Open Access Research Article
USE OF ARMED FORCES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Published Paper
Article Details
USE OF ARMED FORCES IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW
AUTHORED BY - DHRUTI DEWANGAN
STUDENT – B.A LL. B
KALINGA UNIVERSITY, NAYA RAIPUR
ABSTRACT
International Law has little option
but to embrace war, regardless of the legitimacy of its beginning, as a
connection that the states to it may choose to establish, and to concern itself
solely with controlling the implications of the relation. The scope and
boundaries of the use of the military in international affairs are still
strongly contested in the 21st century. The use of armed force has been
continuously an ongoing trend in international relationships, and it has been
thought to be closely associated with state sovereignty, the unrestricted power
carried by governments of the state to employ whatever means are necessary
to secure and safeguard their own interests. Additionally, there exist
countless debates about how often it is appropriate to apply armed force
on the sovereign territory of another nation in order in order to safeguard
one's own nation against armed threats. From century to decade over that
period, there have been numerous instances of armed force operations all
throughout the world. The most significant instance on the subject is the
widely recognized Russia-Ukraine War, in which Ukraine utilized war against an
outside nation invading its territory in self-defence against Russia. the
potential for developing this aspect of international regulation, with an
additional focus on amending important norms concerning armed forces is
addressed at International Level. With the establishment of the United Nations,
the legality of individual governments' use of force based on international law
has been significantly reduced. As any war causes enormous suffering to the
people involved and is subjected only to the restrictive principles of
international humanitarian law, one would wonder if war is really a legitimate
way of obtaining justice at all.
Keywords: Use of force, Ukraine-Russia War, Self- defence, United
Nations Charter, Indian Perspective, Armed Forces, Adaptive measures,
International Law
OBJECTIVE
This research paper aims to –
·
Clarify
the international law concepts on use of force and the appropriate use of force
on the states and its historical perspective.
·
Deal
with evolution of laws on war and use of force.
·
Deal
with provisions of UN Charter relating with use of force and its exception.
·
Subsequently
analyse the legality of the current military aggression in the
Ukraine-Russia War.
·
The
position of India in the context of armed wars.
·
Discuss
the adaptive measures use to control excessive use of force.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research is written in a
descriptive language and is based on an intense and deep research. Given
the characteristics of the paper, it was prepared using an analytical
approach. It is based on sources such as websites, journals, essays, articles, newspapers,
and international law texts. The research is conducted in such a way that the
reader will find it more insightful, analytical, and useful in understanding
the paper's purpose and concept. Furthermore, significant contemporary
challenges surrounding the use of armed forces and conflict under international
law are examined in the present work.
INTRODUCTION
International law and the use of arms
are inseparably connected. In certain circumstances, the law moulds conflicts
strategically by setting conventional limitations prior to the appearance of
unlawful behaviour. Much more often, armed conflict simultaneously exposes
loopholes in the law or signifies how legislation intended for the previous
battles drops lacking when implemented in modern warfare. Both international
safety and conflicts between nations are undergoing arguably unparalleled major
shifts in the twenty-first century. The right of a state to use armed
force or war as its last option to preserve important interests or settle
disputes has grown more limited. The rule of law involves a system of
authorised force in which armed force exists to preserve and improve
public order aims while unauthorized task forces are outlawed. As a result, law
and compulsion are not argumentative polar opponents. Only in terms of
the degree of organization and control of the use of armed force does
the international legal framework differ from these basic legal elements.[1]
International law has no alternative
but to accept war, independently of the justice of its origin, as a relation
which the parties to it may set up if they choose, and busy itself only in
regulating the effect of the relation.[2]
Use of Force – The use of force has long been a
feature of international relations, and it has been seen to be fundamentally
connected to state sovereignty--the boundless capacity wielded by governments
to employ whatever means necessary to safeguard and promote their interests.
Social awareness has broadened the boundaries and even given rise to the right
to wage war. This has effectively eliminated the use of force or any kind of
threat in international relations, and it has evolved into a rule of law in
international violent law-violation of which carries criminal liability in the
eyes of the world community[3].
However, there are some circumstances in which it is permissible to employ
force, such as self-defences, emergency relief, and aggressive power, among
others.
Historical overview – War was seen as the very last
option for resolving disputes in the nineteenth century. It was a feature of
statehood and conquering resulted in a title. States maintained the
right to start war in the absence of internationally agreed-upon rules and
regulations. The idea of righteous and unjust conflict arose. The threat or
application of force is limited to the direct or indirect use of armed
force. It does not include any kind of political or economic compulsion. St.
Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas established three conditions for legitimate
war, the latter famously articulated in Summa Theologica as it should be
undertaken by a sovereign power; it must have a good purpose (punishment of
wrongdoers); and it must be accompanied by the appropriate aim.[4]
The concept began to emerge with the
emergence of sovereign governments in Europe. As the number of independent
states increased, conflicts began to be viewed and described as a condition of
legal matters rather than an ethical judgment. Later, in the aftermath of
World War-I, attempts were undertaken to re-establish international relations
between nations by establishing and operating an international organization
that would play a vital role in ensuring that similar acts of violence would
not occur again. The General Treaty for Renunciation of War as a Method of
State Policy was signed in 1928, and was another effort at
legislative restriction of the use of armed force. The UN Charter contains
the existing legal framework governing the use of armed forces in
international law.
USE OF FORCE – PACT, CONVENTIONS
& TREATIES
There are several[5]
treaties, pacts and conventions which has been evolved over decades with period
of time in coming up with better dispute settlement as compare to wars and use
of force, these are as following –
·
The Hague Conventions - Warfare
was considered part of sovereignty, placing the legal society in a predicament
where modest infringements on the liberties of other nations required
justification but the greatest intervention was beyond legal thinking. At the
peak of the nineteenth century, the first efforts were taken to shift a mindset
towards the unrestrained use of force, not least in the ideals of humanism.
These conferences are known as "The Hague Conventions" as they were
signed at The Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907. They formalize the conventions
and traditions of war by specifying the regulations that aggressive parties
must observe during warfare. This field of international law is referred to as
the rules of warfare, in contrast to the one controlling the right to obtain
assistance, as specified in the Geneva Conventions, which
creates protection for war victims as well as the restriction of fighting
techniques. The 1899 Conventions and Declarations address themes such as
Pacific resolution of international disputes and war rules and customs, which
were enhanced in the 1907 Conferences.
·
The League of Nations Covenant - The League of Nations Covenant of
1919[6]
being the first effort to construct a system of international security whose
principal aim was to guarantee peace in reaction to the experiences of World
War I. It expanded on the formal method of limiting the use of force. The
attendees of the League of Nations were primarily required to refer a
disagreement to an investigation, arbitration, or the League Council. War of
any kind had to be delayed for three months following the arbitrators' verdict
or the Council's report, and it was absolutely forbidden in this instance of a
state adhering to these statements. A breach of these guidelines may result in
League coercive actions. In actuality, however, the League, of which the United
States was never an affiliate and the Soviet Union, Germany, Italy, and Japan
were only for a brief period, fell short of its ambitious targets. Members of
the League pledged not to declare to war with members who complied with a
similar arbitral judgment, judicial decision, or consensual council report. It
must be highlighted that the league system did not forbid warfare or the use of
force, however it did provide a method to limit it to a bearable level.
·
Kellogg-Briand Pact
1928 - It was a continuing battle during
the interwar years to fill the breaches in the covenant in order to accomplish
the entire ban of war in international legislation, which ended in the
ratification of the General Treaty for the Renunciation of War (the
Kellogg-Briand Pact)[7]
in 1928. The parties to this convention denounced the use of force and
committed to abstain from using it as a tool of national security in their
interactions with one another. For the first time, it made the concept of a
right to wage war illegal. The parties to the agreement denounced the use of
war to settle international disputes and rejected it as a tool of national
strategy in their interactions with one another. Since the majority of the
world's governments joined the pact and the other states consented on similar
limits in the Saavedra Lamas Treaty of 1933, a universal prohibition on war was
reached for the first time, subject only to the signatory parties' implicit
acceptance on the right of self-defence. Unfortunately,
the Briand-Kellogg deal did not include any additional punishments other than
the impairment of a state's rights under the deal. Furthermore, its terminology
was limited to wars.
·
The Charter of United Nations - With the establishment of the United Nations
Organization (U.N.) during World conflict II, member nations strove to avert
conflict through a system of collective security while avoiding past flaws.
Since then, various international accords have reinforced the strategy, which
includes not just violence but also non-violent methods. With practically all
governments having joined the United Nations, the ban on the use of force must
now be viewed as a universal rule of international law, albeit subject to the stated
right of self-defence. The general restriction is secured by the United
Nations' ability to impose coercive measures and the commitment to settle
conflicts peacefully. As a result, the legal world is currently seeing the
resuscitation of the concept of a just war in the shape of operations
principally directed at the implementation of international law. Although,
according to legal philosophy and the United Nations Charter decisions are
explicitly non-binding, practice demonstrates that they are more convincing
than simple political remarks.
UN CHARTER: RELATION WITH USE OF
FORCE
With the establishment of the United Nations
Charter, the legality of various governments' use of force within international
law has been significantly reduced. The Charter of the United Nations (UN)
asserts in its preamble that the UN was established in order to save
future generations from the plague of war, and its fundamental provisions
compelled the member nations of the UN to resolve international conflicts peacefully
as per Article 2(3)[8] and
to abstain from threatening or using force towards the political or territorial
security of any the nation, or acting in any manner that is in contradiction
with the Goals of the United Nations as per Article 2(4)[9] .
This clause is currently recognised as a norm of customary international law
and, as such, is obligatory on all governments in the global community. The use
of the term "force" rather than "war" is advantageous since
it encompasses instances in which aggression is used but does not meet the
formal requirements of the doctrine of war.
Article 2(4) was developed as a
concept of international law in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of the
International Law and was thoroughly examined. Initially wars of aggression is
an offense contrary to peace so there is international legal accountability[10].
Second, governments are forbidden to use threats or force to breach existing
international borders or settle international disputes. Third, nations have an obligation to
refrain from retaliatory acts including the use of force. Fourth, the
government must not employ force to deny individuals their right to
self-government and independence." Lastly, a state shall avoid from
organizing, inciting, helping, or engaging in civil unrest or terrorist acts in
another state, and it must not promote the creation of armed organizations for
incursion into the borders of another state. Although the statement is not a
legally enforceable document in and of itself, it is significant as an interpretation
of the applicable charter clauses.
Exception of Use of Force – Chapter VII[11]
of the United Nations Charter specifies when a nation may use force
against other nations. Force may be used against another state if:
·
the
act is allowed by the Security Council of the United Nations as part of the
international security system
·
the
nation involved is acting in self-defence.
The use of force is limited to
the direct or indirect use of military force. It does not include any kind of
political or economic obsession. Article 2(6) of the UN Charter states that the
UN must guarantee that the non-UN member states behave in compliance with the
norms of international law in order to maintain international security and
peace. The restriction on the use of force has resulted in fundamental
disagreements about whether the prohibition encompasses economic coercion, the
breadth of the right to self-defence, the right to use force to advance
self-determination, and the right to interfere in civil conflicts[12].
Article 51 of United Nations Charter –
According to this article[13]
Nothing in this Charter is intended to limit any member of the United Nations'
fundamental right to self-defence either individually or collectively in the
event of an armed force, except the Security Council has taken the necessary
steps to ensure global security and peace. Actions taken by the members in
exercising their right to self-defence must be reported immediately to the
Security Council for consideration and shall have no bearing on the Council's
power and accountability under the Charter at hand to take whatever action it
deems essential to preserve or re-establish international security and peace.
United Nations Security Council
(UNSC) - The U.N. Security Council (UNSC), formed in 1945, is one of
the arms of the United Nations' five core organisations, entrusted with
maintaining international peace and security, as well as acknowledging new
members and considering any amendments to the UN Charter. It has the ability to
form peacekeeping operations, impose international sanctions, and authorise
military action through Security Council decisions; it is the only UN body with
the capacity to issue enforceable measures to member nations. When a situation
of use of force occurs and harms international peace and security, the
Security Council has the authority to assess the functioning of any
such risk to tranquilly or act of violence, as well as formulate
recommendations or establish which actions should be taken in compliance with
the provisions of Articles 41 and 42 of the UN Charter. In such a circumstance,
a state or group of nations does not respond unilaterally, as in self-defence,
rather it acts cooperatively by resorting to use of force under the
jurisdiction of an international body known as the UN Security Council.
INTERNATIONAL LAW: RELATION WITH
MILITARY AGRESSION IN UKRAINE RUSSIA WAR
Russian military aggression towards
Ukraine has violated laws to maintain international peace and security. It had
applied excess use of armed force towards Ukraine giving it right to
Self-defence. There are just a few options when it comes to Russia's use of
force in Ukraine[14]. To
begin with, the relationship of nationality between people of Russian origin in
Ukraine and Russia is shaky at best, and most certainly illegal given the
current situation. Russia has pursued a strategy of awarding nationality to
people of Russian ancestry living in neighbouring states that were once part of
the Soviet Union, most notably Ukraine. Additionally, even if a right to defend
individuals exists, there is no circumstance that would justify military
action. No action taken by the Ukrainian government can be seen as targeting
foreign nationals of a certain country in order to extract concessions. Lastly,
the extent of Russia's use of force, apparently to protect people of Russian
origin in Ukraine, appears to be in nowhere proportional to any action
performed by Ukraine to reclaim control of the region in the midst of the
ongoing internationalised internal war. In short, reasons fail on both the
argument of the absence of necessity to take part in a retrieve of nationals
and the immense scope of the intervention, that includes as its goal the
overthrow of the sovereign Nation's lawful inherent government and the
imposition of an instance in which that State is completely subordinate to the
strategic goals of the invading State. Since Russia's war on Ukraine, one-third
of the Ukrainian population has left the conflict.
Armed force and assault are only one
component of Russia's hybrid war against Ukraine. Other elements
include deception grounded in is deceitful and misleading
statements, trade and monetary tension, the energy suppression,
terrorism and coercion of Ukrainian individuals; cyber-attacks, an intense
denial of the very existence of war towards Ukraine in spite of overwhelming
data, use of Russian forces as well as satellite states in its own
preferences and accusing the opposition side for its own crimes.
Russia breached basic rules and
tenets of international law, as well as both multilateral and bilateral
agreements, by hitting armed action against Ukraine. the Russian Federation
infringed fundamental laws and values of international law by reverting to the
use of force against Ukraine, as enshrined in the UN Charter (1945), UN GA
Resolution 3314 "Definition of Aggression" (1974), Declaration on
Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation
Among States in accordance with the UN Charter (1970), and others. Russia also
breached several of multilateral as well as bilateral pacts with Ukraine,
including the Agreement between Ukraine and the Russian Federation on the
Ukrainian-Russian state border (2003), the Agreement on Friendship,
Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation (1997),
and numerous others[15].
The conflict between Russia and
Ukraine has had a significant influence on oil and commodity prices, as well as
heightened trade uncertainty. India's economy is suffering as a result of
supply interruptions in Western nations and limited commerce with Russia. War
has traditionally left the greatest scar on humanity. Despite the fact that it
was created by man, it is now above the reach of any natural force. The entire
human race must now ponder on this in order to preserve mankind. Otherwise,
neither mankind nor conflict will be able to exist.
USE OF FORCE: INDIAN PRESPACTIVE
Armed relations have long been a key
part of India's national policy. India now has army collaboration agreements of
some type with over 53 nations. In the face of altering power dynamics and new
threats, India must consider how effectively to employ its armed forces and
defence-related scientific, technological, economic, and academic communities
to safeguard its sovereignty, self-determination, and integrity of land. India
also utilises its armed forces to promote its national objectives by actively
fostering world peace and security while also providing favourable conditions
for India's continuing change. The defence conditions in India have continued
to be impacted by changes in the region around us, where increased insecurity
remains a major concern. India aspires to promote a sense of mutual trust and
confidence in our bilateral ties with neighbouring nations, devoid of violence
and terror and is working on different confidence-building initiatives
with our close neighbour. The rising threat of armed attacks remains a
major source of being concerned with new issues emerging. Our armed forces are
prepared to confront the difficulties posed by an asymmetric threat.
Invasion of Russia over Ukraine
also has a long-term impact for India, most notably on the two countries'
decades-long defence and armed weapons trade relationship. India is
reliant on other countries for its military armaments, including battlefield
tanks and army combat vehicles, which must be extremely manoeuvrable and have
increased protection against a variety of risks, including tanks, anti-tank
missiles, armed strike helicopters, and anti-armour explosives. Other
technologies that are required to improve the crucial elements of mobility,
lethality, and survival. Because India has solid connections with leading
developed nations, it may increase and acquire formidable armed forces, that
can then be employed for self-defences. It aids in building of strong defensive
system in order to accomplish the necessary capabilities.
India hasn't ever armed
attack or sought any country's territories, but has made ultimate
sacrifices fighting for self-defence. India never attacked or invaded any
sovereign state and, on several instances, Indians have given their lives to
ensure world peace, such as during the World Wars. The majority of the use of
force were carried out as preventative measures, in self-defences, to
retake former territory, or as a result of strained connections. There is
evidence of claims and claim-allegations of cross-border force
attacks between India and Pakistan. However, sporadic episodes of military
shooting have been recorded, with no indication of a war-like scenario. There
have also been cases of force being used with degree of power and reach
that would constitute a force in legal terms. There have been two
incidents of this kind which is Surgical Strike 2016 and Balakot Strike of 2019[16].
These two cases will be analysed in order to evaluate India's state practise
regarding the right to self-defence against foreign use of forces. Similarly,
India also used the provision of self defence in Indo-China wars to protect its
territory.
PREVENTION & RESOLUTION
Around the world, the
incidence of violent use of force and wars has increased. Almost half
of all disputes perceived to have been amicably settled in the previous which
are recurred, with over 20% returning three or more times. Additionally,
preventing conflicts is not only important to the UN's role of preserving
international peace and security, but it is also cost-effective and
life-saving. To guarantee that war prevention methods are anchored on a
knowledge of the core causes of a war, the link connecting 'arms' and 'armed
conflict' has to be recognised[17].
By properly integrating conventional weapons limitation into the prevention of
conflicts, the UN will be one step closer to fulfilling its overarching goal of
protecting the next generation from tragedy of war. To prevent conflicts, new
policies should be developed that will result in a world without war. Encourage
worldwide efforts to avoid and prevent conflicts, as well as peaceful solutions
to issues inside and between states. War crimes, crimes against
individuals, and other breaches of international law demand
responsibility and punishment.
The prevention of war can also be
done by settling the State’s dispute in International Court of Justice by
discussing the discussing the problems in concern. The method of Alternative
Dispute Settlements can also be taken up for discussing and resolving the
conflicts among the states which will lead to less loss of lives, resources,
rights and mankind.
Anticipatory self-defence is still
prohibited. If any use of force is expected, the possible victim state
must promptly notify the UN and make public announcements about the imminent
attack. When a member state believes that phrases used in a UNSC resolution
create doubt, it must approach the UNSC to address these concerns and determine
the right interpretation. The UNSC has the authority to sanction a member state
that it believes has engaged in the unlawful implementation of a UNSC policy[18].
So, there are still two ways to
terminate or prevent a war international peace treaties and
Alternative Dispute Settlements.
CONCLUSION
Present research paper in hand shows
the meaning, impact and provisions of the Use of Force and War in International
Law. The use of force has always been a feature of international relationships,
and it has been seen to be fundamentally linked to state sovereignty--the
boundless capacity wielded by governments to employ whatever means necessary to
safeguard and promote their interests. Since the dawn of time, the use of force
or war has served as an active aspect of civilisation. It has been employed for
more selfish purposes at times, and at other times to achieve a more
"noble" aim. The ambiguity concerning the expansion of the rules
regarding war and use of armed forces is highlighted in this research,
emphasizing the importance of the conventional stringent method of self-defence
in international law. Despite these problems and constraints, given the
worldwide political environment of the twenty-first century, the deliberate and
regulated development of the doctrine of self-defence in the future is
unavoidable. Although there are several laws governing this aspect of world the
states still invade the powers.
Using force is always an option, and
it is frequently a poor one. It cannot be the only way to deal with conflicts.
Nonviolent protest and obstruction is a preferable option since it defuses and
aids in the resolution of conflict. It must be ingrained in society, including
institutions for conflict prediction, mediation, adjudication, and
peacekeeping.
As it is rightly said by Sir A.J.P.
Taylor that “No war is inevitable
until it breaks out.” So better to prevail peace, we must plan ahead of time
for the best option. Prepare for peace if you truly ambition it.
[1] THE USE OF FORCE IN INTERNATIONAL
LAW (The Open University 2019).
[2] HIGGINS A. PEARCE, OXFORD, THE
CLARENDON PRESS (8th ed. 1924).
[3] Natalia Ochoa-Ruiz* and Esther
Salamanca-Aguado, Exploring the Limits of International Law relating to the
Use of Force in Self-defence, 16 EJIL 1, (2005), http://ejil.org/pdfs/16/3/306.pdf.
[4] JOACHIM VON ELBE, THE EVOLUTION OF
THE CONCEPT OF THE JUST WAR IN INTERNATIONAL LAW (Routledge 2012).
[5] Sebastian Heselhaus, International
Law and the Use of Force , ENCYCLOPEDIA OF LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS (APRIL 13,
2023, 9:29 PM), https://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c14/E1-36-01-02.pdf.
[6] UNITED NATIONS, https://www.ungeneva.org/en/about/league-of-nations/covenant#:~:text=The%20Covenant%20constituted%20of%20a,achieve%20international%20peace%20and%20security%E2%80%9D (last visited April 13, 2023).
[7] Yale Law School
LILLIAN GOLDMAN LAW LIBRARY,
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kbpact.asp (last visited April 14,
2023).
[8]
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 1945, § 2(3), STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE, 1945 (San Francisco).
[9] CHARTER OF THE UNITED
NATIONS, 1945, § 2(4), STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, 1945 (San
Francisco).
[10] Yashraj Dokania, The Use of
the Force in International Laws is Limitless or Limited: A Critical Analysis, 3 ijlmh 519, (2020), https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Use-of-the-Force-in-International-Laws-is-Limitless-or-Limited-A-Critical-Analysis.pdf.
[11] CHARTER OF THE UNITED
NATIONS, 1945, art. 39 § 51, STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE,
1945 (San Francisco).
[12] Ananya, Use of Force in
International Law, LEGAL SERVICE INDIA E-JOURNAL (April 14, 2023, 7:25 PM), https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-1742-use-of-force-in-international-law.html.
[13]
CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 1945, § 51, STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT
OF JUSTICE, 1945 (San Francisco).
[14] Terry
D. Gill, REMARKS
ON THE LAW RELATING TO THE USE OF FORCE IN THE UKRAINE CONFLICT, Lieber
Institute Westpoint -Articles of War (Mar. 9, 2022), https://lieber.westpoint.edu/remarks-use-of-force-ukraine-conflict/.
[15] 10
facts you should know about Russian military aggression against Ukraine, Ministry of Foregin Affairs of
Ukraine (Dec. 19, 2019, 05:40 PM), https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian-military-aggression-against-ukraine.
[16] 24 Srinivas Burra, Asian Yearbook
of International Law 106-127 (Brill 2020).
[17] E. F. M. Durbin, John Bowlby, Ivor Thomas, D. P. T. Jay, R. B. Fraser, R. H. S. Crossman, George Catlin,
War and
Democracy (Routledge 2021).
[18] Yashraj Dokania, The Use of
the Force in International Laws is Limitless or Limited: A Critical Analysis, 3 ijlmh 519, (2020), https://www.ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Use-of-the-Force-in-International-Laws-is-Limitless-or-Limited-A-Critical-Analysis.pdf.
Article Information
USE OF ARMED FORCES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW
Authors: DHRUTI DEWANGAN
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/04/22
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.