Public international law

The term international law was first used by Jermy Bentham in the year 1780. International law
is the term commonly used for referring to laws that governs the conduct of independent
nations in their relationships with one another.

International Law is a body of rules regarded by the nations of the world as binding on them in
their relations with each other, in peace and war and comprises the rights and duties of
sovereign States towards each other.

In the words of Friedman, "International law is today actively and continuously concerned with
such divergent and vital matters as human rights and crimes against humanity, the
international control of nuclear energy Trade Organization, labour conventions, transport
control or health regulations."

Public international law

Public international law, also known as international public law or law of nations.

Is the set of legal principles, rules, and norms that govern the relations between sovereign
states and other international actors, such as international organizations and, to some extent,
individuals .

It encompasses a wide range of legal issues, including diplomacy, treaties, state sovereignty,
human rights, international humanitarian law, and the resolution of international disputes.

Key features of public international law include:

1. Sovereign Equality: States are considered equal under international law, regardless of their
size, wealth, or power. This principle of sovereign equality means that no state has the right to
interfere in the internal affairs of another state without its consent.

2. Sources of Law: The sources of public international law include treaties, customary
international law (developed through consistent state practice and accepted as law), General
Principles of law recognized by civilized nations, and judicial decisions and writings of eminent
jurists (often referred to as "soft law").

Page | 1

Prepared by

Riswana NM
3. Legal Personality: While states are the primary subjects of international law, other entities,
such as international organizations, may also possess legal personality and rights and
obligations under international law.

4. Enforcement Mechanisms: Public international law lacks a centralized enforcement

mechanism comparable to domestic legal systems. Compliance with international law is largely
voluntary, although states may be subject to diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions, or
international tribunals in cases of non-compliance.

5. International Courts and Tribunals: International law is enforced through a variety of

mechanisms, including international courts and tribunals such as the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) and international criminal courts, as well as through diplomatic means such as
negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.

Public international law plays a crucial role in regulating interstate relations, promoting
cooperation and peaceful resolution of disputes, and upholding fundamental principles of
justice, human rights, and the rule of law in the international community.

Definition of International Law

The term international law has been defined in different ways by various jurists. Some of the
definitions may be given as under:

By Oppenheim: “Law of Nations or international law is the name for the body of customary law
and conventional rules which are considered legally binding by civilized states in their
intercourse with each other.” -

 Good & adequate when it's given but now it have become obsolete and inadequate.
 Openheim in his definition fails to recognize international organizations who have
their own rights and duties under international law.
 The term Civilized states not include all states under international law. For example,
China 5000 year old culture State not included in the group of civilized states. And
Western states regarded only Christian states as civilized states.

This defects is cured in 8th edition and the definition changed as: - " law of nation or
international law is the name for the body of customary & treaty rules which are considered
legally binding by states in their intercourse with each other “.

Page | 2

Prepared by

Riswana NM
  The critics says that international law not only consists customary & conventional
rules but also include general principles of law. When international disputes arises
and no remedy in international treaty or customs it take help of general principles of
law that's recognized by the states.

Alf Rose defines the term international law as:-“International law is the body of legal rules
binding upon states in their relations with one another.”

According to Lawrence “international law is the rules which determines the conduct of the
general body of civilized state in their mutual dealings.”

According to J.L Brierly, the law of nation or international law may be defined as:" The body of
rules & principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one
another".

In Queen v. keyn it's defined as “the law of nation is that collection of usage which civilized
states have agreed to observe in their dealings with one another”.

Modern Definition:

International law has always been in a continuous state of change. In modern period the term
International law may rightly be defined as under; “That body of legal rules which regulates the
relationship of the Nation States with each other, as well as, their relationship with other
International actors.”

Functions of International Law:

-Some important functions of International Law are as under :-

1.To maintain International peace and Security

2.To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic,social,

cultural and humanitarian character.

3.To settle international disputes by peaceful means

4.To refrain from threat or use of force by a state against the territorial integrity or political
independent of any State

5. To provide right of self-determination to peoples

Page | 3

Prepared by

Riswana NM
6. To provide fundamental freedom and human rights.

Scope of International Law:

International law has a vast scope, covering a wide range of topics that affect global affairs.
Some key areas within its scope include:

 International peace and security: International law establishes rules and norms to help
prevent and resolve conflicts between states. It also regulates the use of force and the
conduct of war.
 Human rights: International law protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of all
people, regardless of their nationality. It also establishes mechanisms to hold states
accountable for human rights abuses.
 Trade and investment: International law provides a framework for the regulation of
international trade and investment. It helps to promote free and fair trade, and it
protects the rights of investors.
 Environmental protection: International law addresses a range of environmental issues,
including climate change, pollution, and biodiversity conservation. It helps to coordinate
global efforts to protect the environment.
 International organizations: International law establishes and regulates the
activities of international organizations, such as the United Nations and the World Trade
Organization. It helps to ensure that these organizations operate effectively and that
they are accountable to their members.

Pacta sunt servanda

"Pacta sunt servanda" is a Latin phrase that means "agreements must be kept."

It is a fundamental principle of international law that all parties to an agreement must abide by
its terms. This principle is essential for ensuring stability and predictability in international
relations, as it requires states to honor their commitments and obligations to one another.

Pacta sunt servanda applies to all types of agreements, including treaties, contracts, and other
forms of legally binding commitments. It is also recognized as a customary principle of
international law, meaning that it is considered to be a fundamental part of the legal system
even if it is not explicitly stated in any particular treaty or agreement.

Page | 4

Prepared by

Riswana NM
In practice, the principle of pacta sunt servanda means that states must comply with the terms
of any agreement they have entered into, and that they must seek to resolve any disputes or
disagreements through peaceful means in accordance with the agreement. Failure to abide by
this principle can lead to:

 strained diplomatic relations,

 loss of credibility, and
 Potential legal consequences.

Pacta sunt servanda is a crucial principle for maintaining peace and stability in international
relations.

It ensures that states can rely on the commitments made by others and that agreements are
respected and enforced. Without this principle, states would be free to renege on their
obligations, leading to an environment of uncertainty and mistrust. For example, if a state
could not rely on the promises made by another state, it would be less likely to enter into
agreements or treaties with that state in the future.

Pacta sunt servanda is essential for promoting the rule of law in international relations. By
requiring states to abide by their commitments, it establishes a framework for resolving
disputes and conflicts peacefully. When states agree to abide by the terms of a treaty or
agreement, they are voluntarily submitting to the authority of international law. This helps to
create a more stable and predictable environment for states to interact with one another.

Pacta sunt servanda is an important principle for protecting the rights and interests of weaker
states and non-state actors. When states enter into agreements with one another, they often
do so to address common challenges or to pursue shared objectives.

Pacta sunt servanda ensures that the interests of all parties are respected and protected,
regardless of their relative power or influence. For example, a weaker state may rely on the
commitments made by a more powerful state to protect its sovereignty or territorial integrity.

In conclusion, pacta sunt servanda is a fundamental principle of international law that has
important implications for international relations. It is essential for maintaining peace and
stability, promoting the rule of law, and protecting the rights and interests of weaker states and
non-state actors. As such, it is a principle that all states should uphold and respect in their
dealings with one another. Failure to do so can have serious consequences for the international
system as a whole.
Page | 5

Prepared by

Riswana NM
Rebus Sic Standibus.
Rebus Sic Standibus is a Latin phrase that translates to "things thus standing”.

It is a legal principle that is closely related to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, which
requires parties to abide by the terms of a contract or agreement.

Rebus Sic Standibus, on the other hand, is an exception to the principle of pacta sunt servanda,
and it allows for the modification or termination of an agreement in certain circumstances.

The principle of Rebus Sic Standibus is based on the idea that an agreement can be modified
or terminated if there has been a fundamental change in circumstances that was not foreseen
at the time the agreement was made.

This change in circumstances must be so significant that it would make it difficult or impossible
for one or both parties to fulfill their obligations under the agreement.

In other words, the parties must have entered into the agreement on the assumption that
certain conditions would remain the same, and if those conditions no longer exist, the
agreement may need to be altered or terminated.

Examples of situations where Rebus Sic Standibus may apply include natural disasters, war,
economic crises, or changes in law or regulation.

 For instance, if a party enters into a contract to purchase goods from another party, but
a natural disaster destroys the goods before they can be delivered, the contract may be
modified or terminated under the principle of Rebus Sic Standibus.
 Similarly, if a change in law or regulation makes it impossible for one or both parties to
fulfill their obligations under the agreement, the contract may need to be modified or
terminated.

International examples:

 In the case of Argentine Republic v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp, the principle of
Rebus Sic Standibus was applied in a dispute over the interpretation of a contract for
the sale of crude oil. The buyer argued that the contract was frustrated due to economic
changes in Argentina that made it impossible to perform the contract as originally
intended.

Page | 6

Prepared by

Riswana NM
  In the case of Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Co, the principle of Rebus Sic
Standibus was invoked in a dispute over a loan agreement. The borrower argued that
the contract was frustrated due to changes in Libyan law that made it illegal to repay
the loan in US dollars.
 In the case of Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Ltd v. Arab Republic of Egypt,
the principle of Rebus Sic Standibus was applied in a dispute over a lease agreement for
a hotel in Egypt. The lessee argued that the contract was frustrated due to political
unrest in the country that made it unsafe for tourists to visit.

These are just a few examples of how the principle of Rebus Sic Standibus has been used in
international disputes.

It is important to note that the principle of Rebus Sic Standibus is not an automatic exception
to the principle of pacta sunt servanda.

 The party seeking to modify or terminate the agreement must demonstrate that the
change in circumstances is significant enough to warrant such action.
 Additionally, the parties may be required to negotiate in good faith to try to find a
mutually acceptable solution before resorting to the principle of Rebus Sic Standibus.

In conclusion, Rebus Sic Standibus is a legal principle that allows for the modification or
termination of an agreement in certain circumstances where there has been a fundamental
change in circumstances that was not foreseen at the time the agreement was made. While it is
an exception to the principle of pacta sunt servanda, it is not an automatic right and requires a
significant change in circumstances to apply.

Estrada Doctrine
The Estrada Doctrine is a foreign policy principle in international law developed by Mexican
diplomat Genaro Estrada in the early 20th century.

It emphasizes non-intervention and respect for sovereignty among nations, particularly within
the Americas. The Doctrine asserts that states should refrain from interfering in the internal
affairs of other states, respect each nation's sovereignty, and treat all nations equally regardless
of their size or power.

The doctrine promotes a cooperative and non-confrontational approach to international

relations, advocating for mutual respect and peaceful coexistence among nations. Overall, the
Page | 7

Prepared by

Riswana NM
Estrada Doctrine emphasizes the importance of respecting sovereignty and non-intervention as
fundamental principles of international law and diplomacy.

Key principles of the Estrada Doctrine include:

 Non-intervention. The doctrine asserts that states should refrain from interfering in the
internal affairs of other states. It emphasizes the importance of respecting each nation's
sovereignty and right to self-determination.
 Sovereignty: The Estrada Doctrine underscores the principle of sovereignty, affirming
the independence and autonomy of each nation to govern its internal affairs without
external interference.
 Equality among nations: It advocates for equal treatment and mutual respect among
nations, regardless of their size, power, or political system. This principle promotes a
more inclusive and cooperative approach to international relations.

The Estrada Doctrine was significant in shaping Mexico's foreign policy, particularly during the
interwar period and the early years of the Cold War. It influenced Mexico's stance on regional
issues, such as the recognition of governments and disputes within the Americas.

While the Estrada Doctrine has been praised for its emphasis on sovereignty, non-intervention,
and equality among nations, it has also faced criticism and limitations. Some of the criticisms of
the Estrada Doctrine include:

 Potential for Inaction in the Face of Human Rights Violations: Critics argue that the strict
adherence to non-intervention can lead to a reluctance to address humanitarian crises
or human rights abuses in other countries. By prioritizing sovereignty above all else, the
doctrine may prevent necessary international intervention to protect vulnerable
populations.
 Perpetuation of Authoritarianism: The Estrada Doctrine's insistence on non-interference
can inadvertently support authoritarian regimes by shielding them from external
pressure to democratize or respect human rights. This can undermine efforts to
promote democracy and accountability on the international stage.
 Ineffectiveness in Addressing Transnational Issues:In today's interconnected world,
many global challenges, such as climate change, terrorism, and pandemics, require
international cooperation and coordination. The Estrada Doctrine's focus on state
sovereignty may hinder efforts to address these transnational issues effectively.

Page | 8

Prepared by

Riswana NM
  Selective Application: Critics argue that the Estrada Doctrine has been applied
selectively, with powerful nations often violating the sovereignty of weaker states while
invoking sovereignty to protect their own interests. This inconsistency undermines the
credibility and universality of the doctrine.
 Lack of Mechanisms for Conflict Resolution: The Estrada Doctrine does not provide clear
mechanisms for resolving conflicts between states peacefully. Without robust
mechanisms for dispute resolution, tensions between nations may escalate, leading to
instability and conflict.
 Relevance in a Globalized World: Some questioned the continued relevance of the
Estrada Doctrine in today's globalized world, where interconnectedness and
interdependence are increasingly prevalent. The doctrine's emphasis on state
sovereignty may not adequately address the complex challenges of the 21st century.

Overall, while the Estrada Doctrine has played a significant role in shaping Mexico's foreign
policy and influencing international relations theory, it is not without its flaws and criticisms. As
the international community grapples with evolving geopolitical dynamics and global challenges,
there is ongoing debate about the applicability and effectiveness of the Estrada Doctrine in
addressing contemporary issues.

However, the Estrada Doctrine remains a notable contribution to international relations theory,
highlighting the importance of sovereignty, non-intervention, and equality among nations. It
continues to be studied and referenced in discussions about Latin American diplomacy and the
broader principles of international law and diplomacy.

Calvo Doctrine
The Calvo Doctrine is a legal principle proposed by Argentine jurist Carlos Calvo in the 19th
century.

It asserts that foreign nationals should only seek redress for grievances through the legal
systems of the country where the issue arises, rather than appealing to their home country for
diplomatic intervention.

This doctrine aimed to protect the sovereignty of nations and discourage foreign interference in
their internal affairs.

Key aspects of the Calvo Doctrine include:

Page | 9

Prepared by

Riswana NM
  Sovereignty: The doctrine emphasizes the sovereignty of nations, asserting that each
state has the right to govern its internal affairs without interference from foreign
powers.
 Legal Equality: It promotes the idea that all individuals, regardless of nationality, should
be subject to the same legal framework within a given country. This implies that foreign
nationals should not receive preferential treatment or extraterritorial privileges.
 Avoidance of Diplomatic Disputes: By discouraging foreign nationals from seeking
diplomatic intervention from their home countries, the Calvo Doctrine aims to minimize
tensions and disputes between nations that may arise from individual grievances.
 Legal Remedies: The doctrine encourages foreign nationals to pursue legal remedies
and seek justice through the domestic legal system of the country where the issue
occurs. This can include seeking compensation, restitution, or other forms of legal
redress.
 Non-Intervention Principle: The Calvo Doctrine aligns with the principle of non-
intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, as enshrined in international law.
It seeks to prevent external actors from interfering in the legal processes and
governance structures of other nations.

Criticism and Evolution: While the Calvo Doctrine initially gained traction in Latin America
during the 19th century, it has faced criticism for its potential to undermine the rights of foreign
investors and lead to unequal treatment. Over time, its strict application has softened, with
many countries adopting a more balanced approach that respects both sovereignty and the
rights of foreign nationals.

Overall, the Calvo Doctrine represents an important concept in international law, reflecting the
tension between sovereignty and the protection of individual rights in a globalized world.

Monroe Doctrine
The Monroe Doctrine is a key principle in U.S. foreign policy, articulated by President James
Monroe in his annual message to Congress in 1823.

It stated that European powers should not interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere,
and that any attempt by them to do so would be considered a threat to the United States. In
return, the U.S. pledged not to interfere in European affairs or existing European colonies.

Page | 10

Prepared by

Riswana NM
The doctrine aimed to prevent further European colonization in the Americas and asserted the
United States' role as a dominant power in the Western Hemisphere.

It is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.

Key points of the Monroe Doctrine include:

 Non-Colonization: The doctrine opposed any further colonization efforts by European

powers in North or South America, asserting that the Western Hemisphere was off-
limits for new colonization.
 Non-Intervention: It declared that the United States would refrain from interfering in
European affairs or existing European colonies. In return, the doctrine called for
European nations to respect the independence and sovereignty of the newly formed
nations in the Americas.
 Self-Defense: The Monroe Doctrine was presented as a measure to protect the
sovereignty and security of the newly independent countries in the Americas. It aimed
to prevent European powers from reasserting control over territories that had recently
gained independence.
 Expansionist Implications: While initially focused on preventing European intervention
in the Americas, the Monroe Doctrine also laid the groundwork for U.S. expansionism
and influence in the Western Hemisphere. It provided justification for U.S. involvement
in conflicts and interventions in Latin America in the following decades.
 Evolution: The Monroe Doctrine has evolved over time and been interpreted in various
ways by different U.S. administrations. It has been invoked to justify interventions, such
as the Spanish-American War and the support of anti-communist regimes during the
Cold War.

Overall, the Monroe Doctrine remains a significant aspect of U.S. foreign policy history, shaping
the country's relations with both European powers and nations in the Americas.

Principle of non refoulment

The principle of non-refoulement is a fundamental principle in international refugee law and
human rights law.

It prohibits the expulsion, deportation, or return ("refoulement") of individuals to a country

where they may face persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations.

Page | 11

Prepared by

Riswana NM
This principle is enshrined in various international legal instruments, including the 1951
Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as in customary international law.

It reflects a commitment to protecting the rights and safety of refugees and asylum seekers,
ensuring that they are not sent back to situations where their lives or freedom would be at risk.

Key aspects of the principle of non-refoulement include:

 Protection of Refugees: The principle aims to ensure the protection of individuals who
are fleeing persecution or serious human rights violations in their home countries. It
reflects a commitment to providing sanctuary and assistance to those in need of
international protection.
 International Obligations: Non-refoulement is enshrined in various international legal
instruments, including the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, as well as in
customary international law. States that are parties to these treaties are obligated to
adhere to the principle of non-refoulement.
 Individual Assessment: The principle requires states to conduct individualized
assessments of asylum claims to determine whether an individual qualifies for refugee
status or other forms of protection. It prohibits blanket or mass expulsions of individuals
without considering their individual circumstances.
 Prohibition of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment (CIDT): Non-refoulement extends beyond the risk of persecution to
encompass the risk of torture or other forms of serious harm. States are prohibited from
returning individuals to countries where they face a real risk of torture or CIDT.
 Extraterritorial Application: The principle of non-refoulement applies not only to
individuals within a state's territory but also to those intercepted at sea, at borders, or
in other areas where a state exercises control or jurisdiction.

Overall, the principle of non-refoulement is a cornerstone of international refugee protection

and human rights law, providing vital safeguards for individuals fleeing persecution and
ensuring that states fulfill their obligations to protect the most vulnerable members of society.

Five freedoms of air

The "Five Freedoms of the Air" are a set of aviation principles that govern the rights of airlines
to operate international air services. These freedoms were established through bilateral and
multilateral agreements between countries and are recognized under international aviation law.
Page | 12

Prepared by

Riswana NM
The Five Freedoms are:

1. First Freedom: The right to fly over the territory of a foreign country without landing.
This allows airlines to operate flights that merely pass through the airspace of another
country without stopping.
2. Second Freedom: The right to make a technical stop in a foreign country for refueling or
maintenance purposes without carrying passengers or cargo from that country. This
enables airlines to stop for logistical reasons without conducting commercial activities.
3. Third Freedom: The right to disembark passengers or cargo from one's own country in a
foreign country. This allows airlines to pick up or drop off passengers or cargo in a
foreign country on flights originating or terminating in the airline's home country.
4. Fourth Freedom: The right to pick up passengers or cargo in a foreign country and carry
them to one's own country. This allows airlines to operate flights that originate in a
foreign country and terminate in the airline's home country.
5. Fifth Freedom: The right to carry passengers or cargo between two foreign countries on
a flight that originates or terminates in one's own country. This enables airlines to
conduct flights between two foreign countries while stopping in the airline's home
country.

These freedoms are essential for establishing international air routes, promoting competition,
and facilitating global connectivity in the aviation industry. They form the basis of air services
agreements between countries and are crucial for the development of international air
transportation.

Anglo Norwegian Fisheries Case

The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case refers to a dispute between the United Kingdom and
Norway over fishing rights in the North Sea.

The case arose in the early 20th century when Norway claimed exclusive fishing rights in certain
areas of the North Sea, including the waters around the Arctic archipelago of Svalbard (then
known as Spitsbergen).

The United Kingdom challenged Norway's claims, arguing that Svalbard was subject to
international law and that British fishermen had historical fishing rights in the region.The
dispute culminated in a legal case before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ),
the predecessor to the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Page | 13

Prepared by

Riswana NM
 In 1933, the PCIJ delivered its judgment in the case, known as the "Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries
Case." The court ruled in favor of Norway, affirming its sovereignty over the waters around
Svalbard and its right to regulate fishing activities in those waters.

The decision had significant implications for the interpretation of international law regarding
territorial and maritime rights, particularly in relation to areas with disputed sovereignty.

It also underscored the importance of international adjudication in resolving disputes between

states peacefully and according to legal principles.

The Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case remains a notable precedent in international law, serving
as a reference point for subsequent cases involving maritime boundaries and the rights of
coastal states.

Lotus case
The Lotus case, officially known as the "SS Lotus (France v. Turkey)" case, is a landmark
decision in international law delivered by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in
1927.

It arose from a collision between the French steamship SS Lotus and the Turkish vessel Boz-
Kourt in the Aegean Sea, resulting in the death of eight Turkish nationals.

France prosecuted the captain of the Turkish vessel, who was a French national, in French
courts.

Turkey objected, arguing that the collision occurred outside French territorial waters and that
Turkey had jurisdiction over the matter.

France countered that it had jurisdiction because the collision involved a French vessel.

The PCIJ was tasked with determining whether a state may exercise jurisdiction over acts
occurring outside its territory and whether international law imposes limits on a state's
jurisdiction.

The court ruled in favor of France, emphasizing the principle of territorial sovereignty and
concluding that a state may exercise jurisdiction over acts committed outside its territory if it
does not violate international law. The court held that there was no customary international

Page | 14

Prepared by

Riswana NM
law prohibiting a state from exercising jurisdiction extraterritorially, except in cases where
international law specifically restricts such jurisdiction.

The Lotus case established the principle of "Lotus Rule," which recognizes the freedom of
states to exercise jurisdiction over acts occurring outside their territory unless restricted by
international law.

It remains a foundational precedent in the field of international law, influencing discussions on

state jurisdiction, the extraterritorial application of laws, and the limits of state sovereignty.

The Lotus rule, established in the Lotus case (SS Lotus, France v. Turkey) of 1927, is a
foundational principle in international law regarding the exercise of jurisdiction by states. It
states that states are generally free to exercise jurisdiction over acts that occur outside their
territory, subject to certain limitations imposed by international law.

Key aspects of the Lotus rule include:

 Presumption of Jurisdiction: The rule presumes that states have jurisdiction over acts
committed by their nationals abroad, as well as acts that have effects within their
territory, even if those acts occur outside their territorial waters.
 Absence of Prohibition: Unless there is a specific rule of international law prohibiting it,
states have the authority to regulate and prosecute activities carried out by their
nationals abroad or activities that produce effects within their territory, regardless of
where those activities occur.
 Principle of Sovereignty: The Lotus rule underscores the principle of state sovereignty,
affirming states' authority to govern and regulate conduct within their own jurisdictional
boundaries.
 Limits of Jurisdiction: While the Lotus rule grants states broad discretion in exercising
jurisdiction, it also recognizes that there are limits to state jurisdiction imposed by
international law, such as principles of customary international law, treaty obligations,
and principles of territorial sovereignty.

Overall, the Lotus rule provides a framework for understanding the scope of state jurisdiction
and the principles that govern the exercise of jurisdiction by states in international law. It
emphasizes the balance between state sovereignty and the need for cooperation and respect
for international legal norms in the global community.

Page | 15

Prepared by

Riswana NM
 Page | 16

Prepared by

Riswana NM