RECOGNITION:

The discretionary function exercised unilaterally by the govt of a state, officially

acknowledging the existence of another state or government or belligerent state is known as
recognition.The sovereign entities of international community have been used to justify the
existence of state even in the absence of recognition by other state. This criteria was derived
from 1933 Montevideo inter America convention on rights and duties of states.In 1936
prestigious institute de droit stated, “the existence of a new state with al the legal
consequences attaching to this existence is not affected by the refusal of recognition by one
or more states”. Recognition of states is the requirement of having part of world community.
The sovereign entities of international community have been used to justify the existence of
state even in the absence of recognition by other state. This criteria was derived from 1933
Montevideo inter America convention on rights and duties of states.
In 1936prestigious institute de droit stated, “the existence of a new state with al the legal
consequences attaching to this existence is not affected by the refusal of recognition by one
or more states”. Recognition of states is the requirement of having part of world community.

ACTS OF RECOGNITION:
Recognition is a matter of intention and it may be expressed or implied. So the act of
recognition may be affected expressly, by formal announcement or by bilateral treaty of
recognition. Also in some circumstances through an act indicating an intention to affect
recognition e.g. U.K government recognized government of Burma by a treaty in 1947; they
recognized them as fully independent and sovereign state.
There are two theories, which have effect on the recognition of a state.
1: Constitutive theory
2: Declaratory theory

CONSTITUTIVE THEORY:
This theory asserts that the act of recognition by other states confer international
responsibility on an entity purporting to be a state. It means if that state exists this is
because of international community, as they have admitted that state into the community of
nations.
So we can say that a state may possess all the attributes and qualifications of state hood but
unless or until recognition is accorded there will be no international personality. If we apply
this theory on Israel and Palestine, for Pakistan Israel is not a state. Similarly before 1974
Bangladesh was not a state for Pakistan.

DECLARATORY THEORY:
The theory asserts that the existence of states depend upon the facts whether these facts
meet with the criteria of statehood laid down in international law. According to this theory a
state may exist without being recognized. Recognition is merely declaratory and the function
of recognition is to acknowledge the fact of states political existence and the willingness of
recognizing states to treat that state as an international entity.
According to American law institute restatement, they accept it but also indicate that
although a state is not required to accord formal recognition to any other state, but it is
required to be treated as international entity that meets with the requirement of statehood.
In contemporary practice it is clear that an entity meets the conditions of statehood as
defined in s201 OF RESTATEMENT, can neither be denied the rights conferred on the
states by international law? States like Taiwan, New Caledonia, Serbia, Western Sahara,
Palestine; they still have to get the membership of UNO.

POLITICAL NATURE OF RECOGNITION:

This kind of recognition is based upon political expediency. Some members of international
community recognize the entity and the recognition is denied by others.e.g. European
community announced that it would recognize those republics that would give assurance of
five points.
1: Continued respect for UN charter.
2: Guarantee for the rights of national and ethnic groups.
3: Respect for inviolability of all frontiers
4: Acceptance of international obligations.
5: Under taking to settle all questions concerning state succession and regional disputes
peacefully.
By accepting these rules Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia got recognition from European
community. So we can say that recognition is political tool in the hands of international
community.

RECOGNITION OF GOVERNMENT
If a state acquires all the elements of statehood and if it is recognized by other states then
occasionally states does not recognize government of state. State practice suggest that
there is no legal duty upon states to extend recognition to new government
EXAMPLES:
Afghanistan is recognized by many states but Taliban government was not recognized by
majority of states. States may suspend the recognition of state e.g. in Pakistan in eras of 70s
due to martial law many states suspended their relations with Pakistan. Similarly the
relations between Libya and USA remain suspended for 24 long years. In the same way
Palestinian state does not exist but Pakistan and Saudi a recognize it as a state. Other
examples included non-recognition USA and allies of Costa Rica between 1917-1919, non-
recognition by Britain of Russia between 1919-1921, non-recognition of USA by Britain till
1933.

ESTRADE DOCTRINE
If non-recognition can be expression of disapproval of new government then it can be
applied where no such approval is intended. States have adopted the policy of never
recognizing the government but instead of granting or withholding recognition only in respect
of states. This doctrine originates in Mexico and has been adopted several states.

MODES OF RECOGNITION:
There are two modes of recognition:
Defacto recognition
Dejure recognition

DEFACTO RECOGNITION:
This term reflect the quality of government rather than that of act of recognition. Defacto
recognition is temporary kind of recognition. When a state wants to delay the Dejure
recognition of an any state it may grant Defacto recognition. The reason is that it is doubted
that state going to be recognized may have all the attributes to fulfill international
responsibility, or the state is willing to fulfill international obligations.
As mentioned earlier that Defacto recognition is a temporary recognition and it means that
state recognized possesses the essential characters of statehood and it is fit to be subject of
international law.
According to Oppenheim “the Defacto recognition of state or government takes place when
in view of recognizing state the new authority has not acquired sufficient ability” (although
effective power in territory is there). By recognizing that state as Defacto means that some
characters are missing and now by recognizing them Defacto they are compelling that state
to fulfill those requirements.
According to lauterpatch “Defacto recognition shows that recognizing state wants to
establish its relations with the recognized state without establishing diplomatic relations.
General Franco’s government in Spain was recognized Defacto by Britain. Similarly in 1936
United Kingdom recognized Italy sovereignty over Abyssinia.

DEJURE RECOGNITION:
This recognition is granted when in the opinion of recognizing state or its government the
other state possesses all the characteristics and essential requirements of statehood, also it
is capable of being member of international community.
Dejure recognition is final and once given cannot be taken back, or with drawn. This is
permanent kind of recognition.
United Kingdom recognized Italy’s sovereignty over Abyssinia as dejure in 1938 Soviet
government to United Kingdom in 1924.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO RECOGNITIONS:

In Defacto recognition diplomatic relations are not established formally. They are established
only by granting dejure recognition. According to jurists there is hardly any difference
between the two and if at all there is any difference it is political rather than legal. Prof.
Keelson states that the distinction between two recognitions is not important .Any
codification of international law relating to recognition can ignore it.
But according to lauterpatch there are certain differences between the two, they have
pointed out that in case of succession only the state, which has been granted dejure
recognition will be deemed to be the successor state.
Defacto recognition is provisional and Dejure is final recognition. Defacto government enjoys
same immunities as a dejure state does. However diplomatic courtesies and representation
are usually not accorded to Defacto government except in extraordinary circumstances
occurring in times of war.
There is no difference for the present purpose between a government recognized as dejure
and one recognized as Defacto.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF RECOGNITION:

Recognition produces legal consequences affecting the rights powers privileges of
recognized states or government. Recognized states have following consequences of their
recognition.
Right of suing in law courts of recognized states.
Recognized states may claim immunity from suit to its property or diplomatic representative.
They may acquire the capacity to enter in to diplomatic relations with other states and may
conclude treaties with them.
INTERVENTION:
DEFINITIONS:
Prof Oppenheim:--Intervention is dictatorial interference by the state in the affairs of
another state for the purpose of maintaining or altering the actual condition of things. The
term intervention has been used by some writers in the expression of subversive intervention
to denote propaganda or other activity by one state with intention of fomenting for its own
purpose, revolt or civil strike in another state.
Intervention involves the unsolicited interference of one nation in the affairs of another. It
may be directed against a single state, factions within that state, or interactions among a
group of states. It does not necessarily take the form of military action but may involve
economic or social pressure. When applied to international law, the concept can be elusive.
Because many relations between states involve elements of coercion, it is difficult to
determine at which point pressure becomes sufficiently coercive as to be deemed
intervention. Although states always claim the right to intervene on the basis of \"vital
interests,\" they never agree as to what this term involves.
A group of writers prohibit intervention in all circumstances. According to their point of view
when one state intervenes in the affairs of another state through force then as reaction
against his violation international law permits intervention.

CONCEPT OF INTERVENTION AND UNITED NATIONS CHARTER:

Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter provides: \"All Members shall refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations.\"
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) intervention in Kosovo in 1999 was said to
be justified on the grounds of such a humanitarian crisis coupled with non-compliance by the
parties with Security Council Resolutions. Similarly whatever is happening in Palestine …is
that not a human crises.

Kinds of Intervention:--Winfield refers to three kinds of interventions:--

1.Internal Intervention:-- This is intervention by a state in a civil war going on with the
territory of another state. The intervening state in such case may side with insurgents or
legitimate govt. the intervention of number of states in civil war in spain in 1936 was typical
of internal intervention.
2. External Intervention:-- it is an intervention by a state in the foreign affairs of other states.
As a general rule, an external intervention is directed against hostile relations of other states.
While there is a war going on between two states, a third state can make an external
intervention by entering the war on behalf of either of two states.
3. Punitive Intervention:--It is resorted to by a state when it has suffered an injury by some
action state and may be stated as an act of retaliation against the state. The punitive
intervention may take the form of pacific blockade.

GROUNDS OF INTERVENTION:
1: SELF DEFENSE:
Use of force in self defense is justified where it is necessary for self preservation. The right
of self defense under article 51 is subject to following conditions: 1: There should be an
armed attack. 2: Right exist until security council has taken any action. 3: It should be
reported to security council. 4: The right shall not effect security councils responsibility for
peace and security. 5: Right is not available for non member states.
2: INTERVENTION ON HUMANITARIAN GROUNDS:
Intervention was permitted in the past on humanitarian grounds. When human rights were
openly violated in a state and the people were openly persecuted then other states can
intervene in the affair of such a state in order to check such persecution and violation of
human rights. E.g. England, France and Russia jointly intervened in the conflict of Greece
and turkey in 1827to check violation of human rights, other examples include: Bulgaria 1877
Cuba 1898 Haiti 1915
3: TO ENFORCE TREATY RIGHTS:---Intervention was also permitted in the past under
international law to enforce treaty rigts. There are several examples of intervention on this
ground e.g. when Germany attacked Belgium in 1831 England intervened because it had a
treaty eith Belgium whereby it was commited to maintain the neutrality of Belgium. Similarly
USA intervened Cuba in 1962. Now after the enforcement of united nations charter this kind
of intervention is not allowed as states have undertaken not to intervene in the external or
internal affairs of another state. But again question arises is that what was wrong with USA
when they first intervened Afghanistan and then Iraq.
4: INTERVENTION TO PREVENT ILLEGAL INTERVENTION:---In the past there have
been several cases of intervention by states in order to prevent illegal intervention by other
states. It was on this ground that England helped Protugal in 1926. The united nations
charter has affected this right. Intervention by one state in the affairs of another state is no
more permissable.
INTERVENTION FOR PROTECTION OF PROPERTY AND PERSONS: In the past
international law permited the intervention in order to protect the property and persons of a
state citizens. The growth in international relations and interdependence of states
neccesitated the intercourse of citizens of one state with other. So whenever there is a
danger to the persons or property of citizeens it become natural for a state to to take action.
During india pakistan war in 1971 America sent its 7th fleet to the bay of bengal on the
ground of protection of property and persons. But united nations charter does not allow this
kind of intervention.

COLLECTIVE INTERVENTION: Under united nations charter colletive intervention can be

made to check an agression on the breach of international peace and security. Security
council has empowered to take collective action if there exist a threat or a breach of
international peace. In its first stage security council take such collective measures and do
not involve the use of force. Abaut if such an action does not prove to be adequate the
security council is empowered to employ armed forces. The united natins took such actions
in Korea 1950, congo 1961, in bosnia 1995-96

DOCTRINE ON PRINCIPLE OF NON INTERVENION:

MONROE DOCTRINE:
President Monroe of United States propounded this doctrine. I t was reaction of the treaty
which napoleon had entered in to with European states. The European states wanted to re
establish their colonies in America and wanted to help Spain. In the background of these
events president Monroe made a declaration in 1923, the important points of this doctrine
are as followed.
1: The states of American continent would not more be made subject to colonization in
future.---2: America would not interfere in the European wars.---3: If European states
interfered in the affairs of American continent then America would consider it unfriendly act.
DRAGO DOCTRINE:--This doctrine was presented by drago of Argentina. According to the
doctrine European states could not intervene in the affairs of states of American continent on
the ground of claiming public debts. Actually European states had started using military force
to enforce the claims of their citizens e.g. England, Germany and Italy had enforced
blockade against Venezuela because they had failed to fulfill its financial obligations.
MODREN DOCTRINE:---More recently, an alternative approach to humanitarian intervention
known as \'Responsibility to protect R2P has emerged. Responsibility to Protect is the name
of a report produced in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State
Sovereignty ICISS which was established by the Canadian government in response to the
history of unsatisfactory humanitarian interventions. The report sought to establish a set of
clear guidelines for determining when intervention is appropriate, what the appropriate
channels for approving an intervention are and how the intervention itself should be carried
out.
Responsibility to protect seeks to establish a clearer code of conduct for humanitarian
interventions and also advocates a greater reliance on non-military measures. The report
also criticizes and attempts to change the discourse and terminology surrounding the issue
of humanitarian intervention. It argues that the notion of a \'right to intervene\' is problematic
and should be replaced with the \'responsibility to protect\'. Under Responsibility to Protect
doctrine, rather than having a right to intervene in the conduct of other states, states are said
to have a responsibility to intervene and protect the citizens of another state where that other
state has failed in its obligation to protect its own citizens.
LIMITATIONS:
There are few limitations on intervention which are:

1. When implemented, an intervention mission can contravene the fundamental

objectives of the United Nations, such as maintaining peace, and it contravenes Article
2.7 of the Charter of the United Nations whenever a recognized state is subject to an
intervention: \"Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of
any state\". However, the UN Charter also justifies interventions under Chapters VI and
VII. Advocates of interventions argue that the creation of a new right is not necessary,
but rather the simple application of rights which already exist.
2. More fundamentally than this legal problem are the contradictions inherent in the
concept of humanitarian intervention, which are primarily due to the confusion created
by the blurring of the right and the duty to interfere. It is difficult, when such confusion
occurs, to separate the humanitarian motives from the political motives and be assured
that the powers intervening are entirely disinterested.
3. Even though it is called universal, the declaration of human rights is strongly influenced
by the work of Western philosophers from the Enlightenment and more generally by a
Judeo-Christian tradition. Intervention has often been an action directed by Northern
states toward Southern states. It is thus unlikely that a Rwandan contingent might one
day be assigned a peacekeeping mission in Northern Ireland, or that the Lebanese
might intervene in Basque country.
4. In reality, the powerful nation-states run little risk of becoming the target of a
humanitarian intervention action. For example, the Chechen population is probably in
as much danger as of 2005 as the Kosovo’s were in previous years, but Russia is
significantly more powerful in the realm of international relations than Serbia, and so an
international action into Chechnya is much less likely.
Q. Explain the relationship between
International Law and Municipal Law.
International Law is the law which governs the Relations of sovereign independent
States inter se Municipal law or State law or national law is the law of a State or a
country and in that respect is opposed to International Law which consists of rules
which civilized States consider as binding upon them in their mutual relations. Kelsen
observes that national law regulates the behavior of individuals International law the
behavior of States or as it is put whereas national law is concerned with the
international relations the so called domestic affairs of the State. International Law is
concerned with the external relations of the State its foreign affairs.

Legislature and court systems are different on the international and municipal levels.
Where the municipal level uses a legislature to help enforce and test the laws, the
international court system relies on a series of treaties without a legislature which, in
essence, makes all countries equal.

Enforcement is a major difference between municipal and international law. The

municipal courts have a law enforcement arm which helps require those it determines
to follow the rules, and if they do not they are required to attend court. The international
court system has no enforcement and must rely on the cooperation of other countries
for enforcement.

There is a divergence of opinion on the question as to whether International Law and

Municipal Law on the various national laws can be said to form a unity being
manifestations of a single conception of law or whether International Law constitutes an
independent system of law essentially different from the Municipal Law. The former
theory is called monistic and the latter dualistic.

Monistic Theory: Monists assume that the internal and international legal systems
form a unity. Both national legal rules and international rules that a state has accepted,
for example by way of a treaty, determine whether actions are legal or illegal. In most
monist states, a distinction between international law in the form of treaties, and other
international law, e.g. jus cogens is made. International law does not need to be
translated into national law. The act of ratifying the international law immediately
incorporates the law into national law. International law can be directly applied by a
national judge, and can be directly invoked by citizens, just as if it were national law. A
judge can declare a national rule invalid if it contradicts international rules because, in
some states, the latter have priority. In other states, like in Germany, treaties have the
same effect as legislation, and by the principle of lex posterior, only take precedence
over national legislation enacted prior to their ratification. In its most pure form, monism
dictates that national law that contradicts international law is null and void, even if it
predates international law, and even if it is the constitution.It maintains that the subject
of the two systems of law namely, International Law and Municipal Law are essentially
one in as much as the former regulates the conduct of States, while the latter of
individuals. According to this view law is essentially a command binding upon the
subjects of the law independent of their will which is one case is the States and in the
other individuals. According to it International Law and Municipal Law are two phases
of one and the same thing. The former although directly addressed to the States as
corporate bodies is as well applicable to individuals for States are only groups of
individuals.

Dualistic theory: Dualists emphasize the difference between national and

international law, and require the translation of the latter into the former. Without this
translation, international law does not exist as law. International law has to be national
law as well, or it is no law at all. If a state accepts a treaty but does not adapt its
national law in order to conform to the treaty or does not create a national law explicitly
incorporating the treaty, then it violates international law. But one cannot claim that the
treaty has become part of national law. Citizens cannot rely on it and judges cannot
apply it. National laws that contradict it remain in force. According to dualists, national
judges never apply international law, only international law that has been translated
into national law. According to the dualist view the systems of International Law and
Municipal Law are separate and self contained to the extent to which rules of the one
are not expressly or tacitly received into the other system. In the first place they differ
as regards their sources. The sources of Municipal Law are customs grown up within
the boundaries of the State concerned and statutes enacted therein while the sources
of International Law are customs grown up within the Family of Nations and law making
treaties concluded by its members. In the second place Municipal Laws regulates
relations between the individuals under the sway of a State or between the individuals
and the State while International Law regulates relations between the member States
of the Family of Nations. Lastly there is a difference with regard to the substance of the
law in as much as Municipal Law is a law of the sovereign over individuals while
International Law is a law between sovereign State which is arrived at an agreement
among them. The latter is therefore a weak law.

Besides the above two theories, Starke makes reference to two other theories namely,
the Transformation Theory and Delegation Theory.

Transformation Theory: According to this theory it is the transformation of the treaty

into national legislation which alone validates the extension to individuals of the rules
set out in international agreements. The transformation is not merely a formal but a
substantial requirement. International Law according to this theory cannot find place in
the national or Municipal Law unless the latter allows its machinery to be used for that
purpose.

This theory is fallacious in several respects. In the first place its premise that
International Law and Municipal Law are two distinct systems is incorrect. In the
second place the second premise that International Law binds States only whereas
municipal law applies to individuals is also incorrect for International Law is the sum of
the rules which have been accepted by civilized states as determining their conduct
towards each other and towards each others subjects. In the third place the theory
regards the transformation of treaties into national law for their enforcement. This is
not true in all cases for the practice of transforming treaties into national legislation is
not uniform in all the countries. And this is certainly not true in the case of law making
treaties.
 Delegation Theory: According to this theory there is the delegation of a right to every
State to decide for itself when the provisions of a treaty or convention are to come into
effect and in what manner they are to be incorporated in the law of the land or
municipal law. There is no need of transformation of a treaty into national law but the
act is merely an extension of one single act. The delegation theory is incomplete for it
does not satisfactorily meet the main argument of the transformation theory. It
assumes the primacy of international legal order but fails to explain the relations
existing between municipal and international laws.

It is settled by the leading English and American decisions that International Law forms
part of the municipal law of those countries. The United States has unambiguously
applied the doctrine that International Law is part of the law of the land. All
international conventions ratified by the USA and such customary International Law as
has received the assent of the United States are binding upon American Courts even if
they may be contrary to the statutory provisions. There is a presumption in cases of
conflict that the United States Congress did not intend to overrule International Law.

Position in India
In India, SC has held in several cases such as Vishakha vs State of Rajasthan,
Randhir vs Union of India, Unnikrishnan vs State of Karnataka, that domestic laws of
India, including the constitution are not to be read as derogatory to International law.
An effort must be made to read the domestic law as being in harmony with the
international law in case of any ambiguity. At the same time, the constitution is still the
supreme law of the land and in case of any directly conflict the constitution will prevail.

Theories relating International Law and

Municipal Law
Home International Law Theories relating International Law and Municipal Law

International Law and Municipal Law are two separate legal orders existing independently.
An internal law cannot become an International Law. However, an International Law can
become an Internal (Municipal) Law.
Few theories that relate the two laws are:

Contents

 1Monistic Theory
 2Dualistic Theory
 3Specific Adoption Theory
 4Transformational Theory
 5Delegation Theory
 6Related Topics
Monistic Theory
 18th Century theory proposed by Moser and Martens
 This theory says only one set of legal system, the doctrine of legal order, shall exist
 Man is the root of all the laws
 International and Municipal are two branches of a single tree serving the needs of
human community in one way or the other
 Both laws emanate from a unified knowledge of law. They are species of the same
genus - law
 Both laws are applicable on human. Municipal law directly and international law indirectly
through States
 Neither of them is a system nor are they separate from the system
 Supporters of this theory include: Wright, Kelsen, Duguit etc.

Dualistic Theory
 Also called Pluristic Theory
 Says both the laws are separate and different
 Individual is the subject of Municipal Law. State is the subject of International Law
 Municipal Law is the result of will of people of the state. International Law is the result of
the common will of all the States.
 Municipal Law differs from one State to another. International Law is common and
similar to all the States
 Supporters of this theory include: Anzilloti, Oppenheim, Triepel etc.
 Difference is studies based:
 Regarding Source
 Regarding Subject
 Regarding Substance of Law
 Regarding Principles
 Regarding Dynamism of the Subject-Matter
 Disadvantages:
 Seeing International Law and Municipal Law as separate would mean that
International Law cannot be a part of Municipal Law => It cannot be operated as law
of land unless specifically transformed.
 This is incorrect because internationally recognized fundamental rights are
applicable even in municipal law even if state does not like it
 It is incorrect to say that international law regulates the relationship between states.
 pacta sunt servanda is an important principle in International law but it is not solely
relied on it

Specific Adoption Theory

 This theory says that International Law cannot be applied in sovereign states unless and
until the sovereign state specifically adopts that law by way of enactments.
 Positivists support this theory
 Examples: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have been adopted in India under
the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. Similarly, the Model Arbitration Law (MAL)
of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law was enacted by India as
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Transformational Theory
 International Law undergoes transformation as it spreads universally. Unless
transformed, it cannot be applied to Municipal Law.

Delegation Theory
 International Law delegates the rule-making power to each State accordance with the
procedure and system prevailing in each state in accordance with the Constitution and
Rules of the Treaty or Convention that member states sign and agree upon.

Piracy
Piracy on High Seas is restricted according to Geneva Conference on the High Seas, 1958

 Any act of violence, detention or any act of depredation

 committed for private ends
 by crew or passengers
 Voluntary act of participation in the operation of the ship with knowledge of facts that it
became a pirate ship
 Act of inciting or intentionally facilitating an act to make it a pirate ship
 A ship continues to retain its nationality even after being taken over by pirates. The law
of the state that granted it a nationality decides if the pirate ship loses or retains its
nationality.
 Seizure of a ship thinking it to be a pirate ship without adequate grounds will make the
State liable to compensate the loss or damage for the detention.
 Seizure of a pirate ship can be made by a war ship, military ship or a ship authorized for
the act by the State.

Law of the Sea

Territorial Waters: The Sovereignty of a State extends beyond the land territory and its
internal waters to an extent of sea belt adjacent to the coast. The sovereignty extends on the
airspace over the territorial waters also. Territorial waters are also called Maritime Belt.

 The 1958 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is the first serious attempt to codify the
law related to the Seas. However, the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) is regarded as the most successful
steps towards setting up the various aspects of this law.

 Before the 1958 Convention, the Cannon-Shot Rule was followed. According to this rule,
the sovereignty extends to a reach of a cannon-shot. This is roughly 3 miles to 200
miles.
 States shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea. passage
includes stopping and anchoring but in so far as the same are incident to ordinary
navigation or are rendered necessary by force majeure or by distress.
 Article 15 says that the coastal states are required to give appropriate publicity to any
dangers to navigation of which it has knowledge within its territorial sea.
 Article 16 says that coastal state may take necessary steps in its territorial sea to
prevent any passage which is not innocent
 Article 17 says that ships in innocent passage have to comply with the laws and
regulations enacted by the coastal State in conformity with international norms.
 Article 19 of Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 1958
says that criminal jurisdiction of the coastal state should not be exercised on board a
foreign ship passing through the territorial sea to arrest any person or to conduct an
investigation in connection with any crime committed on board the ship during its
passage except when:
 the consequences of the crime extend to the coast
 the crime is of a kind to disturb the peace of the country or the good order of the
territorial sea or
 the assistance of the local authorities is requested by the captain of the ship or by
the consul of the country whose flag the ship flies or
 it is necessary for the suppression of illicit traffic in narcotics drugs
 US and Iran are non-parties to UNCLOS. However, they are bound to follow UNCLOS
because UNCLOS represents customary international law.

Continental Shelf

Article 1 of the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf 1958 defined Continental
Shelf as referring to:
  sea-bed and subsoil of the submarine areas adjacent to the coast but outside the
territorial sea, to a depth of 200 meters or beyond that limit, to where the depth of the
superjacent waters admits of the exploitation of the natural resources of the said area
 to the seabed and subsoil of similar submarine areas adjacent to the coasts of
islands.

Exclusive Economic Zone

 The Exclusive Economic Zone is a zone of the sea adjacent to a coastal state's
territorial sea within which the coastal state as exclusive jurisdiction over fishing.
 In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, fishing beyond the limit of a lawful
territorial sea was open to all States in accordance with the Freedom of Fishing on the
high seas.
 Article 87 gives all states, including land-locked States, the right to navigation and
overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines and other internationally
important lawful uses of the sea
 Article 61 provides the Coastal state to determine the allowable catch of the living
resources in its exclusive proper conservation and management measure that the
maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is not endangered
by over-exploitation.
 Article 62 deals with the right of the coastal state to determine its capacity to harvest the
living resources of the zone
 Article 73 deals with the rights of the Coastal State to take measures such as boarding,
inspection, arrest and judicial proceedings, as may be necessary, to ensure compliance
with law adopted in conformity with this Convention.
 India enacted the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and
other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 in conformance to the international norms.

Contiguous Zone
The Contiguous Zone does not extend 12 miles from the baseline from which the breadth
of the territorial seas is measured.

 Article 24 of the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone
gives the right to the States to exercise preventive and protective control for certain
purposes over a belt of the high seas contiguous to their territorial sea. The right
includes:
 Preventing infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary regulations
within its territory or territorial sea
  punish infringement of the above regulations committed within its territory or
territorial sea

League of Nations
The League of Nations is an outcome of the World War I. It failed to stop World War II and
soon paved way for the raise of United Nations Organization.