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

(a) The Bretton Woods Conference (July 1944) created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD), the core of the World Bank. Their purpose was to avoid a repeat of the inter-war disorder: competitive devaluations, exchange controls, trade collapse and depression. They were also meant to finance recovery after the devastation of the Second World War.

IMF: guardian of the monetary system

• Purposes (Article I of the Articles of Agreement): international monetary cooperation, balanced growth of trade, exchange stability, a multilateral payments system free of exchange restrictions, and temporary financing to correct balance-of-payments disequilibria.
• Par value system: currencies were pegged to the US dollar, which was convertible into gold at $35 an ounce. The system collapsed when dollar convertibility was suspended in 1971. The Jamaica Accords (1976) and the Second Amendment (1978) legalised floating rates. Article IV now requires surveillance of members' policies.
• Resources and governance: quotas determine subscriptions, voting power and access to finance. Special Drawing Rights were created in 1969; a general allocation of about US$650 billion was made in 2021 during COVID-19.
• Lending: stand-by arrangements, the Extended Fund Facility, and concessional lending through the Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust, subject to conditionality.

World Bank: reconstruction and development

• The IBRD's first loans financed European reconstruction (France, 1947), before the Marshall Plan took over. The Bank then shifted to development.
• The World Bank Group grew to five institutions: the IBRD, IDA (1960, concessional credits to the poorest countries), the IFC (private sector), MIGA (political risk insurance) and ICSID (investment disputes).
• It finances infrastructure, health, education, poverty reduction and, increasingly, climate action.

Contribution

• Post-war recovery and decades of monetary stability.
• Crisis lending: the debt crisis of the 1980s, Asia in 1997, and the eurozone.
• A global financial safety net.
• Knowledge and technical assistance.

India: a founding member, which drew on IMF support in 1981 and in the 1991 balance-of-payments crisis. The 1991 programme accompanied liberalisation. India has been a major IBRD and IDA borrower and is now an IDA contributor.

Criticisms and reforms

• Governance: voting is skewed. The US holds about 16.5% of votes, which gives it a veto over decisions requiring an 85% majority. By convention, the IMF head is European and the Bank president American.
• Conditionality: the Washington Consensus of austerity, privatisation and liberalisation, with social costs in structural adjustment programmes.

Reform:

• Quota reform is slow: the 2010 reforms took effect only in 2016, and the 16th Review (2023) increased quotas without realigning shares.
• Developing countries have demanded better representation, including at the G20.
• Newer institutions have emerged, such as the AIIB and the New Development Bank.
• The World Bank is being reformed through its "Evolution Roadmap" to focus on global public goods.

Conclusion: the two institutions rebuilt the post-war economy and still anchor global finance. Their legitimacy now depends on governance reform, flexible conditionality and a stronger role in development and climate finance.

(b) Extradition is the formal surrender of a person by one State to another, at the latter's request, for trial or to serve a sentence. International law imposes no duty to extradite without a treaty, but there is a strong practice of aut dedere aut judicare (extradite or prosecute) in multilateral conventions on terrorism, drugs and corruption.

Principles

• Double criminality.
• Extraditable offences, usually defined by a minimum penalty.
• The rule of specialty.
• The political offence exception, now narrowed for terrorism.
• Non-extradition of nationals, for civil-law States.
• Human-rights bars, such as the risk of torture or an unfair trial (Soering v. UK (1989)).
• Assurances regarding the death penalty.

Indian law: the Extradition Act, 1962

• Requests to and from treaty and non-treaty States are routed through the Central Government (the Ministry of External Affairs).
• For requests from foreign States, the Central Government may order a magistrate's inquiry (Section 5). The magistrate examines the evidence and reports (Section 7). The Government may then order surrender (Section 8), subject to the restrictions in Section 31: political offences, time bar and specialty.
• If the offence carries the death penalty in the requesting State but not in India, the maximum punishment is life imprisonment (Section 34C).
• Outgoing requests go through diplomatic channels and treaty procedures, followed by judicial proceedings abroad. Examples:
• Nirav Modi: extradition ordered by UK courts in 2021–22;
• Vijay Mallya: surrender ordered in 2019 and upheld on appeal in 2020, but delayed by a confidential legal process;
• Tahawwur Rana: extradited from the US in April 2025.

Asylum is the protection a State grants on its territory (territorial asylum) or, exceptionally, in its missions (diplomatic asylum) to a person fleeing persecution.

• Article 14 of the UDHR recognises a right to seek and enjoy asylum, but there is no right to be granted it. Granting asylum is an exercise of sovereignty.
• The 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol protect refugees, and non-refoulement (Article 33) is widely regarded as customary.
• Diplomatic asylum is not recognised as general custom (Asylum case, Colombia v. Peru (1950); Haya de la Torre (1951)), although Latin American conventions such as Caracas (1954) provide for it.

Why the two procedures differ

• Nature: extradition is a legal-judicial process governed by treaty and statute, with a court inquiry and an executive decision; asylum is largely a discretionary executive or administrative decision (refugee status determination).
• Initiative: extradition is initiated by the requesting State; asylum by the individual.
• Aim: extradition serves cooperation in criminal justice; asylum serves humanitarian protection.
• Test applied: extradition tests the evidence and double criminality; asylum tests a well-founded fear of persecution.
• Outcome: extradition leads to surrender; asylum leads to protection against surrender. Leads to protection against surrender |

The two procedures intersect: the political offence exception and non-refoulement can block extradition.

India is not party to the 1951 Convention. It deals with asylum-seekers under executive policy (standard operating procedures on long-term visas) and the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, which replaced the Foreigners Act, 1946. Article 21 applies to all persons (NHRC v. State of Arunachal Pradesh (1996)).

(c) Intervention is dictatorial interference by a State in the internal or external affairs of another State, involving coercion (Oppenheim). The Nicaragua case (1986) held that intervention is wrongful when it uses coercion in matters that each State may decide freely, such as its political system or foreign policy. It is prohibited by:

• customary law;
• the Friendly Relations Declaration (1970);
• Article 2(4) of the Charter, where force is used.

Article 2(7) separately bars the UN itself from intervening in domestic matters, except for enforcement under Chapter VII. Force is lawful only with Security Council authorisation under Chapter VII, in self-defence under Article 51, or, arguably, with the valid consent of the territorial State.

Humanitarian intervention This means the use of force by States to stop mass atrocities in another State without its consent.

• Examples:
• India in East Pakistan (1971), which India justified mainly by self-defence and the refugee influx;
• Tanzania in Uganda (1979);
• NATO in Kosovo (1999), without Security Council authorisation.
• The Independent Kosovo Commission called that intervention "illegal but legitimate".
• Unilateral humanitarian intervention lacks a clear basis in the Charter and is open to abuse.
• The Responsibility to Protect (2005 World Summit Outcome, paras 138–139) reframes the issue:
• each State must protect its population from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity;
• the international community should assist;
• if a State manifestly fails, collective action may be taken through the Security Council. Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya is an example, and the later regime change there caused controversy.

Intervention in self-defence Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, until the Security Council acts. Measures taken must be reported to the Council.

Conditions:

• necessity and proportionality (the Caroline formula of 1837: necessity that is "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means"; Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996));
• an "armed attack" of sufficient gravity (Nicaragua);
• for collective self-defence, a declaration and request by the victim State (Nicaragua);
• evidence of attribution (Oil Platforms (2003)).

Contested areas:

• Anticipatory self-defence against an imminent attack is debated, while preventive war is widely rejected.
• Self-defence against non-State actors: Wall Advisory Opinion (2004) and DRC v. Uganda (2005) took a restrictive view. Post-9/11 practice, including Security Council Resolution 1368, and the "unwilling or unable" doctrine are more permissive.
• India invoked a right to respond to cross-border terrorism in its strikes of 2016, 2019 and May 2025 (Operation Sindoor, after the Pahalgam attack). It described them as targeted and non-escalatory action against terrorist infrastructure.

Distinction: self-defence is a Charter-recognised right triggered by an armed attack against the State itself. Humanitarian intervention protects foreign nationals from their own government and, outside Security Council authorisation, remains legally doubtful.