DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERNING

FRIENDLY RELATIONS AND ITS IMPLICATIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

BAL5.1 International Law

Academic Year: 2024-25

Semester: V

Submitted by:

Shourya Veer

UID: UG22-105

Submitted to:

Dr. Shilpa Jain

Assistant Professor of Law

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

 TABLE OF CONTENT

Sr.no. Particulars Page no.

1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 AIM AND OBJECTIVES 4

RESEARCH METHADOLOGY

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

3 THE DECLARATION OF PRINCI- 4-5

PLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
CONCERNING FRIENDLY RELA-
TIONS

4 KEY PRINCIPLES OUTLINED IN THE DEC- 5-10

LARATION

5 LEGAL NATURE AND STATUS 10-14

6 CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS 15-18

7 FUTURE OF THE DECLARATION'S PRINCI- 18-19

PLES

10 CONCLUSION 20

I BIBLIOGRAPHY 21-22

2
INTRODUCTION

The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations, formally

adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on October 24, 1970, represents a land-
mark in the codification of fundamental norms governing the behavior of states. Born out of
the pressing need for a framework to guide international relations in the aftermath of two
world wars and the onset of the Cold War, this Declaration sought to crystallize principles es-
sential to maintaining global peace and security. It serves as a reflection of the collective as -
pirations of the international community to promote cooperation, prevent conflicts, and safe-
guard the sovereignty of states.

The Declaration encapsulates several key principles, including the sovereign equality of
states, the prohibition of the threat or use of force, the non-intervention in the domestic affairs
of other states, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and the self-determination of peoples.
These principles, while rooted in the United Nations Charter, were further clarified and reaf-
firmed in this Declaration, providing a comprehensive guide for state conduct.

The significance of the Declaration lies not only in its role as a moral and legal compass for
states but also in its contribution to the development of customary international law. By artic-
ulating these principles, the Declaration has influenced state practice and has been referenced
in numerous international legal instruments and judicial decisions. However, the implementa-
tion of these principles has not been without challenges. 1Divergences in interpretation, selec-
tive enforcement, and geopolitical considerations have often led to tensions between the
ideals embodied in the Declaration and the realities of international relations.

This research explores the content and implications of the Declaration of Principles of Inter-
national Law Concerning Friendly Relations, examining its impact on the evolution of inter-
national law and the behavior of states in the global arena.

1
Robert Rosenstock, “The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations: A
Survey”, THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 65, No. 5 (Oct., 1971), pp. 713-
735.

3
AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research project is to critically examine the Declaration of Principles of Inter-
national Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States (1970), focusing
on its significance, its influence on the development of international law, and its practical im-
plications in contemporary global relations. This research seeks to assess how the Declaration
has shaped state behavior, contributed to the evolution of customary international law, and
impacted the functioning of international legal institutions.

Objectives:

· Analyze the content and significance of the Declaration of Principles of Inter-

national Law Concerning Friendly Relations.
· Examine its impact on international law and state behavior.
· Critically Analyze Challenges to the Declaration’s Principles in Modern
Times

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

· What are the key principles outlined in the Declaration?

· How have these principles influenced international law?
· What are the challenges and limitations associated with the implementation of
these principles?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The researcher uses many resources to look deep into the prospect of declaration of principles
of international law concerning friendly relations and its implications in international law.
Many articles, journals, reports and websites were taken into consideration. The qualitative,
doctrinal methodology of research is used to collect information throughout the project and
also some personal understanding of the project was used to complete the research work by
the researcher.

THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CONCERN-

ING FRIENDLY RELATIONS

4
1. ORIGINS AND ADOPTION

Drafting Process and Key Actors Involved

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-op-
eration among States, adopted in 1970, was born out of the need to clarify and solidify funda -
mental norms of international law following World War II. The drafting process began in the
1960s as part of the broader post-war reformation of international legal frameworks. Key ac-
tors in this process included:

· The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), especially its Sixth Committee,
which is responsible for legal issues.
· Special Committees of the UN formed to draft the text of the declaration. The Interna-
tional Law Commission (ILC) also provided expertise in codifying certain principles.
· Member States, including powerful countries like the United States, the Soviet Union,
and various decolonizing nations, played significant roles in shaping the declaration's
provisions.

The Declaration drew inspiration from foundational documents like the UN Charter (1945)
and early resolutions, aiming to codify and expand on the principles of international law that
would guide state behavior.

The Role of the United Nations General Assembly in its Adoption (Resolution 2625
(XXV) of 24 October 1970)

The UNGA played a pivotal role in adopting the declaration. The General Assembly's adop-
tion of Resolution 2625 (XXV) was a historic moment in international law, as it not only re-
flected the global consensus on these key principles but also sought to address pressing global
challenges, such as decolonization, Cold War tensions, and the non-use of force. 2The resolu-
tion was passed unanimously, signifying broad international support. The Declaration sought
to balance the need for state sovereignty with the growing emphasis on human rights and
peaceful cooperation.3

2
Piet-Hein Houben, “Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation Among
States”, THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 703-736.
3
Gregory J. Kerwin, “The Role of United Nations General Assembly Resolutions in Determining Principles of
International Law in United States Courts”, DUKE LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 1983, No. 4 (Sep., 1983), pp. 876-
899.

5
2. KEY PRINCIPLES OUTLINED IN THE DECLARATION

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Coop-
eration among States outlines several core principles that have shaped modern international
law. These principles not only articulate norms for state conduct but also address issues of
sovereignty, non-aggression, peaceful dispute resolution, and cooperation. Below is an elabo-
ration of each principle with relevant examples.

Principle of the Sovereign Equality of States

Elaboration: This principle asserts that all states are legally equal under international law, re-
gardless of their size, military power, population, or wealth. Sovereign equality is a founda-
tional element of the United Nations system and ensures that all states, whether large or
small, have equal rights and obligations.

Example:
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) operates on the basis of one state, one vote, regardless
of a state's power or influence. This is a practical application of sovereign equality. For in-
stance, Nauru, a small island nation with a population of under 10,000, has the same voting
power in the UNGA as the United States, despite the vast differences in their global influ-
ence and resources.

Principle of Non-Intervention

Elaboration: Non-intervention means that no state should interfere in the domestic or foreign
affairs of another state, including its political, economic, and social systems. This principle is
designed to protect the sovereignty of states and is closely tied to the principle of sovereign
equality.

Example:
The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) is often cited in discussions of non-intervention. The place-
ment of Soviet missiles in Cuba led to heightened tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet
Union. While the U.S. argued that the placement of missiles so close to its borders constituted
a threat, it refrained from military intervention in Cuba's internal affairs, and the crisis was ul-

6
timately resolved through diplomacy. The principle of non-intervention was a key considera-
tion in this scenario.

A more recent example is Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which violated the prin-
ciple of non-intervention as well as the sovereignty of Ukraine. The international community
largely condemned the act, and various sanctions were imposed on Russia by the EU and the
United States for violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.4

Principle of Prohibition of the Threat or Use of Force

Elaboration: This principle is enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits
the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The only exceptions are cases of self-defense (Article 51 of the UN Charter) or actions au-
thorized by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII to maintain or restore international
peace and security.

Example:
The Iraq War (2003) is a notable example of a controversial breach of this principle. The
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that Iraq possessed weapons of mass
destruction (WMDs), though these claims were later disproved. The war was not authorized
by the UN Security Council, and critics argued that the use of force violated international law
because it was not an act of self-defense nor an intervention sanctioned by the international
community.

Conversely, UN-authorized interventions like the Korean War (1950-1953), where a UN

coalition acted to repel North Korean aggression, are considered lawful under this principle.

Principle of Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

Elaboration: States are obliged to resolve their disputes peacefully, whether through negotia-
tion, mediation, arbitration, or legal proceedings. The goal is to avoid war and other violent
conflicts by encouraging diplomatic solutions.

4
Ravi Mahalingam, “THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NONINTERVENTION WITH THE
RIGHT OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION”, UCLA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND
FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Spring 1996), pp. 221-263.

7
Example:
The longstanding dispute between India and Pakistan over Kashmir has been taken to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) on several occasions. Although the conflict remains
unresolved, the resort to judicial and diplomatic avenues for resolving aspects of the dispute
aligns with the principle of peaceful dispute settlement.

Another example is the resolution of the Boundary Dispute between Peru and Ecuador in
1998. The two countries had fought a border war in 1995, but they ultimately reached a
peaceful resolution through the intervention of the Organization of American States (OAS)
and various mediators.

Principle of Non-Recognition of Territorial Acquisition by Force

Elaboration: Under this principle, any territorial gains achieved through the use of force are
deemed illegal and will not be recognized by the international community. This principle
emerged from the experiences of World War II, when Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan an-
nexed large parts of Europe and Asia through military aggression.

Example:
The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is often referenced under this principle. Is-
rael captured the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day
War. Despite Israel’s control over these areas, the international community, including the
United Nations, has largely refrained from recognizing the annexation of these territories.
UN resolutions have repeatedly called for negotiations based on pre-1967 borders, reaffirm-
ing the principle that territory cannot be acquired by force.5

Principle of Self-Determination of Peoples

Elaboration: The right to self-determination allows people to freely determine their political
status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. This principle has been
pivotal in the decolonization movements and remains relevant in situations where groups
seek autonomy or independence.

5
James Wilford Garner, “Non-Recognition of Illegal Territorial Annexations and Claims to Sovereignty”, THE
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Oct., 1936), pp. 679-688.

8
Example:
The process of decolonization after World War II, especially in Africa and Asia, was a direct
application of the self-determination principle. For example, the independence of India from
Britain in 1947 and the subsequent formation of Pakistan demonstrated the exercise of self-
determination by peoples under colonial rule.

More recently, movements such as the referendum for independence in Scotland (2014),
where the people of Scotland voted on whether to remain part of the United Kingdom, and
the Catalonia independence movement in Spain reflect the continuing importance of the
principle, although these situations have not led to independence.6

Principle of Cooperation Among States

Elaboration: States are encouraged to cooperate across a wide range of areas—economic,

social, cultural, and humanitarian—to maintain international peace and security. This princi-
ple promotes mutual assistance and interdependence among states, fostering a sense of shared
responsibility in the global community.

Example:
The establishment of international organizations such as the World Health Organization
(WHO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) exemplifies state cooperation. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, countries worked together through the WHO to coor-
dinate responses, share data, and provide mutual aid, reinforcing this principle of cooperation
for the global good.

Principle of Fulfillment of International Obligations in Good Faith

Elaboration: This principle requires that states comply with their international obligations
sincerely and in good faith. It applies to both treaty-based obligations and those arising from
customary international law, ensuring that states honor their commitments to maintain stabil-
ity and predictability in international relations.

Example:
A clear illustration of this principle is the Paris Agreement on Climate Change (2015).
6
ZUBEIDA MUSTAFA, “The Principle of Self-Determination in International Law”, THE INTERNATIONAL
LAWYER, Vol. 5, No. 3 (July 1971), pp. 479-487.

9
States that are party to the agreement are expected to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and fulfill their commitments in good faith to address global climate change. The
U.S.'s temporary withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under the Trump administration
(2017-2021) raised concerns about fulfilling obligations in good faith, although the country
rejoined under President Biden.

3. LEGAL NATURE AND STATUS

Binding vs. Non-Binding Nature of the Declaration

The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Coop-
eration among States (1970), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), is a
non-binding document that outlines fundamental principles of international law. Although it
does not create legally enforceable obligations, its moral authority and political influence
have shaped modern international law, embedding many of its principles into customary in-
ternational law and guiding state behavior, judicial decisions, and international diplomacy.

Non-Binding Nature of the Declaration

As a UNGA resolution, the Declaration is not legally binding on states. However, its signifi-
cance lies in its codification of principles that have been recognized and reaffirmed through
treaties, judicial decisions, and widespread state practice. Over time, these principles have
evolved into customary international law, which is binding on all states.

ICJ Cases Referencing the Declaration

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has frequently cited the Declaration in its judgments.
For instance, in the Nicaragua v. United States (1986) case, the ICJ referred to the principle
of non-intervention and the prohibition on the use of force as outlined in the Declaration. The
Court held that these principles, although non-binding under the Declaration, had become en-
trenched in customary international law. Similarly, in other cases, the ICJ has drawn on the
Declaration to reinforce the binding nature of customary law norms.

UN Security Council Resolutions

The Declaration's principles have been integrated into legally binding UN Security Council
resolutions. An example is Resolution 678 (1990), which authorized the use of force to re-
store Kuwait's sovereignty after Iraq’s invasion. The resolution reflected the principles of the

10
prohibition on the use of force and non-recognition of territorial acquisitions by force, align-
ing with the Declaration's framework. Such instances illustrate the political and moral weight
the Declaration carries, even if it is not legally binding.

The Declaration as Customary International Law

Customary international law arises from consistent state practice accompanied by a sense of
legal obligation (opinio juris). Many principles outlined in the Declaration, particularly the
prohibition on the use of force, the right to self-determination, and the non-recognition of ter-
ritorial acquisition by force, have attained this status and are now considered binding on the
international community.

Prohibition on the Use of Force

The prohibition on the use of force, as enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, is a cor-
nerstone of international law and has evolved into a jus cogens norm, meaning it allows no
derogation and binds all states. The international response to Russia's annexation of Crimea
in 2014—where the UN condemned the act and reaffirmed Ukraine's territorial integrity—il-
lustrates the binding nature of this prohibition. Similarly, in Nicaragua v. United States, the
ICJ ruled that the prohibition on the use of force had become customary international law, re -
inforcing its universal applicability.

Right to Self-Determination

The principle of self-determination has played a significant role in the decolonization

process and is now recognized as a customary international law norm. For example, in the
Western Sahara Case 7(1975), the ICJ emphasized the right of the Sahrawi people to self-de-
termination, rejecting Morocco and Mauritania's claims over the territory. The court’s ruling
reflected the growing acceptance of self-determination as a fundamental right under interna-
tional law.

Non-Recognition of Territorial Acquisition by Force

The principle that territory cannot be acquired through the use of force has been widely ac-
cepted as customary international law. The international community’s refusal to recognize Is-
rael's annexation of the Golan Heights and Russia's annexation of Crimea demonstrates the
strong consensus on this issue. These cases illustrate how states and international organiza-

7
[1975] ICJ Rep 12.

11
tions have applied the Declaration’s principles to uphold territorial integrity and reject viola-
tions of sovereignty.8

Peaceful Settlement of Disputes

The principle of peaceful settlement of disputes, another key component of the Declaration,
has also become part of customary international law. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Com-
mission is a notable example of this principle in practice, where both countries resolved their
border conflict through legal means rather than force, in line with the Declaration’s norms. 9

JUS COGENS NORMS AND THE DECLARATION

Some principles outlined in the Declaration, such as the prohibition of aggression and the
peaceful settlement of disputes, have attained the status of jus cogens norms, which are
peremptory norms that allow no derogation.

Prohibition of Aggression

The prohibition of aggression, enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and reinforced
by the Declaration, is widely recognized as a jus cogens norm. The ICJ has affirmed this
principle in several cases, including Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda 10(2005),
where Uganda was found to have committed acts of aggression by unlawfully occupying
Congolese territory.

Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully

The obligation to resolve disputes peacefully is also considered a jus cogens norm. The ICJ
has played a pivotal role in this regard, with cases such as Qatar v. Bahrain11 , where both
states agreed to abide by the court’s ruling, illustrating the binding nature of this principle.

Implications of the Declaration in International Law

8
Simone F. van den Driest, “From Kosovo to Crimea and Beyond: On Territorial Integrity, Unilateral Secession
and Legal Neutrality in International Law”, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL ON MINORITY AND GROUP
RIGHTS, Vol. 22, No. 4, Special Issue: Self-determination, Resources and Borders (2015), pp. 467-485.
9
Stephen M. Schwebel, “The Effect of Resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly on Customary International
Law”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING (AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW), Vol. 73 (APRIL 26 - 28, 1979), pp. 301-309.
10
ICJ GL No 116, [2005].
11
[2001] ICJ Rep 40.

12
The Declaration on Friendly Relations has had a profound impact on the development of in-
ternational law. Its principles have influenced state behavior, contributed to the formation of
customary international law, and shaped international jurisprudence.

Influence on State Behavior

The Declaration has influenced how states interact with one another, promoting peaceful rela-
tions and adherence to legal norms. For example, Switzerland's policy of neutrality reflects
the principles of non-intervention and peaceful settlement of disputes, while Namibia's inde-
pendence from South Africa was achieved through the international community’s refusal to
recognize South Africa's occupation, following the principle of non-recognition of territorial
acquisitions by force.12

Violations and International Responses

When states violate the principles of the Declaration, the international response is often swift.
For instance, Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
were widely condemned as violations of international law, leading to UN resolutions, sanc-
tions, and widespread diplomatic consequences.

Contribution to Customary International Law and International Treaties

The Declaration has played a key role in the development of customary international law,
with its principles, such as the prohibition on the use of force and self-determination, being
widely accepted by the international community. These principles have been incorporated
into international treaties, such as the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions, which gov-
ern state conduct in times of war and peace.

Impact on International Dispute Resolution

The principles of the Declaration have shaped the way international courts, particularly the
ICJ, resolve disputes between states. The ICJ has referenced the Declaration in numerous
cases, including Nicaragua v. United States 13(1986) and the Corfu Channel Case 14(1949),
reinforcing the customary law status of these norms.

Impact on Regional Organizations

12
Gabriella Rosner Lande, “The Effect of the Resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly”, WORLD
POLITICS, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Oct., 1966), pp. 83-105.
13
(1986) ICJ Rep 14.
14
ICGJ 199 (ICJ 1949).

13
The principles of the Declaration have been adopted by regional organizations, such as the
African Union (AU) and the European Union (EU), to promote peace, security, and cooper-
ation. These organizations have applied the principles to address regional conflicts, such as
those in Sudan, South Sudan, and the Balkans.

Promotion of Human Rights and Self-Determination

The Declaration has also had a significant impact on the promotion of human rights and
self-determination, particularly in the context of decolonization. The Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (UDHR) and other human rights treaties, such as the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), have been grounded in the principles of
state sovereignty and self-determination, which the Declaration helped codify.15

While the Declaration on Friendly Relations is non-binding, its principles have had a pro-
found and lasting impact on international law. Many of these principles, such as the prohibi-
tion on the use of force, self-determination, and non-recognition of territorial acquisitions by
force, have become part of customary international law and are binding on states. Others,
like the prohibition of aggression, have attained the status of jus cogens norms, reflecting
their imperative nature. Through its influence on state behavior, international courts, and re-
gional organizations, the Declaration continues to shape the global legal order and promote
peace, security, and cooperation among states.

IV. CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS

The Declaration on Friendly Relations is a key instrument in international law, establishing

principles such as self-determination, non-intervention, and sovereign equality. However,
these principles face criticisms due to ambiguities in their interpretation, difficulties in their
implementation, and the evolving global landscape. These challenges arise from complex
geopolitical interests, humanitarian crises, and emerging threats such as cyber warfare and
terrorism. This section explores these challenges, highlighting the evolving application of
the Declaration’s principles.

15
Patrick Thornberry, “Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of International Instruments”,
THE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW QUARTERLY, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 867-
889.

14
1. Ambiguities and Interpretative Challenges

One significant critique of the Declaration is the vagueness of certain principles, which
leads to varying interpretations, particularly concerning self-determination and non-inter-
vention. These principles can produce conflicting outcomes depending on how they are ap-
plied.

· Self-determination: Initially crucial for decolonization, this principle becomes con-

tentious in cases of secessionist movements. For instance, Catalonia’s 2017 inde-
pendence referendum and Scotland’s push for independence conflict with the ter-
ritorial integrity of Spain and the UK, respectively. In contrast, Kosovo’s 2008 decla-
ration of independence from Serbia, while supported by many Western states, was
opposed by others like Russia and China. The International Court of Justice’s (ICJ)
2010 advisory opinion that Kosovo's declaration did not violate international law re-
flects ongoing ambiguities in interpreting self-determination.
· Non-intervention: This principle, essential to state sovereignty, is often contested in
humanitarian interventions and internal conflicts. For example, NATO’s interven-
tions in Kosovo (1999) and Libya (2011), without UN Security Council (UNSC)
authorization, challenged the balance between humanitarian protection and respect
for sovereignty. These debates fuel the evolving concept of the Responsibility to
Protect (R2P), which justifies intervention in extreme humanitarian crises. The prin-
ciple is further tested in the cyber era, as seen in allegations of Russian interference
in the 2016 U.S. elections, raising questions about how non-intervention applies in the
digital realm.16

2. Implementation Issues

Despite broad acceptance, a gap exists between the Declaration’s principles and actual
state practice. Selective enforcement and geopolitical interests often compromise the appli-
cation of these principles.

· Non-intervention is inconsistently applied, especially by powerful states. For exam-

ple, the U.S. frequently intervened in Latin America during the Cold War, contra-
dicting the principle of non-intervention but justifying it as necessary for national se-
curity and anti-communism. Similarly, the principle of sovereign equality is not

16
Terry Nardin, “International Ethics and International Law”, REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL STUDIES,
Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 19-30.

15
 fully realized, as smaller states often face marginalization in international forums like
the UNSC, where the P5 can override global consensus through veto power.
· Geopolitical bias in international law is evident in inconsistent responses to global
events. For instance, the West’s condemnation of Russia’s annexation of Crimea
(2014) led to sanctions, while similar actions by other powerful states may not pro-
voke the same response, depending on political interests. Likewise, the international
community’s inconsistent reactions to secessionist movements—supporting
Kosovo’s independence but rejecting Catalonia’s—reflects political bias rather than
universal principles.

3. Criticism from Different Perspectives

The Declaration has drawn criticism from both developing countries and powerful states,
reflecting divergent perspectives.

· Global South: Developing countries argue that the Declaration does not adequately
address economic sovereignty or the persistence of neo-colonial practices like unfair
trade agreements and debt dependency. They advocate for a more comprehensive in-
terpretation of self-determination that includes economic autonomy. Furthermore,
developing states often view non-intervention as essential to safeguarding their
sovereignty, yet criticize powerful states for using human rights as a pretext for in-
tervention in regions like Africa and the Middle East, driven by strategic interests.17
· Powerful states: In contrast, powerful Western states argue that the principle of non-
intervention is overly restrictive when it comes to humanitarian intervention and
the Responsibility to Protect (R2P). They contend that strict adherence to non-inter-
vention could prevent action to prevent atrocities, as seen in Rwanda (1994) and
Darfur (2003). Similarly, in the war on terror, powerful states like the U.S. argue
that national security concerns justify cross-border interventions, such as military
operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan.18

4. Evolution and Adaptation

The principles of the Declaration must adapt to modern challenges, such as cyber warfare
and terrorism, which present new legal questions.
17
B.S. Chimni, “CHAPTER 4 Crisis and International Law: A Third World Approaches to International Law
Perspective”, Crisis Narratives in International Law, 2022, pp. 40-53.
18
Tom Ginsburg, “Authoritarian International Law?”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 114,
No. 2 (April 2020), pp. 221-260.

16
 · Cyber warfare complicates the principle of non-intervention. State-sponsored cy-
berattacks can destabilize states without traditional military invasion, raising ques-
tions about state responsibility in cyberspace. The Tallinn Manual offers some guid-
ance, but gaps remain in how the principle of non-intervention applies to cyber oper-
ations.
· Terrorism and the use of force are also evolving issues. After 9/11, the U.S. invoked
pre-emptive self-defence to justify military action against non-state actors, marking a
shift in the application of self-defence to terrorism. Similarly, cross-border operations
against terrorists, such as drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, challenge traditional
interpretations of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

While the Declaration on Friendly Relations remains a cornerstone of international law, it

faces significant challenges. Ambiguities in principles like self-determination and non-in-
tervention, disparities between principles and practice, selective enforcement, and the
evolving nature of global threats test the flexibility of the Declaration. To remain relevant,
international law must strike a balance between sovereignty and adapting to modern realities
like cyber warfare and terrorism.

V. FUTURE OF THE DECLARATION'S PRINCIPLES

The Declaration on Friendly Relations remains a fundamental document in international law,

outlining principles essential for peaceful state relations. However, as the world evolves, so
must these principles to address emerging global challenges. Key trends like cybersecurity,
climate change, state sovereignty, and multipolar global governance are testing the adapt-
ability of the Declaration’s core tenets.

In the digital age, cybersecurity presents significant challenges. The rise of cyber warfare
and cybercrime raises legal questions that the Declaration’s principles, such as non-interven-
tion and prohibition of the use of force, were not originally designed to address. The
Tallinn Manual 2.0 attempts to interpret how existing international law applies to cyber op-
erations, but further legal frameworks may be necessary to govern state behavior in cy-
berspace comprehensively.19

19
Russell Buchan and Nicholas Tsagourias, “Editorial: Cyber War and International Law”, JOURNAL OF
CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2012), pp. 183-186.

17
Climate change is another pressing global issue. Environmental degradation poses threats to
sovereignty, human rights, and global security, prompting international law to expand its
scope. Cases like Urgenda v. The Netherlands 20(2019) illustrate the evolving understanding
of state responsibility for environmental harm, particularly regarding shared obligations for
climate action under the principle of cooperation.21

The traditional concept of state sovereignty is also eroding due to economic interdepen-
dence, migration, and globalized terrorism. These pressures challenge the balance between
non-intervention and humanitarian intervention, suggesting the need for new legal frame-
works that better integrate sovereignty with global governance. Furthermore, the shift toward
a multipolar world, where emerging powers and regional organizations play a greater role,
may lead to adaptations of the Declaration’s principles to regional contexts, potentially im-
pacting the universality of international law.

To ensure the ongoing relevance of the Declaration, various recommendations for enhancing
compliance and enforcement mechanisms are necessary. Enforcement remains a major
challenge in international law, given the lack of a global authority to ensure compliance. Ex-
panding the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), empowering regional legal
mechanisms like the European Court of Human Rights or the African Court on Human
and Peoples' Rights, and increasing the use of sanctions and diplomatic pressure are criti-
cal measures. The equitable application of these tools, however, is essential to maintaining le-
gitimacy in the international community.

Clarifying ambiguous principles, such as self-determination and non-intervention, is

equally important. The right to self-determination was vital in decolonization, but modern se-
cessionist movements require clearer guidelines to distinguish legitimate claims. Similarly,
balancing non-intervention with humanitarian intervention remains delicate, especially as
frameworks like the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) gain prominence. Ensuring that these
principles are not misused is crucial to maintaining global peace.22

Enhancing international cooperation is also a key recommendation. Strengthening global

systems to address issues like cyber threats, environmental degradation, and public health
20
(2020) 67 NILR 342.
21
Rowena Maguire, “Incorporating International Environmental Legal Principles into Future Climate Change
Instruments”, Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2 (2012), pp. 101-113.
22
Ashley S. Deeks, “CONFRONTING AND ADAPTING: INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW”, VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 102, No. 3 (May 2016), pp. 599-685.

18
crises is necessary. Institutions such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) could play a greater role in ensur-
ing compliance with international health and environmental obligations.

Finally, adapting the Declaration to new forms of conflict, such as terrorism and cyberat-
tacks, is vital. Developing legal frameworks for non-state actors and hybrid warfare could
clarify how international law applies to modern conflicts.

In conclusion, while the Declaration on Friendly Relations remains central to international

law, it must evolve to address new global challenges. Strengthening enforcement mecha-
nisms, clarifying principles, and fostering greater cooperation are essential steps to ensure
that the Declaration continues to guide global peace and security in the 21st century.

CONCLUSION

The Declaration on Friendly Relations remains a cornerstone of contemporary international

law, providing foundational principles that govern peaceful state relations. Adopted by the
UN General Assembly in 1970, the Declaration outlined key principles such as sovereign
equality, non-intervention, prohibition of the use of force, and peaceful settlement of dis-
putes. While non-binding, many of these principles have become part of customary interna-
tional law, shaping diplomatic relations and legal frameworks worldwide. The prohibition
of aggression and the right to self-determination are now considered jus cogens norms,
underscoring their universality and binding force.

Despite its enduring relevance, the Declaration faces interpretative challenges and imple-
mentation issues, particularly regarding the balance between sovereignty and humanitarian
intervention. Furthermore, emerging global issues like cybersecurity, climate change, and
transnational terrorism demand a reinterpretation of its principles to ensure they remain ap-
plicable. Moving forward, the international community must enhance enforcement mecha-
nisms, strengthen cooperation, and clarify ambiguous principles to adapt to modern realities.

In conclusion, the Declaration’s core values—peace, sovereignty, and cooperation—con-

tinue to influence international law and global governance. Its evolution will be essential in
addressing 21st-century challenges, ensuring that its principles guide peaceful and just rela-
tions among states.

19
BIBLIOGRAPHY

· Robert Rosenstock, “The Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning

Friendly Relations: A Survey”, THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW, Vol. 65, No. 5 (Oct., 1971), pp. 713-735.
· Piet-Hein Houben, “Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations
and Co-Operation Among States”, THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNA-
TIONAL LAW, Vol. 61, No. 3 (Jul., 1967), pp. 703-736.
· Gregory J. Kerwin, “The Role of United Nations General Assembly Resolutions in
Determining Principles of International Law in United States Courts”, DUKE LAW
JOURNAL, Vol. 1983, No. 4 (Sep., 1983), pp. 876-899.
· Ravi Mahalingam, “THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NONINTER-
VENTION WITH THE RIGHT OF HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION”, UCLA
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Vol. 1, No. 1
(Spring 1996), pp. 221-263.
· James Wilford Garner, “Non-Recognition of Illegal Territorial Annexations and
Claims to Sovereignty”, THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Oct., 1936), pp. 679-688.
· ZUBEIDA MUSTAFA, “The Principle of Self-Determination in International Law”,
THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYER, Vol. 5, No. 3 (July 1971), pp. 479-487.
· Simone F. van den Driest, “From Kosovo to Crimea and Beyond: On Territorial In-
tegrity, Unilateral Secession and Legal Neutrality in International Law”, INTERNA-
TIONAL JOURNAL ON MINORITY AND GROUP RIGHTS, Vol. 22, No. 4, Spe-
cial Issue: Self-determination, Resources and Borders (2015), pp. 467-485.
· Stephen M. Schwebel, “The Effect of Resolutions of the U.N. General Assembly on
Customary International Law”, PROCEEDINGS OF THE ANNUAL MEETING
(AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW), Vol. 73 (APRIL 26 - 28,
1979), pp. 301-309.

20
 · Gabriella Rosner Lande, “The Effect of the Resolutions of the United Nations General
Assembly”, WORLD POLITICS, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Oct., 1966), pp. 83-105.
· Patrick Thornberry, “Self-Determination, Minorities, Human Rights: A Review of In-
ternational Instruments”, THE INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW
QUARTERLY, Vol. 38, No. 4 (Oct., 1989), pp. 867-889.
· Terry Nardin, “International Ethics and International Law”, REVIEW OF INTERNA-
TIONAL STUDIES, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan., 1992), pp. 19-30.
· B.S. Chimni, “CHAPTER 4 Crisis and International Law: A Third World Approaches
to International Law Perspective”, Crisis Narratives in International Law, 2022, pp.
40-53.
· Tom Ginsburg, “Authoritarian International Law?”, The American Journal of Interna-
tional Law, Vol. 114, No. 2 (April 2020), pp. 221-260.
· Russell Buchan and Nicholas Tsagourias, “Editorial: Cyber War and International
Law”, JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW, Vol. 17, No. 2 (2012), pp.
183-186.
· Rowena Maguire, “Incorporating International Environmental Legal Principles into
Future Climate Change Instruments”, Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 2
(2012), pp. 101-113.
· Ashley S. Deeks, “CONFRONTING AND ADAPTING: INTELLIGENCE AGEN-
CIES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW”, VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW, Vol. 102, No. 3
(May 2016), pp. 599-685.

LIST OF CASES
Western Sahara Case, [1975] ICJ Rep 12.
Urgenda v. The Netherlands, (2020) 67 NILR 342.
Nicaragua v. United States, (1986) ICJ Rep 14.
Corfu Channel Case, ICGJ 199 (ICJ 1949).
Qatar v. Bahrain, [2001] ICJ Rep 40.
Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda, ICJ GL No 116, [2005].

21