## In some states like USA and UK international Law is treated as part

of their own law. A leading case on the point is the, Paqueta v/s
Habanna-1900. Justice Gray observed that the international law is a
part of our law and must be administered by courts of justice.
## As per statutes of the International Court of Justice, the international
court of Justice has to decide disputes as are submitted to it in
accordance with International Law. That according to article 94 of UNO
charter, the decisions of the International Court of Justice are binding on
all Parties (States).
## In a case of West Rand Central Gold Mining Company Ltd., v/s
Kind- 1905, the court held the International Law has considered it as a
part of their law.
CONCLUSION: - Gossil Hurst says, That International Law is in
fact binding on states, because they are states. This is very much correct
because every state in the world wants peace, Law and order and that is
possible only through existence of International Law.

Sources of Intl Law

(a)..
(b) Refer a case of West Rand Central Gold Mining Compy.v/s R1905, court held that for a valid international customs it is necessary that
it should be roved by satisfactory evidence that the custom is of such
nature which may receive general consent of the States and no civilized
state shall oppose it. Portugal v/s India-1960, ICJ pointed out that when
in regard to any matter or practice, two states follow it repeatedly for a
long time, it becomes a binding customary rule.
(c) R. v/s Keyn-1876, that I. Law is based on justice, equality and
conscience which have been accepted by practice of States. 2. U.S v/s
Schooner-held that I. Law should be based on general principles .
(d)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

HOW THE TREATIES ARE SIGNED

FORMULATION OF TREATIES: - For making the treaty of binding nature, the
following conditions are to be fulfilled:
Accreditation of persons on behalf of contracting parties:- The intending
parties of treaties should appoint persons as their representatives to negotiate on
their behalf authoritatively for arriving at terms and conditions of a treaty.
Negotiations and adoption:- After due negotiations the terms and conditions of a
treaty are clunched and for its adoption a decision is made by both the parties.
Signature: - The representatives sign on each and every terms of a treaty to make it
enforceable. A treaty becomes enforceable against a party only after the signature of
the party or its representative is obtained on the treaty papers.
Accession and Adhesion: - The practices of the States show that by the process of
accession and adhesion a state which is not a party to a treaty may become a party to
it by signing it afterwards.
Enforcement of a treaty:- Usually the enforcement of a treaty depends and begins
according to the terms and provisions as laid down in the treaty itself. Many treaties

commence after the signature is affixed by the authorised person while those which
need ratification by the other states in certain number begin after the required
number of states have ratified. The general rule of International Law is that a treaty is
enforceable against the parties only which have entered and signed a treaty.
6. Registration & Publication:- It is necessary after the treaty comes into force, it may
be got registered and published. Under the provisions of article 102 of UNO charter. If
it is not registered with the UNO that in case of any dispute comes into existence for
its settlement through the organs of UNO the treaty which is not registered cannot be
referred to for the settlement of that dispute.
7. Basis of binding force of the International treaties:-According to Angilotti,
Binding force of International treaty gains its binding force.
PROCEDURE OF RATIFICATION:- Ratification is a very important processes
ordinarily the terms and conditions of a treaty. Treaty does not become enforceable
without ratification. The President of a State or Chief of the Govt. Ratify the
signatures of its representatives who negotiated for arriving at the agreed terms and
conditions of a treaty.

DE-FACTO AND DE-JURE

In Luther v/s Sagor-1921:- It was held that there is no distinction between de facto
and de jure recognition for the purpose of giving effect to the internal acts of the
recognized authority.
In Luther v/s Sagore-1921 the court held that as far as internal affairs of a state is
concerned De facto recognition is interim and it can be withdrawn.

STATE JURISDICTION

Thus the jurisdiction of a State is not always a co-incident with its territory Case
of KTMS Abdul Cader and others v/s Union of India-1977, the court held that
act has no extra-territorial application and hence the State government has no power
under the Act to pass orders of detention against persons who at the time when the
orders were made were not within India but were out-side its territorial limits.
DIPLOMATIC AGENTS:- Diplomatic agents enjoy certain privileges and immunities.
They are immune from the jurisdiction of the civil and criminal courts of the receiving
State. In this connection the old view was tha the diplomatic agents enjoy these
immunities and privileges because they were deemed to be outside the jurisdiction of
receiving State. In the present time this theory has been discarded. Modern view
diplomatic agents enjoy certain immunities and privileges because of the special
functions they perform. This was affirmed in a case Ex-parte Petroff-1971 by the
Supreme Court of Australia.
3. Foreign Sovereigns:-Foreign sovereigns are often treated to be outside the
jurisdiction of other states and possess many privileges and immunities. In the case
of Christina-1938, Lord Wright observed that there are general principles of
International Law according to which a sovereign state is held to be immune from the
jurisdiction of another sovereign State.
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessary exclusive and
absolute. In another case of Vavasseur v/s Krupp-1878, the plaintiff contended
that the Japanese Govt., has violated his patent rights and therefore he demanded
that the delivery of the goods by it be stopped. But the court had that it had no
jurisdiction over the property of the foreign sovereigns more especially with what we
call the public property of the State of which he is sovereign.
ASYLUM

The philosophy behind asylum is the generally accepted international rule that
each state is sovereign in its territorial jurisdiction. No other state has a right of
jurisdiction on the territory of any state.
Asylum is granted in consideration of national security because the rebel of
today may be the ruler of future.
THEORY OF SPECIFIC ADOPTION:
In case of Jolly George v/s Bank of Cochin-1980: The court held that any
agreement does not become part of Indian constitution automatically, but the positive
commitment of state parties inspires their legislative action.