(a) Following 'World War II' destruction, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund emerged as two historic institutions…

The post-war settlement linked economic recovery with limits on sovereignty. The Bretton Woods Conference of 1944 created the IMF and the World Bank to restore monetary stability and finance reconstruction. The IMF operates through a quota system, which determines voting power, borrowing capacity and allocation of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) that supplement reserve assets. The IMF also provides surveillance and short-term financing to correct balance-of-payments problems. The World Bank’s IBRD lends to middle-income countries, while IDA, replenished by donors, assists the poorest. World Bank projects target infrastructure, health, education and poverty reduction. Their conditionality—fiscal austerity, liberalisation, privatisation and structural adjustment—has been criticised for constraining policy space. Critics argue conditionality can deepen inequality and reduce democratic accountability. India’s 1991 crisis brought it into close IMF and World Bank engagement, leading to liberalisation; post-COVID IMF support and World Bank technical assistance show continuing relevance. India’s voting share has grown with quota reforms, but remains below its economic weight. Such conditionality is economic intervention, contrasting with armed intervention but testing sovereignty.

Extradition and asylum Extradition is surrendering a person to another state for trial or punishment. In India it is governed by the Extradition Act, 1962 and by treaties. Key principles are double criminality and specialty: the offence must be criminal in both states, and prosecution is limited to the extradition offence. Extradition may be refused if the offence is political, if punishment is death or if human rights would be violated. The procedure combines judicial scrutiny of evidence with executive approval. Asylum is different. Article 14 of the UDHR recognises the right to seek and enjoy asylum, but does not create a right to be granted it. Territorial asylum is granted in a state’s territory; diplomatic asylum, normally in diplomatic missions, is exceptional and not generally recognised outside Latin America. Asylum is largely executive and political, often urgent, whereas extradition is a legal process governed by treaties and municipal law. Asylum may be refused where the applicant poses a security threat or is guilty of serious crimes. India’s Mallya and Nirav Modi cases illustrate how dual criminality, treaty status and executive diplomacy shape extradition.

Intervention and self-defence Intervention means one state interfering in another’s internal affairs. Article 2(7) of the UN Charter bars UN organs from intervening in matters essentially domestic; the general prohibition on state intervention is customary, reinforced by Article 2(4)’s ban on force. Humanitarian intervention is the use of force to stop mass atrocities. The 2005 World Summit’s Responsibility to Protect obliges states to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and permits Security Council action if a state fails. Humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorisation raises the problem of who decides, risking abuse. Kosovo in 1999, where NATO acted without a Security Council mandate, remains controversial; the Syria debate shows how politicisation limits humanitarian intervention. Article 51 allows individual or collective self-defence after an armed attack until the Security Council acts. The Caroline test requires necessity, proportionality and immediacy; the Nicaragua case clarified that self-defence requires an armed attack, not mere frontier incidents. The Nicaragua case also rejected collective self-defence without the consent of the attacked state. Preemptive self-defence against an imminent attack is debated, while preventive force against a future threat is generally rejected. India’s position on Ukraine emphasises respect for sovereignty and opposition to unilateral intervention.

Conclusion The Bretton Woods institutions, extradition and asylum, and intervention all show that sovereignty is not absolute. The way forward is to anchor economic conditionality, extradition and humanitarian action in transparent multilateral rules, preserving sovereignty while protecting stability and human rights.