(a) Is it a legal duty of States under international law to settle their disputes by peaceful means? Can failure of peaceful…

Peaceful Settlement of Disputes and the Use of Force

Under international law, States have a positive legal duty to settle disputes amicably. Article 2(3) of the UN Charter obliges all members to settle international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security, and justice are not endangered. Article 33(1) reinforces this by mandating that parties to any dispute likely to endanger peace shall first seek a solution through negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, or regional arrangements.

However, the duty to seek peaceful settlement under Article 33 is legally distinct from the absolute prohibition on the threat or use of force under Article 2(4), which constitutes a peremptory norm (jus cogens). Consequently, the mere failure, breakdown, or exhaustion of peaceful means does not automatically entitle a State to resort to armed force. Force is lawful only under two strictly defined Charter exceptions: individual or collective self-defence in response to an armed attack under Article 51, and collective security enforcement authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) affirmed in the Nicaragua Case (1986) and the Oil Platforms Case (2003) that the use of force is governed strictly by the criteria of necessity and proportionality under customary international law, rather than the impasse of diplomatic negotiations. India has consistently upheld this normative framework, favoring bilateral, peaceful dispute resolution through direct dialogue—as reflected in the Simla Agreement (1972)—while maintaining force solely as a measure of lawful self-defence.

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

The legality of nuclear weapons under international law was addressed by the ICJ in its 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The Court unanimously held that the threat or use of force by nuclear weapons is subject to Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the UN Charter, and must comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL)—including the principles of distinction, proportionality, and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering—as well as international environmental obligations. The Court affirmed that an unlawful use of force ipso facto makes the corresponding threat unlawful.

On the core issue of legality, the Court was divided (7–7, decided by President Bedjaoui’s casting vote). It concluded that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be "generally contrary" to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict. However, the Court could not reach a definitive conclusion on whether their use would be lawful or unlawful in an "extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

While the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) mandates nuclear disarmament under Article VI, recent customary and conventional efforts have advanced through the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW, 2017). India, maintaining a policy of credible minimum deterrence, aligns with IHL constraints through its doctrine of "No First Use" (NFU) and non-use against non-nuclear-weapon States.

Role of the United Nations in Environmental Protection

The UN has spearheaded the normative and institutional architecture of global environmental governance:

The 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm) laid the foundation of international environmental law and created the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). This evolved into the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development (Rio Earth Summit), which produced the Rio Declaration, Agenda 21, and the foundational Rio Conventions: the UNFCCC, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the UNCCD. Subsequent milestones include the 2002 Johannesburg Summit and the 2030 Agenda featuring Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs 13, 14, and 15).

Institutionally, UNEP, the UNFCCC Secretariat, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) drive scientific consensus and treaty implementation. The UN General Assembly has recognized the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, while the Security Council increasingly examines climate-induced security risks.

The UN framework crystallized core principles: Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR), the Precautionary Principle, and the Polluter Pays Principle. India actively participates in UN environmental regimes, enacting the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 following Stockholm. Domestically, the Supreme Court of India integrated these UN principles into Article 21 jurisprudence in landmark rulings such as Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (1996) and the M.C. Mehta series of cases.

Way Forward

To strengthen international rule of law, the UN must bridge the compliance gap across all three domains: codifying absolute prohibitions on nuclear use through universal multilateral instruments, strengthening Chapter VII enforcement to deter unilateral resort to force, and operationalizing the principle of intergenerational equity to enforce state accountability for global environmental degradation.