(a) "Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still, as it needs to reconcile the conflicting needs of stability and change…

Traditional International Law versus New International Law

International law constantly navigates the tension between legal predictability and societal evolution. Traditional international law was fundamentally state-centric, Eurocentric, and strictly consent-based, rooted in absolute sovereignty as articulated in the S.S. Lotus Case (1927). It governed bilateral diplomatic relations, recognized the sovereign prerogative of war, and maintained static rules where states were the exclusive subjects.

In contrast, modern international law embraces dynamic multilateralism, recognizing individuals, international organizations, and non-state actors as legitimate subjects. It shifts from purely consent-based bilateralism to erga omnes obligations (Barcelona Traction Case, 1970) and non-derogable jus cogens norms. The post-UN Charter regime fundamentally altered the normative structure by prohibiting the unilateral use of force under Article 2(4).

However, stability appears as a casualty because rapid norm creation through "soft law," evolving principles like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and fast-moving international environmental frameworks outpace the traditional formation of customary international law based on consistent state practice and opinio juris. This creates normative fluidity, challenging structural legal certainty.

Acceptability of International Law Norms in India

India follows a dualist model where international treaties do not automatically become part of municipal law without legislative transformation. Under the Constitution, Article 51(c) directs the State to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations, while Article 253 confers plenary power upon Parliament to enact legislation implementing international treaties and conventions.

The Indian judiciary has adopted a progressive approach by harmonizing municipal jurisprudence with international customary norms and treaty provisions, provided they do not conflict with domestic statutes or the Constitution.

In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court relied on the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to formulate guidelines against workplace sexual harassment in the absence of enacted legislation, reading treaty obligations directly into Articles 14, 19, and 21. Similarly, in PUCL v. Union of India (1997), the Court interpreted the right to privacy under Article 21 in light of Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In the environmental sphere, Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (1996) and Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000) incorporated customary international environmental principles—such as the Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, and Sustainable Development from the Stockholm and Rio Declarations—as integral components of domestic environmental jurisprudence.

Distinction Between Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone

While both maritime zones confer functional sovereign rights rather than territorial sovereignty, they are distinguished by legal regime, scope, and spatial limits under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982:

Legal Regime and Scope: The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under UNCLOS Part V encompasses the entire water column, the seabed, and its subsoil. It grants sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all living and non-living natural resources, as well as economic activities like energy production from water, currents, and winds. In contrast, the Continental Shelf under UNCLOS Part VI is confined strictly to the seabed and subsoil. It confers rights exclusively over non-living mineral resources and sedentary species, without affecting the legal status of the superjacent waters. Rights over the continental shelf exist ipso facto and ab initio, requiring no express proclamation.

Spatial Limits: An EEZ cannot extend beyond 200 nautical miles (nm) from the coastal baseline. Conversely, an extended Continental Shelf can project beyond 200 nm up to the outer edge of the continental margin—capped at 350 nm from baselines or 100 nm from the 2,500-meter isobath.

Illustrations: The dispute over the Enrica Lexie Incident (2012) off Kerala's coast highlighted issues of EEZ resource jurisdiction versus high seas navigation freedoms. In contrast, the Bangladesh v. Myanmar (ITLOS, 2012) adjudication and India's scientific submissions to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS) over the Bay of Bengal illustrate outer continental shelf claims extending well beyond 200 nautical miles.

Thus, international law reconciles stability with progressive development by providing structured maritime zones and allowing domestic legal systems, such as India's, to harmoniously absorb global norms without violating sovereign constitutional limits.