Spoiler Alert!

Do not read this, if you haven’t completed Season 3 of the Attack on Titan!

Go back!

Now let’s call it AOT for brevity and begin!

How AOT started?

AOT started with the narrative that the world is full of human-eating humongous humanoid creatures called Titans. Titan devours humans and there are some thousands of humans left; who have built tall and strong walls to protect themselves from the Titans. It was narrated that the humanity has perished beyond the walls! There are three rings of walls, within which the remaining humanity exists.

1. (Inner most wall) Wall Sina
2. (Middle wall) Wall Rose
3. (Outer most wall) Wall Maria

So as of now this seems simple. Right?

Titans eat humans and humans either fight titans or stay away from them! Cliché anime stuff. Right?

A Big NO!

Tragedy Begins!

For 100s of years, humans were safe from the Titans, all thanks to the walls!

Most of the titans used to be of 20 metres tall, while the walls were 50 metres tall!

However one day, a giant Titan appears (6o metres tall!). It appeared beyond the third outer wall (wall maria) and broke it.

All Titan entered into the outer territory and devoured most of the humans in that zone.

The protagonist of the show is Eren Yeager. Her mom was picked by a titan and devoured her, right before his eyes.

He takes the vow that, He will kill all the titans from the world!

Seems like the story has begun! Right?

A Big NO!

1st Plot Twist

Naturally, Eren inducted himself in the Scout Regiment. Scout Regiment directly deals and combat with the Titans! It was the only way Eren could ever combat the Titans.

Consequently, an opportunity arose and Eren had an opportunity to combat the Titans. During the combat, something happened and Eren transformed himself into a freaking TITAN! He transformed into a titan and started to kill other Titans.

Mind you that Titans do not have thinking capacity. The titan, Eren transformed into; had Eren’s intelligence. Let’s call Eren a Titan Shifter!

In order for a Titan shifter to become a Titan, he/she would need to inflict a bodily damages on themselves. In this case, Eren simply bite his hand, causing damage and transforming himself into a Titan.

A lot of drama happened afterward. However, lets jump to the other relevant information!

Moving Forward

Now its clear that in some case a human can transform into a titan and such titans are different from average mindless titan, thanks of its intelligence. However, as the story progress, we get to know that there are more titan shifters. In fact the titans who broke the outer wall leading to the tragedy were titan shifters.

Why humans would want to extinct the human race?

Whether can all humans transform into a titan?

At this stage we are full of questions.

Revelation of Truth

In the beginning of story; it was told that, all the secrets to Titans could be unveiled if one explore Eren’s house basement of the outer territory (Wall Maria).

However, Titans had their territory within Wall Maria. Eren and his comrades fought titans and went straight to his basement. There they found a diary and it had everything in it.

We came to know that, humans didn’t perish beyond the walls. The humans living within the walls are called as Eldians. The Edlians who are living within the walls resides in the mid of a small island called Paradis. They couldn’t go outside of wall because of roaming Titans. Therefore, they never knew the existence of outside world.

The people of Paradis never knew about Oceans, Mountains, Desert, etc!

It is then unveiled that, Eldians are of special race. Once injected by a special fluid, they transform into a mindless titan, who eats human. Additionally, there are other nine titan shifters as well, who have human intelligence. Most powerful titan shifter is the Founding Titan. Founding titan has the power to control all the Titans and people of Eldian race.

For 2000 years, Eldians ruled the world and terrorized humanity with their power. However, after certain time, one ruler of Eldian empire decided to give up on world domination and leave with other Eldians to the Paradis island. He left 8 Titan Shifters in the hand of Marley (Neighbouring country). He created three walls with huge mindless titans and with his power to manipulate eldians, he made them forget the past and manipulated them that, humanity perished beyond the walls.

However, Marley ended up having control on 7 Titan Shifters. One who couldn’t be controlled was the Attack Titan. He was Eren’s father who sneaked into the Paradis island and later gave his power to his son Eren Yeager.

What happened after the Eldian empire’s withdrawal?

King Fritz left Marley and took almost all Eldians to the Paradis Island. However, a few Eldians resided back in the Marley. Marley started the narrative that, it was the Marleyan force, which drove Eldian empire back to its place. The State created Intermittent Zone for remaining Eldians and made law that, they can’t leave the zone without prior permission.

The majoritarian population and the State started to abuse the remaining Eldians. Moreover, with the power of seven titan-shifters, the Marley started to dominate in various wars against different countries. Marley started to exploit the remaining Eldians.

1. They used Titan Shifters to take lead in War on behalf of Marley
2. They used to punish Edlians by injecting them with special fluid and transforming them into a mindless titan. Leaving them in the Paradis island. After 100s of years, the Paradis Island was full of mindless Titans (beyond walls).
3. They used Eldians as suicide squad, where they used to inject dozens to hundreds of Eldians with special fluid and using them as a bait in the war.

However, after 100s of years of exploiting Eldians in war; Marley realized that, it relied too much on Eldians. While other nation started to develop technology to counter the Titans.

In order to counter the power of Technology, it started to contemplate on attacking the Paradis Island and claim the Founding Titan. By claiming the Founding Titan, the Marley would be able to summon millions of mindless huge titans. Consequently, Marley sent three titan shifters to Paradis to breach the wall and claim the Founding Titan.

Laws for the Crimes that Marley committed!

Let’s assume that Marley is signatory of the below mentioned International laws:

Using Eldians as a suicide-squad in Wars

Let’s get this straight. The Titan shifters can go back to human form; however, once an Eldian is transformed into a mindless titan, he/she remains in that form till eternity or until someone chop off the titan’s neck! Therefore, calling them Suicide Squad makes sense. Right?

As can be seen in this picture; the Eldian soldiers are wearing the serum belt. Upon approaching the enemy bunker, they were supposed to get hit by a bullet and consequently, getting those serum in their blood. Upon transformation, there will be no going back. They will be titan till someone chops of their neck.

This comes under the extreme torture, which is inhumane and it is part and parcel of a biological experiments. As a result it causes great suffering! Considering all of these, it can said that, Marley breached the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(b) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(c) wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

Attacking the Paradis

Marley sent three titan shifters to breach the walls of Paradis Island and retrieve the founding titan. They were

1. Armored Titan, aka Reiner Braun
2. Colossal Titan, aka Boruto Hoover
3. Female Titan, aka Annie Leonhart

They breached the walls and consequently, a vast population was devoured by the mindless titans.

It was an intentional attacks against the civilian population. The walls were walls to protect the Eldians from the mindless titans. These walls were deliberately destroyed. This caused incidental loss of life and damage to civilian objects.

This act was a serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

(a) intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(b) intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian
objects [or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which is not justified by military necessity;
(c) attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended;

Consequence of breaching the Geneva Convention

Marley clearly broke the Geneva Convention.

Now what would be the consequences?

Nothing, according to Carroll Bogert of Human Rights Watch. The Geneva Convention is a standard by which prisoners and civilians should be treated during a time of war. The document has no provisions for punishment, but violations can bring moral outrage and lead to trade sanctions or other kinds of economic reprisals against the offending government.

Conclusion

Hear me, all Subjects of Ymir. My name is Eren Yeager. I now speak to all the Subjects of Ymir, by way of the Founding Titan‘s power. Every wall on the island of Paradis has been unhardened. the Titans buried within them have begun to walk. My goal…is to protect the people of Paradis, who bore, and raised me. But the world desires the extinction of the people of Paradis. Over countless years, their hatred has grown beyond this island. They surely will not stop until they have killed every last one of our people. I reject their desire. The Titans of the Walls will trample and rumble all the lands beyond this island. Until the lives there… are eliminated from this world!

Eren Yeager (Founding Titan)

Interesting Read: How the present laws would have dealt with the Uchiha Massacre

The post How the present laws would have dealt with the Marley of Attack on Titan appeared first on LexForti .

Keywords: Belgian, Spain, jurisdiction, shareholder, compensation

Facts:

In 1911, the “Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited” was incorporated in Canada. It has its head office in Toronto. It established its various subsidiary companies in Spain for developing an “electric power production and distribution system” in Catalonia. Some of these subsidiary companies had their registered offices in Canada while some had the same it in Spain.

In 1936, the servicing of the Barcelona traction bonds, issued principally in Sterling was suspended by the Spanish government due to the civil war in Spain. After the war ended, foreign currency was needed to restart the servicing of the sterling bonds. However, the Spanish exchange control authorities denied from authorizing the transfer of the needed currency.

The Belgian Government reported this incident to the Spanish Government. The Spanish Government stated that for the authorization of the transfer could be done only when “it was shown that the foreign currency was to be used to repay debts arising from the genuine importation of foreign capital into Spain”. This was not established so the authorization of the transfer was not made.

Then, on 12 February 1948, judging the petition filed by of three Spanish holders of Barcelona Traction sterling bonds, the Court of Reus declared the company bankrupt. After this judgment, Spanish directors were appointed in the two subsidiary companies. Shortly after this, other subsidiary companies were also brought under the ambit of these measures.

In 1958, the Belgian Government filed an Application against the Spanish Government. However, in 1961, Belgian government decided to discontinue the proceedings.  It was decided that negotiations will be held between the representatives of the concerning private interests. However, the negotiations could not success. Therefore, on 19 June, 1962, the Belgian Government filed a fresh application in the Court. In the application, it claimed compensation for the Belgian shareholders of the company losses who suffered losses because of the acts of the Spanish State which were violative of the international law.

Preliminary objections:

It was contended by the Spain that the claims of Belgium are not admissible. Spain raised primarily four objections before the Court.

The first two preliminary objections stated that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the presented case. As Belgium discontinued the earlier proceeding, it is barred now to institute a new proceeding.

The third objection was that the Belgian government did not have the “jus standi”. The fourth objection stated that all the local remedies available in Spain were not used. Both these objections were joined to merit.

Issues:

The Court mainly dealt with one issue i.e. “Can a State extend diplomatic protection to its nationals who are shareholders in a company which is incorporated in another State if the interests of the shareholders are affected due to a wrong committed against the company?”

First preliminary objection:

The Spanish government supported its first preliminary contention that Belgium government cannot institute the present proceedings because it had discontinued the earlier proceedings in 1961 on the basis of five arguments. They are-

• The act of discontinuing the initial proceedings was a “purely procedural act”.  
• Discontinuance of proceedings itself shows that no further action will be taken on that issue except when the party expressly reserves the right to start new proceedings.
• When an effort was made by the representatives of the Belgian interests to negotiate again with the representatives of the Spanish interests, they got refusal from the later side. Further, an understanding was there between both sides that the discontinuance of the application would lead to final abolition of the claim. The applicant denied this contention stating that their intention as just to terminate that proceeding and nothing else.
• The respondent was misled by the applicant about the import of the discontinuance. Because of this, the Respondent decided to negotiate and resultantly suffered prejudice.
• The initiation of proceedings was not as per the spirit and economy of the “Hispanic-Belgian Treaty of July 19, 1927”. As per this treaty, before submitting a dispute for adjudication, one should go through all the possible preliminary stages. In the initial proceeding which was discontinued, all these stages ere gone through. However, the same were repeated in connection with the present proceeding. This could not have been the intention of the Treaty. Therefore, the new proceedings are out of order.

The Court was of the opinion that the first and the second contentions are contradictory to each other. Therefore, the Court rejected both the arguments. Further, relating to third argument, it observed that the exchanges, upon which the Respondent is relying, took place almost totally between the concerned representatives of the private interests. For binding the governments on either side, it must be shown that the representatives acted in such a way as to bind their governments. The respondent failed to prove this a due to which the Court rejected this argument as well. Talking about the fourth argument, the Court stated that the Respondents did not face any lose by agreeing to the negotiations. Therefore, the fourth contention cannot be accepted. Rejecting the last argument, the Court observed that one cannot say that all the treaty processes are exhausted until there exists a right to initiate new proceedings or the case has been prosecuted to judgment. On the basis of all these observations, the Court rejected the First Preliminary Objection of the respondent.

Second preliminary objection:

For establishing the jurisdiction of the Court, the Applicant relied on Article 37[i] of the Statute of the Court and Article 17[ii] of the Hispanic-Belgian Treaty of Conciliation, Judicial Settlement and Arbitration (1927). It was contended by the applicant that the treaty of 1927 is still in force and both sides are parties to the Statute of ICJ.

The Respondent contended that although the 1927 Treaty is still in force, Article 17(4) has lapsed on the dissolution of the PCIJ in 1946. Along with this, Article 37 is only applicable to the States who were parties of the Statute before PCIJ was dissolved. However, Spain was admitted to the UN in 1955 i.e. after dissolution of PCIJ.

The Court observed that the intention of the drafters of Article 37 was to preserve maximum jurisdictional clauses from becoming inoperative due to dissolution of the PCIJ in prospective manner.

Mainly, three conditions are mentioned in Article 37 which includes:

1. “There should be a Treaty or Convention in force
2. It should provide for the reference of a matter to the PCIJ
3. The dispute should be between the States both or all of which are parties to the Statute”.

All three conditions are fulfilling in the present case; therefore, referring the matter to the International Court of Justice is possible. Based on these observations, the Court also rejected the Second Preliminary Objection.

Third and fourth preliminary objection:

The court had joined both these objections to the merits. While dealing with the question of “jus standi”, it was observed by the Court that a State is obliged to cover under the protection of law the “foreign investments and foreign nationals” that had been admitted to its territory. However, this obligation is not absolute in nature. If the State breaches this obligation, it must have a proper reason for doing so. If any question arises relating to an unlawful act committed against a company representing foreign capital, the national State of that company is only authorized under the general rule of international law to exercise diplomatic protection for seeking redress. However, there are some special circumstances in which the general rule may not apply. They are-

• The case of a company which does not exist now
• The case of the protecting State of the company which lacks the capacity of taking action.

The Court observed that although all the assets of Barcelona Traction are lost, the company’s corporate entity is still in existence. While taking about the second case, there is no dispute in the fact that the company if of Canadian nationality.

The company has been protected by the Canadian government for many years. If Canadian government has stopped to act on behalf of the company, it is not a justification for any other government to exercise diplomatic protection.

Judgment:

After taking into consideration various documentaries and other evidences submitted by both the sides, the Court rejected the claim of the Belgium government by 15 votes to 1. The Court stated that “the possession by the Belgian Government of a right of protection was a prerequisite for the examination of such problems”. The court observed that if they would adopt “the theory of diplomatic protection of the shareholders”, it would lead to numerous claims from different States which will pave a way to an insecure atmosphere in the arena of international economic relations. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Belgium government did not have the “jus standi” in this case. Due to this, the Court was of the opinion that there is no reason to examine remaining aspects of the case and pronounce decision on the same. 12 votes of the majority were based on this reasoning only.

Conclusion:

The decision of the Court to dismiss this case effectively shows the differences between “states and individuals”. It further demonstrates who is considered sovereign in the international arena. The decision of the Court was in favour of Spain as Belgium did not have jurisdiction to file an application and the shareholders who were seeking compensation were not given diplomatic immunity. Therefore, it is not permissible for an individual to bring a claim against a state. This case will prove to be a precedent for the cases dealing with organizations and sovereign immunity claims and will show the way to deal with them correctly.

The post Explained: Barcelona Traction Case appeared first on LexForti .

The Corfu channel case finds its origin in an incident which happened on 22 October 1946 in the Corfu Strait. On this day, two British destroyers struck mines in Albanian waters resulting into damage including serious loss of life.

The Government of the United Kingdom stated that Government of the People’s Republic of Albania was internationally responsible for the consequences of the incident. In order to make Government of the People’s Republic of Albania to pay compensation, the Government of the United Kingdom filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Government of the People’s Republic of Albania on 22 May, 1947.

On the other hand, Albania claimed that the United Kingdom had violated Albanian territorial waters. The Court, on 9 April 1949, held Albania responsible for the explosions and for the resulting damage and loss of human life suffered by the United Kingdom. Further, the Court found that Albanian sovereignty had been violated due to the later minesweeping by the United Kingdom. On 19 December 1949, the Court ordered Albania to pay the United Kingdom compensation.

KEYWORDS: Passage, Channel, mines, warships, sovereignty

FACTS OF THE CASE:

On 15 May 1946, the British warships passed through the Corfu Channel. However, they did not take the approval of the Albanian government for doing so and as a result, they were shot at. Later, on 22 October, 1946, a squadron of British warships (two cruisers and two destroyers), left the port of Corfu and proceeded northward through a channel previously swept for mines in the North Corfu Strait. Both destroyers were struck by a mine and were heavily damaged. This incident also caused many deaths.

The two ships were mined in Albanian territorial waters in a previously swept and check-swept channel. After the explosions of 22^nd October, the UK Government sent a note to the Albanian Government. The note stated UK government’s intention to sweep the Corfu Channel shortly.  London received the reply of the Albanian government on 31^st October. It stated that the Albanian Government would not give its consent to this unless the operation in question took place outside Albanian territorial waters. Meanwhile, the International Central Mine Clearance Board at the United Kingdom Government’s request decided in a resolution of 1^st November, 1946 that there should be a further sweep of the Channel. However, it should be subject to Albania’s consent.

On 10^th November, the United Kingdom Government informed the Albanian Government that the said sweep would take place on 12^th November. On 11^th November, the Albanian Government said that Albanian Government does not have any problem if the British fleet undertakes the sweeping of the channel of navigation. However, before carrying out the sweeping, it considered it crucial to decide what area of the sea should be deemed to constitute this channel. For this purpose, it proposed the establishment of a Mixed Commission. The Albanian government clearly stated that any sweeping undertaken without the consent of the Albanian Government inside Albanian territorial waters will be considered as a deliberate violation of Albanian sovereignty. Then, on 12^th and 13^th November, ‘Operation Retail’ was carried out by the United Kingdom government.

CONTENTIONS:

The British government claimed that Albania was responsible for the explosions and loss of life and had to compensate the UK government for that. The UK further held that as per the rules of international law, the passage on 22^nd October, 1946 was not invalid. The rules gave them the right to innocent passage through the North Corfu Channel as it is considered part of international highways and does not need a previous approval of the territorial state.

The Albanian Government denied that the North Corfu Channel belongs to the class of international highways. It stated that a right to passage exists through the North Corfu Channel on the grounds that it is only of secondary importance and not even a necessary route between two parts of the high seas. Therefore, prior approval of the territorial state for the passage was necessary.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the North Corfu Channel should be considered as a part of international highways?
2. Is Albania responsible under the international law for the explosions which occurred on the 22^nd October 1946 in Albanian waters and for the damage and loss of human life which resulted due to it?
3. Has the United Kingdom under international law violated the sovereignty of the Albanian People’s Republic by reason of the acts of the Royal Navy in Albanian waters on the 22^nd October and on the 12^th and 13^th November 1946?

DECISION OF THE COURT:

By analyzing the geographical situation of the North Corfu Channel, the Court concluded that it should be considered as belonging to the class of international highways. Therefore, there is no need of special approval by a coastal State in time of peace for passing through the channel.

The UK government claimed that on October 22^nd, 1946, they were not notified by the Albanian government about the existence of the minefield. As per the principle of state responsibility, the Albanian government should have informed the ships approaching that zone about the danger.

The Court, therefore, concluded that Albania is responsible under the international law for the explosions which occurred on October 22^nd 1946, in Albanian waters as well as for the damage and loss of human life which resulted from them. This raised a duty upon Albania to pay compensation to the United Kingdom.

However, Albania was in war with Greece at that time which means that the coastal state was not in time of peace. Therefore, by examining numerous contentions put forward by the Albanian government, the Court held that United Kingdom by the act of British Navy in Albanian waters on October 22^nd 1946 did not violate the sovereignty of Albania.

Further, it is admitted by the United Kingdom Government that they carried out ‘Operation Retail’ against the wish of the Albanian Government. Further, the international mine clearance organizations also did not give consent for the operation. Therefore, the operation could not be justified as the exercise of a right of innocent passage. In principle, international law does not allow a State to assemble a large number of warships in the territorial waters of another State and to carry out minesweeping in those waters. Therefore, the operation conducted on 12^th and 13^th November violated the sovereignty of the People’s Republic of Albania.

The post The Corfu Channel Case appeared first on LexForti .

Abstract

My subject is “THE LAW OF THE SEAS” – The “Law of the Sea” is a corpus of international law that regulates states’ rights and responsibilities in maritime areas. It addresses issues such as navigational rights, marine resource claims, and authority over coastal seas. While modern maritime law is based on a variety of international customs, treaties, and agreements, it is largely derived from the “United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)”, which has been in effect since 1994 and is widely regarded as a codification of international marine customary law and is sometimes referred to as the “constitution of the oceans.”

The “Law of the sea” is a field of international law concerned with maritime public order. The United Nations Convention on the Legislation of the Sea, which was signed on December 10, 1982, codifies much of this law. The agreement, which has been dubbed a “constitution for the seas,” aims to codify international law governing territorial waters, sea lanes, and ocean resources. It entered into force in 1994 after 60 countries had approved it; by the early twenty-first century, it had been ratified by more than 150 countries.

Every coastal country may establish an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extending 200 nautical miles (370 kilometres) from shore outside its territorial seas. The coastal state has the power to exploit and regulate fisheries, build artificial islands and facilities, utilise the zone for other commercial purposes (e.g., wave energy generation), and govern scientific research within the EEZ. Foreign vessels (and aeroplanes) may otherwise freely navigate through (and over) the zone.

All countries are welcome to use the area’s waters and airspace, with the exception of acts forbidden by international law (e.g., the testing of nuclear weapons). The International Seabed Area (commonly known as “the Area”) is the area beneath the high seas for which a separate and thorough legal framework was established by the 1982 convention. This regime was initially unacceptably restrictive for industrialised countries, owing to the high level of regulation required, and it was significantly modified by a supplementary treaty (1994) to address their concerns. The minerals on the ocean floor beneath the high seas are now considered “the common heritage of mankind,” and their exploitation is overseen by the International Seabed Authority under the new regime (ISA). Any commercial seabed exploration or mining is done by private or state-owned companies that are controlled and approved by the ISA, albeit only exploration has been done thus far. If and when commercial mining commences, a worldwide mining company will be developed, with sites of comparable size and value to those mined by private or state-owned corporations. Fees and royalties from commercial and state-owned mining companies, as well as any profits produced by the global company, would go to developing countries. Private mining businesses are encouraged to market their technology and knowledge to multinational corporations and underdeveloped countries.

Keywords: – Maritime Law, EEZ, sea, common heritage, rights.

The Law Of The Sea

It serves two purposes: first, as a means of transmission, and second, as a large pond of both living and non-living wealth.

“The principle that runs across the law of the sea is that “the land governs the sea,” which means that the land territorial situation defines the beginning point for resolving a coastal state’s nautical rights.”

The Portuguese claimed large swaths of the high seas as part of their territorial land in the 17th century, but Grotius responded with the doctrine of the open seas, which stated that the oceans as res communis should be accessible to all nations but powerless to assumption.

The right to travel freely on the high seas quickly became a cornerstone of international law. It was legal for a coastal state to establish territorial seas, or territorial sea, around its coastline and treat it as if it were a permanent part of its territory.

Other dominion zones have been expanding outside of the territorial sea. Coastal states can now play specific jurisdictional roles in the adjacent zone, and international law is increasingly favouring the approval of even larger zones in which the coastal state can enjoy certain rights to the discharge of other nations, such as fishery zones, continental shelves, and, more recently, rogue states, exclusive economic zones.

The gradual shift in maritime law toward the expansion of the territorial sea (the accepted maximum limit is now 12 nautical miles, up from 40 years ago, 3 nautical miles), combined with the frequent claiming jurisdictional rights over certain areas of the high seas, reflects a fundamental shift in the emphasis of states’ attitudes toward the sea.

The primary notion of high seas independence has been modified as a result of a better awareness of the materials available in the oceans and seabed outside territorial waters. “Parallel to the growing trend of asserting ever more claims over the high seas, there has been a push to establish a “common heritage of mankind” regime over the high seas’ seabed”. As a result, the law of the seas has been in a condition of unreliability for decades as a source of contention truths have shown themselves.

“The force of leading the law of the sea Conference, which lasted from 1974 to 1982 and featured a large number of states and international organisations, covered a wide range of economic, political, and strategic issues”. Western powers were eager to protect by obstructing any navigation reduction of the liberty of progress, particularly “through international cross-border trade, and to protect their economic interests by unfettered exploitation of the high seas and deep bottom resources”. Other countries and groups of countries wanted their special interests are safeguarded. States that are landlocked or geographically disadvantaged, land states, and coastline states, for example, would be included here. The end outcome of this kaleidoscopic range of interests was extremely clear, leading to the final draft’s “package offer” notion.

 “According to this approach, for e.g., the Third World agreed to the progress through straits and add to continental shelf rights beyond the 200-mile limit from the coasts in put back for the internationalization of deep sea extract.”

Numerous of the provisions of the 1982 Convention restate the truths expressed in earlier documents, which have subsequently become standard regulation, while many new regulations were suggested. As a result, a complicated web of links exists between the many in this field states, based on customary and treaty-based rules. “All states are presumed to be bound by accepted conventional regulations, whereas only the parties to the five treaties included will be bound by the new regulation contained therein, and since some states are unlikely to adhere to the 1982 Conventions, the 1958 regulations will continue to be important”.

The Territorial Sea

The territorial sea is part of the coastal state’s territorial domain and hence immediately belongs to it. For example, all newly self-sufficient states receive a territorial sea title when they achieve independence. “There have been many theories as to the exact legal character of the territorial sea as a part of the res communis, but issue to certain rights exercisable by the coastal state, to concerning the territorial sea as parts of the coastal states territorial land subject to a right of moral passing by foreign vessels.”

“Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that the coastal state has sovereign rights over its nautical belt and extensive jurisdictional control, as defined by international law. The foundation limits the coastal state’s sovereignty by allowing foreign nations clear passage through the territorial sea; this distinguishes the territorial sea from the state’s intramural seas, which are totally within the coastal nation’s limitless jurisdiction”.

If the coastal state foreign nationals and ships have expressed a wish to do so. may be barred from fishing in its territorial waters, and these activities may be reserved for the benefit of its own citizens. Similarly, the coastal state has a lot of power on things like certainty and custom. “It should be noted, however, that how far a state chooses to exercise the jurisdiction and sovereignty to which it may lay claim under international law will be determined by the wording of its own municipal legislation, and some states will not wish to exercise the full range of powers available to them under international law”.

The right of innocent passage

The right of foreign merchant ships to travel through a coast’s territorial sea on a continuous basis has long been recognised under customary international law, despite the coast state’s sovereignty.

However, the precise area of the theory is unfocused and amenable to the contrary explanation, especially in regard to the need that the passing be unambiguous. The coastal state may not charge for such passing until the ships are in remission for certain services, and passing ships must follow the coastal state’s norms, including as navigation, to the extent that they are consistent with international law.

Jurisdiction Of Foreign Ships

When foreign ships sail through the territorial sea, the coastal state may only exercise its criminal jurisdiction in certain circumstances, such as the arrest of any individual or an investigation into any topic relating to a crime committed on board ship.

However, if the ship enters the territorial sea after leaving the internal seas of the coastal state, the coastal state has the option to proceed in any way indicated by its laws in terms of arrest or investigation on board ship, and is not bound by the wording of article 27. (1). “However, if the offence was committed before the ship entered the territorial sea and the ship is not entering or has not entered the inner waters, the authorities of the coastal state cannot continue. Warships and other government ships working for non-commercial purposes are exempt from the jurisdiction of the coastal state, despite the fact that they may be forced to leave the territorial sea immediately if they violate passage regulations, and the flag state will be in charge of international control in the event of loss or damage.”

The Exclusive Economic Zone

This zone arose from earlier, more unsubstantiated assertions, particularly in relation to fishing zones, as well as from the expansion of the negotiating process that led to the 1982 agreement. It tarnishes a deal struck between governments that want a territorial sea of 200 miles and others who want a more complex framework of state on the coast control.

“The debate over fishing zones was a key factor in the call for a 200-mile full economic zone. The fishing zones were not agreed upon in the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea, and Article 24 of the Convention does not grant exclusive fishing rights in the contiguous zone”. “But, increasing numbers of states have demanded fishing zones of extensively varying width. The European Fishing Convention, 1964, which was execute in the UK by the Fishing Limits Act 1964, if that the coastal state has the exclusive right to fish and exclusive jurisdiction in affair of fisheries in a a 6-mile belt from the baseline of the territorial sea; while within the belt between 6 and 12 miles from the baseline, other parties to the convention have the right to fish, if they had natural fished in that belt between January 1953 and December 1962.”

This was done in order to reconcile the interests of the coastal state with those of other states that could show that traditional fishing was still going on in the area. Many states have applied for “a 12-mile exclusive fishing zone” at one time / another, either for themselves or for other states, and it appears that international legislation to that effect have already been established. Indeed, in the fisheries jurisdiction cases, the international court stated that “the concept of the fishing zone, or the area in which a state may assert exclusive jurisdiction independently of its territorial sea for this purpose, had crystallised as customary law in recent years, particularly since the 1960 Geneva Conference, and that the extension of that fishing zone up to a 12-mile limit from the baseline comes into view now to be generally received”.

Concerned about the long-term impact of depleting fishing populations off Iceland’s coasts, Iceland declared a unilateral 50-mile exclusive fishing zone in 1972. The United Kingdom, the case was referred to the International Court of Justice by the Federal Republic of Germany, asking the court to rule on whether Iceland’s claim violated “International Law”.

“The court did not respond to that point, but instead decided that Iceland’s fishing rules extending the zones were not inviolable against the UK and West Germany because they had given no assent to them. Despite this, the ICJ based its decisions on the notion that there is no international law regulation that allows for the formation of a 50-mile fishing zone”.

Similarly, there appeared to be no regulation claims beyond 12 miles are prohibited, and the power of such claims is limited would be determined by all of the case’s material circumstances as well as the degree of identification by other states.

The court instead emphasised the concept of exceptional rights, which it recognised as a basis of “customary International Law”. Such rights evolved when a coastal state’s economy was reliant on coastal fisheries. “Nonetheless, developments at the UN Conference and the 1982 Convention overtook the concept. According to Article 55 of the 1982 Convention, the exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and close to the territorial sea that is subject to the convention’s legal regime”.

The coastal state in the economic zone has a number of responsibilities under Article 56, including;

Sovereign powers natural resources should be explored, utilised, conserved, and managed, both living and non-living, in the waters overlying the seabed and its subsoil, as well as other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone, such as the production of energy from water, currents, and winds. Jurisdiction over I the planning, usage, installation, and building of artificial land; (ii) marine scientific research; and (iii) the protection of the marine environment.

“Article 55 states that the zones starts from the outer limit of the territorial sea, yet by Article 57 shall not be extending beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is uniform.”

When the relevant waters between neighbouring states are less than 400 miles away, borders are required. Unless islands are nothing more than rocks that cannot support human habitation, they generate economic zones.

The other governments’ rights and responsibilities in the exclusive economic zone are outlined in Article 58. Fundamentally, these are freedom of navigation on the high seas, overflight, and the laying of underwater cables and pipelines. States are also expected to consider the rights, responsibilities, and laws of coastal states when exercising their rights and performing their duties.

“When a dispute arises over the allocation of rights and jurisdiction in the zone, the judgement must be made on the basis of equity and taking into account all relevant circumstances”. 

The coastal state is responsible for enforcing customs laws. and rules in regard to artificial islands, installation, and shape in the exclusive economic zone, according to Article 60(2). Guinea had behaved in accordance with the law of the sea Convention by applying its customs regulations to a custom space that comprised sections of the economic zone.

In the previous two decades, a wide range of states have demanded exclusive economic zones of 200 miles. Fishing zones have been indicated by a number of nations that have not made such a requirement. “It appears that the number and distribution of nations requesting economic zones is such that the existence of exclusive economic zones as a customary law regulation is firmly established”. The International Court of Justice stated in the Libyal Maltra Continental Shelf case that the organisation of exclusive economic zones is demonstrated by governments’ practise of having them become a part of customary law.

States have announced the creation of further zones over maritime areas in addition to such zones. Definite states have also claimed rights over what are known as certainty zones, but these have never been well-defined and are uncommon.

“According to a US-USSR Maritime Boundary Agreement signed on June 1, 1990, each party would exercise sovereign rights and jurisdiction obtained from the other party’s exclusive economic zone jurisdiction in a “special area” on the other party’s side of the Maritime Boundary to ensure that all areas within 200 miles of either party’s coast would be protected. Jurisdiction over three special areas within the USSR’s 200-mile economic zone and one special area within the US’s 200-mile economic zone appears to have been transferred in this way”.

The Continental Shelf

The continental shelf is a geographical term that refers to the cliffs that extend into the waters from the continental mainland, which are only covered by a thin layer of water, gradually vanishing into the depths of the ocean. These shelves cover about seven to eight percent of the total ocean their length varies widely from place to place, as does their surface area. The shelf off the west coast of the United States, for example, is just around 5 miles broad, whereas the North Sea and Persian Gulf’s whole undersea region is shelf.

The most important aspect to remember the continental shelves are abundant in oil and gas resources, frequently used as big fishing grounds. “This restores a wave of assumption by coastal nations in the years after WWII, which gradually changed the legal status of the continental shelf from being part of the high seas and accessible to all states unless it is currently identified as exclusive to the coastal state”.

The Truman Proclamation of 1945 was the administration’s first step, and it set in motion a series of similar and more sweeping demands. “ This pointed to the automation capacity to utilize the riches of the shelf and the need to establish a identified jurisdiction over such resources, and proclaimed that the coastal state was entitled to such jurisdiction for a number of reasons: 1^st, because application or conservation of the resources of the sub soil and seabed of the continental shelf depended upon collaboration from the shore; 2^nd, because the shelf itself could be regarded as an extension of the land mass of the coastal state, and its resources were often merely an addition into the sea of deposits lying within the territory; and finally,  because the coastal state, for reasons of security, was profoundly interested in activities off its shores which would be necessary to utilize the resources of the shelf.”

The “US government” demonstrated i.e., considered the “natural resources of the subsoil and seabed of the continental shelf beneath the high seas but adjacent to the US coasts as appertaining to the United States, subject to its authority and control” in an appropriate manner. Nonetheless, the “status of the waters over the continental shelf as high seas would be unaffected”.

“This sequence resulted in a slew of assets by governments to their continental shelves, some of which were similar to the US assertions and others which were substantially broader”.

With no continental shelf, Chile and Peru wanted Up to 200 miles from their coasts, they have authority over the seabed, subsoil, and seas, despite strong opposition from numerous countries. For many years, the problems were discussed, eventually culminating to the Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf in 1958.

In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the court noted that: “States have two sources of rights with regard to the seabed, albeit declarations with regard to the economic zone, as opposed to the continental shelf, must be made specifically. It’s also feasible that the shelf’s geographical extent differs from that of the 200-mile economic zone, as will be revealed.”

Jurisdiction On High Seas

The plan of the ship’s nationality, and the flag state’s resulting jurisdiction over the ship, has been the foundation of maintaining order on the high seas. It is, in essence, the flag state that will apply the rules of not only its own municipal law, but also international law. Many of the interests and rights available under the high seas law regime will be denied to a ship without a flag. 

Each state must specify the conditions that must be met in order for ships to be granted its nationality, for ships to be registered on its territory, and for ships to be allowed to fly its flag.

“The nationality of the ships is determined by the flag they fly, but Article 91 of the 1982 Convention also stipulates that the state and the ship must have a “genuine link.” This article, which restores “a well-established rule of general international law,” was intended to prevent governments from using flags of convenience.”

This allows the ships to operate at a very minimal cost. However, it is unclear what constitutes a “genuine relationship” and how it might be used to prevent exploitation of article 5’s provisions. Some countries, like as the United Governments, maintain that the desire for a “genuine relationship” just entails a duty to exert effective authority over the ship, and that it is not a requirement for the grant, or the receipt of this grant of nationality by other states.

“In 1960, there was an opportunity to discuss the meaning of the provision in the IMCO case.” “The International Court of Justice was asked to define the term “biggest ship-owning nations” for the purpose of forming the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization’s committee”. To allow Liberia and Panama to be voted into the committee, “it was decided that the phrase solely referred to registered tonnage”.

 Regrettably, the occasion was not used to address the issues of benefit flags or the interpretation concerns and uncertainty surround the use of the term “real link” in the context of true ownership of the ships in question.

“The UN meeting on the terms of the official list of ships was called in July 1984 under the auspices of the UN Conference on Trade and Development, and an agreement was signed in 1986. Its goal is to disseminate benefit issue flags, bearing in mind that by early 1985, about a third of the world’s commerce fleet was flying such flags. It is stated that flag states provide for the ownership of ships flying their flags in their laws and rules, and that such provisions should include adequate provisions for participation by nationals as ship owners, and that such provisions should be sufficient to allow the flag state to exercise effective jurisdiction and control over ships flying its flag.”

The flag state’s behaviour, which was “at all times material to the issue,” was a significant consideration in determining a ship’s nationality or registration. The panel further determined “that the requirement for a genuine link was in order to preserve successful applications of the flag state’s duties, rather than to build a foundation on which the ability to prove the regulation of ships in a flag state might be disputed by other states”.

Conclusion

As a result, there is currently a wide range of appropriate marine allocation concepts, whether derived from customary law or treaties. “Regardless of whether the allocation is for the territorial sea, continental shelf, or economic zone (or the latter two combined), the best methodology is to draw a provisional equidistance line as a starting point and then see if any relevant circumstances exist that might warrant a change in that line in order to achieve an equitable result.” As a concept of worth or clarity, the audacity in favour of the sentence is to be commended.

Case law provides a range of unambiguous suggestions as to the meaning of relevant situation, or the basis, that must be considered. “Equity is not a method of allocation and nature cannot be totally reformed, but some modification of the provisional equidistance line may be justified for the cause of, for e.g.  ‘abating the effects of an incidental particular feature from which an unjustifiable difference of treatment could consequence.”

The following concept can be noted-

In the economic zone, the delimitation should prevent trespassing by one party on the natural continuation of the other or its equal, and it should avoid, to the extent practicable, interfering with the maritime prediction of the relevant coastlines.

Where the drafting of an equidistance line may unnecessarily preconcert equidistance a state whose coast is unusually concave or convex inside the area of the delimitation when compared to that of its neighbours, the layout of the coast may be relevant.

A significant discrepancy “in the lengths of the parties’ respective coastlines may be an issue to consider when drawing an equidistance line to avoid an out of proportion and unfair result.”

“The presence of islands or other similar maritime characteristics may be significant to the situation’s equities, justifying a change to the preliminary equidistance line.”

Security considerations could be taken into account, although the exact consequences are unknown.

Resource-related issues, such as fish stock allocation, have gotten a lot of attention but haven’t been widely regarded as a relevant problem.

The parties’ previous behaviour may be meaningful, such as where there has been enough experience to establish that a provisional border has been negotiated.

In the Tunisia/Libya case, “the court held that there was a line near the coast that neither party had crossed when allowing offshore oil and gas adjustments, and that this formed a modus vivendi that was highly applicable, though in Cameroon v. Nigeria, the court highlighted that such adjustments could only be taken into account if they were based on express or tacit agreement between the parties”.

The post Law of the sea an international law governing the rights and duties of states in maritime environment appeared first on LexForti .

MOBARIK ALI AHMED V. THE STATE OF BOMBAY, AIR 1957 SC 857

MATERIAL FACTS

Mr. Louis Anton Cornea, the complainant, was a businessman residing in Goa and also the director of a trading firm namely, Colonial Limitada, which was doing business in import and export. Due to the scarcity of rice at the time in Goa, the complainant was anxious about the import of rice and thus, got in contact with Mr. Jassawla, a commission agent under Universal Supply Corporation. Mr. Mobarik Ali Ahmed, the appellant, was a businessman residing and trading in Karachi, Pakistan under name of Atlas Industrial and Trading Corporation and Ifthiar Ahmed & Co. The appellant was contacted by Mr. Jasawalla. Series of telegrams, phone calls, and letters were exchanged between Mr. Jasawalla and the complainant, and Mr. Jasawalla and the appellant after a contract was formed for the sale and purchase of 1200 tons (later 2000 tons) of rice at the price of 51 pounds per ton.
25% of the payment was paid in advance to Mr. Jasawalla and the rice was to be shipped from Karachi to Goa. After the quantity was raised to 2000 tons, 50% of the payment was paid in advance after the appellant had given assurance of complete arrangements. After the delivery was delayed, the complainant requested for his money to be returned but the appellant denied getting any payments.

ISSUES

• Whether the appellant, a Pakistani national, doing business in Karachi who wasn’t present in India pre or post the occurrence of offense can be put on trial by an Indian court or not?
• Whether the exchanged telegrams and letters be admissible in court or not?
• Whether the appellant is convicted for the offenses under Section 3(2) of the English Extradition Act, 1870 or not?
• Whether the conviction of the appellant is justifiable under section 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not?

JUDGEMENT

Taking into consideration the arguments, the evidence, and facts presented before the court, the appeal was dismissed and the decision was taken to convict the appellant Mobarik Ali Ahmed under section 420, read along with section 34 of the IPC.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT

The learned counsel by raising contention denied the exchange of letters or telegrams between the complainant and the appellant and argued that the telegrams and letters which were being relied upon are inadmissible in the court and that there exists no intimate acquaintance who can validate the signatures.
By relying on the case of Shreekantiah Munipalli v. The State of Bombay, which held that “the acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention”, the learned counsel argued that as per section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant wasn’t even present in Bombay but was in Karachi for the commencement of the offense. Thus the appellant did not join the actual doing of the act and merely planning is not sufficient to hold someone liable and should not be tried under section 179 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because he has not committed any offense under the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant had surrendered himself for the offense of forgery and under Section 3(2) of the English Extradition Act, 1870, is protected and cannot be tried for other crimes without giving the opportunity to return.

ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY THE RESPONDENT

Under section 415 of the Indian Penal Code, cheating is defined with its essentials as fraudulent misrepresentation to a person and inducing that person thereby to deliver property. And it is evident from the facts that all the elements of cheating are present and thus the appellant had intended to cheat. The appellant had submitted a statement stating that he had continued to live in India till July 1950 and established himself as a citizen of India. Under article 5 of the Indian, Constitution read with article 7, the appellant was a citizen of India at the time of commencement and commission of the offense. The claim of the appellant being a foreigner cannot help true under article 9, till he shows that he voluntarily acquired citizenship of a foreign country, and in the present scenario; he didn’t have any proof of acquiring citizenship of Pakistan.

ANALYSIS

The court held that the telegrams and the letters were authentic and thus were admissible in the court of law and thus were considered as important and direct evidence, article 45 and 47 of the Indian Evidence Act were referred. Testimony of 3 witnesses was taken into consideration, witnesses being the complainant, Mr. Jasawalla, the mediator, and Sequeria who was an ex-employee of the appellant.
Relying on H. N. Rishbud v. The State of Delhi, it was observable that section 3(2) of the English Extradition Act, 1870 had no effect as the appellant had surrendered himself. The court emphasized that under the section of the Indian Penal Code, any foreigner who commits any offense in India can be punished without any limitations because the exercise of criminal jurisdiction is dependent on the offense itself and not the nationality of the said offender. The court also said that the case of Shreekantiah Munipalli v. The State of Bombay, on which the council of the appellant was relying, affected the present case, judging by the facts.

CONCLUSION

Although if the crime took place in Bombay while the appellant was not evident to be present in India throughout the execution of the crime, his conviction was justifiable under the Indian Penal Code, as all the elements which constitute the offense of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code were carried out in Bombay.

The post Extraterritorial Applicability of Indian Penal Code appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

Treaties are those written agreements which create a relationship between the contracting parties under International law. The parties to a treaty can be two or more states or international organisation. From the above definition; it can be seen that-

1. The treaty need not be always in writing but oral agreements are not precise; therefore written agreements are more preferable while forming a treaty.
2. The status of the relationship can be legal or moral or political depending on the object of the treaty.

A treaty simply means a relationship between the contracting parties, it can be termed as an agreement, protocol, accord, contract etc.

Treaties are the binding force behind the international law. They are in existence long before the modern international law came into being.

Convention on Law of Treaties

To codify the laws on treaty there is a convention namely Vienna convention. The International Law Commission in 1949 selected this convention; and its work was completed by 1966. In 1968 the United Nations Conference considered the draft articles and finally at a conference in MAY 23, 1969; the law of treaties was adopted as Vienna convention.

The Convention comprises of a Preamble, eight parts with 85 articles. As of now there are 116 state parties to the convention.

The law of the treaty applies to states which are parties to the convention. This means Vienna convention does not apply to other states or organisations which are not a party to Vienna convention.

Kinds of Treaty

A treaty can be classified on the basis of number of parties engaged in agreement and on the basis of its nature.

Bilateral Treaty- This treaty is more like a contract between two parties. Which means in such treaty only two entities are involved, it is more like a contractual relationship between two parties or states.

Example- Panchsheel pact.

Pluri lateral Treaty- in this type of treaty, the treaty is open for a restricted number of parties or states. Minimum number of parties should be more than two.

Example- OPEC (Organisation for petroleum exporting countries), NAFTA (North America free trade agreement), ASEAN (Association of south eastern Asian nations)

Multilateral Treaty- A treaty which is open for participation without any restriction. Multilateral treaty covers majority of the states and they generally create norm in international law. They are mainly human rights centric and deals with moral issues.

Example- Paris agreement.

Law creating Treaty- Statutory treaty, some of the multilateral treaty which has created peremptory norm in international law and changed the local laws on a large level are said to be law making treaty.

Contractual Treaty- the agreement between two states is generally contractual.

Formation of treaty

The international Law does not provide for a concrete or rigid procedure for formation and conclusion of a treaty. The parties concluding a treaty are free to choose their own procedure and language. Although, generalised process is followed while concluding treaties under Vienna convention.

A treaty is formed by following process-

1. Appointment of person by contracting parties
2. Negotiation
3. Adoption of text
4. Consent
5. Entry into force
6. Registration and Publication

• Firstly, the person who will conclude the treaty are accredited as the representatives by the contracting states. They can be either head of state or a minister or secretary or other authority.
•  After the duly representatives are appointed they negotiate the terms of the agreement.
•  Once agreed by both or all parties the text of the treaty is adopted.
• Consent on the agreement can be given by various forms as- by signature, by exchange of instrument, by ratification etc.
•  According to provisions of the treaty it comes into force on decided date.
• And it has to be registered and published at the secretariat of the United Nations for legally binding agreement to conclude.

Application of Treaty

Treaties provide stability in the international dynamics. A closed world without treaties forms no relations between its countries. A treaty creates relation among nations whether legal, political, social or economic. Without a formal agreement the rights and obligation on parties will be of no importance.

Treaties play a major role in maintaining the equilibrium of the states and appropriate relationship among all.

General principles

Formation of treaty and concluding is not complete if some of the basic principles are not followed in the process. There are certain principles which are essential in part of a treaty and if any treaty becomes violate of such principles it is tend to be void. Following are some of this principles-

1. Free consent
2. Reservation
3. Jus Cogens
4. Part Performance
5. Rebus Sic Stantibus
6. Pacta sunt servanda
7. Pacta tertis nec nocent nec prosunt

• To make a treaty legally binding and valid consent between the states should be mutual and wilful.
• Reservation of a treaty means accepting a part of treaty. Reserved part of a treaty can be either accepted by one or more parties conditioned to no objection has been raised by other parties.
• Jus cogens means that the principles which forms the norms of the international law cannot be set aside. If a treaty violates such principles it is against jus cogens and the treaty becomes invalid.
• If one or more party to a treaty breaches part of a treaty then in international law it may or may not terminate whole of treaty.
• A fundamental change of circumstances may end a treaty – Rebus sic stantibus
• A treaty with free consent and good faith is deemed to be valid. Pacta sunt servanda
• The binding power of a treaty is only for its consenting parties. This means that rights and obligations arising out a treaty is limited to the contracting parties. Although there are some exceptions when rights and obligations may be provided to third states.

Invalidity and Termination

This is provided under articles 65 to 68 of the Vienna convention. According to article 65 if a party wants to terminate a treaty it has to notify through a written instrument  which need to be signed by proper authority. And if another party wants to object the time limitation is of 3months.

Invalidity

In contract law, a contract becomes void in several circumstances. Similarly, Vienna convention, has given some grounds by which a treaty can become invalid under article 46-53. This grounds are as follows-

1. Ultra Vires treaties
2. Error
3. Fraud
4. Corruption
5. Coercion of states and representatives
6. Jus cogens

Ultra Vires treaties :

Article 46 of the Vienna Convention states that a state if wants to invalidate a treaty only on the ground that it violates it internal law then it cannot be invoked unless an exceptional situation arise.

Over international and internal law, international law prevails.

Error :

A treaty may become invalid if there is an error in the treaty in accordance with Article 48 of the Vienna Convention. If an error is factual or if it was the basis for the party to be bound to the treaty and now it didn’t exist, then the treaty might become invalid. But if the error could have been avoidable, then it does not invalidates a treaty. Also, an error relating to the wording of the text of a treaty does not affect its validity.

Fraud :

Article 49 of the Vienna Convention says that if a State has been persuaded to conclude a treaty by fraud committed by another party, the treaty becomes invalid.

Corruption of the Representative :

Article 50 of the Vienna Convention states that a treaty becomes invalid if the consent of the State has been obtained through the corruption of its representative directly or indirectly by another party. It does not include small favours to the representative.

Coercion of a Representative and States :

If the representative of a State has been forced to give assent through threats, then by Article 51 of the Vienna Convention, the treaty will become invalid. By Article 52 of the same, a treaty will become invalid, if its conclusions have been acquired by threats or use of force. This rule infers that economic and political coercion will not abolish a treaty.

Jus cogens:

A treaty is voidable if it violates or conflicts with the norms or principles forming international laws at the core.

Termination

Termination categorically means end of a treaty and nothing else. In a bilateral treaty, the treaty completely ends whereas in multilateral treaty it ends for one party. Ending of a treaty is termination according to Vienna convention.

Article 3 of Part V of the Vienna convention provides us with conditions for termination of treaty, treaty can be terminated by consent, By Denunciation, by concluding another treaty, by breach, Impossibility of performance, According to provisions of treaty, by emergence of Jus cogens and by fundamental change of circumstances.

Conclusion

Treaties are the wheels of the International law which keeps it running. Without treaties there would be no formal relationship between states. A treaty provides legally binding agreement between parties which ties them into a relationship. To govern the relationships this treaties play an essential role. Peace treaty, political treaty, moral agreement, Technological agreement, exchange of professionals, weapons, vaccines etc. are possible due to this arrangement of treaty formation and conclusion.

The Vienna convention govern the treaties and the treaties govern the relationship between the parties.

FAQs

The post What is a Treaty under the International Law? appeared first on LexForti .

World War II was one of the biggest wars of history. As the death rate was huge, it is considered to be the bloodiest conflict. Due to this bloodshed and ensuing economic depression and poverty the world did not want a repetition of the same. Many organizations were established for this purpose, of which the most important one is the United Nations.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS

Before the formation of the United Nations(UN), there existed an international diplomatic group named ‘League of Nations.’ It was developed after World War 1 to solve disputes between countries and attain international peace and security.
It was originated through the Fourteen Points of Speech of Woodrow Wilson. This speech outlined his ideas for attaining peace after WWI. In December 1918, Wilson left for Paris to transform the 14 Points ideas into what became the Treaty of Versailles. After a few months, he came back to the US to establish the League of Nations. According to Wilson, this organization would resolve the conflicts before they exploded into bloodshed. After the Paris Peace Conference, on January 10, 1920, the League of Nations was established.
As years passed, the League of Nations, became weak and was not able to fulfill the hopes of its founders. However, its creation was an event of decisive importance in the history of international relations. It was finally disbanded on April 19, 1946, when the United Nations rose into power and became strong enough to replace the League of Nations.

UNITED NATIONS

The UN charter consisting of 111 Articles, was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945. 51 countries signed it at the end of the United Nations Conference on International Organization. It finally became an international organization on October 24, 1945, after World War II. Hence, this day came to be known as UN Day.
UN is considered to be the heart and soul of international organizations. Headquartered in New York, the main aim of this foundation is to maintain peace and security, developing friendly relations among other nations, and help nations work together to improve the poor people’s lives. It endeavors to end hunger, disease, and illiteracy. Due to its unique intentional character, and the powers vested in its founding Charter, the organization can take action on a wide range of issues. Currently, there are 193 Member States in the UN, the latest being South Sudan. This organization provides a forum for these member states to express their views.
Each member State is added to the UN by a decision of the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. The Secretary-General monitors the activities of the UN. He is considered to be the leader as he is the symbol of the organization’s ideals and a spokesperson for the interest of the people. The ninth and current Secretary-General is Mr. Antonio Guterres. Secretary-General is the ‘chief administrative officer’ according to the UN Charter. The official languages mentioned in the Charter are English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

ORGANS OF THE UN

There are mainly six principal organs established by the Charter of the United Nations, which helps in solving disputes and act on matters concerning humanity. The organs are the General Assembly, Security Council, Trusteeship Council, the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice (commonly known as ICJ), and the Secretariat.

General Assembly

The General Assembly is the chief authoritative organ and the only universally representative body of the UN. It is considered to be the deliberative and policy-making organ of the UN. All UN Member States are represented in the General Assembly and each one has one vote. Being in the topmost position in the chain of organs, the policies and resolutions made by the General Assembly carry heavy moral weight and create a positive influence in the world.
The assembly holds a general debate in the organization’s New York headquarters from September to December. Along with that, a president is elected each year to preside over these meetings as a neutral party representing the UN. Special sessions are also held to discuss relevant issues at the request of the Security Council or the majority of the UN Members.
The General Assembly addresses matters ranging from war and terrorism to disease and poverty. Matters coming under the UN Charter are also being discussed. Decisions on international peace and security, UN Budget, and admitting new members are decided by a two-thirds majority. Recommendations are made on subjects pertaining to international peace and security, which include disarmament, human rights, and international law. The judges to the International Court of Justice are being elected by the General Assembly along with the Security Council. There are about six committees working under the Assembly, to carry out their functions. The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security)- This is the only main Committee which deals with disarmament, global challenges, and threats to peace that affect the international community. It seeks solutions to various problems and challenges in the international security regime.
The Second Committee (Economic and Financial)- This committee’s main focus is on economic growth and development. Eradication of poverty, globalization, food security and nutrition, agricultural development, and operational activities for development are being looked into as these issues affect the economy. The Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian, and Cultural)- This committee primarily focuses on matters relating to social, humanitarian affairs, and human rights issues that affect people all over the world. The questions relating to the advancement of women, protection of children and indigenous people, treatment of refugees, and elimination of racial discrimination are also discussed.
The Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization)- This committee looks into a broad range of issues like the effects of atomic radiation, questions relating to human rights and peacekeeping, decolonization, public information, outer space, and refugee matters. This committee prepares draft resolutions for General Assembly. The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary)- This committee deals with budgetary matters. The meeting of this committee is mainly held during the general debate session of the General Assembly (September to December). Due to their heavy workload, they often meet during a resumed session in March. Sometimes a second resumed session might take place in May to deal with administrative and budgetary aspects of UN Peacekeeping. The Sixth Committee (Legal)- This is the last committee and is considered to be the primary forum for asking legal questions in the General Assembly.

Security Council

The Security Council comprises of 15 members, each of whom has one vote. Unlike the General Assembly, the meetings are held only when world peace is threatened. Whenever there is a threat, the Council asks the concerned parties to reach an agreement by peaceful negotiations. But if it leads to a misunderstanding between the parties, then the Council imposes sanctions or tries to secure a ceasefire through negotiation. Various operations to promote lasting peace are taken up by the Council.
China, Russia, United Kingdom, United States, and France are the 5 permanent states that form part of the 15 member states. 9 out of 15 members must agree to the resolution which needs to be passed. However, if any of the 5 permanent members disagree, the resolution will not be passed. This is known as a veto. The Security Council makes the recommendations relating to the appointment of a new Secretary-General to the Assembly.

Trusteeship Council

The main role of this Council is to supervise the administration of the 11 trust territories which came under the International Trusteeship System. The UN Charter recognized this as one of the main organs of the United Nations. This was created after World War II, to work for attaining independence for the trust territories. This Council consisted of five permanent members.
The Trusteeship Council elects a President and a Vice-President from among the members. They both hold their office until a successor is elected. The maximum duration of their tenure is five years. Since the creation of this Council, all the 11 trust territories have attained independence. In the year 1994, the last trust territory Palau attained independence, which led to the suspension of the Council’s operation.
Economic and Social Council
The economic and social work of the UN is taken care of by this Council. It is considered to be the heart of the United Nations system. Established in the year 1945, its main responsibility is to promote higher standards of living, economic and social progress, providing full employment opportunities, and encouraging and protecting human rights and fundamental freedom.
The General Assembly elects 54 member Governments to be part of this Council for a term of three years. They are chosen for geographical representation, and each member has one vote. There happens to be a four-week session each July, either in New York or Geneva. The important thing to be noted here is that this Council coordinates the work of a few specialized UN agencies for meeting their specific needs. The UN bodies which come under this domain are International Labour Organisation (ILO), World Health Organisation (WHO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), and so on.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

This is one of the most important organs of the UN. It is found at the Peace Palace in the Hague, Netherlands. This is the differentiating feature of ICJ, as the other five organs are located in New York. Also known by the name “World Court”, this was established in the year 1945, started to function in 1946.
Being the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, its primary function is to settle legal disputes between nations, in accordance with international law. It also advises on legal questions referred to it by other United Nations organs and specialized agencies. This court passes judgments which will be final. There lies no appeal for their judgment.
This court is presided over by 15 judges, each from a different nation. They serve for 9 years. General Assembly and Security Council together elect these judges. However, no two judges can be from the same country. The members of the Court do not represent their governments. There is an administrative organ that assists this court which is the Registry. The official languages of this Court are English and French.

The Secretariat

The sixth and the last main organ of the UN is the Secretariat. It comprises the head, which is the Secretary-General along with thousands of international UN staff members. Along with the headquarters in New York, the Secretariat has its various offices in Geneva, Vienna Nairobi, and other locations. This organ helps other UN organs in their work in policymaking and other various programs.
The main function of this organ is to carry out the administrative work of the UN. The members carry out the day to day work of the UN as directed by the General Assembly and other principal organs. These works include administrating peace-keeping operations, surveying social and economic trends, and organizing various international conferences for discussing various issues. Each department or office of this Secretariat carries a distinct area of action and responsibility. The Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer of the UN Secretariat, and he is appointed by the General Assembly for a 5-year term with the recommendation of the Security Council. He directs the work of staff known as “international civil servants”. These people work for all 193 member states and take orders from Secretary-General. There have been 8 Secretary Generals so far, the present and ninth being Antonio Guterres.

CONCLUSION

The UN works on a variety of issues ranging from sustainable development, disaster relief, counter-terrorism, gender equality, expanding food production, economic and social development, and many more. The existence of the United Nations and its organs makes the world a better place to live in for present and future generations.
COVID-19 pandemic has affected our lives in many ways. People are forced to stay in their homes. There are people who are not able to earn and meet their daily needs. World Health Organisation (WHO) working under the UN, is working hard to curtail the spread by suggesting various measures, making and providing vaccines, and so on. This pandemic did not stop the various UN organs from doing their work The meetings of the UN organs are being held through a virtual platform. The General Assembly’s Fifth Committee was able to make important budget decisions virtually. To conclude, here is a quote by the former Secretary-General stating the importance of the United Nations

” More than ever before in human history, we share a common destiny. We can master it only if we face it together. And that my friends, is why we have the United Nations.”

-Kofi Annan
(Former UN Secretary-General)

The post United Nations and its Organs appeared first on LexForti .

The rights of minority groups and their protection is one of the most important aspects of international law. Minority groups are subject to discrimination and denial of identity. Minority rights are enshrined in law. However, many a time the groups are not even aware of them. This project briefly explains the concept of minorities and their rights under international law.

INTRODUCTION

League of Nations was established in the year 1920 and they conceptualized various “minority treaties”. Then came the United Nations which replaced the League of Nations and it came up with several norms and procedures concerned with minorities. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 and the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities now known as United Nations Minorities Declaration 1992 recognize and protect minority rights.
According to UN statistics, about 10 to 20% of the world’s population consists of minorities. Throughout history, Minorities are subject to injustice and discrimination. There are instances where they are excluded from active public participation and political life.

DEFINITION

There is no specific definition for the term minorities. The difficulty in arriving at a particular definition that is widely acceptable lies in a variety of situations in which minorities live. Some live together in well-defined areas and some are scattered throughout the country. However, later on, few international forums started their attempt to define this term. The first definition was given by the Permanent Court of International Justice and according to them minority implies “a group of persons living in a given country or locality, having a race, religion, language and traditions of their own, and united by the identity of such race, religion, language and traditions in a sentiment of solidarity, to preserve their traditions, maintain their form of worship, securing the instruction and upbringing of their children in accordance with the spirit and traditions of their race and mutually assisting one another”. Then Francesco Capotorti who carried on the study of minority and who was a member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities defines ‘minority’ as a “group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a state, in a non-dominant position, whose members – being nationals of the State- possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.”

WHO ARE MINORITIES?

Though defining minorities has been easy, to understand who all should be included under this term is a little bit more problematic. In America, usually, the so-called ‘black people’ are considered as minorities and in India the Dalits, Muslims are all considered as minorities. Persons with disabilities, persons belonging to certain political groups, or persons with a particular sexual orientation or identity such as lesbian, transgender, and gay might also come under this category. Similarly, in many countries, minorities are often found to be among the most marginalized groups in society and affected by low socio-economic conditions and also diseases such as HIV/AIDS.
Indigenous populations are communities that live within or attached to geographically distinct traditional habitats or ancestral territories. They are also known as First people or Native people as they are the earliest known inhabitants of an area. Under International law, indigenous people are also considered as minorities. That means they can claim minority rights. There are United Nations mandates and mechanisms dedicated specifically to protect their rights. In practical terms, the reasons to consider indigenous people as minorities are as follows. They too are in a non-dominant position in the society in which they live and their cultures, languages, or religious beliefs may be different from dominant groups. The United Nations Minorities Declaration contains more general rights and also requires that legitimate interests of minorities should be taken into account while planning and decision making. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People requires the States to cooperate and consult with indigenous people to obtain their free consent before undertaking developmental activities that might impact them.

UNITED NATIONS MINORITIES DECLARATION

In 1992 the General Assembly adopted the United Nations Minorities Declaration. It is considered to be the main document concerning minority rights. This declaration requires states to protect the existence and identities of minorities. It also calls upon states to encourage the promotion of national or ethnic, cultural, religious, and linguistic identities of minority groups. Article 1 of the United Nations Minorities Declaration refers to minorities as based on national ethnic, religious, and linguistic identity.
Article 2(1) of this document states that minorities shall have the right to practice their religion, enjoy their culture and use their own language in both public and private settings without any kind of defamation. This is very important in an inclusive society.
Article 3 of this document guarantees that persons belonging to minorities have the right to exercise their rights individually and without discrimination. This article ensures the legal protection of minority rights. Article 4 talks about the responsibility of a State regarding matters relating to minority rights. According to this Article, states shall take adequate measures to ensure that the minorities exercise fully and completely all their rights without any discrimination. Article 5 explains the various programs and policies related to minority rights protection. Programs of assistance and cooperation among states should be planned and implemented and even the national policies and programs should be implemented. Article 9 is also very important in this regard. The specialized agencies and other UN organizations have a role in contributing to the full realization of the rights and principles outlined in the Declaration.
Then came the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This Article 27 protects the minorities’ rights to their national, ethnic, religious, or linguistic identity and to preserve the characteristics which they wish to maintain and develop.

SCOPE OF MINORITY RIGHTS PROTECTION

United Nations Minorities Declaration and other international forums working for minority rights identify few major concerns: survival and existence, promotion and protection of the identity of minorities, equality, and non-discrimination, and effective and meaningful participation.
a. Survival and existence- Any action for the protection of minorities should focus on the physical existence of people belonging to minorities. This means protecting them from crimes against humanity. Minority groups should be treated with respect and there should be provision for basic necessities like food, shelter, and health care which are essential for their survival. Former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan said “The rights of minorities should be protected as they are known to be the targets of genocide.” It is to be noted that protection of the existence of minorities also requires respect for and protection of their religious and cultural heritage, which are very essential aspects of their group identity.
b. Equality and non-discrimination- Minorities are frequently subject to various forms of discrimination be it directly or indirectly. There are two major important principles in the study of international human rights law one of which is equality before the law and the other is non-discrimination. Firstly, we notice there exists categorization of people in society into white and black people respectively. The latter is less respected than the former. Being considered as minorities, they do not have equal rights. Such an inequality should be done away with. The second principle which is a principle of Non-discrimination prohibits any distinction, restriction, or preference which has the effect of nullifying the recognition and enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. Indirect discrimination is more difficult to eliminate. It mainly occurs when a practice or a rule has a disproportionate impact on particular groups even when it is neutral on the face. It is to be known that international human rights law provides for the adoption of several measures in favor of minorities and certain other groups for eliminating discrimination and achieving full equality. Even the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination implements various measures “for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups of individuals equally enjoy all human rights and fundamental freedom. There should be the protection of the existence and identity of minorities. Special measures are taken interim to protect minorities can be made permanent.
c. Promotion and protection of the identity of minorities Along with the other rights of minorities there should also be promotion and protection of their identity. It will prevent the loss of culture, religion, and language which form the basis of richness of the world and therefore part of its heritage. The rights of minorities are about ensuring respect for distinctive identities while ensuring that any differential treatment towards groups or persons belonging to such category does not mask discriminatory practices and policies. Therefore, minorities should be protected and action is required to respect their linguistic and religious diversity.
d. Effective and meaningful participation Minorities should be granted the right to participate in public affairs and all political, social, religious, and cultural activities. The main problem they face is a denial of identity and discrimination which should be done away with. This can help in combating social exclusion. They should have a voice in decision making in matters concerning the area they reside in. Diversity of society concerning minority groups is should also be reflected in public institutions such as national parliaments, the civil service sector including police and the judiciary. The participation and protection of women belonging to these minority groups are of great importance. Article 2(2) of the United Nations Minorities Declaration provides for the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities “to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life”.

ROLE OF NGOs

The International Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have a role to play in promoting and protecting minorities and their rights. They are frequently involved in mediation and other programs when minority rights are violated.
NGOs can have a huge impact in the field of minority protection through publishing their reports, research and serving as platforms for minority groups on one hand and by providing timely information to governmental and intergovernmental bodies on situations involving minorities.
An NGO named Minority Rights Group International was established in the year 1969 working for minority rights. This organization was founded by David Astor, who was the editor of the Observer newspaper of the United Kingdom. The main aim of this foundation is to protect the rights of minorities and indigenous people. The minorities should be made sensitized about their rights available through various programs. Such NGOs will help in this process. MRG has published various research articles and was part of a campaign with over 100 countries partner organizations.
Another important non-political and non-governmental organization is the ‘International Centre for Minority Studies and Intellectual Relations.’ In 1992, its headquarters was set up in Bulgaria. It works for the preservation and integration of all minority communities. It assists the Bulgarian experts in various issues like minority rights, migration, and minority integration.
Indigenous people are also considered to be a part of minorities. Survival International is an NGO that protects the rights of such people.

CONCLUSION

In the present world, there are different organizations and institutions which protect minority rights. Even the efforts taken by the Non-Governmental organizations along with international institutions in protecting minority rights are to be appreciated.
But still much remains to be done. Minority groups are subject to violent attacks on their basic rights. Persons belonging to the category of minorities should be considered as equal to others and they should be given the opportunity to take part in various decision-making processes. Minorities should be given special rights so that there arises an equilibrium in society. The rights of minorities should be safeguarded until they reach the level of the so-called majority community. This is a very essential condition to attain stability and peace within and across State borders and in the world.

The post Minority Rights under International Law appeared first on LexForti .

Introduction

Over the years, the Indian Governments have had a prodigious pressure on them to maintain a steady balance between the country’s economic necessities and developmental strategies—which has proved to be an arduous task. In order to achieve this, a colossal mistake seemed to be the brushing off of environment related issues to a dusty backseat. This is specifically true for the early years of Independence where there was no precise environment protection legislation or policies as such. The period of 1970s witnessed massive changes from indifference towards the aforesaid difficulties to consequently, taking suitable steps to improve the conditions of the state of Environmental legislations in India by reshaping it to adapt with the growing requirements. The advancements in India’s approach only came after the growing International awareness. In 1972, the United Nations Conference on Human Environment was held in Stockholm which distinctly elucidated and conceptualized, “environment” and the factors deteriorating it, for the first time.  Since then constant efforts have been made at a major scale, both internationally and in India, to integrate society, environment, development and law for the welfare of humankind.

Eventually, as a result of major issues highlighted by collected reports, a National Committee on Environmental Orchestrating and Coordination (NCEPC), an apex advisory body, was established in the Department of Science and Technology^[1]. It was constituted to promote and coordinate environmental protection and policies; and as an advisory body for ministries regarding the same. However, in 1985, this department was upraised to form an exclusive Ministry of Environment and Forests^[2].

Environmental Pollution

In the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, it was observed that environment contains both natural and man-made aspects which are essential for the well-being and enjoyment of basic human rights^[3]. Additionally, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (or OECD) has defined environment as a, “totality of all the external conditions affecting the life, development and survival of an organism.”^[4]Basically, environment is the combination of biotic and abiotic factors existing together which is crucial for survival and, hence, needs to be preserved and protected. Herein, under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the term environmentincludes, “water, air, and land and human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organisms and property.”^[5]

Environment Pollution is one of the major aspects of environmental degradation since it involves the addition of particles, heat, substances (in any form), or such other things in a massive way and faster rate which has the ability to disrupt the ecological balance^[6] and also, creates an imbalance in nature and the natural resources. Therefore, “environmental pollution” means the presence in the environment of any “environmental pollutant^[7]” under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986^[8].

International Regulations

Since the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Earth Summit) held in 1992 wherein the concept of Sustainable Development was underlined, the streamlined efforts towards environmental cooperation and development have only become more innovative and modernized. Agenda 21 was thereby adopted in the aforesaid summit furthering the establishment of a Commission of Economic and Social Council of United Nations in 1993. Additionally, in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol as well necessitated change with urging the industrialized nations to lessen their “average yearly emissions of greenhouse gases” for protection from global warming.

With emphasis coming from international scenario and due to increasing awareness, rationalization of impact and the severity of pollution and environmental degradation, many countries of the world have taken this area with utmost seriousness^[9].

Internationally, nations have taken stringent measures to curb pollution and provide proper means to protect environment like overhauling internal regulatory mechanisms for maintaining and controlling the environment^[10] whereas most states have established specialized courts to meet the urgent requirement to provide environment justice. Establishment and organization of specific bodies and commissions focused solely on environmental research and development has also taken place. Herein, its pertinent to note that most states have take efficient steps to improve the current situation like: the United Kingdom has introduced number of legislations to take care of almost every aspect of civic life with the help of enforcement authorities whereas,  in the USA, Environment Protection Agency has been established, consolidating federal research. There’s implementation of environment laws, issuance of sanctions and assistance is provided among other things. Furthermore, many states in the US have established their own specialized environment courts like Indianapolis, Memphis etc.

Besides the aforementioned there’s also enactment of specific laws, steps taken by the legislature and executive, and such others policies which help in furthering environment preservation.

Indian Laws Regarding Environment Protection

In recent years there has been immense focus on the Judiciary’s role in implementing, monitoring and devising pollution control along with the preservation of environment and public interest. However judicial intervention can only be preventive and not protective. Protection, prevention and promotion of environment are primarily the job of the legislature and executive organs of the State.

The legislature has enacted several necessary environmental provisions and the remedies and general provisions are available through:

Constitutional Provisions

India has enough Constitutional provisions which tackle enviro-crimes in the country, and so the judiciary has extended the sphere of environmental jurisdiction through its land mark judgements^[11] however it doesn’t explicitly conceptualise the inter-relationship between environment and development. In India, the concern for environment protection has not only been raised to the status of fundamental law of the land, but it is also wedded with the human rights approach. The Apex Court has held that essential features of “sustainable development”, “polluter pays principle” and the “precautionary principle” are part of the environmental law of the country^[12].

Under Constitutional provisions, three main distinctions which can be drawn are: fundamental duties, directive principle of state policy (DPSP) and fundamental rights.  

Article 51-A (g) specifically deals with fundamental duties with respect to environment for protecting and improving the “natural environment”. On the other hand, DPSP’s describing the states duties under Art. 47 provides for the State to raise the levels of nutrition and standard of living of its people and public health as a primary duty. Furthermore, Art. 48-A provides for, “endeavours to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country”.

Fundamental rights majorly focus on the right to life, right to livelihood under Art 21 which mandates the providing of adequate means of survival to people. It also might include the freedom to carry on trade or business under Art 19(1)(g) with “reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public” subject to Art 19(6) to prevent hazards of any trade or business and; right to equality under Art 14. There’s also the availability of remedies through writ jurisdiction. The right to enforce fundamental rights under Art 32 in the Supreme Court is available.  

Common Law Provisions

The Common Law remedies against environmental pollution are available under the law of torts. The Apex Court in the case of, M.C. Mehta v. Union of India^[13], observed that, “environment pollution amounts to civil wrong against the whole community…in addition to damages the person guilty can be held liable to pay exemplary damages so that it can act as a deterrent for others”. The tortuous liabilities are of the following forms:

Nuisance

Nuisance can be further divided into “Private” and “Public” Nuisance. Private nuisance can be categorized as just unreasonableness interference by dust emissions, noise, smell, fumes etc., however, public nuisance is interference to the general right of the public and is to be focused on more since it’s both a tort as well as a crime. It is harmful to the general public interest in the form of environmental pollution. For instance, industrial effluents being expelled in a residential area would amount to public nuisance; it would not only expose unwilling people to disastrous levels of pollutants but also gravely affect the ecology.    

Trespass

Trespass is the direct interference in someone proprietary rights like the discharge of factory effluents onto someone’s land.

Negligence

In environmental cases, the tort of negligence is utilized when other torts or nuisance and trespass aren’t available^[14]. Under negligence it has to be proved that due care hasn’t been taken by the alleged party which has eventually resulted in some form of harm.

Strict and Absolute Liability

The rule of strict and absolute liability are very similar except for the fact that strict liability has certain exceptions to it to avoid the said charge, however liability is absolute in the latter, and can’t be escaped. The principle of strict liability was laid down in Rylands v. Fletcher^[15], wherein it was held that knowledge, default and act aren’t relevant wherein a dangerous substance is present on their property and it escapes. It has been disapproved in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India^[16] and observed the “polluter pays principle” as a more relevant principle which necessitated the payment of exemplary damages for harming the environment as a way to hold the polluter responsible to better the harm caused by them and not the government or the people. 

Furthermore, absolute liability was evolved in the (Oleum Gas Leak Case) or M.C. Mehta v. Union of India^[17], as a means to hold the industries compulsorily accountable for harming the public and environment.  

Criminal Law Provisions

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘the IPC’) makes various acts affecting environment as offences. Sections 268 – 294A (Chapter XIV) deal with offences affecting the “public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals”. Under these sections, acts are punishable which make environment polluted or threaten the life of people.

S. 268 of the IPC defines public nuisance and further on, S. 290 provides for punishment for the same in cases not otherwise provided for. Moreover, sections like S. 269 provides for negligent acts likely to spread dangerous infection like if the pollution is caused by an act which spreads the infection of disease dangerous to life. The IPC basically can be used to prevent pollution of atmosphere noxious to health of person in general. Furthermore, sections 426, 430, 431 and 432 of the IPC provides for general pollution caused by mischief.

Similarly the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter, ‘the CrPC’) can be invoked as well to prevent pollution. Sections 133 to 143 and; Section 144 (under chapter X, part A and B respectively) provide most effective and speedy remedy for preventing and controlling public nuisance causing air, water and noise pollution. 

The object and purpose behind S. 133 is essentially to prevent public nuisance and it involves a sense of urgency. For instance, it can be called in aid to remove public nuisance caused by discharge of effluents and air discharge causing hardship to the public. Conclusively, S. 133 confers upon the Magistracy speedy and summary power to give directions for abatement of a public nuisance. Additionally, under S. 133, the district magistrate, if so empowered by the State or Government, on such information can make a conditional order to remove the public nuisance causing pollution. If the order is failed to be carried the person may be prosecuted under S. 188 of the IPC; even the head of the government department or public body can be prosecuted for defying the order. Also in order to provide a sanction under the said section the magistrate must be satisfied of some specific conditions.   

S. 144 of the Cr.P.C. is more of a general provision meanwhile S. 133 is more specific, while the order under the latter is conditional, in the former its absolute.

Herein it is noteworthy that using criminal law machinery is not a bar even as person the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. Like it was held in Lakshmi Cement v. State^[18], S. 133 doesn’t automatically get repealed after commencement of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. So proceedings under the said section aren’t barred.   

The Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd.^[19], while observing the relevance of Cr.P.C. hereinafter with the enactment of Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 and Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 held that, “the are of operation in the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the above mentioned pollution laws is different with wholly different aims and objectives…the provisions of S. 133 of Cr.P.C. are in the nature of preventive measures, the provisions contained in the two Acts are not only curative but also preventive and penal”.

Penal sanctions are also available under the relevant Municipal Act and certain provisions under the Factories Act, 1948 like Section 96-A mentions penalty for contravention of provisions under sections 41-B, 41-C and 41-H defining a punishment of a term extending to ten years^[20].  

The Apex Court has observed that although, both the IPC and the Cr.P.C., “are of ancient vintage, the new social justice orientation imparted to them by the Constitution of India makes them a remedial weapon of versatile use” for the protection of the environment^[21].   

Civil Law Provisions

The statutory provision also involves the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter, ‘the CPC’) with Public Nuisance. Section 91 of the CPC provides the right of action in case of public nuisance. Herein, the person under this section, polluting the atmosphere is liable to pay Rs. 200/- which is rather meagre; therefore there are several other provisions available to effectively preserve the environment. In addition to this several states have their own laws regulating pollution^[22]. The Indian Forest Act, 1927; The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; Northern India Canal & Drainage Act, 1873; and several other such acts have been enacted to help efficiently with the situation at hand.

Conclusion

According to the data amassment and environment amassment studies of World Bank experts, between 1995 through 2010, India has made one of the most expeditious progress in the world, in addressing its environmental issues and amending its environmental quality.  All contemporary legal systems of the world recognize that law plays a vital role in translating a “policy” into “practice”^[23]. Ultimately, use of criminal machinery for the protection of the environment has the capability of solving environmental problems speedily and economically and a revolutionary change can be brought not only to safeguard the environment but also safeguard the lives of the public at large^[24]. Additionally devices such as Public Interest Litigation (PIL) have been prominently relied upon to tackle environmental problems and this approach has its supporters as well as critics since, generally environment law provides for a system of regulation by statutes, however, in India most of the environmental jurisprudence has been developed thorough writ jurisdiction. Regardless there are still several measures which can be taken to improve the condition in India; a step in the right direction might be to establish specific environmental courts to deal with cases in an efficient manner and to implement internationally well-acknowledged principles like sustainable development in a better way.

^[1] Pushpendra Kumar Mishra, The Impact of Environmental Pollution in India and Role of Judiciary to Protect Environment, 24 ALJ 300, 300 (2016-17).

^[2] L. Pushpa Kumar, Environmental Law in India – Part II, C.P.R. Environmental Education Centre (Aug. 15, 2013), http://cpreec.org/152.htm.

^[3] The United Nations Conference on Human Environment, Stockholm (5 to 16,  June 1972)

^[4] Environment, OECD (July 5, 2005), https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=813. 

^[5] The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, § 2(a).

^[6] Jerry A. Nathanson, Pollution, Encyclopaedia Britannica (Aug. 6, 2020, 12:00 AM), https://www.britannica.com/science/pollution-environment.

^[7] “environmental pollutant means any solid liquid or gaseous substance present in such concentration as may be, or tend to be, injurious to environment;” The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, § 2(b).

^[8] The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, § 2(c).

^[9] Anupama Goel & Shalini Marwaha, Environment Protection and Conservation: Real and requisite visage of remedial actions at national and international level, 18 ALJ 139, 141-142 (2007-08). 

^[10] Ibid. 

^[11] Fasih Raghib Gauhar & Mirza Juned Beg, Judicial Activism to Judicial Adventurism for the Protection of Environment: An analysis in the context of Expansive Meaning of Article 21 of Indian Constitution, 24 ALJ 225, 225 (2016-17).

^[12] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.

^[13] (2000) 6 SCC 213.

^[14] Dr. P.S. Jaswal et al., Environmental Law 25-26 (4 ed. 2018).

^[15] (1869) (19) LT 220.

^[16] AIR 1987 SC 965.

^[17] AIR 1987 SC 1086.

^[18] 1994 Cri LJ 3649 (Raj).

^[19] (2003) 7 SCC 389.

^[20] The Factories Act, 1948 § 96-A (2).

^[21] Ratlam Municipality v. Vardhichand, AIR 1980 SC 1622.

^[22] Supra, note 13, at 37. 

^[23] K.I. Vibhute, Environment, Development and Law: Indian Perspective, 37 JILI 182, 184 (1995). 

^[24] K. Rama Joga Rao, Use of Criminal Law Machinery for Environment Protection, 7 SCC J-57, J-62 – 63 (2001).

The post Environment Protection under Indian Statutes appeared first on LexForti .

“Exploration is wired into our brains. If we can see the horizon, we want to know what’s beyond.”

-Buzz Aldrin[1]

Introduction

Humans have been always fascinated and perturbed by the upper horizons of the skies. However, throughout much of humanity’s history, it neither possessed the knowledge nor the resources to reach and control these ‘realms.’ Thus, the question of existence and development of specific laws governing Air and Space did not arise. Presently, the scientific developments in the last one hundred years have led to the dawn of the age of Air and Space exploration. Inevitably, a conflict has erupted over the usage of these “Resources”, which has required new regulatory mechanisms and legislations. This has resulted in the development of complementary branches of Air and Space Law. Thus, these disciplines of International Law are of recent origin[2] and involve a study of the legal frameworks dealing with the Civil, Commercial, Administrative and Criminal aspects of various activities in Air and Space.[3] While the dynamic in the nature of the subject has at one level contributed to its continuous evolution, resulting in new developments such as Enactment of International Conventions, Technological Developments in Aviation Industry, Aviation Security and Product Liability, Freedoms of the Air, Open Sky Agreements, Territorial Sovereignty, Jurisdiction, Property Rights, Commercialization and Militarisation of the Outer Space[4], at the same time this nature has contributed to variances of law in different jurisdictions. In this context, the essay attempts at presenting a general summation of various international and domestic developments which have contributed towards the evolution of Air and Space Law.

Corpus Juris Caeli [5]

The subject of Air Law is mainly concerned with Civil Aviation.[6] It primarily exists in the form of multiple international conventions and agreements supplemented by customary rules of International Law, leaving the subject in a fragmented state.[7] Accordingly, research into the developments in Air Law involves understanding the aforementioned Conventions. For instance, the Convention Relating to Regulation of Aerial Navigation 1919 or the Paris Convention was the first international instrument that dealt with sovereignty over Airspace.[8] Further, The Convention for Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, commonly known as the Warsaw Convention was originally signed in 1929. It regulates liability for international carriage of persons, luggage, or goods performed by aircraft for reward.[9] The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944 has played a highly significant role in the development of Air Law. Article 1 of the Convention confirmed the principle of “complete and exclusive sovereignty” of every State over “the Airspace above its territory” which was laid down earlier in the Paris Convention of 1919.[10] The Chicago conference led to two other agreements, namely the International Air Transport Agreement and the International Air Services Transit Agreement.[11] The Convention also led to the establishment of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (hereafter referred to as ICAO) as a Specialized Agency of the United Nations.[12] In its Decision in India v. Pakistan[13], the International Court of Justice held that the ICAO Council was competent to deal with the cases of Breach of the 1944 Convention.[14] In 1970, the Hague Hijacking Convention (formally the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft) was formulated to prohibit and punish aircraft hijacking of civilian aircraft. The convention incorporates the principle of aut dedere aut judicare[15]which means that a State Party must prosecute an Aircraft Hijacker if no other State requests extradition of the Hijacker for the prosecution of the same crime.[16] Finally, in 1999, the ICAO member States adopted The Montreal Convention (formally, the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air) which establishes the liability of an Airline in the case of death or injury to passengers, as well as in cases of delay, damage or loss of baggage and cargo.[17] Presently the absence of an established comprehensive International Law and the nascent stage of Air Law has contributed to new developments in this field. A few of them have been discussed here.

Aviation Safety Improvements

Article 37 of the Chicago Convention 1944, directs the ICAO to develop international standards and recommended practices relating to matters such as Communication Systems, Airports, Air Traffic Control, Operating Personnel Licensing, Air Worthiness of Aircraft, Exchange of Meteorological Information, Investigation of Accidents and Aircraft in Distress. Further, the ICAO amends these standards at required intervals. Presently the ICAO has laid down standards and practices to meet new challenges from emerging security risks such as Aircraft Hijacking, Sabotage and the use of Aircraft as weapons of destruction.[18] Further, it has formulated provisions for the dealing with potential hazards at Airports, Carriage of Unauthorized weapons, Ensuring the presence of Security equipment’s, secure control of Luggage, Pre-flight checks and Safety of onboard passengers.[19] Article 54 of the Convention directs that all instances of violations and failures to implement the Standards and Recommendations of the ICAO Council shall be reported to the States which are Parties to the Convention.[20] In addition to the ICAO, the International Air Transport Association which is the official trade organization for Global Airlines plays a key role in formulating industrial policy and international standards for Services and Business practices amongst member airlines.[21]

Freedoms of the Air and Open Sky Agreements

Freedoms of the Air are a set of nine commercial aviation rights which mainly grant one State’s Airlines the privilege to enter and land in another State’s Airspace.[22] The first five freedoms are officially enumerated by International Air Transport Agreement 1944[23] while the concept has been expanded by the gradual addition of four other freedoms. Most of them are not officially recognised under broadly applicable international treaties, but many have been agreed to by a number of States through Bilateral Agreements. The first two freedoms concern the passage of Commercial aircraft through foreign Airspace and Airports, while the other freedoms are about the international carriage of Passengers, Mail and Cargo. The lower-numbered freedoms are relatively universal while the higher-numbered ones are contentious.[24] Due to a lack of universal acceptance of these Freedoms, States often enter into Open Sky agreements.[25] These are the agreements between States which allow any number of airlines to fly from either of their Airspaces without any restriction on the number of seats, price and so on. They thus often represent the least restrictive form of Air Service agreements. However, in actual State practise, some restrictions are imposed in these agreements as well.[26]

Aviation and Airport Security

While the Aviation Sector has seen both qualitative and quantitative growth, there has been a parallel rise in security concerns as well; causing the emergence of the field of Aviation and Airport Security. The primary objective of the same is to prevent Criminal activities such as Aircraft Hijacking, Sabotage, and Use of aircraft as Weapons of Destruction and Presence of unauthorized weaponry at the Airports.[27] A number of international conventions have been formulated in this regard. For instance, the Tokyo Convention 1963 recognises the inviolability of a hijacked aircraft and its passengers, irrespective of wherever the aircraft may be forced to land and The Hague Convention 1970 directs every signatory State to either extradite or prosecute a Hijacker in case that Person is found there. The Montreal Convention of 1971 provides for the application of the principles of The Hague Convention to all the crimes committed on board a Commercial Aircraft and directs the States to undertake measures to prevent crimes such as violence against Individuals aboard an Aircraft, Damage to or Destruction of an Aircraft, placing Devices or Substances on an Aircraft which could damage or destroy it, and all other crimes. The ICAO lays down the relevant security standards and requires member states to establish their own Civil Aviation Security Programs. Based on these initiatives various legislations have been passed in different countries.[28] In the United States laws such as the Anti-Hijacking Act 1974, Air Transportation Security Act 1974, Aircraft Sabotage Act 1984[29] and the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, 2001[30] have been enacted. In India, such laws include the Anti-Hijacking Act 1982, Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Security of Civil Aviation Act 1982, Airports Authority of India Act 1994.[31] Further in 2005, the Government of India brought about a new Anti-Hijack Policy.[32] In conclusion, while there are sufficient laws present in India, but their improper implementation means that the Indian Civil Aviation is vulnerable to several security risks. At the same time, the highest priority should be given to Airport Security, which will ensure that the array of complex security laws would be only needed in exceptional circumstances.[33]

International Perspective on Anti-Hijacking Policies and India’s 2005 Anti Hijack Policy

The term Aircraft Hijacking means an unlawful seizure of an aircraft. Such hijacking has been a long-standing threat to the security of the individuals involved in Aviation. The instances of this crime increased significantly in the 1960s and 1970s which made the need to have a specific convention to address this issue an important necessity.[34] In 1970, The Hague Hijacking Convention was formulated to prohibit and punish hijacking of Civilian Aircrafts.[35] In 1984 the Chicago Convention 1944 was sought to be amended further, by addition of a new Article 3bis. This new addition to the convention in 1998 emphasized that the State parties recognise that they must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons against a Civil Aircraft in flight and that, in case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered.[36] In the past, the principle of ‘Elementary Considerations of Humanity’ which was recognised as a General Principle of International Law by the International Court of Justice in case of the United Kingdom v. Albania (Corfu Chanel case)[37] has been invoked to denounce the disproportionate use of force against intruding civil aircraft. Thus, Article 3bis is ‘not a new rule of law’, but the recognition of the existence of a prior rule binding all parties which prohibits the use of weapons against civil aircraft in flight. Thus, while India is not a State party to Article 3bis of the Chicago Convention and is not directly bound by its principle of non-usage of force[38] yet the State Practice in matters of dealing with the Intrusions in Civil Aircraft had already developed prior to the adoption of the said Article.[39] The country adopted a new Anti-Hijack Policy in 2005. The policy among other things states No foreign hijacked aircraft shall be allowed to land in the territory of India, but efforts shall be made to ensure that any hijacked Indian aircraft, shall be forced to land in the Country. Further once a hijacked aircraft has landed in India, all efforts shall be made to stop it from taking off again. In case of any suspicious activity by the aircraft, the Anti-Terrorism Squad Watch Supervisory Officer, shall inform the Joint Control and Analysis Centre manned by Indian Air Force officials. If the Aircraft does not respond to the communication with the ground controller then it shall be designated as a ‘Rogue’ aircraft, and in case it is aligning itself to a strategic target like the Rashtrapati Bhawan, or the Parliament the Aircraft shall be designated as a ‘Threat’ and once declared so, a decision can be taken to shoot down the same. This Policy bears a strong effect of the developments posts the 9/11 attacks.[40] Thus the anxiety of the state regarding combating such attacks in the future has led to this policy which is prima facie “strong” in nature.[41] However, Some Legal experts have expressed concerns on the ground of the Policy being inconsistent with the provisions of both the Indian Constitution and the Chicago Convention.[42]

Product Liability in Aviation

It is difficult to precisely define the term Product Liability. A general understanding of the same revolves around the liability resulting from the damage caused by defective products.[43] Robert. D. Hursh defines Product Liability as ‘the liability of a manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold’[44]. An example of the application of such liability in the aviation sector is the 1973 case of Maynard v. Stinson Aircraft[45] in which a passenger was awarded damages for injuries suffered by her after the Aircraft she was travelling in, caught fire.[46] The Warsaw Convention 1929 provides for rules relating to the enforcement of liabilities arising from international carriage by air. Article 28 of the Convention states the Courts which have jurisdiction for enforcement of such liability. These include the Court where the carrier is ordinarily resident, the court having jurisdiction at the principal place of business of the carrier or the place where the carrier maintains an establishment through which the contract has been made or the court having jurisdiction at the place of destination.[47] There has been a gradual evolution in the Practice of enforcing Product Liability. For instance, Courts in certain jurisdictions such as the United States have recognised the principle of Strict Liability in cases of Product Liability. But there is a lack of unanimity, over this subject, as many experts argue that enforcement of Product Liability should be based on statutory standards and not on a case by case basis. There is no Specific International Convention which has been adopted by the International Community on this subject matter. For Instance, the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations doesn’t apply in the instances where there is a direct acquisition of products and services by the injured person.[48]

Air Passenger Compensation

The Liability of an Air Carrier towards the victims of an air accident has become an important issue in litigation matters in relation to the Aviation Sector. At present, the Montreal Convention of 1999 contains provisions which deal with the issue of passenger compensation in the event of an Accident during international carriage.[49]  Article 17 of the Convention provides that it deals only with cases of death or bodily injury which are directly ‘caused’ by the accident. Thus, for the applicability of Article 17, there must be a direct relation between death or injury, and the operation of the aircraft. At the same time, several states have their own Municipal laws dealing with the issue.[50] In India, the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 governs the passenger compensation in the event of air accidents in the international carriage. Following India’s accession to the Montreal Convention in 2009, the Law has been amended to provide for greater liability and increased compensation by the Air Carriers.[51]

International Conventions and Rules with Respect to Code Sharing Agreements

Code Sharing is a strategy in the aviation sector which mainly involves one Airline (known as the Marketing or Contracting Carrier) advertising and selling the services of another Airline as its own. Consequentially transportation of passengers and cargo is undertaken by an airline (Operating Carrier) which is different from the one shown in Travel-related documents. While these agreements allow airlines to increase their Traffic, Profits and Service frequency, they have complicated the legal liabilities of Airlines.[52] Thus, the Guadalajara Convention 1961 was enacted which contains rules to identify the proper Defendant in case of a claim for non-performance of contract arising from the use of a Code-Shared Flight. Further, the Convention introduced a distinction between a Contractual and an Actual Carrier.[53]

Civil Aviation and Environmental Protection

The future development of aviation infrastructure is critically linked with prevention and control of environmental pollution mainly because of the fact that aviation has a wide impact on Environment. Noise Pollution remains the most pressing issue for aviation, and it remains high on the agenda of public concern particularly for those residents who live in the Vicinity of Airports.[54] There are certain concerns relating to air quality as studies reveal that the presence of Emissions of Nitrogen Oxide, Carbon Dioxide, Un-burnt hydrocarbons, Sulphur Dioxide and Fine Particulate Matter in areas around Airports.[55] Many reports show that Airports contribute to water pollution by dumping toxic chemicals such as Glycol.[56] Thus, for a sustainable global environment, it is incumbent to devise environmentally sound international and domestic policies on Civil Aviation. For instance, the Airport Noise and Capacity Act 1990 required that certain classes of Aircraft in the United States should be retrofitted to reduce noise levels.[57] In the Indian context, there is no specific legislation for the control of Aviation Pollution. Nonetheless, the general laws such as the Environment Protection Act 1986 are broad enough to provide limited scope for the control and abatement of this specific category of pollution.[58]

Corpus Juris Spatialis[59]

Modern Space law is chiefly concerned with the regulation of relations amongst States and International Organisations in the sphere of Outer Space, Celestial Bodies and the Moon.[60] Similar to Air Law, the absence of a single convention has meant that the development of this branch of Law has taken place largely through multiple International Conventions and Instruments.[61] Nonetheless certain principles of this branch of law, such as the utilization of Outer Space in bona fine manner for peaceful purposes and as a “Common Heritage of Mankind” have sufficiently crystallized, in order to form the bedrock of the Outer Space Regime.[62] As stated earlier, Outer Space remains an international issue, and thus the United Nations, especially its Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) has played a vital role in shaping the International Conventions regulating Outer Space.[63] These include the 1967 Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Outer Space Treaty”) which forms the basis of international Outer Space Law by providing that Outer Space shall be free for the use and exploration by all the States.[64] Similarly, the 1968 Agreement on the Rescue of Astronauts, the Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “Rescue Agreement”) requires that the signatory States shall provide all possible assistance to recover space objects and Astronauts which have entered the territory under their jurisdiction. The 1971 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects (the “Liability Convention”) sets out the principle that States bear responsibility for the objects launched into Space from their territory.[65] Further, the 1975 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space (the “Registration Convention”) requires States to register information about the Orbit, and the general function of every object put into Space.[66] Finally, the Agreement governing activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (the “Moon Treaty 1979”) states that the Moon and other celestial bodies are not subject to national appropriation and that the International Community exercises jurisdiction over them.[67] In conclusion, these five Conventions constitute the nucleus of the Space Law.[68] Accordingly, this paper attempts to study certain important developments in this field:

Territorial Sovereignty, Jurisdiction and Property Rights in Outer Space

The legal doctrine of territorial sovereignty is an integral aspect of traditional Statehood. It allows the States a right to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over all persons and objects in their territory without any interference by the other States.[69] However, the absence of the division of territory in Outer Space means, that the concept is not applicable in the traditional sense, resulting in relative clarity on the issue under the International Law. Presently, the two legal maxims namely Res Nullius[70]and Res Communis [71] are of great significance in determining the question of sovereignty in Outer Space.[72] Further the Outer Space Treaty under Clauses (2) and (3) of Article I provides all States with the right to free access, exploration, and use of the Outer Space, and declares that it is not subject to national appropriation through occupation, use of force, and claims of sovereignty.[73] Still, the desire of certain States which are keen to utilize Outer Space’s untapped resources has led to a dispute as to whether the domain is terra nullius (land owned by no one) or terra communis (land owned collectively by humanity).[74] Similarly, the question of exercising jurisdiction in Outer Space is one which is full of inherent complications. Two main factors are responsible for this.[75] The first being the fact, that the legal concept of jurisdiction has always been based on the pre-existence of the principles of Sovereign Equality, Territory and Non-Interference, which are non-applicable to Outer Space. The laws’ dealing with these matters exists in form of different Conventions. Article VIII of the Outer Space Treaty, allows a State to retain jurisdiction over an object which is launched in Outer Space, but at the same time imposes certain limitations to prevent them from extending their jurisdiction in a manner which would “infringe the sovereignty and independence” of another State. Secondly, multiple laws such as the Outer Space Treaty continue to govern outer space conduct primarily between the Sovereign States and don’t take into account the potential human interactions, in an era where individuals may be private actors and thus, not necessarily the representatives of their respective States.[76] Consequentially, Outer Space today exists as an Extra-Jurisdictional International territory where no particular strait-jacket formula can be applied.[77]  Thus, in absence of definitive laws, a simple territorial criminal legislation may create a situation where an act might be a crime on Earth, but not so in the Outer Space, as such a law would not meet the requirements for application in an Outer Space Jurisdiction.[78] The provisions of International and Space Law dealing with property rights in Outer Space and Celestial Bodies have been questioned over its supposed impracticality.[79] As a general principle, these provisions regard Outer Space, as a “Province of all the Mankind”, which to be used equitably for humanity’s common enjoyment, and for research/ exploration and not as something to be appropriated by a State or an Entity for its own control.[80] However, the pressing need for the utilization of scarce resources in the future and the and the fact that once the developed States obtain them, they are unlikely to agree for an “equitable” distribution of these resources,[81] has prompted many legal experts to call for the establishment of a property rights regime in Outer Space by taking into consideration, the interests of all the States.[82] They have further proposed to establish an International Organisation for the purpose of administrating any property beyond the Earth, as a representative of the entire humanity.[83]

Commercialization and Militarisation of Space

Commercialization of Outer Space is a relatively recent phenomenon. It has brought about several benefits including provision of services such as Television, Telecommunication, Satellite Navigation, Satellite Imagery, Asteroid Mining, Satellite launches, Outer Space Exploration and Space Tourism. [84] While it is quite clear that there is abundant scope for Commercialization of Space, but unfortunately the present International Law is incompatible to regulate an Outer Space which is private and commercial.[85] Further, the conflict between the developed and developing States owing to differences in the matters of “National Interest” has limited the role of the International Community in ensuring international cooperation in Outer Space Management.[86] A few States have enacted Municipal Laws for dealing with the issue of Commercialization.[87] However, there is no specific legislation dealing with Outer Space and related activities in India,[88] even though the Space Activities Bill 2017 is still pending. Municipal law is essential for maintaining the country’s international position as an emerging space power.[89] Meanwhile, the process of Militarisation of Outer Space has continued parallel to the process of Commercialization, since the beginning of the Cold War.[90] Consequentially, there has been the deployment of weaponry and military technology such as Ballistic Missiles, Military Spacecraft, Imaging and Communications satellites etc. in Outer Space.[91] At the same time, the International Community has made continuous efforts at the United Nations to ensure that Outer Space is maintained for peaceful purposes. The Outer Space Treaty contains express provisions for prevention of deployment and stationing of both Nuclear Weapons and Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) in the Outer Space and on Celestial Bodies.[92] However, since the Outer Space Treaty, doesn’t absolutely prohibit the placement of all types of weapons[93] several unsuccessful international proposals have been made which would prevent the placement of any and all categories of Weapons in Outer Space. But, in absence of such a Convention, there is a serious risk of Militarisation of Outer Space.[94]

Remote Sensing Satellites

The emergence of Remote Sensing Satellites is one of the most significant developments in the field of space technology. Remote Sensing has been defined as “the collection of data which can be processed in the imagery of surface features of the earth from a satellite.”[95] These satellites have played a key role in providing people with new technological facilities in the modern world.[96] However, in the era of the growing commercialization of Outer Space, there is a serious potential of the misuse of this technology. For instance, the future capabilities of such satellites might lead to real-time surveillance capabilities in the hands of both the Government and Private corporations which would be detrimental to human freedom and privacy.[97] Thus, there is an urgent need to develop new mechanisms to regulate this technology, especially given the fact that the existing law on the matter is generic in nature and leaves a number of key questions unanswered.  Presently Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty fixes responsibility for all acts of Governmental and Commercial remote sensing industry on the States. At the same time, the Registration Convention 1975 mainly provides for registration of Government satellites with the launching State, there is a doubt regarding the efficacy of this Convention in an era where Private and Commercial entities are likely to emerge as one of the main players in this industry.[98] Unfortunately, even the sole international instrument namely the 1986 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 41/65 which specifically deals with the Remote Sensing Satellites is non-binding in nature, and thus there is a need for formulation of a new universal convention.[99]

Outer Space Debris

The vast dimensions of Outer Space make it very difficult to contemplate the problem of any form of pollution which is to likely affect this huge region, but Space Debris exactly poses this challenge.[100] According to the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the term Space Debris means “all man-made objects, including their fragments and parts, whether their owners can be identified or not, in Earth orbit or re-entering the dense layers of the atmosphere that are non-functional with no reasonable expectation of their being able to assume or resume their intended functions or any other functions for which they are or can be authorised”.[101] While Space Debris has the potential of seriously jeopardizing future human activities in Outer Space, it is unrealistic in this age of space exploration to absolutely prevent such pollution; but nonetheless, there is an obligation upon the International Community to mitigate and control the same.[102] At present, there is no specific International Law, which deals with this issue. The Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines are voluntary in Nature.[103] It is impossible to regulate Outer Space Debris under the Registration Convention since it merely requires Registration of a Rocket or Space Equipment launched by a State or Corporation, and doesn’t prescribe any quantitative restrictions regarding such launches.[104] Therefore, an effective solution for the management of Outer Space Debris requires the formulation of such a specific International Law which would contain provisions for the protection of affected Outer Space regions and lays down binding mitigation standards.[105]

Outer Space Colonization and Outer Space Tourism

Scientific development and exhaustion of Earth’s limited resources are the twin factors which will be responsible for Outer Space colonization, thereby resulting in human habitation in Outer Space colonies.[106]  Although Article II of the Outer Space treaty states that Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, are not subject to national appropriation by claims of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, yet claims for Extra-Terrestrial Real Estate[107] have been made by reiterating that certain aspects of International Law such as Article VIII of the said treaty confer ‘Limited Property Rights’ on the private entities.[108] It is needless to say that these claims are merely speculative in nature since humanity is years away from sustainable Outer Space colonization. On the other hand, it is expected that in the future, Outer Space tourism will become a booming industry. Presently while the Outer Space Treaty does contain limited provisions for the regulation of different uses of the Outer Space, still there will be a need to evolve new laws, for governing complex legal and scientific issues associated with Governmental and Commercial Outer Space tourism.[109]  

Conclusion

Although humanity’s historical desire of reaching Air and Space: two realms beyond its traditional reach have been finally satisfied, the challenge of enforcing earthly laws and legislations, as well as resolving conflicts have continued. Further, the international character of Air and Space Law has meant that the International Law and organisations such as the United Nations have been trailblazers in the development of this field. However, due to the traditional inefficiency of such laws vis-à-vis Municipal Laws and the non-existence of a uniform convention on the subject has meant that its study has become difficult and fragmented. At the same time, there have been several developments in Air and Space Law such as the rise of Aviation Security Standards, Freedoms of the Air, Open Sky Agreements, Product Liability, issues relating to Jurisdiction and Ownership of Property in Outer Space, Outer Space Tourism, Space Debris, Militarisation and Commercialization of Outer Space and Remote Sensing Technology etc. which have brought about an evolution in the subject during the contemporary Time. The multiplicity of laws has led to variances at the international, regional and bilateral levels, and there is still a considerable “Grey Area” in these unexplored realms. In such a scenario the role of municipal law becomes highly important. The passage of comprehensive and precise laws will only aid the International Community further, in its quest of comprehending the developments in Air and Space Law, which will ensure human survival and human excellence.

[1] Notable Quotes, ‘Buzz Aldrin Quotes’ (Notable Quotes) <www.notable-quotes.com/a/aldrin_buzz.html> accessed 12 October 2019

[2] Peace Palace Library, ‘Air and Space Law’ (Peace Palace Library) www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/100years/airandspacelaw/ accessed 12 October 2019

[3] Kluwer Law Online, ‘Air & Space Law’ (Kluwer Law Online) <www.kluwerlawonline.com/toc.php?pubcode=AILA> accessed 12 October 2019

[4] Prof. (Dr.) Ranbir Singh and others, ‘Preface’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law iii

[5] Latin for “Body of Air Law”

[6] Dr. HO. Aggarwal, State Territory International Law and Human Rights (21^st edn, Central Law Publications 2017) 124

[7] ibid

[8] Convention Relating to the Regulation of Aerial Navigation, 1 J. Air L. & Com. 94 (1930) <https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3588&context=jalc> accessed 15 October 2019

[9] Law Teacher, ‘Warsaw Convention Summary’ (Law Teacher) <www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/the-warsaw-convention-summary-commercial-law-essay.php> accessed 14 October 2019

[10] Aggarwal (n 6) 125

[11] Aggarwal (n 6) 126

[12] Karen Mingst, ‘International Civil Aviation Organisation’ (Encyclopedia Britannica)<www.britannica.com/topic/International-Civil-Aviation-Organization> accessed 14 October 2019

[13] India v Pakistan [1972] ICGJ 148 (ICJ).

[14] International Court of Justice, ‘Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council’ (International Court of Justice) <www.icj-cij.org/en/case/54> accessed 15 October 2019

[15] Latin for “Either Extradite or Prosecute”

[16] Wikipedia, ‘Hague Hijacking Convention’ (Wikipedia) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Hijacking_Convention> accessed 16 October 2019

[17] International Air Transport Association, ‘The Montreal Convention 1999 (MC 99)’ (International Air Transport Association) <www.iata.org/policy/smarter-regulation/Pages/mc99.aspx> accessed 16 October 2019

[18] Shazia Siddiqui and Nishant Awana, ‘Second International Conference on Current Developments in Air and Space Law Aviation Safety: International Standards and India’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 80  

[19] International Civil Aviation Organisation, ‘The Convention on International Civil Aviation’ (International Civil Aviation Organisation) <www.icao.int/safety/airnavigation/nationalitymarks/annexes_booklet_en.pdf> accessed 16 October 2019

[20] Siddiqui and Awana (n 18)

[21] International Air Transport Association, ‘About us’ (International Air Transport Association) <www.iata.org/about/pages/index.aspx> accessed 16 October 2019

[22] ICAO Uniting Aviation: A United Nations Specialized Agency, ‘Freedoms of the Air’ (ICAO Uniting Aviation: A United Nations Specialized Agency) <www.icao.int/Pages/freedomsAir.aspx> accessed 16 October 2019

[23] University of Oslo: The Faculty of Law, ‘International Air Transport Agreement’ (University of Oslo: The Faculty of Law) <www.jus.uio.no/english/services/library/treaties/07/7-01/international-air-transport-agreement.xml> accessed 16 October 2019

[24] Wikipedia, ‘Freedoms of the Air’ (Wikipedia) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air> accessed 16 October 2019

[25] Uniting Aviation, ‘Creating Opportunities through Open Skies Agreements’ (Uniting Aviation) <www.unitingaviation.com/strategic-objective/economic-development/creating-opportunities-through-open-skies-agreements/> accessed 16 October 2019

[26] GK Today, ‘Open Sky Policy’ (GK Today) <www.gktoday.in/gk/open-sky-policy/> accessed 16 October 2019

[27] Shreya Rastogi and Swarnali Chanda, ‘Need of Reforming the Aviation Security and Airport Security Measures in India—A Comparative Analysis’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 89  

[28] Rastogi and Chanda (n 27) 91

[29] ibid

[30] Rastogi and Chanda (n 27) 92

[31] Rastogi and Chanda (n 27) 96

[32] PTI, ‘Government Adopts Anti-Hijack Policy’ The Times of India (India 14 August 2005) <https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Govt-adopts-anti-hijack-policy/articleshow/1200572.cms> accessed 16 October 2019

[33] Rastogi and Chanda (n 27) 99

[34] Hardeep Singh, ‘Constitutionality Of India’s Anti Hijack Policy’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 69

[35] Aggarwal (n 6) 697

[36] Hardeep Singh (n 34) 72

[37] United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v People’s Republic of Albania [1949] ICGJ 199 (ICJ).

[38] ibid

[39] Dr. Jiefang Huang, Aviation Safety through the Rule of Law: ICAO’s Mechanisms and Practice (Kluwer Law International 2009) 89

[40] Hardeep Singh (n 34) 70

[41] Hardeep Singh (n 34) 71

[42] Hardeep Singh (n 34) 73

[43] Pratik Chandra and Sonakshi Verma, ‘Product Liability in Aviation’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 127  

[44] R.D. Hursh and others, American Law of Products Liability 3d (Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company 1987) 2-3

[45] Maynard v Stinson Aircraft [1940] US AvR 71 (CC Wayne County, MI).

[46] Chandra and Verma (n 43) 128  

[47] Chandra and Verma (n 43) 129

[48] Chandra and Verma (n 43) 137

[49] Medhavi Singh, ‘The Legal Regime Governing Air Passenger Compensation in India: Evolution and Conditions of Applicability’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 170

[50] Singh (n 49) 172          

[51] Singh (n 49) 176

[52] Vikrant Pachnanda, ‘Anti-Trust Issues with respect to Code-Sharing Agreements That Persist In The Aviation Industry: The Indian Context’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 142

[53] ibid

[54] Dr. K. Malathi, ‘Aviation Pollution–Impact on Environment’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 59

[55] Malathi (n 54) 61

[56] Malathi (n 54) 63

[57] Malathi (n 54) 65

[58] Malathi (n 54) 66

[59] Latin for “ Body of Space Law”

[60] Aggarwal (n 6) 168

[61] United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs, ‘International Space Law; United Nations Instruments’ (United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs) <www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/stspace/stspace61rev_2_0_html/V1605998-ENGLISH.pdf> accessed 17 October 2019

[62] Carol R. Buxton, Property in Outer Space: The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle v the First in Time, First in Right, Rule of Property, 69 J. Air L. & Com. 689 (2004) <https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.co.in/&httpsredir=1&article=1712&context=jalc> accessed 17 October 2019

[63] United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs, ‘Committee On The Peaceful Uses Of Outer Space’ (United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs) <www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/copuos/index.html> accessed 17 October 2019

[64] United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs, ‘Resolution Adopted By The General Assembly: 2222 (XXI) Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies’ (United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs) <www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/outerspacetreaty.html> accessed 17 October 2019

[65] Aggarwal (n 6) 171

[66] United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs, ‘Convention on International Liability For Damage Caused By Space Objects’ (United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs) <www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introliability-convention.html> accessed on 17 October 2019

[67] United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs, ‘Agreement Governing The activities of the States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies’ (United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs) <www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/intromoon-agreement.html> accessed 17 October 2019

[68] Yun Zhao, ‘Planetary Science’ (Oxford Research Encyclopedias)<https://oxfordre.com/planetaryscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190647926.001.0001/acrefore-9780190647926-e-42> accessed 18 October 2019

[69] Dr. Hemlata Sharma and Pooja Singh, ‘Territorial Sovereignty In The Outer Space: Spatial Issues’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 272

[70] Latin for “Nobody’s thing or Property that  has no Owner”

[71] Latin for “an Area beyond, and not subject to incorporation into state territory”

[72] Louis de Gouyon Matignon, ‘The Res Communis Concept in Space Law’ (Space Legal Issues, 28 February 2019) <www.spacelegalissues.com/space-law-the-res-communis-concept-in-space-law/> accessed 18 October 2019

[73] Sharma and Singh (n 69) 277

[74] Christy Collis, ‘Territories beyond Possession?  Antarctica and Outer Space’ (Taylor & Francis Online) <www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2154896X.2017.1373912?scroll=top&needAccess=true&journalCode=rpol20> accessed 19 October 2019

[75] Jyotima Nagvanshi and Aishwarya Sharma, ‘Jurisdiction In Outer Space: Challenges of Private Individuals In Space’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 324

[76] ibid

[77] Prof. Sergio Marchisio, ‘National Jurisdiction For Regulating Space Activities of Governmental And Non-Governmental Entities’ (United Nations Office For Outer Space Affairs) <www.unoosa.org/pdf/pres/2010/SLW2010/02-02.pdf> accessed 20 October 2019

[78] Nagvanshi and Sharma (n 75) 328

[79] Ketan Mukhija, ‘Property Rights In Outer Space: Perspectives And Insights’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 213

[80] Mukhija (n 79) 214

[81] Mukhija (n 79) 217

[82] Mukhija (n 79)

[83] Mukhija (n 79) 220

[84] Wikipedia, ‘Commercial Use of Space’ (Wikipedia) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_use_of_space> accessed 20 October 2019

[85] Ginger Christ, ‘The Commercialization of Space: Selling the Final Frontier’ (Industry Week, 31 October 2014) <www.industryweek.com/transportation/commercialization-space-selling-final-frontier> accessed 21 October 2019

[86] Prof. Arun Kumar Sharma and Dr. Sonia Jain, ‘Commercial Space Activities—Space for a Space Law’[2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 432

[87] Jeff Foust, ‘Houses Passes Commercial Space Bill’ Space News (United States of America 16 November 2015) <https://spacenews.com/house-passes-commercial-space-bill/> accessed 21 October 2019

[88] Aswathi Pacha, ‘The Hindu Explains: What is the Space Activities Bill, 2017?’ The Hindu (India 23 November 2017)<www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/the-hindu-explains-what-is-the-space-activities-bill-2017/article20680984.ece> accessed 21 October 2019

[89] Department of Space, Government of India, ‘Draft Space Activities Bill, 2017’ (PRS Legislative Research) <www.prsindia.org/billtrack/draft-space-activities-bill-2017> accessed 21 October 2019

[90] Soumya Shekhar and Purushottam Anand, ‘India and Militarisation of Outer Space’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 399

[91] Wikipedia, ‘Militarisation of Space’ (Wikipedia) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarisation_of_space> accessed 22 October 2019

[92] Shekhar and Anand (n 90) 401

[93] Anup Shah, ‘Militarization and Weaponization of Outer Space’ (Global Issues: Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All, 21 January 2007) <www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponization-of-outer-space> accessed 22 October 2019

[94] United Nations Office For Disarmament Affairs, ‘Outer Space’ (United Nations Office For Disarmament Affairs) <www.un.org/disarmament/topics/outerspace/> accessed 23 October 2019

[95] The Land Remote Sensing Policy Act 1992, s 5602(5).

[96] Animesh Sinha, ‘Remote Sensing Satellites: Legal Issues In Emerging Technology’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 247

[97] Sinha (n 96) 248

[98] Sinha (n 96) 252

[99] Sinha (n 96) 253      

[100] Amrendra Kumar Ajit, ‘Outer Space Debris: An International Obligation To Mitigate And Control’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 351

[101] National Aeronautics and Space Administration-United Nations Committee on the Peaceful uses of Outer Space, ‘Technical Report on Space Debris’ (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-United Nations Committee on the Peaceful uses of Outer Space) <www.orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/library/un_report_on_space_debris99.pdf> accessed 23 October 2019

[102] Ajit (n 100) 355

[103] United Space in Europe, ‘Mitigating Space Debris Generation’ (United Space in Europe) <www.esa.int/Safety_Security/Space_Debris/Mitigating_space_debris_generation> accessed 24 October 2019

[104] Ajit (n 100) 359

[105] Ajit (n 100) 360

[106] Dr. Shobalata Udapudi and Ms. Soma Battacharjya, ‘Outer Space Colonisation: Outer Space Tourism’ [2012] NLUDLJ Current Developments in Air and Space Law 243

[107] Louis de Gouyon Matignon, ‘The Lawfulness of Extra-Terrestrial Real Estate’ (Space Legal Issues, 25 June 2019) <www.spacelegalissues.com/the-lawfulness-of-extraterrestrial-real-estate/> accessed 24 October 2019

[108] Udapudi and Battacharjya (n 106) 244

[109] Udapudi and Battacharjya (n 106) 245

The post Air and Space Law: A Legal Conspectus appeared first on LexForti .