UNIT- I : International Law: Nature and Definition

Lecture 1: International Law : Nature & Historical Development , Relation between International
law and Municipal Law
Q1. What do you mean by international law? Discuss its nature and scope in the emerging of global
challenges in the fields environmental pollution and terrorism. [2017, 2019, 2021]
or
Q.1 Define International Law and Discuss its Nature ? What is relationship between International Law
and Municipal Law (2014,2016,2018, 2019)

Ans- The term International law was coined by Bentham. It is a product of two words: International +
Law International Law which mean, a law which is applicable to the relationship of the states of the
world. Thus, in simple words International Law can be defined as a -"a system regulating the rights and
duties of states with one another".

Origin and development of international Law

History of modern system of international law is only of the last four hundred years. It grew from the usages
and practices of modern European states in their intercourse and communications. Writings of jurists of
sixteenth century, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had a profound impact on the modern international
law. Fundamental tenets of modern international law are national and territorial sovereignty, perfect equality
and independence of states. They are based on the modern European state system. This system influenced the
newly emerged non-European states.

History of early international law

Rules of conduct to regulate relations between nations emerged from the usages in the period of antiquity.
Treaties and immunities of ambassadors, and are found before the dawn of Christianity in ancient Egypt and
India. There were historical cases of recourse to arbitration and mediation and in ancient China and Early
Islamic world. In Greek city states there were intermunicipal laws composed of customary rules which
crystallised into law from long-standing usages followed by city states. They are connected with need for prior
declaration of war, enslavement of prisoners of war etc. There were deep religious influences and there were
no distinctions made between law, morality, justice and religion. During Rome’s dominance, distinction was
made between legal rules and religious aspects. This Roman law was later revived later in Europe.
Definitions of International Law –

Traditional Definitions of International Law

International Law regulates the relations between or among states. States and only states are subjects of
International Law.
Exponents: Oppenheim, J.L. Brierly and Hackworth

Oppenheim’s Definition:
“Law of Nations or International Law is “the name for the body of customary and treaty rules which are
considered legally binding by civilized states in their inter Course with each other”

Key components in this definition are (a) It is a body of rules governing the relations between states; (b) States
regard these rules as binding on them in their relation with one another. and (c) those rules are derived from
customs and treaties.

Criticism of Oppenheim’s definition:

Not only states but also international organization is subjects of international law P.E.Corbett: “The future of
International law is one with the future of International Organizations. Individuals and other private persons
have rights and duties in International Law. Not only customary and conventional International Law but it also
includes general principles of Law.

Modern Definitions of International Law

International Law not only regulates the relations between states but also deals with International
organizations, individuals and non – state entities.

Definition of J.G.Starke
“ International Law may be defined as that body of law which is composed for its greater part of the principles
and rules of conduct which states feel themselves bound to observe, and therefore, do commonly observe in
their relations with each other, and which includes also;

(a) The rules of law relating to the functioning of international institutions or organizations, their relations
with each other, and their relations with states and individuals; and
(b) Certain rules of relating to individuals and non-states entities so far as the rights or duties of such
individuals and non-state entities are the concern of the international community.”

Reasons for emergence of new definition includes, establishment of a large number of permanent international
institutions or organisations, protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms and creation of new rules
for the punishment of persons committing international crime

Nature of International Law (Theories of basis of International Law)

There are two views as to the nature of International Law. The first view is that ‘International Law is not a true
law.’ The chief exponents of this view are John Austin, Hobbes, Holland, Puffendorf, and Bentham. The
second view is that ‘International law is a true law.’ And the chief exponents of this view are from Natural
school of Law.

‘International Law is not a true law.’

Austin’s Views –
According to Austin, Law is a Command of Sovereign given by political superior to political inferiors.
International law is not true law, but a code of rules of conduct of moral force only. Law in strict sense is the
result of edicts issuing from a determinate sovereign legislative authority this authority is politically superior if
rules are not issued by a sovereign authority or if there is no sovereign authority then rules are not legal rules.
Such rules are moral or ethical rules only, therefore international law is not a true law but positive
international morality. International laws are opinions or sentiments current among nations generally.
‘International law is a true law.’
The chief exponents of the second view that International law is a true law are Luis Henkin and Sir Henry
Maine:
According to Luis Henkin generally all the nations observe the principles of International Law and their
obligations. According to him Objective of any law and its implementation is most important and not the
means and methods.
Sir Henry Maine considers that in primitive societies there was no sovereign political authority yet there were
laws. Austin’s concept of law denied customary rules of international law, the status of law. Treaty and
conventions are like legislation of international law. States do not deny the existence of international law.
Some states like U.K. and USA treat International Law as part of their laws. International law does not
completely lack sanctions. Decisions of International Court of Justice are binding upon parties to the dispute.

Influence of Natural law theory on the nature of International Law

It has significant influence on international Law. Several characters and binding force of international law is
founded on the theories of law of nature Important contentions of this theory are that ideal law founded on the
nature of man as a reasonable being, the body of rules which nature dictates to human reasons is law. States
submitted to international law because their relations were regulated by the higher law that is law of nature.
International law is a part of the law of nature. Natural law contains those principles which natural law dictates
to states. It is no less binding upon them than it is upon individuals because, states are composed of men, their
policies are determined by men and these men are subject to the natural law.

Theory of Positivism on the basis of International Law

International laws have same characters as Municipal law. International laws are issued from the will of the
state. International law can be reduced to a system of rules depending for their validity only on the fact that
states have consented to them. For positivists state is a metaphysical reality. It has a value and significance and
this significance makes the state to have will of its own and this will is considered as the sovereign authority.
International law consists of those rules which. Various state-wills have accepted by a voluntary self
restriction. Without such manifestation of such consent, the international law would not be binding on the
society of states. Thus international law is a branch of state law, an external public law. Only for this reason
they are binding on the state. Consent for the state may be express or implied(tacit).

Views of Aanzilotti

Binding force of international law can be traced back to one supreme, fundamental principle or norm i.e. ‘The
agreements between states are to be respected.’ this principle is known as ‘pacta sunt servanda.’ Every legal
order consists of a complex of norms. They derive their obligatory character from a fundamental norm to
which they relate to. Pacta sunt servanda is the supreme norm.
Lecture 2: Sources of International Law and relationship and difference between International Law
and Municipal Law

Q2. Discuss the various sources of international law as laid down in Article 38 of the statutes of
International Court of Justice. Which of these sources is considered most important and why?
Or

What is difference between International law and municipal Law?? [2014,2017,2018,2020]

Ans- Sources of International Law

Introduction:
Sources of international law are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating
the international personalities are developed. According to Lawrence and Oppenheim there is only one source
of International law and that is the consent of nation. Brierly considers customs and reasons as the main
sources of international law.

Article 38(1) of the statute of the International Court of Justice is widely recognized as the most authoritative
statement as to the sources of International law. On the basis of Article 38 of ICJ Statute five distinct sources
can be identified. They are International conventions/treaties, International customs, General principles of law,
Judicial decisions and writings of the publicists and Reason and equity.

International Conventions or Treaties:

It is the first and Important Source of International law. There is no Legislative organ in the field of
International Law, comparable to legislatures within the State, the enactments of which could bind all the
States. The Contracting Parties may, however, establish an international organization by means of the treaty
with authority to bind them by its resolutions or may even lay down rules for their mutual conduct. In this
sense, multilateral treaties are a feeble approach to International Character. Treaties can be divided into law
Making Treaties and treaty Contracts.

Law making Treaty-

Law making treaties are those treaties which are entered into by a large number of States. These are the direct
source of International Law. These treaties are binding. Law making treaties may be divided into i) treaty
giving the rule of Universal International Law. ii) Treaty giving general principles. (i) Treaty giving the rule of
Universal International Law - These treaties are signed by a majority of the State. For Example United Nation
Charter. (ii) Treaty giving general principles - These treaties are entered into and signed by a large number of
countries giving thereby general principles of International Like. Geneva Convention on Law of sea and
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961 are examples of such a treaty.

Treaty Contract:
These are the treaties which are entered into by two or more States. The provisions of such treaties are binding
only on the parties to the treaty. Such type of treaties is also the source of International Law because they help
in the development of customary rules of International Law.

It is criticized that the classification of treaties are misleading because they both create binding rules. In
conventions numbers of State, parties are involved. Majority of state abides by the obligation and agreed
voluntarily. Treaties create rules and principles of International Law. The basis is the common consent of the
States. There is no law making authority in the international sphere. The role played by convention in the
absence of such Law making Authority is significance. The International convention goes one step ahead of
customary rules. Treaty stipulations override rules of International customary law which are incompatible with
them. This proposition received approbation in the case of S.S Wimbledon 1923, where the Permanent Court
of International Justice held that treaty law takes priority over international Customary Law. Conventional and
customary rules of International Law are not the only source of International Law, but they fill the gap in
absence of law making authority.

Customs:
Custom is the older and original Source of International Law. It is as such Second Important source of
International Law. International Law Custom may mean a kind of qualified practice, by the existence of a
corresponding legal obligation to act according to this practice, hence by the existence of the corresponding
rule of International law. The customs are evolved through the practices of and usages of the nation and their
recognition by the community of nations. Customary rules are those rules which are practiced by most of the
States by way of habit for a pretty long time.
International custom has developed by spontaneous practice and reflects a deeply felt community of law. Its
rules are regarded as possessing density and stability and it is the repository of the general or common law of
the nation.
The general Principles of Law:
The General Principles of law are based on moral Principles and law of nature; it has relation with the State
Practice. The statute of the International Court of Justice authorizes the Court to apply the general principles of
law recognized by civilized nations in addition to international conventions and custom, which are the two
main sources of International law. It makes national legal systems as a source of law for the creation of
International Law.
The special arbitral tribunal between Germany and Portugal also applied the general principles of law in the
Maziua and Naulilaa case where the arbitrators observed that in the absence of rules of International law
applicable to the facts in dispute, they were of the opinion that it was their duty to fill the gap by principles of
equity fully taking into account the spirit of International Law, which is applied by way of analogy and its
evolution.

Judicial Decision:

According to Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, Judicial Decisions are
subsidiary sources of International Law. They are not the automatic sources of law. Judicial Decisions by
International Court of Justice, Permanent Court of Justice, International Arbitral Tribunal and Municipal
Courts are subsidiary sources of International Law.

Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice expressly provides that the decisions of the court
have no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case. This means that the
judicial decisions are binding only on the disputed States. Under the provisions of this Article, the Court is
specifically required not to apply precedent or doctrine of stare decisis in its decisions. Decisions of
International Court of Justice are to have only persuasive value. The content of earlier decisions has some
element of law and it is clarified, impartially, as certainly carried by International Court of Justice. How it
contributes in the development of International Law? Its repeated application is relied upon. Later on, it does
not remain only persuasive and it does convert into rules of International Law.

Text writers, Juristic Works and Commentators -

It is referred and relied on by International Court of Justice which author is quoted in which decision. The
opinion of jurist is also regarded as sources of international law but they are subsidiary means for the
determination of rules of international law. While deciding the case, if the Court does not find any treaty or
judicial decision or legislative act or any established custom, the Court may take the help of opinion of jurist
as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of International law. Although juristic works are not
independent sources of law, sometimes juristic opinion leads to the formation of International law. It throws
light on the rules of International law and their writing makes it easier to frame a particular rule. The value of
juristic writings carries more weight particularly in those fields of international law where treaty or customary
rules do not exist. The Writings of Ayala, Gentilis Grotius, Vattel, Kent Zouche, etc have tended to transform
the transitory state of usages into custom and represented a strong element to consolidate the customary law.
Equity
Equity is used in the sense of consideration of fairness, reasonableness and policy often necessary of the
sensible application of the more settled rule of law. Though equity cannot be the direct source of International
Law, It is of great importance in those fields where rules are not readily available.

Some jurists say that, it is not the formal source of law but it is a subsidiary source of law. Equity principles
originate from culture and interest of state concerned, equity principles vary from State to State. Equity in
international law is uncertain. It is subjective, and to bring objectively to the principles of equity as a principle
of natural law are considered. The Concept of Equity has been referred to in several cases.

Decision or determinations of the organs of International Institutions –

In the modern age the decisions or determination of the organs of international Institutions are also treated as
sources of International Law. In the view of constant change in the forms and content of the International Law,
International organizations have also become a subject of International law. The decisions and determination
of the organs of such institution are also, therefore, regarded as the sources of International Law because they
help in the development of customary rules of international law.

Theories of relationship between international law and municipal law

Theories as to Relationship between International Law and Municipal Law can be broadly classified in to two
kinds known as Dualistic Theory and Monist theory

Dualism & Monism: Dualists see International Law and Municipal Law as distinct and separate – arising
from different sources, governing different areas and relationships, and different in substance. According to
Dualists, international law is inferior to and weaker than, domestic law. If international law ever becomes part
of domestic law, that can only be because domestic law, has chosen to incorporate it. Monists on the other
hand contend that there is only one system of law, of which international and domestic laws are no more than
two aspects.
They justify this by claiming that both of them govern sets of individuals (States being seen for this as
collection of individuals) both are binding, and both are manifestations of a single concept of law. Hence
international law is superior and stronger, as it represents the system’s highest rules – jurisdiction on a
domestic level being only delegated to states, which cannot avoid being bound to apply international law at the
domestic level. So, if domestic law anywhere conflicts with international law that is the State’s fault, and will
not excuse the State’s obligations.
 Viewed on the international plane, the dispute between these two
schools of thought is indeed academic. “Formally international and domestic law as systems can never come
into conflict. What may occur is something strictly different, namely a conflict of obligations or an inability
for a state on the domestic plane to act in the manner required by international law”. It is well settled that
international law will apply to a state regardless of its domestic law and that a state cannot in the international
forum plead its own domestic law, or even its domestic constitution, as an excuse for breaches of its
international obligations.

Viewed on the domestic plane, however, the dispute is not

merely an academic one, for the two schools of thought lead to very different results. Whether international
law forms part of domestic law is a question, which in practice, is decided either by the Constitution or a
Statute or by the domestic Courts of each State.

Monists say that it will always form such a part; dualists, that it will form part only if the domestic law has
expressly as impliedly incorporated it. In fact, many States expressly accept international law as part of their
domestic law, leaving academicians to debate whether the acceptance was necessary or superfluous. But others
do not.

Where international law becomes incorporated in a State’s domestic law without the need for specific
legislation, those parts of it, which are sufficiently explicit to be enforceable by the domestic courts, are known
as ‘self executing.

Some States provide by their Constitutions that certain provisions of international law shall be self-executing.
For example, the Constitution of the U.S.A., provides that international treaties are part of the law of the
land.5 Other countries have gone even further by not only making international law self executing, but
assigning to it a rank in the domestic hierarchy superior to all prior and subsequent legislation. Examples of
this are France and Germany. But there are other States that do not accept any international law as self-
executing, or so accept it in part. For example United Kingdom (U.K.). Where International Law and
Domestic Law coincide, there is of course no problem. But if they differ – either because international law
imposes an obligation on a State which is not reflected in its domestic law, or because obligations imposed by
international law and domestic law respectively conflict with each other in a particular case – a domestic court
will generally have to apply the following rules.

(1) Where the domestic legal system is founded on a dualists view, and the obligation under international law
has not become self-executing under a standing provision of the domestic law or been expressly re-enacted in
that law, the court must follow the domestic law and ignore the international law. (In U.K. where the legal
system is entirely dualist and there are no provision for self-execution), U. K. courts are not entitled to take
into account provision of international treaties if the legislature has not expressly enabled them as part of
domestic law though U.K. is bound by treaty provision.

(2) In any other case, the court must have regard both to international law and to domestic law. If there proves
to be a conflict between them, the court must follow any rules of domestic law that prescribe which of them is
to prevail.
(3)If there are no such rules, it will probably be because the domestic legal system is founded on the monistic
view, and so international law will prevail.

Unfortunately, however, existing legal theories concerning such application of international rights tend to
belittle both the judicial agency and the desirability of judicial participation in implementing even relatively
uncontroversial international rights at domestic levels. The existing pattern of marginalization of domestic
enforcement of International Human Rights Law is deeply rooted in a naive exploration of the theory of
relationship between domestic law and international law. The monist’s theory rightly contemplates
International Law and Domestic Law as just two manifestations of one singular concept, “Law”. As such the
judiciary in a monist country is ideally in a position to directly apply international human rights norms. By
contrast, unincorporated international human rights treaties are considered as only having ‘persuasive’ and not
‘binding’ authority for judiciaries of dualist tradition, although as regards customary international law most
dualist court follow, if more theoretically than practically, a notionally monist tradition of recognizing
customary international human rights as directly applicable part of national laws.
The traditional divide between ‘binding’ and ‘persuasive authority’ of international human rights norms
simply holds the possibility that a judge may if he/she so wishes, draw on those norms to inform his/her
decisional reasoning. The approach does not focus on the obligations that a state assumes by becoming a party
to an international convention, or under higher, general international principle; nor does it articulate to refer, at
the minimum, to those international legal sources of state obligations. In short the existing dualist model, tends
to weaken both the normative and ethical regime of international human rights law as a whole.
Thus, the dualist model seems to put limits of legal positivism. But, if one concedes to the view that, apart
from state obligations, there are also values and ethical force in international human rights, one would be able
to pursue a more effective approach to the dualism. Mayo Moran aptly questioned the dominance of the
“world of legal judgment” by the traditional “binding sources” model of international rules.

While supporting the persuasive stance regarding non-binding international law, they critique that the courts
current approach does not properly distinguish between ‘binding’ and ‘persuasive’ authorities of international
rights law and urge for judicial obligations to interpret binding international law (e.g. customary) more
actively. Moran describes the approach of courts in this regard (treating International Law as persuasive) as
one of ‘Judicial quasi-obligation’. It appears that dualist model courts treat International Human Rights Law as
not ‘rights generating’ but only helps in articulating rights based on domestic regime of law. Such an approach
is suicidal one considering the legal foundation upon which International Human Rights Law exists.

Lecture 3: Subjects of International Law : States , Individaual, International Organisations

Q3. What are the subjects of International Law? Discuss the theories regarding subjects of
International Law which theory is correct with regard to Present day International Law. (2015, 2017,
2020)

Ans- Subjects of International Law

Introduction
Some questions that are relevant to the study of international law include who can create international law?
Who has rights, duties, and powers under international law? (or international legal personality); and who is
regulated (governed), directly or indirectly, by international law?
Dixon – “A subject of international law is a body or entity recognized or accepted as being capable, or as in
fact being capable, of possessing and exercising international law rights and duties”

The terms “subjects of international law” refers to entities endowed with legal personality, capable of
exercising certain rights and duties on their own account under the international legal system.

According to Starke, the term “Subject of international law” means; an incumbent of rights and duties under
international law; The holder of procedural privileges of prosecuting a claim before an international tribunal;
and The possessor of interests for which provision is made by international law

Oppenheim says that an international person is one who possesses legal personality in international law
meaning one who is subject of international law so as to enjoy rights, duties or powers established in
international law. It also gives the capacity to act on the international plane either directly or indirectly through
the state.

Theories regarding subjects of International Law

1. Realist Theory (States alone are subjects of International Law)

According to the orthodox positivist doctrine, states are the only subjects of international law. According to
Prof. Oppenheim, “the law of nations is primarily a law of international conduct of states and not of their
citizens”. If individuals have any right then it can be claimed only through the states. The Jurists of this school
believes that the states are the subjects of international law, while individuals are the objects of international
law.

Criticism of Realist Theory

It is silent on the rights of the individuals and the international offences for which individuals may be
punished. In Reparation for injuries suffered in the services of the UN case, the ICJ held “that the UN has the
capacity to bring an international claim against the State for obtaining reparation when an agent of UN suffers
injury.”

2. Fictional Theory (Individuals alone are subjects of International Law)

In this theory, Jurists believe that Individuals are the only subjects of international law as states do not have
soul or capacity to form an autonomous will. Prof. Kelson opined that the laws ultimately apply to the
individuals and are for the individuals alone. As per this theory, the welfare of an individual is the ultimate
goal of international law.

Criticism of Fictional Theory

The primary concern of International law is the rights and duties of the states. Individuals possess many rights
under international law but their capacity to enforce these rights is limited. In most of the cases, a state files
the claims for the rights of the citizens. In Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case (1934), the PCIJ observed
that “It is an elementary principle of international law that a state is entitled to protect its subjects”.

3. Functional Theory (States, Individuals and some non-state entities are subjects of International law)
The jurists with a moderate view criticize both of the above theories. These Jurists believe that States,
Individuals and certain non-state entities are subjects of international law. Now, Individuals got right even
against the states. An example of this is the European Convention on Human Rights in 1950. Under
International Covenants on Human rights 1966, it is held that individuals can claim rights directly under
international law. In some cases, Non-state actors like Colonies and Protectorate states are treated as subjects
of international law.

International Organizations as subjects of International Law

The advent of international organizations in the 20th Century is having immense significance. There are
different types of International organizations, some are Global like the United Nations and others are regional
like the African Union.

Individuals as subjects of International Law

Modern states practices have accepted in a limited way that Individuals have international legal personality.
This position of the individual is not equivalent to the states; still, individuals have got legal personality due to
many reasons. Individuals have got various rights at International law, which gives them the confidence to be
a part of it. The Universal Declaration of Human rights, 1948, gives various rights to individuals at an
international forum.

Conclusion

Today in modern times, states are not the only subjects on international law. They are still the main subjects
but in changing character of international law, international organizations, individuals and certain non-state
entities got the status of subjects in International Law. Now Individuals can enforce their rights in certain
capacity against the states. Though, there is a wide gap which exists between the rights of the states and
individuals at the other end.
Lecture 4: Sanctions in Internatiomal Law, Sovereignty in International Law

Q4 : Write short note on the following-

(a) Sanctions in International Law(2015,2017,2018,2020,2022 )

(b) Sovereignty in International Law ?(2016,2017,2018)

Ans:- (a) Sanctions in International Law –

The violation of an international obligation causes international responsibility of the States. In this context, a
State who commits a unlawful act of international perspective and whose liability has been established under
the rules of international law may be subject to sanctions, having also the obligation to repair the damage
caused.

After the end of the Cold War, the sanctions adopted under the United Nations, and then by the European
Union began to be increasingly more frequently used as a tool "intermediary" between the negotiations and
coercive measures in order to induce a desired behavior avoiding appeal to armed force, having in view the
fact that peaceful settlement dominates the entire field of the international responsibility.

The most important aspects concerning the international sanctions used by the UN and the EU and which can
be classified as economic sanctions (restrictions on imports, exports, investments), military sanctions,
financial sanctions (blocking of funds and other economic resources), travel restrictions, restrictions of
transport (road, air, maritime), cultural sanctions, sporting, diplomatic sanctions (expulsion of diplomats,
breaking diplomatic relations, suspended official visits.

International sanctions are political and economic decisions that are part of diplomatic efforts
by countries, multilateral or regional organization against states or organizations either to protect national
security interests, or to protect international law, and defend against threats to international peace and security.
These decisions principally include the temporary imposition on a target of economic, trade, diplomatic,
cultural or other restrictions (sanctions measures) that are lifted when the motivating security concerns no
longer apply, or when no new threats have arisen.

According to Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, only the UN Security Council has a
mandate by the
international community to apply sanctions (Article 41) that must be complied with by all UN member
states.
 They serve as the international community's most powerful peaceful means to prevent threats to international
peace and security or to settle them. Sanctions do not include the use of military force. However, if sanctions
do not lead to the diplomatic settlement of a conflict, the use of force can be authorized by the Security
Council separately under Article 42.

UN sanctions should not be confused with unilateral sanctions that are imposed by individual countries in
furtherance of their strategic interests. Typically intended as strong economic coercion, measures applied
under unilateral sanctions can range between coercive diplomatic efforts, economic warfare, or as preludes to
war.

For the first 45 years of the United Nations' history, sanctions were only imposed twice: once
against Rhodesia
in 1966 and then against South Africa in 1977.

From 1991, there was a sharp increase in their usage. The UN voted for sanctions twelve times in the
1990s alone.
According to Thomas G. Weiss, the soar in sanctions can be attributed to the shift in attitudes as a
consequence
of the end of the Cold War, where there was a "newfound willingness" from UN member nations to
"intrude in
issues that were once off-limits.

There are several types of sanctions-

1. Economic sanctions – typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as armaments, or
with
certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)
2. Diplomatic sanctions – the reduction or removal of diplomatic ties, such as embassies.
3. Military sanctions – military intervention

Sport sanctions – preventing one country's people and teams from competing in international events.

Sanctions on the environment – since the declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, international environmental protection efforts have been increased gradually.

Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely economic
reasons, and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures, rather than bans on trade.
(b) Sovereignty in International Law- Sovereignty and international law Although the doctrine of
sovereignty has had an important impact on developments within states, its greatest influence has been in the
relations between states. The difficulties here can be traced to Bodin’s statement that sovereigns who make
the laws cannot be bound by the laws they make (majestas est summa in cives ac submit’s legibusque soluta
potestas). This statement has often been interpreted as meaning that a sovereign is not responsible to anybody
and is not bound by any laws. However, a closer reading of Bodin’s writings does not support this
interpretation. He emphasized that even with respect to their own citizens, sovereigns are bound to observe
certain basic rules derived from the divine law, the law of nature or reason, and the law that is common to all
nations (jus gentium), as well as the fundamental laws of the state that determine who is the sovereign, who
succeeds to sovereignty, and what limits the sovereign power. Thus, Bodin’s sovereign was restricted by the
constitutional law of the state and by the higher law that was considered as binding upon every human being.
In fact, Bodin discussed as binding upon states many of those rules that were later woven into the fabric of
international law. Nevertheless, his theories have been used to justify absolutism in the internal political order
and anarchy in the international sphere. This interpretation was developed to its logical conclusion by Hobbes
in Leviathan (1651), in which the sovereign was identified with might rather than law. Law is what sovereigns
command, and it cannot limit their power: sovereign power is absolute. In the international sphere this
condition led to a perpetual state of war, as sovereigns tried to impose their will by force on all other
sovereigns. This situation has changed little over time, with sovereign states continuing to claim the right to be
judges in their own controversies, to enforce by war their own conception of their rights, to treat their own
citizens in any way that suits them, and to regulate their economic life with complete disregard for possible
repercussions in other states.
 UNIT I : INTERNATIONAL LAW; NATURE & DEFINITION
LECTURE 1- Public International Law: Nature & Historical Development, Relationship between
International Law and International Politics .
Definitions of Public International Law
Q1. What do you mean by international law? Discuss its nature and scope in the emerging of global
challenges in the fields environmental pollution and terrorism. [2017, 2019, 2021]
or
Q.1 Define International Law and Discuss its Nature ? What is relationship between International Law
and Municipal Law (2014,2016,2018, 2019)

Q1 A. Who coined the term "International Law," and how can it be simply defined?
The term "International Law" was coined by Bentham. It is derived from two words: "International" and "Law,"
referring to a legal system that governs the relationships between states around the world. In simple terms,
International Law can be defined as "a system regulating the rights and duties of states with one another."

Q1 B. What are the fundamental tenets of modern international law, and which historical system influenced
them?
The fundamental tenets of modern international law include national and territorial sovereignty, perfect equality,
and independence of states. These principles are rooted in the modern European state system, which profoundly
influenced the development of international law and also affected newly emerged non-European states.

Q1 C.What role did ancient civilizations like Egypt and Greece play in the early development of international
law?
Ancient civilizations such as Egypt and Greece played a crucial role in the early development of international law.
Egypt and India were among the earliest societies to establish treaties and grant immunities to ambassadors. In ancient
Greece, the city-states practiced intermunicipal laws, composed of customary rules that crystallized into law over time.
These laws regulated conduct in areas like the prior declaration of war and the treatment of prisoners of war. The Greek
laws were deeply influenced by religious considerations, blurring the lines between law, morality, justice, and religion.

Q1 C. According to Oppenheim, what are the key components that make up the definition of International Law?
Oppenheim defines International Law as the "body of customary and treaty rules which are considered legally
binding by civilized states in their intercourse with each other." The key components of this definition are:
o A body of rules governing the relations between states.
o States regard these rules as binding in their relations with one another.
o The rules are derived from customs and treaties.

Q1 D. How does J.G. Starke's modern definition of International Law differ from the traditional definition?
J.G. Starke's modern definition of International Law expands upon the traditional definition by including not only the
regulation of relations between states but also addressing the roles of international organizations, individuals, and
non-state entities. Unlike the traditional view that focuses solely on state relations, Starke's definition recognizes the
growing importance of international institutions, human rights, and the punishment of international crimes.

Q1 E. What is Austin's view on the nature of International Law, and why does he argue that it is not a true law?
Austin argues that International Law is "not a true law" because it lacks the essential characteristics of law as
defined by him. According to Austin, law is a command issued by a sovereign authority and backed by sanctions. Since
international law is not issued by a sovereign authority and lacks enforceable sanctions, Austin classifies it as merely a
"code of rules of conduct of moral force only", rather than a binding legal system. He concludes that international law
is positive morality rather than true law.

Q1 F. Explain the significance of the principle "pacta sunt servanda" as per Aanzilotti's view on the binding
force of international law.
The principle "pacta sunt servanda" (agreements between states are to be respected) is of supreme importance in
Aanzilotti's view on the binding force of international law. According to Aanzilotti, this principle forms the
fundamental norm upon which all other legal norms in the international legal order derive their obligatory character.
He argues that the binding force of international law is rooted in this supreme norm, making it the cornerstone of legal
obligations between states.
LECTURE 2- SOURCES OF PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW, RELATIONSHIP AND DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW AND MUNICIPAL LAW
QUESTION 2- Discuss the various sources of international law as laid down in Article 38 of the
statutes of International Court of Justice. Which of these sources is considered most important and
why?
OR
QUESTION2 - What is difference between International law and municipal Law?? [2014,201, 2018,
2020]

Q2 A. What are the primary sources of International Law according to Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute?

Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice identifies the primary sources of International Law
as:
 International conventions or treaties,
 International customs,
 General principles of law recognized by civilized nations,
 Judicial decisions, and the
 Teachings of highly qualified publicists.

Additionally, reason and equity are considered essential elements in the application and development of International
Law. These sources collectively provide the framework for regulating international relations and resolving disputes
between States.

Q2 B. What distinguishes law-making treaties from treaty contracts in International Law?

Law-making treaties are agreements entered into by a large number of States, often creating universal or general
principles of International Law that are binding on all signatories, such as the United Nations Charter. These treaties
have a broad impact and help shape the fundamental rules of International Law. On the other hand, treaty contracts
are agreements between two or more States, and their provisions are binding only on the parties involved. Although they
are also sources of International Law, their influence is limited to the contracting parties and may contribute to the
development of customary rules.

Q2 C. How does the International Court of Justice treat judicial decisions as a source of International Law?

Judicial decisions, according to Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, are recognized as subsidiary sources of International
Law. These decisions, rendered by the International Court of Justice, Permanent Court of International Justice,
and other international or municipal tribunals, hold persuasive value but are not binding precedents. Article 59 explicitly
states that the decisions of the ICJ have binding force only between the parties involved in a specific case. While not
automatically sources of law, these decisions play a significant role in clarifying and developing International Law
through consistent application and reasoning.
Q2 D. What role do customs play as a source of International Law?

Customs represent the oldest and original source of International Law, arising from the consistent and general practice
of States accepted as law. These customary rules evolve over time through the repeated actions of States, reflecting a
sense of legal obligation. Customs are recognized by the international community and are essential in filling gaps where
no formal treaties or laws exist. Their significance lies in their stability and widespread acceptance, making them a
cornerstone of the general or common law of nations. Customary International Law thus plays a critical role in
guiding State behavior and resolving international disputes.

Q2 E. How do Dualist and Monist theories differ in their view of the relationship between International Law and
Municipal Law?

Dualist and Monist theories present contrasting views on the relationship between International Law and Municipal
Law. Dualists argue that these two systems are distinct and separate, arising from different sources and governing
different areas. They contend that International Law is inferior and only becomes part of Municipal Law if explicitly
incorporated by the State. In contrast, Monists view International and Municipal Laws as aspects of a single legal
system, with International Law being superior. Monists believe that International Law automatically applies within
domestic legal systems, and in cases of conflict, International Law prevails. This fundamental difference influences
how States integrate and prioritize International Law within their domestic frameworks.

Q2 F. What is the significance of the principle of equity in International Law?

The principle of equity in International Law serves as a crucial tool for ensuring fairness, reasonableness, and justice
in situations where rigid legal rules may be inadequate or absent. Although not a direct source of law, equity is invoked
to interpret and apply existing legal norms in a manner that reflects the broader principles of fairness and justice. Equity
is particularly important in cases where specific legal rules are not readily available, allowing courts and arbitrators to
reach decisions that align with the underlying spirit and purpose of International Law. By filling gaps and providing a
sense of justice, equity contributes to the balanced and fair application of legal principles in international disputes.

Q2 G. What is the primary difference between International Law and Municipal Law?
International Law and Municipal Law, while both vital to the legal landscape, operate on distinct planes. International
Law governs the conduct of states and international entities, rooted in treaties, customs, and general principles
recognized globally. Conversely, Municipal Law (or domestic law) regulates the internal affairs of a state, derived from
its constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions. Unlike Municipal Law, which is enforceable by a sovereign state within
its borders, International Law lacks a central authority for enforcement, relying instead on the consent and cooperation
of states. The dualist and monist theories further highlight their relationship, with dualism emphasizing their separation
and monism advocating for their integration.
Lecture 3: Subjects of International Law : States , Individual, International
Organizations.

Q3. What are the subjects of International Law? Discuss the theories regarding subjects
of International Law which theory is correct with regard to Present day International
Law. (2015, 2017, 2020)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

Q3 A. What is a Subject of International Law?

A subject of International Law is an entity with international legal personality, capable of holding rights and duties
under international law. Traditionally, states were seen as the primary subjects. However, modern international law
recognizes other entities, including individuals and international organizations. According to Dixon, subjects are those
recognized as capable of exercising rights and duties within the international legal framework. Starke and Oppenheim
further emphasize that legal personality allows these entities to act on the international stage, either directly or through a
state.

Q3 B. What is the Realist Theory regarding the subjects of International Law?

The Realist Theory asserts that states alone are the primary subjects of international law. It holds that international law
governs the conduct of states, not individuals. Prof. Oppenheim emphasized that states possess full legal personality,
while individuals are considered objects of international law. This theory is criticized for overlooking the rights of
individuals and their ability to be directly involved in international legal processes, as demonstrated in the Reparation
for Injuries case, where the ICJ recognized the legal personality of international organizations.

Q3 C. What is the Fictional Theory regarding the subjects of International Law?

The Fictional Theory posits that individuals alone are the true subjects of international law, as states lack the capacity
to have autonomous will. Prof. Kelson argued that international law ultimately applies to individuals and is meant for
their welfare. This theory highlights that the primary goal of international law is to protect individual rights. However, it
is criticized for overlooking the significant role states play in international law, as individuals often cannot enforce their
rights without state intervention, such as in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concession case.

Q3 D. What is the Functional Theory regarding the subjects of International Law?

The Functional Theory offers a balanced view, recognizing that states, individuals, and non-state entities are all
subjects of international law. This theory reflects the modern understanding that international law applies to multiple
entities, not just states. For instance, individuals now have rights against states, as seen in the European Convention on
Human Rights (1950). This theory accommodates the evolving nature of international law, where entities like
international organizations and colonies are also considered subjects, though with varying degrees of legal personality.
Q3 E. How are International Organizations considered subjects of International Law?

International organizations have gained recognition as subjects of international law, especially since the 20th century.
These organizations, such as the United Nations and the African Union, possess international legal personality,
enabling them to hold rights and duties independently of states. Their status as subjects allows them to participate in
international legal processes, make treaties, and bring claims against states, as illustrated in cases like Reparation for
Injuries. The legal personality of these organizations reflects the increasing complexity of international governance and
cooperation.

Q3 F. What role do Individuals play as subjects of International Law?

In modern international law, individuals are recognized as subjects with certain rights and duties, though their legal
personality is not equivalent to that of states. Individuals can now enforce their rights, sometimes directly, under
international law. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and international human rights
covenants grant individuals various rights. While these rights are limited compared to those of states, this recognition
marks a significant shift in international law, where individuals are no longer merely objects but active participants in
the legal system.

Q3 G. What is the current understanding of the subjects of International Law?

Today, the understanding of subjects of International Law is broader and more inclusive than in the past. While states
remain the primary subjects, international law now recognizes that individuals, international organizations, and
certain non-state entities also possess legal personality. This shift reflects the changing nature of international
relations, where non-state actors play increasingly significant roles. Though a gap still exists between the rights of states
and individuals, the ability of individuals and organizations to enforce rights under international law signifies a more
complex and interconnected global legal system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

Lecture 4: Sanctions in Internatiomal Law, Sovereignty in International Law

Q4 : Write short note on the following-

(a) Sanctions in International Law(2015,2017,2018,2020,2022 )
(b) Sovereignty in International Law ?(2016,2017,2018)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----

Q4 A. What triggers the application of Sanctions in International Law?

Sanctions in International Law are applied when a state violates an international obligation, leading to international
responsibility. When a state commits an unlawful act under international law, it may be subject to sanctions and is
obligated to repair the damage caused. Sanctions serve as a tool to induce compliance with international norms without
resorting to armed conflict. After the Cold War, sanctions became more frequently used by entities like the United
Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) as an intermediary measure between diplomacy and coercive actions.
Sanctions aim to alter the behavior of the offending state while avoiding the escalation to military conflict, reflecting the
growing emphasis on peaceful settlement in international relations.

Q4 B. What types of sanctions are used by the UN and the EU?

The UN and the EU employ a variety of sanctions, each targeting different aspects of a state's activities. The main types
of sanctions include:
 Economic sanctions: Restrictions on imports, exports, and investments.
 Military sanctions: Measures such as arms embargoes.
 Financial sanctions: Blocking of funds and other economic resources.
 Travel restrictions: Limits on the movement of individuals or officials.
 Diplomatic sanctions: Actions like expelling diplomats or breaking diplomatic ties.
 Cultural and sporting sanctions: Restrictions on cultural exchanges and participation in international sports.
These sanctions are designed to pressure the targeted state into complying with international obligations without the use
of military force, promoting peaceful resolutions to conflicts.

Q4 C. What is the role of the UN Security Council in imposing sanctions?

The UN Security Council (UNSC) holds the exclusive authority to impose sanctions on behalf of the international
community, as stipulated by Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. According to Article 41, the UNSC can
mandate sanctions that all UN member states must comply with. These sanctions serve as the most powerful non-
military means to address threats to international peace and security. The UNSC can authorize a wide range of sanctions,
from economic to diplomatic, aimed at preventing or resolving conflicts. If sanctions fail to achieve their objectives, the
UNSC may authorize the use of force under Article 42 as a last resort.

Q4 D. How do unilateral sanctions differ from UN-imposed sanctions?

Unilateral sanctions are imposed by individual countries or groups of countries, rather than by the UN Security
Council. These sanctions are typically implemented to advance the strategic interests of the imposing state or states,
often as a form of economic or political coercion. Unlike UN-imposed sanctions, unilateral sanctions are not legally
binding on other states and may not be supported by the broader international community. These measures can range
from diplomatic efforts to full-scale economic warfare, and they are sometimes seen as preludes to military action. The
key difference lies in their legal foundation and the level of international consensus behind them.

Q4 E. How has the use of sanctions evolved since the end of the Cold War?

The use of sanctions has significantly increased since the end of the Cold War. For the first 45 years of the UN’s
history, sanctions were imposed only twice—against Rhodesia in 1966 and South Africa in 1977. However, after 1991,
there was a notable rise in the application of sanctions, with the UN imposing them twelve times during the 1990s alone.
This shift can be attributed to a newfound willingness among UN member states to intervene in issues previously
considered off-limits. The end of the Cold War brought about a change in global attitudes, making sanctions a more
commonly used tool for maintaining international peace and security.

Q4 F. What is the concept of Sovereignty in International Law, and how has it evolved?

Sovereignty in International Law refers to the principle that states have the supreme authority within their territories and
are not subject to external interference. Historically, Bodin and Hobbes significantly influenced the understanding of
sovereignty. Bodin argued that sovereigns are bound by higher laws, such as divine law, natural law, and the law of
nations (jus gentium), which limit their power. Hobbes, however, associated sovereignty with absolute power, where
law is what the sovereign commands. In the international sphere, this led to a state of perpetual conflict, as sovereigns
acted with complete disregard for others. Over time, the concept of sovereignty has evolved to recognize that states must
also respect international law, leading to a more regulated and cooperative international system.

Q4 G. How did Bodin and Hobbes differ in their views on sovereignty?

Bodin and Hobbes had differing views on the nature of sovereignty. Bodin believed that while sovereigns hold
supreme authority, they are still bound by higher laws, including divine law, natural law, and the law of nations. He
argued that these laws limit the sovereign’s power, and that sovereigns must respect the fundamental laws of the state
and the rights of their citizens. In contrast, Hobbes viewed sovereignty as absolute, equating it with might rather than
law. In his work Leviathan (1651), Hobbes argued that law is merely what the sovereign commands, leading to a
concept of sovereignty that justified absolute power internally and perpetual conflict externally. This absolutist view has
had lasting implications in both domestic and international politics.