Aristotle defines the state as “An Union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and

self
sufficient life, by which we mean a happy and honorable life”. According to Bluntschli,” The state is
Politically Organized people. According to Wilson, “The state is a people organized for law within a
definite territory”. -
The above definitions show that there are four essential elements of state. Population Territory
Government Sovereignty. a. Population: People are the most important essential of the state. If there
are no people there will be nobody to rule and nobody to be ruled. A vacant island or desert can’t
constitute a state. Hence, population is essential for state and without population there can be no state.
For Aristotle, number should be neither too large nor too small. It should be large enough to be self-
sufficient and small enough to be well governed. The actual population is less than the optimum; the
natural resources can’t be fully utilized. If it is more, poverty’ will be the result. b. Territory: Territory
is a definite area of earth surface where people reside permanently. We can’t think of a state without
territory. The area within these boundaries constitutes the “Territorial Jurisdiction “of a state. There is
no fixed limit to the size of territory, it may be generally laid down that there should be proper balance
between population and territory
Government: For the peaceful existence gout is very much essential for a state. Government is the
machinery, which regulates controls and directs human behavior in society. It is an agency of the state
through which the will of the state is formulated, expressed and executed. The entire population of a
political community makes a state. The gout is composed of few persons duly elected or selected.
There are branches of government. They are legislature, executive and judiciary. The form of
government differs from state to state. d. Sovereignty: It means supreme power of the state. The term
sovereignty derived from Latin word supreranus, which means supreme. There are two aspects of
sovereignty I, e Internal and external sovereignty. Internal means supreme legal authority and group
within its territory. External means freedom of state from any kind of outside control.

6) The State is first Legal entity of the International Law. The State by asserting an distinct Legal and
diplomatic personality ’fulfil the normal requirement of entry into internationally. From a business
into become a state, it must free from the politically control of another State or free from international
relationship. Countries are, in this way, completely subject to international law as they meet all these
requirements.
What is the States? What is the principles of statehood? What are the right and duty of government?
Definitions and Requirement 0F Statehoods.
There are no exact definitions of word “State” in the Law of the land. However this law, the essentials
mechanisms of statehoods are well-established. Article 1 of Montevideo Convention on the Rights
and Domes of the State of 1933 provide the following,

A states as an international law persons must have the following qualifications,

: permanent value;
: specified location;
: government
: the capacity to enter in relation with other country.

Basic Right and Duty of the states.

The right and duty of the States has always be the highest concerns of the Law of land. The
development of lists of right called fundamentals rights or functions of the States had been constant
focus on international conference or bodies. The 1933 Montevideo Agreement of the Right or
Occupation of America is first attempts at implementing program. This efforts were following by the
preparation of International Law Commissions of United Nation “Declaration of the Rights and
Duties of the United Nations of 1949” .Part of the United Nations. “All above instrument, tog ethers
with the United Nation Charter, provides reference to the fundamental right and functions of
countries.
Thus, International Law State that they have the right to enjoys certain basic rights and bound by
certain duties.

State Right: Right to Independence,

Apart from being prerequisite for governance as mentions earlier, freedom is fundamental rights of
States. Independence is defines by draft declaration on the right and duty of 1949, is for the State to
provide for its welfare and development without the rule of other governments.

Royalty Right.
Royalty is fundamental rights of the States. All countries enjoys that right. Sovereignty have a double
means. First, sovereignty mean that the States has supreme authorities outside its territories – the
concepts of sovereignty is known as universal sovereignty.

Right of Territorial Jurisdictions,

Rights of Territorials Jurisdictions are derive from rights of sovereignty. This right empowers the
State to exercise absolutes and exclusives authorities above all persons, property and event with in the
boundaries of geographical area. Authorities includes the power of States Government for making
law, enforce the laws and judge people and events within its territory, its waters within and between.

The Right of the sovereignty of Equality.

Equality of sovereignty mean to all governments has the same right or functions, had the same powers
or functions, and is equal member of international communities, regardless of economics, socially,
politically or others differences.

The Right to Defense.

The right of self-government granted to her is recognized by international customary law and Article
51 of the Charter of the United Nations. However, this right cannot be exercised by the State unless it
is attacked by the armed forces and until the Security Council has taken the necessary steps to
maintain international peace and security.

FUNCTIONS of states

Duties to refuse Threat or Use of Forces.

The States is below no obligation for refuse in it relationships with overseas for threat or uses the
party agonists the territorials integrities’ and political independence of others State,. This work
including a number of specific activities that are accepted, such as, the obligation to refuse war
propaganda and aggressions, or the duties to refuse to organize and promote an organizations for
unlawful troops or arm band to be deployed in a foreign country.

The task of resolving international disputes in peaceful ways.

The State is under obligation to resolve international and international disputes by peacefully meaning
is such an way like international peaches, securities or justice is no threatened. Charters for United
Nations, in Chapters- 6, has providing equipment for accomplishing the task by Americans.

Opinion the subject of International Law.

1. Theory of Reality.
According to the critic positivist doctrine, countries claim that they are the only subjects of
international law. According to Prof Oppenheim, “international law is primarily a law of the moral
world and not of its citizens”. If people have one right it can only be called in the provinces. Jurists of
the school believe that provinces are the subjects of international law, while some people are the
objects of international law

Theoretical Analysis of Facts.

It is silent on human rights and international human rights cases. In a statement on humanitarian
casualties in UN cases, the ICJ said that “the UN has the power to bring a worldwide claim against the
State for retaliation when the UN agent is injured”.

Fictional Theory (Individuals Only Studies in International Law).

In this view, the jurists believe that the People are the only subjects of international law as the
provinces do not have the soul or power to do the will. Professor Kelson has chosen that laws
ultimately apply to individuals and individuals. According to this view, human well-being is the
ultimate goal of international law.

Analysis of False Texts.

Of particular concern is international law on the rights and functions of provinces. People have many
rights under international law but their ability to exercise these rights is limited. In many cases, the
situation involves a civil rights claim. In the case of the Mavrommatis Palestine Concession (1934),
the PCIJ recognized that “it is the basic principle of international law that a country has a right to
protect its subjects”.

3. Operational theory (Nations, peoples and other non-governmental organizations are subjects of
international law).
Jurists with moderate opinion criticized both of the above statements. Jurists believe that the United
States, the People and certain non-governmental entities are the subjects of international law. Now,
Individuals are headed straight for the provinces. An example is the European Convention on Human
Rights in 1950. Under the 1966 international human rights treaties, it is held that people can claim
rights directly under international law. In some cases, non-state actors such as the Colonies and
Protectorate state are treated as international law subjects.

1. 8) 8) State Sovereignty (2 marks): The principle reflects the core concept of state
sovereignty, which grants each state the exclusive authority to govern its territory, people, and
internal affairs without external interference.
2. Mutual Respect (2 marks): It underscores the importance of mutual respect among states,
acknowledging that each state possesses equal sovereignty and is entitled to conduct its affairs
without undue influence from others.
3. Peace and Stability (2 marks): Non-interference promotes global peace and stability by
minimizing the likelihood of conflicts arising from external meddling in the internal affairs of
states. This stability is crucial for fostering cooperative relations among nations.
 4. Legal Basis (2 marks): The principle of non-interference is enshrined in various international
agreements, customary international law, and the United Nations Charter, particularly in its
provisions affirming the sovereign equality of states and prohibiting the threat or use of force
against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
5. Exceptions (2 marks): While non-interference is a fundamental principle, it is not absolute.
There are exceptions under international law, such as cases of self-defense, humanitarian
intervention with Security Council authorization, or actions taken in response to violations of
jus cogens norms (peremptory norms of international law).

In summary, the principle of non-interference encapsulates the fundamental tenets of state

sovereignty, mutual respect among nations, and the promotion of peace and stability in the
international system, while also recognizing limited exceptions to this principle under specific
circumstances.
You
it is the duty of state not to interefere in affair of the another state? explain the stattement in public
international law give me paragraph ans for 20 marks
ChatGPT
ChatGPT
In public international law, the principle asserting that "it is the duty of a state not to interfere in the
affairs of another state" is a fundamental cornerstone of the international legal order. This principle is
rooted in the concept of state sovereignty, which grants each state the exclusive authority to govern its
territory, people, and internal affairs without external interference. It embodies the principle of mutual
respect among states, recognizing the equality and independence of all sovereign entities in the
international community. By upholding this principle, states contribute to the preservation of global
peace and stability, as interference in the internal affairs of another state often leads to tensions,
conflicts, and even wars. Non-interference fosters a conducive environment for peaceful coexistence
and cooperation among nations, allowing them to engage in diplomatic relations based on mutual
respect and equality. Moreover, the duty of non-interference is codified in various international
agreements, customary international law, and the United Nations Charter, particularly in provisions
affirming the sovereign equality of states and prohibiting the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state. However, it is essential to acknowledge that
the principle of non-interference is not absolute and may be subject to exceptions under certain
circumstances. For instance, international law may permit intervention in cases of self-defense,
humanitarian intervention with Security Council authorization, or actions taken in response to
violations of jus cogens norms. Nevertheless, these exceptions are strictly circumscribed by legal
criteria and must adhere to principles of proportionality, necessity, and humanity. Overall, the duty of
non-interference embodies a crucial aspect of state behavior in international relations, balancing
respect for sovereignty with the imperative of addressing global challenges in a lawful and
cooperative manner.

6 marks: 1)Sovereign States

Sovereign states are entities that possess full and complete independence. They are not controlled by
foreign powers and have the authority to make and enforce their own laws within their territories.

Sovereign states have defined territories, permanent populations, governments and the capacity to
engage in international relations. They enjoy the highest degree of autonomy and are considered equal
entities in the eyes of International Law.

Not-Fully Sovereign States

This category includes entities that, while recognised as states, may not possess full sovereignty. They
might have limitations on their independence, often due to historical, political or legal factors.

Some entities, such as certain territories with limited self-governance, fall into this category. They
might be subject to the authority of a more significant state or an international governing body.

Non-Typical States

Non-typical states refer to entities that do not fit the conventional criteria of a sovereign state. This
category could include entities with unique legal or political statuses that deviate from the traditional
understanding of statehood.

Special cases like the Holy See (Vatican City) or international organisations with a degree of
sovereignty can be considered non-typical. These entities often have specific roles and functions that
distinguish them from standard sovereign states.

Kinds of States in International Law: General Classification

Recognised States

Recognised states represent entities widely acknowledged by the international community as

sovereign actors. Recognition is a political act, symbolising acceptance of a state’s legal personality.
The criteria for recognition can vary and it often involves a balance of political, historical and
strategic considerations among states

De Facto States

De facto states control territories and have functioning governments but lack universal international
recognition. These entities, such as Taiwan, operate with a degree of autonomy but face challenges in
attaining global acceptance as fully sovereign states.

Microstates

Microstates are characterised by their diminutive sise, both in terms of territory and population.
Examples include Monaco, San Marino and Nauru. Despite their small scale, these entities enjoy the
full rights and responsibilities of sovereign states in the international arena.

Failed States

Failed states are those unable to perform basic functions, such as providing security and public
services and are often plagued by internal conflicts. Somalia during the 1990s serves as a prominent
example of a state grappling with a breakdown of governance structures.

Emerging States

Emerging states are entities in the process of gaining international recognition as independent
sovereigns. Kosovo, having declared independence from Serbia, exemplifies an emerging state
navigating the complex landscape of recognition and acceptance.

Member States
International organisations, notably the United Nations, have member states that enjoy full
participation and equal representation. Each member state contributes to the decision-making
processes of these organisations, forming the basis for collaborative global governance.

Non-Member States

Certain entities, like the Holy See (Vatican City), may not be full members of international
organisations but hold observer status or participate in specific capacities. This unique status allows
them to engage with the international community without full membership privileges.

Conclusion

The diverse kinds of states in International Law underscore the complexity of the global political
landscape. The recognition or lack thereof, shapes the legal status and role of states in the
international arena.

The Monroe Doctrine, a key principle in public international law, was articulated by President James
Monroe in 1823. This doctrine fundamentally asserted two main principles:

1. Non-Colonization (2 marks): The Monroe Doctrine opposed further colonization or

interference by European powers in the Americas. It aimed to prevent European powers from
establishing new colonies or extending their existing colonies in North and South America.
2. Non-Intervention (2 marks): It declared that the United States would view any attempt by
European powers to interfere in the affairs of independent nations in the Western Hemisphere
as a threat to its own security and interests. This principle of non-intervention emphasized the
sovereignty and autonomy of the newly independent states in the Americas.
3. Hemispheric Solidarity (2 marks): The Monroe Doctrine reflected a sense of solidarity
among the nations of the Western Hemisphere against external interference. It implied that
the United States would support and defend the independence and sovereignty of its
neighboring states against European imperialism.
4. Precedent for U.S. Foreign Policy (2 marks): The Monroe Doctrine established a precedent
for U.S. foreign policy, particularly in its assertion of a sphere of influence in the Western
Hemisphere and its commitment to preventing external intervention in the region.
5. Evolution and Contemporary Relevance (2 marks): While the Monroe Doctrine originated
in the 19th century, its principles continue to influence U.S. foreign policy to this day.
Although its direct application has evolved, the doctrine's emphasis on regional stability, non-
intervention, and defense of sovereignty remains relevant in contemporary international
relations.

3)
Background (2 marks): The Temple of Preah Vihear had been a subject of contention
between Cambodia and Thailand for many years due to its location near the border. The
temple was awarded to Cambodia by a 1907 Franco-Siamese treaty, but disputes over
sovereignty persisted.
1. Jurisdiction (2 marks): In 1959, Cambodia filed a case before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), seeking a declaration that Thailand had violated its sovereignty and territorial
integrity by occupying and using military force near the temple.
2. ICJ Ruling (3 marks): In 1962, the ICJ delivered its judgment, affirming Cambodia's
sovereignty over the Temple of Preah Vihear. The court ruled that the temple and its vicinity
were situated within Cambodian territory and that Thailand had violated Cambodia's
sovereignty by its military presence in the area.
 3. Significance (3 marks): The Temple of Preah Vihear case is significant for several reasons.
Firstly, it demonstrates the importance of peaceful settlement of disputes through
international legal mechanisms. The ICJ provided a forum for the resolution of a long-
standing territorial dispute between two nations.
4. Impact (3 marks): The case also had broader implications for the interpretation of treaties
and the principles of international law governing territorial disputes. It reaffirmed the
principle of uti possidetis juris, which upholds the borders of newly independent states based
on colonial administrative boundaries at the time of independence.
5. Ongoing Issues (2 marks): Despite the ICJ ruling, tensions over the Temple of Preah Vihear
have persisted intermittently between Cambodia and Thailand. The case underscores the
challenges of implementing and enforcing international legal judgments in complex territorial
disputes.

In summary, the Temple of Preah Vihear case serves as a significant example of the role of
international judicial bodies in resolving territorial disputes and upholding principles of international
law, while also highlighting the complexities and challenges involved in the implementation of such
rulings in practice.

Here's an explanation of the withdrawal of recognition in public international law:

1. Nature of Recognition (2 marks): Recognition is a fundamental aspect of statehood in

international law, as it signifies the acceptance of a particular entity as a sovereign state or
legitimate government. Recognition can be either de facto (based on facts) or de jure (based
on legal principles).
2. Reasons for Withdrawal (3 marks): States may choose to withdraw recognition for various
reasons, including changes in government that undermine democratic principles or human
rights, illegal or unconstitutional actions by the recognized entity, or geopolitical
considerations that necessitate a shift in diplomatic alliances.
3. Legal Implications (3 marks): The withdrawal of recognition does not automatically alter
the legal status of the recognized entity in international law. However, it may have significant
diplomatic and practical consequences, such as the cessation of diplomatic relations, the
closure of diplomatic missions, and the imposition of sanctions or other measures.
4. Recognition as Political Act (2 marks): Recognition and its withdrawal are inherently
political acts, reflecting the foreign policy objectives and interests of the recognizing state. As
such, they are subject to the discretion and judgment of the recognizing state's government.
5. International Practice (2 marks): The withdrawal of recognition has occurred in various
historical and contemporary contexts, such as during periods of regime change, civil conflict,
or international disputes. Examples include changes in recognition during the breakup of
Yugoslavia or shifts in recognition policies towards governments in exile.

In summary, the withdrawal of recognition is a complex and politically significant act in public
international law, reflecting changes in diplomatic relations and the evolving dynamics of statehood
and sovereignty in the international arena. While it does not automatically alter the legal status of the
recognized entity, it can have profound implications for diplomatic relations and international
legitimacy.

Luther v. Sagor Case (KB, CoA 1921)

Subject matter — Conclusiveness of Statements by Executive — Recognition of Foreign

Governments and States.
Facts:

Luther was a British Citizen who used to run a Timber industry in Soviet Russia. On 1917 the Russian
Government nationalized his factory and thereafter Mr Luther left Russia and went to the UK. In 1920
Mr. Sagor came to an agreement with Russian Nationalized business company to buy some timber,
the company sent timbers accordingly but when timers reached in UK Mr. Luther claimed that those
timbers were his timbers, he pointed that as UK never recognized the government of Russia, as well
as Russia, wrongfully took over his factory. Therefore, the civilized court of UK cannot validate the
rule of Russian law.

Issue:

The question of whether Russia is recognised by Britain was brought before the King's Bench
Division. And how lawful or genuine was the nationalisation?

Holding of the court:

The court held that the recognition of the state was retroactive in effect, thus the change of govt and
the delay in recognising the new govt would have no impact before the English courts. t was held that
the British Government recognized the Government of Russia and the retrospective effect will be
applicable for that recognition. So the Nationalization by Russia was legal and valid. Kings Bench
Division considered the following matters: That the British Government provided de-facto recognition
of the present government of Russia. That the recognition of Russia had retrospective effect,
therefore, the time in question is not a concern. That, in the matter of effective relationships and in the
question of law De-facto or De-jury recognition does not create any real difference

BANK OF EUTHOPIA: Fact: An Italian decree promulgated after the capture of Addis Ababa in
1936 purported to dissolve the Bank of Ethiopia. That Bank claimed certain accounts and orders
against the National Bank of Egypt and against the liquidator appointed under the Italian decree

Issues:
1. whether the Bank of Ethiopia had been dissolved or had otherwise ceased to exist, and if not,
whether it had authorised the bringing of the action.

Decision: It was held that The Bank of Ethiopia had been dissolved by the Italian decree it had the
authority to bring such action.
Reasoning: The government of Italy was a de facto government in entire control of the territory
occupied and therefore having complete governmental control over that territor

1. RETROSPECTIVE RECOGNITION:
Legal Status Clarification (2 marks): Recognition is a crucial aspect of statehood in
international law. When a state is formally recognized by other states, it gains legal status as a
sovereign entity. The retrospective effect of recognition clarifies the legal status of the
recognized entity before formal recognition.
2. Continuity of Existence (2 marks): Retroactive recognition acknowledges the pre-existing
existence and functioning of the entity as a de facto state or government. It does not create the
state or government retroactively but confirms its status and legal rights during the period
before formal recognition.
3. Confirmation of Rights and Obligations (2 marks): Retroactive recognition typically
confirms the rights and obligations that the recognized entity has already acquired or incurred
during its period of operation without formal recognition. This includes treaty obligations,
property rights, and other legal relationships.
 4. Legal Stability (2 marks): The retrospective effect of recognition contributes to legal
stability by providing certainty regarding the legal status of the recognized entity before and
after formal recognition. It helps to clarify the entity's position in the international community
and its entitlements under international law.
5. International Practice (1 mark): Retroactive recognition is consistent with international
practice and jurisprudence. States and international organizations often acknowledge the legal
continuity of entities that have operated as de facto states or governments before receiving
formal recognition.
6. Limitations and Challenges (1 mark): Despite the retrospective effect of recognition, there
may be limitations or challenges regarding the recognition of rights and obligations acquired
during the period of non-recognition. Disputes or inconsistencies in international law and
practice may arise, particularly in cases where the entity's status was contested or
controversial.

In summary, the retrospective effect of recognition in public international law clarifies the legal status
of entities that have operated as de facto states or governments before receiving formal recognition. It
confirms their rights and obligations acquired during the period of non-recognition and contributes to
legal stability in the international arena.