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is a crucial provision that outlines the right of
self-defense in international law. It recognizes the inherent right of states to defend
themselves against armed attacks.

Article 51 of the UN Charter:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective
self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the
Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and
security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be
immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the
authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at
any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international
peace and security."
Key points regarding Article 51 and self-defense:
Inherent Right to Self-Defense: Article 51 recognizes the inherent right of states to
defend themselves. This means that states have the right to use force to protect
themselves in the face of an armed attack.

Armed Attack: Self-defense under Article 51 is triggered by an "armed attack." The

term "armed attack" is not explicitly defined in the UN Charter, but it is generally
understood to refer to a significant and substantial use of force by one state against
another.

Immediate Report to the Security Council: States using force in self-defense are
required to report their actions to the UN Security Council as soon as possible. This
reporting ensures transparency and allows the Security Council to assess the situation
and take measures to maintain international peace and security.

Security Council Authority: The use of force in self-defense does not diminish the
authority and responsibility of the UN Security Council to address threats to international
peace and security. The Security Council can take actions, including the authorization of
further military operations, to address the situation.

Proportionality and Necessity: Even in cases of self-defense, the principles of

proportionality and necessity apply. This means that the force used in self-defense
should be proportional to the threat and necessary to repel the armed attack. Excessive
force or actions that go beyond self-defense are not in compliance with international law.

Collective Self-Defense: Article 51 recognizes both individual and collective self-

defense. States can come to the aid of an attacked state under certain conditions, as
long as the armed attack is considered a threat to international peace and security.

Customary International Law: The right to self-defense, as articulated in Article 51,

is not only a provision of the UN Charter but is also a well-established principle of
customary international law. This means that states not only abide by it through their
UN Charter obligations but also recognize it as a fundamental principle of international
law.

Certainly, here is a summary of the articles in the United Nations Charter from Article 30
to Article 50:
Article 30: This article deals with the procedure for settling disputes that are not
subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It states that states
involved in a dispute shall first seek a solution by negotiation, inquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
Article 31: Article 31 outlines the means for the settlement of international disputes. It
emphasizes the importance of peaceful means and encourages parties in a dispute to
refer to the Security Council or the General Assembly for resolution.
Article 32: Article 32 establishes the role of the UN Security Council in investigating any
dispute or situation that may lead to international friction. The Security Council may
investigate any dispute, no matter its origin, and make recommendations for its peaceful
settlement.
Article 33: This article outlines various mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of
disputes, including negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, and judicial
settlement. It encourages parties to seek these methods before resorting to the use of
force.
Article 34: Article 34 deals with the role of the UN Security Council in addressing
disputes and situations that might lead to international friction. The Council may
investigate and recommend measures for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Article 35: Article 35 provides a process for states that are parties to a dispute to bring
it to the attention of the UN Security Council. This is often the first step in seeking a
peaceful resolution through the UN.
Article 36: Article 36 relates to the Pacific Settlement of Disputes and establishes the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It outlines the jurisdiction of the ICJ and the obligations of UN member states to submit
disputes to the court when required.
Article 37: Article 37 gives the UN Security Council the authority to recommend
measures to settle disputes peacefully, including the use of sanctions or non-military
measures, to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 38: Article 38 lists the means by which the ICJ can settle disputes brought
before it, including international conventions, international custom, general principles of
law, and judicial decisions and teachings of highly qualified publicists.
Article 39: This article addresses the powers of the UN Security Council in maintaining
or restoring international peace and security. It allows the Council to determine the
existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to
take measures to address these situations.
Article 40: Article 40 allows the UN Security Council to call upon parties in a dispute to
comply with provisional measures or to refrain from any action that could worsen the
situation.
Article 41: Article 41 deals with the measures that the Security Council can take to
address situations that might threaten international peace and security. These measures
typically include economic and diplomatic sanctions.
Article 42: This article provides for the authorization of the use of military force by the
UN Security Council to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Article 43: Article 43 outlines the responsibilities of UN member states to make armed
forces, assistance, and facilities available to the Security Council to maintain
international peace and security. However, this provision is not actively used in practice.
Article 44: Article 44 elaborates on the relationship between the UN Security Council
and regional arrangements or agencies in maintaining international peace and security.
Article 45: This article establishes the composition of the UN Security Council. It states
that the Council shall consist of five permanent members (the P5) and ten non-
permanent members elected by the General Assembly.
Article 46: Article 46 deals with the procedural requirements for the UN Security
Council when taking action to maintain or restore international peace and security. It
emphasizes the importance of open discussions and cooperation among member states.
Article 47: Article 47 provides that the UN Security Council shall have the responsibility
to coordinate the military efforts of states when it authorizes the use of force.
Article 48: This article addresses the establishment of a Military Staff Committee to
assist the Security Council in carrying out its military functions.
Article 49: Article 49 deals with the membership of UN member states, their rights and
obligations, and the process for becoming a UN member.
Article 50: Article 50 provides guidance on the initiation of discussions in the UN
General Assembly regarding any situation or dispute that may lead to international
friction or conflict. It allows member states to bring such matters to the attention of the
General Assembly for consideration.
These articles collectively outline the procedures, principles, and responsibilities related
to the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the maintenance of international
peace and security under the United Nations Charter.

Humanitarian intervention:
Humanitarian intervention is a complex and controversial concept under the United
Nations Charter. While the Charter primarily emphasizes the non-use of force in
international relations and permits the use of force only in self-defense or when
authorized by the UN Security Council, there has been ongoing debate about the
legitimacy of humanitarian intervention.
Here are key points related to humanitarian intervention under the UN Charter:
Sovereignty Principle (Article 2(4)): Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly
prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any
state. This principle upholds the sovereignty of states and makes the unilateral use of
force illegal.

Responsibility to Protect (R2P): The concept of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)

has gained prominence as a framework for understanding when humanitarian
intervention might be justified. R2P emphasizes the responsibility of states and the
international community to protect populations from mass atrocities, such as genocide,
war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity.

UN Security Council Authorization: Under the UN Charter, the Security Council is the
primary authority for authorizing the use of force for humanitarian purposes. Chapter VII
of the Charter gives the Security Council the authority to take measures, including
military ones, to address threats to international peace and security, which could include
situations involving mass atrocities. Such authorization is seen as legitimate under
international law.
Kosovo and Libya: Two notable cases where humanitarian intervention took place
without Security Council authorization were the Kosovo conflict in 1999 and the
intervention in Libya in 2011. In these cases, states argued that the need to protect
civilians and prevent mass atrocities justified their actions, even though the Security
Council did not provide a clear mandate. These interventions sparked considerable
debate and controversy.

Controversy and Debates: Humanitarian intervention without Security Council

authorization is highly contentious. Critics argue that it can undermine the principles of
sovereignty and the non-use of force, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for
future interventions. Proponents argue that the duty to protect human lives in the face
of mass atrocities should take precedence.

Customary International Law: The legality of humanitarian intervention without

Security Council authorization remains a subject of debate. While there is no consensus,
some argue that customary international law may be evolving to recognize a limited and
carefully defined right of humanitarian intervention in exceptional cases, but the scope
and criteria are still debated.

Responsibility to Protect:
The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a concept that emerged after the adoption of the
United Nations Charter, and it is not explicitly mentioned within the Charter itself.
However, it is firmly rooted in principles and objectives outlined in the Charter,
particularly those related to maintaining international peace and security and protecting
human rights. Here is how the Responsibility to Protect aligns with the UN Charter:

Charter Principles:
 Non-Use of Force (Article 2(4)): The UN Charter, in Article 2(4), establishes
the fundamental principle that prohibits the use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any state. The R2P framework respects this
principle by emphasizing the importance of non-intervention and prevention as the
primary means to protect populations.
 Collective Security (Chapter VII): R2P aligns with Chapter VII of the UN
Charter, which authorizes the UN Security Council to take measures, including
military action, to address threats to international peace and security. R2P
recognizes the role of the Security Council in authorizing military intervention
when necessary to protect populations from mass atrocities.

Human Rights and Humanitarian Law:

  The UN Charter, in its preamble, expresses the determination "to reaffirm faith in
fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person." R2P is
consistent with this commitment and builds upon the Charter's emphasis on the
importance of human rights and the protection of civilians.
 R2P is closely connected to international humanitarian law (IHL), which governs
the conduct of armed conflict, and the Charter's principles regarding the protection
of civilians during conflicts. R2P seeks to prevent and respond to mass atrocities,
which often involve violations of IHL and human rights abuses.

Preventive Diplomacy (Chapter VI): The UN Charter's Chapter VI emphasizes the

peaceful settlement of disputes and the importance of diplomatic efforts to prevent
conflicts. R2P's first pillar emphasizes the need for preventive action by states to avoid
mass atrocities, aligning with the Charter's principles.

Peacekeeping (Chapter VI and Chapter VII):

 R2P is related to peacekeeping operations authorized by the Security Council
under Chapter VII of the Charter. Peacekeepers may be deployed to protect
civilians and help prevent mass atrocities in conflict zones.

Sovereignty and Non-Interference: The UN Charter respects the sovereignty of

states and, in Article 2(7), upholds the principle of non-interference in domestic matters.
R2P acknowledges these principles but argues that state sovereignty carries with it the
responsibility to protect populations and that sovereignty cannot be used as a shield to
commit mass atrocities against one's own citizens.
In summary, while the Responsibility to Protect is not explicitly part of the UN Charter, it
is in harmony with the Charter's fundamental principles and objectives. R2P builds upon
the Charter's emphasis on the importance of international peace and security, human
rights, and the protection of civilians. It recognizes the need to balance state
sovereignty with the responsibility to prevent and respond to mass atrocities,
particularly when states are unable or unwilling to protect their populations. R2P
represents an evolving norm in the international system that guides the international
community's response to situations where civilians are at risk of mass atrocities.

The Suez Canal Crisis: -

The Suez Canal Crisis of 1956, also known as the Suez War, offers an instructive case
study in the context of the use of force in international law. This crisis is notable for the
way it highlighted key principles and norms of international law, including the prohibition
of the use of force, the role of international organizations, and the sovereignty of states.
Here's how the Suez Canal Crisis relates to the use of force in international law:
Prohibition of the Use of Force (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter): The Suez Canal
Crisis exemplifies the core principle of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In this
case, the military action taken by the United Kingdom, France, and Israel was widely
seen as a violation of this principle. It triggered international condemnation and brought
attention to the importance of respecting the prohibition on the use of force.

UN Intervention and Diplomacy (Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN

Charter): The United Nations played a crucial role in responding to the Suez Crisis. The
crisis exemplifies the mechanisms outlined in the UN Charter for the peaceful resolution
of disputes. Chapter VI of the Charter emphasizes peaceful dispute settlement through
negotiation, mediation, and other non-coercive means. In the Suez Crisis, the UN
General Assembly and Security Council engaged in diplomacy to broker a ceasefire and
the withdrawal of foreign forces, underscoring the importance of collective action and
diplomacy in resolving conflicts.

Peacekeeping (Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter): The Suez Crisis
led to the establishment of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF), which was one
of the earliest examples of UN peacekeeping operations. UNEF was deployed to monitor
the ceasefire and oversee the withdrawal of foreign troops, highlighting the role of
peacekeeping missions in promoting international peace and security under the Charter.

Collective Security (Chapter VII of the UN Charter): The response to the Suez
Crisis illustrated the importance of the Security Council's authority to maintain or restore
international peace and security. The Security Council's adoption of a resolution calling
for a ceasefire and withdrawal of foreign forces demonstrated the use of Chapter VII
powers to address threats to international peace.

Sovereignty and Self-Determination: The Suez Crisis brought into focus the principle
of state sovereignty. The nationalization of the Suez Canal by Egypt was seen as an
exercise of its sovereign right over its territory and resources. The military action by
foreign powers was widely criticized as an infringement on Egypt's sovereignty and its
right to self-determination.

In summary, the Suez Canal Crisis serves as a case study in the application of
international law principles related to the use of force, the role of the United Nations,
and the importance of peaceful dispute resolution. It underscored the significance of
adhering to the prohibition of the use of force, diplomatic efforts to address conflicts,
and the central role of international organizations in maintaining international peace and
security.
Russia and Ukraine peace deal:
The conflict between Russia and Ukraine, particularly in the context of Crimea and
Eastern Ukraine, raises several issues related to the United Nations Charter and the use
of force in international law.
UN Charter Principles:
 Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity (Article 2(4)): The conflict in Ukraine
has raised significant concerns about the principles of state sovereignty and
territorial integrity. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Russia's annexation
of Crimea and its involvement in the conflict in Eastern Ukraine have been widely
criticized as violations of these principles.
 Collective Security (Chapter VII): Chapter VII of the UN Charter authorizes the
UN Security Council to take measures to maintain or restore international peace
and security. The situation in Ukraine has been a subject of discussion and
resolutions in the Security Council. However, divisions among the permanent
members, particularly between Russia and Western powers, have complicated the
Security Council's ability to take decisive action.
 Self-Defense (Article 51): While Ukraine has not invoked Article 51 of the UN
Charter, which permits self-defense in response to an armed attack, the conflict
has involved elements of self-defense. Ukrainian forces have been engaged in
armed conflict with separatist groups in Eastern Ukraine, and they have sought to
defend their territory and sovereignty.
Peace Efforts:
 Minsk Agreements: The conflict in Eastern Ukraine has seen several attempts at
peace negotiations, with the Minsk Agreements being the most notable. These
agreements, brokered by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE), aim to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict and establish a ceasefire.
However, the full implementation of the Minsk Agreements has been challenging,
and the conflict persists.
 UN Involvement: The United Nations has been involved in efforts to address the
situation in Ukraine, particularly through the deployment of the UN Monitoring
Mission in Ukraine (UNMMU). The mission's role includes monitoring and reporting
on the situation, facilitating dialogue, and helping to de-escalate the conflict.

International Law and Crimea:

Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 is a highly contentious issue from the perspective
of international law. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution affirming
Ukraine's territorial integrity and calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces from
Crimea. The international community largely does not recognize Crimea as part of
Russia, and the annexation has been widely criticized as a violation of Ukraine's
sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force.
In summary, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine raises complex issues related to
the UN Charter, the use of force, and international law. It highlights the importance of
upholding the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as the challenges
of finding peaceful solutions and achieving consensus within the international community
when conflicts arise. The situation remains a subject of ongoing diplomatic efforts and
international concern.

Iraq-Kuwait:
The Iraq-Kuwait conflict in 1990-1991, often referred to as the Gulf War, is another
significant case that can be analyzed in the context of the United Nations Charter and
the use of force in international law. This conflict had profound implications for the
interpretation and application of international law principles.
UN Charter Principles:
Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity (Article 2(4)): Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on
August 2, 1990, was a blatant violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial
integrity as outlined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The use of force by Iraq against
Kuwait was widely condemned as an unlawful act of aggression.

Collective Security (Chapter VII): The international response to the Iraq-Kuwait

conflict was framed within the context of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which
authorizes the UN Security Council to take measures to maintain or restore international
peace and security. The Security Council's resolutions played a pivotal role in addressing
the situation.

Use of Force (Article 42 and 51): The Gulf War represents an example of the
Security Council's authorization of the use of force under Article 42 of the UN Charter.
The Security Council passed Resolution 678, which authorized the use of "all necessary
means" to liberate Kuwait. This authorization was seen as consistent with the Charter's
provisions, and a coalition of nations, led by the United States, launched Operation
Desert Storm to enforce the resolution.

Sanctions (Article 41): Before the military action, the Security Council had imposed
economic sanctions on Iraq under Article 41 of the UN Charter. Sanctions were used as a
means to pressure Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to comply with UN Security Council
resolutions.
Human Rights and War Crimes: The Iraq-Kuwait conflict also raised issues related to
human rights and war crimes. The treatment of civilians and prisoners of war, as well as
environmental damage resulting from the conflict, were subjects of international concern
and are relevant to the principles of international humanitarian law.

Legitimacy and Compliance:

The Gulf War demonstrated the importance of international compliance with UN Security
Council resolutions. It underscored the credibility and legitimacy of collective security
mechanisms within the UN system. The Security Council's role in authorizing the use of
force and overseeing the ceasefire and post-war arrangements was seen as consistent
with the UN Charter.
The Gulf War also highlighted the importance of respecting international borders and the
sovereignty of states. Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was seen as a violation of these
principles, and the international response aimed at restoring Kuwait's sovereignty.
In summary, the Iraq-Kuwait conflict is a significant case study in the context of the UN
Charter and the use of force in international law. It demonstrated the role of the
Security Council in authorizing military action to address threats to international peace
and security, while emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of sovereignty,
territorial integrity, and respect for international law.

The Korean War: -

The Korean War, which took place from 1950 to 1953, was a major armed conflict on
the Korean Peninsula. It had significant implications for the United Nations Charter and
the use of force in international law. Here's an overview of the Korean War in this
context:
Background:
 The Korean War began on June 25, 1950, when North Korean forces, supported by
the Soviet Union and China, invaded South Korea. This invasion followed years of
tensions and conflicts between the two Koreas.
UN Involvement:
 The United Nations played a central role in the response to the Korean War. The
UN Security Council adopted a series of resolutions condemning the North Korean
invasion and calling for a ceasefire. This was possible because the Soviet Union
was boycotting the Security Council at the time, allowing the resolutions to pass.
 The United Nations Command (UNC) was established to coordinate the
multinational military efforts led by the United States to support South Korea.
Use of Force and the UN Charter:
 The use of force in the Korean War was authorized by the United Nations Security
Council. This authorization aligned with the principles of the UN Charter,
particularly under Chapter VII, which empowers the Security Council to take
measures to maintain or restore international peace and security.
 The Korean War is often cited as a textbook example of collective security and the
legitimate use of force under the UN Charter. It demonstrated the capacity of the
United Nations to act decisively in response to aggression.
Armistice:
 The Korean War ended in 1953 with an armistice agreement, not a peace treaty.
This armistice created the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which continues to
divide North and South Korea to this day.
 The unresolved status of the Korean Peninsula remains a subject of international
concern, as the conflict technically never concluded.
In summary, the Korean War is a significant historical example of a conflict that was
addressed under the principles of the United Nations Charter, highlighting the role of the
Security Council in authorizing the use of force to respond to aggression. The armistice
that ended the war left long-lasting geopolitical consequences, and the Korean Peninsula
remains a region of international interest and diplomatic efforts.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

The court has existed since 1946. The official languages are English and French. The
United Nations Charter is an integral part of the ICJ. Thus, all UN members state
automatically recognize the authority of the ICJ and can call for its help in any legal
matter.

It does not try individuals and only disputes between states can be submitted to it.

It is the successor court of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Permanent
Court of International Justice was created in 1922 and by the league of nations. Between
1932 and 1940, it handled 60 cases. It was dissolved after World War II. The ICJ
succeeded the permanent court on the 18th of April 1946. It inherited not only its statue
but also its jurisprudence and its traditions.

The court consists of 15 judges and they are elected for a term of 9 years by the
General Assembly and the Security Council. Five posts are renewed every three years.
Here, judges may be re-elected.
The members of the court must all be from different countries. But, we must keep in
mind that they do not represent their country and they are independent judges.

The composition of the court represents the following geographic balance.

 Three seats on the bench are occupied by African judges.

 Two seats are occupied by judges from Latin America and the Caribbean.
 Three are occupied by Asian judges.
 Five judges are occupied by judges from Western Europe and other Western
States.
 Two judges are from Eastern Asia.
Usually, there is one judge from each of the countries who are permanent members.

Kulbhushan Jadhav Case: -

The case of Kulbhushan Jadhav is a significant and well-known case that was brought
before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Kulbhushan Jadhav is an Indian national
who was arrested by Pakistani authorities in 2016 and accused of espionage and
involvement in terrorism activities in Pakistan. He was sentenced to death by a Pakistani
military court in April 2017.
In May 2017, India initiated proceedings before the ICJ, alleging that Pakistan had
violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by not providing consular access
to Jadhav and had also violated his basic human rights. India argued that Pakistan's
actions were in breach of its international legal obligations.
The ICJ took up the case and issued provisional measures in January 2019, directing
Pakistan to take steps to ensure that Jadhav was not executed pending the final
judgment in the case. The ICJ found that there was a prima facie case that Pakistan had
violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention, and it needed to be addressed.
In July 2019, the ICJ delivered its final judgment in the case, which was a significant
development. The court ruled that Pakistan had indeed violated the Vienna Convention
on Consular Relations and ordered Pakistan to review and reconsider Jadhav's conviction
and sentence. The ICJ found that Jadhav had not been informed of his rights to consular
access, and his rights in this regard had been infringed upon.
The ICJ's judgment was seen as a victory for India, as it concluded that Pakistan must
provide consular access to Jadhav and review his case. It did not, however, pronounce
on the question of Jadhav's guilt or innocence, which was a matter to be resolved
through Pakistan's legal system.
The case of Kulbhushan Jadhav remains a subject of diplomatic and legal discussions
between India and Pakistan, and it highlights the ICJ's role in adjudicating disputes
between states, particularly concerning issues of human rights and consular relations.

The India vs. Portugal case: -

The India vs. Portugal case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is commonly
known as the "Goa, Daman and Diu case." This case was brought before the ICJ in 1955
and was one of the early cases dealt with by the court. The dispute revolved around the
status and ownership of certain territories, specifically the territories of Goa, Daman,
and Diu.
Here's a brief overview of the case:
Background:
 In 1947, India gained independence from British colonial rule, and it sought the
return of all territories that were previously under colonial control.
 Goa, Daman, and Diu were Portuguese colonial territories on the Indian
subcontinent. Portugal refused to relinquish control over these territories.
 India and Portugal had a longstanding dispute over the status of these territories,
with India claiming them as its own.
ICJ Involvement:
 In 1955, India brought the case before the ICJ, arguing that Portugal's continued
occupation of Goa, Daman, and Diu was a violation of international law.
 India argued that Portugal was in violation of various international agreements and
principles, including the principle of self-determination and the prohibition on
colonialism.
 Portugal, on the other hand, argued that these territories were an integral part of
Portugal and should not be considered as "colonies."
ICJ Judgment:
 In 1960, the ICJ issued its judgment in the Goa, Daman, and Diu case. The court
ruled in favor of India.
 The ICJ held that Portugal's continued presence in these territories was not
consistent with the principle of self-determination and that Portugal should
withdraw its administration from them.
 The judgment played a significant role in eventually leading to the end of
Portuguese colonial rule in these territories.
Following the ICJ's judgment, diplomatic negotiations between India and Portugal
continued, and in 1961, India launched a military operation to take control of the
territories. Goa, Daman, and Diu were formally integrated into the Indian Union later
that year.
The India vs. Portugal case at the ICJ is notable for its contribution to the decolonization
process in the mid-20th century and the role played by international law and the ICJ in
resolving territorial disputes between newly independent states and former colonial
powers.

Duties:
Like its predecessor, the ICJ has two roles. The first is to decide disputes between
states. These are known as Contentious Cases. The second role is to analyze legal
questions submitted to it by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other
organisations and agencies under the UN. These cases are known as Advisory
Proceedings.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations, and it has jurisdiction over certain types of cases. There are two main types of
jurisdiction under the ICJ:
Contentious Jurisdiction: a. Jurisdiction based on consent: States can bring disputes
before the ICJ by mutual consent. This consent can be given in various forms, such as
special agreements, treaties, or compromissory clauses in treaties. When states agree to
submit a dispute to the ICJ, the court has jurisdiction to hear the case. b. Optional
Clause: Many states have accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction in advance through the Optional
Clause (also known as the "Compulsory Jurisdiction") of the ICJ's Statute. By making a
declaration under the Optional Clause, a state agrees to accept the ICJ's jurisdiction for
certain categories of cases. However, states can limit the scope of their acceptance
when making their declarations.

Under the contentious jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), there are
various categories of jurisdiction, including voluntary jurisdiction, compulsory
jurisdiction, ad hoc jurisdiction, and transferred jurisdiction:
Voluntary Jurisdiction:
 Voluntary jurisdiction is a term used to describe cases brought before the ICJ with
the consent of all parties involved. In this context, "voluntary" means that the
states or parties to the dispute have willingly agreed to submit the case to the ICJ
for resolution. This is typically done through a special agreement or a
compromissory clause in a treaty.

Compulsory Jurisdiction:
  Compulsory jurisdiction, also known as the Optional Clause or the Compulsory
Jurisdiction Declaration, is a mechanism by which states accept the ICJ's
jurisdiction in advance for certain categories of cases. By making a declaration
under the Optional Clause, states agree to be bound by ICJ decisions in disputes
falling within the scope of their declaration. However, states can limit the subject
matter or conditions of their acceptance when making the declaration.

Ad Hoc Jurisdiction:
 Ad hoc jurisdiction refers to cases brought before the ICJ on an individual basis for
specific disputes. In such cases, the parties involved agree to submit their
particular dispute to the ICJ, but there may not be a pre-existing treaty or
declaration of compulsory jurisdiction that applies. These ad hoc agreements can
be tailored to the specific circumstances of the dispute.

Transferred Jurisdiction:
 Transferred jurisdiction is a rare and exceptional form of ICJ jurisdiction. In such
cases, the ICJ may be given jurisdiction by a third party, typically through a treaty
or agreement. The third party transfers the jurisdiction to the ICJ to resolve a
specific dispute between other states. This is a less common form of jurisdiction
and is generally based on consent and specific arrangements between the parties
involved.

Advisory Jurisdiction: The ICJ also has advisory jurisdiction, which allows it to provide
advisory opinions on legal questions to international organizations, such as the United
Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, as well as to specialized agencies of
the UN when authorized to do so. These advisory opinions are non-binding, meaning
that they do not settle specific disputes between states but provide legal guidance on
the questions posed to the court.

Advisory jurisdiction is one of the two main types of jurisdiction exercised by the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), the other being contentious jurisdiction. Under
advisory jurisdiction, the ICJ provides non-binding advisory opinions on legal questions
referred to it by international organizations and certain United Nations organs. Here are
some key points regarding advisory jurisdiction under the ICJ:
Purpose of Advisory Jurisdiction:
 The primary purpose of advisory jurisdiction is to provide authoritative legal
guidance and clarify legal issues for international organizations and UN member
states. It allows these entities to seek the ICJ's opinion on questions of
international law and treaty interpretation.
Referral of Legal Questions:
 Advisory opinions can be requested by any organ of the United Nations or
specialized agencies authorized by the UN General Assembly to make such
requests. Advisory jurisdiction can also be used by other international
organizations when authorized by their constituent documents or conventions.
Additionally, UN member states can request advisory opinions on legal questions
through the UN General Assembly or the Security Council.

Non-Binding Nature:
 Advisory opinions rendered by the ICJ are non-binding, which means they do not
have the force of law or compel states to take specific actions. They serve as legal
advice and guidance for the requesting entities but do not result in legally binding
decisions.

Scope of Advisory Opinions:

 The ICJ is limited to providing advisory opinions on legal questions and issues. It
cannot offer advisory opinions on political matters or issues that involve disputes
between states. The court's role is to interpret and apply international law to the
legal questions referred to it.
Discretion of the ICJ:
 The ICJ has the discretion to decide whether to provide an advisory opinion on a
particular question. It may decline a request if it deems the question to be outside
the scope of its competence or if it considers the request to be inadmissible for
any reason.

Prominent Advisory Opinions:

 The ICJ has issued numerous advisory opinions on a wide range of legal questions
over the years. Some well-known advisory opinions include those related to the
legality of the use of nuclear weapons, the legal consequences of the separation of
the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius, and the Kosovo declaration of
independence.

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution:

The World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute resolution process is a mechanism for
addressing trade disputes between member countries and ensuring that the rules and
agreements of the WTO are followed. Here's an overview of how the process works:
1. Consultations:
- The process typically begins with consultations between the disputing parties. The
complaining country requests consultations with the country it believes is violating WTO
rules. This is the first step in an attempt to resolve the dispute through dialogue and
negotiation.
- Consultations are intended to last for a specific period (usually 60 days). If the
parties can resolve the dispute during this period, the case may not proceed further.
2. Panel Establishment:
- If consultations do not lead to a resolution or if the complaining party is not satisfied
with the outcome, it can request the establishment of a dispute settlement panel. The
panel is composed of three to five experts in trade law who are chosen based on their
expertise and impartiality.
- The panel's role is to examine the dispute and issue a report on whether the WTO
rules have been violated.
3. Panel Proceedings:
- The panel conducts an in-depth review of the dispute, including hearings and written
submissions from the parties involved. It assesses the arguments and evidence
presented by both sides.
4. Panel Report:
- The panel issues a report that outlines its findings and conclusions. It determines
whether the responding country's actions are in violation of WTO agreements.
5. Adoption of the Panel Report:
- The panel report is submitted to the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) for
adoption. The DSB is composed of all WTO members.
- If the DSB adopts the report, it becomes binding on the parties involved in the
dispute.
6. Appellate Body Review:
- Either party can appeal the panel's report to the WTO's Appellate Body. The
Appellate Body consists of seven members who review the legal aspects of the panel
report.
- The Appellate Body aims to issue its report within a fixed timeframe, usually 90
days, and its findings are final. There is no further appeal.
7. Implementation:
- Once the panel and, if applicable, the Appellate Body issue their reports, the losing
party is expected to bring its measures into compliance with WTO rules and agreements.
 - If the losing party fails to comply, the prevailing party can request the authorization
to take countermeasures (usually trade sanctions or tariffs) to induce compliance.

The WTO dispute resolution process is designed to ensure that trade disputes are
resolved fairly and impartially, with a focus on upholding the principles of the WTO
agreements. It plays a crucial role in maintaining the stability and predictability of
international trade.

The legality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons has been a subject of
international legal discussions and has been addressed by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ). The ICJ issued an Advisory Opinion on this matter on July 8, 1996. While
advisory opinions are non-binding, they provide important guidance on the
interpretation of international law. In this case, the ICJ considered the legality of nuclear
weapons under international law.
In its Advisory Opinion, the ICJ made the following key points:
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons:
 The ICJ affirmed that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally prohibited
under international law. However, the Court did not provide an absolute
prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons in all circumstances.

Principles of International Humanitarian Law:

 The ICJ emphasized that any use of nuclear weapons must be consistent with the
principles and rules of international humanitarian law, particularly those applicable
in armed conflict. This includes the principles of distinction, proportionality, and
precaution.

Customary International Law:

 The Court stated that there exists a customary international law obligation to
pursue nuclear disarmament in good faith. This means that states are required to
work toward nuclear disarmament.

Use of Nuclear Weapons in Extreme Circumstances:

 The ICJ did not rule out the possibility that the use of nuclear weapons might be
lawful in "extreme circumstances" where the survival of a state is at stake.
However, the Court noted that it is difficult to envision such circumstances and
emphasized the need for strict compliance with international humanitarian law.

Obligation to Prevent Nuclear Warfare:

  The ICJ emphasized the obligation of all states to take effective measures to
prevent nuclear warfare and to achieve nuclear disarmament.

It's important to note that while the ICJ's Advisory Opinion provides guidance on the
legal aspects of nuclear weapons, it did not result in a complete ban on their use. The
legality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons remains a complex and contentious
issue in international law and politics. States and international organizations continue to
work toward nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation, and the prevention of the use of
nuclear weapons through various treaties and agreements, such as the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
Weapons (TPNW).

The construction of the wall in the Palestinian territory, commonly known as the
Israeli West Bank barrier or the Israeli separation barrier, has generated significant legal
and political controversy. The wall's construction began in the early 2000s and is
primarily located in the West Bank, a territory that is subject to ongoing conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians. The legal consequences and issues associated with the
construction of the wall include:

International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion:

 In 2004, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from
the ICJ regarding the legal consequences of the construction of the Israeli
separation barrier in the occupied Palestinian territory. The ICJ issued an advisory
opinion in July 2004, which contained several key legal findings.
 The ICJ concluded that the construction of the wall violated various principles of
international law, including the prohibition of the acquisition of territory by force
(found in the UN Charter), the prohibition of the use of force in situations not
involving self-defense, and the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to the
protection of civilians during armed conflicts. The ICJ found that the construction
of the wall was contrary to these legal principles.

Impact on Palestinian Territory:

 The construction of the wall has resulted in the de facto annexation of land in the
West Bank, leading to concerns about the permanent alteration of the territory and
the creation of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land. This is a source of
contention between Israel and the Palestinians.

Humanitarian Concerns:
 The wall's construction has led to various humanitarian concerns, including
restrictions on the movement of Palestinians, disruption of communities, and
 access to essential services. It has affected the daily lives of Palestinians living in
the West Bank.

Violation of International Human Rights Law:

 Human rights organizations and legal experts have argued that the wall and its
associated policies infringe on various human rights, including the rights to
freedom of movement, property, work, and family life. Such practices have been
criticized for not being in compliance with international human rights standards.

Diplomatic and Political Efforts:

 The construction of the wall has been a subject of diplomatic efforts, negotiations,
and peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as in broader
international forums. The international community, including the United Nations,
has called for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with the status
and borders of the West Bank and the wall being a central issue of contention.

The construction of the wall in the Palestinian territory remains a complex and politically
charged issue with significant legal and humanitarian implications. Different parties have
varying perspectives on its legality and consequences, and efforts to address the
situation continue through diplomatic negotiations, international forums, and legal
advocacy.

Kosovo Status: -
Kosovo's status and the related legal questions have been a subject of international
debate and legal consideration, including the advisory jurisdiction of the International
Court of Justice (ICJ). Here are the key points related to Kosovo's situation:

Declaration of Independence:
 In 2008, Kosovo declared its independence from Serbia. This declaration of
independence was not initially recognized by Serbia, and it was met with a mixed
response from the international community. Many countries, including the United
States and several European Union states, recognized Kosovo's independence,
while others did not.

ICJ Advisory Opinion:

  In 2008, the United Nations General Assembly requested an advisory opinion from
the ICJ regarding the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence. In its
Advisory Opinion, issued in July 2010, the ICJ concluded that Kosovo's declaration
of independence did not violate international law. The court stated that there was
no applicable prohibition on unilateral declarations of independence under
international law.

Recognition and Statehood:

 The ICJ's advisory opinion did not determine whether Kosovo is a state or has
achieved full statehood. Instead, it focused on the specific legal question of the
declaration's compliance with international law. The recognition of Kosovo as a
state is a matter of political recognition by individual countries, and opinions on
Kosovo's status remain divided.

Ongoing Debate:
 Kosovo's status remains a subject of ongoing debate and diplomatic efforts. While
many countries have recognized Kosovo as an independent state, Serbia, backed
by countries like Russia and China, has not recognized Kosovo's sovereignty. The
issue remains a point of contention in international relations.

Kosovo's Statebuilding and International Engagement:

 Since its declaration of independence, Kosovo has made efforts to establish the
institutions of a functioning state. It has been recognized by a significant number
of countries and has sought membership in international organizations and
institutions. Kosovo is a member of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Bank, among others.
Kosovo's situation is complex, and its status is the subject of ongoing diplomatic efforts
and discussions. The ICJ's advisory opinion clarified the legal aspects of Kosovo's
declaration of independence but did not resolve the broader political and diplomatic
issues related to its statehood and international recognition.

Colambia vs Peru case(Asylum case): -

Background:
 The case originated from a diplomatic dispute between the Republic of Colombia
and the Republic of Peru. It revolved around the concept of diplomatic asylum.
 Diplomatic asylum is a practice in international law where a foreign embassy or
consulate provides refuge and protection to individuals who are considered political
 refugees or fugitives from justice. Asylum is typically granted to individuals who
fear persecution or harm if they return to their home country.
 In this case, the Colombian Embassy in Lima, the capital of Peru, granted asylum
to a group of individuals who were considered political refugees by the Colombian
government but were seen as threats to the Peruvian government.
Key Arguments:
 Peru contended that Colombia's actions in granting asylum to these individuals
were a violation of international law and Peruvian sovereignty. They argued that
Colombia was using its embassy in Lima to shelter individuals who were involved
in criminal activities or political subversion against the Peruvian state.
 Colombia, on the other hand, argued that they were merely exercising their right
to grant asylum to individuals who were fleeing persecution and that this was in
line with established principles of international law.
ICJ Decision:
 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its judgment in 1950.
 The ICJ ruled in favor of Peru, stating that Colombia had violated the principle of
non-interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state.
 The court held that while diplomatic asylum is a recognized principle of
international law, it should not be used to interfere in the internal affairs of the
receiving state. Asylum should be granted with the understanding that it does not
grant the host country the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the state in
which the embassy is located.
 The judgment emphasized the importance of respecting the sovereignty of states
and maintaining the principle that diplomatic premises should not be used to
meddle in the internal affairs of the host state.
Significance: The Asylum Case (Colombia/Peru) is a significant precedent in international
law for several reasons:
 It reaffirmed the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign
states, which is a fundamental principle of international law.
 It clarified the limitations of diplomatic asylum, indicating that it should not be
used to engage in political subversion or interference in the host state's domestic
affairs.
 The case underscored the importance of balancing the rights of individuals seeking
asylum with the rights and sovereignty of the host state.
 The judgment has been influential in shaping the practice of diplomatic asylum and
remains an important reference point in discussions about the proper use of
diplomatic asylum in accordance with international law.
 UNIT 8 DISARMMENT

Disarmament under international law refers to the process of reducing or eliminating the
possession, production, and use of weapons, especially weapons of mass destruction,
such as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. The primary goal of disarmament is
to promote peace, security, and stability on a global scale by reducing the risk of armed
conflicts and the catastrophic consequences of such conflicts. Several key legal
frameworks and international agreements govern disarmament efforts:

Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW): -

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the
international organization responsible for implementing and overseeing the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). The OPCW was established to promote the complete and
verifiable elimination of chemical weapons and to prevent their re-emergence. Here are
some key aspects of the organization:
Establishment: The OPCW was established on April 29, 1997, as a result of the entry
into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which is an international treaty that
bans the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. The
CWC itself came into force on April 29, 1993.

Headquarters: The OPCW is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands. The organization

has a Technical Secretariat that carries out its day-to-day activities.

Membership: The OPCW has 193 member states, making it one of the most
comprehensive disarmament organizations in the world. Member states commit to
destroying their chemical weapons stockpiles and facilities and refraining from the
production of chemical weapons.

Functions and Responsibilities: The primary responsibilities of the OPCW include:

 Verification: The OPCW verifies that member states are complying with their
obligations under the CWC. This involves inspecting declared chemical weapons
stockpiles and related facilities, as well as monitoring and verifying that chemical
industry facilities are not involved in prohibited activities.

 Destruction: Member states are required to destroy their chemical weapons

stockpiles and related facilities under the supervision and guidance of the OPCW.

 Promotion of Peaceful Uses: The OPCW promotes the peaceful use of chemistry
and chemical technology, ensuring that chemical research and industrial activities
are conducted for beneficial purposes rather than for the production of chemical
weapons.

 Assistance and Protection: The OPCW provides assistance and protection

against chemical weapon threats and incidents, assisting member states in
enhancing their capabilities to respond to such threats.

 Universalization: The OPCW works to encourage states that are not yet party to
the CWC to join the treaty, thus extending its reach and promoting global
disarmament efforts.

The Executive Council: The OPCW's Executive Council is composed of member states
and oversees the organization's activities. It meets regularly to discuss policy and
operational matters.

The Conference of the States Parties: This is the highest decision-making body of
the OPCW and is composed of all member states. It meets annually to review the
organization's work, address issues related to the CWC, and make decisions on key
matters.
The OPCW plays a crucial role in implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention and
ensuring that chemical weapons are eliminated and do not pose a threat to global
security. It has received the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of its efforts to advance
disarmament and promote peace through the prohibition of chemical weapons.

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS: -

Anti personal mine ban convention, 1997: -
The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, also known as the Ottawa Treaty, is an
international treaty aimed at prohibiting the use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of
anti-personnel landmines (APMs) and promoting their safe and effective clearance. The
treaty was adopted in 1997 in Ottawa, Canada, and entered into force on March 1,
1999. Here are some key points about the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention:
 Objective: The primary goal of the treaty is to eliminate the humanitarian and
environmental impact of APMs. APMs are explosives designed to injure or kill
people, and they have caused significant harm to civilians, particularly in post-
conflict settings, where they can remain a danger long after the end of hostilities.
 Prohibitions: The treaty prohibits several key activities related to APMs, including
the use, development, production, acquisition, transfer, and stockpiling of these
weapons. It also requires the destruction of existing stockpiles within specific
timeframes.
 Success: The Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention is considered a successful
example of a disarmament treaty. It has led to significant reductions in the use of
APMs, and many countries have destroyed their stockpiles. It has also contributed
to the reduction of casualties from landmines.

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an international treaty established

in 1992 to ban the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.
It requires member states to declare and destroy their chemical weapon stockpiles and
establishes a verification system. The CWC also regulates the trade in chemicals that can
be used for making chemical weapons and promotes the peaceful use of chemistry. It
has contributed significantly to disarmament and reducing the threat of chemical
weapons worldwide.

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), established in 1996,

represents a pivotal global effort to halt nuclear weapons testing. The treaty
categorically bans all nuclear explosions, whether for civilian or military purposes, with
the objective of thwarting the development of new nuclear capabilities. To enforce this
prohibition, a comprehensive verification system has been instituted, comprising a global
network of monitoring stations that can detect any nuclear test activities. Despite being
signed by many countries, the treaty is still pending entry into force, primarily due to
the non-ratification by key nuclear-armed states such as the United States. The CTBT's
potential to advance disarmament and bolster worldwide security hinges on universal
adherence, thereby averting any nuclear testing and contributing to non-proliferation
efforts while diminishing the risk of nuclear conflicts.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions, established in 2008, is a significant

international treaty designed to address the grave humanitarian consequences of cluster
munitions. These munitions, which disperse smaller submunitions over a wide area,
have long posed a severe risk to civilian populations, as they often result in unexploded
submunitions that continue to cause harm long after conflicts have ceased. The treaty's
core objectives include the explicit prohibition of the use, production, stockpiling, and
transfer of cluster munitions, along with the destruction of existing stockpiles within
specific timeframes. Moreover, it mandates the clearance of areas contaminated by
cluster munition remnants to protect civilian safety and enable the return of affected
land to productive use. Furthermore, the convention emphasizes the need to provide
comprehensive assistance to victims, encompassing medical care, rehabilitation,
psychological support, and the reintegration of affected individuals into society. By
promoting these measures and seeking universal adherence to its principles, the
Convention on Cluster Munitions underscores the international community's commitment
to safeguarding civilians and minimizing the harm caused by these indiscriminate
weapons in conflict zones.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted in 2017, is a

landmark international agreement that seeks to advance the goal of nuclear
disarmament. This treaty unequivocally prohibits the use, possession, development,
testing, production, acquisition, transfer, and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. It reflects
the global consensus that these weapons pose an existential threat to humanity and the
environment and that their use is incompatible with international humanitarian law. In
addition to the prohibitions, the treaty imposes positive obligations, requiring states
parties to support the victims of nuclear weapon use and testing and to assist in
remediating environments affected by nuclear weapons. While the treaty has garnered
support from a majority of countries, including non-nuclear-armed states, it has not
been adopted by the nuclear-armed states. Its significance lies in its potential to
stigmatize nuclear weapons and encourage further progress towards nuclear
disarmament. Its ultimate success will depend on the extent to which nuclear-armed
states and their allies engage with the treaty and commit to disarmament efforts.

PROHIBITED WEAPON BECAUSE OF IHL: -

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the laws of armed conflict or the
laws of war, prohibits various weapons and methods of warfare that cause excessive
harm to civilians or fail to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Some
examples of prohibited weapons and actions under IHL include:
1. **Chemical Weapons**: The use of chemical weapons is prohibited under the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and is considered a war crime. The Convention on
the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological
(Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) also prohibits the use of
biological weapons.
2. **Biological Weapons**: The use of biological weapons, which involve the use of
disease-producing microorganisms or toxins, is prohibited by the BWC.
3. **Anti-Personnel Landmines**: The use of anti-personnel landmines is restricted,
and their use in populated areas is often considered a violation of IHL. The Anti-
Personnel Mine Ban Convention (Ottawa Treaty) bans the use, production, stockpiling,
and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
4. **Cluster Munitions**: The use of cluster munitions in populated areas is
restricted because they have a wide area effect and can result in unexploded
submunitions that harm civilians. The Convention on Cluster Munitions bans the use,
production, transfer, and stockpiling of these weapons.
5. **Dum-Dum Bullets**: Expanding or "Dum-Dum" bullets designed to expand or
flatten upon impact to increase tissue damage are prohibited under IHL.
6. **Indiscriminate Weapons**: Any weapon or method of warfare that cannot be
directed at a specific military objective and is likely to harm civilians or civilian objects
excessively is prohibited. Examples include indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas.
7. **Expanding Bullets**: Bullets that expand or flatten upon impact to cause
excessive injury are prohibited under IHL.
8. **Starvation as a Weapon**: Deliberate starvation of civilians as a method of
warfare is prohibited. The deliberate destruction of food, water, and other supplies
necessary for the survival of civilians is also prohibited.
9. **Perfidy**: Engaging in acts of perfidy, which involve feigning a desire to
negotiate under a flag of truce or false pretenses, is prohibited.
10. **Attacks on Cultural Property**: Deliberate attacks on cultural property, such
as historic monuments or religious sites, are prohibited under the 1954 Hague
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict.
11. **Environmental Damage**: Excessive or widespread destruction of the natural
environment, not justified by military necessity, is prohibited under IHL, and states have
an obligation to protect the environment during armed conflicts.

These prohibitions aim to protect civilians and minimize the suffering of individuals
during armed conflicts. IHL provides a framework to ensure that even in times of war,
certain humanitarian principles are upheld and that the use of specific weapons and
tactics is limited to avoid unnecessary harm and suffering. Violations of these
prohibitions may constitute war crimes under international law.

The New World Economic Order (NWEO): -

The New World Economic Order (NWEO) is a concept that emerged in the 1970s,
primarily promoted by developing countries, as an idea for restructuring the global
economic system to address perceived inequalities and imbalances in international
economic relations. Key elements of the NWEO concept included:

1. **Equitable Distribution of Wealth**: Advocates of the NWEO argued for a more

equitable distribution of wealth on a global scale. They believed that the existing
economic system, dominated by Western industrialized nations, favored the developed
world at the expense of developing countries.
2. **Resource Control**: The NWEO emphasized the importance of developing
countries having greater control over their natural resources, such as minerals and
energy, and receiving fair compensation for their exploitation.
3. **Trade and Market Access**: It called for improved access to markets for
products from developing countries and a reduction in trade barriers, particularly in the
form of tariffs and quotas.
4. **International Economic Cooperation**: The NWEO encouraged cooperation
between countries and international institutions to promote development and reduce
economic disparities.
5. **Debt Relief**: Developing nations sought debt relief and more favorable terms
for repayment of loans, as debt was seen as a significant burden on their economies.
6. **Technology Transfer**: The NWEO highlighted the need for the transfer of
technology from developed to developing countries to promote industrialization and
economic growth.
7. **Reform of International Financial Institutions**: Some proponents of the
NWEO called for the reform of international financial institutions like the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank to better serve the interests of developing
countries.

While the concept of the New World Economic Order received support from many
developing countries, it faced significant opposition from Western industrialized nations
and some developed countries. They argued that the NWEO could be detrimental to
free-market principles and that it might not address economic challenges effectively.

In practice, many of the goals associated with the NWEO have been pursued through
various international forums, trade agreements, and development initiatives. However,
the NWEO as a distinct framework has largely faded from the global economic discourse,
but its underlying concerns about global economic disparities continue to be addressed
through other means and organizations, such as the United Nations, the World Trade
Organization, and regional economic alliances.

WTO and UN Subsidiaries

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR): -

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is a vital
international organization dedicated to addressing the plight of refugees and displaced
persons around the world. Its primary mission is to protect the rights and safety of
refugees, internally displaced individuals, stateless people, and others who have been
forced to flee their homes due to conflict, persecution, or violence. UNHCR provides
essential humanitarian assistance, including shelter, food, healthcare, and education, to
those in need. The agency works tirelessly to find durable solutions to displacement,
whether through voluntary repatriation, local integration, or resettlement in third
countries. UNHCR also serves as a strong advocate for the rights of refugees and works
to create conditions for their secure return or integration into host communities. In
addition, it collaborates with governments, non-governmental organizations, and
partners to ensure a well-coordinated response to displacement crises and collects and
analyzes data to inform policies and strategies related to refugee issues. UNHCR's work
is guided by international refugee law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and its
1967 Protocol, which establish the framework for refugee rights and protection. The
agency's efforts are crucial in addressing humanitarian crises and providing support to
millions of people affected by forced displacement.
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP):
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is a specialized agency of the
United Nations dedicated to addressing global environmental issues. UNEP focuses on
environmental advocacy, research, and governance. It conducts research and
assessments to better understand and tackle environmental challenges, supports the
development and implementation of international environmental agreements, and
promotes capacity building and environmental education. UNEP collaborates with
governments and partners to promote sustainable practices and protect the
environment, making it a key player in global environmental efforts.

The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF):

The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) stands as a pivotal international
organization within the United Nations system, dedicated to safeguarding and improving
the lives of children globally. Its primary mission is to ensure the well-being and rights
of every child, working tirelessly to secure their access to fundamental necessities such
as healthcare, education, nutrition, and protection from harm. In times of crisis, UNICEF
takes a leading role in emergency response, delivering vital aid to children and families
affected by conflicts, natural disasters, and health emergencies. The organization's
significant contributions extend to promoting immunization and vaccines to prevent
childhood diseases, advocating for quality education, particularly for marginalized
children, and addressing malnutrition to guarantee that children receive proper
nourishment. UNICEF's work is guided by the principles of the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child, making it a vital force in advancing child rights and enhancing
the prospects of a brighter, healthier, and more prosperous future for children
worldwide.

The World Food Programme (WFP):

The World Food Programme (WFP) is the food assistance branch of the United Nations,
with a primary mission to address global hunger and food insecurity. In a paragraph:
WFP is an essential component of the United Nations' efforts to combat hunger and
malnutrition worldwide. It focuses on providing food assistance to vulnerable populations
in times of crisis, including conflict, natural disasters, and health emergencies, offering
life-saving support to those in need. Beyond emergency relief, WFP also works on
longer-term food security and nutrition programs to help communities become more
self-sufficient and resilient. The organization plays a significant role in distributing food
aid and supporting nutrition initiatives, particularly in developing countries, where access
to food can be a critical challenge. WFP's work is instrumental in advancing global efforts
to eradicate hunger and promote food security, making a substantial impact on the lives
of millions of people.

The International Labour Organization (ILO): -

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a specialized agency of the United
Nations dedicated to addressing labor-related issues, promoting decent work, and
safeguarding the rights of workers worldwide. Established in 1919, the ILO operates
under a unique tripartite structure involving governments, employers, and workers'
representatives, which collaborate to set labor standards, formulate policies, and
address labor-related challenges. Here is a more detailed explanation:
 Standard Setting: The ILO is responsible for developing and promoting
international labor standards. These standards take the form of conventions and
recommendations and cover a wide range of labor-related issues, including labor
rights, occupational safety and health, employment, social protection, and more.
Member states may ratify these conventions, committing to adhere to them and
uphold labor rights within their territories.
 Decent Work: The concept of "decent work" is central to the ILO's mission. It
encompasses productive employment, fair wages, social protection, and respect
for fundamental labor rights. The ILO works to promote decent work for all, aiming
to improve the quality of employment and ensure that workers are treated fairly.
 Research and Data: The ILO conducts research on labor-related topics, providing
valuable data and analysis on labor markets, employment trends, wage levels, and
other labor-related issues. This research is essential for informed policymaking and
addressing labor market challenges.
 Technical Assistance: The ILO provides technical assistance to member states,
helping them develop and implement labor policies, improve working conditions,
and build capacity for labor administration and workers' and employers'
organizations.
 Social Dialogue: The ILO fosters social dialogue among governments, employers,
and workers, aiming to create consensus and cooperation in addressing labor
issues. Social dialogue is a cornerstone of the ILO's approach to labor relations.
 Child Labor and Forced Labor: The ILO is deeply involved in efforts to combat
child labor and forced labor. It sets international standards and works with
governments and partners to eliminate these harmful practices.
 Gender Equality: The ILO promotes gender equality in the workplace, striving to
eliminate discrimination and ensure equal opportunities for all workers, regardless
of gender.
  Global Reach: The ILO operates in over 180 member states, making it one of the
most comprehensive international organizations in terms of geographical
coverage.
 Global Reports and Initiatives: The ILO produces global reports and initiatives
on key labor-related topics, including the World Employment and Social Outlook,
Global Wage Report, and the Future of Work Initiative.
 Decent Work Agenda: The ILO's Decent Work Agenda, established in 1999, is a
comprehensive framework that guides the organization's efforts to promote social
justice, fair labor practices, and decent work opportunities for people worldwide.
The ILO plays a critical role in shaping labor policies and standards at the global level,
ensuring that workers' rights and well-being are protected and promoted. It contributes
to improving working conditions, fostering social justice, and advancing the rights and
opportunities of workers across the globe.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF):

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is a critical international financial institution that
provides financial assistance, policy advice, and economic monitoring to its member
countries, especially during times of economic turmoil. It is committed to maintaining
global monetary stability, supporting the stability of the international financial system,
and encouraging cooperation among nations on monetary issues. The IMF offers loans
and guidance to countries facing balance of payments challenges, working to stabilize
their economies. It also conducts economic surveillance and delivers policy
recommendations to member nations, helping them maintain robust and sustainable
economic conditions. Additionally, the IMF plays a role in crisis prevention and resolution
and offers technical assistance to strengthen the capacity of its member countries in
economic policymaking. In essence, the IMF's core mission is to promote international
monetary cooperation, exchange rate stability, and the balanced expansion of
international trade, all contributing to the overall stability of the global financial system.

IMO (International Maritime Organization): The IMO is a specialized agency of the

United Nations responsible for regulating the safety and security of international
shipping and preventing marine pollution. It sets standards for ship design, operations,
and environmental impact to ensure the safety of vessels and protect the marine
environment.

ITU (International Telecommunication Union): As the United Nations' specialized

agency for information and communication technologies (ICTs), the ITU allocates global
radio spectrum, develops technical standards, and promotes the expansion of ICT
services to bridge the digital divide and enhance global communication.

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization):

UNESCO focuses on promoting education, culture, and science worldwide to foster
international cooperation and understanding. It works to protect cultural heritage,
promote quality education, and advance scientific research.

WHO (World Health Organization): WHO is responsible for international public health
and works to address health issues and emergencies on a global scale. It sets health
standards, provides support during outbreaks, and promotes universal access to
healthcare.

WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization): WIPO administers international

treaties and agreements related to intellectual property, including patents, trademarks,
and copyrights. It aims to protect and promote innovation and creativity around the
world.
WMO (World Meteorological Organization): WMO is a specialized agency of the
United Nations responsible for coordinating international cooperation in meteorology,
climatology, hydrology, and related fields. It helps member states improve weather
forecasting, climate monitoring, and disaster management.
OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons): OPCW is tasked
with implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention, which aims to eliminate chemical
weapons and prevent their reemergence. It conducts inspections, verifies disarmament,
and promotes the peaceful use of chemistry.

The World Trade Organization (WTO):

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an international organization that deals with the
global rules of trade between nations. It was established on January 1, 1995, and is
headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland. The WTO's primary goal is to promote and
facilitate international trade while ensuring that trade occurs in a fair and predictable
manner.
 Multilateral Trade Agreements: The WTO is a forum where member countries
negotiate and enter into multilateral trade agreements. These agreements are
legally binding under international law. They cover a wide range of trade-related
issues, including the reduction of trade barriers (tariffs and non-tariff barriers),
trade in services, intellectual property protection, and more. These agreements set
the rules and obligations that member countries must follow in their international
trade activities.
 Non-Discrimination Principle: The WTO enforces the principle of non-
discrimination in international trade, as outlined in the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
The most-favored-nation (MFN) principle, a cornerstone of the WTO system,
requires that member countries treat all other members equally. This means that
any trade concession or privilege granted to one member must be extended to all
members. The MFN principle is a binding legal commitment under WTO
agreements.
 National Treatment Principle: The national treatment principle, another
fundamental aspect of WTO law, obliges member countries to treat imported and
domestically produced goods and services on an equal footing once they have
entered their markets. In other words, foreign goods and services must be treated
no less favorably than domestic ones. This principle is enshrined in the GATT and
GATS.
 Binding Dispute Settlement: One of the most significant contributions of the
WTO to international law is its robust dispute settlement system. When a member
country believes that another member has violated its WTO obligations, it can
bring a case before the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The DSB makes
binding rulings on trade disputes, and these rulings must be implemented by the
parties involved. If a member fails to comply with the DSB's ruling, the
complaining member can seek authorization to impose retaliatory trade measures.
 Transparency and Notification Obligations: WTO agreements impose
transparency obligations on member countries. They must notify the WTO of their
trade-related laws and regulations to ensure that other members have access to
relevant information about their trading partners' policies. Transparency is
essential in international law to promote openness and predictability in trade
relations.
 Trade Policy Reviews: The WTO conducts periodic reviews of the trade policies
and practices of its member countries. These reviews are essential for
transparency and accountability in international trade relations. They allow
member countries to discuss and assess each other's trade policies, fostering
cooperation and understanding.
 Technical Assistance and Capacity Building: The WTO provides technical
assistance and capacity-building programs, particularly to developing countries, to
help them understand and implement their WTO obligations effectively. This
assistance contributes to the principle of special and differential treatment, which
recognizes that developing countries may need support to participate fully in the
global trading system.
 Flexibility in Trade Measures: While the WTO enforces strict trade rules, it also
allows for certain exceptions, such as measures necessary to protect public health,
the environment, and essential security interests. These exceptions are outlined in
 the various WTO agreements and demonstrate the balance between liberalizing
trade and addressing legitimate policy concerns.
In summary, the World Trade Organization is a central institution in the field of
international trade law. It sets the rules, enforces them, and provides a platform for
member countries to engage in negotiations and resolve trade disputes within the
framework of international law. The WTO's legal framework contributes to the stability
and predictability of international trade relations, while also addressing the concerns and
interests of its diverse membership, all within the framework of international law.