Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Keeping in view the growth of International Law in the contemporary…

(a) Classical Definition of International Law and Contemporary Growth

Lassa Oppenheim classically defined International Law as the body of customary and treaty rules considered legally binding by civilized States in their intercourse with each other. This traditional doctrine treated sovereign states as the exclusive subjects of international law.

In the contemporary era, this classical formulation is not completely redundant, but it is incomplete. State sovereignty remains foundational, yet the subjects of international law have expanded substantially. Today, international legal personality extends to international organizations (UN, WTO), individuals (under International Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law), multinational corporations, and non-state actors. Furthermore, instruments such as the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (notably Article 3, affirming the autonomy of international characterization over domestic law) and the proliferation of non-binding "soft law" instruments regulate matters far beyond inter-state relations, including climate change and global trade. Thus, the classical definition has evolved from an exclusive inter-state compact into a pluralistic, transnational legal order.

(b) Distinction between 'De-facto' and 'De-jure' Recognition

Recognition is the formal acknowledgment by an existing state of the international personality of a new state or government. The key distinctions are:

Nature and Permanence: De-facto recognition is provisional, conditional, and revocable. It is granted when an authority exercises effective control over territory, but doubts remain regarding its permanence. In contrast, de-jure recognition is definitive, complete, and irrevocable, granted when the state fulfills all legal criteria of statehood with established permanence.

Diplomatic Relations and Privileges: De-facto recognition creates informal or limited official relations, often lacking full diplomatic immunities and the capacity to conclude comprehensive bilateral treaties. De-jure recognition automatically accords full diplomatic exchange, complete diplomatic immunities, and treaty-making capacity.

Property and State Succession: A de-jure recognized entity enjoys full rights of state succession over public property situated within the recognizing state's jurisdiction, whereas a de-facto recognized entity's claims are limited and contested.

Illustration: The United Kingdom granted de-facto recognition to the Soviet Government in 1921 via a trade agreement, but delayed de-jure recognition until 1924 once the regime demonstrated political stability.

(c) Territorial Asylum and Extraterritorial Asylum

Asylum refers to the protection and shelter granted by a sovereign state to an individual fleeing persecution.

Territorial Asylum: It is granted by a state within its own physical borders. Flowing directly from territorial sovereignty, every state possesses the plenary right to admit or exclude aliens. It is recognized under Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) and the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, anchored in the customary principle of non-refoulement.

Extraterritorial Asylum: Also known as diplomatic asylum, it is granted outside the physical territory of the asylum-granting state, specifically within its diplomatic missions, consulates, or warships located inside the territory of a foreign host state. Because this acts as an exceptional derogation from the host state's territorial sovereignty, it is not recognized as a general rule of customary international law (as affirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru)). It exists primarily as a regional custom, codified under the Latin American Caracas Convention on Diplomatic Asylum (1954).

(d) Rights of States over Territorial Waters

Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, 1982) and customary international law, a coastal state exercises sovereignty over its territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles, covering the waters, airspace, seabed, and subsoil. The principal rights include:

Right of Innocent Passage (Article 17): While foreign vessels enjoy the right of innocent passage, the coastal state has the right to regulate it for safety and environmental protection, and may temporarily suspend it for security reasons (Article 25).

Jurisdictional Rights: The coastal state exercises criminal and civil jurisdiction over offences committed aboard foreign vessels within its waters if the consequences of the crime disturb the peace of the port or extend to the coastal state (reflecting the territorial principle in the SS Lotus case).

Right of Hot Pursuit (Article 111): The coastal state may pursue and arrest foreign vessels that violate its laws within its territorial waters or Contiguous Zone (Article 33).

Resource Exploitation: Exclusive sovereign rights to exploit living and mineral resources within these waters. In India, these rights are enacted under the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, EEZ and other Maritime Zones Act, 1976 (originating in the Territorial Waters Order, 1967).

(e) Distinction between Arbitration and Judicial Settlement

Both arbitration and judicial settlement are peaceful, binding methods of dispute resolution under Article 33 of the UN Charter, but they differ fundamentally in structure, procedure, and jurisdiction:

Composition and Tribunal Selection: In arbitration, the disputing parties select the arbitrators and determine the composition of an ad hoc tribunal or utilize institutional rosters like the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), as seen in the Alabama Claims arbitration. In judicial settlement, cases are heard by a pre-constituted, permanent body of judges whose composition the parties cannot alter (such as the ICJ or ITLOS).

Procedure and Applicable Law: In arbitration, the parties retain autonomy to set procedural rules and specify the applicable law (or authorize decisions ex aequo et bono). In judicial settlement, procedures, evidence rules, and substantive laws are predetermined by statutory codes (e.g., Article 38 of the ICJ Statute).

Jurisdictional Basis: Arbitration relies exclusively on specific party consent through a compromis or arbitral clause. Judicial settlement can proceed on compulsory jurisdiction, such as declarations made under the Optional Clause of Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute.

Precedent: Judicial settlements produce an institutional body of jurisprudence, whereas arbitral awards bind strictly the parties to that specific proceeding.