(..2..)
STATE
QUESTION BANK
1. Explain the concept of State under International Law. What are the kinds, rights and duties of the State under International Law?
2. What is recognition? Explain the kinds and significance of recognition.
3. Comment on the concept, basis, kinds and consequences of State Responsibility.
4. What is the concept of State Jurisdiction? How can a state exercise criminal jurisdiction on “Terrorism” and “Hijacking”?
5. Discus meaning, basis and kinds of “State Responsibility”.
6. Explain the concept of international legal responsibility. What are the kinds of State Responsibility?
7. What do you mean by ‘Recognition of State”. Explain the kinds and theories of Recognition of State.
8. Explain State responsibility. Explain its basis and kinds. State the responsibility of International organisations.
9. Explain the concept of ‘State Succession. State the kinds and theories of State Succession.
10. Explain the concept of “State succession”. State kinds and consequences of state succession.
Short Notes
1. State Recognition.
2. Kinds of State Succession.
3. State succession.
SYNOPSIS
I. Introduction
II. Definitions of ‘State’
1. Aristotle
2. Cicero
3. Stephen L. Wasby
4. Chambers
5. John Salmond
6. Montevideo Convention
III. Characteristics and Essential Ingredients of a ‘State’
1. Definite Territory
2. Permanent Population
3. Government
4. Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States
IV. Kinds of States
1. Sovereign States
a. Internal Sovereignty
b. External Sovereignty
2. Not-Fully Sovereign States
a) Protectorate States
b) Vassal States
c) Federal States
d) Trust Territories
3. Non-Typical States
a) Holy See (Vatican City)
b) Neutralized States
c) Free Cities
V. Rights and Duties of States
1. Rights of States
a. Right to Independence
b. Right to Territorial Jurisdiction
c. Right to Equality
d. Right to Self-Defense
e. Economic Rights
2. Duties of States
a. Duty to Refrain from Intervention
b. Duty to Refrain from Fomenting Civil Strife
c. Duty to Respect Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
d. Duty to Ensure International Peace
e. Duty to Settle Disputes by Peaceful Means
f. Duty to Refrain from Resorting to War
g. Duty to Refrain from Assisting a Delinquent State
h. Duty to Refrain from Recognizing Territorial Acquisitions
i. Duty to Carry Out Obligations in Good Faith
j. Duty to Conduct Relations in Accordance with International Law
k. Economic Duties
VI. Conclusion
*****
I. Introduction
In the matrix of global jurisprudence, the State is universally recognized as the primary and foundational subject of International Law. Historically, classical International Law was almost exclusively concerned with the rights, duties, territorial interests, and bilateral or multilateral relations between sovereign nations. Under this orthodox view, the State was regarded as the sole entity possessing international legal personality.
However, with the rapid evolution of the global order, the absolute exclusivity of statehood was challenged. The international legal framework progressively expanded its horizons to include individuals, international organizations, and diverse non-state entities as valid subjects. Despite these significant modern developments, the State remains the principal actor and the central pivot around which the rules of international relations revolve. Consequently, a comprehensive and detailed examination of the concept, legal definitions, characteristics, and classifications of the 'State' is indispensable for a nuanced understanding of public international law.
II. Definitions of ‘State’
The concept of a ‘State’ has been interpreted differently by various political philosophers, classical jurists, and international conventions, reflecting the evolution of political thought and international law across eras.
1. Aristotle
The classical Greek philosopher Aristotle defined the State from a socio-political perspective, calling it “a union of families and villages having for its end a perfect and self-sufficient life, by which we mean a happy and honourable life.” This ancient definition anchors the state in its moral and social utility to human communities rather than its modern legal personality.
2. Cicero
The Roman statesman and jurist Marcus Tullius Cicero offered a more legally oriented definition, stating that “the State is a numerous society, united by a common sense of right and mutual participation in advantages.” Cicero’s definition emphasizes the foundational role of shared legal concepts and collective welfare.
3. Stephen L. Wasby
Approaching the concept through the lens of modern political science, Stephen L. Wasby defined a state as “a collection of people in a certain territory, having an organised Government and possessing autonomy with respect to other such units.” This definition introduces the structural elements of territorial boundaries and administrative autonomy.
4. Chambers
According to the Chambers definition, “a State is an independent political society occupying a definite territory or territories, the members of which are united together for the purpose of resisting external force and the preservation of internal order.” This perspective highlights the dual protective functions of a state: external defense and internal security.
5. John Salmond
The eminent jurist Sir John Salmond provided a functionally robust definition, stating that the State is “an association of human beings established for the attainment of certain ends by certain means, the ends being defense against external enemies and the maintenance of peaceable and orderly relations within the community itself.” Salmond underscores the institutional purpose of law and order within a distinct human collective.
6. Montevideo Convention
From the perspective of contemporary public international law, the most definitive and legally binding definition is provided by Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933). It states:
“The State as a person of International Law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) a Government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other States.”
This criteria provides the bedrock for evaluating statehood and international legal personality in modern global affairs.
III. Characteristics and Essential Ingredients of a ‘State’
Synthesizing classical definitions and the statutory criteria of the Montevideo Convention, four essential ingredients must coexist for an entity to achieve statehood under international law.
1. Definite Territory
To be recognized as a State, an entity must possess a fixed geographical area over which it exercises sovereign jurisdiction. Public international law does not prescribe any minimum or lower limit for territorial size. Consequently, micro-states like Nauru, with an area of merely 21 square kilometers (eight square miles), and Vatican City, covering a mere 100 acres, are fully recognized sovereign States. Furthermore, absolute clarity or a total absence of border disputes is not a prerequisite for statehood. As long as the core territory is stable, ongoing boundary disputes with neighboring countries do not compromise or negate the entity's underlying statehood.
2. Permanent Population
A State must be inhabited by a stable, permanent human community. Similar to territory, international law mandates no lower limit on population size. For example, the Republic of Nauru is a recognized sovereign state despite having a small population of approximately 10,000 inhabitants. Similarly, Vatican City maintains its statehood with a resident population of roughly 800 citizens.
Crucially, the requirement of a permanent population does not mean that the community must be homogeneous in terms of race, ethnicity, tribe, religion, or language. The primary legal requirement is that the population must be settled within the territory, establishing a stable societal bond.
3. Government
An essential attribute of statehood is the existence of an organized, functional, and effective government. This political authority must be capable of maintaining law, order, and administrative control throughout the defined territory. Both fully independent states and dependent entities (such as protectorates or colonies transitioning toward independence) rely on their governance structures to engage with international law.
The presence of an effective government, backed by centralized administrative and legislative organs, ensures internal stability and demonstrates the entity's capacity to fulfill its international obligations. Importantly, under the principle of continuity of states, a State does not cease to exist if it is temporarily deprived of a functioning central government due to a civil war, internal rebellion, or systemic breakdown of domestic law and order.
4. Capacity to Enter into Relations with Other States
An entity must possess the legal and political capacity to independently conduct foreign affairs and enter into diplomatic, treaty-based relations with other sovereign states. This element represents the external manifestation of sovereignty. If an entity is entirely blocked by another power from conducting independent foreign policy, its claim to full statehood under international law is compromised.
IV. Kinds of States
While the presence of the four essential ingredients of the Montevideo Convention is necessary for standard statehood, international law recognizes that entities do not need to possess absolute, unrestricted sovereignty to be treated as subjects of international law. Non-sovereign or partially sovereign political entities can also possess limited international personality. International law categorizes these entities into distinct classifications:
1. Sovereign States
As articulated by political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, a sovereign or independent State represents the supreme and absolute power within its political domain. Sovereignty implies total independence—both within its domestic borders and in its external interactions. A fully sovereign state exhibits two dimensions of power:
a. Internal Sovereignty
This refers to a State’s complete freedom from internal interference or subordination. Its central political authority is entirely free to make domestic decisions, adopt any constitution it deems fit, organize its internal administration, enact laws, and maintain defense forces without being subservient to any external or domestic rival power. Internal sovereignty assumes the absence of a puppet government that merely takes orders from a foreign master.
b. External Sovereignty
This presupposes the complete absence of external dictation or control over the State's foreign affairs. No foreign nation can prescribe rules of conduct to a genuinely sovereign State. The state is free to frame its own foreign policy, establish diplomatic missions, and enter into international treaties. Globally recognized nations such as India, the United States of America, China, and France are classic examples of fully sovereign states.
2. Not-Fully Sovereign States
An entity can participate in certain international legal processes without being fully sovereign. Not-fully sovereign states are political entities that remain structurally subject to the overarching authority or control of one or more foreign states. They generally fall into the following historical and analytical categories:
a) Protectorate States
A protectorate is a State that, through a formal bilateral treaty, places itself under the protection of a stronger State. In doing so, it surrenders control over its foreign relations and external defense to the protecting power while retaining a large measure of internal autonomy over its domestic governance.
Historically, Morocco became a protectorate of France via the Treaty of Fez in 1912. Similarly, Bhutan entered into a close, specialized relationship with India through the Indo-Bhutan Treaty of Friendship in 1949, agreeing to be guided by India’s advice in its foreign relations. This relationship was updated via a revised treaty in 2007, reflecting Bhutan’s evolution into a fully independent UN member state while preserving deep bilateral ties with India.
b) Vassal States
A state that exists under the direct suzerainty of another dominant state is termed a ‘Vassal State’. The suzerain state completely absorbs and manages all international relations of the vassal state, leaving the latter with no independent capacity to enter into treaties or foreign alliances. Historically, Tibet’s complex geopolitical relationship with China prior to mid-20th-century treaties was frequently analyzed through the legal lens of suzerainty and vassalage.
c) Federal States
A Federal State is a sovereign political union composed of several constituent states or provinces. This union is governed by a supreme federal constitution accepted by all member states. Individual provinces or states within a federation are generally not recognized as independent international persons; they are neither full nor half-sovereign entities on the international stage. Instead, the central federal government holds exclusive external sovereignty, exercising international powers and conducting foreign relationships.
For instance, India is a federal union consisting of 28 States and 8 Union Territories, where only the Central Government can legally bind the nation internationally. This principle was firmly reinforced by the Supreme Court of India in the landmark case of State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963), where the Court held that the Indian Constitution does not vest absolute sovereignty in the constituent states, and external sovereignty rests solely with the Union of India. Similarly, the United States of America acts as a single sovereign actor representing its 50 constituent states globally.
d) Trust Territories
Following the conclusion of the First World War, the League of Nations established the Mandate System, which was later transformed by the United Nations into the International Trusteeship System under Chapter XII of the UN Charter. This system placed eleven territories that were unable to independently manage their own affairs under the administrative control of developed nations. These trust territories lacked sovereignty and were administered by designated powers like Australia, Belgium, France, Italy, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, under strict UN supervision. Over time, all territories under the trusteeship system successfully transitioned into independent nations or chose to integrate with neighboring states. The system became non-operational following the full independence of Palau.
3. Non-Typical States
Certain unique international entities hold international legal personality and participate in international law, but they do not fit the typical definition of a geopolitical state.
a) Holy See (Vatican City)
The Holy See is an exceptional sovereign entity under international law. It operates from Vatican City, a landlocked enclave within Rome, Italy, encompassing an area of about 0.44 square kilometers and holding a resident population of roughly 800 citizens. While ‘Vatican City’ refers to the physical territory, the ‘Holy See’ refers to the supreme central governing organ of the global Roman Catholic Church, headed by the Pope. The Pope acts as the sovereign monarch of this entity. The Holy See maintains an active, globally recognized international personality, enters into treaties (concordats), enjoys full diplomatic relations with the vast majority of nations, holds permanent observer status at the United Nations, and functions as a recognized subject of international law.
b) Neutralized States
A Neutralized State is a sovereign state that, by virtue of an international agreement or a unilateral constitutional declaration ratified by other major powers, permanently undertakes not to take up arms against any other state except in absolute self-defense. In return, the international community agrees to permanently respect the territorial integrity and neutrality of that state.
Switzerland stands as the most prominent contemporary example of a permanently neutralized state, maintaining its strict neutrality through global conflicts. Historically, nations like Belgium and Luxembourg were neutralized states, but their status altered significantly following the geopolitical realignments of the First and Second World Wars.
c) Free Cities
Free Cities represent a historical category of subjects under international law where an individual city or small urban enclave is constituted as an independent, self-governing state under international supervision. Historically, the Free City of Cracow and the Free City of Danzig were created via international settlements to defuse regional geopolitical tensions. Similarly, following the Second World War, the Free Territory of Trieste was established under the direct supervision of the United Nations Security Council, though it was eventually dissolved and partitioned between Italy and Yugoslavia, rendering the concept of free cities largely a matter of historical precedent in modern international relations.
V. Rights and Duties of States
To maintain global order, peace, and systemic stability, the International Law Commission (ILC) drafted the Declaration on Rights and Duties of States (1949). These principles define the scope of state interaction.
1. Rights of States
a. Right to Independence
Every State possesses an inherent right to external and internal independence. It is entitled to exercise all its legal powers freely, without dictation, coercion, or interference from any other foreign power, including the absolute right to choose its own political, social, and economic form of government.
b. Right to Territorial Jurisdiction
Every State enjoys exclusive jurisdiction over its defined territory, as well as over all persons, properties, and things situated therein, subject only to the specific immunities and exceptions recognized by international law (such as diplomatic immunity). In Republic of Italy v. Union of India, (2013) 4 SCC 721 (the Enrica Lexie case), the Supreme Court examined India's criminal jurisdiction over an incident occurring in its maritime zones in the light of the Maritime Zones Act, 1976 and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The Court held that India was competent to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the alleged offence committed in the Contiguous Zone because Parliament had validly extended the operation of Indian criminal law to that area. At the same time, the Court clarified that the prosecution could not be conducted by the State of Kerala, and directed that a Special Court be constituted under the authority of the Union of India. The judgment reaffirmed that the exercise of criminal jurisdiction in maritime areas must conform both to India's municipal law and to the jurisdictional framework recognised under international maritime law.
c. Right to Equality
Every State, regardless of its physical size, economic wealth, or military power, has the right to complete equality in law with every other State. This principle underpins the system of sovereign equality reflected in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter.
d. Right to Self-Defense
In accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, every State possesses an inherent right to individual or collective self-defense against an active armed attack. This right allows a nation to protect its territorial integrity until the UN Security Council takes measures to maintain international peace and security.
e. Economic Rights
As codified in the UN Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (1974), every State has the explicit right to:
i. Freely choose its own economic system without external coercion.
ii. Exercise full, permanent sovereignty over all its natural resources and economic activities.
iii. Engage freely in international trade and cooperation.
iv. Associate with organizations of hydrocarbon or raw material producers.
v. Participate fully and equitably in global international decision-making processes.
vi. Access and benefit from the transfer of science and technology.
2. Duties of States
a. Duty to Refrain from Intervention
Every State is under a strict legal obligation to refrain from intervening, directly or indirectly, in the internal or external affairs of any other State. This is known as the principle of non-intervention.
b. Duty to Refrain from Fomenting Civil Strife
Nations are strictly prohibited from instigating, encouraging, or tolerating subversive, terrorist, or armed activities within their borders aimed at fomenting civil strife, rebellion, or unrest inside the territory of another State.
c. Duty to Respect Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Every State is duty-bound to treat all individuals within its territorial jurisdiction with dignity and to protect their fundamental human rights and freedoms, without making any adverse distinctions based on race, sex, language, or religion.
The Indian judiciary has integrated this international duty into domestic jurisprudence. In Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das [AIR 2000 SC], the Supreme Court of India held that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) principles are built into the domestic legal framework, meaning the state must protect the fundamental rights of both Indian citizens and foreign nationals visiting India.
d. Duty to Ensure International Peace
Every State has a continuous duty to ensure that the internal conditions, military developments, or environmental practices prevailing within its territory do not pose a threat to international peace, security, or global safety.
e. Duty to Settle Disputes by Peaceful Means
Nations are obligated to resolve their international disputes using peaceful, diplomatic methods—such as negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement—in a manner that ensures international peace, security, and justice are not jeopardized.
f. Duty to Refrain from Resorting to War
States must refrain from using war or armed conflict as an instrument of national policy. As codified in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, every State is under a strict legal duty to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other State.
g. Duty to Refrain from Assisting a Delinquent State
Every State must refrain from providing economic, military, or diplomatic assistance to any rogue or delinquent State that is actively violating the prohibition against aggressive war, or against which the United Nations is taking lawful preventive or enforcement actions.
h. Duty to Refrain from Recognizing Territorial Acquisitions
Nations are under an international obligation to refuse legal recognition of any territorial expansion, border alteration, or land acquisition achieved by another state through the illegal use of force, aggression, or war.
i. Duty to Carry Out Obligations in Good Faith
Under the foundational international law maxim of pacta sunt servanda, every State must fulfill its treaty-based and customary international obligations in good faith. A State cannot invoke the provisions of its internal municipal laws or constitutional limitations as an excuse to justify its failure to perform international legal duties.
This principle has been consistently upheld by Indian courts. In Jolly George Varghese v. Bank of Cochin [AIR 1980 SC 470], The Supreme Court observed that while a treaty must be harmonized with domestic legislation, the state is bound by its international commitments and must actively mold its domestic actions to respect its international obligations.
j. Duty to Conduct Relations in Accordance with International Law
Every State is required to manage its foreign policy, diplomatic interactions, and cross-border relations in strict conformity with the rules, principles, and customs of international law.
k. Economic Duties
Complementing their economic rights, States bear several collaborative economic duties under the 1974 Charter, including:
i. Actively promoting the expansion and liberalization of equitable world trade.
ii. Utilizing the financial resources and assets released through disarmament initiatives for global development.
iii. Practicing international co-existence and living together in peace despite differences in political or economic systems.
iv. Contributing constructively to the economic acceleration and trade development of developing and less-developed countries.
VI. Conclusion
The state remains the principal subject of international law, balancing inherited rights with binding duties to maintain international order. Adhering to these rights and duties is essential for fostering international peace, mutual security, and global progress.
*****