Author name: shashank.sharma708@gmail.com

The principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes has long been a foundational element of international law. It reflects the aspiration of the international community to replace force with dialogue, and conflict with cooperation. Rooted in the UN Charter and reinforced by customary international law, it obliges states to seek non-violent means of dispute resolution—such as negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or judicial adjudication—in the interest of maintaining global peace and security. Yet, in practice, the commitment to these ideals has often been tested by realpolitik. One of the most prominent examples in recent times is the US-China trade war, which began in earnest in 2018 and sent shockwaves through the global economic system. It challenges the effectiveness, consistency, and even the sufficiency of existing international legal frameworks in handling complex, multi-dimensional economic conflicts between major powers. This analysis seeks to examine how the US-China trade war fits within, and in some ways departs from, the principles of peaceful settlement and cooperation that international law aims to uphold. The Normative Framework of Peaceful Settlement International law is clear on the obligation of states to resolve disputes peacefully. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) of the UN Charter mandate states to settle their disputes “by peaceful means” and list a variety of methods, including negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, and resort to regional agencies. The 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States further reinforces this obligation, asserting that states must refrain from the threat or use of force and must resolve disputes in a manner consistent with the principles of justice and international law. In economic contexts, the World Trade Organization (WTO) provides a rules-based system with a well-developed Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), offering a legal forum for member states to challenge trade practices they consider unfair or illegal under WTO rules. The US-China Trade War: A Challenge to Legal Norms The US-China trade conflict—characterized by reciprocal tariff impositions, export bans, sanctions, and public accusations of intellectual property theft—presents a case where traditional legal pathways were marginalized in favor of unilateral economic coercion. Rather than initiating formal proceedings under the WTO’s dispute settlement system at the outset, the United States under the Trump administration opted for unilateral tariffs under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing unfair Chinese trade practices, forced technology transfers, and intellectual property violations. China, in turn, responded with its own retaliatory tariffs, while also framing the US actions as violations of WTO principles. Though both countries eventually brought complaints to the WTO, these actions were largely reactive and strategic, rather than reflective of a genuine commitment to legal adjudication. This shift away from multilateral legal mechanisms to power-based negotiation and economic retaliation raises significant questions: The Erosion of Multilateralism and Legal Institutions One of the most profound consequences of the US-China trade war has been the weakening of multilateral institutions, particularly the WTO. The US refusal to allow appointments to the WTO Appellate Body, effectively paralyzing the dispute resolution mechanism, undermines not only the WTO’s authority but also the principle of peaceful legal settlement itself. Moreover, the US’s use of national security justifications for economic measures (e.g., on Huawei or TikTok) introduces a degree of subjectivity that is difficult to challenge through legal processes. This trend blurs the line between legitimate regulatory concerns and protectionist behavior, further complicating efforts to resolve disputes through law and diplomacy. Such behavior, when emulated by other countries, risks normalizing economic unilateralism, where power rather than principle dictates outcomes. This represents a stark departure from the cooperative ideals enshrined in international law and threatens to reduce international dispute resolution to a bargaining game among major powers, marginalizing smaller states and less powerful actors. Diplomacy and Ad-Hoc Negotiations: A Limited Return to Cooperation While the trade war began with confrontation, it eventually transitioned toward negotiation and partial settlement, exemplified by the Phase One Trade Agreement in January 2020. This agreement addressed some of the US concerns over trade imbalances, intellectual property protections, and technology transfer. However, the process leading to this outcome was largely bilateral, ad-hoc, and opaque, lacking the transparency and accountability associated with formal legal mechanisms. It did little to strengthen multilateral dispute resolution or to reaffirm global norms. Instead, it reinforced the perception that large powers can settle disputes on their own terms, setting a problematic precedent. Reaffirming the Role of International Law Despite these challenges, the principles of peaceful settlement through international law remain essential. They provide not just legal remedies, but also a legitimacy framework that enhances predictability and mutual respect in international relations. The challenge lies in revitalizing trust in multilateral institutions. Reforming the WTO dispute mechanism, enhancing the enforceability of decisions, and depoliticizing appointments to legal bodies are critical steps. Additionally, there is a growing need to adapt legal tools to complex modern disputes, especially those involving digital trade, cybersecurity, and state-subsidized enterprises. Furthermore, regional mechanisms and plurilateral agreements may serve as supplementary forums for legal cooperation. For example, ASEAN’s mechanisms for economic dispute resolution, or the EU’s proposal for a multilateral investment court, offer alternative avenues for rule-based engagement. Conclusion: A Fork in the Road The US-China trade war represents more than an economic skirmish—it is a test case for the resilience of international law in an era of strategic rivalry. While outright violence was avoided, the failure to initially resort to peaceful legal settlement mechanisms weakens the global rules-based order and sets a concerning precedent. If the international community does not reaffirm and reform its legal frameworks, future disputes may increasingly be resolved through economic coercion, not cooperative law. The peaceful settlement of international disputes, as a principle of friendly relations and cooperation, must not be allowed to become a hollow ideal. Instead, it must be actively defended, adapted, and revitalized to meet the demands of a multipolar world. Only then can international law continue to serve as the stabilizing force it was always intended to be.

An airline cannot unilaterally change a passenger’s flight from one airline to another without prior intimation and the passenger’s consent. Doing so may amount to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, and courts have held airlines accountable for such actions. Legal Position in India: Key Judgments: Emirates was directed to compensate the complainant for shifting them to another airline without due information and for failing to uphold service quality. DGCA Guidelines: The Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) mandates that: Remedy: A passenger can:

To initiate a disciplinary proceeding before the National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA), there is a specific legal process governed by the Companies Act, 2013 and the NFRA Rules, 2018. Here’s a detailed breakdown: 1.  Legal Basis for Disciplinary Proceedings Under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, NFRA has the power to: 2.  Who Can Initiate or Trigger an Inquiry? While only NFRA itself can initiate a formal investigation or disciplinary proceeding, any individual, including a whistleblower, can write to NFRA to provide information or lodge a complaint that may trigger a suo motu inquiry. 3.  How to Write to NFRA: You can submit a written representation or complaint to NFRA either: a. By Post: Write a formal letter addressed to: The Secretary, National Financial Reporting Authority, 7th Floor, Hindustan Times Building, 18-20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi – 110001, India b. By Email: Try reaching out via official email listed on nfra.gov.in, or as per the latest contact details published. c. Online (If Available): Check the NFRA portal for any grievance or complaint submission form. (As of now, NFRA doesn’t have a public online complaint portal like SEBI or RBI, but this may change.) 4.  Contents of the Complaint Letter: Your complaint should be: 5.  What Happens Next: Key Point: While an individual cannot directly “initiate” disciplinary proceedings in a legal sense, their complaint can serve as the trigger for NFRA to take action suo motu.

If a loan agreement is unilaterally terminated by the lender (i.e., without cause or breach by the borrower), the lender may not be able to recover the remaining money immediately—and possibly not at all—depending on the terms of the agreement and jurisdictional law. Here’s a general breakdown: 1. Nature of Termination 2.  Recovery of Outstanding Loan 3.  Doctrine of Repudiation In contract law, if one party repudiates (i.e., wrongfully ends the contract), the other party is not obligated to perform their part. So if the lender wrongly terminates, the borrower could argue that they are no longer bound to repay under the original terms. 4.  Exceptions

In our increasingly digital world, personal and professional information is predominantly stored on electronic devices, effectively making them vast repositories of our lives. This reliance on digital storage raises significant concerns when law enforcement agencies demand and seize these entire “digital vaults,” often without clear relevance to their investigations. The Legal Quandary of Digital Searches Investigative bodies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and the Income Tax Department possess powers to conduct searches and seizures when they suspect concealment or tampering of records, including digital ones. While these powers are vital for uncovering crucial evidence, the current legal framework falls short concerning digital data. There’s a notable absence of explicit provisions and guidelines for searching digital records, particularly regarding comprehensive cloning of devices, handling encrypted information, and accessing cross-border data. Unlike physical records, the sheer volume and sensitive nature of personal data within digital devices necessitate a more nuanced and protective approach, even during investigations. Despite these complexities, law enforcement often demands and seizes an entire ecosystem of data, far exceeding what is directly pertinent to an inquiry. Companies frequently comply with these requests, fearing repercussions under criminal law for non-cooperation. The Overriding Concern: Privacy The primary casualty in these extensive digital seizures is the fundamental right to privacy. Individuals and businesses are justifiably concerned about the safeguarding and segregation of their personal data from investigative materials. Unrestricted access to an individual’s complete digital footprint, which often includes highly personal information, poses a significant threat to this fundamental right. Recent Developments and Judicial Intervention A notable instance occurred in December 2024 when the Supreme Court restricted the ED from copying and accessing information from the electronic devices of Santiago Martin, the “Lottery King,” and his relatives. The petitioners argued that such access infringed on their right to privacy due to the deeply personal and sensitive nature of the data on their devices. Further highlighting this critical gap in the legal framework, a petition filed by the Foundation for Media Professionals (FMP) in October 2022 underscored that digital devices contain a wealth of personal information, from private communications to health and financial data. The absence of clear legal safeguards for searching and seizing these devices represents a substantial intrusion into individual autonomy and privacy. Recognizing the gravity of this issue, the Supreme Court, in November 2023, instructed the Union government to consider formulating guidelines for digital device searches. The Supreme Court’s landmark Puttaswamy judgment unequivocally established privacy, including informational privacy, as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. The principles of data protection enshrined in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (DPDPA), while not directly governing law enforcement search procedures, reinforce the need for robust safeguards when personal data is accessed during investigations. In 2022, the investigative arm of the Competition Commission of India (CCI) raided Appario Retail’s premises, cloning phones of three Samsung employees and allegedly seizing confidential business information. More recently, in 2025, similar raids in the advertising industry led to the cloning of mobile phones and laptops, raising concerns about the scale of data accessed from employee devices, including potentially personal and unrelated information. These events demonstrate that current search and seizure operations are not consistently guided by explicit legal provisions, creating potential for abuse and undermining due process. Standardized operating procedures for digital searches are therefore crucial to prevent such occurrences. The Path Forward: Balancing Rights and Investigations It’s imperative that the legal framework governing the search and seizure of electronic records instills confidence in individuals and companies. Digital devices should be seen as sophisticated data vaults, not inescapable data coffins that expose every aspect of our lives. The ongoing FMP v. Union of India case represents a pivotal moment for India’s legal and constitutional landscape. As India navigates the complexities of the digital age, the Supreme Court has a unique opportunity to establish clear guidelines that strike a balance between individual privacy rights and the legitimate needs of law enforcement. This case underscores the vital importance of transparency, accountability, and proportionality in digital searches, with the anticipation that the judgment will lead to definitive guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices.