1. WHEATON, Henry, Elements of International Law (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1866) at 17−18Google Scholar; NYS, Ernest, Les Origines Du Droit International (Paris: Hachette Livre, 1894) at 8−9Google Scholar; BATY, Thomas, The Canons of International Law (London: John Murray, 1930)Google Scholar; NUSSBAUM, Arthur, A Concise History of the Law of Nations (New York: Macmillan, 1954)Google Scholar at 86; HINGORANI, R.C., Modern International Law (New York: Oceana, 1979)Google Scholar.

2. Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945, online: UN 〈http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml〉 [UN Charter].

3. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res. 1514 (XV) (1960), online: UN 〈http://www.un.org/en/decolonization/declaration.shtml〉.

4. ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., An Introduction to the History of The Law Of Nations in the East Indies: 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967)Google Scholar; SYATAUW, J.J.G., Some Newly Established Asian States and the Development of International Law (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1961)Google Scholar.

5. SYATAUW, J.J.G., “The Relationship Between the Newness of States and their Practices of International Law” in R.P. ANAND, ed., Asian States and the Development of Universal International Law (Delhi/London: Vikas Publications, 1972)Google Scholar, 11.

6. Professor Agrawala wrote two of the earliest papers on this issue. See AGRAWALA, S.K., “Law of Nations as Interpreted and Applied by Indian Courts and Legislature” (1962) 2 Indian Journal of International Law 431Google Scholar; AGRAWALA, S.K., “India's Contribution to the Development of International Law—The Role of Indian Courts” in Anand, supra note 5 at 72Google Scholar. More recent scholarship includes CHIMNI, B.S., “International Law Scholarship in Post-Colonial India: Coping with Dualism” (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and HEGDE, V.G., “Indian Courts and International Law” (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; KALB, Johanna, “The Judicial Role in New Democracies: A Strategic Account of Comparative Citation” (2013) 38 Yale Journal of International Law 437Google Scholar; SMITH, Adam M., “Making Itself at Home—Understanding Foreign Law in Domestic Jurisprudence: The Indian Case” (2006) 24 Berkeley Journal of International Law 218Google Scholar.

7. In Deep Chand v. State of U. P., A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 648, the Supreme Court ruled that art. 52 of the Indian Constitution that falls under the category of “Directive Principles” are non-justiciable. See The Constitution of India, online: Ministry of Law & Justice 〈http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/coi-indexenglish.htm〉 [Constitution]. In Ujjam Bai v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1962 SC 1621, para. 50 [Ujjam Bai], the Supreme Court stated that art. 50 of the Constitution has enacted as one of the Directive Principles that the “State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the State”. Art. 51 of the Constitution is the Trojan horse of international law for India because it is the only Article that talks about public international law. As Anand, quoting the Law Secretary of the Government of India, explains, art. 51(d), i.e. “encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration”, of the Constitution was included in the draft “on the basis of a couple of statements made in the Constituent Assembly which did not display adequate understanding of the system of settlement of international disputes”. ANAND, R.P., Studies in International Law and History: An Asian Perspective (Boston/Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004) at 11Google Scholar. Nonetheless, as art. 51 falls within the Directive Principles of state policy, the purist view derived from Ujjam Bai is that the judiciary is not part of the state, and thus should not pronounce on international law. However, the Kerala High Court in S. N. Koya v. Administrator, Union Territory of Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands, Kozhikode, A.I.R. 1967 Ker 259, drawing support from American constitutional law, ruled that the “state” includes its judiciary.

8. Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. United Arab Republic, A.I.R. 1966 SC 230. See The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, online: Union Territory of Chandigarh State Legislative Authority 〈http://chdslsa.gov.in/right_menu/act/pdf/codecivil.pdf〉.

9. NEHRU, J., “Reply to Debate on Goa in Lok Sabha, July 26, 1955”, in Jawaharlal NEHRU, India's Foreign Policy: Selected Speeches, September 1946−April 1961 (New Delhi: The Publications Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, 1983)Google Scholar, at 113.

10. Agrawala, , supra note 6 at 75, 82−85Google Scholar.

11. Virendra Singh v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1954 SC 447.

12. POULOSE, T.T., Succession in International Law: A Study of India, Pakistan, Ceylon, and Burma (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1974)Google Scholar. Cf. DIWAN, Paras, “India: Decisions on Public International Law” (1953) 2 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 639CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13. State of Gujarat v. Vora Fiddali Badruddin Mithibarwala, MANU/SC/0031/1964 [Mithibarwala].

14. Agrawala, , supra note 6 at 83Google Scholar.

15. Mithibarwala, supra note 13 at para. 83.

16. Ibid., at para. 45.

17. Chimni, , supra note 6 at 25Google Scholar. Art. 51 of the Constitution states (Constitution, supra note 7):

The State shall endeavour to—

(a) promote international peace and security;

(b) maintain just and honourable relations between nations;

(c) foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another; and

(d) encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

18. Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 6 [Preah Vihear].

19. See KEITH, K.J., “Asian Attitudes to International Law” (1967) 3 Australian Yearbook of International Law 1 at 23Google Scholar. See similarly CARTY, Anthony and LONE, Fozia NAZIR, “Some New Haven International Law Reflections on China, India and their Various Territorial Disputes” (2012) 19 Asia Pacific Law Review 95Google Scholar, in which the authors maintain that both India and China have “persistently adopted a purely western style territorial sovereignty claim to superior title to the territories in question”.

20. In Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India, apart from Shankardass, foreign counsel in the case included Alain Pellet, Sir Michael Wood, and M. Reisman. Ironically, Bangladesh did not have even a single local counsel. See Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration Between Bangladesh and India, 8 October 2009, online: Permanent Court of Arbitration 〈http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1376〉. A similar trend is seen in other cases between Bangladesh and Myanmar. Even junior counsels and advocates for these cases are doctoral candidates working under senior counsels, who are mostly Western nationals. Naturally, there is no development of the valuable expertise in developing counties. Developing countries continue to ignore the need to cultivate homegrown experts. See the list of counsels in the following cases; Dispute Concerning Delimitation of The Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh And Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), [2012] I.T.L.O.S. Rep. 1 at 5−8 [Maritime Boundary]; Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v. India), Final Award, 20 December 2013, online: Permanent Court of Arbitration 〈http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1392〉.

21. See PAPA, Mihaela, “Emerging Powers in International Dispute Settlement: From Legal Capacity Building to a Level Playing Field?” (2013) 4 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. However, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs conducts an internship programme; see online: Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India 〈http://www.mea.gov.in/internship-in-mea.htm〉. What is notable is that even the two junior counsel representing India in Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration Between Bangladesh and India were not Indians. Thus, even today, the Indian government does not have, and is not training, a younger crop of local counsel for future international disputes. Thus, Keith had expected too much from countries like Cambodia and Thailand in the 1960s. It is a question of the lack of expertise and not of the deliberate decision to not choose local counsel; Keith, , supra note 19 at 23Google Scholar. Similarly, the princely state of Hyderabad in 1949 appointed Clyde Eagleton, an American, to advise its representatives in the Security Council about Hyderabad's status within international law. See EAGLETON, Clyde, “The Case of Hyderabad Before the Security Council” (1950) 44 American Journal of International Law 277 at 281Google Scholar, who advised that “whatever limitations may have existed upon the sovereignty of Hyderabad, they were limitations imposed by Britain, not by India; they were rights of Britain, not of India”.

23. SUCHARITKUL, Sompong, “Contribution of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization to the Codification and Progressive Development of International Law” in Essays in International Law (New Delhi: Asian African Legal Consultative Organization, 2007), 9−20Google Scholar. CHIMNI, B.S., “Asian Civilizations and International Law: Some Reflections” (2010) 1 Asian Journal of International Law 39−42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24. See ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., “Mogul Sovereignty and the Law of Nations” (1955) 4 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 317Google Scholar.

25. ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., “Some Problems of the History of the Law of Nations in Asia” (1963) 12 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 3Google Scholar.

26. Ibid.

27. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031 (entered into force on 24 October 1945), art. 38(1)(d) and art. 59.

28. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 25Google Scholar.

29. RAO, P.S., “The Indian Position on some General Principles of International law” in Bimal N. PATEL, ed., India and International Law (Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005)Google Scholar, 53.

30. MUSGRAVE, Thomas D., Self-Determination and National Minorities (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) at 2Google Scholar.

31. Ibid.

32. SENARATNE, Kalana, “Internal Self-Determination in International Law: A Critical Third-World Perspective” (2013) 3 Asian Journal of International Law 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33. Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, 9 January 1969, A.I.R. 1969 SC 783; Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Ltd. v. Union of India, 11 April 2008, MANU/SC/2045/2008.

34. Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) (Merits), Judgment of 12 April 1960, [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 6 at 38 [Right of Passage].

35. N.P. NAYAR, “Nationalism as a Factor in India's Foreign Policy” (1957) 12 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 433. Cf. CHIMNI, B.S., “Mapping Indian Foreign Economic Policy” (2010) 47 International Studies 163–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36. The Case of S.S. “Lotus”, Judgment of 7 September 1927, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 10 (1927) at para. 19 [Lotus].

37. Nayar, , supra note 35 at 452Google Scholar. ANAND, R.P., “Jawaharlal Nehru and International Law” (2002) 42 Indian Journal of International Law 5−29Google Scholar.

38. See KEMAL, Rahimuddin, “The Evolution of British Sovereignty in India” (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 146 at 168Google Scholar, citing Rajah Salig Ram v. Secretary of State for India, Privy Council, 27 August 1872, 119 Law Rep. Ind. App. Sup. 106.

39. Early writers were BANDYOPADHYAY, P., International Law and Custom in Ancient India (Calcutta: Calcutta University Press, 1920)Google Scholar; RUBEN, W., “Inter-State Relations in Ancient India and Kautalya's Artashasta” (1955) 4 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 137Google Scholar; and NAWAZ, M.K., “The Law of Nations in Ancient India” (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 172Google Scholar. See further ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., “International Law in India” (1952) 1 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 289 at 300Google Scholar; MANI, V.S., “An Indian Perspective on the Evolution of International Law on the Threshold of the Third Millennium” (2004) 9 Asian Yearbook of International Law 31Google Scholar; Rao, , supra note 29 at 33−65CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40. In Judge Pal's dissent, he authored an Asian understanding of World War II, its reasons and argued that “vindictive retaliation should not be invoked in the name of justice”. See The International Tribunal of the Far East, Dissenting Opinion of Justice Pal (Tokyo: Kokushu-Kankokai, 1999) at 701; NANDY, Ashis, “The Other Within: The Strange Case of Radhabinod Pal's Judgment on Culpability” (1992) 23 New Literary History 45 at 57−58CrossRefGoogle Scholar. It is also notable that Judge Pal's works were Sanskritic in nature based primarily on the prior works of P.V. Kane and Sir Ganganath Jha, Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad (Prayag) University during 1923−32. See also Ushimura KEI, “Pal's ‘Dissentient Judgment’ Reconsidered: Some Notes on Postwar Japan's Responses to the Opinion” (2007) 19 Japan Review 215 at 221Google Scholar.

41. See MCWHINNEY, Edward, “Law, Politics And ‘Regionalism’ in the Nomination and Election of World Court Judges” (1986) 13 Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 1 at 14−15Google Scholar; PATEL, Bimal N., “International Court of Justice and India” in Patel, supra note 29 at 311Google Scholar.

42. MCWHINNEY, Edward, Judicial Settlement of Disputes: Jurisdiction, Justiciability, and Judicial Law-Making on the Contemporary International Court (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991) at 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

43. MURTI, B.S., “India's Complaint to the World Court on Judge Zafrulla Khan's Political Speeches on Kashmir” (1968) 8 Indian Journal of International Law 547Google Scholar.

44. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24 at 318Google Scholar.

45. The Reception of Western Law in Countries with a Different Social and Economic Background (India), Report of the Rapporteur-Général, International Conference of Comparative Law, Barcelona (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 277 at 293. Cf. ANAND, R.P., “Role of the ‘New’ Asian-African Countries in the Present International Legal Order” (1962) 56 American Journal of International Law 383 at 399Google Scholar.

46. Ashfaq v. State of NCT of Delhi, MANU/SC/0919/2011 at para. 83.

47. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24 at 316Google Scholar.

48. Ibid., at 317.

49. Ibid.

50. Aswini Kumar Ghosh v. Arabinda Bose, 27 October 1952, A.I.R. 1952 SC 369 at para. 75.

51. KEMAL, Rahimuddin, “The Evolution of British Sovereignty in India” (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 146Google Scholar.

52. Ibid.

53. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24 at 321Google Scholar.

54. Ibid.

55. Ibid.

56. A.K. GANGULI, “International Commercial Arbitration and Enforcement of Foreign Awards in India” in Patel, supra note 29 at 319.

57. CHACKO, C.J., “The World Court's Judgment on Portugal's Request for Accesses to Dadra and Nagra Aveli” (1960) 1 Indian Journal of International Law 293Google Scholar.

58. Right of Passage, supra note 34 at 31.

59. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, [1974] I.C.J. Rep. 457 at 473.

60. As quoted in Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24 at 323Google Scholar. See HASTINGS, Warren, The Answer Of Warren Hastings Esquire: To the Articles Exhibited By the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament Assembled, in the Name Of Themselves, and of All the Commons of Great Britain, in Maintenance of Their Impeachment Against Him for High Crimes and Misdemeanours Supposed to Have Been By Him Committed. (London: John Murray, 1788) at 46−49Google Scholar. For an insightful analysis of the trial of Warren Hastings, see MUKHERJEE, Mithi, “Justice, War, and the Imperium: India and Britain in Edmund Burke's Prosecutorial Speeches in the Impeachment Trial of Warren Hastings” (2005) 23 Law and History Review 589 at 604Google Scholar; MUKHERJEE, Mithi, India in the Shadows of Empire: A Legal and Political History 1774–1950 (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

61. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24 at 323Google Scholar.

62. WRIGHT, Quincy, “Asian Experience and International Law” (1959) 1 International Studies 71 at 78Google Scholar.

63. Ibid.

64. Ibid. For a discussion on Ceylon and India, see the Privy Council case of Tennekoon, Commissioner for Registration of Indian and Pakistani Residents v. Duraisamy [1958] 2 W.L.R. 994.

65. Right of Passage, supra note 34 at 23.

66. Kemal, , supra note 51 at 169Google Scholar.

67. Alexandrowicz, , infra note 96Google Scholar.

68. State of Karnataka v. Union of India, 8 November 1977, A.I.R. 1978 SC 68 at para. 260.

69. RAMA RAO, T.S., “Some Problems of International Law in India” (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 4Google Scholar.

70. Oppenheim, quoted in ANAND, R.P., “The Formation of International Organizations and India: A Historical Study” (2010) 23 Leiden Journal of International Law 5 at 9Google Scholar. See also POULOSE, T.T., “India as an Anomalous International Person” (1970) 44 British Yearbook International Law 212Google Scholar.

71. Rao, Rama, supra note 69 at 3Google Scholar.

72. These were Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24Google Scholar and Kemal, , supra note 51Google Scholar.

73. See Rann of Kutch Case (India v. Pakistan), Permanent Court of Arbitration, 19 February 1968, 17 R.I.A.A., 1 at 51 for a revision of British India's history.

74. Indian Independence Act 1947, 10 and 11 GEO 6, c. 30 (Office of Public Sector Information, National Archives, United Kingdom), online: The National Archives 〈http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo6/10-11/30〉 [Indian Independence Act]. See also State of Saurashtra v. Jamadar Mohamad Abdulla, Indian Supreme Court, A.I.R. 1962 SC 445, which discusses the Indian Independence Act.

75. Indian Independence Act, supra note 74, sections 7(a)−(b).

76. Nehru, , supra note 9 at 13Google Scholar.

77. Chimni, , supra note 6 at 23Google Scholar.

78. SCOR, 765th Meeting, 24 January 1957, p. 13. See Sampat Prakash v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 10 October 1968, A.I.R. 1970 SC 1118 at para. 4(5).

79. Rahmatullah KHAN, “The United Nations Handling of the Kashmir Problem” in Anand, supra note 5 at 108, 113−14. China, as a permanent member of the Security Council, was a very vocal supporter of a plebiscite in 1948. Arguably, China had Tibet in mind, where a plebiscite, if conducted, would have led to a vote in favour of China, given that it had systematically resettled Han Chinese population to balance out the Tibetan people. Against Keith's belief that Asian states have not been successful in presenting new attitudes towards international law, China, with its “post-colonial theory” of self-determination in its written submission for the Kosovo Advisory Opinion, has enunciated new meanings and understandings of international law. See “Written Statement of the People's Republic of China to the International Court of Justice on the Issue of Kosovo” (16 April 2009), online: ICJ 〈http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/141/15611.pdf〉 at 4. Far removed from the Chinese position on Tibet, India's Kashmir policy allows the state of Jammu and Kashmir a deviation from the Indian Constitution. See Constitution, supra note 7, art. 370, “Temporary Provisions with Respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. See also The Constitution of India, online: Ministry of Law & Justice 〈http://lawmin.nic.in/olwing/coi/coi-english/Const.Pock%202Pg.Rom8Fsss(41).pdf〉, Appendix I—The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, Article 35A, which states:

Saving of laws with respect to permanent residents and their rights.—Notwithstanding anything contained in this Constitution, no existing law in force in the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and no law hereafter enacted by the Legislature of the State,—

1. (a)

   (a) defining the classes of persons who are, or shall be, permanent residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir; or

2. (b)

   (b) conferring on such permanent residents any special rights and privileges or imposing upon other persons any restrictions as respects—

1. (i)

   (i) employment under the State Government;

2. (ii)

   (ii) acquisition of immovable property in the State;

3. (iii)

   (iii) settlement in the State; …

shall be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with or takes away or abridges any rights conferred on the other citizens of India by any provision of this Part.

80. ROY, S.N. GUHA, “Is the Law of Responsibility of States for Injuries to Aliens a Part of Universal International Law?” (1961) 55 American Journal of International Law 863 at 879Google Scholar.

81. DAS, Taraknath, “U.N. Decision Against India; Ruling in Kashmir Dispute Criticized as Hyderabad Issue Looms” The New York Times (6 July 1948) at 22Google Scholar.

82. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, GA Res. 217A (III), UN Doc. A/810 (1948).

83. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India, 10 April 2008, MANU/SC/1397/2008 at para. 84. See KHAN, Rahamatullah, “The Legal Status of the Resolutions of the UN General Assembly” (1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 552Google Scholar.

84. Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, A.I.R. 2006 SC 3127 at para. 167.

85. JAGOTA, S.P., “The Role of the International Law Commission in the Development of International Law” (1976) 16 Indian Journal of International Law 459Google Scholar.

86. SINGH, Nagendra, “Codification and Progressive Development of International Law: The Role of the International Court of Justice” (1978) 18 Indian Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar; SINGH, Nagendra, The Role and Record of the International Court of Justice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1989)Google Scholar.

87. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 26 June 1992, [1992] I.C.J. Rep. 240. In his Separate Opinion, Judge Shahabuddeen famously quoted Professor Mani's assertion: “Being a small democratic State, Nauru has firm faith in the rule of law in the affairs of nations.” See Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, [1992] I.C.J. Rep. 240 at 270.

88. DIXIT, R.K., “Access to the International Court” (1960) 1 Indian Journal of International Law 67Google Scholar; ANAND, R.P., “India and the World Court” (1960) 2 International Studies 80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; RAO, P.C., “The Continental Shelf: The Practice and Policy of India” (1963) 3 Indian Journal of International Law 191Google Scholar; ANAND, R.P., “The International Court of Justice and the Development of International Law” (1965) 7 International Studies 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar; KHAN, Rahmatullah, “Collective Security Versus Preventive Diplomacy: The Role of the United Nations in the Maintenance of World Peace and Security” (1964) 4 Indian Journal of International Law 408Google Scholar; RAO, P.C., “South West Africa Cases: Inconsistent Judgments from the International Court of Justice” (1966) 6 Indian Journal of International Law 383Google Scholar; ANAND, R.P., “Sovereign Equality of States in the United Nations” (1967) 7 Indian Journal of International Law 185Google Scholar; SETALVAD, Motilal C., “The Role of the United Nations in the Maintenance of World Peace” (1968) 8 Indian Journal of International Law 585Google Scholar; RAMA RAO, T.S., “Review of the Functioning of the International Court of Justice—Some Considerations Relating to the Amendment of its Statute” (1971) 11 Indian Journal of International Law 20Google Scholar; MANI, V.S., “A Review of the Functioning of the International Court of Justice” (1971) 11 Indian Journal of International Law 27Google Scholar; TYAGI, Y.K., “The United Nations in the New World Order: A Critique of An Agenda for Peace” (1994) 31 International Studies 265CrossRefGoogle Scholar; KHAN, Rahmatullah, “50th Anniversary of the International Court of Justice” (1996) 36 Indian Journal of International Law 80Google Scholar. See Patel, , supra note 29Google Scholar. See also PATEL, Bimal N., “Renaissance of the International Court of Justice: An Overview of the Judicial and Administrative Activities of the ICJ in 2000” (2001) 41 Indian Journal of International Law 2Google Scholar. See also Chimni, , supra note 6 at 36−37Google Scholar.

89. Chacko, , supra note 57 at 293Google Scholar. See also Patel, , supra note 29 at 295−299CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

90. In the Lok Sabha Nehru explained “The Concept of Panchsheel”. See J. NEHRU, “From Speech in Lok Sabha, September 17, 1955”, in Nehru, supra note 9 at 99. Acharya Kriplani was a noted critique of Panchsheel idealism. Nehru addressed Kriplani's concerns saying “that some countries have not lived up to their protestations does not weaken the force of a correct policy like Panchsheel”. See J. NEHRU, “A Basis for International Relationship”, from “Reply to Debate on Foreign Affairs in Lok Sabha, August 20, 1958”, in Nehru, supra note 9 at 105.

91. Agreement on Trade and Intercourse Between Tibet Region of China and India, 29 April 1954, 299 U.N.T.S. 57 at 70 (Registered by India on 28 April 1958).

92. Ibid., Preamble.

93. CHACKO, C.J., “Peaceful Coexistence as a Doctrine of Current International Affairs” (1955) 4 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 39Google Scholar.

94. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 4Google Scholar. Professor Patel argues that the principles and practices of international law that were prevalent in ancient India disappeared during the colonial period, but subsequently, since Indian independence, these principles have slowly started resurfacing. See Bimal N. PATEL, “History of International Law in India between 1500−1945” in Bardo FASSBENDERet al., eds., The Oxford Handbook of the History of International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 514.

95. Upendra BAXI, “Some Remarks on Eurocentrism and the Law of Nations” in Anand, supra note 5 at 6.

96. ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., “The Discriminatory Clauses in South Asian Treaties in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries” (1957) 6 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 126 at 135−140Google Scholar. It is interesting to note that Alexandrowicz, the year the ICJ ruled in the Right of Passage preliminary objection, discussed in detail the treaties signed by the Portuguese, the French, the Dutch, and the British. When the merits ruling came out in 1960, the Dissenting Opinion of Moreno Quintana had visible footprints of Alexandrowicz's arguments. Judge Quintana wrote: “We must not forget that India, as the territorial successor, was not acquiring the territory for the first time, but was recovering an independence lost long since.” See Right of Passage, Dissenting Opinion of Moreno Quintana, supra note 34 at 95.

97. Keith, , supra note 19 at 1Google Scholar.

98. Ibid.

99. See Alexandrowicz, , supra note 25 at 10−11Google Scholar; Alexandrowicz, , supra note 24 at 321Google Scholar. Naturalists also wrote in support of colonial conquests. Quincy Wright wrote that Vitoria's treatise was motivated by the need to examine the justifiability of the recent conquest of Mexico by Cortez. See Wright, , supra note 62 at 76Google Scholar. See also ANGHIE, Antony, “Francisco De Vitoria and the Colonial Origins of International Law” (1996) 5 Law & Social Inquiry 321Google Scholar, in which Anghie demonstrates Vitoria's justification of colonial conquests.

100. DHOKALIA, R.P., “Nullity or Invalidity of Treaties” (1969) 9 Indian Journal of International Law 177Google Scholar.

101. Right of Passage, supra note 34 at 11.

102. Ibid.

103. NAWAZ, M.K., “Colonies, Self-Government and the United Nations” (1962) 11 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 3 at 4Google Scholar.

104. Preah Vihear, supra note 18 at 6; Keith, supra note 19.

105. Maritime Boundary, supra note 20 at 5−8.

106. Keith, , supra note 19 at 22−23Google Scholar.

107. Ibid., at 23.

108. THEODOROPOULOS, Christos, “Issues of Economic and Cultural Sovereignty in Post-Colonial Domestic and International Legal Order” (1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 472Google Scholar.

109. International Law Commission Sixty-fifth Session (Second Part), Provisional Summary Record of the 3176th Meeting, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SR.3176 (2013) at 4.

110. However, S.P. JAGOTA, “A Review of the Work of the Asian-African Legal Consultative Committee” in Anand, supra note 5 at 44, 45−69 claims to produce no Asian approach while talking about the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization.

111. Sovereignty over Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), [2008] I.C.J. Rep. 12.

112. Malaysia chose J. Dugard and Singapore chose P.S. Rao; ibid., at 14.

113. CHATERJEE, S.K., “The Role of the Ad Hoc Judge in the International Court of Justice” (1979) 19 Indian Journal of International Law 372Google Scholar. In fact, Judge ad hoc Dugard dissented, saying that the ICJ decided the case not in accordance with international law but ex aequo et bono, something not authorized by the parties. See Sovereignty over Pedra Branca / Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Ad Hoc Dugard, [2008] I.C.J. Rep 12 at 133. See also RAMCHARAN, B.G., “Equity and Justice in International Law-Making” (1975) 15 Indian Journal of International Law 47Google Scholar. For an informed etymology of the case, see Kevin Y.L. TAN, “The Role of History in International Territorial Dispute Settlement: The Pedra Branca Case (Singapore v Malaysia)” in Jin-Hyun PAIKet al., eds., Asian Approaches to International Law and the Legacy of Colonialism (Oxford / New York: Routledge, 2013), at 64

114. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, (Canada/United States), Judgment, [1984] I.C.J. Rep. 246 [Gulf of Maine].

115. ABI-SAAB, Georges, “The International Court as a World Court” in Vaughan LOWE and Malgosia FITZMAURICE, eds., Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996), at 9Google Scholar.

116. Gulf of Maine, supra note 114 at 252.

117. ANAND, R.P., “Attitude of the Asian-African States Toward Certain Problems of International Law” (1966) 15 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 55 at 71Google Scholar.

118. Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, GA Res. 1514 (XV), UN Doc. A/4684 (1960).

119. Senaratne, , supra note 32 at 315Google Scholar.

120. UN Charter, supra note 2.

121. Roy, Guha, supra note 80 at 863Google Scholar. Notably, Lillich attacked Guha Roy's position, which garnered the support of Jessup, who critiqued Anand. See LILLICH, R.B., “The Diplomatic Protection of Nationals Abroad: An Elementary Principle of International Law Under Attack” (1975) 69 American Journal of International Law 359CrossRefGoogle Scholar; JESSUP, Phillip C., “Non-Universal International Law” (1973) 12 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 415Google Scholar.

122. Roy, Guha, supra note 80 at 879Google Scholar.

123. Wright, , supra note at 76Google Scholar.

124. Nawaz, , supra note 103 at 23Google Scholar. See P.C. RAO and R. LAKSHMANAN, “What is Wrong with the United Nations Charter” (1976) 16 Indian Journal of International Law 500Google Scholar.

125. NARAYANA RAO, K., “Parliamentary Approval of Treaties in India” (1960) 9/10 Indian Yearbook of International Affairs 22Google Scholar.

126. Ibid., at 23.

127. Ibid. See Constitution, supra note 7.

128. 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 23 May 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331, 8 I.L.M. 679.

129. HIDAYATULLAH, M., “Foreword” in S.K. AGRAWALA, ed., Essays on the Law of Treaties: With Special Reference to India (Mumbai: Orient Longman, 1969)Google Scholar, vi. See C.G. RAGHAVAN, “Treaties Making Power Under The Constitution of India” in Agrawala, ibid., 217 at 218. However, in 1974 India signed up to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. See Bimal N. PATEL, “The International Court of Justice and India” in Patel, supra note 29 at 289−318.

130. Swaran SINGH, Minister of External Affairs, India, “Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory” (18 September 1974), online: ICJ 〈http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=IN〉.

131. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, “A Consultation Paper on Treaty-Making Power Under Our Constitution” (January 2001), online: Ministry of Law & Justice 〈http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b2-3.htm〉 at para. 45.

132. Ibid.

133. Ibid.

134. Ibid.

135. Ibid., at para. 48.

136. Ibid.

137. Ibid., at para. 45.

138. Novartis AG v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0281/2013 at para. 59 [Novartis]. See in detail Chimni, supra note 6 at 43. See also CHIMNI, B.S., “International Institutions Today: An Imperial Global State in the Making” (2004) 15 European Journal of International Law 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; CHIMNI, B.S., “Critical Theory and International Economic Law: A TWAIL Perspective” in John LINARELLI, ed., Research Handbook on Global Justice and International Economic Law (London: Edward Elgar, 2013), 251 at 255Google Scholar.

139. Right of Passage, Merits, supra note 34 at 45.

140. Ibid., at 46

141. Ibid.

142. Ibid.

143. Case Concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) (Preliminary Objections), [1957] I.C.J. Rep.125 at 128.

144. Ibid., at 130.

145. Ibid., at 135.

146. Right of Passage supra note 34 at 12.

147. Ibid., at 24.

148. “Letter of Sir C. Stirling, on April 30, 1960, No. 51 (1012/5/60, Portuguese Rights of Passage Over Indian Territory: Judgement of the International Court at The Hague FO 371/152541” in Foreign Office Files for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan 1947−64 documents (1960), at para. 6. These letters were declassified in 1991. It then becomes important to look into the change in the constitution of the bench between 1958, the year of preliminary judgment and 1960 when the merits’ judgment came out. The British member of the Court who sat in the preliminary rulings but who subsequently fell ill was Judge Lauterpacht. The Latin American judge implicated by the Portuguese Minister was José Gustavo Guerrero, a diplomat from El Salvador, who served as the last president of the PCIJ from 1937 to 1945 as well as the first president of the ICJ from 1946 to 1949. He remained a member of the Court until his death in 1958.

149. Right of Passage, supra note 34 at 25.

150. Ibid., at 38.

151. Ibid., at 23.

152. Professor Alexandrowicz in the past has maintained that an attempt was made in the Right of Passage proceedings to contest the validity of the treaty by our general notions of treaty law. The ICJ emphasized in its judgment that an eighteenth-century treaty must be interpreted on the basis of legal notions peculiar to both parties and in force at the time of its conclusion. See ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., “Doctrinal Aspects of The Universality of the Law of Nations” (1961) 37 British Yearbook International Law 506 at 512Google Scholar. See also Anand, , “Editor's Note”, supra note 5Google Scholar at xii; Anand, , supra note 117 at 58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chimni, , supra note 6 at 34Google Scholar.

153. Right of Passage, supra note 34.

154. Patel, , supra note 29 at 313Google Scholar.

155. See ANAND, R.P., “The International Court of Justice and the Development of International Law” (1965) 7 International Studies 228CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156. Nehru, , supra note 9Google Scholar.

157. Remedios Monterio v. State of Goa, 26 March 1969, A.I.R. 1970 SC 329 at para. 3.

158. Ibid.

159. Ibid., at para. 25.

160. FALK, Richard A., “International Law and the United States Role in the Viet Nam War” (1966) 75 Yale Law Journal 1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar; CHIMNI, B.S., “Towards a Third World Approach to Non-Intervention: Through the Labyrinth of Western Doctrine” (1980) 20 Indian Journal of International Law 243Google Scholar.

161. WRIGHT, Quincy, “The Goa Incident” (1962) 56 American Journal of International Law 617CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See DUBE, Georges, “Le Rapport Entre la Politique et le Droit dans l'Ordre International” (1963) 5 Cahiers de Droit 47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

162. UNGA, Complaint by Portugal (Goa), Decisions of 18 December 1961, 987th meeting and 998th meeting (S/5030), paras. 2−10, 98, 128−9.

163. Nawaz, , supra note 103 at 23Google Scholar.

164. Keith, , supra note 19 at 17Google Scholar.

165. U.N.S.C.O.R., 16th Session, 987th mtg., para. 40, U.N. Doc. No., S/PV. 987 (1961). Such accusations were supported by Indian judges like Guha Roy, supra note 80 at 879, who stated: “What again does Brierly mean by saying that the theory does not introduce any fiction of law?”

166. Keith, , supra note 19 at 17Google Scholar. As late as 1974, Sinha had asked whether self-determination had indeed become an established principle of international law. See SINHA, S. Prakash, “Has Self-Determination Become a Principle of International Law Today?” (1974) 14 Indian Journal of International Law 332Google Scholar.

167. See “Internal Political Affairs of Goa, Daman and Diu” in FCO 37/266, Foreign Office Files India, Pakistan and Afghanistan: 1965−1971 (1967−1968). Portugal has been concerned about the self-determination of its former colonies. Another example of such a concern is Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), [1995] I.C.J. Rep. 90.

168. “Letter of W.P. Mumford, 3rd October, 1968”, ibid., at 4.

169. “Letter of J.H. Fawcett of 27 June 1968”, ibid., at para. 2.

170. “C.W. Dyment's Letter of May 27, 1968”, ibid., at para. 2.

171. “F.A. Vallat's Letter of May 6, 1968”, ibid., para. 2.

172. Ibid.

173. Ibid.

174. Alexandrowicz, , supra note 25 at 7−8Google Scholar.

175. HIGGINS, Rosalyn, “Human Rights: Some Questions of Integrity” (1989) 15 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 598 at 608Google Scholar. Indian jurist Nariman also agreed that “[t]he sovereignty of the State, as opposed to the concept of the comity of nations, continues to be the single gravest threat to the human right”. See NARIMAN, Fali, “International Human Rights and Sovereignty of States: Role and Responsibility of Lawyers” (1997) 21 Fordham International Law Journal 541 at 547Google Scholar.

176. Higgins, , supra note 175Google Scholar.

177. Chimni, , supra note 6 at 41Google Scholar.

178. Higgins, , supra note 175 at 608Google Scholar.

179. SUREDA, A. Rigo, The Evolution of the Right of Self-Determination (Leiden: A. W. Sijthoff, 1973) at 330Google Scholar.

180. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Request for Advisory Opinion), Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010, [2010] I.C.J. Rep. 403 at 408.

181. Right of Passage (Preliminary Objections), supra note 143 at 125.

182. Joseph D'Souza v. State of Bombay, MANU/SC/0007/1956 at para. 6.

183. Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner, Pondicherry, A.I.R. 1962 SC 797 at para. 44.

184. Ibid., at para. 45.

185. Ibid. From a juristic point of view, a rigid reading of Masthan Sahib v. Chief Commissioner led to the ratio in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, MANU/SC/0331/1989, which suggests that Parliament's powers to legislate refers only to the competence to enact laws with respect to aspects or causes that occur, arise, or exist, or may be expected to do so, solely within India.

186. Union of India v. Sukumar Sengupta, MANU/SC/0300/1990 at para. 16.

187. MISRA, K.P., India's Policy of Recognition of States and Government (London: Allied Publishers, 1966) at 186Google Scholar.

188. Ibid., at 187.

189. The Bangladesh Proclamation of Independence of April 10, 1971; The Indian Prime Minister's Statement Recognizing the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh; The Texts of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 303 (1971) and 307 (1971); The Text of U.N. General Assembly Resolution, 2793 (XXVI) (1972) 11 I.L.M. 119.

190. Chimni, , supra note 6 at 45Google Scholar.

191. Agreement on the Repatriation of Prisoners of War and Civilian Internees, April 9, 1974, New Delhi (1974) 13 I.L.M. 501 at 502.

192. While the birth of Pakistan led to In Re: The Berubari Union and Exchange of Enclaves, A.I.R. 1960 SC 845, the birth of Bangladesh led to the Sukumar Sengupta case, supra note 186; the case was even called Berubari II.

193. “Written Statement of the People's Republic of China”, supra note 79 at 4.

194. Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, AIR 1976 SC 1207.

195. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/0445/1973 [Kesavananda]. See FIKFAK, Veronika, “International Law Before English and Asian Courts: Finding the Judicial Role in the Separation of Powers” (2013) 3 Asian Journal of International Law 271 at 288Google Scholar.

196. Kesavananda, supra note 195 at para. 164.

197. The Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0059/2013 at para. 33. See HOLLIS, Duncan, “The Case of Enrica Lexie: Lotus Redux?” Opinio Juris (17 June 2012)Google Scholar, online: Opinio Juris 〈http://opiniojuris.org/2012/06/17/the-case-of-enrica-lexie-lotus-redux/〉.

198. Lotus, supra note 36 at para. 19.

199. Republic of Italy, supra note 197, at para. 98.

200. Ibid., at para. 33.

201. Ibid., at para. 42.

202. Ibid.

203. Ibid., at para. 69.

204. Ibid., at para. 100. See, however, ALEXANDROWICZ, C.H., “Is India a Federation?” (1954) 3 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 393CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

205. Ibid., at para. 105 (1).

206. Ibid., at para. 101.

207. V.S. MANI, “It's Our Boat, Our Courts” The Hindu (23 March 2013) at para. 13, online: 〈http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/its-our-boat-our-courts/article4538854.ece〉.

208. Novartis, supra note 138 at para. 66. See SINGH, Prabhakar, “Mercantile Metaconstitutionalism: Interpretations of the WTO Treaty and the Developing Countries” (2012) 55 German Yearbook of International Law 465 at 482Google Scholar.

209. Novartis, supra note 138 at para. 65. This battle has been raging for a long time. See OLLIER, Peter, “India's Patent Law Faces New Scrutiny” (2008) 177 Managing Intellectual Property 22Google Scholar; JAYAGOVINDA, A., “The International Patent System and Developing Countries” (1980) 20 Indian Journal of International Law 47Google Scholar.

210. Novartis, supra note 138 at para. 80.

211. Jim Yong KIM, Director, Department of HIV/AIDS of the WHO wrote a letter on 17 December 2004 to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare Government of India, stating that he is (ibid., at para. 76):

212. Ibid., at para. 4.

213. “India's Novartis Decision”, The New York Times (5 April 2013) at A22.

214. Novartis, supra note 138 at para. 4.

215. Ibid.

216. Ibid., at para. 64.

217. Ibid.

218. Prabhash RANJAN and Deepak RAJU, “Losing Ground to Big Pharma Bit by BIT” The Hindu (6 September 2013) at para. 8, online 〈http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/losing-ground-to-big-pharma-bit-by-bit/article5097623.ece〉.

219. Ibid., A.A. Cançado TRINIDADE, “Domestic Jurisdiction and Exhaustion of Local Remedies: A Comparative Analysis” (1976) 16 Indian Journal of International Law 187.

220. Suvrat RAJU and M.V. RAMANA, “Nuclear Extravagance in Washington” The Hindu (26 September 2013) at paras. 1, 15−16, online: 〈http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/nuclear-extravagance-in-washington/article5168341.ece〉.

221. Novartis, supra note 138 at para. 65.

222. J. NEHRU, “No Change on Basic Policies”, from “Speech in Lok Sabha, 17 September 1955”, supra note 9 at 120.

223. Ibid. 121.

224. Reply to E.M. Sudarsana Natchiappan, “Rajya Sabha, Starred Question No. 273, Parliament Q&A”, online: Ministry of External Affairs, India 〈http://www.meaindia.nic.in/mystart.php?id=220120074〉.

225. DIKSHIT, Sandeep, “No Move to Settle Italian Marines Case” The Hindu (8 October 2013)Google Scholar, online: 〈http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/no-move-to-settle-italian-marines-case/article5211427.ece〉.

226. Quoted in ibid.

227. Right of Passage, supra note 34 at 16.

228. Ibid.

229. VENU, M.K., “At WTO, India Will Face Price Catch” The Hindu (23 July 2013)Google Scholar, online: 〈http://www.thehindu.com/business/Economy/at-wto-india-will-face-price-catch/article4942468.ece〉; Amiti SEN, “Food Security Bill Could Violate India's Subsidy Pledge at WTO” Business Line (7 May 2013), online: 〈http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/food-security-bill-could-violate-indias-subsidy-pledge-at-wto/article4693057.ece〉.

230. “Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes—Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013”, Ministerial Conference Ninth Session, Bali, 3−6 December 2013, WT/MIN(13)/38 WT/L/913, online: WTO 〈https://mc9.wto.org/draft-bali-ministerial-declaration〉.

231. Novartis, supra note 138 at para. 59. The Court has also been unnecessarily active in certain matters. In Bhatia International, the Supreme Court actively ruled that Indian courts have the power to order interim measures for arbitration conducted outside India. Bhatia International v. Bulk Trading, 2002, 2 S.C.C. 105. The Court, however, overruled Bhatia in Bharat Aluminium Co. v. Kaiser Aluminium, 2012, 9 S.C.C. 552.

232. “Statement by External Affairs Minister at the General Debate of the 4th United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, Istanbul, May 12, 2011” in Avtar Singh BHASIN, ed., India's Foreign Relations—2011 Documents (New Delhi: Geetika Publishers, 2011), 1847.

233. For instance, speaking during a visit to the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, the Indian Minister for Commerce and Industry, Anand Sharma, defended the Novartis ruling, saying that the court decision was “absolutely justified” under the TRIPS Agreement. See “India Reserves Right to Act on Patents After Novartis Case: Anand Sharma” The Indian Express (9 April 2013), online: 〈http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/india-reserves-right-to-act-on-patents-after-novartis-case-anand-sharma/1099727/〉.

234. See United Nations, “Statement By H.E. Dilma Rousseff, President of the Federative Republic of Brazil, at the Opening of the General Debate of the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly” (24 September 2013), online: UN 〈http://gadebate.un.org/sites/default/files/gastatements/68/BR_en.pdf〉.

235. G.V.K. Industries Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer, MANU/SC/0163/2011 at para. 20(5).

236. The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act, 2010, 21 September 2010, online: Ministry of Law and Justice 〈http://lawmin.nic.in/ld/regionallanguages/THE%20CIVIL%20LIABILITY%20OF%20NUCLEAR%20DAMAGE%20ACT,2010.%20(38%20OF2010).pdf〉.

237. Mohit ABRAHAM and M.P. RAM MOHAN, “Don't Waver Now on Nuclear Liability” The Hindu (20 September 2013), online: 〈http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/dont-waver-now-on-nuclear-liability/article5147177.ece〉.

238. Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy, “Answer by the Minister of State For Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions And Prime Minister's Office to Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No: 2174”, online: Government of India, Department of Atomic Energy 〈http://www.dae.nic.in/writereaddata/rsus2174.pdf〉 at para. (c).

239. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, 2187 U.N.T.S. 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002) art. 112.