War crime

A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal
responsibility.[1] Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian
property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, using child soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and
serious violations of the principles of distinction and proportionality, such as strategic bombing of civilian
populations.[2]
The concept of war crimes emerged at the turn of the twentieth century when the body of customary international
law applicable to warfare between sovereign states was codified. Such codification occurred at the national level,
such as with the publication of the Lieber Code in the United States, and at the international level with the adoption of
the treaties during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Moreover, trials in national courts during this period
further helped clarify the law.[1] Following the end of World War II, major developments in the law occurred. Numerous
trials of Axis war criminals established the Nuremberg principles, such as notion that war crimes constituted crimes
defined by international law. Additionally, the Geneva Conventions in 1949 defined new war crimes and established
that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over such crimes.[1] In the late 20th century and early 21st century,
following the creation of several international courts, additional categories of war crimes applicable to armed conflicts
other than those between states, such as civil wars, were defined.
Early examples[edit]
The trial of Peter von Hagenbach by an ad hoc tribunal of the Holy Roman Empire in 1474 was the first "international"
war crimes trial, and also of command responsibility.[3][4] He was convicted and beheaded for crimes that "he as a
knight was deemed to have a duty to prevent", although he had argued that he was "just following orders".
In 1865, Henry Wirz, a Confederate States Army officer, was held accountable by a military tribunal and hanged for
the appalling conditions at Andersonville Prison, where many Union prisoners of war died during the American Civil
War.

Neutral country/Neutrality
A neutral country in a particular war, is a sovereign state which officially declares itself to be neutral towards
the belligerents. A non-belligerent state does not need to be neutral. The rights and duties of a neutral power are
defined in Sections 5[1] and 13[2] of the Hague Convention of 1907. A permanently neutral power is a sovereign state
which is bound by international treaty to be neutral towards the belligerents of all future wars. An example of a
permanently neutral power is Switzerland. The concept of neutrality in war is narrowly defined and puts specific
constraints on the neutral party in return for the internationally recognised right to remain neutral.
Neutralism or a "neutralist policy" is a foreign policy position wherein a state intends to remain neutral in future wars.
A sovereign state that reserves the right to become a belligerent if attacked by a party to the war is in a condition
of armed neutrality.
Rights and responsibilities of a neutral power[edit]
Belligerents may not invade neutral territory,[3] and a neutral power's resisting any such attempt does not compromise
its neutrality.[4]
A neutral power must intern belligerent troops who reach its territory,[5] but not escaped prisoners of war.[6] Belligerent
armies may not recruit neutral citizens,[7] but they may go abroad to enlist.[8] Belligerent armies' personnel and
material may not be transported across neutral territory,[9] but the wounded may be.[10] A neutral power may supply
communication facilities to belligerents,[11] but not war material,[12] although it need not prevent export of such
material.[13]
Belligerent naval vessels may use neutral ports for a maximum of 24 hours, though neutrals may impose different
restrictions.[14] Exceptions are to make repairs—only the minimum necessary to put back to sea [15]—or if an opposing
belligerent's vessel is already in port, in which case it must have a 24-hour head start.[16] A prize ship captured by a
belligerent in the territorial waters of a neutral power must be surrendered by the belligerent to the neutral, which
must intern its crew.[17]

List of neutral countries[edit]

neutrality
country notes
period/starting year

Is an observer in the Non-Aligned Movement.

Is a member of the Group of 77.
Costa Rica 1949–
Neutral since its military was dissolved in 1949.[18][19]
Ratified by law in 2014.[20]

Liechtenstein 1868– Neutral because the military was dissolved in 1868.[21][22]

Is member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Panama 1989- Is a member of the Group of 77.
The neutrality of the Panama Canal is enshrined by specific treaty.[23]

A OECD member since 1961.

Self-imposed, permanent, and armed, designed to ensure external
security. Switzerland is the oldest neutral country in the world since
1815; it has not fought a foreign war since its neutrality was
established by the Treaty of Paris in 1815. Although the European
powers (Austria, France, the United Kingdom, Portugal, Prussia,
Switzerland 1815–
Russia, Spain and Sweden) agreed at the Congress of Vienna in
May 1815 that Switzerland should be neutral, final ratification was
delayed until after Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated so that some
coalition forces could invade France via Swiss territory (see
the minor campaigns of 1815 and the Act on the Neutrality of
Switzerland signed on 20 November 1815 by the Great Powers).

Is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.

Is a member of the Group of 77.
Turkmenistan 1995–
Declared its complete neutrality and had it formally recognized by
the United Nations in 1995.[24]
 neutrality
country notes
period/starting year

The Lateran Treaty signed in 1929 with Italy imposed that "The Pope
was pledged to perpetual neutrality in international relations and to
Vatican City 1929–
abstention from mediation in a controversy unless specifically
requested by all parties" thus making Vatican City neutral since then.

International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de justice; commonly referred to as the World
Court, ICJ or The Hague[2]) is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN). Seated in the Peace
Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the court settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory
opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General
Assembly.

Law applied[edit]
Main article: Sources of international law
When deciding cases, the court applies international law as summarized in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, which
provides that in arriving at its decisions the court shall apply international conventions, international custom and the
"general principles of law recognized by civilized nations." It may also refer to academic writing ("the teachings of the
most highly qualified publicists of the various nations") and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law
although the court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis. Article 59 makes
clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The court's
decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(1)(d), however, the court may consider its own
previous decisions.
If the parties agree, they may also grant the court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono ("in justice and
fairness"),[40] granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on what is fair under the
circumstances. That provision has not been used in the court's history. So far, the International Court of Justice has
dealt with about 130 cases.

Procedure[edit]
The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in the Rules of Court of the
International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).[12]
Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant, which files a written
memorial setting out the basis of the court's jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the
court's jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case.

Exclusive economic zone

Generally, a state's exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, extending seaward
to a distance of no more than 200 nautical miles (370 km) out from its coastal baseline. The exception to this rule
occurs when exclusive economic zones would overlap; that is, state coastal baselines are less than 400 nautical
miles (740 km) apart. When an overlap occurs, it is up to the states to delineate the actual maritime
boundary.[3] Generally, any point within an overlapping area defaults to the nearest state. [4]
A state's exclusive economic zone starts at the seaward edge of its territorial sea and extends outward to a distance
of 200 nautical miles (370.4 km) from the baseline. The exclusive economic zone stretches much further into sea
than the territorial waters, which end at 12 nmi (22 km) from the coastal baseline (if following the rules set out in
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea).[5] Thus, the exclusive economic zones includes the contiguous zone.
States also have rights to the seabed of what is called the continental shelf up to 350 nautical miles (648 km) from the
coastal baseline, beyond the exclusive economic zones, but such areas are not part of their exclusive economic
zones. The legal definition of the continental shelf does not directly correspond to the geological meaning of the term,
as it also includes the continental rise and slope, and the entire seabed within the exclusive economic zone.

Origin[edit]
The idea of allotting nations EEZs to give them more control of maritime affairs outside territorial limits gained
acceptance in the late 20th century.
Initially, a country's sovereign territorial waters extended 3 nautical miles or 6 km (range of cannon shot) beyond the
shore. In modern times, a country's sovereign territorial waters extend to 12 nautical miles (~22 km) beyond the
shore. One of the first assertions of exclusive jurisdiction beyond the traditional territorial seas was made by
the United States in the Truman Proclamation of September 28, 1945. However, it was Chile and Peru respectively
that first claimed maritime zones of 200 nautical miles with the Presidential Declaration Concerning Continental Shelf
of 23 June 1947 (El Mercurio, Santiago de Chile, 29 June 1947) and Presidential Decree No. 781 of 1 August 1947
(El Peruano: Diario Oficial. Vol. 107, No. 1983, 11 August 1947). [6]
It was not until 1982 with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea that the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic
zone was formally adopted as:
Part V, Article 55 of the Convention states:
Specific legal regime of the exclusive economic zone
The exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific
legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the
rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this Convention.

Disputes
The exact extent of exclusive economic zones is a common source of conflicts between states over marine waters.

 One well-known example of such dispute was the Cod Wars between the United Kingdom and Iceland.
 Norway and Russia dispute both territorial sea and EEZ with regard to the Svalbard archipelago as it affects
Russia's EEZ due to its unique treaty status. A treaty was agreed in principle in April 2010 between the two
states and subsequently ratified, resolving this demarcation dispute. [8] The agreement was signed in Murmansk
on September 15, 2010.[9]
 The South China Sea (and the Spratly Islands) is the site of an ongoing dispute between several neighboring
nations.
 Croatia's ZERP (Ecological and Fisheries Protection Zone) in the Adriatic Sea caused friction
with Italy and Slovenia, and caused problems during Croatia's accession to the European Union.
 A wedge-shaped section of the Beaufort Sea is disputed between Canada and the United States, as the area
reportedly contains substantial oil reserves.
 France claims a portion of Canada's EEZ for Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon based on a new definition of the
continental shelf and EEZ between the two countries. Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon is entirely surrounded by
Canada's EEZ.
 Mauritius claims EEZ for Tromelin from France and EEZ for British Indian Ocean Territory from the UK.
 Northern Cyprus claims a portion of Cyprus' EEZ overlaps with that of Northern Cyprus in the
south/southeastern part of the Cyprus island.[10]
 Turkey claims a portion of Cyprus's EEZ overlaps with its own EEZ.[11]
 Lebanon claims that the agreement between Cyprus and Israel overlapped its own EEZ.
Regions where a permanent ice shelf extends beyond the coastline are also a source of potential dispute

State responsibility
The laws of state responsibility are the principles governing when and how a state is held responsible for a breach
of an international obligation. Rather than set forth any particular obligations, the rules of state responsibility
determine, in general, when an obligation has been breached and the legal consequences of that violation. In this
way they are "secondary" rules that address basic issues of responsibility and remedies available for breach of
"primary" or substantive rules of international law, such as with respect to the use of armed force. Because of this
generality, the rules can be studied independently of the primary rules of obligation. They establish (1) the conditions
of actions to qualify as internationally wrongful, (2) the circumstances under which actions
of officials,[1] private individuals and other entities may be attributed to the state, (3) general defences to liability and
(4) the consequences of liability.
Until recently, the theory of the law of state responsibility was not well developed. The position has now changed,
with the adoption of the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts ("Draft
Articles") by the International Law Commission (ILC) in August 2001.[2] The Draft Articles are a combination of
codification and progressive development. They have already been cited by the International Court of Justice[3] and
have generally been well received.
Although the articles are general in coverage, they do not necessarily apply in all cases. Particular treaty regimes,
such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the European Convention on Human Rights, have
established their own special rules of responsibility.

History[edit]
Traditionally, the term "state responsibility" referred only to state responsibility for injuries to aliens. It included not
only "secondary" issues such as attribution and remedies, but also the primary rights and duties of states, for
example the asserted international standard of treatment and the right of diplomatic protection. Early efforts by
the League of Nations and private bodies to codify the rules of "state responsibility" reflected the traditional focus on
responsibility for injuries to aliens.[4] The League's 1930 Codification Conference in The Hague was able to reach an
agreement only on "secondary" issues such as imputation, not on substantive rules regarding the treatment of aliens
and their property.
Attempts to codify and develop the rules of state responsibility have continued throughout the life of the United
Nations. It took nearly 45 years, more than thirty reports, and extensive work by five Special Rapporteurs in order for
the International Law Commission to reach agreement on the final text of the Draft Articles as a whole, with
commentaries. At the same time, the customary international law of state responsibility concerning matters such as
detention and physical ill-treatment of aliens and their right to a fair trial has been rendered less important than
formerly by the development of international human rights law, which applies to all individuals, whether aliens or
nationals. The concept of a general regime of legal responsibility, which the rules of state responsibility have taken
on, is an inception of the civil law system and is largely foreign to the common law tradition.
Codification[edit]
The topic of state responsibility was one of the first 14 areas provisionally selected for the ILC's attention in
1949.[5] When the ILC listed the topic for codification in 1953, "state responsibility" was distinguished from a separate
topic on the "treatment of aliens", reflecting the growing view that state responsibility encompasses the breach of an
international obligation.[6]
The ILC's first special rapporteur on state responsibility, F.V. García Amador of Cuba, appointed in 1955 noted, "It
would be difficult to find a topic beset with greater confusion and uncertainty." [7] García Amador attempted to return to
the traditional focus on responsibility for injury to aliens but his work was essentially abandoned by the ILC when his
membership ended in 1961. His successor, Roberto Ago of Italy, reconceptualised the ILC's work in terms of the
distinction between primary and secondary rules, and also established the basic organisational structure of what
would become the Draft Articles. By focusing on general rules, stated at a high level of abstraction, Ago created a
politically safe space within which the ILC could work and largely avoid the contentious debates of the day. From
1969 until his election to the ICJ in 1980, Ago completed work on part 1 of the draft articles, addressing the origin of
state responsibility. Most of the thirty-five articles adopted during his tenure are reflected in the final draft.
Work on the remainder of the articles proceeded slowly throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. Willem Riphagen of
the Netherlands, who served as special rapporteur to 1986, stressed that particular primary rules may specify the
consequences of their breach - an idea conveyed by the articles through the recognition of lex specialis. Gaetano
Arangio-Ruiz, special rapporteur from 1988, helped clarify the consequences of breaches of international obligations.
Over the next eight years, the ILC completed its first reading of parts 2 and 3.
In 1995, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution in effect pressing the Commission to make
progress on the state responsibility articles and other long-pending projects.[8] James Crawford of Australia,
appointed as special rapporteur in 1996, approached the task pragmatically. The ILC moved rapidly through a second
reading of the draft articles, adopting what it could agree on and jettisoning the rest, most notable of which was Article
19 on state crimes and the section on dispute settlement.

Methods of Acquisition of sovereignty/territory

A number of methods of acquisition of sovereignty are or have been recognised by international law as lawful
methods by which a state may acquire sovereignty over territory.

Accretion[edit]
Accretion refers to the physical expansion of an existing territory through geographical processes, such
as alluvion (the deposit of sediment) or vulcanism.[1]

Cession[edit]
Main article: Cession
A state may acquire sovereignty over territory if that sovereignty is ceded (transferred) to it by another state. Cession
is typically effected by treaty. Examples of cession include the cession of Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, purchases
such as the Louisiana Purchase and the Alaska Purchase, and cessions involving multiple parties such as the Treaty
on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany.
Since the emergence of self-determination as a recognised principle of international law, a state may need to consult
the inhabitants of a territory (if any) before they may cede sovereignty over it. [citation needed]

Conquest[edit]
Main article: Right of conquest
In the case of United States v. Huckabee (1872), the US Supreme Court speaking through Mr. Justice Clifford, said:
"Power to acquire territory either by conquest or treaty is vested by the Constitution in the United States. Conquered
territory, however, is usually held as a mere military occupation until the fate of the nation from which it is conquered
is determined .... " Such a legal rationale naturally applies to all sovereign governments.
Direct annexation, the acquisition of territory by way of force, was historically recognised as a lawful method for
acquiring sovereignty over newly acquired territory before the mid-1700s. By the end of the Napoleonic period
however, invasion and annexation ceased to be recognized by international law and were no longer accepted as a
means of territorial acquisition. The Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV, 1907)
contained explicit provisions concerning the protection of civilians and their property in occupied territories.
The United Nations Charter also has related provisions.

Effective occupation[edit]
See also: Terra nullius
Effective occupation is the control of free newly discovered [2] territory exercised by a power with no sovereign title to
the land, whether in defiance or absence of a proper sovereign.[3] Several cases in international law has dealt with
what "effective occupation" entails.
In the words of the Eritrea/Yemen Arbitration Award:
The modern international law of the acquisition (or attribution) of territory generally requires that there be: an
intentional display of power and authority over the territory, by the exercise of jurisdiction and state
functions, on a continuous and peaceful basis.
Also in the case of Mexico and France over Clipperton Island:
It is beyond doubt that by immemorial usage having the force of law, besides the animus occupandi, the
actual, and not the nominal, taking of possession is a necessary condition of occupation. This taking of
possession consists in the act, or series of acts, by which the occupying state reduces to its possession the
territory in question and takes steps to exercise exclusive authority there. [4]
In the case of Netherlands and the United States in the Island of Palmas case, the arbitrator ruled:
The title of discovery, if it had not been already disposed of by the Treaties of Münster and Utrecht would,
under the most favourable and most extensive interpretation, exist only as an inchoate title, as a claim to
establish sovereignty by effective occupation. An inchoate title however cannot prevail over a definite title
founded on continuous and peaceful display of sovereignty.[5]

Prescription[edit]
Main article: Prescription (sovereignty transfer)
Prescription is related to occupation, and refers to the acquisition of sovereignty by way of the actual
exercise of sovereignty, maintained for a reasonable period of time, that is effected without objection
from other states.
Sovereign state
A sovereign state is, in international law, a nonphysical juridical entity that is represented by one centralized
government that has sovereignty over a geographic area. International law defines sovereign states as having a
permanent population, defined territory, one government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign
states.[1] It is also normally understood that a sovereign state is neither dependent on nor subjected to any other
power or state.[2]
While according to the declarative theory of statehood, a sovereign state can exist without being recognised by other
sovereign states, unrecognised states will often find it hard to exercise full treaty-making powers and engage
in diplomatic relations with other sovereign states.

Westphalian sovereignty[edit]
Main article: Westphalian sovereignty
Westphalian sovereignty is the concept of nation-state sovereignty based on territoriality and the absence of a role for
external agents in domestic structures. It is an international system of states, multinational corporations, and
organizations that began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648.
Sovereignty is a term that is frequently misused.[3][4] Up until the 19th century, the radicalised concept of a "standard
of civilization" was routinely deployed to determine that certain peoples in the world were "uncivilised", and lacking
organised societies. That position was reflected and constituted in the notion that their "sovereignty" was either
completely lacking, or at least of an inferior character when compared to that of "civilised" people." [5] Lassa
Oppenheim said, "There exists perhaps no conception the meaning of which is more controversial than that of
sovereignty. It is an indisputable fact that this conception, from the moment when it was introduced into political
science until the present day, has never had a meaning which was universally agreed upon." [6] In the opinion of H. V.
Evatt of the High Court of Australia, "sovereignty is neither a question of fact, nor a question of law, but a question
that does not arise at all."[7]
Sovereignty has taken on a different meaning with the development of the principle of self-determination and the
prohibition against the threat or use of force as jus cogens norms of modern international law. The United Nations
Charter, the Draft Declaration on Rights and Duties of States, and the charters of regional international organizations
express the view that all states are juridically equal and enjoy the same rights and duties based upon the mere fact of
their existence as persons under international law.[8][9] The right of nations to determine their own political status and
exercise permanent sovereignty within the limits of their territorial jurisdictions is widely recognized.[10][11][12]
In political science, sovereignty is usually defined as the most essential attribute of the state in the form of its
complete self-sufficiency in the frames of a certain territory, that is its supremacy in the domestic policy and
independence in the foreign one.[13]
Named after the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, the Westphalian System of state sovereignty, which according to Bryan
Turner is "made a more or less clear separation between religion and state, and recognised the right of princes 'to
confessionalise' the state, that is, to determine the religious affiliation of their kingdoms on the pragmatic principle
of cuius regio eius religio."[14]
The Westphalian model of state sovereignty has increasingly come under fire from the "non-west" as a system
imposed solely by Western Colonialism. What this model did was make religion a subordinate to politics, [14] a problem
that has caused some issues in the Islamic world. This system does not fit in the Islamic world because concepts
such as "separation of church and state" and "individual conscience" are not recognised in the Islamic religion as
social systems.
In casual usage, the terms "country", "nation", and "state" are often used as if they were synonymous; but in stricter
usage they can be distinguished:[citation needed]
 Country denotes a region of land defined by geographical features or political boundaries.
 Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share common customs, religion, language, origins,
ancestry or history. However, the adjectives national and international are frequently used to refer to matters
pertaining to what are strictly sovereign states, as in national capital, international law.
 State refers to the set of governing and supportive institutions that have sovereignty over a definite territory
and population. Sovereign states are legal persons.

Theories of Recognition of state

State recognition signifies the decision of a sovereign state to treat another entity as also being a sovereign
state.[15] Recognition can be either expressed or implied and is usually retroactive in its effects. It does not
necessarily signify a desire to establish or maintain diplomatic relations.
There is no definition that is binding on all the members of the community of nations on the criteria for statehood. In
actual practice, the criteria are mainly political, not legal.[16] L.C. Green cited the recognition of the
unborn Polish and Czechoslovak states in World War I and explained that "since recognition of statehood is a matter
of discretion, it is open to any existing State to accept as a state any entity it wishes, regardless of the existence of
territory or of an established government."[17]
In international law, however, there are several theories of when a state should be recognised as sovereign. [18]
Constitutive theory[edit]
The constitutive theory of statehood defines a state as a person of international law if, and only if, it is recognised
as sovereign by other states. This theory of recognition was developed in the 19th century. Under it, a state was
sovereign if another sovereign state recognised it as such. Because of this, new states could not immediately
become part of the international community or be bound by international law, and recognised nations did not have to
respect international law in their dealings with them.[19] In 1815, at the Congress of Vienna the Final Act recognised
only 39 sovereign states in the European diplomatic system, and as a result it was firmly established that in the future
new states would have to be recognised by other states, and that meant in practice recognition by one or more of
the great powers.[20]
One of the major criticisms of this law is the confusion caused when some states recognise a new entity, but other
states do not. Hersch Lauterpacht, one of the theory's main proponents, suggested that it is a state's duty to grant
recognition as a possible solution. However, a state may use any criteria when judging if they should give recognition
and they have no obligation to use such criteria. Many states may only recognise another state if it is to their
advantage.[19]
In 1912, L. F. L. Oppenheim had the following to say on constitutive theory:
International Law does not say that a State is not in existence as long as it isn't recognised, but it takes no notice of it
before its recognition. Through recognition only and exclusively a State becomes an International Person and a
subject of International Law.[21]

Declarative theory[edit]
By contrast, the declarative theory of statehood defines a state as a person in international law if it meets the
following criteria: 1) a defined territory; 2) a permanent population; 3) a government and 4) a capacity to enter into
relations with other states. According to declarative theory, an entity's statehood is independent of its recognition by
other states. The declarative model was most famously expressed in the 1933 Montevideo Convention.[22]
Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention declares that political statehood is independent of recognition by other states,
and the state is not prohibited from defending itself. [23] In contrast, recognition is considered a requirement for
statehood by the constitutive theory of statehood.
A similar opinion about "the conditions on which an entity constitutes a state" is expressed by the European
Economic Community Opinions of the Badinter Arbitration Committee, which found that a state was defined by having
a territory, a population, and a political authority.[citation needed]
State recognition[edit]
State practice relating to the recognition of states typically falls somewhere between the declaratory and constitutive
approaches.[24] International law does not require a state to recognise other states. [25] Recognition is often withheld
when a new state is seen as illegitimate or has come about in breach of international law. Almost universal non-
recognition by the international community of Rhodesia and Northern Cyprus are good examples of this, the former
only having been recognized by South Africa, and the latter only recognized by Turkey. In the case of Rhodesia,
recognition was widely withheld when the white minority seized power and attempted to form a state along the lines
of Apartheid South Africa, a move that the United Nations Security Council described as the creation of an "illegal
racist minority régime".[26] In the case of Northern Cyprus, recognition was withheld from a state created in Northern
Cyprus.[27] International law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence,[28] and the recognition of a
country is a political issue.[29] As a result, Turkish Cypriots gained "observer status" in the PACE, and their
representatives are elected in the Assembly of Northern Cyprus;[30] and Northern Cyprus became an observer
member of the OIC and the ECO.
Taiwan is in a similar situation. Only 20 countries recognize the Republic of China as the government of
Taiwan.[31] The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty of Taiwan, see Political status of Taiwan.
De facto and de jure states[edit]
Most sovereign states are states de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both in law and in reality). However, a state may
be recognised only as a de jure state, in that it is recognised as being the legitimate government of a territory over
which it has no actual control. For example, during the Second World War, governments-in-exile of a number of
continental European states continued to enjoy diplomatic relations with the Allies, notwithstanding that their
countries were under Nazi occupation. The PLO and Palestinian Authority claim that the State of Palestine is a
sovereign state, a claim which has been recognised by most states, though the territory it claims is under the de
facto control of Israel.[32][46] Other entities may have de facto control over a territory but lack international recognition;
these may be considered by the international community to be only de facto states. They are considered de
jure states only according to their own law and by states that recognise them. For example, Somaliland is commonly
considered to be such a state.[47][48][49][50] For a list of entities that wish to be universally recognised as sovereign
states, but do not have complete worldwide diplomatic recognition, see the list of states with limited recognition.

Treaty
A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign
states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an (international)
agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of
terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules
are the same.[1]
Treaties can be loosely compared to contracts: both are means of willing parties assuming obligations among
themselves, and a party to either that fails to live up to their obligations can be held liable under international law.

Modern usage[edit]
A treaty is an official, express written agreement that states use to legally bind themselves.[3] A treaty is the official
document which expresses that agreement in words; and it is also the objective outcome of a ceremonial occasion
which acknowledges the parties and their defined relationships.

Modern form[edit]
Since the late 19th century, most treaties have followed a fairly consistent format. A treaty typically begins with
a preamble describing the High Contracting Parties and their shared objectives in executing the treaty, as well as
summarizing any underlying events (such as the aftermath of a war in the case of a peace treaty). Modern preambles
are sometimes structured as a single very long sentence formatted into multiple paragraphs for readability, in which
each of the paragraphs begins with a gerund (desiring, recognizing, having, and so on).
The High Contracting Parties; referred to as either the official title of the head of state (but not including the personal
name), e.g. His Majesty The King of X or His Excellency The President of Y, or alternatively in the form of
"Government of Z"; are enumerated, and along with the full names and titles of their plenipotentiary representatives,
and a boilerplate clause about how their representatives have communicated (or exchanged) their full powers (i.e.,
the official documents appointing them to act on behalf of their respective high contracting party) and found them in
good or proper form. However, under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties if the representative is the head
of state, head of government or minister of foreign affairs, no special document is needed, as holding such high office
is sufficient.
The end of the preamble and the start of the actual agreement is often signaled by the words "have agreed as
follows."
After the preamble comes numbered articles, which contain the substance of the parties' actual agreement. Each
article heading usually encompasses a paragraph. A long treaty may further group articles under chapter headings.
Modern treaties, regardless of subject matter, usually contain articles governing where the final authentic copies of
the treaty will be deposited and how any subsequent disputes as to their interpretation will be peacefully resolved.
The end of a treaty, the eschatocol (or closing protocol), is often signaled by a clause like "in witness whereof" or "in
faith whereof," the parties have affixed their signatures, followed by the words "DONE at," then the site(s) of the
treaty's execution and the date(s) of its execution. The date is typically written in its most formal, longest possible
form. For example, the Charter of the United Nations was "DONE at the city of San Francisco the twenty-sixth day of
June, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five." If the treaty is executed in multiple copies in different languages,
that fact is always noted, and is followed by a stipulation that the versions in different languages are equally
authentic.
The signatures of the parties' representatives follow at the very end. When the text of a treaty is later reprinted, such
as in a collection of treaties currently in effect, an editor will often append the dates on which the respective parties
ratified the treaty and on which it came into effect for each party.

Bilateral and multilateral treaties[edit]

Bilateral treaties are concluded between two states[4] or entities. It is possible, however, for a bilateral treaty to have
more than two parties; consider for instance the bilateral treaties between Switzerland and the European Union (EU)
following the Swiss rejection of the European Economic Area agreement. Each of these treaties has seventeen
parties. These however are still bilateral, not multilateral, treaties. The parties are divided into two groups, the Swiss
("on the one part") and the EU and its member states ("on the other part"). The treaty establishes rights and
obligations between the Swiss and the EU and the member states severally—it does not establish any rights and
obligations amongst the EU and its member states.[citation needed]
A multilateral treaty is concluded among several countries.[4] The agreement establishes rights and obligations
between each party and every other party. Multilateral treaties are often regional. [citation needed] Treaties of "mutual
guarantee" are international compacts, e.g., the Treaty of Locarno which guarantees each signatory against attack
from another.[4]

Adding and amending treaty obligations[edit]

Reservations[edit]
Main article: Reservation (law)
Reservations are essentially caveats to a state's acceptance of a treaty. Reservations are unilateral statements
purporting to exclude or to modify the legal obligation and its effects on the reserving state.[5] These must be included
at the time of signing or ratification, i.e. "a party cannot add a reservation after it has already joined a treaty".
Originally, international law was unaccepting of treaty reservations, rejecting them unless all parties to the treaty
accepted the same reservations. However, in the interest of encouraging the largest number of states to join treaties,
a more permissive rule regarding reservations has emerged. While some treaties still expressly forbid any
reservations, they are now generally permitted to the extent that they are not inconsistent with the goals and
purposes of the treaty.
When a state limits its treaty obligations through reservations, other states party to that treaty have the option to
accept those reservations, object to them, or object and oppose them. If the state accepts them (or fails to act at all),
both the reserving state and the accepting state are relieved of the reserved legal obligation as concerns their legal
obligations to each other (accepting the reservation does not change the accepting state's legal obligations as
concerns other parties to the treaty). If the state opposes, the parts of the treaty affected by the reservation drop out
completely and no longer create any legal obligations on the reserving and accepting state, again only as concerns
each other. Finally, if the state objects and opposes, there are no legal obligations under that treaty between those
two state parties whatsoever. The objecting and opposing state essentially refuses to acknowledge the reserving
state is a party to the treaty at all.[6]
Amendments[edit]
There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires State parties to the treaty
to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and
protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When
determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the
states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty
executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical change in customary international law can also
amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty. Minor
corrections to a treaty may be adopted by a procès-verbal; but a procès-verbal is generally reserved for changes to
rectify obvious errors in the text adopted, i.e. where the text adopted does not correctly reflect the intention of the
parties adopting it.
Protocols[edit]
See also: Environmental protocol
In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally a treaty or international agreement that
supplements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol can amend the previous treaty, or add
additional provisions. Parties to the earlier agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. Sometimes this is made
clearer by calling it an "optional protocol", especially where many parties to the first agreement do not support the
protocol.
Some examples: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) established a framework
for the development of binding greenhouse gas emission limits, while the Kyoto Protocol contained the specific
provisions and regulations later agreed upon.

Execution and implementation[edit]

Treaties may be seen as 'self-executing', in that merely becoming a party puts the treaty and all of its obligations in
action. Other treaties may be non-self-executing and require 'implementing legislation'—a change in the domestic law
of a state party that will direct or enable it to fulfill treaty obligations. An example of a treaty requiring such legislation
would be one mandating local prosecution by a party for particular crimes.
The division between the two is often not clear and is often politicized in disagreements within a government over a
treaty, since a non-self-executing treaty cannot be acted on without the proper change in domestic law. If a treaty
requires implementing legislation, a state may be in default of its obligations by the failure of its legislature to pass the
necessary domestic laws.

International law
nternational law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and
between nations.[1][2] It serves as a framework for the practice of stable and organized international
relations.[3] International law differs from state-based legal systems in that it is primarily applicable to countries rather
than to private citizens. National law may become international law when treatiesdelegate national jurisdiction
to supranational tribunals such as the European Court of Human Rights or the International Criminal Court. Treaties
such as the Geneva Conventions may require national law to conform to respective parts.
Much of international law is consent-based governance. This means that a state member is not obliged to abide by
this type of international law, unless it has expressly consented to a particular course of conduct.[4] This is an issue
of state sovereignty. However, other aspects of international law are not consent-based but still are obligatory upon
state and non-state actors such as customary international law and peremptory norms (jus cogens).

International relations[edit]
Main articles: Sources of international law and List of ICJ cases
Under article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, international law has three principal sources:
international treaties, custom, and general principles of law. In addition, judicial decisions and teachings may be
applied as "subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law".
International treaty law comprises obligations states expressly and voluntarily accept between themselves in treaties.
Customary international law is derived from the consistent practice of States accompanied by opinio juris, i.e. the
conviction of States that the consistent practice is required by a legal obligation. Judgments of international tribunals
as well as scholarly works have traditionally been looked to as persuasive sources for custom in addition to direct
evidence of state behavior. Attempts to codify customary international law picked up momentum after the Second
World War with the formation of the International Law Commission (ILC), under the aegis of the United Nations.
Codified customary law is made the binding interpretation of the underlying custom by agreement through treaty. For
states not party to such treaties, the work of the ILC may still be accepted as custom applying to those states.
General principles of law are those commonly recognized by the major legal systems of the world. Certain norms of
international law achieve the binding force of peremptory norms (jus cogens) as to include all states with no
permissible derogations.

 Colombia v Perú [1950] ICJ 6, recognising custom as a source of international law, but a practice of giving
asylum was not part of it.
 Belgium v Spain [1970] ICJ 1, only the state where a corporation is incorporated (not where its major
shareholders reside) has standing to bring an action for damages for economic loss.
International law is sourced from decision makers and researchers looking to verify the substantive legal rule
governing a legal dispute or academic discourse. The sources of international law applied by the community of
nations to find the content of international law are listed under Article 38.1 of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice: Treaties, customs, and general principles are stated as the three primary sources; and judicial decisions and
scholarly writings are expressly designated as the subsidiary sources of international law. Many scholars agree that
the fact that the sources are arranged sequentially in the Article 38 of the ICJ Statute suggests an implicit hierarchy of
sources.[11]However, there is no concrete evidence, in the decisions of the international courts and tribunals, to
support such strict hierarchy, at least when it is about choosing international customs and treaties. In addition, unlike
the Article 21 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which clearly defines hierarchy of applicable
law (or sources of international law), the language of the Article 38 do not explicitly support hierarchy of sources.
The sources have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories. During the 20th century, it was
recognized by legal positivists that a sovereign state could limit its authority to act by consenting to an agreement
according to the principle pacta sunt servanda. This consensual view of international law was reflected in the 1920
Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was succeeded by the United Nations Charter and is
preserved in the United Nations Article 7 of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.[12]
Subjects of International Law

States and non-State actors like individuals, international organizations, multinational companies and
international non-government organizations are regulated by, or subjected to, international law. They are
called subjects of international law. These subjects have international legal personality. In other words,
they have certain rights and duties under international law and they can exercise these rights and duties.
  An entity is a subject of international law if it has “international legal personality”. In other words,
subjects must have rights, powers and duties under international law and they should be able to
exercise those rights, powers and duties. The rights, powers and duties of different subjects
change according to their status and functions. For example, an individual has the right of
freedom from torture under international law and States have a duty under international law not to
torture individuals or to send them to a country where there is a likelihood of that person being
tortured. This right is a right under treaty law, for example, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights and under customary international law. The Convention against Torture and
Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment places obligations on States not to torture and to
extradite or prosecute those who torture.

 Legal personality also includes the capacity to enforce one’s own rights and to compel other
subjects to perform their duties under international law. For example, this means that a subject of
international law should be able to:

(1) bring claims before international and national courts and tribunals to enforce their rights, for example,
the International Court of Justice.

(2) have the ability or power to come into agreements that are binding under international law, for
example, treaties:

(3) enjoy immunity from the jurisdiction of foreign courts; for example, immunity for acts of State.

(4) be subject to obligations under international law (Dixon).

 Remember that all subjects of international law do not have the same rights, duties and
capacities. For an example, a diplomat has immunity before foreign courts because he is an agent
of the sending State. ✐ See blog posts and media articles on the US- India diplomatic/ consular
 incident involving Devyani Khobragade here, here and here. One State can bring a claim against
another State before the International Court of Justice to enforce its rights. An individual on his
own can’t bring a claim against a State before the ICJ. States have all the capacities mentioned
above and individuals have only a few.

Municipal law
Municipal law is the national, domestic, or internal law of a sovereign state defined in opposition to international law.
Municipal law includes many levels of law: not only national law but also state, provincial, territorial, regional, or local
law. While the state may regard them as distinct categories of law, international law is largely uninterested in the
distinction and treats them all as one[citation needed]. Similarly, international law makes no distinction between the
ordinary law of the state and its constitutional law.
Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties from 1969 provides that if a treaty conflicts with a state's
municipal law (including the state's constitution), the state is still obliged to meet its obligations under the treaty. The
only exception is provided by Article 46 of the Vienna Convention if a state's expression of consent to be bound by a
treaty was a manifest violation of a "rule of its internal law of fundamental importance".
Monism and dualism in international law
The terms monism and dualism are used to describe two different theories of the relationship between international
law and national law. Many states, perhaps most, are partly monist and partly dualist in their actual application of
international law in their national systems.

Monism[edit]
Monists accept that the internal and international legal systems form a unity. Both national legal rules and
international rules that a state has accepted, for example by way of a treaty, determine whether actions are legal or
illegal.[1] In most so-called "monist" states, a distinction between international law in the form of treaties, and other
international law, e.g., customary international law or jus cogens, is made; such states may thus be partly monist and
partly dualist.
In a pure monist state, international law does not need to be translated into national law. It is just incorporated and
has effect automatically in national or domestic laws. The act of ratifying an international treaty immediately
incorporates the law into national law; and customary international law is treated as part of national law as well.
International law can be directly applied by a national judge, and can be directly invoked by citizens, just as if it were
national law. A judge can declare a national rule invalid if it contradicts international rules because, in some states,
the latter have priority. In other states, like in Germany, treaties have the same effect as legislation, and by the
principle of Lex posterior derogat priori("Later law removes the earlier"), only take precedence over national
legislation enacted prior to their ratification. In its most pure form, monism dictates that national law that contradicts
international law is null and void, even if it post-dates international law, and even if it is constitutional in nature. From
a human rights point of view, for example, this has some advantages. Suppose a country has accepted a human
rights treaty - the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights for instance - but some of its national laws limit
the freedom of the press. A citizen of that country, who is being prosecuted by his state for violating this national law,
can invoke the human rights treaty in a national courtroom and can ask the judge to apply this treaty and to decide
that the national law is invalid. He or she does not have to wait for national law that translates international law. His or
her government can, after all, be negligent or even unwilling to translate. The treaty was perhaps only accepted for
political reasons, in order to please donor-countries for example.
"So when someone in Holland feels his human rights are being violated he can go to a Dutch judge and the judge
must apply the law of the Convention. He must apply international law even if it is not in conformity with Dutch law". [2]

Dualism[edit]
Dualists emphasize the difference between national and international law, and require the translation of the latter into
the former. Without this translation, international law does not exist as law. International law has to be national law as
well, or it is no law at all. If a state accepts a treaty but does not adapt its national law in order to conform to the treaty
or does not create a national law explicitly incorporating the treaty, then it violates international law. But one cannot
claim that the treaty has become part of national law. Citizens cannot rely on it and judges cannot apply it. National
laws that contradict it remain in force. According to dualists, national judges never apply international law, only
international law that has been translated into national law.
"International law as such can confer no rights cognisable in the municipal courts. It is only insofar as the rules of
international law are recognized as included in the rules of municipal law that they are allowed in municipal courts to
give rise to rights and obligations".[3]

The supremacy of international law is a rule in dualist systems as it is in monist systems. Sir Hersch
Lauterpacht pointed out the Court's determination to discourage the evasion of international obligations, and its
repeated affirmation of:
the self-evident principle of international law that a State cannot invoke its municipal law as the reason for the non-
fulfillment of its international obligations.[4]

If international law is not directly applicable, as is the case in dualist systems, then it must be translated into national
law, and existing national law that contradicts international law must be "translated away". It must be modified or
eliminated in order to conform to international law. Again, from a human rights point of view, if a human rights treaty is
accepted for purely political reasons, and states do not intend to fully translate it into national law or to take a monist
view on international law, then the implementation of the treaty is very uncertain. [5]

Examples[edit]
In some countries, such as the UK for instance, the dualist view is predominant. International law is only part of
British national law once it is accepted in national law. A treaty
"has no effect in municipal law until an Act of Parliament is passed to give effect to it.
In other countries this distinction tends to be blurred. In the vast majority of democratic countries outside the
Commonwealth, the legislature, or part of the legislature, participates in the process of ratification, so that
ratification becomes a legislative act, and the treaty becomes effective in international law and in municipal law
simultaneously. For instance, the Constitution of the United States provides that the President
'shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of
the Senators present concur'.
Treaties ratified in accordance with the Constitution automatically become part of the municipal law of the
USA".[7]
The United States of America has a "mixed" monist-dualist system; international law applies directly in US
courts in some instances but not others. US Constitution, art. VI, does indeed say that treaties are part of
the Supreme Law of the Land, as suggested by the quote above; however, its Supreme Court, as late as
 the recent case of Medellín v. Texas,[8]has restated that some treaties are not "self-executing." Such
treaties must be implemented by statute before their provisions may be given effect by national and sub-
national courts. Similarly with regard to customary international law, its Supreme Court stated, in the case of
the Pacquete Habana (1900), that "international law is part of our law." However, it also said that
international law would not be applied if there is a controlling legislative, executive, or judicial act to the
contrary..

A matter of national legal tradition[edit]

International law does not determine which point of view is to be preferred, monism or dualism. Every state decides
for itself, according to its legal traditions. International law only requires that its rules are respected, and states are
free to decide on the manner in which they want to respect these rules and make them binding on its citizens and
agencies.
"[T]he transformation of international norms into domestic law is not necessary from the point of view of international
law…the necessity of transformation is a question of national, not of international law".[10]

Both a monist state and a dualist state can comply with international law. All one can say is that a monist state is less
at risk of violating international rules, because its judges can apply international law directly. [11] Negligence or
unwillingness to implement international law in national law can only pose a problem in dualist states. States are free
to choose the way in which they want to respect international law, but they are always accountable if they fail to adapt
their national legal system in a way that they can respect international law. Either they adopt a constitution that
implements a monist system so that international law can be applied directly and without transformation, or they do
not. But then they have to translate all international law in national law. In a monist state we rely only on the judges
and not on the legislators, but judges can also make mistakes. If a judge in a monist states makes mistakes when
applying international law, then the country violates international law just as much as a dualist country that, for one
reason or another, does not allow its judges to apply international law directly and fails to translate or fails to translate
correctly and effectively.[11] One reason for preferring dualism is precisely the fear that national judges are not familiar
with international law - a highly complex field of law - and hence are liable to make mistakes.

Asylum, in international law, the protection granted by a state to a foreign citizen against his own state. The person
for whom asylum is established has no legal right to demand it, and the sheltering state has no obligation to grant it.
The right of asylum falls into three basic categories: territorial, extraterritorial, and neutral. Territorial asylum is
granted within the territorial bounds of the state offering asylum and is an exception to the practice of extradition. It is
designed and employed primarily for the protection of persons accused of political offenses such as treason,
desertion, sedition, and espionage. It has become a widespread practice, however, to exclude from this category
persons accused of the murder of a head of state, certain terrorist acts, collaboration with the enemy in time of war,
crimes against peace and against humanity, and war crimes. Extraterritorial asylum refers to asylum granted in
embassies, legations, consulates, warships, and merchant vessels in foreign territory and is thus granted within the
territory of the state from which protection is sought. Cases of extraterritorial asylum granted in embassies, legations,
or consulates (generally known as diplomatic asylum) are often occasions for dispute. For example, after an
unsuccessful uprising against the communist government of Hungary in 1956, the United States controversially
granted diplomatic asylum to dissident Hungarian Roman Catholic József Cardinal Mindszenty, who was given refuge
in the U.S. embassy and remained there for 15 years. Neutral asylum is employed by states
exercising neutrality during a war to offer asylum within its territory to troops of belligerent states, provided that the
troops submit to internment for the duration of the war.
It is the right of a state to grant asylum to an individual, but it is not the right of an individual to be granted asylum by a
state. This perspective is reflected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR), which, though recognizing
(article 14) the right “to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution,” does not explicitly provide a
right of asylum. The original draft of that article, which referred to the individual’s right “to seek and to be granted
asylum from persecution,” would have afforded more protection to asylum seekers. Similarly recognizing that “the
grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on certain countries,” the Convention relating to the Status of
Refugees, which was adopted by the United Nations (UN) Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Status of Refugees
and Stateless Persons in 1951, did not create a right of asylum for those seeking it, and the impressive array of rights
it enumerates pertains only to those refugees “lawfully in” or “lawfully staying in” the sheltering state. Subsequent
unsuccessful efforts to articulate an individual’s right of asylum included: (1) the UN General Assembly Declaration on
Territorial Asylum (1967), which contained substantive exceptions to its non-refoulement (non-return) provision
(pertaining to national security and to the safeguarding of its national population), and (2) a proposed Convention on
Territorial Asylum, which never materialized.
In ancient times asylum designated a place of sanctuary or protection from which a person could not be removed
forcibly without sacrilege. Later it came to signify an institution for the protection or relief of some class of destitute or
otherwise unfortunate persons; its most common uses in this sense were in orphan asylum and insane asylum. See
also safe-conduct.
Intervention
Intervention, in terms of international law, is the term for the use of force by one country or sovereign state in the
internal or external affairs of another. In most cases, intervention is considered to be an unlawful act but some
interventions may be considered lawful.

Intervention by invitation or on request[edit]

When a State interferes in the political affairs of another State by invitation, or on request, it can not be considered as
an unlawful act. Interference of a State can never be unlawful if it is for the sake of humanity. It is necessary that the
two States agree on the matter of intervention through a treaty. A request for assistance is not an unlawful act.

Kinds of Intervention[edit]
Intervention can be done by various means, e.g. military, subversive, economic, or diplomatic.
Military Intervention

An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively
enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-
establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the
established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof. An invasion can be
the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the
large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution

Subversive

"A destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy the country, nation, or geographical area of your enemy... [by
demoralizing the cultural values and changing the population's perception of reality].In this method third party is
involved.

Economic interventionism (sometimes state interventionism) is an economic policy perspective favoring

government intervention in the market process to correct the market failures and promote the general welfare of the
people. An economic intervention is an action taken by a government or international institution in a market
economy in an effort to impact the economy beyond the basic regulation of fraud and enforcement of contracts and
provision of public goods.[1][2][3] Economic intervention can be aimed at a variety of political or economic objectives,
such as promoting economic growth, increasing employment, raising wages, raising or reducing prices,
promoting income equality, managing the money supply and interest rates, increasing profits, or addressing market
failures.
The term intervention assumes on a philosophical level that the state and economy should be inherently separated
from each other;[4]therefore the terminology applies to capitalist market-based economies where government action
interrupts the market forces at play through regulations, economic policies or subsidies (however state-owned
enterprises that operate in the market do not constitute an intervention). The term "intervention" is typically used by
advocates of laissez-faire and free markets.[5][6]
Capitalist market economies that feature high degrees of state intervention are often referred to as mixed economies
Maritime Belt

Territorial waters or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is
a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean
low-water mark) of a coastal state. The territorial sea is regarded as the sovereign territory of the state, although
foreign ships (civilian) are allowed innocent passage through it, or transit passage for straits; this sovereignty also
extends to the airspace over and seabed below. Adjustment of these boundaries is called, in international
law, maritime delimitation.
The term "territorial waters" is also sometimes used informally to refer to any area of water over which a state
has jurisdiction, including internal waters, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and potentially
the continental shelf.