↑
Public International Law
Topics Covered: Nature & Development of International Law · Sources of PIL · Relationship between PIL and Municipal Law · State Responsibility · Law of the Sea · State Jurisdiction · Diplomatic & Consular Immunity
📋 Table of Contents
1. Nature and Development of International Law
1.1 Definition of International Law
“International Law is the body of rules which are legally binding upon states in their intercourse with each other.”
The classical definition by Oppenheim reflects the state-centric nature of traditional PIL. However, this definition has been criticised as too narrow. Modern PIL extends beyond states to encompass international organisations, individuals, multinational corporations, and even non-state actors such as armed groups and peoples (in the context of self-determination).
Philip Jessup proposed the term “Transnational Law” to capture all law regulating actions or events that transcend national frontiers, acknowledging that the traditional state-only framework was insufficient for the modern world.
“The Law of Nations, or International Law, may be defined as the body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another.”
Key aspects of the definition of PIL:
- It is a body of rules — not merely goodwill, morality or policy
- It is legally binding — backed by sanctions, though not through a centralised enforcement mechanism
- It primarily governs states — though the subjects have expanded
- It regulates intercourse — the full range of international relations
The distinction between PIL and Private International Law (Conflict of Laws) is a favourite exam question. PIL governs relations between states and international actors; PIL (Conflict of Laws) is domestic law that determines which nation’s law applies in cross-border private disputes.
1.2 Development and Codification of International Law
International law did not emerge fully formed. Its development can be traced through distinct historical phases:
- Ancient period: Treaties between Greek city-states, Roman concepts of jus gentium (law common to all peoples)
- Medieval period: Canon law, commercial laws of Lex Mercatoria, emergence of sovereign states
- Westphalian system (1648): Peace of Westphalia marks the birth of the modern state system based on sovereignty and equality of states
- 18th–19th century: Development of customary international law; Grotius, Vattel, and Pufendorf as founding scholars
- 20th century: League of Nations (1919), United Nations (1945), proliferation of treaty law and international organisations
- Contemporary: Human rights law, environmental law, international criminal law, cyber law as new frontiers
Codification by the International Law Commission (ILC)
The ILC, established in 1947 under the UN General Assembly, is the principal body for the codification and progressive development of international law. It has produced landmark instruments including:
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961
- Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963
- Draft Articles on State Responsibility, 2001
- Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organisations, 2011
Codification involves the more precise formulation and systematisation of existing custom. Progressive development involves the drafting of treaties on subjects not yet governed by international law or where the law has not been sufficiently developed in State practice.
1.3 Sanctions of International Law
A major debate in PIL concerns whether it is truly “law” in the absence of a central enforcement mechanism. Positivists like Austin considered law to be a command backed by a sovereign with power to punish. By this test, international law would fail. However, this view is rejected by most modern jurists.
Sanctions in PIL operate through various mechanisms:
- UN Security Council: Can impose mandatory sanctions (Article 41 of the UN Charter), authorise use of force (Article 42), and refer matters to the ICC
- UN General Assembly: Declarations, resolutions, suspension of membership rights
- International Court of Justice: Binding judgments on disputes between states; advisory opinions
- Treaty-based bodies: Human Rights Council, UNHRC, Committee against Torture
- Diplomatic sanctions: Severance of diplomatic relations, withdrawal of ambassadors
- Economic sanctions: Embargoes, travel bans, asset freezes
- Retorsion and Reprisals: Lawful and unlawful countermeasures by aggrieved states
1.4 Subjects of International Law
Traditional: Only States are subjects of international law.
Modern: States, International Organisations, Individuals, Peoples (self-determination), minorities, TNCs and armed groups can all be subjects to varying degrees.
- States: The primary subjects. Must have permanent population, defined territory, effective government, and capacity to enter foreign relations (Montevideo Convention criteria).
- International Organisations: Recognised as subjects following the Reparation for Injuries Case (1949). They have functional personality — limited to purposes and powers in their constituent instrument.
- Individuals: Can bear rights (human rights law) and duties (international criminal law — Nuremberg Principles). Standing before regional human rights courts.
- Peoples: Right to self-determination recognised in UN Charter, ICCPR, ICESCR, and ICJ advisory opinions.
1.5 Third World and International Law
The TWAIL (Third World Approaches to International Law) critique argues that classical international law was shaped primarily by European colonial powers and reflects their interests. Key arguments include:
- Concepts like terra nullius were used to justify colonial conquest
- The “standard of civilisation” excluded non-European peoples from the full benefit of international law
- International economic law (WTO, IMF regimes) perpetuates unequal power relations
- Developing countries seek reform of international law to reflect their interests, including permanent sovereignty over natural resources and a New International Economic Order (NIEO)
1.6 Key Cases
Facts: Count Bernadotte, a UN mediator, was assassinated in Israel in 1948. The UN General Assembly asked the ICJ whether the UN could bring an international claim against a state responsible for such injuries.
Issue: Does the UN have international legal personality and the capacity to bring international claims?
Held: Yes. The ICJ held that the UN possesses international legal personality — it is not merely a conference machinery but an international person, capable of rights and duties and of maintaining its rights by bringing international claims. This is objective personality, binding even on non-members.
Facts: Ukraine instituted proceedings against Russia for alleged violations of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), in connection with events in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea.
Issue: Whether Russia violated the ICSFT by providing funds, weapons or training to armed groups in Ukraine, and ICERD by discriminatory treatment of Ukrainians and Tatars in Crimea.
Held: The ICJ found jurisdiction under both conventions, rejected certain preliminary objections, and the case proceeded to merits. Established important limits on what constitutes “financing terrorism” under the ICSFT.
2. Sources of International Law
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply:
(a) International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by the contesting states;
(b) International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
(c) The general principles of law recognised by civilised nations;
(d) Subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law;
Article 38(2): This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.
2.1 Hierarchy of Sources
Article 38 does not create a strict hierarchy — in theory, all sources are equal. However, in practice:
- Treaties are the most certain and specific form of international obligation
- Custom binds all states (except persistent objectors)
- General principles fill gaps where treaties and custom are silent
- Judicial decisions and scholarly opinion are secondary or subsidiary sources
2.2 Treaties and Conventions
A treaty is an international agreement concluded between states in written form and governed by international law (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, Article 2). It is the most reliable and precise source of international law.
Types of Treaties:
- Law-making treaties: Create general rules applicable to all or most states (e.g., UN Charter, UNCLOS, Geneva Conventions)
- Treaty contracts: Create specific obligations between a limited number of parties (e.g., bilateral trade agreement)
Key principles governing treaties:
- Pacta sunt servanda — treaties must be observed in good faith (VCLT Art. 26)
- Res inter alios acta — a treaty binds only its parties
- Treaties may become custom if they crystallise existing custom or attract universal adherence
2.3 International Custom
A rule of customary international law requires two elements:
(i) State Practice (usus): Consistent, general, and widespread practice of states over time
(ii) Opinio Juris (sive necessitatis): Conviction that the practice is legally obligatory — not merely courtesy or habit
State practice is evidenced by: diplomatic acts, legislation, judicial decisions, military manuals, treaty ratifications, positions taken in international organisations, and official statements.
Instant Custom: In exceptional circumstances (e.g., space law), custom can develop very quickly due to the novelty of the situation and the urgency of regulation.
Persistent Objector Rule: A state that consistently objects to an emerging rule of custom during its formation, and maintains that objection, is not bound by the rule (North Sea Continental Shelf Case).
Regional/Local Custom: Custom can exist between a limited number of states if there is consistent practice and acquiescence (Right of Passage Case; Asylum Case).
Facts: A French vessel (Lotus) collided with a Turkish vessel on the high seas. Turkey prosecuted the French officer on the Lotus under Turkish criminal law. France challenged this, arguing Turkey had no jurisdiction.
Issue: Does international law prohibit Turkey from exercising criminal jurisdiction over the French officer?
Held: Turkey’s prosecution was not prohibited. The PCIJ held that restrictions on state sovereignty cannot be presumed — states are free to act unless international law expressly prohibits the action.
Facts: Germany, Denmark, and Netherlands disputed the delimitation of their continental shelf boundaries. Denmark and Netherlands claimed the equidistance principle had become customary international law.
Issue: Whether the equidistance-special circumstances rule in Article 6 of the 1958 Geneva Convention had become customary law binding on Germany (which had not ratified).
Held: No. The ICJ laid down the criteria for a treaty rule to crystallise into custom: the rule must be fundamentally norm-creating, the time elapsed must be sufficient, and there must be extensive and virtually uniform state practice including states whose interests are specially affected, accompanied by opinio juris.
Facts: Portugal claimed a right of passage over Indian territory between Daman and its enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Haveli. India denied passage to Portuguese military and police forces following the events of 1954.
Issue: Whether Portugal had a right of passage under customary law or local custom.
Held: Portugal had a right of passage for private persons and goods, and for civil officials, based on established and continuous local custom between two states. However, no such right existed for armed forces, police and arms.
Facts: Colombia granted diplomatic asylum to Haya de la Torre (a Peruvian political refugee) in its embassy in Lima and claimed the right to qualify the offence and to grant safe conduct. Peru denied the safe conduct.
Issue: Could Colombia unilaterally qualify the nature of the offence to establish the right of asylum?
Held: No. The ICJ held that Colombia had not proved the existence of a constant and uniform usage of unilateral qualification in Latin American states. Local custom must be proved by the party invoking it through consistent, uniform, and certain practice.
2.4 General Principles of Law
General principles recognised by civilised nations fill lacunae (gaps) in treaty and customary law. Examples include:
- Res judicata — a final judgment is conclusive and binding
- Nemo judex in causa sua — no one can be judge in their own cause
- Ex injuria jus non oritur — rights cannot arise from an illegal act
- Pacta sunt servanda — agreements must be kept
- Equitable principles — equity as a basis for judicial decision-making (ICJ Statute Art. 38(2))
- Good faith
- Proportionality
2.5 Judicial Decisions and Juristic Opinion
Under Article 38(1)(d), judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists are subsidiary means — they do not make law but help identify it.
Article 59 of the ICJ Statute provides that decisions of the ICJ have binding force only between the parties and in respect of that case — there is no strict doctrine of precedent. However, in practice, the ICJ follows its own earlier decisions for consistency and predictability.
Key judicial bodies whose decisions are relevant sources: ICJ, PCIJ (1920-1946), ITLOS, ICC, WTO Appellate Body, ECtHR, IACtHR, ICTY, ICTR.
2.6 Other Sources — Soft Law, GA and SC Resolutions
Beyond Article 38, other instruments influence international law:
- UN General Assembly Resolutions: Not legally binding on their own (except on internal UN matters) but can reflect, crystallise or influence customary law. UNGA Res. 1514 (Declaration on Decolonisation), Res. 2625 (Friendly Relations Declaration).
- Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII: These are legally binding on all UN member states (Art. 25 UN Charter).
- Advisory Opinions of ICJ: Not legally binding but carry great moral and persuasive authority.
- Jus Cogens (Peremptory norms): Norms from which no derogation is permitted — genocide, slave trade, torture, crimes against humanity. A treaty that conflicts with jus cogens is void (VCLT Art. 53).
- Erga omnes obligations: Obligations owed to the international community as a whole — any state can invoke responsibility for breach. Examples: prohibition of genocide, apartheid.
Facts: The UN General Assembly requested an advisory opinion on whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons is permitted under international law.
Issue: Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance lawful under international law?
Held: The ICJ unanimously held that there is no specific authorisation of nuclear weapons. By 7-7 with the President casting the deciding vote, the Court held it could not conclusively determine the legality or illegality of nuclear weapons in an extreme circumstance of self-defence. However, it held that any use must comply with IHL requirements.
3. Relationship Between International Law and Municipal Law
3.1 Theories
| Basis | Monism | Dualism |
|---|---|---|
| Proponents | Kelsen, Lauterpacht | Triepel, Anzilotti |
| Nature of law | One unified legal system; IL and municipal law are part of a single system | Two separate, distinct legal systems with different sources, subjects, and substance |
| Primacy | International law is supreme over municipal law | Neither is superior; they operate in separate spheres |
| Incorporation | International law automatically becomes part of domestic law without transformation | International law must be transformed into domestic law by legislation |
| Conflict | Domestic law that conflicts with IL is void | Domestic law prevails domestically; IL is violated but not void |
| Practice | Netherlands, Germany (partly) | UK (traditionally), India |
3.2 Doctrine of Incorporation vs. Transformation
Even within dualist systems, two sub-doctrines exist:
- Doctrine of Incorporation: Customary international law is automatically part of domestic law without any specific act of transformation. Common law courts accept this for custom.
- Doctrine of Transformation: International law must be expressly transformed into domestic law through legislation. This applies more strictly to treaty law.
3.3 India’s Approach
India’s Constitution does not explicitly address the relationship. However, relevant provisions include:
- Article 51: Directive Principles — the State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations
- Article 253: Parliament has power to make laws implementing international agreements
- Article 73: Executive power extends to matters concerning India’s international relations
India generally follows a quasi-dualist approach: customary international law is part of Indian law unless it conflicts with domestic law; treaties require legislative implementation.
Facts: India and Pakistan entered a Nehru-Noon Pact (1958) agreeing to transfer Berubari Union (territory in West Bengal) to Pakistan. The question was whether this required a constitutional amendment.
Issue: Can the Indian executive implement a treaty ceding Indian territory without Parliamentary approval?
Held: Cession of territory requires a constitutional amendment under Article 368. An executive agreement or ordinary legislation under Article 253 is insufficient for such a fundamental change. International agreements per se do not alter domestic law.
Facts: The question was whether a person could be detained for debt under Section 51 and Order 21 Rule 37 of the CPC, and whether this violated Article 11 of the ICCPR (no imprisonment for non-performance of a contractual obligation).
Issue: Can India’s domestic law permitting civil imprisonment be struck down based on the ICCPR which India ratified but not incorporated?
Held: The Supreme Court upheld the CPC provisions. Krishna Iyer J. held that while India has ratified the ICCPR, ratification alone does not make treaty provisions enforceable in domestic courts — legislative implementation is required. However, if domestic law permits, courts should read it in conformity with treaty obligations.
Facts: Bhanwari Devi, a social worker, was gang-raped after attempting to prevent a child marriage. The case highlighted the lack of domestic law on sexual harassment at the workplace. NGOs filed a PIL.
Issue: In the absence of domestic law, could the Supreme Court rely on international conventions to lay down enforceable guidelines?
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court invoked CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration to formulate the Vishaka Guidelines — laying down legally binding guidelines on prevention of sexual harassment at the workplace, pending legislation by Parliament.
Facts: Challenge to the mandatory linking of Aadhaar (biometric identity) with various government services. The central question was whether privacy is a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution.
Issue: Is the right to privacy a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution?
Held: A 9-judge bench unanimously held that the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Articles 14, 19 and 21. The Court extensively drew on ICCPR Article 17, UDHR Article 12 and international human rights law to reinforce the constitutional basis of privacy.
4. State Responsibility
4.1 Basis of International Responsibility
State responsibility is engaged when a State commits an internationally wrongful act — an act or omission attributable to the State under international law that constitutes a breach of its international obligation. The ILC’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility (2001) codify this doctrine.
Article 1: Every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.
Article 2: There is an internationally wrongful act when conduct consisting of an action or omission (a) is attributable to the State under international law; and (b) constitutes a breach of an international obligation of the State.
4.2 Theories of Responsibility
- Fault Theory (Subjective): State responsibility requires proof of fault or intention — a deliberate wrongful act by state organs. Supported by Grotius and Vattel.
- Objective/Absolute Liability: Responsibility arises simply from the breach of an international obligation, regardless of fault. The modern tendency after the ILC Articles.
- Risk Theory: A state is liable for harm caused by ultra-hazardous activities even in the absence of any wrongful act (e.g., space objects, nuclear activities). This gives rise to state liability rather than state responsibility.
4.3 Attribution — The Act of State
For state responsibility to arise, the conduct must be attributable to the state. ILC Articles identify the following bases of attribution:
- Organs of the state — legislative, executive, judicial
- Persons or entities exercising governmental authority (even if not formal state organs)
- Acts of organs placed at the disposal of another state
- Acts of private persons if directed or controlled by the state
- Acts later acknowledged and adopted by the state
Facts: Nicaragua alleged that the US was responsible for directing Contra rebels who committed widespread human rights violations in Nicaragua, and for direct military operations against Nicaragua (mining of harbours, etc.).
Issue: Was the US responsible for acts of the Contras? What test applies to determine if private actors’ conduct is attributable to a state?
Held: The ICJ applied the “effective control” test — the US would be responsible for acts of the Contras only if the US had effective control over the specific operations in which violations occurred. On the facts, this was not proved for the Contra acts, though the US was held responsible for its own direct military actions.
Facts: Walter and Karl LaGrand, German nationals, were arrested, tried and executed in Arizona without being informed of their consular rights under VCCR Article 36. Germany filed proceedings after the US Supreme Court declined to stay the execution despite the ICJ’s provisional measures order.
Issue: Does the ICJ’s provisional measures order create legally binding obligations? Did the US violate Article 36 VCCR?
Held: Yes to both. Provisional measures under ICJ Statute Article 41 are legally binding (overruling earlier doubts). The US violated Article 36 by failing to inform the LaGrands of their consular rights, and failed to comply with the ICJ’s provisional measures order.
4.4 Forms of Reparation
Full reparation shall wipe out all consequences of the internationally wrongful act and re-establish the situation that would have existed had the act not been committed. Forms of reparation:
1. Restitution (Art. 35): Re-establishing the situation that existed before the wrongful act
2. Compensation (Art. 36): Payment to cover financially assessable damage, including loss of profits
3. Satisfaction (Art. 37): Acknowledgement of breach, expression of regret, formal apology
4. Guarantees of non-repetition: Assurances that the violation will not be repeated
4.5 Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule
Before a state can bring an international claim on behalf of its national, the injured individual must first exhaust all available domestic remedies in the offending state. This rule ensures domestic courts get the first opportunity to correct the wrong.
Exceptions:
- No remedies are available or they are futile
- The domestic system is clearly inadequate
- The injury is direct to the state itself (not through a national)
- Express waiver by the respondent state
4.6 ILC Draft Articles 2001 — Key Provisions
The following circumstances may preclude the wrongfulness of an act that would otherwise constitute a breach:
1. Consent (Art. 20): Valid consent by another state to commission of the act
2. Self-defence (Art. 21): Act constitutes lawful self-defence under Art. 51 UN Charter
3. Countermeasures (Art. 22): Lawful countermeasures against a responsible state
4. Force majeure (Art. 23): Irresistible force or unforeseen event beyond state’s control
5. Distress (Art. 24): No other reasonable way to save life
6. Necessity (Art. 25): Only way to safeguard essential interest against grave peril
5. Law of the Sea
5.1 Maritime Zones under UNCLOS 1982
| Zone | Breadth | Legal Status | Key Rights |
|---|---|---|---|
| Internal Waters | Landward of baseline | Full sovereignty | No right of innocent passage (except historic bays) |
| Territorial Sea | Up to 12 NM | Sovereignty subject to right of innocent passage | Right of innocent passage for foreign ships |
| Contiguous Zone | 12–24 NM | Jurisdiction (not sovereignty) | Control over customs, fiscal, immigration, sanitation laws |
| Exclusive Economic Zone | Up to 200 NM | Sovereign rights + jurisdiction | Exploration, exploitation of living and non-living resources; freedom of navigation for others |
| Continental Shelf | Up to 200 NM (or beyond to 350 NM) | Sovereign rights (not sovereignty) | Exclusive right to exploit seabed and subsoil resources; no air space or water column rights |
| High Seas | Beyond EEZ/Continental Shelf | Open to all states | Freedom of navigation, overflight, fishing, scientific research, laying cables |
| Area (International Seabed) | Seabed beyond continental shelf | Common Heritage of Mankind | Managed by International Seabed Authority; benefits shared with humanity |
Innocent Passage
Passage through the territorial sea is innocent when it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state (UNCLOS Art. 19). The passage must be continuous and expeditious. A submarine must navigate on the surface and show its flag.
Common Heritage of Mankind (Art. 136 UNCLOS)
The Area and its resources are declared the common heritage of mankind. No state may claim or exercise sovereignty or sovereign rights over any part of the Area. All activities in the Area are conducted for the benefit of mankind as a whole. The International Seabed Authority (ISA) organises and controls all activities.
Facts: Norway used straight baselines to delimit its territorial waters, deviating from the normal low-water mark baseline. The UK challenged this method.
Issue: Was Norway’s straight baseline system consistent with international law?
Held: Yes. The ICJ upheld Norway’s use of straight baselines, finding that geographic realities (deeply indented coastline) and the close relation between the sea and land must be considered. The UK had acquiesced in Norway’s practice for many years.
Facts: Bangladesh and India disputed the maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal. Both had claimed overlapping areas of the EEZ and continental shelf.
Issue: How should the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and India be delimited, including in the area beyond 200 NM?
Held: The Tribunal applied the equidistance-relevant circumstances method and awarded Bangladesh a significantly larger maritime area than the equidistance line would have given, taking into account the concavity of the coastline (a relevant circumstance causing significant disproportion). The first ever maritime boundary decision going beyond 200 NM.
Facts: Italian marines aboard an Italian vessel shot and killed two Indian fishermen, apparently mistaking them for pirates. India claimed jurisdiction; Italy invoked flag-state jurisdiction.
Issue: Did India have jurisdiction over the Italian marines? Was the incident in India’s EEZ or on the high seas?
Held: The Supreme Court of India held that India had jurisdiction as the victims were Indian nationals on an Indian vessel. The matter was later referred to an Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS which held that India must pay compensation and Italy must refrain from exercising jurisdiction.
6. State Jurisdiction
6.1 Territorial Jurisdiction
The most fundamental basis of jurisdiction. A state has full jurisdiction over all persons, property and events within its territory. Two sub-principles:
- Subjective territorial principle: Jurisdiction over offences committed within the territory (even if the effect is felt elsewhere)
- Objective territorial principle: Jurisdiction over offences that are completed within the territory, even if initiated abroad (e.g., a bullet fired from across the border)
6.2 Bases of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction
1. Territorial: Acts committed within state’s territory
2. Nationality (Active Personality): Acts committed by the state’s own nationals abroad
3. Passive Personality: Acts committed against the state’s nationals abroad
4. Protective Principle: Acts committed abroad that threaten the state’s vital interests or security
5. Universal Jurisdiction: Any state may assert jurisdiction over certain crimes regardless of where committed or who committed them (piracy, torture, genocide, war crimes)
6.3 Extradition and Asylum
Extradition: Formal surrender of a fugitive criminal by one state to another for prosecution. Based on bilateral extradition treaties. Key principles:
- Aut dedere aut judicare — either extradite or prosecute
- Double criminality — the conduct must be criminal in both states
- Political offence exception — political offences are generally not extraditable
- Non-refoulement — no extradition to a country where the person faces persecution
Diplomatic Asylum: Temporary shelter granted in embassies or consular premises to persons fleeing persecution. Recognised in Latin American practice; not accepted as general international law (Asylum Case, ICJ 1950).
Facts: Abu Salem, wanted for the 1993 Bombay blasts, was extradited from Portugal to India. Portugal agreed to extradition on conditions — notably that Abu Salem would not face death penalty or life imprisonment exceeding 25 years. India violated these conditions by charging him with additional offences.
Issue: Was India bound by the conditions of extradition as agreed with Portugal?
Held: Yes. The Supreme Court held that India was bound by the specialty principle — the extradited person may only be tried for the offences for which extradition was sought, and any conditions in the extradition agreement must be honoured. India’s honour and good faith were at stake in its international treaty commitments.
7. Diplomatic and Consular Immunity
7.1 Diplomatic Agents — Types and Functions
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), 1961, governs diplomatic relations. Diplomatic agents include: Ambassadors and High Commissioners, Envoys, Chargés d’affaires, Attachés, and members of administrative and technical staff.
Functions of diplomatic mission (Article 3 VCDR):
- Representing the sending state
- Protecting the sending state’s interests and its nationals
- Negotiating with the receiving state government
- Ascertaining conditions and reporting to the sending state
- Promoting friendly relations and developing economic, cultural and scientific relations
7.2 Diplomatic Immunity
A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. He shall also enjoy immunity from its civil and administrative jurisdiction, except in the case of:
(a) a real action relating to private immovable property in the territory of the receiving State, unless he holds it for the purposes of the mission;
(b) an action relating to succession in which the diplomatic agent is involved as executor, administrator, heir or legatee;
(c) an action relating to any professional or commercial activity exercised outside his official functions.
Immunity belongs to the state, not the individual — it can be waived only by the sending state (VCDR Art. 32). Waiver must be express.
Inviolability of premises: The premises of the mission are inviolable. The receiving state’s agents may not enter without consent of the head of mission (Art. 22).
7.3 Consular Privileges and Immunities
Governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), 1963. Consular immunity is more limited than diplomatic immunity. Consular officers enjoy functional immunity — immunity only for acts performed in the exercise of consular functions.
Key consular rights (Art. 36 VCCR):
- Right to communicate with and have access to nationals of the sending state
- Duty on receiving state to inform arrested foreign nationals of consular access
- Right to visit detained nationals
Facts: Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national, was arrested in Pakistan, tried by a military court, and sentenced to death for alleged espionage. India was denied consular access despite repeated requests, in violation of Article 36 VCCR.
Issue: Did Pakistan violate Article 36 VCCR by denying consular access to Jadhav? What remedies were available?
Held: Yes. The ICJ held that Pakistan violated Article 36(1)(a) by failing to inform Jadhav without delay of his right to consular access, and Article 36(1)(b) by not informing the Indian consulate of his arrest. Pakistan was required to provide effective review and reconsideration of Jadhav’s conviction and sentence through appropriate legal processes.
Facts: Following the Iranian Revolution, Iranian militants seized the US Embassy in Tehran and took US diplomats and consular staff hostage. The Iranian government endorsed the militants’ actions and refused to release the hostages.
Issue: Was Iran responsible for the seizure of the US Embassy and detention of diplomatic personnel? Did Iran violate the VCDR and VCCR?
Held: Yes. The ICJ held Iran responsible — initially for failing to prevent the seizure, and subsequently for endorsing and perpetuating the unlawful situation. The inviolability of diplomatic premises and personnel is a fundamental principle of diplomatic law. Iran was ordered to release the hostages immediately and make reparation.
📝 Important Questions for Exam
A. Short Answer Questions (2–5 Marks)
- Define Public International Law and distinguish it from Private International Law.
- What is opinio juris? Why is it an essential element of customary international law?
- Explain the “persistent objector” rule in international law with an example.
- What is jus cogens? Give two examples of peremptory norms.
- Distinguish between monism and dualism in the context of the relationship between international and municipal law.
- What is the “effective control” test in state responsibility? Which case established it?
- What are erga omnes obligations? Give two examples.
- Define “innocent passage” under UNCLOS. When does passage cease to be innocent?
- What is the specialty principle in extradition law?
- What are the functions of a diplomatic mission under Article 3 of the VCDR?
- What is the significance of the Reparation for Injuries Case (1949) for the law of international organisations?
- What is ex aequo et bono under Article 38(2) of the ICJ Statute?
- What is the “common heritage of mankind” principle under UNCLOS?
- What is the doctrine of exhaustion of local remedies?
- What did the Supreme Court hold in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan regarding international law?
B. Long Answer / Essay Questions (10–15 Marks)
- Critically examine Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute as the authoritative statement of sources of international law. Are there sources not mentioned in Article 38?
- “International law is not really law because it lacks sanctions.” Critically examine this statement with reference to the enforcement mechanisms of international law.
- Discuss the relationship between international law and Indian municipal law with reference to constitutional provisions and judicial decisions.
- Examine the doctrine of state responsibility under the ILC Draft Articles 2001. Discuss the circumstances precluding wrongfulness.
- Discuss the law relating to maritime zones under UNCLOS 1982. How does the concept of “common heritage of mankind” apply to the international seabed?
- Write a detailed note on the evolution of customary international law with reference to the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969).
- Discuss the immunity of diplomatic agents under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961. When can diplomatic immunity be waived?
- Critically examine India’s position regarding the relationship between international law and municipal law, citing relevant constitutional provisions and case law.
- Examine the forms of reparation available under international law for internationally wrongful acts. Discuss with reference to ILC Draft Articles and case law.
- Discuss the principles of jurisdiction under international law. Analyse the principle of universal jurisdiction with reference to the Arrest Warrant Case (Congo v. Belgium, 2002).
C. Problem-Based Questions
- Problem: State A enters into a bilateral treaty with State B committing to protect B’s nationals. A’s domestic court subsequently deports a B national without following treaty procedures. B files an international claim against A. Advise State A.
Hint: Discuss treaty obligations, state responsibility (attribution to state organs), and the domestic law is no excuse principle under ILC Art. 3. - Problem: An ambassador of State X commits a serious car accident in State Y, causing death of a national of Y. Y wishes to prosecute. Advise both states.
Hint: VCDR Art. 31 — full criminal immunity. Waiver by sending state X. Y’s options: persona non grata, civil action (waived separately), consular channels. - Problem: State A’s oil tanker spills oil in State B’s Exclusive Economic Zone, causing massive damage. B claims A is internationally responsible. Evaluate the claim.
Hint: UNCLOS rights of coastal state in EEZ, state responsibility — is negligence sufficient? ILC Draft Articles on liability for hazardous activities vs. responsibility for wrongful acts. - Problem: Parliament of India passes a law inconsistent with a treaty India has ratified. Indian courts are asked to apply both the treaty and the parliamentary law. How should the courts proceed?
Hint: Berubari principle — treaty requires transformation; later parliamentary law prevails; but courts should interpret consistently with treaty if possible (Jolly George principle). - Problem: A new state has emerged from the breakup of State X. State X had persistent objector status to a particular customary rule. Does the new state inherit this objector status?
Hint: Successor state doctrine; general rule is succession to obligations; but persistent objector is personal — debated whether it is inherited or the new state starts fresh.
D. MCQ Practice (20 Questions)
- Which Article of the ICJ Statute lists the sources of international law?
(a) Article 34(b) Article 36(c) Article 38 ✓(d) Article 40 - The “Lotus Principle” as laid down in 1927 holds that:
(a) States need an express permission to act(b) In the absence of a prohibition, states are free to act ✓(c) States cannot exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction(d) The flag state always has exclusive jurisdiction - The “effective control” test for attribution of acts of non-state actors was established in:
(a) Nicaragua v. USA (1986) ✓(b) Corfu Channel Case (1949)(c) Tadić Case (1995)(d) LaGrand Case (2001) - Under UNCLOS, the breadth of the Exclusive Economic Zone is:
(a) 12 nautical miles(b) 24 nautical miles(c) 200 nautical miles ✓(d) 350 nautical miles - In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court of India relied on which international convention?
(a) ICCPR(b) CEDAW ✓(c) ICESCR(d) CRC - Which of the following is a peremptory norm (jus cogens)?
(a) Right to diplomatic immunity(b) Prohibition of genocide ✓(c) Most Favoured Nation principle(d) Innocent passage through territorial sea - The Reparation for Injuries Case (1949) established that:
(a) Only states can bring international claims(b) International organisations have international legal personality ✓(c) Individuals have standing before the ICJ(d) Reparation can only take the form of compensation - Diplomatic immunity under VCDR Art. 31 may be waived by:
(a) The diplomatic agent personally(b) The receiving state(c) The sending state expressly ✓(d) The UN Secretary-General - In In Re Berubari Union (1960), the Supreme Court held that cession of Indian territory requires:
(a) An executive agreement(b) Ordinary legislation under Article 253(c) A constitutional amendment ✓(d) A presidential order - The “persistent objector” rule means that:
(a) Any state may object to custom at any time(b) A state that objects to an emerging custom throughout its formation is not bound by it ✓(c) States can opt out of customary law by legislation(d) Persistent objectors lose their treaty rights - The Jadhav Case (2019) concerned violation of:
(a) Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations(b) Vienna Convention on Consular Relations ✓(c) ICCPR(d) UN Charter Art. 51 - The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case (1951) validated the use of:
(a) Equidistance baselines(b) Straight baselines ✓(c) Median line principle(d) 12 NM automatic zone - Under ILC Draft Articles 2001, which circumstance precludes wrongfulness when a state acts to save life?
(a) Necessity(b) Distress ✓(c) Force majeure(d) Consent - The specialty principle in extradition means:
(a) An extradited person can only be tried for the offences for which extradition was granted ✓(b) The extraditing state specialises in criminal law(c) Extradition requires specialised courts(d) Special procedures apply to political offenders - Which principle requires states to either extradite or prosecute a fugitive criminal?
(a) Non-refoulement(b) Aut dedere aut judicare ✓(c) Res judicata(d) Pacta sunt servanda - The Nicaragua Case (1986) held that US was responsible for direct military actions but NOT for acts of Contras because:
(a) The Contras were a sovereign entity(b) The US did not exercise “effective control” over specific Contra operations ✓(c) The Contras were not in Nicaragua(d) The US had diplomatic immunity - Erga omnes obligations are owed to:
(a) Only the injured state(b) States parties to the treaty(c) The international community as a whole ✓(d) Only UN member states - Under VCDR, the premises of a diplomatic mission:
(a) May be entered by police in emergencies(b) Are inviolable and agents of the receiving state may not enter without consent ✓(c) Are subject to local fire and safety inspections(d) Are protected only for head of mission’s residence - In Justice Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court held that:
(a) Aadhaar is unconstitutional(b) Right to privacy is a fundamental right, drawing partly on international human rights law ✓(c) Treaties are automatically enforceable in India(d) Monism applies in India - Provisional measures orders of the ICJ are:
(a) Merely advisory(b) Legally binding, as established in the LaGrand Case ✓(c) Binding only with Security Council endorsement(d) Enforceable through domestic courts only
⚡ Quick Revision Summary — Public International Law
1. Key Definitions
| Term | One-Line Definition |
|---|---|
| Opinio Juris | The belief that a practice is legally obligatory — the psychological element of custom |
| Jus Cogens | Peremptory norms from which no derogation is permitted (e.g., prohibition of genocide, torture) |
| Erga Omnes | Obligations owed to the international community as a whole; any state may invoke responsibility for breach |
| Pacta Sunt Servanda | Treaties must be observed in good faith by parties |
| Non-Refoulement | No state may return a refugee/person to a place where they face serious harm |
| Specialty Rule | An extradited person can only be tried for offences for which extradition was granted |
| Diplomatic Immunity | Full immunity of diplomatic agents from criminal and (mostly) civil jurisdiction of receiving state |
| Innocent Passage | Passage through territorial sea that is continuous, expeditious, and not prejudicial to coastal state’s peace/security |
| Common Heritage of Mankind | International seabed (Area) and its resources belonging to all humanity, managed by ISA |
2. Landmark Cases Summary
| Case | Year | Court | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reparation for Injuries | 1949 | ICJ (Advisory) | International organisations have international legal personality |
| Lotus Case | 1927 | PCIJ | States are free to act unless prohibited — Lotus principle |
| North Sea Continental Shelf | 1969 | ICJ | Criteria for treaty rule to crystallise into custom |
| Right of Passage | 1960 | ICJ | Local/bilateral custom can exist; limited right of passage |
| Asylum Case | 1950 | ICJ | Regional custom must be proved by invoking party |
| Nicaragua v. USA | 1986 | ICJ | Effective control test for attribution to state |
| LaGrand Case | 2001 | ICJ | ICJ provisional measures are legally binding |
| Tehran Hostages | 1980 | ICJ | Diplomatic premises inviolable; endorsement = attribution |
| Jadhav Case | 2019 | ICJ | Article 36 VCCR — consular notification is immediate right |
| Vishaka v. Rajasthan | 1997 | India SC | International conventions can fill domestic legal vacuum |
| Berubari Union | 1960 | India SC | Treaty ceding territory requires constitutional amendment |
| Bay of Bengal Arbitration | 2014 | PCA | Equidistance-relevant circumstances method; concavity as relevant circumstance |
3. Memory Aid — Article 38 Sources
- T — Treaties (most reliable, specific, binding on parties)
- C — Custom (2 elements: state practice + opinio juris; binds all except persistent objectors)
- G — General principles (fill gaps; examples: good faith, res judicata)
- J — Judicial decisions + Juristic opinion (subsidiary only; Art. 59 — no strict precedent)
- E — Ex aequo et bono (only if parties agree)
Mnemonic: “Take Careful General Judicial Examination”
4. ILC Draft Articles — Circumstances Precluding Wrongfulness
- Consent | Self-defence | Countermeasures | Force majeure | Distress | Necessity
Mnemonic: “Cats Sleep Carefully For Dogs Napping”