International Dispute - a disagreement that arises between states concerning their relations with one

another and with other states.

Contemporary international law, which forbids the use of force or the threat of force in relations between
states, requires thatall international disputes be resolved only by peaceful means, on the basis of an accord
between the disputing states. Thisprinciple is maintained by the UN Charter (art. 2, para. 3), the Pact of the
Arab League (art. V), the Charter of theOrganization of African Unity (art. 3), and the Declaration on the
Principles of International Law Concerning FriendlyRelations Among States in Accordance With the Charter
of the UN (1970).
International law does not predetermine the precise peaceful means of resolving a specific dispute but
allows the states tochoose these means themselves. Article 33 of the UN Charter lists the following peaceful
means for resolving internationaldisputes: negotiation, inquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, and recourse to regional agencies orarrangements. Peaceful means of resolving international
disputes also include various conciliatory procedures, includinggood offices and the creation of investigation
and conciliation commissions. In contrast to direct negotiations, conciliatoryprocedures usually feature the
participation of third states or international bodies, with the consent of the disputing states.
Disputes between states can also be resolved with the aid of international courts and arbitration bodies.
Internationaldisputes today are resolved more and more often through international organizations, which
resort to procedures provided forin their charters. In the UN, the peaceful resolution of disputes is handled
primarily by the Security Council; the GeneralAssembly and the International Court of Justice are sometimes
called upon to resolve disputes.

Hostile Methods
Severance of Diplomatic Relations - the cessation of normal diplomatic relations between two states,
entailing the recall of diplomatic representatives and theshutting down of diplomatic missions. A severance
of diplomatic relations usually occurs as a result of the onset of war (adeclaration of war or an armed attack)
or during serious complications in relations between states. The severance ofdiplomatic relations
sometimes precedes the outbreak of war. For example, Japans severance of diplomatic relations withRussia
on Jan. 24 (Feb. 6), 1904, was followed on Jan. 27 (Feb. 9), 1904, by a perfidious attack on the Russian
squadron inPort Arthur.
In accordance with the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, when diplomatic relations are
severed the hoststate must provide assistance for the rapid departure of the staff members of the
diplomatic mission and their families.
States that have severed diplomatic relations can maintain contacts on certain, usually current, matters
through thediplomatic mission of some third state, to which these states entrust the protection of their
interests and the interests oftheir citizens, as well as the safeguarding of the premises of the mission being
recalled, its property and files.
Imperialist powers frequently use the severance of diplomatic relations or the threat of severance as a
means of interferingin the internal affairs of other states and as a means of bringing political pressure and
provoking international conflicts. Suchwas the case when the USA and a number of Latin American
countries severed diplomatic relations with Cuba in 196162.
The UN Charter permits the severance of diplomatic relations as a possible collective measure to be carried
out inaccordance with a resolution of the UN Security Council.

Intervention - in terms of international law, is the term for the use of force by one country or sovereign
state in the internal or external affairs of another. In most cases,intervention is considered to be an unlawful
act but some interventions may be considered lawful.
Retorsion - A phrase used in International Law to describe retaliatory action taken by one foreign
government against another for the stringent or harsh regulation or treatment of its citizens who are within
the geographical boundaries of the foreign country.
The typical methods of retorsion are the use of comparably severe measures against citizens of the foreign
nation found within the borders of the retaliating nation.

Reprisal - A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign
state that has already broken them. Reprisals in the laws of war are extremely limited, as they commonly
breached the rights of non-combatants, an action outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.

WAR
Law of War - The law of war is a legal term of art that refers to the aspect of public international law
concerning acceptable justifications to engage in war (jus ad bellum) and the limits to acceptable wartime
conduct (jus in bello or International humanitarian law).
International sanctions are actions taken by countries against others for political reasons, either unilaterally
or multilaterally.
There are several types of sanctions.

Diplomatic sanctions the reduction or removal of diplomatic ties, such as embassies.

Economic sanctions typically a ban on trade, possibly limited to certain sectors such as
armaments, or with certain exceptions (such as food and medicine)[1]

Military sanctions military intervention

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

Environmental sanctions since the declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment, international environmental protection efforts have been increased gradually.
Economic sanctions are distinguished from trade sanctions, which are applied for purely economic reasons,
and typically take the form of tariffs or similar measures, rather than bans on trade.

A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state goes to war against another. The declaration is a
performative speech act (or the signing of a document) by an authorized party of a national government, in
order to create a state of war between two or more states.
The legality of who is competent to declare war varies between nations and forms of government. In many
nations, that power is given to thehead of state or sovereign. In other cases, something short of a full
declaration of war, such as a letter of marque or a covert operation, may authorise war-like acts by
privateers or mercenaries. The official international protocol for declaring war was defined in the Hague
Convention (III) of 1907 on the Opening of Hostilities.

Ultimatum with Conditional Declaration of War - can be viewed as a transaction giving rise to such effects
by itself, it is only a claim. Such claim may be followed by a separate declaration of war. An ultimatum is a
diplomatic note formulated in such a clear and decisive way as possible and consluded with demand for a
clear answer, usually indicating a deadline for that answer and reservation that an ambiguous answer will
mean that the addressee state wants a war
War termination is the study of how wars end, including theories of how wars can and should be ended.
In comparison to other aspects of war, war termination has received relatively less study. According to Fred
Charles Ikl, "[H]istorians, foreign affairs experts, and military strategists have devoted far more thought to
the question of how and why wars begin."[1] This idea is echoed by Gideon Rose, who writes:
For all endgames' drama and historical importance, however, they have received far less attention than
other phases of war. A few books look at the ends of individual wars, and there is a small academic
literature on what political scientists call war termination. But in general, endgames have been as neglected
by scholars as they have been by policymakers.[2]
In studying the factors which constrain and shape the actions of decision-makers and strategists in ending
wars, there are three major schools of thought:

Realism, which considers that a nation's foreign policy is primarily concerned with security issues,
and sees international power politics as the most important factor;

Those who see internal factors, such as political ideology and domestic politics, as the primary
factors;

Those who consider psychological factors, such as the personalities of a country's leaders, and the
society's experiences in the most recent war, as most instrumental in shaping those leaders' actions in
the endgame.[3]
Other theories, such as neoclassical realism, combine these factors to one extent or another.[3]

Jus Postliminy - In international law. The right by which property taken by an enemy, and re- captured or
rescued from him by the fellow- subjects or allies of the original owner, is restored to the latter upon certain
terms.

Uti Possidetis - Uti possidetis (Latin for "as you possess") is a principle in international law that territory and
other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if
such a treaty does not include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during
the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail.

Effects of the Outbreak of War

A combatant is a person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict. If a combatant follows
the law of war, then he or she is considered a privileged combatant and upon capture, he or she will qualify
as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).

Non-combatant is a term of art in the law of war and international humanitarian law, describing civilians
who are not taking a direct part in hostilities;[1] personssuch as combat medics and military
chaplainswho are members of the belligerent armed forces but are protected because of their specific
duties (as currently described in Protocol I of theGeneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977); combatants
who are placed hors de combat; and neutral nationals (including military personnel) who are not fighting for
one of the belligerents involved in an armed conflict. This particular status was first recognized under the
Geneva Conventions with the First Geneva Convention of 1864.

Prisoners of War is a person, whethercombatant or non-combatant, who is held in custody by a belligerent

power during or immediately after an armed conflict. The earliest recorded usage of the phrase "prisoner of
war" dates to 1660.
THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
THE ROME STATUTE
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (often referred to as the International Criminal Court
Statute or the Rome Statute) is the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC).[5] It was
adopted at a diplomatic conference in Rome on 17 July 1998[6][7] and it entered into force on 1 July 2002.[2]
As of March 2016, 124 states are party to the statute.[2] Among other things, the statute establishes the
court's functions, jurisdiction and structure.
The Rome Statute established four core international crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
and the crime of aggression. Those crimes "shall not be subject to any statute of limitations".[8] Under the
Rome Statute, the ICC can only investigate and prosecute the four core international crimes in situations
where states are "unable" or "unwilling" to do so themselves. The court has jurisdiction over crimes only if
they are committed in the territory of a state party or if they are committed by a national of a state party;
an exception to this rule is that the ICC may also have jurisdiction over crimes if its jurisdiction is authorized
by the United Nations Security Council.

Founding treaty: The Rome Statute

The creation of the Rome Statute in 1998 was in itself a historic event, marking a milestone in
humankind's efforts towards a more just world.

The Rome Statute then took effect in 2002, upon ratification by 60 States. In addition to founding the Court
and defining the crimes of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and as of amendments made in
2010 the crime of aggression (for these amendments to enter into force, they must be ratified by at least
30 States and then voted upon by States Parties in 2017), the Rome Statute also sets new standards for
victims' representation in the Courtroom, and ensures fair trials and the rights of the defence. The Court
seeks global cooperation to protect all people from the crimes codified in the Rome Statute.

Today the treaty serves as the ICC's guiding legal instrument, which is elaborated in such other legal texts as
the Elements of Crimes, Rules of Procedure and Evidence and more. See all ICC core legal texts.

International Criminal Court

How the Court works

The crimes. The Court's founding treaty, called the Rome Statute, grants the ICC jurisdiction over four main
crimes.

First, the crime of genocide is characterised by the specific intent to destroy in whole or in part a national,
ethnic, racial or religious group by killing its members or by other means: causing serious bodily or mental
harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring
about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the
group; or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Second, the ICC can prosecute crimes against humanity, which are serious violations committed as part of a
large-scale attack against any civilian population. The 15 forms of crimes against humanity listed in the
Rome Statute include offences such as murder, rape, imprisonment, enforced disappearances, enslavement
particularly of women and children, sexual slavery, torture, apartheid and deportation.
Third, war crimes which are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions in the context of armed conflict and
include, for instance, the use of child soldiers; the killing or torture of persons such as civilians or prisoners
of war; intentionally directing attacks against hospitals, historic monuments, or buildings dedicated to
religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes.
Finally, the fourth crime falling within the ICC's jurisdiction is the crime of aggression. It is the use of armed
force by a State against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State. The definition of this
crime was adopted through amending the Rome Statute at the first Review Conference of the Statute in
Kampala, Uganda, in 2010. For these amendments to enter into force, they must be ratified by at least 30
States and then voted upon by States Parties in 2017.

Jurisdiction

The Court may exercise jurisdiction in a situation where genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes
were committed on or after 1 July 2002 and:

the crimes were committed by a State Party national, or in the territory of a State Party, or in a
State that has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court; or
the crimes were referred to the ICC Prosecutor by the United Nations Security Council pursuant to
a resolution adopted under chapter VII of the UN charter.

How we are organized

The Rome Statute established three separate bodies: The Assembly of States Parties, the International
Criminal Court, which comprises four separate organs, and the Trust Fund for Victims. The Court is
participating in a global fight to end impunity, and through international criminal justice, the Court aims to
hold those responsible accountable for their crimes and to help prevent these crimes from happening again.
The Court cannot reach these goals alone. As a court of last resort, it seeks to complement, not replace,
national Courts. Governed by an international treaty called the Rome Statute, the ICC is the worlds first
permanent international criminal court.

Neutrality, the legal status arising from the abstention of a state from all participation in a war between
other states, the maintenance of an attitude of impartiality toward the belligerents, and the recognition by
the belligerents of this abstention and impartiality. Under international law this legal status gives rise to
certain rights and duties between the neutral and the belligerents.

The laws concerning the rights and duties of neutrality are contained, for the most part, in the Declaration
of Paris of 1856, Hague Convention V, 1907 (neutrality in land war), and Hague Convention XIII, 1907
(neutrality in maritime war). One of the first recommendations of the last convention was that, when war
breaks out between certain powers, each nation wishing to remain impartial should normally issue either a
special or general declaration of neutrality. Such a declaration, however, is not required by international law.
A neutral state may, during the course of the hostilities, repeal, change, or modify its position of neutrality,
provided that such alterations are applied without bias to all belligerents.

The most important of the rights that result from a state of neutrality is the right of territorial integrity.
Belligerents may not use a neutrals territory as a base of operations or engage in hostilities therein. This
right applies not only to neutral territory and water but extends to air space above that territory as well.
Under the Hague Rules of Air Warfare, 1923 (which never became legally binding), neutrals have the right
to defend their air space from passage of belligerent aircraft. The emergence of ballistic missiles and space
satellites as tools of warfare, however, has raised questions regarding the extent of a states upper
boundary.
A neutral also has the right to maintain diplomatic communications with other neutral states and with the
belligerents; the right to demand compliance with its domestic regulations designed to secure its neutrality;
and the right to require belligerents not to interfere with the commercial intercourse of its citizens, unless
such interference is warranted by international law.

The events of World Wars I and II foreshadowed a breakdown of some of the basic concepts of neutrality.
With the German invasion of Belgium, the Italian invasion of Greece, the British occupation of Iceland, and
the passage by the United States of the Lend-Lease Act (1941), the traditional rules of neutrality appeared
no longer viable. By the middle of the 20th century new developments in the law of neutrality were evident.
(1) The total character of modern war, with its use of economic as well as mechanized means of warfare,
has sharply reduced the traditional area of freedom of the neutral. (2) Under the provisions of the Charter
of the United Nations, neutrality, as a permissive legal status, disappears for those members that the
Security Council calls upon or requires in specific instances to take military or other measures of coercion
against an aggressor (Articles 41, 48). (3) The socialization of national economies may result in a lessening
of neutral trade; many business enterprises that could formerly trade with belligerents as private traders
could no longer legally do so as state enterprises.

Neutrality - The state of a nation that takes no part in a war between two or more other powers.
Since the nineteenth century, International Law has recognized the right of a nation to abstain from
participation in a warbetween other states. In an international war, those taking no part are called neutrals.
This means that a neutral statecannot provide assistance to the belligerents, the principal hostile powers, or
to their allies, who cooperate and assist them.
The law of neutrality that emerged from the nineteenth century was codified in several of the Hague
Conferences of 1907,including No. 3, Convention Relative to the Opening of Hostilities (requiring notice to
neutrals of a state of war); No. 5,Convention Respecting Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in
Case of War on Land; and No. 11, ConventionRelative to Certain Restrictions with Regard to the Exercise of
the Right of Capture in Naval War.
Once a state decides on a position of neutrality, it must take steps to prevent its territory from becoming a
base for militaryoperations of a belligerent. It must prevent the recruiting of military personnel, the
organizing of military expeditions, and theconstructing, outfitting, commissioning, and arming of warships
for belligerent use. A neutral state is under no obligation toprevent private persons or companies from
advancing credits or selling commodities to belligerents. Such sales are notillegal under the international
law of neutrality. A neutral state may, if it chooses, go beyond the requirements of internationallaw by
placing an embargo upon some or all sales or credits to belligerents by its nationals. If it does so, it has
theobligation to see that legislation, commonly referred to as neutrality laws, is applied impartially to all
belligerents. Onceenacted, neutrality laws are not to be modified in ways that would advantage one party in
the war.

Duties of a Neutral State

1. Abstention - is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a vote either does not go to vote
(on election day) or, inparliamentary procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.[1]
Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter casts a ballot willfully made invalid by
marking it wrongly or by not marking anything at all. A "blank (or white) voter" has voted, although their
vote may be considered a spoilt vote, depending on each legislation, while an abstaining voter hasn't voted.
Both forms (abstention and blank vote) may or may not, depending on the circumstances, be considered to
be a protest vote (also known as a "blank vote" or "white vote").
An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild
disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition. Abstention can also be used when someone
has a certain position about an issue, but since the popular sentiment supports the opposite, it might not
be politically expedient to vote according to his or her conscience. A person may also abstain when they do
not feel adequately informed about the issue at hand, or has not participated in relevant discussion. In
parliamentary procedure, a member may be required to abstain in the case of a real or perceived conflict of
interest.[2][3]
Abstentions do not count in tallying the vote negatively or positively; when members abstain, they are in
effect attending only to contribute to a quorum. White votes, however, may be counted in the total of votes,
depending on the legislation.
2. Prevention - the action of stopping something from happening or arising.
3. Acquiescence - In law, occurs when a person knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the
infringement of their rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought makes a
claim on their rights. Consequently, the person whose rights are infringed loses the ability to make a claim
against the infringer, or succeed in an injunction suit due to the infringer's conduct. The term is most
generally a kind of "permission" given by silence or passiveness.

Angary - is the name given to the right of a belligerent (most commonly, a government or other party in
conflict) to seize and apply for the purposes of war (or to prevent the enemy from doing so) any kind of
property on belligerent territory, including that which may belong to subjects or citizens of a neutral state.
Article 53 of the Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to the Hague
Convention of 1899 on the same subject, provides that railway plant, landtelegraphs, telephones, steamers
and other ships (other than such as are governed by maritime law), though belonging to companies or
private persons, may be used for military operations, but "must be restored at the conclusion of peace and
indemnities paid for them." Article 54 adds that "the plant of railways coming from neutral states, whether
the property of those states or of companies or private persons, shall be sent back to them as soon as
possible."
These articles seem to sanction the right of angary against neutral property, while limiting it as against both
belligerent and neutral property. It may be considered, however, that the right to use implies as wide a
range of contingencies as the "necessity of war" can be made to cover.

Kinds of Contrabands (Prohibited Acts of Neutral States)

Absolute contrabands are goods that are mainly used for war. It includes arms, ammunition, clothing and
equipment of a military nature, or materials such as chemicals and certain types of machinery that may be
used directly to wage war or be converted into instruments of war. It is different from conditional
contrabands, which are goods that can be used for warlike and peaceful purposes. For example, Coal.

Conditional contrabands are goods susceptible of being used for war like and peaceful purposes. For
example, coal and food. They are goods having peaceful uses, but at the same time can be of assistance to a
belligerent. Conditional contraband were formerly known as occasional contraband. They are different from
absolute contrabands that are arms and ammunition and other goods of a military nature. Conditional
contra-bands are also known as ancipitis usus.

Doctrine of Ultimate Consumption - Goods intended for civilian use which may ultimately find their way and
be consumed by belligerent forces, may be seized on the way.
Doctrine of Ultimate Destination - the final destination in the territory of an enemy or under its
control making goods contraband under the doctrine of continuous voyage

International Economic and Environmental Laws

The Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, or Stockholm Declaration,
was adopted June 16, 1972 by the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment at the 21st
plenary meeting as the first document in international environmental law to recognize the right to a healthy
environment.