Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Discuss the various efforts made towards the codification…

(a) The 20th century moved international law from customary practice toward deliberate codification. The Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 began this process by codifying rules on the conduct of war and peaceful settlement of disputes. The 1930 Hague Codification Conference, though it did not produce a general code, identified major topics and showed the difficulty of securing broad participation. The League of Nations continued preparatory work, while the UN Charter, Article 13(1), charged the General Assembly with encouraging progressive development and codification. The International Law Commission, established in 1947, became the principal organ, drafting the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), and the Articles on State Responsibility. These instruments converted customary rules into treaty law, though their universal acceptance remains uneven. The process was not uniform: many conventions remain optional, and customary law continues to fill gaps.

(b) The relationship between international and municipal law is explained by monism and dualism. Monists treat them as one legal system; Kelsen located the ultimate norm, the grundnorm, in international law, giving it primacy. Dualists, such as Triepel and Anzilotti, regard them as distinct orders, so an international rule must enter municipal law through a domestic act. Procedural theories explain the bridge: transformation requires a legislative or executive act to adopt the norm; incorporation makes certain international rules automatically part of domestic law; delegation allows states to confer authority on international institutions; and harmonization seeks to align domestic statutes with treaty obligations. In practice, states often combine these theories, using incorporation for human rights and transformation for criminal law. India follows a transformation-like approach: Article 253 empowers Parliament to make laws implementing international obligations, while the Vishaka Guidelines show how courts can fill gaps using international norms until legislation is enacted.

(c) Double criminality requires that the conduct for which extradition is sought be criminal in both the requesting and the requested state. It is a safeguard against political or moral disagreement and appears in most extradition treaties. Double criminality may be assessed at the time of the act or at extradition, depending on the treaty. The Rule of Speciality requires that the extradited person be tried or punished only for the offence specified in the request, unless the receiving state obtains consent or the sending state permits another prosecution. R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison (Ex parte Osman) illustrates judicial scrutiny of speciality in extradition. India’s Extradition Act, 1962, gives effect to these principles: extradition is governed by the applicable treaty or the Act’s definition of an extradition offence, and Section 29 restricts trial or punishment for other offences unless consent is obtained. Together, the rules balance cooperation with individual liberty.

(d) Double nationality means a person is simultaneously a citizen of two or more states; statelessness means a person is not considered a national by any state under its law. The 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness attacks statelessness by requiring states to grant nationality to foundlings, children born on territory at risk of statelessness, and in cases of succession or marriage. Its effectiveness is limited by low ratification and by states’ reluctance to surrender control over citizenship. The 1963 European Convention on Nationality addresses double nationality within Europe, but it does not impose a universal ban; many states still regulate or permit dual citizenship. India’s Citizenship Act, 1955, reduces double nationality by terminating Indian citizenship under Section 10 when a person voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship, while Section 5 registration for persons of Indian origin helps maintain links. Yet this single-citizenship rule can create statelessness if no other state grants nationality, showing the need for coordinated treaty and domestic reform.

(e) Intervention is dictatorial interference by one state in the internal or external affairs of another. The general prohibition on State intervention is customary international law, affirmed in the Friendly Relations Declaration and the Nicaragua case, while Article 2(7) of the UN Charter only restricts UN action in matters within domestic jurisdiction. States justify intervention on several grounds: consent or invitation; collective security under Chapter VII; self-defence under Article 51; protection of nationals, as in the Tunis and Morocco incidents of 1956; and humanitarian intervention, debated after NATO’s 1999 Kosovo action. Non-forceful measures, such as diplomatic pressure, are also regulated by the non-intervention principle. The Security Council’s veto can block collective action. These grounds show tension between sovereignty and protection. A workable approach is to keep consent and Security Council authorisation as the primary bases, while developing clearer, limited humanitarian criteria to prevent abuse.