 Last evening, I saw a meaningful debate on NDTV with regard to the preliminary counter-affidavit filed by the Union of India in the Supreme Court in a petition filed by a petitioner challenging the constitutionality or validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act 2019, called CAA in short. The debate primarily rotated around whether the CAA is violative of the international law regime as embodied in the international conventions, which contention is being agitated by the petitioners in their petition. Let me here enlighten the viewers or those interested in the subject about the whole moot proposition. According to my analysis of the legal position in this respect, international law has absolutely no relevance to CAA. Why? I will tell you. There is a well-known Latin international law and public policy magazine called Parinparam Non-Habit Imperium, which means equals have no sovereignty over each other. This principle of international law forms the basis of state immunity. Because of this principle, one sovereign state cannot exercise jurisdiction over another sovereign state, meaning thereby, CAA, which deals with a highly sensitive domestic matter that is grant of citizenship, shall have to be a sovereign and domestic and national prerogative of India with no interference from external laws or agencies. International law cannot dictate the content and effect of this law. Some distinguished scholars have even discussed that the so-called international law lacking a sovereign power and so unenforceable was not really law at all, but positive morality, consisting of opinions, perhaps sentiments, more ethical than legal in nature. For instance, article 2, sub-article 1 of the UN Charter confirms this reality of the sovereignty of nations. No state is in subjection to any other state. International law is the set of rules, norms and standards generally accepted in relations between nations and not within the nation. The definition of international law centres on the word inter, which means between as opposed to intra, which means within. So literally international law, I feel is defined as law between nations, which are born out of agreements personified in treaty, conventions or customs. That is accepted by all countries nations. International law basically provides a means for states to practice more stable, consistent and organized international relations. International law differs from state-based legal systems. Former applies to countries rather than to individuals. And now parades largely through consent, since there is no universally accepted authority to enforce it upon sovereign states. Admittedly, CAA is a matter within as it addresses the issue of migration of unsettled people since India's partition and independence. Even otherwise the international law is regulated through domestic constitutional law, given that it is only the domestic law that is the institutional process which can decide on the recognition of international law. It's very logical. Finally and most importantly, the supremacy and sovereignty of a nation as to its foreign policy, economic policy or for that matter legislation as a whole is sanctified by article 46 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties. Which allows a country to invalidate an act that ratified a binding treaty through domestic legal measures. If the procedure followed for ratification, overrode a national rule of fundamental importance to the existence of the state. This article completely demolishes whatever is left in the argument against the CAA from the international law perspective. Hope you found this talk informative. If yes, you may subscribe to this YouTube channel. I'll be more than happy to answer all your questions. Thank you.