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.