Complete Guide of International law

international law, body of rules considered legally binding in the relations between national states, also known as the law of nations. It is sometimes called public international law in contrast to private international law (or conflict of laws), which regulates private legal affairs affected by more than one jurisdiction.


Nature and Scope

International law includes both the customary rules and usages to which states have given express or tacit assent and the provisions of ratified treaties and conventions. International law is directly and strongly influenced, although not made, by the writings of jurists and publicists, by instructions to diplomatic agents, by important conventions even when they are not ratified, and by arbitral awards. The decisions of the International Court of Justice and of certain national courts, such as prize courts, are considered by some theorists to be a part of international law. In many modern states, international law is by custom or statute regarded as part of national (or, as it is usually called, municipal) law. In addition, municipal courts will, if possible, interpret municipal law so as to give effect to international law.

Because there is no sovereign supernational body to enforce international law, some older theorists, including Thomas Hobbes, Samuel Pufendorf, and John Austin have denied that it is true law. Nevertheless, international law is recognized as law in practice, and the sanctions for failing to comply, although often less direct, are similar to those of municipal law; they include the force of public opinion, self-help, intervention by third-party states, the sanctions of international organizations such as the United Nations, and, in the last resort, war.

National states are fundamentally the entities with which international law is concerned, although in certain cases municipal law may impose international duties upon private persons, e.g, the obligation to desist from piracy. New rights and duties have been imposed on individuals within the framework of international law by the decisions in the war crimes trials as well as the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court (see war crimes), by the genocide convention, and by the Declaration of Human Rights (see Economic and Social Council).






Evolution of International Law

Beginnings

There was little scope for an international law in the period of ancient and medieval empires, and its modern beginnings coincide, therefore, with the rise of national states after the Middle Ages. Rules of maritime intercourse and rules respecting diplomatic agents soon came into existence. At the beginning of the 17th cent., the great multitude of small independent states, which were finding international lawlessness intolerable, prepared the way for the favorable reception given to the De jure belli ac pacis [concerning the law of war and peace] (1625) of Hugo Grotius, the first comprehensive formulation of international law. Though not formally accepted by any nation, his opinions and observations were afterward regularly consulted, and they often served as a basis for reaching agreement in international disputes. The most significant principle he enunciated was the notion of sovereignty and legal equality of all states. Other important writers on international law were Cornelius van Bynkershoek, Georg F. von Martens, Christian von Wolff, and Emerich Vattel.


Development to World War I

The growth of international law came largely through treaties concluded among states accepted as members of the “family of nations,” which first included the states of Western Europe, then the states of the New World, and, finally, the states of Asia and other parts of the world. The United States contributed much to the laws of neutrality and aided in securing recognition of the doctrine of freedom of the seas. The provisions of international law were ignored in the Napoleonic period, but the Congress of Vienna reestablished and added much, particularly in respect to international rivers and the classification and treatment of diplomatic agents. The Declaration of Paris (see Paris, Declaration of) abolished privateering, drew up rules of contraband, and stipulated rules of blockade. The Geneva Convention (1864) provided for more humane treatment of the wounded. The last quarter of the 19th cent. saw many international conventions concerning prisoners of war, communication, collision and salvage at sea, protection of migrating bird and sea life, and suppression of prostitution. Resort to arbitration of disputes became more frequent. The lawmaking conventions of the Hague Conferences represent the chief development of international law before World War I. The Declaration of London contained a convention of prize law, which, although not ratified, is usually followed. At the Pan-American Congresses, many lawmaking agreements affecting the Western Hemisphere have been signed.




Effect of the World Wars

In World War I, no strong nations remained on the sidelines to give effective backing to international law, and the concept of third party arbitration was again endangered; many of the standing provisions of international law were violated. New modes of warfare presented new problems in the laws of war, but attempts after the war to effect disarmament and to prohibit certain types of weapons failed, as the outbreak and course of World War II showed. The end of hostilities in 1945 saw the world again faced with grave international problems, including rectification of boundaries, care of refugees, and administration of the territory of the defeated enemy (see trusteeship, territorial). The inadequacy of the League of Nations and of such idealistic renunciations of war as the Kellogg-Briand Pact led to the formation of the United Nations as a body capable of compelling obedience to international law and maintaining peace. After World War II, a notable advance in international law was the definition and punishment of war crimes. Attempts at a general codification of international law, however, proceeded slowly under the International Law Commission established in 1947 by the United Nations.





Recent Developments

The nuclear age and the space age have led to new developments in international law. The basis of space law was developed in the 1960s under United Nations auspices. Treaties have been signed mandating the internationalization of outer space (1967) and other celestial bodies (1979). The 1963 limited test ban treaty (see disarmament, nuclear) prohibited nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. The nuclear nonproliferation treaty (1968) attempted to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The agreements of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, signed by the United States and the USSR in 1972, limited defensive and offensive weapon systems. This was first of many international arms treaties signed between the two nations until the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Other treaties have covered the internationalization of Antarctica (1959), narcotic interdiction (1961), satellite communications (1963), and terrorism (1973). The Law of the Sea (1983) clarified the status of territorial waters and the exploitation of the seabed. Environmental issues have led to a number of international treaties, including agreements covering fisheries (1958), endangered species (1973), global warming and biodiversity (1992). Since the signing of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947, there have been numerous international trade agreements. The European Union (prior to 1993, the European Community) has made moves toward the establishment of a regional legal system; in 1988 a Court of First Instance was established to serve as a court of original jurisdiction on certain economic matters. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (2002), with jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and related matters, marked a major step forward in international law despite the United States' repudiation of the treaty under President George W. Bush.




conflict of laws

conflict of laws, that part of the law in each state, country, or other jurisdiction that determines whether, in dealing with a particular legal situation, its law or the law of some other jurisdiction will be applied. An alternative term, widely used in Europe, is “private international law.” An example of a situation that might involve the different laws of two places is that of a contract signed in one state and mailed to another. Complications may arise if one of the states provides that a contract so delivered is effective once mailed, while the other state provides that it is not effective until received. The conflict of laws rules that a court applies in these disputed situations are commonly designed to decide the case by the law of the territory having the closest connection with the transaction. An often expressed ideal is that of making the decision the same regardless of where the case is decided.

In the United States the existence of many states with legal rules often at variance makes the subject of conflict of laws especially urgent. The Supreme Court ruled in 1938 that each federal court must apply the conflict of laws rules of the state in which it sits. Certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution deprive the states of complete freedom to determine how they will decide cases in this field. Most important is Article 4, Section 1, which provides, in part, “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the Public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this provision as requiring each state to treat as valid any judgment rendered by another state that had jurisdiction over the matter and to lend its powers of enforcement to the judgment; the sole exception is that the courts of one state do not enforce claims arising under the penal law of another. Jurisdiction in this context is defined as the capacity of the state to impose its authority on a transaction because of its intimate connection with the litigants and/or the subject of litigation.

There are especially difficult jurisdictional problems in the field of divorce. The chief problem occurs when only one of the parties appears and the other is merely notified of the action. In such cases the Supreme Court has ruled that the state had jurisdiction to divorce if the party appearing was domiciled there. The court has defined domicile as the place where a person is living with the ultimate intention of making it his or her home. A person who obtains a divorce under these circumstances may seek alimony, or payment thereof, in any state and is immune from the charge of bigamy if he or she remarries.

The most important attempt in antiquity to deal with the problem of conflict of laws was the jus gentium [law of nations] of the Romans: a system of laws applied to all free foreigners. The founder of the modern study of conflict of laws was the medieval jurist, Bartolus of Sassoferrato (1314–57).






International Court of Justice

International Court of Justice, principal judicial organ of the United Nations, established by chapter 14 of the UN Charter. It superseded the Permanent Court of International Justice, and its statute for the most part repeats that of the former tribunal. The court consists of 15 judges chosen by the General Assembly and the Security Council, voting independently, from a list of candidates nominated by government-appointed national groups of international-law experts. No two judges may be from the same country. Nine judges constitute a quorum, and questions are decided by a majority of the judges present. The permanent seat of the court is at The Hague, the Netherlands, but it may hold hearings elsewhere. All members of the United Nations are ipso facto members of the court; other states may adhere to the statute. If a member of the United Nations fails to comply with a judgment of the court, an appeal for assistance may be made to the Security Council. The court may render judgment in certain disputes between states, and with the authorization of the General Assembly, it may deliver advisory opinions to any organ of the United Nations and its agencies.

A dispute may be brought before the court by consent of the parties in the particular case or by virtue of an advance formal declaration of acceptance of the court's jurisdiction. States making such declarations, however, sometimes impose restrictive conditions on their acceptance. The United States excludes all disputes concerning domestic matters from the court's jurisdiction, reserving the right to determine what it regards as domestic. The court's competence between states is limited to disputes concerning the interpretation of treaties, questions of international law, breaches of international obligation, and reparations due. Concern has been expressed at the small number of cases nations have submitted to it. Major opinions of the court have ruled that the General Assembly may not admit a state to the United Nations if the application is vetoed by one of the permanent members of the Security Council; that the United Nations is to be considered as an international legal person; that special United Nations assessments, such as those for the Congo and Middle East operations, are regular expenses of the United Nations and are binding on all members; and that South Africa must withdraw from Namibia (accomplished with Namibia's independence in 1990).

1. war crimes

war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war. Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international tribunals.

The records of the war crimes trials after World War II provide one of the most comprehensive formulations of the concept of war crimes. During that war the Allies agreed to try Axis war criminals. In Aug., 1945, Great Britain, France, the USSR, and the United States established a tribunal at Nuremberg to try military and civilian Axis leaders whose alleged crimes were directed at more than one national group. The trial opened in Nov., 1945. Voluminous evidence was presented to prove the plotting of aggressive warfare, the extermination of civilian populations (especially the Jews), the widespread use of slave labor, the looting of occupied countries, and the maltreatment and murder of prisoners of war. Among those sentenced to death (1946) were Hermann Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and Julius Streicher. Hjalmar Schacht and Franz von Papen were acquitted. The court did not convict Nazi organizations or the German general staff. In 1961, Israel captured, tried, and later executed Adolf Eichmann.

A trial of 28 alleged Japanese war criminals was conducted (1946–47) by an 11-nation tribunal in Tokyo. Evidence similar to that presented against the Nazis brought death sentences to Hideki Tojo and others. The U.S. Supreme Court refused an appeal that was based on the ground that the international court was unlawful. There were many trials in national civil and military courts, including those of the Japanese generals Tomoyuki Yamashita and Masaharu Homma.

Critics have questioned the legal basis of some of the charges at the post–World War II trials. Individuals were found guilty of acts considered legal, or even required, by their nation at the time; such findings represent a violation of the concept of sovereignty. The plotting or carrying out of aggressive war had not been previously and explicitly called criminal, and the judges tended to define it very narrowly. A defendant was generally found guilty only if he had been involved in developing the policy, but not if he had simply carried it out.

Critics have also termed the trials an act of vengeance by the victors and questioned their practical use as a precedent. Personal liability for national action is very difficult to prove conclusively, and a nation will be reluctant to try its own leaders. Therefore, effective prosecution may be possible only if a nation is defeated (and then perhaps only if the documents are captured, as they were after World War II).

Both critics and supporters of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War have justified their positions on the basis of the post–World War II trials. Several Americans were tried for war crimes in this war, and Lt. William Calley was found guilty (see My Lai incident) of particularly disturbing acts against civilians that for many became emblematic of the horrors of the Vietnam conflict. In the 1990s, in reaction to war atrocities committed by various parties during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the United Nations established a tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, and attempted to gather evidence for prosecutions; Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have been charged, including top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders. The highest ranking official to be tried was former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević, whose trial began in 2002 and was still underway when he died in 2006. In 2000 the Hague tribunal officially established rape, which was rampant during the Yugoslav civil strife, as a war crime. A UN tribunal was also set up in Tanzania to try those responsible for Hutu massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and in Sierra Leone to try persons accused of atrocities in that country's civil war (1991–2001).

Despite increasing international recognition of the need to prosecute war crimes, such offenses are still often unpunished. Although there have been many calls for prosecution of former Khmer Rouge leaders for war crimes, they have not yet been tried by Cambodia or internationally (due mainly to the length of time it took the Cambodian government to reach an agreement on trials with the United Nations; a mised Cambodian-international court was finally sworn in 2006). In Indonesia the national courts have tried a number of Indonesian officials and officers for war crimes in East Timor during 1999, but the proceedings ended mainly in acquittals or overturned convictions.

In 1998 the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a treaty authorizing a permanent international court for war crimes. The United States, China, and five other nations opposed the treaty, and 21 nations abstained. The treaty has been signed by more than 130 nations (including the United States), and formally came into effect in July, 2002 after 60 nations had ratified the treaty; the judges of the court were formally sworn in in 2003. Called the International Criminal Court and located at The Hague, it may prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity.

Under the G. W. Bush administration, the United States opposed implementation of the treaty, out of fear that American officials or military personnel might be arrested abroad on baseless charges. In May, 2002, the United States repudiated its signing of the treaty and indicated that it would refuse to cooperate with the court. The U.S. government subsequently insisted (2002, 2003) that U.S. forces used as UN peacekeepers be exempted from prosecution by the court, and in 2003 it suspended military aid to nations that did not similarly exempt U.S. citizens serving within their borders. In 2004, following the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, the United States was unable to secure a further exemption from the United Nations.




2. Laws of war

in international law, rules and principles regulating an armed conflict between nations. These laws are designed to minimize the destruction of life and property, to proscribe cruel treatment of noncombatants and prisoners of war, and to establish conditions under which the belligerents may consult with one another. To mitigate the effects of insurrections and civil wars, established governments often recognize the belligerency of domestic opponents and conduct conflicts with them according to the laws of war.


Development

In the Middle Ages the ideals of knighthood restrained some cruelties in warfare, but systematic legal codes did not appear until the 17th cent. The great work of Grotius, De jure belli ac pacis [on the laws of war and peace] (1625) and the works of Vattel had much influence in introducing humane practices. Detailed international treaties governing war are mostly a product of the 19th and 20th cent. The Declaration of Paris, the accords concluded at the Hague Conferences (1899, 1907), and the Geneva Conventions (1864, 1906, 1929, 1949) are the main bodies of formulated law.



Modern Laws of War

There is no convention on the laws of war to which all the major powers of the world have acceded, and many conventions provide that their terms shall be inoperative if any of the belligerents is not a signatory or if an enemy commits a violation. Despite such provisions, many nations have adopted the laws of war, and the conditions of warfare have undoubtedly been ameliorated, particularly in the treatment of prisoners and the consideration shown to the sick and wounded. The care of the sick and the wounded is facilitated by making medical personnel noncombatants and by clearly marking hospitals and similar installations, thus sparing them from attack. Conventions restricting the use of certain weapons probably have not materially mitigated the horrors of war. For the most part, only those weapons that are of limited military use, e.g., poison gas, have been effectively banned, while efforts to prohibit militarily effective weapons, e.g., atomic weapons and submarine mines, have not succeeded.

The laws of war have had as their objective the protection of civilian populations by limiting all action to the military. A distinction was made between combatants and noncombatants, the former being defined in terms of traditional military units. Thus combatants must have a commander responsible for subordinates, wear a fixed and recognizable emblem, carry arms openly, and follow the laws of war. But the development of aerial bombing in World War I and of guerrilla forces dependent on civilians has tended to make all enemy territory part of the theater of operations. New practices and categories have yet to be worked out to protect civilian centers adequately.

Civilians in territory occupied by the enemy are, however, supposed to be entitled to certain protections. There may not be imprisonment without cause, and fines may not be levied upon a whole civilian population for individual offenses. Private property also receives limited protection, and it may not be confiscated for military use unless fair compensation is paid. Special rules govern such actions against property as the taking of a prize at sea or in port, the confiscation of contraband, and the use of the blockade. Property destroyed in the course of action against the enemy is, of course, not compensable. Places of religious, artistic, or historical importance should not be attacked unless there is military need.

No direct diplomatic relations exist between belligerents, but neutral diplomats are often given custody of property in enemy territory and are entrusted with negotiations. In the field of combat, passports, safe-conducts, and flags of truce permit consultations between opposing commanders. Hostilities may even be totally suspended by an armistice, which is often the prelude to surrender.

Violations of the laws of war have probably occurred in all major conflicts; a nation confident of victory will frequently not be deterred even by fear of reprisals. After World War II the military and civilian leaders of the Axis Powers who were responsible for violations were tried for war crimes, and some Americans were tried for war crimes in the Vietnam War





3. Economic and Social Council

Economic and Social Council, constituent organ of the United Nations. It is established by chapter 10 of the UN Charter and has 54 (18 before 1965) member nations elected annually for three-year terms by the General Assembly. The council undertakes investigations of international economic and social questions and reports its conclusions and suggestions to the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations for action. The council also coordinates the activities of the specialized agencies of the United Nations and arranges for consultations with international nongovernmental organizations. The full council meets annually; decisions are taken by a majority of members present and voting, which insures a majority of developing nations. The council has established functional commissions, including the Statistical Commission, the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, the Commission for Sustainable Development, the Commission on the Status of Women, the Population and Development Commission, and the Commission on Human Rights and regional commissions. A director-general directly below the UN secretary-general has been created to coordinate programs under the council. The activities of the Commission on Human Rights have been particularly important. In Aug., 1948, a draft of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drawn up by the commission, was adopted by the General Assembly. In 1967, the commission was authorized to investigate and monitor violations of human rights in both developed and developing countries. The council supervises the activities of the United Nations Children's Fund, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Development Program, and the International Narcotics Control Board, and it has consultative relationships with numerous nongovernmental organizations. It also undertakes special studies at the request of countries belonging to the United Nations.






4. freedom of the seas

seas, freedom of the, in international law, the principle that outside its territorial waters a state may not claim sovereignty over the seas, except with respect to its own vessels. This principle, first established by the Romans, gives to all nations in time of peace unrestricted use of the seas for naval and commercial navigation, for fishing, and for the laying of submarine cables. From the late 15th to the early 19th cent., Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain attempted to exclude commercial rivals from parts of the open sea. Protests by other nations led to a revived acceptance of freedom of the seas. One of its strongest advocates was the United States, especially in its dispute with Great Britain preceding the War of 1812. In time of peace, freedom of the seas cannot be restricted lawfully except by international agreements, such as those regulating fisheries or the right of visit and search. During war, however, belligerents often assert limitations of the principle in order to facilitate the more effective conduct of hostilities, and it is then that the sharpest disagreements arise, e.g., the case of the Lusitania in World War I. Subjects of contention between neutrals and belligerents include the right to seize neutral property and persons aboard an enemy ship (see prize), the mining of sea lanes, and the exclusion of neutral vessels from enemy ports by blockade. The Law of the Sea Treaty establishes a 12-mile (19-kilometer) territorial limit for coastal nations and establishes an international authority to regulate seabed mining, among other provisions.




5. right of search

In domestic law, the right of officials to search persons or private property, usually obtained through some form of search warrant authorized by a court. In the United States, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the security of the people “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and requires that a search warrant, based on “probable cause,” be obtained by police. The wording of the amendment, however, has proved open to widely varying interpretations. Thus, eavesdropping, including electronic “bugging,” was long considered not to require a warrant, and the nature of “probable cause” has been debated over the years.

In the 1960s the Supreme Court strengthened protections against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by applying exclusionary rules, barring the use of illegally collected evidence in court. Since the 1980s, however, a more conservative Court has undercut the force of exclusionary rules, allowing the use of evidence collected “in good faith” even if without a valid warrant. Government officials have been given wider access to telephone and bank records, and a nationwide antidrug campaign has led to the use of “stop and frisk” searches, particularly in the nation's cities. In the 1990s congressional conservatives sought to write into federal statute the greater leeway allowed police by the Court.


In international law the right of search denotes the right of a warship to detain and search a private vessel belonging to a foreign national. In peacetime, this right is ordinarily exercised only within the territorial waters of a state and merely as an incident of the power to police such waters, and generally only in such cases as suspected piracy, violation of fishing regulations, or interference with telephone cables. In wartime, however, a belligerent may search neutral vessels on the high seas in order to capture the property of enemy nationals or to remove contraband bound for enemy ports. Forcible resistance to search allows the warship to attack or destroy the vessel or its cargo or to take them as a prize. The right of search is also called the right of visit and search.






6. space law

space law, agreements governing the exploration and use of outer space, developed since the first launching (1957) by humans of a satellite into space. Space law, an aspect of international law, has grown under the aegis of the United Nations. A 1963 UN declaration stated that the exploration and use of outer space would be for the benefit and in the interest of all people; that no sovereignty could be claimed in space; that objects and persons launched into space would be returned promptly and safely if they landed in a foreign country; and that nations launching objects would be responsible for damages caused by them. In 1967, a general treaty embodying these principles and adding a prohibition on the military use of space and a provision for the inspection of installations on celestial bodies went into effect. A UN treaty on use of the moon's resources was drafted in 1979. The boundary between airspace, which is subject to sovereignty, and outer space remains an object of discussion. Some favor definitions based on the composition of the atmosphere. Others favor a functional approach; thus, if commercial airlines use a particular layer of the atmosphere, it is to be considered airspace.

__________________
ஜ иστнιπg ιš ιмթΘรรιвlε тσ α ωιℓℓιиg нєαят ஜ

7. belligerency

in international law, status of parties legally at war. Belligerency exists in a war between nations or in a civil war if the established government treats the insurgent force as if it were a sovereign power. The rules of international law as formulated at the Hague Conferences require that belligerency between states be preceded by an absolute declaration of war or an ultimatum prescribing the terms on which the issuing power will refrain from war. When belligerency has been established, the relations between the warring powers are determined by the laws of war (see war, laws of). In civil wars if the insurgent force is granted belligerency rights, neutral nations generally abstain from supplying or helping either the established government or its opponent. An example of this practice is found in the neutrality proclamations issued by European powers in the American Civil War. Neutral nations may refuse to recognize the belligerency of an insurgent, however, and in this way preserve the right to claim any damages that accrue against the established government for having failed to suppress the rebellion without delay. Under its charter, the United Nations recognizes as legitimate only wars that are fought in self-defense, or for the collective enforcement of the UN Charter. All other wars are regarded as illegal acts of aggression. The United Nations also considers civil wars as threatening to international peace, and, when possible, takes measures to end such hostilities (e.g., Kashmir, Palestine, Korea, the Congo, Cyprus).





7. contraband

in international law, goods necessary or useful in the prosecution of war that a belligerent may lawfully seize from a neutral who is attempting to deliver them to the enemy. The term is sometimes also applied to the goods carried into a country by smuggling. The penalty for carrying contraband goods is the confiscation of the goods and often also of the vessel. Neutral ships guilty of direct assistance to the enemy may be treated as enemy ships. International law has not precisely defined all classes of goods that are contraband of war per se. Munitions are certainly absolute contraband, but the status of food and other conditional contraband at least indirectly needed for war is often in doubt. At the second (1907) of the Hague Conferences a vain attempt to define the classes of contraband was made. In World War I many powers at first agreed to abide by the terms of the Declaration of London (see London, Declaration of) respecting contraband, but in time unconditional blockade of all goods was adopted. At the beginning of World War II the belligerents drew up lists of absolute and conditional contraband, but the total absorption of the economy in warfare led to the prohibition, so far as possible, of all shipping to the enemy.





8. piracy

piracy, robbery committed or attempted on the high seas. It is distinguished from privateering in that the pirate holds no commission from and receives the protection of no nation but usually attacks vessels of all nations.

As the line between privateering and piracy is often hard to draw, any act of doubtful legality committed on the seas is apt to be characterized as piracy. Thus the sinking of merchant vessels by the Germans in World War I was characterized by some as piracy, although the act was done on the authority of a national state. However, at the Washington Conference of 1921 a treaty was concluded that declared that improper visit and search (rights of search) by one in the service of any power would constitute piracy.

Since piracy is a crime against humanity, those practicing it may be tried in any competent court, regardless of nationality. To the forms of piracy defined by international law, however, a nation may add offenses committed on board its own vessels or in its own territorial waters.






9. free port

free port, port, or section of a port, exempt from customs regulations. Goods may be landed at a free port for storage and handling, and they may even be processed into manufactured goods. Duty is charged only if the goods are moved from the free port into the adjacent territory. Free ports originated in the late Middle Ages, when the burdensome tariffs charged by many petty states threatened the reemerging maritime commerce. The high tariffs later levied in the period of mercantilism necessitated additional free ports. In the 19th cent. the danger of smuggling caused the closing of many free ports. In Europe, Copenhagen, Danzig, and Hamburg were free ports until 1939; in East Asia, Hong Kong and Singapore still are. In the United States, bonded warehouses serve some of the functions of the free port, permitting goods to be stored and processed in specially licensed warehouses if a bond exceeding the amount of the customs duties is first posted. In 1934 the Foreign Trade Zones Act authorized the establishment of free ports in the United States, but with a prohibition on manufacturing. The first American free port was opened in New York City in 1937, and others have since been added. Many international airports have free ports.





10. maritime law

maritime law, system of law concerning navigation and overseas commerce. Because ships sail from nation to nation over seas no nation owns, nations need to seek agreement over customs related to shipping. From such agreements between nations has grown a body of customs and usages that is the basis for maritime law. It was, in origin, based on customs only, but it felt the influence of the Roman civil law. In the later Middle Ages, when traders were more and more venturous in crossing the waters, the rules of the sea were compiled into widely recognized collections such as the Consolato del mare [consulate of the sea], The Rolls of Oléron or The Laws of Oléron, and the English Black Book of the Admiralty. In England, special courts were set up to administer the law under the high court of admiralty. The Judicature Act of 1873 abolished these courts and assigned their functions to the high court of justice. In the United States the Constitution gives the federal courts authority in “all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.” This jurisdiction covers all maritime contracts, torts, injuries or offenses, and questions of prize. In cases of collision at sea, the parties may under the Judiciary Act of 1789 bring suits at common law; otherwise all maritime cases come to the federal courts. The jurisdiction extends to all navigable waters of the United States, and much of the law is now governed by federal statutes. Though maritime law is general in character, only those parts that determine the relations among nations—particularly those that deal with problems arising on the seas in wartime, such as questions of belligerency and neutrality—are part of the international law proper.



11. flotsam, jetsam, and ligan


in maritime law, goods lost at sea as distinguished from goods washed ashore (wreck). Goods that remain floating on the surface after a shipwreck or accident are called flotsam (or floatsam or flotsan), while jetsam refers to goods thrown overboard, or jettisoned (see jettison), by a vessel in distress. Ligan (or lagan) designates goods that are sunk in the sea and have a buoy or floating object attached to them as a mark of ownership or in order that they may be found again. Such goods found by other persons must be returned to the owner, while flotsam and jetsam must be returned only if the owner makes a proper claim. The rules of salvage apply to all three types of goods.






12. genocide

in international law, the intentional and systematic destruction, wholly or in part, by a government of a national, racial, religious, or ethnic group. Although the term genocide was first coined in 1944, the crime itself has been committed often in history. It was initially used to describe the systematic campaign for the extermination of peoples carried on by Nazi Germany, in its attempts in the 1930s and 40s to destroy the entire European Jewish community, and to eliminate other national groups in Eastern Europe. In 1945, the charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal listed persecution on racial or religious grounds as a crime for which the victorious Allies would try Nazi offenders. It established the principle of the individual accountability of government officials who carried out the extermination policies. The United Nations, by a convention concluded in 1949, defined in detail the crime of genocide and provided for its punishment by competent national courts of the state on whose territory the crime was committed, or by international tribunal. Charging that the convention violated national sovereignty, especially in its provision for an international tribunal and in the potential liability of an individual citizen, the United States did not ratify it until 37 years later, in 1986. An international tribunal was established to prosecute genocide cases in the aftermath of the slaughter of more than 500,000 Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. In 1995 top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders were charged by an international tribunal with genocide in the killing of thousands of Muslims during the breakup of the former Yugoslavia.







13. hostage

hostage, person held by another as a guarantee that certain actions or promises will or will not be carried out. During periods of internal turmoil, insurgents often seize hostages; recent examples include seizures of Americans and other foreigners by militants in Iran (1979–81) and Lebanon (1980s). Military forces often take hostages among civilians in an occupied country, in order to ensure the delivery of requisitions, to discourage hostile acts, or to take reprisals for hostile acts committed by unknown persons. In World War II, thousands of hostages were executed throughout Europe by the German authorities in an attempt to crush resistance movements. The Geneva Convention of 1949 forbade entirely the taking of civilian hostages. Criminals, especially when confronted by police, sometimes take hostages as “human shields” or as bargaining assets. In 1998 it was revealed that Israel was holding Lebanese hostages solely for use in prisoner exchanges or other deals with Lebanese guerrillas; their detainment was condoned by Israel's supreme court.

Ancient military custom regulated the behavior and treatment of hostages; originally a hostage was a person who had been delivered by one authority to another as a token of good faith, and was generally treated as an honored guest. However, he might be imprisoned or even executed if the agreement guaranteed by his person was broken. The code of honor was often very strictly observed in feudal times; thus, during the Hundred Years War, when the hostages sent to England in exchange for the release of John II of France escaped, King John felt bound to return to captivity in England. Until the 18th cent., hostages were often exchanged when treaties were concluded.





14. internment

in international law, detention of the nationals or property of an enemy or a belligerent. A belligerent will intern enemy merchant ships or take them as prize, and a neutral should intern both belligerent ships that fail to leave its ports within a specified time and belligerent troops that enter its territory. The practice of detaining persons considered dangerous during a war is often called internment, even though they may not be enemy nationals. In World War II the United States detained persons of Japanese ancestry and German or Italian citizenship in relocation centers. The Geneva Convention of 1949 on the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War provides for the unrestricted departure of enemy aliens from the territory of a belligerent at the outbreak of conflict, and the humane treatment of those aliens who choose to remain.






15. jettison

in maritime law, casting all or part of a ship's cargo overboard to lighten the vessel or to meet some danger, such as fire. Such cargo, when found later, is known as jetsam. The master of the ship has the absolute right to jettison cargo when he reasonably believes it to be necessary, and the owners of the ship incur no liability. If the vessel carries goods of more than one shipper, the rule of general average provides for apportioning the loss among all the shippers because all have benefited by the master's action. On the other hand, if some cargo is lost by accident, the shippers who suffered no loss do not contribute to indemnification.






16. Declaration of London

It is an international code of maritime law, especially as related to war, proposed in 1909. The declaration grew largely out of the attempt at the second of the Hague Conferences to set up an international prize court with compulsory jurisdiction. Great Britain, then the chief naval power, felt that such a court should be governed by defined principles. At British invitation the leading European naval powers and the United States and Japan assembled at London in 1908. The Declaration of London that they issued comprised 71 articles dealing with many controversial points, including blockade, contraband, and prize. In general it was a restatement of the existing law, but in its high regard for the rights of neutrals it represented a distinct advance. Although the U.S. Senate ratified the declaration, unanimous ratification by the signatories did not follow, and the code never went into effect officially. In World War I a proposal of the United States that the belligerents voluntarily abide by the code was not adopted.






17. mediation

mediation, in law, type of intervention in which the disputing parties accept the offer of a third party to recommend a solution for their controversy. Mediation has long been a part of international law, frequently involving the use of an international commission, in a process known as by conciliation. Mediation differs from arbitration in being a diplomatic rather than a judicial procedure; thus, the parties to the dispute are not bound to accept the mediator's recommendation. Resort to mediation has become increasingly frequent, both for internal and international disputes. The Declaration of Paris (1856) expressed the hope that the signatories would ask for mediation in their disputes. At the Second Hague Conference (1907), the right of friendly powers to offer mediation was recognized. The Covenant of the League of Nations provided that the whole League, acting through the League Council, should offer conciliation, and the Charter of the United Nations requires all members to submit disputes to mediation on recommendation of the Security Council. Mediation has been successful in many cases of international conflict. The United States served as mediator between Bolivia and Chile (1882) and between Russia and Japan (1905). The United Nations served as a mediator in the conflict in Israel in 1948. In 1966, the Soviet Union mediated the border clashes between India and China. The Secretary-General of the United Nations mediated successfully in several international disputes, particularly that over Netherlands New Guinea. Mediation has become increasingly important for internal disagreements as well, particularly in labor disputes. In the United States, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service works toward a healthy relationship between labor and management, mediating disputes where necessary and promoting collective bargaining. Many state and local governments in the U.S. have similar organizations, each generally having the power to intervene when the public interest appears to be in jeopardy. National mediation services are also common in other nations, particularly among the Western democracies.





18. minority

minority, in international law, population group with a characteristic culture and sense of identity occupying a subordinate political status. Religious minorities were known from ancient times, but ethnic minorities did not become an issue in European politics until the rise of nationalism in the 19th cent. The potential conflict arose from nationalism's equation of the nation with the identity of the dominant cultural group, with an attempt to eradicate separate identities through conformity. The minority group sought to establish its own culture as a national identity, either by incorporating with a nearby country that shared its identity or, if none existed, by seceding and forming its own nation.

Before World War I, the minority problem was especially acute in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), and Russia. During the war, each side promised autonomy or independence to minorities in enemy states, and revolts (e.g., of Arabs and Czechs) were encouraged. One of President Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points was the freeing of minorities. Hitler made adroit use of the minority issue to annex the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia and to attack Poland, thus launching World War II. After the war, Czechoslovakia and Poland took the extreme step of deporting all Germans.

Communist nations have traditionally asserted that they have no such difficulties because all ethnic groups are allowed full expression; this was belied by the crucial role that was played by minority national groups in the breakup of the Soviet Union. Nowhere has the post-Communist assertion of minority rights had more dire results for minorities than in Yugoslavia, which fissured into several warring national and subnational entities.

Many politically unstable African nations include disparate ethnic factions, frequently embattled because of national boundaries that were artificially drawn by European colonialists. In recent years, Burundi, Rwanda, Somalia, and Sudan have been the site of severe ethnic, religious, or clan-based feuding. Pakistan was formed in 1947 for the Muslim minority of Hindu India, but the nation combined different peoples who shared only a religion. In 1971 the Bengalis of East Pakistan seceded to form the nation of Bangladesh. Since the 1960s, Northern Ireland—largely Protestant with a sizable Catholic minority—has witnessed much sectarian strife, although the late 1990s brought the hope of peace.

In the United States the toleration of legal discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities came to an end after World War II. To ensure recently gained equality, the Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) gave a special protected status to the victims of historic injustices. Affirmative action decrees of the 1960s and 1970s mandated that race, gender, and national origin be taken into account in employment situations. African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Native Americans are ethnic minorities that are protected under affirmative action regulations.

Since 1945, the United Nations has been active with respect to minority problems, especially through the Commission on Human Rights. In 1948, the United Nations approved two important documents concerning minorities: the Genocide Convention (see genocide) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.






19. mutiny

mutiny, concerted disobedient or seditious action by persons in military or naval service, or by sailors on commercial vessels. Mutiny may range from a combined refusal to obey orders to active revolt or going over to the enemy on the part of two or more persons. In the armed forces it is considered one of the gravest crimes against military law. Mutiny may be committed on a private vessel whether it is at sea or in port. As a result of two major naval mutinies in Great Britain in 1797—one at Spithead and one at Nore and Sheerness—many of the abuses in the navy, such as bad food, brutal discipline, and withholding pay, were remedied. Mutinies tend to occur with some frequency in the armed forces of nations on the point of suffering defeat; thus, in 1918 the German navy mutinied at Kiel and the Austrian navy at Cattaro (now Kotor). A mutiny may be the signal for a revolution, as were the Russian mutinies in 1905 and 1917 at Kronshtadt.

__________________
ஜ иστнιπg ιš ιмթΘรรιвlε тσ α ωιℓℓιиg нєαят ஜ

20. navigable water

navigable water, in the broadest sense, a stream or body of water that can be used for commercial transportation. When, as in the early common law, the term is restricted to waters affected by tides, it denotes only the open sea and tidal rivers. In most U.S. jurisdictions the definition tends to include any body of water that may be put to public use, e.g., streams that can be used only for logging and for small pleasure boats would still be considered navigable. In the United States each state determines what private use may be made of wholly intrastate navigable waters, but the federal government alone has authority over navigable interstate and international waters. In general, if the water is of restricted navigability, the right of public use is strictly confined to transporting goods; use of the water for irrigation, power, and the like is limited to the abutting landowners.






21. neutrality

neutrality, in international law, status of a nation that refrains from participation in a war between other states and maintains an impartial attitude toward the belligerents. Neutrality is not to be confused with neutralism, or nonalignment, under international law.

At the opening of hostilities, a nonbelligerent state generally issues a proclamation of neutrality. It is then the duty of the neutral power to observe strict impartiality in its relations with the warring nations. However, absolute neutrality is not always the reality, and the terms benevolent and hostile imply the sympathy of a neutral for one or other of the belligerents. The duty of the belligerent is to respect neutral territory (land and air) and neutral territorial waters. Switzerland, neutralized by the Congress of Vienna (1815), has stood as an example of a perpetually neutral state. Temporary neutrality flows from the unlimited sovereignty of the state, which allows it freely to decide its position in time of war and voluntarily to abstain from participation.

Neutral duties and rights were codified or incorporated in treaties and thus became part of international law. The Declaration of Paris (1856) standardized certain laws of neutrality; the Declaration of London (1909) codified certain principles of neutrality with regard to maritime law (see London, Declaration of). At the Second Hague Conference (1907), neutral rights and obligations were defined in two conventions. The general neutrality convention, after declaring neutral territory inviolable, laid down regulations for neutral states and listed acts that should not be regarded as favoring one of the belligerents. The convention on neutrality in naval war, which was fuller, elaborated upon the duties of neutrals but did not incorporate rules for contraband and blockade.

In World Wars I and II, violations of neutrality by both sides were frequent, and attempts were made to justify the action by assertions that changed methods of warfare warranted changes in the observance of international law. When the League of Nations was established, it was generally recognized that member states could not be neutral in any dispute in which the League called upon them to intervene. The United States, which was not a member, asserted its intention to remain aloof from all wars and adopted (1935) the Neutrality Act. The United Nations, unlike the League, includes all the major world powers. Their obligations under the charter to restore and maintain the peace preclude neutrality, and neutral states, such as Switzerland, cannot become active members. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 provide a role for neutrals in the administration of prisoner-of-war agreements.

The 1794 Neutrality Act forbids U.S. citizens from taking part in military action against any country with which the United States is not at war. Enforcement of the act has been highly selective, however, with technical reasons usually offered for failure to prosecute. The United States has not declared war on anyone since World War II and has thus been legally neutral throughout such episodes as the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba (1961), and the Vietnam War. U.S. citizens have also often fought under the flags of other nations.





22. nonintercourse

nonintercourse, in international law, refusal of a state to engage in diplomatic or commercial relations with another state. It is a hostile act of retaliation for some wrong and is intended to effect redress. Since nations normally have diplomatic and commercial intercourse, nonintercourse may in some circumstances be a threat of war.







23. Declaration of Paris

Declaration of Paris, 1856, agreement concerning the rules of maritime warfare, issued at the Congress of Paris. It was the first major attempt to codify the international law of the sea. Conflicting methods used in dealing with property at sea had demonstrated the need for uniformity, while the respect paid to neutral rights in the Crimean War indicated that common principles of action would be accepted by the great powers. Four principles were enunciated by the declaration: privateering would no longer be considered legal; a neutral flag would protect the goods of an enemy, except for contraband of war; neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, would not be liable to capture when under the enemy's flag; a blockade would be binding only if it prevented access to the coast of the enemy. At first the United States refused to accept the declaration, claiming that privateers were necessary if a nation did not have a strong navy. However, the United States accepted the declaration during the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. At the beginning of World War I prize courts recognized the declaration, but submarine warfare and extensive lists of contraband negated its principles. Part of its aims were restated in 1909 in the Declaration of London, but technological advances made many of its provisions inapplicable in 20th-century warfare.








24. prisoners of war

prisoners of war, in international law, persons captured by a belligerent while fighting in the military. International law includes rules on the treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants. This excludes civilians who engage in hostilities (by international law they are war criminals;and forces that do not observe conventional requirements for combatants.



Historical Attitudes toward Prisoners of War

Attitudes toward prisoners of war have changed over time. Originally slaughtered, captives were later considered war booty. The captor still held life-and-death power, but it became more useful to make slaves of the prisoners. In feudal Europe the nobles were ransomed, and the Ottoman Empire and the Barbary States generally ransomed their Christian captives.

The basis of the modern treatment of prisoners of war was stated by Montesquieu in De l'esprit des lois and by J. J. Rousseau in his Social Contract; both held that the right of the captor over the prisoner was limited to preventing him from taking up arms again and ceased altogether with the end of hostilities. Their view was elaborated by Emerich de Vattel. During the American Civil War, Francis Lieber drew up the first systematic, written regulations on the treatment of prisoners of war.

The first international convention on prisoners of war was signed at the Hague Peace Conference of 1899. It was widened by the Hague Convention of 1907. These rules proved insufficient in World War I, and the International Red Cross proposed a more complete code.





The 1929 Geneva Convention

In 1929 the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was signed by 47 governments. Chief among the nations that did not adhere to the Geneva Convention of 1929 were Japan and the USSR. Japan, however, gave a qualified promise (1942) to abide by the Geneva rules, and the USSR announced (1941) that it would observe the terms of the Hague Convention of 1907, which did not provide (as does the Geneva Convention) for neutral inspection of prison camps, for the exchange of prisoners' names, and for correspondence with prisoners.

According to the Geneva Convention no prisoner of war could be forced to disclose to his captor any information other than his identity (i.e., his name and rank, but not his military unit, home town, or address of relatives). Every prisoner of war was entitled to adequate food and medical care and had the right to exchange correspondence and receive parcels. He was required to observe ordinary military discipline and courtesy, but he could attempt to escape at his own risk. Once recaptured, he was not to be punished for his attempt. Officers were to receive pay either according to the pay scale of their own country or to that of their captor, whichever was less; they could not be required to work. Enlisted men might be required to work for pay, but the nature and location of their work were not to expose them to danger, and in no case could they be required to perform work directly related to military operations. Camps were to be open to inspection by authorized representatives of a neutral power.

In World War II, Switzerland and Sweden acted as protecting powers. The International Red Cross at Geneva acted as a clearinghouse for the exchange of all information regarding prisoners of war and had charge of transmitting correspondence and parcels. With minor and inevitable exceptions on the lower levels, the United States and Great Britain generally honored the Geneva Convention throughout the conflict. Japan at first committed such atrocities as the “death march of Bataan,” but began to abide by the rules after a sufficient number of Japanese prisoners had fallen into Allied hands to make reprisals possible. Germany did not treat all its prisoners alike. Americans and British subjects received the best treatment, Polish prisoners the worst.




The 1949 Geneva Convention

The changed methods of warfare in World War II, the maltreatment of prisoners of war that constituted an important part of the war crimes indictments, and the retention of a great number of German prisoners of war by the USSR for several years after the war showed that the 1929 Convention required revision on many points. A new convention, reaffirming and supplementing the 1929 Convention, was signed at Geneva in 1949 and subsequently ratified by almost all nations. It broadened the categories of persons entitled to prisoner-of-war status, clearly redefined the conditions of captivity, and reaffirmed the principle of immediate release and repatriation at the end of hostilities.

Although the North Koreans promised to respect the Geneva Convention in the Korean War, they refused to recognize the impartial status of the Red Cross and denied it access to the territory they controlled. The unprecedented refusal of prisoners to be repatriated, moreover, established a new principle of political asylum for prisoners of war. The governments of North and South Vietnam, parties to the 1949 Geneva Convention, were charged with violating it in the Vietnam War—the North by not permitting full reporting, correspondence, and neutral inspection, and the South by allegedly torturing captives and placing them in inhumane prisons. The national anguish over the Vietnam War was extended for decades after the war's end in part because of the lack of resolution over the POW and MIA (missing in action) issue. While the Pentagon's MIA list still contains names of missing servicemen, the last official prisoner of war was declared dead in 1994.

Combatants captured and held by the United States as a result of its operations in Afghanistan against the Taliban government and Al Qaeda forces were not recognized as as prisoners of war by the Bush administration and were termed “unlawful combatants” instead. This decision was criticized by human rights groups as a failure to abide by international law, and drew criticism from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well. In June, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that these prisoners, which the Bush administration had claimed it could hold indefinitely (most them at the Guantánamo, Cuba, naval base), had the right to challenge their detention.

A month before the ruling, U.S. prestige had suffered a significant blow when it was revealed that U.S. forces had abused Iraqi prisoners in 2003–4. Later revelations suggested that the abuse may have been an outgrowth of U.S. prisoner policy in place since the 2001 terror attacks on the United States, and the ICRC expressed concern that the United States might be continuing to hide prisoners from it, as had been attempted in Iraq. The ICRC subsequently privately charged that U.S. treatment of some prisoners at Guantánamo was “tantamount to torture.” Also in 2004 the Bush administration determined that some non-Iraqi prisoners captured in Iraq were not subject to the Geneva Conventions, and that such prisoners could be transferred out of Iraq, as the CIA secretly had done with a small number of prisoners since 2003.








25. privateering

privateering, former usage of war permitting privately owned and operated war vessels (privateers) under commission of a belligerent government to capture enemy shipping. Private ownership distinguished the privateer from an ordinary warship; letters of marque and reprisal (commission issued by a government) distinguished it from a pirate craft. The primary object of privateering was to harass the enemy, but it was often practiced as a retaliatory measure. Licensed privateering dates back to the 13th cent., but the great era of privateering was the period from 1589 to 1815, when privateers became auxiliaries to or substitutes for regular navies, and when weaker naval powers used privateers as an effective method of injuring a more powerful maritime rival. Privateersmen, who kept all or a part of their booty, often gained great wealth. After the defeat (1692) of the French fleet by the Dutch and English, France commissioned privateers, who preyed upon English commerce. In the American War of Independence and in the War of 1812 American privateersmen captured hundreds of prizes. The Confederate States issued letters of marque to the last privateers in history, but the Union blockade limited their effectiveness. In attempting to curb the abuses of privateering, nations required that captures be condemned in prize courts and that commissions (in restricted number) be granted only in the name of the sovereign. Privateersmen were free of naval discipline, and their desire for prize often led them to make no distinction between friendly and enemy shipping, to violate the rules of war, and to indulge in lawlessness after the conclusion of peace. These abuses led to the abolition of privateering by the Declaration of Paris (1856). This declaration does not prohibit the creation of voluntary navies consisting of private vessels under the control of a state, such as those used in World War II in the evacuation from Dunkirk.






26. prize

prize, in maritime law, the private property of an enemy that a belligerent captures at sea. For the capture of the vessel or cargo to be lawful it must be made outside neutral waters and by authority of the belligerent. A prize court, in the territory of the belligerent or in that of an allied power, must adjudicate that the property belonged to an enemy national. After the prize is captured, it is ordinarily placed in charge of a prize master and sent into port for judicial proceedings; however, if the enemy character of the ship is readily apparent, it may be destroyed at sea (after passengers, crew, and ship's papers have been removed), with the captor's government being liable for the losses of neutrals. If the prize is sold before being adjudicated, the proceeds must be delivered to the court for distribution. In the case of condemnation, the entire proceeds go to the belligerent government. In the United States, since 1899, the crew of the vessel effecting capture has had no right to share in the profits of the sale. A prize court renders a decision on the basis of the ship's papers, the testimony of those on board, and other relevant factors. If the ship is not condemned, it is released and damages are awarded where no justifiable reason for its capture has been shown. Prize law initially developed from the desire of governments to share in the profits made by ships engaged in privateering. The governments also wished to minimize diplomatic claims for damages by establishing regular procedures for disposing of captures. Although they nominally apply international law, prize courts (in the United States, the federal courts) in awarding judgment have been influenced, or even bound, by the national law. To avoid this, prize cases are sometimes referred to international tribunals. Efforts to establish an international prize court with appellate jurisdiction, however, have not succeeded.






27. protectorate

protectorate, in international law, a relationship in which one state surrenders part of its sovereignty to another. The subordinate state is called a protectorate. The term covers a great variety of relations, but typically the protected state gives up all or part of its control over foreign affairs while retaining a large measure of independence in internal matters. The relation may originate when the dominant power threatens or uses force or when the subordinate sees advantages (usually military protection) in the arrangement. A protectorate is distinguishable from the relation of home country and colony, for the protected state retains its sovereignty (though often only nominally), its territory remains distinct from that of the protector, and its citizens do not become nationals of the protecting state. Initially, in most cases, the extent to which the dominant state may interfere in local affairs is governed by treaty; but since a protected state usually has no access to diplomatic channels, it is in a poor position to resist attempts at increased control. Protectorates in connection with large empires probably have existed from earliest times, and there are known instances in Greek and Roman history. In World War I, Great Britain made Egypt a protectorate. Before the abrogation (1934) of the Platt Amendment, Cuba was essentially a protectorate of the United States. Today no state formally has the status of a protectorate, but several quasi-protectorates do exist, including the Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Niue. The former trust territories of the United Nations (see trusteeship, territorial) were distinguished from protectorates in that they were being prepared for ultimate independence and that the control of the dominant state was subject to scrutiny by the UN Trusteeship Council.








28. reprisal

reprisal, in international law, the forcible taking, in time of peace, by one country of the property or territory belonging to another country or to the citizens of the other country, to be held as a pledge or as redress in order to satisfy a claim. A reprisal, technically, is not an act of war, because it is solely in response to conduct that violated international law. When, however, reprisals are taken against a power of equal strength, they may provoke war. The Covenant of the League of Nations and the Charter of the United Nations classify reprisals as acts endangering peace. Modern international law no longer recognizes private reprisal. This was the right of a private person to satisfy a legal claim against an alien by seizing property belonging to a person of the alien's nationality. The authority was contained in a letter of reprisal issued by the sovereign. Private reprisals all but disappeared by 1800, as the central authority of states grew stronger.

__________________
ஜ иστнιπg ιš ιмթΘรรιвlε тσ α ωιℓℓιиg нєαят ஜ

29. salvage

salvage, in maritime law, the compensation that the owner must pay for having his vessel or cargo saved from peril, such as shipwreck, fire, or capture by an enemy. Salvage is awarded only when the party making the rescue was under no legal obligation to do so. A claim for salvage ordinarily is allowed if the salvor's activities had some effect in averting the threatened peril even if they were not indispensable. In the United States, salvage is granted for rescues made on navigable streams and lakes as well as on the open sea. Salvage includes a reward designed to encourage rescue operations besides the payment for the value of the services. In setting the amount of the salvage, courts consider relevant factors such as the expense and hazard of the rescue and the price of the ship or goods saved. Salvage is distributed by the court to the owner, the master, and the crew of the rescuing ship, usually according to fixed ratios. Salvage money is not payable to the captain and crew of ships commissioned by a government specifically for rescue operations.





30. freedom of the seas

in international law, the principle that outside its territorial waters, a state may not claim sovereignty over the seas, except with respect to its own vessels. This principle, first established by the Romans, gives to all nations in time of peace unrestricted use of the seas for naval and commercial navigation, for fishing, and for the laying of submarine cables. From the late 15th to the early 19th cent., Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain attempted to exclude commercial rivals from parts of the open sea. Protests by other nations led to a revived acceptance of freedom of the seas. One of its strongest advocates was the United States, especially in its dispute with Great Britain preceding the War of 1812. In time of peace, freedom of the seas cannot be restricted lawfully except by international agreements, such as those regulating fisheries or the right of visit and search. During war, however, belligerents often assert limitations of the principle in order to facilitate the more effective conduct of hostilities, and it is then that the sharpest disagreements arise, e.g., the case of the Lusitania in World War I. Subjects of contention between neutrals and belligerents include the right to seize neutral property and persons aboard an enemy ship, the mining of sea lanes, and the exclusion of neutral vessels from enemy ports by blockade. The Law of the Sea Treaty establishes a 12-mile (19-kilometer) territorial limit for coastal nations and establishes an international authority to regulate seabed mining, among other provisions.







31. right of search

1. In domestic law, the right of officials to search persons or private property, usually obtained through some form of search warrant authorized by a court. In the United States, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the security of the people “in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” and requires that a search warrant, based on “probable cause,” be obtained by police. The wording of the amendment, however, has proved open to widely varying interpretations. Thus, eavesdropping, including electronic “bugging,” was long considered not to require a warrant, and the nature of “probable cause” has been debated over the years.

In the 1960s the Supreme Court strengthened protections against “unreasonable” searches and seizures by applying exclusionary rules, barring the use of illegally collected evidence in court. Since the 1980s, however, a more conservative Court has undercut the force of exclusionary rules, allowing the use of evidence collected “in good faith” even if without a valid warrant. Government officials have been given wider access to telephone and bank records, and a nationwide antidrug campaign has led to the use of “stop and frisk” searches, particularly in the nation's cities. In the 1990s congressional conservatives sought to write into federal statute the greater leeway allowed police by the Court.

2. In international law the right of search denotes the right of a warship to detain and search a private vessel belonging to a foreign national. In peacetime, this right is ordinarily exercised only within the territorial waters
of a state and merely as an incident of the power to police such waters, and generally only in such cases as suspected piracy, violation of fishing regulations, or interference with telephone cables. In wartime, however, a belligerent may search neutral vessels on the high seas in order to capture the property of enemy nationals or to remove contraband bound for enemy ports. Forcible resistance to search allows the warship to attack or destroy the vessel or its cargo or to take them as a prize. The right of search is also called the right of visit and search.







32. smuggling

smuggling, illegal transport across state or national boundaries of goods or persons liable to customs or to prohibition. Smuggling has been carried on in nearly all nations and has occasionally been adopted as an instrument of national policy, as by Great Britain against Spain and France in the 18th and 19th cent. The restrictive economic policies of mercantilism in the 17th and 18th cent. gave rise to smuggling in France, the Spanish colonies, and North America. British attempts to halt the practice by stringent enforcement of the Navigation Acts were a contributory cause of the American Revolution. Napoleon's decrees attempting to seal off the European continent from British commerce gave rise to widespread smuggling in the early 19th cent. Britain, source of free-trade philosophy, has been more liberal in her antismuggling laws than other nations; the practice was condoned in a famous passage by Adam Smith. Smuggling into the United States flourished in the prohibition era and was carried on practically with impunity from overseas and overland from Canada. Illegal entry of immigrants into the United States has also presented a problem during periods of curtailment of immigration, as at the end of World War I and in recent years. Luxury articles, stolen art and other goods, electronic devices and software, and specifically prohibited items such as narcotics are smuggled worldwide. The U.S. Coast Guard has the suppression of smuggling as one of its chief activities. U.S. law declares the article smuggled to be forfeit and the smuggler liable to a fine or imprisonment, or both. Examples of the smuggling of persons are the slave trade to the United States and Latin America following its outlawing by the great powers in the early 19th cent. and the traffic in women for immoral purposes, contrary to international convention.








33. space law

space law, agreements governing the exploration and use of outer space, developed since the first launching (1957) by humans of a satellite into space. Space law, an aspect of international law, has grown under the aegis of the United Nations. A 1963 UN declaration stated that the exploration and use of outer space would be for the benefit and in the interest of all people; that no sovereignty could be claimed in space; that objects and persons launched into space would be returned promptly and safely if they landed in a foreign country; and that nations launching objects would be responsible for damages caused by them. In 1967, a general treaty embodying these principles and adding a prohibition on the military use of space and a provision for the inspection of installations on celestial bodies went into effect. A UN treaty on use of the moon's resources was drafted in 1979. The boundary between airspace, which is subject to sovereignty, and outer space remains an object of discussion. Some favor definitions based on the composition of the atmosphere. Others favor a functional approach; thus, if commercial airlines use a particular layer of the atmosphere, it is to be considered airspace.







34. treaty

treaty, in international law, formal agreement between sovereign states or organizations of states. The term treaty is ordinarily confined to important formal agreements, while less formal international accords are called conventions, acts, declarations, or protocols.

A treaty ordinarily deals with the rights and duties of nations, but treaties may also grant specific rights to private individuals. Although treaties deal with a great variety of subjects, they are commonly classified under a few heads. Political treaties deal with (among other things) alliances, war, cessions of territory, and rectification of boundaries. Commercial treaties may govern fisheries, navigation, tariffs, and monetary exchange. Legal treaties concern extradition of criminals, patent and copyright protection, and the like.

Treaties are designed to regularize the intercourse of nations, and, as such, they are the source of most international law. In some countries treaties are a part of the law of the land and are binding upon all persons. In the United States the Supreme Court has held that a treaty automatically abrogates any state or federal statute in conflict with it.

Treaties have existed ever since states came into existence. Records survive of Mesopotamian treaties dating before 3000 B.C., and in the Old Testament many treaties are mentioned. The Greeks and the Romans had elaborate ceremonials to emphasize the sanctity of treaties, and many current treaty practices have classical antecedents.





Negotiation, Ratification, and Interpretation

A treaty is negotiated by duly accredited representatives of the executive branch of the government; for the United States negotiations are ordinarily conducted by officials of the Dept. of State under the authority of the President. The preliminaries are not usually open to the public, but the record of all protocol (i.e., the minutes) is preserved for use in case the treaty provisions require subsequent interpretation. Technical experts draft the text, which the government representatives then sign.

The treaty is next ratified by the signatory states in accordance with their regular practice. In the United States the Constitution requires that a treaty must be approved by two thirds of the Senate (executive agreements, however, which are undertaken through the President's powers and do not need the Senate's approval, account for a large number of the international agreements of the United States). It has been argued that such wartime agreements as those made by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt at the Yalta Conference were in effect secret treaties. A treaty comes into effect when the ratifications are formally exchanged.

Members of the United Nations are required to register their treaties with that organization (following the like practice of the League of Nations), and a treaty that has not been registered may not be invoked before a UN agency. If treaties between UN members conflict with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, the Charter takes precedence.

The interpretation of treaties, like that of all legal documents, may present great difficulties. There is no tribunal with compulsory and final jurisdiction to interpret a treaty; parties may, however, voluntarily submit a dispute to the International Court of Justice (World Court) or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (Hague Tribunal).




Termination

Treaties may come to an end in various ways. Most provide for a date of expiration or a time at which notice to terminate must be given if the treaty is not to continue in effect for another specified period. Treaties terminate if one of the signatory states becomes politically extinct or (in the case of political treaties) if the parties are at war with one another. The outbreak of war need not necessarily bring a treaty to an end, however, and provisions compatible with a state of hostilities remain in force, as long as they are not expressly terminated. Treaties relating to the laws of war, of course, remain in effect during hostilities. A treaty may be terminated by mutual consent, and breach of a treaty by one party entitles the other to abrogate it.








35. treaty port

treaty port, port opened to foreign trade by a treaty. The term is usually confined to ports in those countries that formerly strongly objected to foreign trade or attempted altogether to exclude it. Thus it is used especially in reference to Japan and China. Those countries had admitted trade with the West in the 16th cent. but soon reversed themselves, with Japan permitting only a trickle of Dutch commerce through Nagasaki, and China shutting off all trade until the opening of Guangzhou in 1834. Great Britain, determined to increase commerce, provoked the first of the Opium Wars with China. The Treaty of Nanjing (1842), which restored peace, provided for five treaty ports—Xiamen, Guangzhou, Fuzhou, Ningbo, and Shanghai. As in all the 69 Chinese treaty ports that were finally opened, zones were established for foreign residence that enjoyed extraterritoriality. Most of the ports were on the seacoast or on large rivers. A similar system came into being in Japan after the country was reopened to Western trade by Matthew Perry in 1854. With the abolition of extraterritoriality, the system of treaty ports also disappeared. This occurred in 1899 in Japan but not until 1946 in China.







36. ultimatum

in international law, final, definitive terms submitted by one disputant nation to the other for immediate acceptance or rejection. Since refusal to accept the terms may lead to war or hostile measures, an ultimatum usually constitutes a conditional declaration of war. An ultimatum is written and indicates how its nonacceptance will be regarded. When a brief time limit is imposed, the crisis becomes more intense, because there is less opportunity for mediation or arbitration. The contracting powers at the second Hague Conference (1907) agreed to begin hostilities only after giving warning. These provisions were superseded by the Covenant of the League of Nations and later by the Charter of the United Nations, which limited the right of states to use war as an instrument of national policy. An ultimatum presented by Austria to Serbia on July 23, 1914, was the immediate cause of World War I. Hitler also presented several ultimatums (to Czechoslovakia and Poland) in the year before the outbreak of World War II. Japan, however, began its war with the United States with an attack rather than an ultimatum.






37. war crimes

war crimes, in international law, violations of the laws of war. Those accused have been tried by their own military and civilian courts, by those of their enemy, and by expressly established international tribunals.

The records of the war crimes trials after World War II provide one of the most comprehensive formulations of the concept of war crimes. During that war the Allies agreed to try Axis war criminals. In Aug., 1945, Great Britain, France, the USSR, and the United States established a tribunal at Nuremberg to try military and civilian Axis leaders whose alleged crimes were directed at more than one national group. The trial opened in Nov., 1945. Voluminous evidence was presented to prove the plotting of aggressive warfare, the extermination of civilian populations (especially the Jews), the widespread use of slave labor, the looting of occupied countries, and the maltreatment and murder of prisoners of war. Among those sentenced to death (1946) were Hermann Goering, Joachim von Ribbentrop, and Julius Streicher. Hjalmar Schacht and Franz von Papen were acquitted. The court did not convict Nazi organizations or the German general staff. In 1961, Israel captured, tried, and later executed Adolf Eichmann.

A trial of 28 alleged Japanese war criminals was conducted (1946–47) by an 11-nation tribunal in Tokyo. Evidence similar to that presented against the Nazis brought death sentences to Hideki Tojo and others. The U.S. Supreme Court refused an appeal that was based on the ground that the international court was unlawful. There were many trials in national civil and military courts, including those of the Japanese generals Tomoyuki Yamashita and Masaharu Homma.

Critics have questioned the legal basis of some of the charges at the post–World War II trials. Individuals were found guilty of acts considered legal, or even required, by their nation at the time; such findings represent a violation of the concept of sovereignty. The plotting or carrying out of aggressive war had not been previously and explicitly called criminal, and the judges tended to define it very narrowly. A defendant was generally found guilty only if he had been involved in developing the policy, but not if he had simply carried it out.

Critics have also termed the trials an act of vengeance by the victors and questioned their practical use as a precedent. Personal liability for national action is very difficult to prove conclusively, and a nation will be reluctant to try its own leaders. Therefore, effective prosecution may be possible only if a nation is defeated (and then perhaps only if the documents are captured, as they were after World War II).

Both critics and supporters of the U.S. role in the Vietnam War have justified their positions on the basis of the post–World War II trials. Several Americans were tried for war crimes in this war, and Lt. William Calley was found guilty (see My Lai incident) of particularly disturbing acts against civilians that for many became emblematic of the horrors of the Vietnam conflict. In the 1990s, in reaction to war atrocities committed by various parties during the breakup of Yugoslavia, the United Nations established a tribunal in The Hague, the Netherlands, and attempted to gather evidence for prosecutions; Serbs, Croats, and Muslims have been charged, including top civilian and military Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat leaders. The highest ranking official to be tried was former Yugoslavian president Slobodan Milošević, whose trial began in 2002 and was still underway when he died in 2006. In 2000 the Hague tribunal officially established rape, which was rampant during the Yugoslav civil strife, as a war crime. A UN tribunal was also set up in Tanzania to try those responsible for Hutu massacres of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994 and in Sierra Leone to try persons accused of atrocities in that country's civil war (1991–2001).

Despite increasing international recognition of the need to prosecute war crimes, such offenses are still often unpunished. Although there have been many calls for prosecution of former Khmer Rouge leaders for war crimes, they have not yet been tried by Cambodia or internationally (due mainly to the length of time it took the Cambodian government to reach an agreement on trials with the United Nations; a mised Cambodian-international court was finally sworn in 2006). In Indonesia the national courts have tried a number of Indonesian officials and officers for war crimes in East Timor during 1999, but the proceedings ended mainly in acquittals or overturned convictions.

In 1998 the UN General Assembly voted in favor of a treaty authorizing a permanent international court for war crimes. The United States, China, and five other nations opposed the treaty, and 21 nations abstained. The treaty has been signed by more than 130 nations (including the United States), and formally came into effect in July, 2002 after 60 nations had ratified the treaty; the judges of the court were formally sworn in in 2003. Called the International Criminal Court and located at The Hague, it may prosecute war crimes, genocide, crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity.

Under the G. W. Bush administration, the United States opposed implementation of the treaty, out of fear that American officials or military personnel might be arrested abroad on baseless charges. In May, 2002, the United States repudiated its signing of the treaty and indicated that it would refuse to cooperate with the court. The U.S. government subsequently insisted (2002, 2003) that U.S. forces used as UN peacekeepers be exempted from prosecution by the court, and in 2003 it suspended military aid to nations that did not similarly exempt U.S. citizens serving within their borders. In 2004, following the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal, the United States was unable to secure a further exemption from the United Nations.










38. war debts.


This defination discusses the obligations incurred by foreign governments for loans made to them by the United States during and shortly after World War I. For international obligations arising out of World War II, As early as 1914 the United States began to extend credits for the purchase of American goods to the European Allies, and in 1915 the first of many long-term war loans was made to the Allied powers. In addition to loans made during the war itself, loans and credits were extended for several years after the armistice, both to allied and former enemy nations. All the debtor nations except Russia (where the USSR had replaced the Russian Empire) recognized their obligations. In 1922 the World War Foreign Debt Commission of the United States negotiated with 15 European countries and set the funded indebtedness, based on capacity to pay, at slightly more than $11.5 billion. A 62-year period of repayment was arranged for, and thus principal and interest charges would have amounted to more than $22 billion. The United States refused to reduce the debt further, but the serious European financial situation caused U.S. agreement on some reductions in 1925–26. Payments were made until 1931, largely out of the reparations that the Allies received from Germany. In 1931, in the face of the worldwide economic depression, President Hoover's proposal for a one-year moratorium on all intergovernmental obligations was adopted. In the Lausanne Pact of 1932 the debtors greatly reduced German reparations in the hope that the United States would release all claims. The United States refused. Six countries made token payments in 1933, but in 1934 all the debtors formally defaulted except Hungary, which paid interest until 1939, and Finland, which continued to pay in full.






39. territorial waters


all waters within the jurisdiction, recognized in international law, of a country. Certain waters by their situation are controlled by one nation; these include wholly enclosed inland seas, lakes, and rivers. Control of boundary lakes and rivers extends to the middle of the navigable channel, but agreements to share the use of such waters and of waters that flow through several countries (e.g., the Rhine, the Danube) are common. When waters are almost completely bordered by one country, but lie along an international navigation route (e.g., the Bosporus), treaties often make them available to all ships.

Since the 18th cent. coastal states have been held to have jurisdiction over unenclosed waters for 3 nautical mi (3.45 mi/5.55 km) from the low water line, a measure originally derived from the distance of a cannon shot. In the case of a bay up to 24 mi (39 km) wide, a line drawn from one enclosing point to the other marked the outer limit of territorial jurisdiction. A broader zone of jurisdiction to combat smuggling has long been claimed by various states, as by the United States during prohibition.

Merchant ships of all flags have the right of “innocent passage” in a nation's territorial waters; the rights of nonbelligerent foreign warships in this zone, and the extent of the jurisdiction of the coastal nation's courts over ships passing through and incidents in the zone, have long been matters of debate. Fishing and mineral extraction within the zone are entirely within the control of the coastal nation. In the 20th cent., coastal nations progressively widened their claims over offshore waters, especially in the face of competition from foreign fishing fleets and in anticipation of rich oil, gas, and mineral finds on the continental shelf. The UN-sponsored Law of the Sea Treaty, which went into effect in 1994, codified territorial waters of 12 nautical mi (13.8 mi/22.2 km) and an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical mi (230 mi/370 km). In 1999, U.S. agencies were empowered by presidential proclamation to enforce American law up to 24 miles (39 km) offshore, doubling the previous limit.

(`'•.¸(`'•.¸ ¸.•'´) ¸.•'´)
«`'•.¸.¤THE END¤.¸.•'´»
(¸.•'´(¸.•'´ `'•.¸)`' •.¸)

__________________
ஜ иστнιπg ιš ιмթΘรรιвlε тσ α ωιℓℓιиg нєαят ஜ

Would these notes suffice for the entire exam? I am hard-pressed for time and am unable to find any of the textbooks at this time