 On the platform and on the phone itself, it has always found that environment is one of his key passions and as well as international law. We all know that he was a consultant to the Royal King and his knowledge is reflected in respect of the international perspectives as well as on the environments. Consequently, we have requested Mr. Tia Subramanian to share his knowledge on the international law with special perspectives on environment. Without taking much time, I would request him to take things forward and we just wish before he starts that everyone from India and world is safe and healthy. Keeping in view these parallel spikes in the COVID, I can say that it's quite threatening, but we have to take more questions more than ever before. And while we talk of international law, we also talk of international safety, safety of wellness, well-being and at the same time by taking a knowledge forward by resourceful persons. And by the end of the session, we request Mr. Munrao that he would propose more thanks. Today we had a session in collaboration with Daksha Legal, which is a well-known name down south here in Mr. Biswarya and his son are sharing knowledge through the platform of Daksha Legal. And over to you, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Vikas and his team and Mr. Munrao and learned participants. You may be interested to know in what way international law is concerned with environment. International law is concerned not only with the environment, but with the protection of everyone, including the living species and Mother Earth. Now, how this issue came up and how it is being related by scholars is the fundamental question that is haunting a research scholar. Now, first and foremost, we should know the international scholars of the 19th and 20th century tried to define the doctrine of basic rights and duties of states. When they tried to define the basic rights and duties of states, real, sincere and consented effort began. The real consented and sincere effort began since 1916. It was in the year 1916, the American Institute of International Law made a sincere attempt to say what exactly are the basic rights as well as the duties of states. But then many scholars felt that it is incomplete. That is where a convention was adopted in the year 1933. And this convention is popularly known as the Montevideo Convention. The Montevideo Convention was signed between the state of United States and certain Latin American countries. Now, in this convention for the first time, they defined the basic rights in the United States. But then there are scholars and there were scholars then who were just trying to pinpoint that it is also an incomplete document. That is where the International Law Commission, a body which is constituted by the members of the international community only to legislate or to codify the existing customer rule of international law into law proper. For the first time drafted what we call as the Doctrine of Basic Rights and Duties of States. Now this was done in the year 1949. But then this was not completely accepted by states until this day. Nor it is ratified. But then what was indicated by the International Law Commission in the year 1949. On the document which is popularly called as the Doctrine of Basic Rights and Duties of States. There are certain rights and there are certain duties as well, which is imposed on states. Now, one important right of a particular state, any state for that matter is of sovereignty of independence and equality. If you're a state, remember you are sovereign and you have the sovereign right of sovereignty, then the second one is independence. It is not enough if you are sovereign, but then you should have the independence to carry on your activities. And then the other one is equality and equal treatment with other states. Now this is the basic right of a state, one of the basic rights of a state. Now the second basic right of a state happened to be of territorial jurisdiction. Suppose for example, a state when it is admitted as a member of the international community under Article IV of the Charter. It is empowered to say that it is in a position to exercise jurisdiction over its territory. When I speak about jurisdiction over the territory, it is empowered to exercise a member of both civil as well as criminal jurisdiction as well. Now any person who is found in this territory can be arrested. Any person who is found in this territory can be penalized. And any person who is found or guilty of an offense can be punished under a spinal cord. Now this is one of the basic sovereign rights of a state. Now the third important thing that is of territorial jurisdiction afterwards we come to, to demand privileges and amenities to diplomatic envoys. Now diplomatic envoys between the states are exchanged reciprocally. And before an agreement is reached, they say in the event of sending, in the event of receiving a diplomatic envoy and ambassador, or in a high commissioner with the common well state, naturally they are to be protected, they are to be protected under the Vienna Convention of the diplomatic envoys of 1961. That is a basic right of a particular state. Now there afterwards the most important that is being said, sovereignty over the natural resources. Each state is empowered to regulate, to control, to make use of the resources which are found in a territory. The generalism of the United Nations in the year 1960, for the first time adopted a resolution. And this resolution is called the sovereignty of natural resources resolution. Now what has happened was after the formation of the United Nations, colonialism for the first time came to an end. But then after some time, after a 10 year gap, the colonial masters started to remember exercising a neo type of colonialism. When I speak about the neo type of colonialism, they wanted to remember to explore and exploit the resources which are precious, found in these developing and least developed countries. And if these resources are being exploited, what is left for these poor nations? Oh, the per capita income of these poor nations is less than $50 at times. That is where the resolution was adopted. Each state is sovereign. Each state is competent. Each state is competently can determine the way its resources should be put and exercised. That was a major, remember, right of the state. So there are as many as four rights of the state of sovereignty, independence and equality of territorial jurisdiction. Demand the privileges and amenities to stick to that advice. The last one, as I just pointed to you, what is required for a particular state is to exercise control for its territory. Other duties of a state would we speak about. Now the first duty is remember duty, not to intervene in the internals of perhaps a certain state. When once it is recognized as state is not supposed to intervene in the internal affairs of the state. This is not allowed at all. But the second duty is not to perform acts of sovereignty in the territory of another state. When you are sovereign, when you are recognized as a sovereign state under Article 4 of the Charter of United Nations, you are not supposed to perform acts of sovereignty in the territory of another state. It will be looked as an considered as an unfriendly act. Now the other important duty happened to be a state is not supposed to allow its subjects, its citizens, its nationals to violate the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of another state. So this is a basic duty of a state. So a state when it is independent, when it is sovereign, remember is not supposed to support its subjects or its nationals to violate the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of another state that will be considered as an unfriendly act. Now these are remember the basic duties of states. Now when we speak about the basic duties of states under a common law as well as civil law. Another duty came in. And this common law practice, and before the common law practice began under the civil law, especially in the state of Germany, the state of France and the state of Egypt and other things, other countries, a law naturally developed. And this law went to the extent of pointing out. A state is about to exercise jurisdiction. It has the sovereign right. But then this sovereignty is not extended to violate the territory and the territorial integrity and the sovereignty and the natural resources of another state. This was the principle for the first time. Remember, generally relating to environment emerged under the civil law. Then it was refined under the common law. What do you mean by this? Now you have the sovereignty and sovereign right. What do you want? But then while exercising your sovereign right, you are not supposed to cause harm or endanger the environment of another state. And if you endanger the environment of another state, naturally there will be liability. And you are supposed to compensate to the extent of the loss suffered to other state. That had its origin. And this principle which had its origin in common law, prior to that in civil law, for the first time came to be applied in international law between the state of Canada as well as the state of United States. Now a beautiful case came up before the Court of arbitration between Canada and the United States. I shall just explain to you, listen carefully the facts of the case so that you understand the point better. Now a private owned company. Remember was established in the state of Canada bordering 11 miles from the state of United States. And it was just 11 miles from a distance of the state of United States. The state of Canada permitted to establish a company. And this company released noxious fumes. And these noxious fumes released by the company contained Z, zinc and sulfur dioxide. So Z, zinc and sulfur dioxide which was released by this company slowly and steadily from the premises factory. Remember goes near the Colombian river valley. Having entered the Colombian river valley, it entered the state of Washington. Having entered the state of Washington, remember it destroyed timber. It is destroyed standing crops. It destroyed fisheries resources and it destroyed precious vegetables as well. See the state of Canada had established the factory and the factory was releasing fumes. Poisonous what we call as gases. And these gases slowly and steadily go up to 11 kilometers, 11 miles. And from there it entered the what we call as the Colombian river valley from there to the state of Washington and a devastating effect. Now this has taken place, remember in the year 1929. And at that time the state of Canada when it was doing it, the state of United States was the first time we got the, remember pain. And it said we are living in a peaceful atmosphere and we are living in peace. Both of us are friends and in this friendly situation what is it that you are doing? You are noxious fumes released by a particular company entering our state and destroying and causing damage to our people. And it will have untold miseries in the years ahead. And the Standing Committee decided Canada should stop such, remember release of noxious fumes. But then what has happened was from 1933 to 1937, the state of Canada went on releasing this. And it did not stop. In such a circumstance the state of United States could not keep quietly quiet. The matter was referred to the Court of Arbitration. And this time the matter was referred to the Court of Arbitration. The Court of Arbitration pointed out the state of Canada is answerable to pay the damages. No one state can assume responsibility in damaging the environment of other state. And if it damages and it damages with no knowledge, with clear and convincing evidence, it is the state of Canada which is answerable and has to pay compensation was the aspiration. Now this is what we call as no harm rule in international law. Because this is generally at a later stage was called as the no harm rule in international law. That means it is originated from a Latin term. And the name of the Latin term is sick atre earth alienium non-ladys. Now sick atre earth alienium non-ladys simply means during the course of your action, you are not supposed to injure another state. And if you injure another state naturally it cannot be accepted and you are liable to answer for this was the aspiration that was pointed out under this principle. Now after this in your 1949 another case came up before the International Court of Justice. And in International Court of Justice this case happened to be the Corfu Channel case. And the Corfu Channel case remember is a beautiful case which was remember was the fundamental case in the formative periods of the 1940s wherein it was read, the re-read, the comments were written, books were written on this. Now what exactly are the facts of Corfu Channel? Now Corfu Channel is actually situated by the side of the coast of Albania. And it is an international channel. And an international channel as per the principles, existing principles of international law the coastal state is supposed to give freedom of passage to ships of all nations. So since it was an international channel, freedom of passage to ships of all nations must be given by the state of Albania. Now listen to the facts. On 15th of May, 1946, two British wars missiles were passing through the Corfu Channel. Then they were passing through the Corfu Channel. They were fired upon by the coastal rocket batteries in the state of Albania. When they were fired by the coastal rocket batteries in the state of Albania the state of Great Britain for the first time stunned because Albania was a small state. Whereas Great Britain was a great naval power then. But it did not bother, it went on, it carried on its activities and the matter treated as close there. Three months later in the month of October, remember in the month of October four British warships were passing through the Channel. When they were passing through the Channel they were struck with the mines which were put by the state of Albania and naturally there was a problem. It had its result on the ship itself. It had its result on the soldiers who were moving to some other place in the vessel, from the vessel. So in such situations remember the state of Great Britain could not digest this and being a permanent member of the Security Council how it can tolerate? A small state like Albania putting mines and getting destroyed the British vessels and causing personal injury to the soldiers who were inside the vessel. Twenty one days later after this incident what was happened was it was a very strange thing. The ships of the Royal Navy they entered into the Corfu Channel. Having entered into the Corfu Channel they swept away the mines which were put by the state of Albania and they did not seek consent to the state of Albania. So without the consent of the state of Albania they entered into the coast of Albania. Having entered there they swept away the mines put by the state of Albania. Now the state of Albania started, remember, fearing the state of Great Britain. It raised the matter before the Security Council of the United Nations and before the Security Council of the United Nations the state of Great Britain snapped it. In an international channel passage to ships of all nations must be given all the 24 hours. If the passage is not free it is the duty of the coastal state to warn the navigating vessels saying that the passage is not free. You have not indicated us, you have not warned us. Although it is in your custody you should have allowed and visited passage as per the insisting rules of international law. When the Security Council failed the matter was referred to the International Court of Justice. The International Court of Justice having heard both the parties gave a wonderful judgment. It went to the state to point it out. It is the duty of a coastal state when it exercises sovereign rights over its passage naturally to tell the navigating vessels saying that the passage is not free. And instead of telling them that the passage is not free you put the mines and thereafter you know the result what has happened. This is not allowed to be done and for which the state of Albania is responsible to pay compensation to the state of Great Britain. Now from the state of Great Britain it said however serious the matter is it is the duty of a permanent member of Security Council to bring it before the Security Council and find a resolution. Instead of finding a resolution you have taken your ships and exercised the sovereignty on the state of Albania and it is not permitted. It is in Albanian and only the state of Albania is competent to exercise jurisdiction under such circumstances what was done by the state of Britain is totally unnecessary development and a continuity to the existing rules of international law. For the very purpose of saying yes states have the competence to do what they want but then you cannot harm and damage the property of another state if you do that liability is absolute under the present day international law. Now the third case happened to be a case which came up in the year 1957 which was reported in the American Journal of International Law in 1959. This was between the state of France as well as the state of Spain. There is a river in the state of France and this river is popularly known as river Carol. River Carol passes from the territory of France to the state of Spain. The state of France wanted to change the course of the river. When it wanted to change the course of the river the state of Spain objected. It said most of the civilizations wherever it be have taken place on the banks of the rivers. Maybe it is the Egyptian river, the river Makh or it is the Mesopotamian river or the Indus river. Great civilizations remembered by humanity written by historians honored and respected by almost all the people in the world have grown on the banks of the river. Now here is a river wherein on both of its sides there is a civilization people are living and what they should do if you change the course of the river. Where they should go and for water from where they should hunt. No circumstances such as this they said it is totally unacceptable without seeking the consent of the lower riparian state. The lower riparian happened to the state of France. You cannot exercise sovereignty and sovereign right which is going to totally affect the southern riparian that cannot be done and the court of arbitration accepted this formula. So these are the three cases now we go to the other issues relating to environment. When we take up the issues relating to environment a beautiful case came up before the International Court of Justice in the year 1973. Now this was relating to the state of France on the one hand and the state of Australia and New Zealand on the other. The state of France wanted to explode nuclear weapons underground the sea and it exploded one. And at that time the state of Australia as in the state of New Zealand represented to the International Court of Justice. Having represented the International Court of Justice they went to the extent of pointing out that the radioactive substance which was released through this explosion has gone that far to the coast of New Zealand and Australia. And the huge deposits of these radioactives have destroyed the flora and fauna which is found in the territory. Not only it destroyed the flora and fauna which is going to affect the global commons as well. Not only it is going to affect the global commons it is going to affect the freed of the seas as well. Under these circumstances we have come and it asked the International Court of Justice to give an interim measure. But then the court did not give an interim measure it requested the state of France to stop such weapons. That was the decision and the state of France agreed before the court saying that it will stop such weapons. Exploding such weapons. Now the second state came in in the year 1990. The state of New Zealand approached the court asking the International Court of Justice to give a directive to the state of France. Saying that before the use of any nuclear weapon underground in the submerged sea bed it is the duty of the state of France to conduct what we call an environment impact assessment. Without conducting an environment impact assessment it is not supposed to explode. Now the International Court of Justice having heard the argument ultimately at the end of the day went to the extent of saying that we have no jurisdiction. But then three judges for the International Court of Justice gave a dissenting opinion. You may be interested to know who are these three judges and what kind of judgment they gave. Now when I speak about the three judges one happened to be Justice Palmar Rahak. The second one happened to be Justice Veeramath and third one a great judge remember Polak. These are the judges who gave their opinion which is called as dissenting opinion. I shall just explain one by one. Now Justice Palmar went to the extent of pointing out from 1972 from the day to the Stockholm conference until the Rio declaration of 1992. Lots of developments have taken place in the area of environment and these developments which have taken place between 1972 to 1992 naturally speak as about a system of international law and this system of international law to have emerged between 1972 to 1992 have remember developed as customary rules of international law and the customary rules of international law remember has to be respected by the states was the aspiration of Justice Palmar. Now the second judge happened to be Justice Veeramath. Justice Veeramath three pointed out that EIA has become a general principle of international law today. Environment impact assessment. You might be knowing even in India for the first time 1992 in the year 1992 EIA was accepted and endorsed by the Supreme Court of India and later it was accepted by the environment ministry as well. It was he who pointed out before carrying out any project anywhere that shall be an EIA and states must concern the best of the people and getting done an internal what we call as impact assessment. Without that no project shall be commenced nor it can be executed was the aspiration of Justice Veeramath. Now what did Justice Koroma point? Justice Koroma he was just saying that look to one of the principles under the Stockholm Declaration and one important principle under the Stockholm Declaration happened to be principle 21 and this principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration naturally tells us states have the sovereign rights to do what they want but then when these states exercise sovereign rights they are not supposed to cause any injury or any damage to the environment of other states. And hence remember the state of France is supposed to conduct and EIA was the aspiration of Justice Koroma. These are classic decisions which were given by the International Court of Justice at two stages. In 1996 again the nuclear test came up before the International Court of Justice and when it came before the International Court of Justice I shall just quote a line of the International Court of Justice in the judgment. In the concluding majority judgments he said environment is not an abstraction. It is not an abstraction. It is a living space. Since environment is living place naturally it has to be protected by the concerned state itself. All the states put together should protect their environment which is very much essential not only for us but then the generation which come after our generation. That is where the concept of what we call as inter-generation, equality, equity was born soon after what we call as the doctrine of the principle which was adopted in 1985 of which I shall speak to you a little later. Now then we go to other important cases that were held and one important case happened to be a decision of 1997 delivered by the International Court of Justice which is not correct. Gebaki now Nagmoris. Beautiful case. Now what is this Gebaki now Nagmoris case? Now this is between the state of Hungary as well as the state of Slovakia. Now Slovakia happened to be on the upper side. In River Danube it wanted to construct certain hydro-elected projects. And when it was about to construct certain hydro-electric projects, the state of Hungary objected to it. The state of Hungary just pointed out remember if you do that you are affecting the lower riparian. You are affecting the ecology which is prevalent in this area. And if the ecology is remember disturbed naturally the consequences will be severe. The International Court of Justice gave notice to the state of Slovakia and gave the evidence which were prepared by the state of Hungary. And before the International Court of Justice the state of Hungary convinced that in future if we carry on any other activity we will consult the lower riparians and then only we carry on our activities. The matter ended and treated as close there. Now other important cases that came before the International Court of Justice happened to be beautiful cases in the Blue Tuna case. In the Blue Tuna case it is between Australia and New Zealand on the one hand and the state of Japan on the other. Now in this case the International Court of Justice was just telling one important thing. Now conservation of the resources both living and non-living is very much essential. Without conservation there cannot be exploitation. And if you want to have maximum exploitation there should be maximum conservation. And remember both is related to other. So have maximum conservation and afterwards remember exploited. And when exploited see that instantly this type of conserving the resources take place was the decision which was given in Southern Blue Tuna case which was decided in 2000 by the International Court of Justice. Now there afterwards another case came up before the International Court which was called as a mox plant case. What is this mox plant case? In this case what has happened was the contenders happened to be the state of Great Britain as well as the state of Ireland. Now the state of what we call in the state of Great Britain had established remember to recycle plutonium in some area in an area which is called as mox plant. And the state of Ireland was asking the information what is this like and you are recycling plutonium. And we need the information you should not ultimately destroy the state of Ireland. Initially the state of Ireland when it was asking for information the state of Great Britain used to snap. But then when the matter went to the court the court pointed out it cannot see other state also has to survive. In the name of remember recycling plutonium somewhere in the seas you should not destroy the resources, the living as well as the non-limited resources and cost damage to the state of Ireland. That was the decision a beautiful decision which was given. Then came what we call as the strengths of Jahumar case. This was a decision which was given in the year 2006 the contenders happened to be the state of Singapore on the one hand the state of Malaysia. Now what has happened was the state of Singapore through reclamation was remember trying to acquire territory over the states of Jahumar. Now this was actually endangering the state of Malaysia. And at that time the matter was referred to the court and the court national court pointed out this cannot be allowed. Ultimately the marine environment has to be protected and the protection of the environment is very much essential. And it is essential not only for free traffic but the protection of global commons as well was the decision. Now the important case that came up before the international court of justice happened to be the pulp mills case. The pulp mills case happened to be a case which was delivered the judgment was delivered by the international court in the year 2010. It was to be the most latest case. Now when I speak about this river Oragwe happened to be the dividing line dividing the territory between the state of Oragwe and Argentina. And remember in the mouth of the river the water was used for purpose of recreation. It was used for purpose of navigation. It was used for purpose of seafood and it was used for drinking water. And the state of Oragwe wanted to construct four pulp mills in the mouth of the river itself. Now Argentina appeared before the court of law and pointed out if these four pulp mills were allowed to be constructed it will damage the environment. It will remember pollute the drinking water. It will remember stop the recreation facilities which are going on currently in the river Oragwe. And it should be stopped forth with the international court of justice called upon both the parties and heard the argument. And then the state of Oragwe went to the extent of pointing out remember there was only a sound that is being created. Pollution has not taken place. And drinking water is not affected. And everything is remember station properly and not disturbed and given an undertaking to the court of law saying that we will not do it in future. And the matter came to an end then and there. Now these are a few cases which was decided by the international court as well as by the law of the sea tribunal especially the case which I spoke about. The Blutona case happened to be a decision of the law of the sea tribunal which is functioning in Hamburg in Germany. Now we just go whether is there any support through international conventions? Are there any international conventions which speak about this principle? If there are conventions which are they? Now when I speak of the international conventions remember for the first time. I just intend to bring to your kind attention about the nuclear damage conventions and nuclear damages through ships. Now one or two such conventions which were adopted one was adopted in 1960 in Spain. And the other one which was adopted in Paris in 1963. The nuclear damage conventions remember go to the extent of pointing out. A vessel carrying nuclear items naturally should own complete responsibility. See one of the vessel who is under control of the vessel is naturally labored to make good the compensation. So the Paris convention as well as the convention which was adopted in Spain went to the extent of pointing out liability is almost absolute. Now take it this way the consent of what we call as the controller of the vessel. The one who controls the vessel is not in a position to pay compensation. At that time his state should get into the picture and the state should reimburse the loss in the event of a damage to anybody even to the environment. That was the message which was sent in these two conventions. There afterwards we go to liability for oil pollution conventions. When I speak about the liability for oil pollution convention there are two important conventions. One is one convention happened to be the Brussels convention which was adopted in 1969. And another happened to be the London convention which was adopted in 1970. Now you might be knowing it was in the year 1967 the famous Tory Kenyan incident took place. Now Tory Kenyan happened to be a Liberian oil tanker. The Liberian oil tanker was, remember navigating the southeast coast of London. When navigating in the southeast coast of London a full oil tanker it ran aground and because of the damage oil was released. Millions of tons of oil was found in this vessel and they were released. The devastating damage, remember went up to the coast of Canada. Imagine where is UK, where is Canada and it was made known to the state of Canada. The Canadian government in the year 1969 for the first time passed the Maritime Oil Pollution Act. Now it prevented the release of oil within 100 kilometers, 100 nautical miles of the state of Canada. For the first time then all the other states started following it. So this was one such convention which was adopted especially in the Brussels convention and that was followed in the year 1972 the London convention. Now in this convention I just wanted to bring home one important point. It points out that the carriers of oil naturally will have to take an insurance before the journey commences. When I speak about the insurance as much as possible heavy insurance they have to take before the journey commences. And in the event of any damage naturally the owner of the vessel or the vessel under whose control it is there is absolutely answerable. And if it is not naturally the concerned state should get into the picture and should be in a position to pay compensation was the aspiration that was pointed out in this. Now having stated this let me come to the Vienna what we call as the Stockholm declaration of 1972. Now the Stockholm declaration of 1972 happened to be the first declaration wherein 10 days the international community deliberated on the environment of the world. Each state was asked to submit a status report and each state was asked to meticulously prepare the status report. And later on June 1st 2014 when the conference met they deliberated upon this report and they came to know all is not well in regard to the environment. And since they came to know all is not well in regard to the environment naturally they had to adopt certain principles. Now these principles were adopted at the end of the conference these principles were 26 principles. And 26 principles remember today have attained the status of customer international law. Now when I speak about this I shall speak to you a little later. Now 26 principles were adopted and all these principles were later discussed and deliberated and endorsed and re-endorsed remember quoted by the international community in international agreements. Now we are interested in knowing one principle which is known as principle 21. Now principle 21 for the Stockholm declaration points out those states are competent to exercise sovereignty the way they like but then when they exercise sovereignty they like they are not supposed to cause damage to the environment in any way of the other states. Even if private individuals of a particular state commit such acts the matter will be imputed to the state and the state is answerable to pay compensation. That was the message under the then article 6 of the principle 6 of the Stockholm declaration points out when the state plans to make use of the planned utilization of its resources. No damage should be caused to the environment of other states. That is the message which was sent in the Stockholm declaration of 1972. Now there afterwards we come to 1982. It was in the year 1982 the world charter for nature was adopted. Now before the world charter of nature I just intend to speak to you the charter of economic rights and duties of states which was adopted by the international community in 1974. The charter of economic rights and duties of states adopted by states in article 30 points out those states can remember make use of the economic resources that they want. But then in a hurry when they use the resources they are not supposed to cause damage to the environment of other states. The world charter for nature remember which was adopted in 1982 which was supposed to be very conscious in endorsing this principle. I just intend to bring home principle 21 D of the world charter for nature. Principle 21 D of the world charter for nature points out man and his environment are primarily to be protected by everyone. In the event of any damage that is being caused by a particular state to the environment of other states the state is answerable. The Mexican delegate when he was speaking at the adoption of this world charter for nature pointed out this 24 D is one of the prime principles which has to be respected by every state which has to be honored by every state. Now there afterwards we go to the year 1985. When we go to the year 1985 for the first time the world conference on environment and development adopted a document. And this document was adopted by the great remember who later became the general secretary of the WHO. And the name of the document she is called as Madam Bruntland. And the name of the document is our common future. In our common future which was written and accepted by the entire world written by Madam Bruntland in principle 11 points out states have the right to do because nobody can stop in exercising power within their territory. This power should not lead to remember destroying the nature and environment in any way by the sovereign state. That was the aspiration which was given by the Madam Bruntland in her book. Now the other important developments which have taken place happened to be a one happened to be the adoption of the Vienna Convention on the ozone layer and then the Montreal protocol to the Vienna Convention on the ozone layer. I just tell you the only the principles are involved. You might be knowing ozone layer was supposed to destroy the environment because of the gases that is being released through and by the ozone layer. And it has to be protected come what may. So the Vienna Convention on the state's not to release chlorofluorocarbons into the environment. Even if it is released it should be reduced. For the reduction of the chlorofluorocarbons the developed states where the technology should come and give assistance. And it urged most of the states like United States, United Kingdom, the state of Germany to give technology to the developing and the least developed countries to reduce the chlorofluorocarbons. That was the message, remember, which was envisaged in the Vienna Convention on the ozone layer and Montreal protocol that was adopted to the convention on the ozone layer. That afterwards in the year 1985 another major development have taken place. You might be knowing the release of what we call as nuclear material and the defect and the gases that went on to the entire Europe. Now what has happened was in the state of Soviet Russia, especially in Georgia, in that time most of the nuclear substances state of Soviet Russia were kept. And they were not used at all. And ferrostroker, perestroika and glass nuts were spoken at that time. Since they were not used and since the material which was kept within slowly and steadily were going out has caused a radioactive effect. And this has reached almost all the countries of the world, especially in Europe. At that time, what we call as the NAE, atomic energy agency of the United Nations for the first time adopted a convention. And this convention which was adopted spoke about the early notification. And when it spoke about the early notification, it said, now in the event of such distress, it is the duty of states to give early information to all the countries. So that the countries will be in a position to adopt precautionary principles. That is what it is all about. Now that afterwards we come to what we call as the 1992 Rio Declaration. In the 1992 Rio Declaration, which was adopted, you have principle 2. Principle 2 actually nothing but, remember, repetition of principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration. States have the sovereign right. But then states, when they use their sovereign rights, exercise their sovereign rights, they are not supposed to cause damage to the environment of other states. This is the message that was given. Simultaneously, remember, later in the year 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted. The Convention on Biological Diversity which was adopted in 1992, in Article 3, verbatim repeats what we call principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. That is where the most scholarly writers go to the extent of pointing out, remember, what we call as the precautionary principle. The polluter principle and the doctrine of sustainable development today have attained the status of customary international law. No state will be in a position to violate the doctrine of sustainable development. It has to protect itself. It has to conserve the resources by itself. These resources are to be used by the present day generation and it has to be given to the generation which come after us. That was the message that is being given under the present day international law. Having said this much, there are many other things but I shall tell you only a few cases so that you understand the point better. Only two or three cases I shall tell you in a nutshell. But the first case that came up in the year, remember, 1954. Now, 1954, this is a case relating to Cosmos case. Now, what had happened was the state of Soviet Russia had launched a satellite. The launching of the satellite and the object naturally fell in the territory of the state of Canada. The state of Canada did not keep quietly quiet. It demanded compensation and demanded compensation to the tune of $6 million. Then what is its value today? And the state of Canada should compensate to the tune of $6 million and the state of, remember, Soviet Russia compensated and gave them money. Because you can have the sovereign right but it would not destroy the environment of other states based on this incline. Now, the state of the United States, remember, was experimenting the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the Marshall Islands. When it was exploring a nuclear weapon in the Marshall Islands, actually, remember, the Japanese fishermen who were on their way to catch live fish were affected and officially resources got damaged. The Japanese government asked compensation for their fishermen for the territory that was damaged in Marshall Islands to the tune of $2 million and the state of the United States paid compensation. Now, this is how protection of environmental law is honored and respected and by the courts in this country. Now, you take one important case that is the Willow Citizens Forum versus Union of India. In Willow Citizens Forum of Union of India, for the first time it said, now, customer rule of international law is part of the law of the land. And although it was sent in the state of United States, it has to be respected and precautionary rule is very much essential. You should know, you should first anticipate, then attack and then prevent. I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the Supreme Court of India. Anticipate, prevent and then attack. This is the basic message for the precautionary principle of international law. There are plenty of other cases, remember, which are delivered by national courts as well as international courts. And the decisions delivered with the international court I have just tried to bring in. I sincerely thank you for speaking. If you have any questions, please. So it was quite fascinating. And the way you remember the judgments without any flip to the page, etc. It only shows what we call normally in the lawyers and elephant memory to remember everything. In fact, I was thinking and we will also, we have Mr. Biswara from the Baksha legal. And I was just thinking that we should have session how to remember all this because they say that there are certain sessions if you one goes to the YouTube, etc. But it shows that how you have to remember they say that you remember one keyword from each the thing so that you can remember. But to speak extempore every time the more we hear the more fascinated we become. I will ask Mr. Biswara to unmute himself. It was actually quite engaging and a fascinating session. The way you took us to the entire gamut of the international perspective and the way the Supreme Court has also elaborated and substantiated. And actually all these sessions only inspire us that the things we can be put it across. I will just check it out. Meanwhile, I will ask Mr. Mohan Rao or the principle to unmute himself for his sharing of thoughts. Mr. Mohan Rao, I will just check it out. So what is the key to remember all this? The key is very simple. Read, read, read and keep it. I have also learned in the normal course also. And even during the webinars which have been done, the more you read the more you remember. It's occupied some space within your brain. And Mr. Biswara was sharing with me on the what's up chat that how you are remembering it. So I will ask, he is a member power consul of Karnataka, you would be knowing him. And he is named by the Paksha legal who is a knowledge partner together. Over to you Mr. Biswaranj. Sir, good evening. Good evening. And it was almost like reading from the script that kind of photogenic memory. I have never come across with the details and that was amazing. Of course, I couldn't join from the inception. What I would do is I go through the video from the beginning till the end. And it was a magnificent speech, sir. So we don't have any questions as such before we part for the day tomorrow. We've always been talking about and thinking about, especially at the previous session, Mr. Baswar Raja was speaking about that we should take to the small thought processes which are good for a young lawyer or a student of law. Tomorrow we are having a session of art of drafting, plain petition checks and balances. This is by Mr. Uday Holia. And tomorrow our knowledge partner would be the Lawyers Club of India. So do stay connected with us so that you can learn. Mr. Uday Holia, who's a former advocate general of Karnataka would share his knowledge at 6pm tomorrow as what has to be kept in mind when the plaint and the patients are drafted. As to how the law has to be inculcated into it and as to how incorporated into it. And as to how these relevant section has to be thought over as to what is the thought process while you see about the documents, which is actually put across on a paper. Before the court etc. And we all thank the all those participants who have been watching us live on the Facebook, YouTube, as well as on this platform for joining us, encouraging us for the purposes of knowledge sharing. And, of course, to the actual legal and bone raw Bola the principal. And above all, as they say in the star cast whenever the movies come, they used to say even if it was many role. The star of celebrity of status of them, they used to write for the guest speaker above all. So today's speaker would be Mr. CMR Dean. Yeah, Subramaniam, and we have to thank the CMR University and college and law college and Mr. Subramaniam that they are always come out with the time to share the knowledge. And it is always fascinated at what we have receiving messages also the way so puts across the things. It's a fine manner, but it's elegant also it's crisp and to the point which always one cherishes and thank you to all those participants, everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And what I'm repeating keep on repeating during all these sessions off late that we have to be safe because the covert is actually increasing, and much on much much higher figures than what we have previous when we have the dialogue on the safety of the nation. The world and the on persons itself is as they say charity begins at home said similarly sanity and all these conditions as to maintain hygiene, it all depends and begins from home itself. Everyone stay safe, stay blessed. And I'm seeing that the AC is on at Mr. Basur Raja I'm seeing what's the change of climate out here. Thank you everyone stay safe, stay blessed.