Long Question

Q-27 State the Vienna convention on the law of 2

treaties,1969.
Q-28 Discuss the relation and difference between State 2
Law and International Law.
Q-29 Discuss different jurisdiction of state. 4
Or
Q-29 Discuss the Basic Principles of Criminal Jurisdiction
of the State Jurisdiction
Q-30 Define 'state' in international law and outline the 7
essential elements of a state.
Q-31 Rights and duties of state in relation to foreigners 9
in international law.
Q-32 General principles of treaties. 12
Q-33 Termination or End of the Treaty. 17
Q-34 Discuss the Objectives, Motive and Principles of the 19
United Nations.
Q-35 Explain state methods of implementing 21
international law into the law of states
Q-36 Explain the importance of international law 23

Short Note:
Q-1 Veto Power 26
Q-2 Manroes’ Doctrine 28
Q-3 Termination of war and Hostilities. 30
Q-4 Q-4 Transformation theory and delegation theory 31

Page | 1
Q-27 State the Vienna convention on the law of treaties,1969.
Ans: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, an international
agreement governing treaties between states that was drafted by the
International Law Commission of the United Nations and adopted on May
23, 1969, and that entered into force on January 27, 1980.
The Vienna Convention defines treaties as ‘international agreement[s]
concluded between States in written form and governed by international
law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation’. It contains the
fundamental principles guiding every treaty. Principles of special
importance include the principles of pacta sunt servanda, good faith, free
will, equality, reciprocity, and lack of retroactivity.
The Convention regulates treaties concluded among states. However,
another very important subject of international public law is international
organizations. They are central to the development of norms and
international relations. Therefore, considering their ever-growing
importance, during the Vienna Conference, a resolution was also adopted,
which suggested to the General Assembly to request from the Committee
on International Law to start research for the drafting of a convention
regarding treaties among states and international organizations, as well as
among international organizations themselves.
The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is the most
comprehensive set of rules governing treaties, which constitute the most
important source of international law. Its inherent principles represent the
first codification of principles governing treaties, which previously relied
on rules of international customary law.
Q-28 Discuss the relation and difference between State Law and
International Law.
Ans: Introduction:

Aspect International Law Municipal Law

Governs relationships between Regulates matters within the

sovereign states, focusing on borders of a specific state,
Scope
foreign affairs and interactions including issues between
involving multiple countries. individuals and the state.

Derives authority from the Derives authority from the

collective agreement and state itself, enforced within a
Authority consent of sovereign states, specific territory and
based on international norms emanating from the sovereign
and principles. authority of that state.

Page | 2
 Based on consent and Based on the command of the
Nature of
consensus among nations, sovereign state, with stronger
Law
with weaker enforcement. enforcement mechanisms.

Strength of Often considered weaker due Stronger enforcement

Law to weaker sanctions. mechanisms.

Treaties, conventions,
international customs and
Legislation, precedent and
Sources general principles of law
customs.
recognised by civilised
nations.

Subject Primarily concerns states as

Focuses on individuals.
Matter the main subjects.

Relies on voluntary
Enforcemen Uniformly enforceable
compliance and diplomatic
t throughout a state.
measures.

International Court of Justice

serves as the authority,
Courts are all-encompassing
Judiciary binding on parties that have
and binding.
subjected themselves to its
jurisdiction.

Legislative United Nations acts as an Parliament acts as the

Body international legislative body. legislative body.

Enforcemen
Difficult to enforce. Easier to implement.
t Difficulty

Punishment No specific provision for Punishments for infractions

for Violation punishment. are clearly defined.

Compliance Rogue or superpower states Difficult for individuals to

Difficulty may refuse to obey. disobey.

Page | 3
Q-29 Discuss different jurisdiction of state.
Discuss the Basic Principles of Criminal Jurisdiction of the State
Jurisdiction
Ans: Definition
State jurisdiction is the capacity of a State under International Law to
prescribe the rules of law, enforce the prescribed rules of law and to
adjudicate. State Jurisdiction, also means that a state court has the right
to make a legally binding decision that affects the parties involved in the
case. It is derived from State sovereignty and constitutes its vital and
central feature. It is the authority of a State over persons, property and
events which are primarily within its territories.
Scope and Extent of State Jurisdiction: State jurisdiction may extend
beyond its territory over persons and things which have a national link.
There are grounds or principles upon which the State can assert its
jurisdiction within and beyond its boundaries. Nevertheless, there are
certain persons, property and events within a State territory which are
immune from its jurisdiction.
Types of State Jurisdiction It is of three types: legislative jurisdiction,
executive jurisdiction and judicial jurisdiction.
Legislative jurisdiction
Legislative jurisdiction is the capacity of a State to prescribe rules of law. A
State has the supremacy to make binding laws within its territory. It has
legislative exclusivity in many areas. This supremacy is entrusted to
constitutionally recognized organs.
Although legislation is primarily enforceable within a state territory, it may
extend beyond its territory in certain circumstances. International Law, for
example, accepts that a State may levy taxes against persons not within
its territory as long as there is a real link between the State and the
proposed taxpayer, whether it is nationality or domicile. The legislative
supremacy of a State within its territory is well established in International
Law. However, this supremacy may be challenged in cases where a State
adopts laws that are contrary to the rules of International Law. In such
cases, a State will be liable for breach of International Law. A State may
also be liable for breach of International Law if it abuses its rights to
legislate for its nationals abroad.
Executive Jurisdiction
It is the capacity of a State to act and to enforce its laws within its
territory. Generally, since States are independent of each other and
possess territorial sovereignty, they have no authority to carry out their

Page | 4
functions on foreign territory. No state has the authority to infringe the
territorial sovereignty of another State. In this sense, a State cannot
enforce its laws upon foreign territory without the consent of the host
State; otherwise, it will be liable for breach of International Law.

Judicial Jurisdiction
It is the capacity of the courts of a State to try legal cases. A State has an
exclusive authority to create courts and assign their jurisdiction, and to lay
down the procedures to be followed. However, in doing so, it cannot by
any means alter the way in which foreign courts operate.
There are a number of principles upon which the courts of a State can
claim jurisdiction. In civil matters, the principles range from the mere
presence of the defendant in the territory of a State to the nationality and
domicile principles. In criminal matters, they range from territorial
principle to universality principle.
Principles of Jurisdiction
Generally, the exercise of civil jurisdiction by courts of a State has been
claimed upon far wider grounds than has been the case in criminal
matters. As far as criminal jurisdiction is concerned, the grounds or
principles of jurisdiction mostly invoked by States are as follows.
The Territorial Principle
This principle is derived from the concept of State sovereignty. It means
that a State has the primary jurisdiction over all events taking place in its
territory regardless of the nationality of the person responsible. It is the
dominant ground of jurisdiction in International Law. All other State must
respect the supremacy of the State over its territory, and consequently
must not interfere in its internal affairs or in its territorial jurisdiction. The
territorial jurisdiction of State extends over its land, its national airspace,
its internal water, its territorial sea, its national aircrafts, and its national
vessels. It encompasses not only crimes committed on its territory but
also crimes that have effects within its territory. In such a case a
concurrent jurisdiction occurs, a subjective territorial jurisdiction may be
exercised by the State in whose territory the crime was committed, and an
objective territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by the State in whose
territory the crime had its effect.
Although jurisdiction is primarily and predominantly territorial, it is not
exclusive. A State is free to confer upon other States the right to exercise
certain jurisdiction within its national territory. States are free to arrange
the right of each one to exercise certain jurisdiction within each national
territory.

Page | 5
The Nationality Principle
The nationality principle implies that a State jurisdiction extends to its
nationals and actions they take beyond its territory. It is based upon the
notion that the link between the State and its nationals is a personal one
independent of location. Criminal jurisdiction based on the nationality
principle is universally accepted. While civil law countries make extensive
use of it, the Common Law countries use it with respect to major crimes
such as murder and treason. The Common Law countries, however, do not
challenge the extensive use of this principle by other countries.
A State may prosecute its nationals for crimes committed anywhere in the
world; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as active nationality
principle. Also, it may claim jurisdiction for crimes committed by aliens
against their nationals abroad; the ground of this jurisdiction is known as
passive national principle.
This last principle has been viewed as much weaker than the territorial or
active nationality principle as a basis for jurisdiction. It has been
considered as a secondary basis for jurisdiction, and a matter of
considerable controversy among States. However, in recent years this
principle has come to be much acceptable by the international community
in the sphere of terrorist and other internationally condemned crimes.
The Protective Principle:
The protective principle implies that a State may exercise jurisdiction over
an alien who commits an act outside its territory, which is deemed
prejudicial to its security and interests. It is universally accepted, although
there are uncertainties as to its practical extent, particularly as regard to
the acts which may come within its domain. It is justified on the basis of
protection of State’s vital interests, particularly when the alien commits an
offence prejudicial to the State, which is not punishable under the law of
the country where he resides and extradition is refused. Although the
protective principle is used as a secondary basis for jurisdiction and in a
narrower sense than the territorial or the nationality principle, it can easily
be abused, particularly in order to undermine the jurisdiction of other
States.
In practice however, this principle is applied in those cases where the acts
of the person which take place abroad constitute crimes against the
sovereignty of the State, such as plots to overthrow a government,
treason, espionage, forging a currency, economic crimes and breaking
immigration laws and regulations.
This principle is often used in treaties providing for multiple jurisdictional
grounds with regard to specific crimes, such as the 1979 Hostage
Convention and the 1970 Hague Aircraft Hijacking Convention.
Passive personality principle

Page | 6
This is a situation where the accused will be prosecuted in the country of
the nationality of the victim.
The Universality Principle
The universality principle, in its broad sense, implies that a State can
claim jurisdiction over certain crimes committed by any person anywhere
in the world, without any required connection to territory, nationality or
special State interest.
Before the Second World War, such universal jurisdiction has been
considered as contrary to International Law by the Common Law
countries, except for acts regarded as crimes in all countries, and crimes
against international community as a whole such as piracy and slave
trade.
After the Second World War, universal jurisdiction has been universally
recognized over certain acts considered as international crimes.
International crimes are those committed against the international
community as a whole or in violation of International Law and punishable
under it, such as war crimes, crimes against peace and crimes against
Humanity. In recent years, crimes such as Hijacking of aircraft, violation of
human rights and terrorism, have been added to the list of international
crimes currently, under the universality principle, each State and every
State has jurisdiction over any of the international crimes committed by
anyone anywhere.
Q-30 Define 'state' in international law and outline the essential
elements of a state.
Ans: In international law, a "state" is a distinct legal entity that possesses
sovereignty and operates as an independent entity in the international
system. It is the principal subject of international law, endowed with
certain rights and obligations under international law. The concept of
statehood and the criteria for recognition as a state have evolved over
time, often shaped by historical, political, and legal contexts.
Definition of a State in International Law
The definition of a state in international law largely rests on the concept of
sovereignty, which implies the highest level of authority within a given
territory and the independence to engage in foreign relations.
Traditionally, a state is an entity that exercises control over a territory and
population, has a government, and is recognized by other states as
possessing this status.
The legal foundation for the concept of statehood in international law is
primarily derived from the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and
Duties of States (1933), which outlines the fundamental criteria for
statehood. This convention has influenced international law by providing a

Page | 7
widely accepted framework for determining whether an entity qualifies as
a state.
Essential Elements of a State
According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention, a state should
possess the following essential elements:
1. Permanent Population: A State must have a permanent
population, meaning it has a group of people who reside within its
territory. The population does not have to be homogeneous or of a
specific size; it simply needs to be a stable group of people with a
common allegiance to the government and a sense of belonging to
that entity. This criterion implies that there must be a community
that the state represents and over which it exercises authority.
2. Defined Territory: A state must have a defined geographical area
under its control, often referred to as "territory." This territory does
not need to have precisely defined boundaries or a minimum size.
What is crucial is that the state exercises control over a reasonably
defined area where it can enforce laws, maintain order, and manage
resources. Disputes over borders do not necessarily negate
statehood; a state can still be recognized even if it has ongoing
territorial disputes with other entities.
3. Government: A state must have a functioning government, which
is an organized political authority capable of enforcing laws and
providing governance over its territory and population. The
government must be able to maintain internal order and provide for
the administration of justice, public welfare, and essential services.
Additionally, the government should have the capacity to conduct
foreign relations, representing the state in the international
community. Different forms of government (e.g., democratic,
autocratic) do not affect the qualification for statehood as long as
there is a functioning governing authority.
4. Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States :The state
must have the ability to engage in international relations as an
independent entity. This means it must be able to enter into
agreements, establish diplomatic relations, and participate in
international organizations. The capacity to interact with other
states distinguishes a sovereign state from non-state entities, such
as regions or territories that may exercise autonomy but lack full
independence in conducting foreign policy. This requirement
emphasizes the importance of independence and autonomy in the
international legal framework.
Additional Criteria: Recognition and Sovereignty

Page | 8
While the Montevideo Convention provides the basic criteria, the concept
of statehood is often influenced by additional factors, including
recognition by other states and sovereignty.
 Recognition by Other States: Recognition is not a formal criterion
in the Montevideo Convention, but it plays a critical role in practical
terms. Recognition by other states affirms the status of an entity as
a member of the international community. There are two types of
recognition: de facto (recognition of control) and de jure (recognition
as a legitimate state under international law). An entity’s claim to
statehood can be significantly strengthened by widespread
international recognition, which legitimizes its position as a
sovereign state.
 Sovereignty: Sovereignty is a fundamental principle underpinning
the concept of a state. It entails full and independent authority over
internal and external affairs, free from the control of other states.
Sovereignty implies that the state has supreme power within its
territory and that other states mfust respect this independence.
Sovereignty allows a state to govern its population, enforce laws,
and defend its territorial integrity.
Limitations on Statehood: Special Cases
There are complex cases that challenge the traditional criteria for
statehood, including entities that fulfill most criteria but lack broad
international recognition (e.g., Palestine, Taiwan) and instances of "failed
states" where the government no longer effectively controls the territory
(e.g., Somalia in the 1990s). Additionally, non-sovereign territories, like
colonies or autonomous regions, may meet some elements of statehood
but are considered subordinate to another state.
Conclusion
The concept of statehood in international law is defined by a set of core
criteria: a permanent population, a defined territory, a functioning
government, and the capacity for international relations. While these
criteria, as outlined by the Montevideo Convention, are widely accepted,
recognition and sovereignty also influence the status of an entity as a
state. The complexities of statehood illustrate that while international law
provides foundational criteria, political considerations and the realities of
international relations often play a significant role in determining whether
an entity is treated as a state in the global arena.
Q-31 Rights and duties of state in relation to foreigners in
international law.
Answer:

Page | 9
In international law, states have specific rights and duties in relation to
foreigners within their territories. These obligations balance a state's right
to exercise sovereignty and maintain security with international principles
aimed at protecting individuals, regardless of nationality. Here’s a detailed
look at these rights and duties:
1. Rights of the State Regarding Foreigners
 Sovereign Right to Control Entry and Stay:
States have the inherent right to control the entry, stay, and
removal of foreigners within their territories. This includes
establishing immigration laws, visa requirements, and rules for
deportation. However, these regulations must comply with
international obligations, particularly concerning the non-
refoulement principle (non-return of individuals to countries where
they may face serious harm).
 National Security Measures:
States may take measures to protect national security, such as
denying entry to individuals considered threats or monitoring
foreign nationals. In times of emergency, a state may take stricter
actions against foreigners, provided that these measures do not
breach international human rights norms.
 Regulation of Foreign Nationals’ Activities:
States can impose restrictions on the activities of foreigners, such as
limitations on employment, political participation, and access to
certain sectors, based on national interests. Foreigners may be
excluded from particular areas or restricted in engaging in activities
that could impact national security or public order.
 Diplomatic Protection and Immunities:
States have a right to provide protection and certain immunities to
foreign diplomats and international organizations, as governed by
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961). This allows
for the management of diplomatic relations and international
cooperation without interference in state sovereignty.
 Right to Exclude or Expel:
States hold the right to exclude or expel foreigners from their
territories, though this must be conducted in accordance with
international standards. Arbitrary or discriminatory expulsion is
prohibited under international law, and procedural fairness must be
ensured. Collective expulsions, where groups of foreigners are
expelled en masse without due process, are also forbidden.
2. Duties of the State to Foreigners
 Non-Discrimination:
States are required to treat foreigners without discrimination based

Page | 10
 on race, religion, or nationality, as established by international
human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights (ICCPR). While some differences in treatment
between nationals and foreigners are permissible (e.g., political
rights), arbitrary discrimination is prohibited.
 Protection of Life and Liberty:
States have a duty to protect the life, liberty, and personal security
of all individuals within their jurisdiction, including foreigners. This
includes protection from torture, arbitrary arrest, and detention, in
line with international human rights laws like the ICCPR and the
Convention Against Torture (CAT).
 Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process:
Foreigners are entitled to due process rights, which include fair trial
guarantees, protection against arbitrary detention, and access to
legal representation. This duty is particularly significant in cases
where a foreign national faces criminal charges or potential
expulsion.
 Respect for Fundamental Human Rights:
States are bound to respect basic human rights of foreigners,
including freedom of expression, movement, religion, and peaceful
assembly, although certain limitations may apply. These rights are
enshrined in international treaties such as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) and the ICCPR, with some distinctions
between nationals and non-nationals being permissible under
specific conditions.
 Protection from Torture and Inhuman Treatment:
Under the CAT and customary international law, states have a duty
not to subject foreigners to torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading
treatment. This duty applies equally to nationals and foreigners and
includes protection from return (refoulement) to a country where
they are likely to face such treatment.
 Right to Property and Economic Rights:
Foreigners generally have the right to own property and engage in
business within a state, although states can impose certain
restrictions. International investment treaties often protect the
property rights of foreigners, requiring states to offer compensation
if expropriation occurs. However, states may restrict foreigners from
certain industries or land ownership for national security reasons.
 Right to Asylum and Protection for Refugees:
States are bound by international refugee law, particularly the 1951
Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, to protect asylum
seekers and refugees. This includes the duty not to return
individuals to countries where they face persecution (non-

Page | 11
 refoulement) and to allow refugees basic rights, such as freedom of
movement, work rights, and access to education.
 Access to Consular Protection:
Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963), states
have a duty to allow detained foreigners access to consular
assistance from their home countries. This includes notifying foreign
consulates of an individual’s detention and allowing consular visits.
3. Key International Instruments Governing State Obligations to
Foreigners
 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR):
Sets out fundamental rights that apply to all individuals within a
state’s territory, including foreigners, emphasizing non-
discrimination, fair trial rights, and protection from arbitrary
treatment.
 Convention on the Status of Refugees (1951) and Protocol
(1967):
Establishes specific protections for refugees, including the principle
of non-refoulement and rights to work, education, and movement.
 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD):
Requires states to protect individuals from racial discrimination,
including foreigners, and to ensure equality before the law.
 Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations:
Provides for diplomatic protection and the rights of foreign nationals
to consular access if detained.
4. Limitations on the Rights of Foreigners
While international law sets out extensive rights for foreigners, states can
impose certain limitations for national security, public order, or public
health reasons. Such restrictions, however, must be reasonable, non-
arbitrary, and should adhere to the principles of necessity and
proportionality.
In summary, international law recognizes both the rights of states over
foreigners (including immigration control and national security measures)
and the duties of states to protect the basic human rights and due process
rights of foreigners. This balance aims to safeguard the sovereignty of
states while upholding international norms of fairness, equality, and
human rights protection.
Q-32 General principles of treaties.
Ans: 1) pacta sunt servanda 2) rebus sic stantibus 3) jus cogens

Page | 12
1) pacta sunt servanda
It is doctrine borrowed from the Roman law and has been adopted as a
principle governing treaties in international law. 224 In the view of Italian
Jurist Anzilotti, pacta sunt servanda is the basis of the binding force of
international law. This principle means that states are bound to fulfill in
good faith of the obligations assumed by them under agreements.
According to Prof. Oppenheim, “treaties are legally binding because there
exists a customary rule of international law that treaties are binding. The
binding effect of that rule rests in the last resort on the fundamental
assumption. This is neither consensual nor necessarily legal of the
objectively binding force of an international law.” 226 This assumption is
frequently expressed by the norm or principle, ‘pacta sunt servanda’. The
International Court of Justice has described it as ‘a time knowned basic
principle’.
Accordingly, to Fenwick, “philosophers, theologians and jurists have
recognized with unanimity that unless the pledged word of a state could
be relied upon the relation of the entire international community would be
imperiled and law itself would disappear”.
The PCIJ has consistently held that the provisions of municipal law cannot
prevail over these of treaty. The Court observed in the case concerning
the Treatmentof Polish National in Danzig: “a state cannot adduce as
against another state its own constitution with a view to evading
obligation incumbent upon it under international law or treaties in
force”.229 Again it was observed in the Free Zone case; “it is certain
that France cannot rely on her own legislation to limit the scope of
international obligations”. The same view was repeated in the Greco
Bulgarian Communities by the PCIJ in its Advisory Opinion; “it is a
generally accepted principle of international law that in the relations
between powers who are contracting parties to a treaty, the provisions of
municipal law cannot prevail over those of the treaty”
Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969,
specifically embodies the doctrine of Pacta Sunt Servanda when it lays
down that every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must
be performed by them in good faith231. It is not hard to see why this is so.
In the absence of a certain minimum belief that states will perform their
treaty obligations in good faith, there is no reason for countries to enter
into such obligations with each other.
In Paul Reuter’s words, the principle can be translated by the following
formula: treaties “are what the authors wanted them to be and only what
they wanted them to be and because they wanted them to be the way
they are”. A party is not authorized to invoke the provisions of its internal
law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty (Article 27). Generally
speaking, this solid legal link neither is nor even weakened in the case

Page | 13
severance of diplomatic relations between the parties to a given treaty
(Article 63).232 But apparently states expect increasingly out of realism
that the treaties they conclude in certain areas, in particular with regard
to the protection of the environment, will note be properly implemented
by all states parties just out of respect for the “Pacta Sunt Servanda” rule.
Nuclear Tests Case
The maxim ‘pacta sunt servanda’ has been said to relate entirely to the
law of treaties. The rationale behind the maxim is seemingly self-evident:
a need by the global network for a system that can ensure global order
and avert arbitrary behaviour and chaos.
The Nuclear Test case, which was a case among Australia and France
remains an incredible source of anger and agitation among south pacific
countries of Australia and New Zealand due to atrocious environmental
vandalism through the republic of France.
From the 1960s, the undertaking trials of Nuclear weapons commenced at
Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific which also covered atmospheric testing.
Australia and New Zealand argued that such practices ended in
radioactive particles spreading in the course of the world. In order to
prevent the testing, they took the matter to the International Court of
Justice. The French counter-argued that the courtroom lacked jurisdiction.
They additionally posted a public statement that they now not wished
atmospheric testing.
Australia and New Zealand were not satisfied with the public testimony as
not a thing stopped France from converting their minds and continuing
atmospheric nuclear testing.
In the Nuclear Tests Case, the ICJ held that:
“One of the basic principles governing the creation and performance of
legal obligations… is good faith. Trust and confidence are inherent in
international cooperation, in particular in an age when this cooperation in
many fields is becoming increasingly essential. Just as the very rule
of pacta sunt servanda in the law of treaties is based on good faith, so
also is the binding character of an international obligation. Thus interested
States may take cognizance of unilateral declarations and place
confidence in them, and are entitled to require that the obligation thus
created be respected.”[11]
In this case the Court gave those testimonies by a State (the declaring
State) the same legal effects which can usually only be attributed to a
binding synallagmatic treaty[12] closer to the receiving State. The Court
found that if some prerequisites have been met, then a unilateral
declaration can bind a State; those are: the context of the testimony, the
aim of the asserting State, no necessary acceptance by using the

Page | 14
accepting State or observance of formal requirements. For current
purposes, the context and cause are of utmost importance.
2) rebus sic stantibus
The phrase 'rebus sic stantibus' (things thus standing) is a Latin phrase
that refers to a situation where a contract cannot be withdrawn from or
terminated as long as the conditions and circumstances surrounding the
contract have not fundamentally changed.
This has often been used in the form of doctrine in international law, more
specifically in treaty law, and has been a subject of debate and disputes.
This doctrine is a part of customary international law but a provision for
this doctrine has been provided in Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties 1969 as well.
What is the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus?
Clausula rebus sic stantibus is a doctrine that allows for the contract or
treaty to be withdrawn from or terminated when there is a fundamental
change in the circumstances of the contract or treaty. It helps to escape
the principle of pacta sunt servanda', which stipulates that all states must
abide by the agreements formed between them in good faith.
Pacta sunt servanda is also legally provided for in Article 26 of the Vienna
Convention which provides that treaties in force are binding upon parties
and are to be performed in good faith.
On what basis can this doctrine be applied?
Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 talks
about the fundamental change of circumstances in which rebus sic
stantibus can be invoked, however, this is also subject to conditions-
• There must be a fundamental change in the circumstances prevailing at
the point where the treaty was concluded to the present prevailing
circumstances. Such fundamental change must not have been foreseen by
the parties.
• Those circumstances must have constituted an essential basis of the
consent of the parties by which they entered and agreed to be bound by
the treaty.
• The change has the effect of substantially and radically transforming the
extent of obligations of a party under the treaty.
• If the treaty does not establish a boundary.
If the fundamental change has occurred because of a breach by a party
invoking the said change, this doctrine cannot be used to escape the
obligations under the treaty.

Page | 15
This breach can be a breach of an obligation under the treaty or the
breach of any international obligation owed to any party under that treaty.
Objectives of rebus sic stantibus
The doctrine of rebus sic stantibus is not expressly mentioned in any
international legal instrument but Article 62 of the Vienna Convention
talks about fundamental change of circumstances. This doctrine has been
often used in international relations by parties to withdraw from treaties. A
state may use this doctrine where-
• At the time of the conclusion of the treaty, the state thinks the terms of
the treaty to be beneficial but later might realise it to be unbeneficial.
There might be some internal situation in a state where the treaty is found
to be detrimental or harmful to the state.
In such situations, the state may look to withdraw, terminate, suspend
operations or render the treaty invalid.
• State sovereignty and policy might dictate that the state not always
follow the terms of the treaty therefore the state might choose to
withdraw from a treaty. If the state deems a treaty detrimental to its
security or security of its subjects, it may choose this option.
Therefore, it is observed that often states cite their own internal reasons
like protection of its interests, to use this doctrine. This doctrine serves the
objective of protecting state interest while Simon simultaneously
preventing misuse through the condition of ‘fundamental change
in circumstances.
3) Jus cogens
Ans: Introduction
Jus cogens, also known as the peremptory norm, is a fundamental and
overriding principle of international law. It is a Latin phrase that translates
to 'compelling law. It is absolute in nature which means that there can be
no defense for the commission of any act that is prohibited by jus cogens.
These norms, though limited, are not cataloged. They are derived from
changing social, political attitudes and major case laws and are not
defined by any authoritative body.
This principle aims to seal the slightest suppression of any law in any
form and manner.
What is Jus Cogens?
Jus cogens or peremptory norm means a body of fundamental principles of
international law which binds all states and does not allow any exceptions.
It is basically a compilation of norms that lays down the international
obligations which are essential for the protection of the fundamental

Page | 16
interest of the international community and any violation of these norms
is thereby recognized as a crime against the community as a whole.
It is binding upon all the members of the international community in all
circumstances. Jus cogens imply absolute restrictions on genocide, slavery
or slave trade, torture or other inhuman treatment, prolonged arbitrary
detention, and racial discrimination. Any activity or treaty carried out by
the states or international organizations that contradict human dignity and
rights will offend the concept of jus cogens and thus, be void. It can be
said that jus cogens exist to protect and uphold human dignity and rights.
Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any treaty that
conflicts with a
peremptory norm is void. The treaty allows for the emergency of new
peremptory norms, but does not itself specify any peremptory norms. “A
treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion it conflicts with a peremptory
norm of general international law. For the purpose of the present
convention, a peremptory norm of general international law is a norm
accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a
whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be
modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having
the same character”.
The number of peremptory norms is considered limited but not exclusively
catalogued. They are not listed or defined by any authoritative body, but
arise out of case laws and changing social and political attitudes.
Generally included are prohibitions on waging aggressive war, crimes
against humanity, war crimes, maritime piracy, genocide, apartheid,
slavery and torture.

Q-33 Termination or End of the Treaty

Introduction
The world is now global and states share resources. International trade
connects the world, and trade economics helps states become a part of
the development processes. In the process, there are possibilities of
conflict in interests. Treaties help in regulating behaviour and ensure
mutual benefits. Through treaties, countries decide the negotiation points
and terms of the agreements.
Definition(s) of Treaties:
Treaty is a kind of agreement between countries or states, mutually
agreed upon. The document provides rights to the parties and decides
obligations. It is sometimes known as a pact or convention. Treaty must be
a written document mutually agreed upon and signed by the parties.

Page | 17
International Laws are regulating the treaty. “The Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties (1969) (‘VCLT’)., is defined the word ‘treaty’ as:
‘An international agreement concluded between States in written form
and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single
instrument or two or more related instruments and whatever its particular
designation’ (Article 2 (1) (a))
Features of Treaties:
Main features of treaties derived from the definition-
1. Treaties are written documents which means the verbal agreements
are not liable. Negotiation points or agreements should be clearly
described and signed by the states/nations involved.
2. Treaties are regulated by international laws and regulations and
bound states with legal obligations.
3. It might be composed of one or two legal instruments to describe
the terms of agreements in an unambiguous manner.
Types of treaties
International treaties are of two types, Bilateral and Multilateral.
 Bilateral treaties- when only two states are involved in a treaty
agreement with the legal instrument of written law, are called
bilateral treaties. For example, India signed Bilateral Investment
treaties (BIT) with the United Kingdom in 1994 to promote
financially viable activities between the states.
 Multilateral treaties: When three or more three states are
involved in a treaty agreement through legal instruments, it is called
multilateral treaties and such as UNCLOS (united nation convention
on the law of sea, 1982), related to the sea territories, and Kyoto
Protocol 2005, associated with the reduction of Green-House gases.
PROCEDURE FOR TERMINATION OF TREATIES
Treaties may be terminated by operation of law or by act of the State
parties.
1. By Operation of Law: Termination of treaties by operation of law may
be made in the following ways:
When either party to a bilateral treaty becomes extinct it may
amount to termination of the treaty.
 Outbreak of war: According to the old view, the outbreak of war
between parties

Page | 18
resulted in the termination of the treaties. But in the modern period all
treaties do not end at the outbreak of war. With regard to the operation of
treaties at the outbreak of war,
Starke has pointed out as follows:
1) Treaties between States for which general, political and good relations
are essential, cease at the outbreak of war because political treaties
depend upon friendly relations.
2) Treaties relating to completed situations, such as fixation of boundaries
remain unaffected by war.
3) Treaties dealing with the rules of international law relating to war
remain in force and it is binding upon the parties. Hague Convention of
1899 and 1907 and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the standing
examples of such type of treaties.
4) Some multilateral treaties relating to health, service, protection of
industrial property, etc., do not totally end at the outbreak of war. They
simply remain suspended during the period of war and revived as soon as
the war ends.
2. A material breach of bilateral treaty: A material breach of a
bilateral treaty by one party entitles the other party to terminate the
treaty.
3. Impossibility of performance: The impossibility of performance of a
treaty also is a valid ground for determination of a treaty. This provision is
contained in Article 61 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the
treaties, 1969.
4. Rebus sic stantibus: Rebus sic stantibus is also a ground for the
termination of treaty. The maxim Rebus sic stantibus means that when the
fundamental circumstances under which the treaty was entered into
change then this change entitles the other party to terminate the treaty.
5. Expiration of fixed term: If the treaty has been concluded for a fixed
period, the expiry of the fixed term will automatically terminate the treaty.
6. Successive denunciation: Successive denunciation may also lead to
the termination of a treaty. The provision relating to this is contained in
Article 55 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties, 1969.
Q-34 Discuss the Objectives, Motive and Principles of the United
Nations
Ans: The 20th century was a witness to two devastating world wars. The
League of Nations often called the child of war was established
immediately after the First World War. The main objective of the League of
Nations was to establish peace and security in the world. The League of

Page | 19
Nations was partially successful and partially failed to achieve its
objective. It is evident from the fact that the Second World War was ample
proof of the utter failure of the League of Nations to establish peace in the
world.
The Second World War forced the states in the world to bear the effects of
the war and to establish an international organisation, which would help in
the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to ensure that peace and security
could be established in the world. Subsequently, the then great nations of
the world signed the San Francisco Conference on January 26, 1945,
whereby the United Nations Charter was adopted and signed by 51
nations of the world, and it came into force on October 21, 1945, which is
today celebrated as the United Nations Day.278
PURPOSES OF UNITED NATIONS
The purposes of the United Nations are enshrined in Article 1 of the
Charter. According to Article 1, following are the purposes of the United
Nations:
1) To maintain international peace and security
The most important responsibility of the United Nations is to maintain
international peace and security. After having expressed their
determination in the preamble "to save succeeding generations from
thescourge of war" it was but natural and appropriate for the framers of
the United Nations Charter to consider "Maintenance of International
peace and security" as the first and foremost purpose of the United
Nations. Article (1) provides that one of the purposes of the United Nations
is to maintain international peace and security and to that end: “to take
effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of
threats to the peace and further suppression of acts of aggression or
other breaches of peace, and to bring about peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and international law,
adjustment or s ettlement of international dispute or situation which
may lead to breach of the peace.”
2) To develop friendly relations among nations:
The second purpose of the United Nations is to develop friendly relations
among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-
determination of people to take other appropriate measures to strengthen
universal peace.
3) International cooperation in solving international problems of
economic, social and humanitarian character
The third purpose of the United Nations is to achieveinternational
cooperation in solving international problems of economic, social,

Page | 20
culturalor humanitarian character and in promoting and encouraging
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.
4) To make the United Nations a centre for the attainment of the
above, and ends:
The last purpose of the United Nations is to make it a centre for
harmonising the actions in the attainment of those common ends.
PRINCIPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Article 2 of the United Nations charter provides that the organization and
its members, in pursuit of the purposes enshrined in article 1, shall act in
accordance with the following principles:
1) Principle of sovereign equality of all its members:
The first principle of the United Nations is that the organization is based
on the principle of sovereign equality of all its members. According to this
principle, all the members of the United Nations are equal in the eyes of
law irrespective of the size and strength.
2) Principle of fulfilling obligations in good faith:
The second principle of the United Nations is that all members, in order to
ensure to all of them, the rights and benefits resulting from the
membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in
accordance with the present Charter.
3) Peaceful settlement of international disputes:
All members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in
such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not
endangered.
4) Principle of non-intervention:
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 any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the
United Nations.
5) Principle of assistance to UNO:
The next principle is that all members shall give the United Nations every
assistance in any common action it takes in accordance with the present
Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against
which the United Nations in taking preventive or enforcement action.
6) Principle of maintenance of international peace and security:

Page | 21
The UN shall ensure that States which are not members of the United
Nations act in accordance with these principles so far as may be
necessary, for maintenance of international peace and security.
7) Non-intervention in domestic matters of state:
The last principle of the United Nations states that nothing contained in
the present Charter shall authorise the United Nations to intervene in
matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state
or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under
the present Charter.
Q-35 Explain state methods of implementing international law
into the law of states
Ans: Theories as to Application of International Law within Municipal
Sphere For conceptual clarity on relations ship between municipal law and
international law, it is pertinent to discuss the theories as to Application of
International Law within the Municipal sphere.
Specific Adoption, Specific Incorporation or Transformation
Theory:
The Dualist considers that the rules of International Law cannot directly be
applied within the municipal sphere by State Courts. In order to be so
applied such rules must undergo a process of specific adoption or specific
incorporation into municipal law. According to Dualist Theory International
Law and Municipal Law cannot impinge upon state law unless Municipal
Law allows its constitutional machinery to be used for that purpose as
they are two separate and structurally different systems. Dualists argue
that, in the case of treaty rules, there must be transformation of the treaty
into state law. They further claim that such transformation of treaty into
state law should not merely a formal but a substantive requirement, and
that alone validates the extension to individuals of the rules laid down in
treaties.
These theories rest on the supposed consensual character of International
Law as contrasted with the non-consensual nature of state law. According
to this theory, there is a difference between Treaties which are of the
nature of promises, and Municipal statutes which are of the nature of
commands and that the transformation of International Treaties to the
Municipal sphere is formally and substantively indispensable. However,
this argument is criticized by saying that the distinction between promise
and command is relevant to form and procedure but not to the true legal
character of these instruments.
Delegation Theory:
The ‘Delegation Theory’ which is put forward by the critics of the
transformation theory maintain that the Constitution Rules of International

Page | 22
Law delegated to each state Constitution, the right to determine when the
provisions of a treaty or a convention is to come into force and the
manner in which they are to be embodied in State law. Further, the
supporters of Delegation theory contend that the procedure and methods
to be adopted for this purpose by the state are a continuation of the
process begun with the conclusion of the treaty or convention. They argue
that, there is no transformation, no fresh creation of rules of municipal
law, but merely a prolongation of one single act of creation and the
constitutional requirements of state law are thus merely part of a unitary
mechanism for the creation of law While the monist/dualist debate
continues to shape academic discourse and judicial decisions, it is
unsatisfactory in many respects.
State Practice on the Domestic Application of International Law:
Domestic use of international human rights treaties has been a subject of
debate in almost all countries. This is mainly because of the effect of
common law that had great bearing on the jurisprudence of several
countries since they were once colonies of British Empire and even after
liberation, common law still continue to influence the jurisprudence of
these countries. However, in recent years there is a sharp departure from
dualist approach and most national courts are tending towards monist
view on the subject. A brief overview of domestic application of
international human rights law in states other than India will offer
comparative analysis of domestic use of international human rights
treaties. Further it will also help understand the prevailing trend and
interpretative techniques that are adopted to incorporate international
human rights laws in to the domestic jurisprudence.
Practice
Practice of United States of America
Application of International Treaty Rules in U.S.A:
Unlike India, the treaty making power and the status of international law
in U.S. is clearly provided under the U.S. Constitution. Article II Section 2
of the Constitution of U.S.A. provides that; “the President shall have
power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make
treaties, provided two-thirds of senators present concur….” The President
initiates and conducts negotiations of the treaties and after signing them,
places them before Senate for its “Advice and Consent”
A distinction is made in the U.S.A. between treaties and agreements.
Treaties are required by the Constitution to be submitted before the
Senate for approval/ratification. Whereas the agreements (known as
executive agreements), are entered into and signed by the President in
exercise of his executive power. The types of agreements so contemplated

Page | 23
are those relating to foreign relations and military matters that do not
affect the rights and obligations of the citizens.
England: Practice
The domestic application of international law draws a distinction
between
i) customary rules of international law; ii) treaty rules.
Customary Rules of International : According to the 18th Century
“Blackstonian” Doctrine, generally known as incorporation doctrine,
customary international law was deemed automatically to be part of the
common law. Treaty Rules: The application of treaty rules in England is
primarily conditioned by the constitutional principles governing the
relations between the executive (crown) and Parliament. The negotiation,
signature and ratification of treaties are matters belonging to the
prerogative powers of the crown.
Current Practice: The modern practice in England is of submitting
treaties to Parliament for ratification. This is because of a statement made
on 1st April 1924 by Mr. Ponson the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
affairs in Parliament of the intention of the new Government to lay on the
table of both House of Parliament every treaty, when signed, for a period
of twenty-one days, after which the treaty will be ratified and published
and circulated in the Treaty Series. The object of this practice is to secure
publicity for treaties and to afford opportunity for their discussion in
Parliament if desired. It apparently does not apply to those kinds of
treaties, usually of minor or technical importance, which do not require
ratification. It appears that practice only applies to treaties that are made
subject to ratification. Thus, domestic application of international human
rights law in England reflects dualist approach in the sense that
international human rights treaties do not form part of the corpus juris of
England unless Parliament enacts a law incorporating the treaty provisions
in to the English law. That means all Multilateral Treaties including human
rights are non-self-executing treaties and, in that context, English practice
of domestic application of international treaties is completely different
from U.S. where treaties are regarded as supreme law of the land.
However customary international law is regarded as part and parcel of the
law of land in both England and U.S.
Q-36 Explain the importance of international law
Ans: Introduction
Public international law is of immense importance in modern society, as it
establishes the legal framework for relations among states, international
organizations, and sometimes even individuals across national borders. It
plays a critical role in promoting global peace, security, justice, human

Page | 24
rights, and sustainable development. Here are some of the key reasons
public international law is essential:
1. Promoting Global Peace and Security
 One of the primary purposes of public international law is to prevent
conflicts and promote peace by regulating interactions among
states. The United Nations Charter and the principles it sets forth
are foundational to international law, prohibiting the use of force in
disputes and encouraging peaceful resolutions through negotiations,
diplomacy, or international adjudication.
 Treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and conventions on
arms control contribute to global security by establishing binding
rules and norms that reduce the risks of war and conflict. These
frameworks help to stabilize regions, de-escalate tensions, and
create systems for peaceful conflict resolution.
2. Protecting Human Rights
 International law serves as a foundation for human rights protection
through instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (ICESCR). These documents, along with treaties and
conventions, set standards for the treatment of individuals by
states.
 By creating accountability and providing mechanisms for monitoring
and enforcement, international law helps prevent atrocities,
combats discrimination, and upholds fundamental freedoms. Courts
like the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the European Court of
Human Rights (ECHR) provide avenues for justice and the protection
of individuals’ rights, even against their own governments.
3. Facilitating Global Trade and Economic Stability
 International law provides the legal framework for global trade,
finance, and economic cooperation, facilitating commerce and
investments between countries. Organizations such as the World
Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
are established under international law to promote economic
stability, reduce trade barriers, and resolve disputes.
 Treaties and agreements, like trade agreements, the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and bilateral investment
treaties, create predictable legal environments that allow businesses
to operate globally, encouraging economic growth and reducing
poverty worldwide.

Page | 25
4. Addressing Global Environmental Challenges
 Many environmental issues, such as climate change, pollution, and
biodiversity loss, are transboundary in nature and cannot be solved
by any single nation. International law provides frameworks, like the
Paris Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, for
countries to collectively address these issues.
 Environmental treaties establish binding commitments for countries
to protect ecosystems, reduce carbon emissions, and promote
sustainable development, helping to mitigate environmental
degradation and its impact on global communities.
5. Providing a Framework for International Cooperation
 International law facilitates cooperation by setting standards and
norms that enable countries to work together on a wide range of
issues, from combating terrorism and organized crime to promoting
education and health. Treaties, conventions, and agreements are
the tools through which states align their policies and pool resources
to tackle issues that affect the global community.
 Cooperation in areas like health (e.g., the World Health
Organization) or humanitarian aid (e.g., through international bodies
like the Red Cross) is supported by international law, helping to
coordinate responses to global crises, pandemics, and natural
disasters.
6. Protecting Sovereignty and Regulating State Conduct
 International law is crucial in recognizing the sovereignty of states
while simultaneously holding them accountable to agreed-upon
standards. Sovereignty is protected under international law, as each
country has the right to govern its territory and people without
external interference.
 However, international law also limits state conduct, particularly in
areas like human rights and humanitarian law. This balance of
sovereignty with accountability is fundamental to promoting respect
for national borders, maintaining peace, and ensuring states adhere
to international norms.
7. Regulating Armed Conflicts and Protecting Non-Combatants
 International humanitarian law, a subset of international law,
regulates the conduct of armed conflict, aiming to protect non-
combatants, prisoners of war, and civilians. The Geneva
Conventions, for instance, set the standards for humane treatment
during conflicts.

Page | 26
  These laws are essential for limiting the devastation of warfare,
reducing suffering, and protecting human dignity even in times of
armed conflict. Violations of these laws, such as war crimes, can
lead to accountability measures through international tribunals.
8. Upholding Justice through Accountability Mechanisms
 International law provides mechanisms for holding individuals,
states, and organizations accountable for serious violations.
International courts, such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ)
and the ICC, are instrumental in providing justice for breaches of
international law.
 These mechanisms deter wrongful conduct and provide a sense of
justice to victims, reinforcing the idea that impunity for international
crimes will not be tolerated, thus strengthening the rule of law on a
global scale.
9. Standardizing Rules and Processes
 Public international law helps standardize rules and norms that
apply universally, making it easier for states to understand,
interpret, and comply with international obligations. These
standardizations cover areas like maritime law (e.g., the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) and air travel, ensuring
smoother international interactions.
 Standardized rules reduce misunderstandings, enhance
predictability, and create common expectations in international
dealings, helping to build trust and cooperation among nations.
Conclusion
The importance of public international law cannot be overstated. It serves
as the backbone of the international community by creating a system that
regulates interactions among countries and promotes peace, justice, and
development. While challenges exist in enforcing international law, its role
in shaping a more just and stable world is fundamental.
Short Notes
Q-1 Veto Power
In simple words, the meaning of the word veto is the right to reject a
proposal or decision. Apart from the permanent members of the UN, the
President of India also has veto power. When implemented for an ethical
and future aspect, veto power is a powerful tool exercised within a
governing body. If an issue is vetoed, that doesn’t mean it has no
importance, but it is symbolic support to an issue raised. Similarly, veto
power can also be misused.

Page | 27
Veto Power in the UN
After the second world war, 51 countries united to form an organisation
known as the UN or United Nations. It was founded mainly to maintain
security and peace and develop friendly relations between nations. The
UN council currently has fifteen members, out of which five members are
permanent and known as P5, while ten countries are non-permanent
members elected for two years. The P5 members of the UN are China,
Russia, France, The United States and The United Kingdom. The non-
permanent members are India, Kenya, Mexico, Tunisia, Vietnam, Norway,
Niger, Saint Vincent, Estonia and Grenadines.
According to the UN council, all decisions have to be made according to
UN permanent members. However, any permanent members can block
the issued resolution by using their veto power to defend the foreign
policy of their national interest. To date, 293 vetoes have been cast in the
UN council, with almost half of the total cast alone by Russia or the Soviet
Union, i.e., 143. The United Kingdom has used its veto power about 32
times, and the United States has used 83 vetoes. The first veto was cast
on 16 February 1946. The veto power cannot be applied during the
emergency session of the general assembly.
The Veto Power of the President
Just like the P5 members of the UN, the President also has veto power. In
our country, the Indian President has three veto powers. When a bill or
resolution is passed in an assembly, it becomes an act, but the President
must approve it. The President has three options concerning the bill,
either the President can return the bill, reject the bill or simply withhold
the bill. The choice of the President to choose his power over a bill is
called his veto power. The President’s veto power is of three types:
absolute veto, pocket veto, and suspensive veto. The President can
choose to use any veto power if they disagree with the sentiment of the
bill.
The first-ever President to use veto power in India was Zail Singh. Zail
Singh was the President of India from 1982 to 1987. He exercised pocket
veto and prevented the Indian Post Office bill of amendment from
becoming law. The President’s veto power relies upon the ideology and
well-being of their citizens. Like ordinary bills, the President can use all
three veto powers, but in the case of constitutional amendment bills and
money or finance bills, the President cannot always use all three vetoes.
Types of Veto Powers of the President
The President of India has three veto powers: absolute veto, pocket veto,
and suspensive veto.
The absolute veto is where the bill is directly rejected and never becomes
an act or law. The President can use the absolute veto in two cases:

Page | 28
  When the bill passed by the parliament is a private member bill;
 If the cabinet resigns before the President can approve the bill (the
new cabinet may encourage the President to consent or dissent
from the bill passed by the old cabinet)
In 1954, the absolute veto power was exercised by Dr Rajendra Prasad.
The second veto power is the suspensive veto. It gives the President the
power to return the bill to reconsider some valid points. The suspensive
veto can be overridden by rephrasing problematic or controversial
passages. For the state bills, the state legislature cannot override the
suspensive veto of the President. When the parliament resends the bill to
the President, it only requires an ordinary majority and not a higher
majority. Moreover, the President cannot use a suspensive veto for money
bills.
The pocket veto is when the President decides to keep the bill pending for
an indefinite period. They neither reject the bill nor resend it back to the
parliament for reconsideration. The Indian President is not time-bound,
while the American President has ten days.
Conclusion
When used internationally or nationally, the veto is a powerful tool that
addresses many important issues. The global veto power usually deals
with foreign relations, trade interests and security, while the national veto
power usually. If an issue is vetoed, that doesn’t mean it has no
importance, but it is symbolic support to an issue raised. The issue vetoed
may be for various reasons, but the matter’s importance is acknowledged
by a council body of elected members, with their votes being cast against
and for it.
Q-2 Manroes’ Doctrine.
Answer:
The Monroe Doctrine, articulated by President James Monroe in 1823, is a
foundational element of U.S. foreign policy and has had significant
implications in international law. Originally, it was a unilateral policy
statement, warning European nations against further colonization and
interference in the Americas. Although it was not initially considered a
binding rule of international law, it established a precedent that would
shape the Western Hemisphere's geopolitical dynamics for centuries.
1. Background and Core Principles of the Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed in a period of heightened European
colonial expansion following the Napoleonic Wars. With many Latin
American nations gaining independence from Spain, the United States was
concerned that European powers might attempt to reclaim or expand

Page | 29
colonial control in the Americas. To counter this, President Monroe
declared two main principles:
 Non-Colonization: European powers were to cease attempts to
colonize any part of the Americas.
 Non-Intervention: European powers were warned against
intervening in the political affairs of the Americas.
These principles, though not backed by any formal international treaty,
emphasized that any European interference in the Western Hemisphere
would be viewed as a threat to U.S. peace and security.
2. Initial Reception and International Standing
The Monroe Doctrine was initially limited in its enforceability. At the time
of its declaration, the United States lacked the military power to
unilaterally enforce it. Instead, the doctrine depended largely on the
implicit support of the British Royal Navy, which also had interests in
preventing further European colonization in the Americas. Because it was
a unilateral statement without treaty backing, the Monroe Doctrine did not
immediately create binding international legal obligations but rather set
out a vision for U.S. influence in the region.
3. Legal and Diplomatic Evolution
Over time, the Monroe Doctrine evolved as U.S. power grew. With the
addition of the Roosevelt Corollary in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt
expanded the doctrine to justify U.S. intervention in Latin America to
stabilize the region and prevent European intervention. Roosevelt argued
that the U.S. had the right to act as an "international police power" in
cases of "chronic wrongdoing." This reinterpretation added a layer of
international legal justification for U.S. intervention in the internal affairs
of Latin American nations, moving the doctrine from a defensive
statement to a policy of regional hegemony.
4. The Doctrine’s Implications in International Law
Though the Monroe Doctrine was not an international treaty, it indirectly
shaped international law by reinforcing the principle of non-intervention in
sovereign nations' internal affairs. In this way, the doctrine aligned with
the evolving concepts of state sovereignty and non-interference in
international law. However, the U.S. often applied the doctrine selectively,
leading to accusations that it served more as a tool for regional
dominance than as a principle for regional peace.
During the Cold War, the doctrine was invoked to counter Soviet influence
in the Western Hemisphere, notably during events like the Cuban Missile
Crisis. By this period, the doctrine's non-intervention principle had become
more widely recognized in international relations and influenced the

Page | 30
drafting of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of states.
5. Modern Interpretations and Relevance
In contemporary international law, the Monroe Doctrine has less direct
influence but remains a historical precedent for the U.S.'s approach to the
Western Hemisphere. Recent U.S. administrations have occasionally
referenced the doctrine in responding to extraregional powers' activities in
Latin America. While the doctrine itself is not binding international law, it
continues to influence the principle of non-intervention, which has been
codified in the UN Charter and is upheld in international jurisprudence.
6. Criticisms and Limitations
The Monroe Doctrine has been criticized for fostering a "sphere of
influence" approach, which contradicts the principle of sovereign equality
in international law. Many Latin American nations have viewed the
doctrine as a justification for U.S. interventionism. Consequently, although
the doctrine has historical significance, it is often regarded with skepticism
within the framework of modern international law, especially in Latin
America, where it is seen as a symbol of U.S. dominance rather than
protection.
Conclusion
While the Monroe Doctrine began as a unilateral policy statement, it had
long-lasting impacts on international relations and law. It underscored the
idea of a regional order in the Western Hemisphere free from European
interference and set the stage for U.S. hegemony in the Americas. The
doctrine's principles of non-intervention and non-colonization helped
shape broader norms in international law, although its legacy is complex,
with both protective and interventionist interpretations. Thus, while it no
longer holds legal force in modern international law, the Monroe Doctrine
remains a significant historical framework for understanding U.S.-Latin
American relations and the development of regional non-intervention
norms.
Q-3 Termination of war and Hostilities.
The termination of war and hostilities under international law is a complex
process that involves legal principles, mechanisms, and agreements
designed to restore peace between warring parties. Key elements of
international law applicable to the end of war and hostilities include:
1. Ceasefire Agreements
 Ceasefire agreements are temporary arrangements between
conflicting parties to halt fighting, often as a precursor to more
formal peace negotiations.
 Ceasefires can be bilateral or multilateral and may be monitored by
neutral entities, such as the United Nations (UN), to ensure
compliance.

Page | 31
2. Armistice Agreements
 An armistice is a formal agreement between warring parties to end
hostilities and withdraw troops.
 Unlike a ceasefire, an armistice generally indicates a more
permanent end to fighting, though it may or may not lead to a
peace treaty.
 Armistices are binding under international law and create
obligations for the parties involved.
3. Peace Treaties
 A peace treaty is a legal document signed by warring parties that
formally ends a state of war and establishes the terms for peace.
 Peace treaties often include territorial adjustments, reparations,
disarmament provisions, and mechanisms for future conflict
resolution.
 Treaties must be negotiated, ratified, and registered with the UN to
be legally binding and enforceable under international law.
4. United Nations Charter
 The UN Charter emphasizes the peaceful resolution of disputes and
prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or under UN
Security Council authorization.
 The Security Council has the authority to impose ceasefires,
peacekeeping operations, sanctions, or other measures to facilitate
the cessation of hostilities.
 UN General Assembly resolutions, while non-binding, may call for
the end of hostilities and promote diplomatic negotiations.
5. Customary International Law and Humanitarian Law
 Customary international law includes norms that states
generally accept as binding, such as the prohibition of
indiscriminate attacks on civilians.
 International humanitarian law (IHL), embodied in treaties like
the Geneva Conventions, seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict,
including setting guidelines for the protection of civilians and
prisoners of war.
 IHL provisions continue to apply even when hostilities are winding
down, ensuring humanitarian standards during the transitional
period.
6. Post-Conflict Obligations
 Post-conflict obligations often include demobilization and
reintegration of combatants, reconstruction, and mechanisms
for justice, such as truth and reconciliation commissions or war
crimes tribunals.
 Under international law, states may have obligations to redress
wartime harm, prevent future conflicts, and contribute to post-
conflict stability and human rights protection.
7. Role of International Organizations and Regional Bodies
 International and regional organizations, such as the International
Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC),
African Union (AU), and European Union (EU), may assist in the

Page | 32
 legal resolution of disputes, prosecution of war crimes, and
peacekeeping operations.
Conclusion
The end of hostilities in international law is a structured process requiring
adherence to treaties, customary law, and mechanisms established by
international organizations. While legally binding agreements are
essential, cooperation among states, international institutions, and
regional actors is equally crucial for durable peace.

Q-4 Transformation theory and delegation theory

Introduction
Over the period of time municipal law and international law has always
been considered superior over one another and different theories which
refers to the underlying relationship of both has been brought up by jurists
from time to time enlighten the controversy of the reigning law over one
another. There have always been controversial talks on relation to the use
of international law and municipal law as a single conception of law or
whether these laws are independent to each other. Two theories evolve
from the above mentioned namely as theory of monism and dualism.
Monists believe. It becomes a monistic view when international law and
municipal law are expressed as an entity but opposing to the same
dualism refers to when international law becomes a part of municipal law
only when it is expressed in the legislature. To further express the dualistic
point of view the undermentioned theories underline the viewpoint
regarding the application of international law within the sphere of
municipal law.
Theory of specific adoption or Theory of transformation
According to this theory of dualism a relation between international law
and municipal law is established where the internal law by its own cannot
be adopted be used in municipals courts or as a rule of law of the state it
should be transformed or should be adopted by the state as a rule of law
into the municipal law. To understand better we need to look into the
matter that the law should not be incorporated but should be transformed
or adopted into the municipal law. The difference between the terms is
that the former adopts incorporated international law into the municipal
law just because of the fact of the necessity of international law, the latter
suggested an act to be adopted on the part of the concerned state. Also,
incorporation states that the rules of international law are to rule of the
land adopting it thus making them national laws whereas in
transformation theory international law are only considered national law
when they are included into the legislature deliberately. Similarly, treaties
are also perceived to be promises, and to make them binding into the
municipal law under transformation theory, their transformation into

Page | 33
statutes is extremely important as statutes are municipal command as per
transformation theory.
Thus, its underlying motive is for the legislature of the nation to transform
intention law in to the rule of nation for it to be recognized by the court of
law as the law of the nation. This fairly results the courts and the
municipal law to bind the powers of international law to its people
individually. The transformation process is sine qua non, meaning it sis
absolutely necessary to recognize international law as the law of the land.
This theory even faced its share of criticism by monists stating that the
difference between treaties and statutes is procedural and not as
perceived in the transformation theory and thus stipulate many legal
consequences. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that treaties need
transformation to be binding in the municipal law. Also, the perception
of municipal law and international law being treated as different is
fallacious also the perception of binding of international law to states and
municipal law to individuals is also incorrect.
Thus, it can be understood the the theory of specify adoption or
transformation speaks to the implication of international law to the
sovereign state is only possible when the state specifically adopts the law
by enactments. The treatment of international law and municipal law to
be binding among states and individuals respectively projects and
conclusion that the implication of intermating law by the states not only
bounds states but the induvial in the states as well.
Delegation theory

This theory is evolved with the criticism of the previous theory and the
critics of transformation theory, monists have brought forward this theory
that each state or sovereign has complete right constituted by
international law called “constitutional rules of international law or treaty”
which permits the states or sovereigns to adapt the extend of
international law applicable in the state. Meaning the states can decide
when and to hat extend international la are to be implemented in the
state and on their people depending upon its incorporation in the
municipal law. Thus, there is no transformation or no specific adoption of
the international law like in the previous theory. There is no incorporation
on new rules into the state law but only the acceptance of one single act
for the creation of the international rules needed by the state. The
requirement of state law is important for the functioning of the state and
thus is the responsibility of the legislature to enact law which are
beneficial and are of importance to the state. With the implementation of
adoption theory, the state can implement international law as per the
requirement and the need of the state. Thus, letting the constitution to
apply the rules of international law in the state. The critics of this theory
believe it to be a reaction against the dualism theory.

Page | 34
The irregularity in the meaning of “constitutional rules of international
law” when defining the said theory is an area of criticism the theory
attracts. This theory involves the supremacy of international law but often
fails to explain the relation between the laws and the state and does not
define the co relation between the internals laws and municipal laws. Also,
the theory suggests the that national laws would not yield to international
rules which seems unjust and unreal from the view point of the critics as
well. The biggest point of critics explains hoe thus theory is not able to
recognize the authority and does not suggest that each state is a
sovereign of its own.

Page | 35