Indian Council of World Affairs

Radhika Mathur: Good afternoon, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen. It is my pleasure to welcome you all to the Indian Council of World Affairs for this book discussion on State Responsibility under International Law, Emerging Dimensions, authored by Dr. Aneesh V. Pillai and published at the ICWA. May I request you all to kindly keep your phones on silent mode. Thank you.

We will start today's program with Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Acting Director General and Additional Secretary, ICWA, delivering her welcome remarks. The book discussion will be chaired by Shrimati Uma Devi, who is the Advisor for International Law at the Center for International Law in ICWA. Our first speaker today is the esteemed author of the book, Dr. Aneesh V. Pillai. Dr. Pillai is an Associate Professor of Law at the School of Legal Studies in Cochin University of Science and Technology, Kerala.

Joining him, we have four esteemed speakers today. Our first speaker is Shri Narinder Singh, who has been the former Chairman of the International Law Commission, followed by Dr. Srinivas Burra, who is Associate Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asia University, followed by Dr. Kanika Sharma, Senior Assistant Professor at the Indian Society of International Law, and our final speaker, Dr. Risham Garg, Professor of Law at the Center for Transnational Commercial Law, National Law University, Delhi.

The discussion will be followed by a brief Q&A session, moderated by the Chair. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, today's book discussion is particularly special as it marks the very first event under the newly established Center for International Law at ICWA, launched in August 2025. We are honored to have as the Center's Head, Shrimati Uma Devi, a distinguished international lawyer who has served as the Additional Secretary in the Legal and Treaties Division of the Ministry of External Affairs.

She is currently a member of the UNIDROIT Governing Council and a member of the International Expert Group Committee on Nuclear Liability, which is the INLEX. She previously served as the President for the 60th Annual Session of AALCO. We are privileged to have her guiding this new Center, which has been envisioned as a platform to articulate and advance an Indian perspective of international law rooted in our civilizational values and strategic priorities. The Center aims to shape discourse, build narratives, and support India's engagement in international and regional norm-setting bodies.

May I now request, Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, Acting DG and Additional Secretary ICWA to kindly give her welcome remarks.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar: Distinguished experts on the dais, students and friends, the ongoing geopolitical turbulence and power shifts have necessitated not only the reaffirmation of commitments to a rules based international order, but also the securing and building upon the achievements till date of mankind in the field of international law. Amidst the talk of an emerging new world order, a critical question that comes to mind is what direction should international law take in a world in transition. So that we collectively move towards robustness consciously and not be in some sort of drift?

You will all agree with me that, given the experiences in international relations of the last century, bloody that it was, the emerging new world order is going to be about promoting responsible behavior by states not only nationally but also in interstate relations and regional and global governance for the sake of enhanced human security. While practices of statecraft and interstate relations are important in an operative sense, broad international law is essential for order, stability and predictability and accountability of the state or shared or collective responsibility of states as well as accountability of regional and international organizations.

The discourse on state responsibility has to take into account the challenges and opportunities posed by the transition of the world from a unipolar world order to a multipolar world order. In a multipolar world order, we are talking of distributed responsibilities, distributed duties according to capabilities to contribute to the long-term stability and predictability of the world order and to enhanced human security.

The endeavor to look at issues surrounding state responsibility should also be seen in the context of the call for reforming global governance frameworks. There is a need to look at how state responsibility or shared responsibility can be made more robust through legal frameworks, juridical practices, and international law practice, institutional strengthening, institutionalized checks and balances and enforcement mechanisms.

Strengthening the parameters of state responsibility in international law and global governance can provide respite to millions, if not billions, in a stable and predictable way in democracies which face the vagaries of electoral cycles, as well as in countries with nascent or non-functional democracies or autocratic governance systems. The challenges and opportunities that arise in this context in reconciling sovereignty and in aligning national frameworks with obligations in international law will, of course, have to be studied.

It needs to be, however, said that the political, economic, humanitarian, and social experiences of conflict and crisis over the past decades across countries call for cushioning of the well-being of the people, upholding and strengthening of human security and making concerted effort to promote responsible state behavior. The emerging new world order must see a renewed and enlightened commitment on the part of the state to the well-being of its people.

Promotion of state responsibility through robust international law also contributes to the consolidation of and taking forward of the process of state formation. The nature, strength, and robustness of the contemporary state varies across different regions of the world. For sure, the shrinking state has to be arrested. The authoritarian state has to be dismantled. And the invisible state has to be shaped up.

We have to strike a balance, the golden mean of a responsible state. The International Law Commission's draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001, provide an anchor to base discussions on these issues and which is the focus of ICWA's latest book by Dr. Aneesh Pillai. Considerable effort and expertise of the ILC since its establishment and the founding of the UN has gone into these draft articles.

As the author states in the book, after the adoption of the draft articles in 2001, it has become the chief source for the subject of state responsibility. Though the draft articles are not legally binding under international law, they have been treated as an authoritative statement of rules relating to state responsibility by the international community and are recognized in several judgments.

This is because the draft articles are an embodiment of the existing customary international law relating to the area of state responsibility and court. It is also important to note that norms surrounding state responsibility do not only have to deal with breaches of international obligations, attribution, reparation and countermeasures, consequences when it comes to wrongful acts of a transnational or a cross-border nature. They also have to deal and more so, with prevention rather than ex-post responsibility and due diligence through individual state action and through international cooperation.

Further, they also have to deal with instances where hitherto no international obligation exists due to gaps in international law or due to new and emergent issues. May I end by saying that today's book discussion, as Radhika also mentioned, is the first discussion being organized by ICWA's Center for International Law, which has just been established under the able guidance of my colleague from the Ministry of External Affairs, Uma. I am looking forward to a thought-provoking book discussion, and I wish the panelists all the best.

Radhika Mathur: Thank you, ma'am. May I kindly request the Chair, Shrimati Uma Devi, to now give her remarks and conduct the proceedings.

Uma Devi: Thank you very much, Radhika. Good afternoon. Let me first thank my colleague and Acting DG, Mrs. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, for setting the tone for today's discussions. But before I begin, let me once again welcome the distinguished participants, esteemed panelists, colleagues and friends, to the Council Center for International Law, as Radhika just now mentioned. The purpose and object of this Center is to act as a bridge between the international law scholarship and the foreign policy community. I hope today's discussions will serve that mission.

Coming back to this afternoon's book discussion on a very important principle that my colleagues already gave a good narrative about the current geopolitical churn and which is very timely for us to discuss this issue, the most important principle under international law, the principle of state responsibility. It's very simple. If a state is violating its international obligations, it is responsible for its conduct.

However, this seemingly simple question has inherent complexities with far-reaching implications. The traditional doctrine of attribution, breach, reparation are rigorously tested with actively transforming world order. Added to that, the complexities of defenses like necessity, the grey defenses I should say, or self-defense, purely used by those powerful states. So experts are debating because of lack of, there is enforcement authority under international law, unlike the municipal law, this could be the reason.

But in a world where the interdependence is increasing day by day, how can we stop there? So that is where, I should say, the author, Dr. Aneesh Pillai, in his book, he explored this foundational principle, just now I mentioned. It is fundamental and foundational, but it is disputed canons of international law. So he examined the classical and modern versions of this doctrine and emphatically, very convincingly with cogent arguments, he comes out.

It is necessary for the state to take the responsibility to uphold the world order. How is that easy? No, he navigated through, he said, yes, the secondary rules of international law, the draft articles, just now my colleague also mentioned, ILC's draft articles, they provide very structured answers to every scenario, every challenging area that are emerging day by day. And he also throws a challenge to us to consider how these answers hold across the frontiers, be it outer space, cyberspace, environment, health, college or a maritime spill.

When I was going through this book, I felt these are not abstract concerns. For example, in outer space, both state and non-state activities are so deeply entangled, so in which case supervision or licensing or liability, they are not mere technicalities, but they are scaffolding of trust. Similarly in cyberspace attribution is becoming elusive when there are blurred lines between state-sponsored and non-state activities.

And in the field of environmental health, which we are going to hear from the experts, politics of reparation, ethics of prevention and erosion of multilateral trust. So these are the existing gaps in the existing legal framework, which the author very smartly highlighted, I must say. So what the author has done and of course he is going to enlighten us in detail, while reaffirming the centrality, he revisited these draft articles very eloquently in every field and reaffirming the centrality of these draft articles and the responsibility of the states for internationally wrongful acts for upholding international legal expectations.

What this book has done, and done very well, is not to multiply the concepts, but to convey the message of how a stable legal grammar can help the diplomacy cope with emerging challenges, be it due to technology, technology is posing challenges every day to us or in the complex world of interdependence. The way he navigated in this book is highly appreciated.

And it reminds us, responsibility is not assigning fault, but it is about building the habits of due diligence, transparency, cooperation, which are necessary pillars to ensure international relationships more resilient. The other issue which my colleague also highlighted about, either to maybe unexplored or underexplored notion is prevention, the importance of prevention, either to international law focus more on attribution, accountability, but in a world where we are in, with the crisis of cyber crisis or climate event run faster than accountability can catch up, then states focusing more on the preventive measures demonstrates a responsible state conduct, responsible state behaviour. 

The author comes out wonderfully. I must say, I must acknowledge, of course, he's going to enlighten us, he has examined all these complexities with so much of clarity and precision. He applies doctrinal rigor to the emerging domains, just now I mentioned. But at the same time, analyzing his analysis to the institutional realities. And the other highly attributive feature of this particular outcome, the book is that state conduct demonstrates, how? Responsible state behavior. He comes out, well, maintain the records, share information in advance, mitigate the damage. So these are all the essential components of responsible conduct.

For me, all these are not a matter of legalism, but it is an architecture of credible diplomacy. He navigated through all those issues with ease. But I will stop here, and I will request the author, Dr. Aneesh Pillai, to enlighten us. So what prompted you to revisit these draft articles in the way you navigated and what was the inspiration? Please, you can take the glass.

Aneesh V. Pillai: Thank you, ma'am, for the wonderful introduction. So it's a proud privilege to stand in front of all of you, to start with the first book discussion organized by this esteemed institution. I am lucky to have here, because I am the first person, my book is the first book is being discussed by this institution. Well, starting with the idea of state responsibility, it was in 2013, when I was part of a national university, I got an opportunity to contribute a book chapter in an international book, wherein the author has instructed me to write on state responsibility as a chapter.

So I started working over it, and I have identified many issues. But when I was reading the materials, I could realize, though there are many areas, many challenging questions in this topic. In India, we don't have a specific focused study on this topic. Even at international level also, I have searched the materials, I couldn't find a single direct book dealing with this topic. Though we have many works, pioneered by our James Crawford, the eminent jurist and other well-known jurists, but a compiled version wherein almost all different challenging issues I couldn't find.

So, that has led to this idea. So, I thought of making a book or writing something compiling all these challenges and revisiting the draft articles and the customary international principles relating to state responsibility. In the context of the various developments happened in the international level. Especially, cyber space. Different types of cross-border issues were happening. Outer space activities.

Nowadays, rather than state, private actors are also playing a role in outer space. Then, contagious disease. In fact, during pandemic, there were allegations that some of the states were triggering this spread of virus. So, I thought in that sense, if at all, if a state takes a lead role in spreading an infectious disease or if there is a failure on the part of a state to contain it, what could be the response of international law? Can international law make them liable for their activity? So, like that, many new areas I have identified. And I tried to apply the existing customary international law principles which were codified in the draft articles.

But when I started applying these principles, I could find in total it cannot be applied. It has to undergo many changes. Then only, we can effectively apply customary international law principles relating to state responsibility to new challenges. So, this idea finally culminated as a book with the support of ICWA. Well, starting with this book, one of the primary challenges regarding this topic was, is it responsibility or liability? That was one of the jurisprudential challenges which was daunting me right from the beginning.

Because, when we say liability, we have to commit a mistake. When we say responsibility, we have to cause damage. So, is it exactly state responsibility? Or is it state liability? There is no negligence, there is no intentional violation, there is no violation of any other international principles. But still if that space object causes a loss to another state, there is strict liability or absolute liability. So the first and foremost challenge was fixing to discuss whether state responsibility or state liability.

And finally, I could come to the conclusion that since draft articles are following the term state responsibility, I also followed that responsibility, that term. And in my first chapter, I have analyzed that issue, that terminological underpinnings, how it is and whether it should be liability or responsibility. Thereafter, I have discussed about the question of attribution. When a state can be held responsible, is it because of the activities of its own agencies? Can a state be held liable for the act of any other organs, either directly controlled by state or a completely private party? Does it create any liability to state? So in that way, I have analyzed the customer international law principles based on the ILC draft, the rule of attribution, etc., etc.

Then the next chapter, that is the third chapter, wherein I have analyzed outer space related activities. How far a state is responsible under international law when something goes wrong? Now when I started discussing the issues relating to outer space, I have followed a pattern in my chapters, in each chapter. First I started with what is outer space and what are the various ways in which liability can arise in this field. Then application of the existing principle.

And what modifications this principle has to undergo to effectively deal with those liability issues. Why I did that, I have seen many books where outer space related liability is being discussed. But there is an absence of the instances, how liability arises is missing, rather it just talking about the liability and the principles etc. So being a reader, when he read about outer space related state responsibility, he should get a clear picture, what is outer space, how laws are applicable, which are the various laws and what are the ways in which state responsibility arises and then how state responsibility principles are applicable and what are the instances.

So I have identified various instances where state responsibility really applied and what was the outcome and what was the procedure etc. So every chapter I followed that pattern. Then the next chapter I discussed about transnational pollution. We all know environmental protection is not the concern of one independent country, it is not having any boundary. So whenever there is transnational pollution being originated from a particular country, to what extent that country can be held responsible under international law. If we apply the traditional state responsibility principles, how it will affect, whether it has to undergo any modification, what are the liability, what are the attribution rules, what defenses they can take, all these aspects I have discussed in the fourth chapter.

Then the fifth chapter that talks about human rights obligations. There are number of international human rights treaties wherein the countries were parties and whenever there is a violation occurs, either by the state or by a non-state actor, to what extent state responsibility can be imposed for human rights violation and there were issues like sovereignty or interference with domestic affairs, all these issues I have analyzed in this chapter.

Then the next chapter discussed outbreak of infectious diseases and state responsibility. Since the COVID time, we all heard about the certain challenges, certain petitions filed before certain international organizations saying that or alleging that countries were part of spreading this infectious disease. So when such a scenario happens, what would be the liability? So that part I have analyzed in this chapter. Then the cyberspace.

Now internet knows no boundary, anybody can commit cyber violations or cyber attacks sitting in any part of the world and it can have an impact in the other state territories. So in such context, if it is sponsored by state, what would be the liability? If it is indirectly supported by state, what would be the liability? If it is completely done by a private entity or a non-state activity using the territory of a country, then what would be the state responsibility of that state? All that aspects I have discus in this chapter.

Then, nuclear activities, we all know every country is developing many type of weapons and for other good purposes also they are developing nuclear weapons or nuclear materials. Now if anything goes wrong, what would be the liability and how the international state responsibility principles will apply in that context, that you have analyzed. Then activities in the high sea, specifically in the high sea where it is declared as a no man's land or a common heritage of mankind.

In that if a country does an act, whether it violates environmental law or whether it causes pollution, whether it interferes with voyage of other country's ship, in all these scenario what would be the liability, how state responsibility will apply. So that part I have discussed in the 9th chapter and the 10th chapter I have discussed specifically on the international organizations. There are many international organizations, they are having branches in different, different countries.

If they commits a violation, thereby causes a damage to a state, what would be the liability of that organization, whether they are covered under this draft articles of state responsibility. Because when we use the term state, the international organizations are out of that. So that is why I have specifically discussed the question to what extent these principles can be made applicable to international organizations.

Then final chapter I concludes with my remarks and thoughts. So this is all about my book and thank you for ICWA for giving me this wonderful opportunity without the support of ICWA, I could not finish this book. In fact, I took little more time than promised because once I started writing this book, that was a time of COVID and suddenly lockdown declared. So initial six to seven months, I could not do anything because of lockdown. But ICWA was kind enough to extend for another six months. So I could successfully complete this. Thank you and thank you for this opportunity.

Uma Devi: Thank you very much, Dr. Pillai, for that rich and layered overview. So as I already mentioned, your analysis not only highlights the evolving contours of state responsibility, but also demonstrates how legal reasoning can be made responsive to emerging reality. I really appreciate. And the second thing is the book's strength lies in its ability to translate these complex legal principles into actionable insights for diplomacy, governance, and institutional design. It is highly appreciated.

Now, building on that foundation, I invite our next speaker, Mr. Narinder Singh, my former senior colleague, to reflect on how these themes resonate within the broader debates on international law and global governance. Given your rich experience and being a former member of ILC, sir, you are better placed to enlighten us. What do you say? No, it's up to you. You take up the topic which you wanted to enlighten us because Author dealt with everything. In that book, he brought everything.

Narinder Singh: Thank you, Uma. And I thank the ICWA and the Acting DG, Nutan Kapoor, for inviting me to this first event being organized by the Center for International Law in the ICWA. The articles on state responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 are the result of nearly 50 years of work in the commission. And this was the work guided by, I believe, five special rapporteurs over this period. And not only that, in between the topic underwent a change also because starting with simple state responsibility, it was divided into two.

Firstly, state responsibility for acts contrary to international law and state responsibility for acts not prohibited by international law. So the present draft articles only deal with responsibility arising from acts which are contrary to international law. Now the draft articles themselves do not specify as to what actions are harmful or are contrary to international law. They deal with laying down the basic principle that states are responsible.

And they deal with how acts, the wrongful acts, can be attributed to a state. That is, acts committed by their officials, by their agents and others, persons acting on their behalf. And this is one of the areas which has been considered in international courts and tribunals. That is, how do you assign blame to a state for acts committed by individuals. Then come the consequences of the harmful act and the remedies for that, starting with restitution, reparation, compensation, satisfaction, etc.

The most obvious solution to an act which entails state responsibility is that of restitution, that is to restore the position to a state as if the unlawful act had not taken place. Then there are questions of compensation, etc., where the previous situation cannot be restored. Now the work of the International Law Commission is often cited in the International Court of Justice in its decisions and also by other international courts and tribunals.

The Articles on State Responsibility have been cited many times. In the short period they have been in existence. A survey was done by the UN Secretariat some years ago and they identified about more than a thousand instances of reference to the draft Articles on State Responsibility. And these draft Articles were referred to by the International Court of Justice, by the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea, by regional human rights courts and other arbitral tribunals including ICSID and other investment disputes. So there is a wide range of cases in which these draft Articles have been referred to.

Now, why do the draft Articles or the work of the Commission receive such high importance? This comes from the mandate of the Commission itself because the International Law Commission was set up by the General Assembly pursuant to its mandate under Article 13 of the UN Charter to work for the development of international law and its codification. And the working methods of the Commission, it works through a special rapporteur who carries out research on the topic and makes proposals to the Commission.

These are discussed in the Commission and the output of that session is then forwarded to the UN General Assembly, where states comment on the work which has been done so far. These comments are received back by the Commission, along with fresh reports of the special rapporteur, and the discussions continue in this. So there is a discussion, firstly, among the members of the Commission, who are all experts in international law, elected by the General Assembly, and also with the state's representatives through the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly.

Now this special procedure was adopted because earlier when the League of Nations had made an attempt at codification, it had set up a committee of experts on international law in 1930. And this committee came up with some drafts on some topics, but these were not well received by the states when they were forwarded to them for their comments. Because during the adoption of these or the preparation of these drafts, the states had no opportunity to provide any inputs.

So the ILC practice takes care of the situation. And besides, the International Court of Justice, which decides disputes among states, decides disputes on the basis of International Law. And under Article 38, one of the factors which it can take into consideration is custom as a general practice of international law accepted by states. And the articles are prepared by the Commission until such time as they take the form of a convention adopted by states through a diplomatic conference or through action by the General Assembly, are treated as evidence of custom.

And this is the format in which generally the Court refers to the ILC articles. They say this is the rule of customary International Law, and it is also provided in such and such draft article on state responsibility adopted by the International Law Commission. Now the ICJ, even before the draft articles were finalized by the Commission, had referred to these draft articles in one case, which involved the immunity of one of the reputants of the Human Rights Commission when he was sought to be sued in his own country for certain remarks that he had made.

The UN claimed immunity as he was acting in his official capacity and the ICJ upheld the rule of immunity and referred to the draft articles on state responsibility and held that the country in question was duty bound to advise its courts of the immunity and to have the decision overturned and this was done at a later stage.

The most recent case in which the ICJ has referred to state responsibility is the recent advisory opinion on climate change. The court has held that all states to some extent bear responsibility for the degradation of the environment and all states have a duty to take measures to prevent further degradation and to take measures to remedy the situation to the extent of their ability both in technical terms and as well and financial and that states which are more affluent have a duty to assist other states both with technology and with financial aid.

The court has also held, I mean it has given the opinion that with the technology available today that it is possible to identify the extent to which different states have contributed to the degradation of the environment. And it has also said that law alone is not sufficient to deal with this and that we must place greater reliance on science and that the repository of the scientific knowledge for this purpose, it also specified lies with the IPCC or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that they would have a central role in deciding on guiding states on the actions to be taken and how to deal with this issue.

So this is the most recent example of the citation for the State Responsibility Draft Articles. Then in the case, another situation arose in 1950 when the question of reservations to multilateral conventions came up. The General Assembly addressed the question both to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion and also to the International Law Commission as to the question of reservations made by a state when joining the Genocide Convention.

The ICJ considered the matter and examined the state practice of the UN and also the other countries. The general practice at that time was that if any state objected to a reservation, then the reserving state was not considered a party to the treaty. The ICJ said that this was unfortunate because the object and purpose of the convention was that most states should become party to it. So that the norms contained therein, especially the prohibition of genocide and the duty to prevent and punish acts of genocide, should be more widely accepted in the international community.

And they came up with the idea that if a state has objected to a reservation, they have the option of stating that the convention would not apply between them and the state making the reservation. But the reserving state would become a party, they would be treated as a party. Another condition which the ICJ placed was that the power to make reservations is not unlimited. And the object of a reservation cannot be to defeat the very purpose for which the treaty has been adopted.

So a reservation could be made provided it did not defeat the object and purpose of the treaty. Following this opinion of the ICJ, the ILC also revised its position and then they adopted the position that reservations can be made and if objections are made, then they would follow the practice laid down, the advice of the ICJ. So these are some examples in which the state responsibility has been invoked.

In the case of Genocide Convention also, there have been a number of some other cases after that. The question arises as to who is responsible, where crimes have been committed, but can it be said that these crimes were carried out at the behest of the state? If there are private individuals, even if they are provided arms and weapons by a state, can their actions be imputed to the state which is giving them assistance?

Here the question would arise as to what is the extent of control that the state exercises over those private actors? If it can completely control and direct their actions and if they are acting pursuant to those directions, then the action could be attributed to the state, but not in every case. The question of state responsibility was also invoked in the Tehran hostages case, where the American consulate was seized and the staff members who were there were held hostage.

Iran stated that they were not agents of the state, they were individuals, private individuals, but the court held that the diplomatic and consular privileges are rules, the duty to protect diplomats is an age-old rule known for millennia and no state can absolve themselves of responsibility by saying that these are private individuals, because even if they are private individuals, the state must show what steps have you taken subsequent to that act to terminate that violation of immunity and to get the persons released. Thank you very much.

Uma Devi: Thank you very much, sir, for that very deeply insightful reflection, especially your framing of how these ILC draft articles, though not codified as a convention, but continue to shape the jurisprudence across international courts and tribunals, and your reference to the ICJ's climate change advisory opinion and its recognition that the scientific methods can credibly attribute responsibility to states adds a very powerful dimension to our understanding of evolving accountability.

So again, it reminds us that the relevance of these draft articles lies not only its doctrinal clarity, but its practical uptake in how courts, diplomats, and scholars use it to navigate these complex trans-boundary issues. Thank you once again. Now, may I request Dr. Srinivas Burra to build upon this foundation and take us deeper into the emerging dimensions explored by the author in his book. What is this effective control?

Srinivas Burra: Thank you, ma'am, for giving me this opportunity to be part of this discussion on one of the important aspects of international law. And first of all, congratulations to the author for the simple reason is that, at least from my personal view, this is one of the most foundational and also most difficult topics of international law. So to engage with this is not easy. And also for those who are not into international law, so I beg your pardon because there are technical aspects that keep coming and lawyers, even if you give a small thing to your lawyers, they complicate further.

So the legal scholars also know this in that. And the reason is also because the kind of a topic that we deal with is, like a general commonsensical question always happens is that why too many things happen in the world, but states, we don't speak much about the legal responsibility of states. Nothing happens. Like, for example, there's a conflict between Russia and Ukraine. There's a conflict between Israel and Palestine. So any number of issues keep happening that probably tariff is being imposed on India and many other countries.

So these are all issues which we see that nothing, no consequences happen to those, even if we assume that somebody has committed it or not a comfortable way of dealing with international relations, but nothing happens there. But actually, that is not really the case in all situations. Most of the times, all of these aspects are in fact discussed in relation to international law in some form or the other. But the central question of that international legal discourse is that if something goes wrong, like in the beginning there are two issues which have come up. Mr. Singh has rightly pointed out that when this whole aspect of making of international law started.

So there was also a lot of confusion among international lawyers as to how to deal with this question of state responsibility. That is how it led to a distinction which he rightly pointed out between what you call is a prevention part of it where states can be held accountable for not doing wrong. So there is a possibility of states being held accountable for certain acts which are not actually illegal. They can still be held accountable, that part of it.

The second part is what the book talks about, the responsibility part, where it is the responsibility of international states, international responsibility for wrongful act. Means if they have committed certain things in violation of international law, there have to be certain consequences. And the first thing we all need to recognise is that one of the outstanding international lawyers from India, Dr. P S Rao, in fact worked the other part of the framework, there is a liability part, so which is completely a different framework. When ILC started working on it, it worked on both, but the topics were divided.

So therefore, in fact, there is a huge contribution from international lawyers from India, at least the other dimension of the same aspect, there is a liability part of it. So when it comes to the state responsibility part, the one aspect that I would like to reflect on, which quite often keeps happening, is that one is, of course, in a day-to-day relation, states do take certain positions and they interact with each other. And if the states commit certain international wrong, in accordance with international law, in some form or the other, at least theoretically, if not practically, can be held accountable for doing certain things wrong.

Now this has happened in several cases, probably it may not come to our notice on a day-to-day basis, but it has been happening. But there are instances where, in fact, we see that almost on a daily basis, that there are certain non-state actors operate and quite often we see that probably they have certain links with states or states are actively contributing to their actions and those non-state actors are doing certain things contrary to international law and affecting some other state.

So it's more like non-state actors operating either from a particular state and having implications to the other state or operating from somewhere else, but states supporting them. So if that is what is the situation, whether there is any accountability or a possibility of accountability for states who presumably are accused of having some connection with the non-state actors' actions.

Now this happens in many ways. One is, of course, non-state actors in the form of, quote-unquote, terrorism or non-state armed groups operating from one territory having implications to the other. There are business entities, because we international lawyers put all of them together as non-state actors, which includes corporate entities, business entities and the non-state armed groups.

But in a general sense, if you look at it, if they are in some form or the other, if there is a state connection to them, and if their activities lead to some kind of a damage somewhere else, whether they should be held accountable or not. Yes, they can be held accountable, but the answer is, of course, yes, but it's not that straightforward. There are different possibilities that can happen.

And this is one of the central questions of International Law, when ILC worked on this thing. There are instances where the matters have gone to the International Court of Justice also, where non-state actors are involved with the complicity of a state operating in some other state. The classic example, which those who are into international law would know, the famous Nicaragua case, that is between the United States and Nicaragua. The matter was that Nicaragua went to the International Court saying that the United States was involved in supporting the activities of certain non-state actors on its territory.

So this was 1984. The case was decided in 1986. So, then the court had to get in that whether some of those activities, which were known as Contras, the activities of the Contras, of course there are other categories of people who are involved in creating certain disturbances on the territory of Nicaragua. So Nicaragua accused that it is the United States, in fact, who was playing that role of supporting these non-state actors.

So while deciding that matter, the court said that yes, it is possible that the states can be held accountable for supporting certain activities of non-state actors, but not in all cases. So only in certain circumstances that possibility is there. Now, that possibility is that when a state is effectively controlling the activities of the non-state actor, and if that non-state actor is involved in committing certain actions in other states, then the supporting state can be held accountable under state responsibility.

So this was the position which the International Court of Justice said, and of course concluded that the U.S. was not responsible for the activities of Contras. Of course, it was held responsible for the activities of other categories of individuals who are known as UCLAs, but not in the case of the Contras. But the most important part, more than what the factual situation is that, it is possible that states can be held accountable for the non-state actors' actions, provided that those, if the state maintains some effective control on the non-state actors' activities.

But that is fine. I think that should have been the end of the matter, but actually that, the matter did not end, therefore, because lawyers are involved in it. So later on, another court held it completely in a different way, which is the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. The factual situation is completely different from it, from what was in relation to Nicaragua. This was more about the former Yugoslavia and the criminal responsibility of the individuals.

But the issue was that, in that, the court said that what International Court of Justice said about effective control, in fact, is not required, means in the sense of not only financing and broadly planning it, but it is the ICJ's position was that, in fact, they should be maintaining an effective control in the form of a direction and control and instructions to be given to the non-state actors, then only you can hold the state responsible for the actions of the non-state actors.

But the later court, that is the criminal tribunal, said that, in fact, you don't need to emphasize on the effective control of it, but the control can be broadly, and to put it as overall control, means in the sense of it does not go to the extent of planning and executing or involving in every activity, means in the form of exercising control, that need not be there. Even if it is lesser than that, the state can be held accountable, which it said that it is an overall control, rather than effectively controlling the activities of the non-state actors.

Okay. That was the position. But it was understood that there are two courts about the same law speaking two different things. And unfortunate situation with international law is that there is no hierarchy of institutions. Like the way in a domestic situation you have, there is a Supreme Court, high courts and lower courts. We do not have that at the international level. Each one is independent of their own.

So there are two courts telling the same story in a different way. So it is for a normal person, it looks like what is that? Now that is what the reality is. But interestingly, a similar matter emerged, something grew with responsibility framework again before the International Court of Justice. So general expectation was that this court, which is International Court of Justice, would follow rather than of its own 1986 position, but probably would have followed the later development, this was of 1998 and 1999, of the criminal tribunal's position to follow the overall control.

But interestingly, this court, the other court said that, no, I am not going to follow you. I stick to my position, that is the effective control, because for all those state responsibility, it has to be, the threshold has to be higher in the sense that state has to really exercise certain amount of control in the non-state actors rather than of diluting that control part of it. So which means that there is an element of uncertainty still continues to be there as part of International Law.

And later on, those who were involved in deciding the other case, the other means the criminal law case, said that it is a very unfortunate situation that International Court of Justice, instead of following our position, in fact stuck to its own position without explaining properly as to why it is sticking to that position. Now, when it comes to the concrete situation, of course this is all what the legal position that exists at the international level. When it comes to concrete situations, we keep seeing many of those non-state actors get involved.

But each instance, of course, varies, like for example, if a corporate entity is involved in certain activities, maybe registered in some other country, but doing certain activities having implications to violations of human rights and environmental issues, whether in such situations the state responsibility can come into picture. Unfortunately, in fact, one has to look at it in a larger sense, that would have been the case some time ago, probably maybe 30 years ago.

This kind of a matter used to be dealt with as part of the interstate relations, but there are certain developments, now one can get into the economic and political aspects of why these developments have been happening across the globe. But today, if corporate entities go, most of them work through a different legal framework within international law, which you call it as international investment laws, where the disputes end up being a state and investor, in fact, rather than an interstate conflict. Why suddenly this happens for international law, it's a different debate one can get into it, but which used to be normally the state responsibility framework maybe 30 or 40 years ago, now that got into more of a between a state and an investor.

So which means if the investor comes in here and probably the dispute is between the investor and the state rather than a dispute between the state and state to which the investor belongs. Now there the possibility of having an interstate dispute in the form of a state responsibility of that nature, the traditional nature, doesn't exist. But in more prominent way probably it is important in relation to non-state actors' activities more in terms of armed groups operating it.

Now that keeps happening in many parts of the world we see that you keep, I mean there are mostly this is happening in relation to border state, but there are also instances where in those examples of terrorism and others we sometimes try to attribute them to certain states. So in such situations the attribution, probably in a political sense may be important to have the political discourse happens on different issues, but when it comes to the legal part of it somewhere these aspects become extremely important that whether what kind of the level of control that each state exercises on non-state actors and whose actions can be attributed to the state.

So they get into the legality part of it and that is one of the reasons why probably you may not hear much states talking in these lines also. Many a time if you hear, including in South Asian context also, you can see that probably the discourse takes place at a slightly different from these, but when it comes to the questions of legality, I think this probably cannot be escaped from them. We have to confront these aspects, whichever the state is involved.

So in that sense probably I think his contribution especially and probably I think this pays a way for more work particularly with the state practice from developing countries point of view, Indian state practice point of view, because one unfortunate part of the international law scholarship is that we still lag behind on many issues where work is required, where our own state practices especially how countries, global southern states are involved in International Law making do not get as much attention as it should have been and also there is a positive value of scholarship. In that sense it is a great contribution and congratulations once again. Thank you.

Uma Devi: Well, thank you very much Dr. Srinivas for that incisive analysis. Starting from Nicaragua case in a very beautiful analysis and you have come out with that control test that emerged from it. So from what analysis we just heard from you, correct me if I am wrong, the tension between effective and overall control reminds us how attribution remains one of the most contested and consequential aspects of state responsibility. You agree with me?

Yeah. So under these circumstances, so as non-state actors increasingly shape the global events, these legal tests, how they become central to how responsibilities are seen and contested, we need to dilute much, if not now, the latter part of our discussion. Thank you very much once again. Now, may I turn to Dr. Kanika Sharma to reflect or share her insights?

Kanika Sharma: Thank you so much, ma'am. And thank you, ma'am, for inviting me and giving me this opportunity to be the part of this distinguished panel. And congratulations, Dr. Pillai, for this wonderful book, which deals with basically the emerging dimensions related to the state responsibility in one book. So yes, I have jotted down certain points with regard to the chapters that were assigned to me to discuss, chapter five and chapter six, which is on the human rights obligations and state responsibility, and chapter six, outbreak of infectious diseases and state responsibility. That how states are responsible in case of human rights obligations, and how the spread of infectious diseases by one of the state is responsible for such a spread.

So far as the human rights obligations and state responsibility is concerned, we have the state responsibility key elements, which says that it is a responsibility of the state to protect, to prevent, to fulfill the human rights obligations. So the key element which asks about the responsibility is duty to protect. And yes, territoriality also matters, which says that states are primarily responsible for human rights violations occurring within their territory, but they can also be held accountable for violations affecting their citizens in other countries as well.

And what are the types of breaches? State responsibility can arise from direct act of the state officials and also by the non-state actors, which means the corporations, which means the armed conflict groups. Then, so far as the obligations, it's not only the ILC draft articles that asks about the state responsibility in case of the human rights obligations. We have various international human rights instruments, starting from UN Charter, UDHR. We have ICCPR. We have International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. We have regional instruments that talks about the responsibility, state responsibility, and obligation to protect, to prevent the human rights.

In addition to that, we have general comments on ICCPR and ICSCR. And we have the regional conventions also, that is the American Convention on Human Rights. African Charter on Peoples, Human Rights, and Fundamental Freedoms. We have Arab Charter on Human Rights that talks about the state's responsibility in case of the human rights violations by a state.

But the thing is, again, in addition to that, we have Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties that provides, under Article two, Clause one, Subclause F, for a contracting state. That who is a contracting state? Which means that if a state has consented to be bound by the treaty, whether or not the treaty has entered into force, which means that once a state enters into a treaty, it impliedly agrees to be bound by that treaty, even if it is not enforced. Which means that, in giving implication to the treaty, you are bound by the obligations which are set in the treaty as well.

And ILC draft articles, again, it provides that the states are not only liable for their own internationally wrongful acts, but also those which are attributable to such states. Well, coming to the outbreak of infectious diseases, why I'm discussing here the infectious diseases outbreak? Because human rights to public health, human right to health, is related to both the aspects. And outbreak of infectious diseases, yes, recently we had an example of COVID-19.

And that basically creates the question on the liability of China, that whether China was responsible for the outbreak of such a disease or not. Yes, the answer is with us that no, China was not held responsible because we did not find any evidences against China. So as to make a state responsible under the ILC draft articles, what is required is establishing the facts. We should have, we must have evidences to prove that, yes, this infectious disease was the outcome of China's wrongful act.

But that was not established. So this was the main reason that the state responsibility with respect to COVID-19 it was not established. So we have learned from various outbreak of infectious diseases which were there earlier. I have named a few. That is SARS in 2003, avian flu, then H1N1 pandemic, Ebola outbreaks, Zika virus disease. And WHO has listed down the lessons that have been learned from all these outbreaks, that challenges in identifying the novel pathogens, importance of timely diagnostic tests, development of core capacities of screening and quarantine at international airports.

But the main challenge which WHO has listed is the lack of international, legally binding regulations. No doubt we have international health regulations that were enacted in 2005. And a very recently in the month of May 2025, we have a pandemic agreement also that creates, again, the legal obligations on the states for the outbreak of any infectious disease. But again, the thing is, we all are aware that in the coming years or maybe in the future, already WHO has listed 30 pathogens, risk pathogens, which we may face in our near future.

But are we ready, are we prepared to handle such type of situation? That's a big question. And whether states can be held responsible for those outbreaks, which we may see in the near future, is again, a question to be answered. And for that, what is required, again, is a legal challenge, international legislation or we must say legislation at the state level also. Take an example of India, whether we have any legislation that talks about the public health, that talks about such emergencies, if we face in future. Do we have any framework that lays down the preparedness, that lays down how to tackle the situation if it happens again, like COVID?

So very recently, in the COVID-19 situation, till that, we had two legislations only. One is National Disaster Management Act and the second one is Public Health Act. So these were very old act, the act is like of British era that talks about the issuance of regulations only, the issuance of notifications only. And National Disaster Management Act, it talks about managing the situation. That means how the disasters can be handled in such situation.

These two legislations, they only speak about management and issuance of regulations. What we have seen in case of the COVID, this notification with regard to quarantine, notification with regard to the lockdown. So this is what happened under these two legislations, which we have till date in India. Very recently, again, in the month of August 2024, if I'm right, yes, in 2024, India, NITI Aayog, Government of India has released a report on preparedness, future preparedness of such type of situations and a framework for action, framework for action, which provides for the risk to be covered in first 100 days. How to cover the risk if any such case appears, if any such infection appears in near future.

So 100 days time period is mentioned in that framework, which provides for the collection of samples, which provides for the preparedness, which provides for the quarantine period. And also the key recommendations which are given in this framework is with regard to the four pillars that provides for the governance, that provides for the legislation, that provides for again, the preparedness with regard to the vaccinations, with regard to the cross-border, cross-sectoral management, that provides for the data collection, data sharing, that provides for not only the state cooperation, that provides for international cooperation as well.

So it's not like one-handed situation to be handled, it is a cooperation on both ways. By the states, by the international community, by the public private sector as well. By the doctors, by the healthcare workers as well. So it's all about the cooperation and this is how the states can be responsible. But ILC draft articles, it very well explains the obligations, but I must say that compliance mechanism is very weak. We need the compliance, we have International Court of Justice, we had ICTY, we had ICTR, we had committees, we have ICC as well.

But so far as the compliance mechanism, in my view, the point of state sovereignty comes in picture. Whenever we talk about the responsibility, we have domestic courts as well. And the thing of China's being not held responsible for this COVID-19, it was lack of evidence. It was, the case was instituted in the domestic court, but again, state sovereignty principles, it came into picture.

For the compliance, why it was not held responsible, because till date we do not have any case instituted before the ICJ that handles the situation of outbreak of infectious disease, so we do not have any precedent on that point. Yes, WHO is there, but again, regulations, they create the legal binding obligations, but it's upon the states how to handle the situation and how the conduct is attributable to the states. And WHO, I must say, is only for name and shame, because they can't do anything without the compliance mechanism. So, thank you, thank you so much. Thank you, ma'am, and congratulations, Dr. Pillai, once again.

Uma Devi: Thank you. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Sharma, for that very compelling intervention. So, as we reflect on the lessons of recent global health crisis, I understand, your remarks reminds us that legal preparedness is as vital as medical preparedness. Thank you, once again. Now, let us shift the lens to outer space. May I request Dr. Garg to just throw your thoughts?

Risham Garg: So, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you, madam, for inviting me to this wonderful event, and again, congratulations to the Center for this wonderful event. This topic is really very timely and apt in the current circumstances and I know that I am the last speaker so I will try to finish within 10 minutes. Now I have a presentation, but I will not read through all of these. Let us start by how we can approach the outer space and also cybercrime. My role is involvement is mostly in transnational law which is transnational commercial law which is like a business wing of the international law and there is lot of now intermix or hybrid approach with respect to the international law.

States are promoting business prospects and several activities are also involving financial gains. Now coming to the first challenge in cyberspace there was an incident of 2007 Estonia and it relates to that DDoS and although it was some sentimental value but that was a first incident which triggered a global incident, a global response to have some mechanism to address the cybercrime and cyber warfare.

Now we are seeing lot of operations, covert operations, overt operations, there are invisible operations also, dark operations, dark ops. So cybercrime is like an invisible operation. Some countries are also using to financially gain. So I think it's a closed event we can name some countries and it's all there in the public domain. So North Korea has been supposed to harboring some cybercriminals who are hacking these cryptocurrency wallets and we had the WazirX and Binance and so many hacks also and that's a nice way now to sustain their economy.

And some other cyberwarfare some states are promoting for various reasons. So what is the purpose of the cybercrime and or cyber convention, well there must be the response which should be proportional. However, there must be an international law mechanism which should be able to address these challenges. So certain challenges and policy pillars I have tried to identify. There is certain jurisdictional ambiguity, so how to identify there is no person, so what factors can be utilized to identify the jurisdiction, so it cannot be just a person, it can be the location of servers, it can also be streaming of the traffic and there is lot of information technology and technological tools which may be used.

Then our current system of the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, MLAT, needs to be strengthened and there can be, so even in the recent Supreme Court judgment on the digital arrest, Honorable Supreme Court has referred to the cybercrime convention that India should consider to be a party and India is actively, it appears that we are actively considering for this. Then now we have the digital data laws, so the digital data rules have also been now in the public domain and very soon they will be notified after the consultation is over.

So what are the policy pillars, so there needs to be a robust legal and jurisdictional foundation and nowadays there is lot of private players, business players who are also involved. Just to consider the involvement of these technology companies, Google, Facebook, Microsoft is tremendous it's being argued and it's being considered that the social media is strategic, it is not business, okay. So the less said the better because we have seen these incidents in Nepal, Bangladesh, which is the side effects of social media.

So business has alternative uses as well which is strategic. So planning is crucial and most of these are already in place in India, the legal amendments to align the Information Technology Act, criminal laws to the extra-terrestrial jurisdiction enhancing the legal clarity, the digital MLAT portal 24 by 7, cybercrime contact point, bilateral data sharing talks.

So just to give you an example and there is a great need for capacity development. To just give you a very simple crude example, we read the judgment, Nithari child killings, Maninder Singh Pandher and the other fellow Kohli. So why were they let off? Probably the police felt the statement was given, recorded by a policeman and that is not admissible. So well, this shows that the lack of technology in the enforcement forces, it is there. So some of the enforcement agencies have very high capacity tools.

But there is still a great, great need for capacity development to the enforcement agencies. Long-term plans, certainly global cyber crime norms, regional cyber crime platforms and India is in a best position to undertake the leadership role in the global south. So now, madam asked me about the liability, the space liability. So space has challenges now. Now we have recently an example with the ISRO, ISRO commercial arm Antrix and there was a unfortunate case with Devas which went on and ultimately the award was given against Antrix but on some technicalities, on fraud grounds, it was not enforced either in the U.S. or in India.

But this basically shows that in India also the government, the ISRO is in full mind, has been always to commercialize the space operations. Now initial incident of the Roscosmos spacecraft, parts which fell over Canada. So Canada sued USSR for around USD 6 million, maybe around 50%, half of it was given, maybe USD 3 million was given by the USSR. This was as per the Outer Space Treaty and then even some U.S. spacecraft debris fell over Western Australia. They just asked for a token compensation of USD 400.

So this shows a dual approach in space for whatever activities are happening in outer space, there is a full absolute liability. However, when it comes into the domestic on earth, then the liability is proportional and it is based. So what can be India's strategic roadmap? So the Space Activities Bill, now IN-SPACe has been, is here and is like the regulatory authority who will, which will supervise and the Secretary of ISRO is heading it and also the industry veteran Mr. Pawan Goenka is the chairperson. So this is full approach towards the commercialization of the space activities by India.

We were seeing only, we were seeing for several decades in U.S. now the satellite launch by these private companies in the U.S. by Mr. Musk. So in India also the full regime has to be there in place and the regulatory agency and the Space Activities Bill is a very good opportunity to put this in motion. So some of the crucial elements which are required are there needs to be the appropriate insurance provisions like for in nuclear we have the nuclear liability insurance, hazardous activities, still people do not know how to handle the hazardous activities.

So what are the legal treaties as of now? So there is the Outer Space Treaty 1967, then there is the Rescue Obligations Treaty of 1968, then liability for space damage and the registration. Now, what is required at the moment? The National Space Object Registry, create a national registry for space objects which is interoperable with international databases to track and manage assets effectively, Liability Compensation Fund and enhancing public-private partnerships.

So this is my short take on how these structure of the cyber world and the space can move forward. There is a huge involvement of business and commercial players and there is a great need of cooperation and several governments are promoting their home industries. India is also now looking up to promote the home industries and opening up the sector and it is a good time for us to take the leadership in the global south and to be the third axis, which is one is the U.S., one is the Russia, China and India is third place to take the leadership role. Thank you for the patient audience and congratulations again to the author and the organizers.

Uma Devi: So, thank you, Dr. Garg, for that insightful overview. I think your mapping of the existing treaty landscape and the enabling mechanisms it offers, especially in the context of space, liability and shared use underscores how legal imagination must keep up with the technological expansion. Thank you once again. Now, I think we are already running out of time, but let me open the floor for questions. Please, Radhika, the mic.

Unidentified Participant: Good evening. My question is for Burra sir. Sir, you talked about regarding non-state actor when it has clear support of the state. So, when we talk about our country, like we have done surgical strike, air strike, and Operation Sindoor, so will it come under right to self-defense, or can we justify this action as a customary international law? Because we have seen that after WTC attack, World Trade Center attack, the U.S. has destroyed Taliban, and we have also seen several example in Syria and Iraq when there was rise of international terrorist organization like ISS.

Again, the U.S. had attacked ISS, U.S. with allied forces like NATO, they had also destroyed ISS. So, will it be justified as a customary international law or this action like surgical strike, air strike or Operation Sindoor or pre-emptive strike, will it come under the right to self-defense under international law?

Uma Devi: Next question, please. Identify yourself.

Sripathi Narayanan: Thank you. My name is Sripathi. I am with the council as a research fellow. If the chair will permit, I have got two questions. One is that to the last speaker, we need to talk about cyber crimes. Southeast Asia is now emerging as a major hub for cyber crimes. Unfortunately, there are multiple parties. The location of crime is one country, the organizers of the crime syndicate belong to multiple countries and a lot of innocent people, including from India, are due to operate in these scam centers under inhuman conditions. At that point of time, where does the state responsibility comes? Which country takes the responsibility? Is it the location country, or the country of origin of the actual perpetrators?

Second question, sir, is to the author. Thank you for your lecture, sir. The point is that you said that during COVID, there was this issue, a legal issue raised on the origins and the spread of the vaccine. But at the same time, I would like to slightly ask in terms of responsibility to protect, which was used as a cover earlier in the century to interfere into the domestic affairs of countries. But what happens when countries are deliberately hoarding vaccines and medication multiple times of that possible domestic use? Doesn't that also become a responsibility to protect to release essential commodities for which you have got no need and instead of hoarding them? Thank you.

Uma Devi: One more question. Yes, please.

Aditi Shukla: Good evening, everyone. Thank you so much for such an insightful lecture. Myself, Aditi Shukla and I'm here on behalf of TICE. My question is for Narinder sir. In today's world of cyber operations and AI systems, do the classical rules of state responsibility still work or do we need a new framework in case states hide behind non-state actors and technology? Thank you.

Srinivas Burra: Thank you for the question. Yes, a couple of issues I think you raised, I mean several issues in fact, probably I think time won't permit to get into that. But whether, if non-state actors are involved in such the example that you referred to, whether state can be held accountable, whether that can be considered as a right of self-defense. Yes, there is one view which strongly believes that even if non-state actors are involved, the state can be held accountable if the operations are related to the state from which they are operating.

Now for that there is a test which is evolved, I mean it's a controversial one, but it says that if there is an inability or unwillingness on the part of the state which hosts those non-state actors, then the other state can intervene if it is a victim state. But there are five or six, maybe 10, not more than 10 states subscribed to this view. When it comes to specific India instances, wherever it was in the last couple of years, it has happened, India does not specifically say that. Whenever this incident has happened, if you go through the recent examples, it does not specifically refer to the right of self-defense.

But if you go back to its position otherwise, which it took in the United Nations, there is an Arria Formula statement, I think they are aware of it. There in that statement it clearly spelled out that instances involving of such nature are justified under the right of self-defense. But at least to my view, of course, this is my completely personal view, that statement has not come out clearly as to whether a justification comes from the charter framework, United Nations Charter as part of customary international law. At some place it says customer international, it moves into the chart, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. But roughly it seems to be, if you look at it, roughly it seems to be, it is going on the lines of those seven or eight countries which believe that there is a right of self-defense against non-state actors. But it is completely not clear.

If you go to NAM position paper, which every year it comes, there if you look at the collective statement of all the NAM members, which includes India, in fact, they look at Article 51 as a very restrictive one. So there is no uniform position so far. Whenever the practical incidents have happened, it is more or less silent as to how to describe it. Very rarely it refers to the right of self-defense. It did, but not clearly. But its position seems to be evolving and with a bit of a certainty with the Arria Formula. So yes, of course, my individual opinion is different, but that is what India's largely position. The dominant position, at least now, going by purely the number of states who subscribe to, do not subscribe to, considering it as a right of self-defense can be invoked. It cannot be. But the dominant view, including all the more or less P5 and a few other countries, do subscribe to that. Yes.

Uma Devi: Thank you very much. Sir, you would like to add to that? Dr. Srinivas was making one statement that India's statement is not clear with respect to the right to self-defense against non-state actors. What is our position?

Narinder Singh: Well, I will speak on something slightly different, because the question related to the US response to the attack on the World Trade Centre, well, following these attacks, there were resolutions adopted by the General Assembly condemning the attacks, and also resolutions by the UN Security Council, calling upon states to take action jointly to deal with the issue. So it's not that the US acted unilaterally. They may have stretched the language of the resolution somewhat, but there was some basis for that, for their action. And those attacks also led to major changes in the UN.

You have a committee on terrorism now, and that committee had asked all countries around the world to provide details of their legislations to show how they were implementing their obligations under the various anti-terrorism conventions. And one of the outcomes of that has been something which you hear from time to time, the FATF, the Financial Action Task Force, which studies the legislation and practices of countries to see as to what steps you are taking to prevent terrorists from getting access to funding. Apart from a separate international convention on funding for terrorism, in which funding is defined not simply as money, but any kind of assistance. It could be weapons, it could be anything. Thank you.

Uma Devi: So with respect to the question raised by the student from TICE, she is challenging the draft articles. Are they still relevant?

Narinder Singh: Yes, you wanted to know about cybercrime.

Uma Devi: Yeah, in the context of cybercrime.

Narinder Singh: Yes. Now, the cybercrime and the dangers that arise from this have been raised a number of times in various forums. Even the UN's High Commissioner for Human Rights has referred to this problem, while highlighting that there are beneficial uses of technology. They also highlighted the scope for abuse. And the only way to deal with this is for states to cooperate and help each other, because all states don't have the same technical capacity to detect cybercrimes or to prevent cybercrimes from taking place. The only way forward is cooperation.

Uma Devi: Thank you very much, sir. Dr. Garg, would you like to add?

Risham Garg: Yeah. Now, there's the five core principles of international law, which are sovereignty, non-interference, and prohibition of force, but also principle of necessity and proportionality. So the US has been bombing the drug boats in the territory of South American countries. So maybe your question was addressed in these Southeast Asian countries, where there are these cartels. So we don't know the country's state or who are those actors. It is difficult to get to them. And that is why it is happening in these places. And I don't doubt the efforts of the Ministry of External Affairs and the agencies in tracing those people and getting our citizens back from those countries. Thank you.

Uma Devi: Thank you so much, Dr. Garg. Oh, okay, please.

Nutan Kapoor Mahawar: I just wanted to make two quick points. One, to my non-legal diplomatic mind, the word ‘responsibility’ is far bigger, broader than the word ‘liability’. So we are here talking about state ‘responsibility’. The author spoke about ‘liability’. Liability makes the state akin to an individual entity, but the state is very different. It is an entity like no other and the responsibility that it holds towards its people is unparalleled. So the treatment of the terminology ‘responsibility’ should somehow be different even legally than ‘liability’. That is to my political mind.

The second point that I would like to make is about non-state actors. I think that the terminology of non-state actors is a politically convenient terminology which legal minds are being forced to grapple with. Apart from stateless individuals, there is nothing called non-state. Everybody belongs to some state or the other. So it's a very politically convenient terminology because the state politically wants to disown the actions of certain individuals or certain groups. So I think the term non-state actor is bad in law. It is a political terminology.

Uma Devi: Well, very challenging statements you are posing, Nutan. I mean, this requires another set, another round of discussions. You are questioning about the phraseology of the state responsibility, how much it can absorb into the liability. To some extent, I agree. I mean, the esteemed speakers also, but this requires a lot of analysis. With respect to non-state actors, well, I agree. Maybe it's a politically created phenomenon, but when you segregate that particular part of that politically created phenomenon, why? What are the causes? What are the root causes? Why we call them non-state actors?

Because they're outside the law. They're miscreants. I mean, that is what the position we are taking is. That's how the terrorist group are addressed. And India's position as far as non-state actors is concerned, as you know very well, as a career diplomat. But this requires a lot of discussion in the next session. Thank you very much for that intervention. Any more questions? In fact, I did some homework to ask these esteemed panelists some questions, but we are running out of time. So I will reserve it separately. So let me just conclude.

Radhika Mathur: One more question. It was there earlier asked.

Uma Devi: Okay, please. No, no, he has asked earlier.

Unidentified Participant: Good evening, everyone. My name is Hina, I'm an assistant professor at Chittagong University. My question is to Srinivas sir, a little out of the discussion, but I would like to ask this question. Sir, I would like to know if India has developed any new state practice trend in terms of reservations to international human rights treaties?

Uma Devi: No, let the other respond and then you will respond.

Aneesh V. Pillai: So I will come to that, before that there were one question regarding the cyberspace and state responsibility. Well, I will mix that question with the non-state actors what madam said. If you look at the customary international law principle of Sikh, Uttarayat, Non-Ladakhs that means use your land or allow your land not to cause injury or harm to others. So whether you are non-state actor, whether you are supported by state or not that is irrelevant. If a group operating in the territory of your state causing harm to another state, you are responsible for that. This dictum was established in very long back in trial smelter arbitration case and it is being continued in number of cases.

So in the context of Operation Sindoor, I want to use that. It is not self-defense, it was actually a countermeasure against an entity and no country can dispute that because their territory is being used to cause damage to our country. So our country having all right to take countermeasure which is well sanctioned by UN Charter.

Now the second point is regarding cyberspace, there are countries, their territory is being utilized, same principle we can extend there. Now the problem is whether the countries are capable enough to take action against those groups operating in their territory, especially African countries where these criminals are situated, whether that country is having the technical know-how and the capability to take action against that people. That is what lacking here, that is with respect to cybercrime.

And one last thing regarding the vaccines, that is what specifically raised towards me regarding infectious disease. Now see we all know international law is there to ensure cooperation and technology transfer. Whenever a country develops a vaccine, before it being released to its own citizens or before utilizing everything to its own citizens, some portion of it should be shared with other countries. If you look at India's policy at that time, we have developed a vaccine and we have given this to a particular age group initially. At the same time, some percentage of dosage we have given to other countries.

At that time, there were several criticisms citing that before issuing this to everyone in India, why we are giving it to other countries. Now, that is what actually because of international obligation. We cannot close our technology only to our people because it's a world where we have to cooperate each other. That is one of the basis of international law. So, India has taken that policy and many other countries followed it. So, that's what I want to reflect on. Thank you.

Uma Devi: Yes, Dr. Srinivas.

Srinivas Burra: Does it work? Yeah. I'm not sure whether we call it as India has a specific state practice in relation to reservations to treaties. It has its own practice. It means we don't see many of the new treaties having the possibilities of making reservations. But if you go by the old state, what India has made with covenants and other. Yes, it does make, but there are similarities with many other states also. That kind of making declarations and almost having the effect of reservations. That is what actually happens with some of the reservations by some states. And India does and did make that kind of reservation at least for both the covenants. It has the impact of becoming a reservation, but though it calls it as a declaration.

Whether we call it as a separate state practice, but it's similar to many of the states. In fact, many other states have also done it. But I don't see the new reservations because most of the new treaties really prohibit reservations. We only go by the old one. I don't see major change other than that.

Uma Devi: Thank you very much. So with that, let me conclude with my little concluding remarks. First of all, thank you all. Thank you to the author as well as the esteemed speakers for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. So what today's discussion has made clear is that the law of state responsibility is not frozen in time. It is a dynamic framework able to adopt to all the challenges. Be it technological or shifting geopolitical realities and raising expectations of accountability. Great. But what attracted me in this book is the clarity with which the author Dr. Pillai puts the issue of necessity of the state to take responsibility by placing its role across the board to uphold global order. It is highly appreciated. Thank you very much.

Another strength of the book is its attention to institutional design. You've gone in so detail, a kind of anatomy has done with all these issues. Whether it is licensing authorities for space activities, cyber emergency teams, or public health infrastructure, the message is very clear. Legal frameworks only work when backed by credible systems. Great, wonderful.

And finally, the book invites us to think beyond bilateral harm and consider the shared stakes of the international community. I have to agree with that. Thank you once again, Dr. Pillai, for this wonderful book presentation.

Radhika Mathur: There's no doubt that today's discussion has been an insightful one, and it has contributed greatly to all of our knowledge and perspectives. On behalf of ICWA, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the distinguished chair and speakers. Many special thanks to Ms. Nutan Kapoor Mahawar, our acting director general and additional secretary at ICWA, and Srimati Uma Devi, who is the advisor for international law at ICWA, for their constant support and guidance. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to all my team at the council for the great cooperation and support that they have offered to us.

I also want to thank the audience for their active participation and engagement. To know more about ICWA's research work, events, outreach programs, and publications, do visit our website and social media handles on Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Facebook. Thank you, and please join us for high tea in the foyer.

Uma Devi: Thank you.

*****