Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

State, courts and energy resources in India: revisiting permanent sovereignty over natural resources

  • Note
  • Published:
Indian Journal of International Law

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Sustainable Development Goal 7 aims at ensuring clean and affordable energy for all by the year 2030. UN General Assembly, Transforming our world : the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Resolution adopted on 25 September 2015; A/RES/70/1.

  2. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s address at the Center for Global Development event on “Delivering Sustainable Energy for All: Opportunities at Rio+20”, in Washington, D.C. on 20 April 2012; SG/SM/14242-DEV/2941-EN/270.

  3. See Alexandra Wawryk, ‘International energy law: an emerging academic discipline’ in P Babie and P Leadbeter (ed./s), Law as Change: Engaging with the Life and Scholarship of Adrian Bradbrook (University of Adelaide Press 2014), Ch. 10, pp. 223–255.

  4. Catherine Redgwell, ‘Sustainable development of national energy resources: what has international law got to do with it?’ (2017) 8:1 Journal of Sustainable Development Law and Policy, 378–395.

  5. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1472

  6. For a succinct review on the subject, see Samantha Besson, ‘Sovereignty’ in Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law, (Oxford Public International Law 2011), ; For challenges and the need for a new approach, see 25) John Jackson, ‘Sovereignty – modern: a new approach to an outdated concept’, (2003) 97 American Journal of Inter- national Law, 782–802, at p. 786.

  7. For a detailed discussion on the history and evolution of permanent sovereignty over natural resources (PSNR), see Nicolas Schrijver, ‘The birth and development of the principle: The UN General Assembly as midwife’ in Sovereignty over Natural Resources: Balancing Rights and Duties (Cambridge University Press 1997).

  8. Concerted Action for Economic Development of Economically Less Developed States, UNGA Res 1515 (XV) (15 December 1960) UN Doc A/RLS/i1515(XV) para 5, cited in Yogesh Tyagi, ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources’ (2015) 4:3 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 588–615.

  9. United Nations General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, ‘Permanent sovereignty over natural resources’.

  10. Karol N Gess, ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources: An Analytical Review of the United Nations Declaration and Its Genesis’ (1964)13:2 The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 398–449.

  11. For a detailed account of various drafts and submissions, see Karol N Gess, (1964), supra note 9

  12. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 62/274 ‘Strengthening Transparency in Industries’ Resolution adopted on 11 September 2008.

  13. N Schrijver (1997), supra note 6.

  14. Preamble to the United Nations General Assembly resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, ‘Permanent sovereignty over natural resources’.

  15. Karol N Gess (1964), supra note 9

  16. See Schrijver (1997), supra note 6, pp. 306-367; Lorenozo Cotula, ‘Reconsidering Sovereignty, Ownership and Consent in Natural Resource Contracts: From Concepts to Practice’ in M. Bungenberg, M. Krajewski, C. Tams, and J. Terhechte (eds.) European Yearbook of International Economic Law (Cham: Springer 2018), pp. 143–174.; ChamF X Perrez, ‘The Relationship between "Permanent Sovereignty" and the Obligation not to cause Transboundary Environmental Damage’ (1996) 26:4 Environmental Law, pp. 1187–212.

  17. See Petra Gümplová, ‘Restraining permanent sovereignty over natural resources’ (2014) 53 Enrahonar. Quaderns de Filosofia, 93–114; Tyagi (2015) supra note 17.

  18. Yogesh Tyagi, ‘Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources’ (2015) 4:3 Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, 588–615.

  19. Para 1 of the 1962 Resolution states, “The right of peoples and nations to permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources must be exercised in the interest of their national development and of the well-being of the people of the State concerned.”

  20. Endalew Lijalem Enyew, ‘Application of the Right to Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources for Indigenous Peoples: Assessment of Current Legal Developments’, (2017) 8 Arctic Review on Law and Politics, pp. 222–245.

  21. Libyan American Oil Company (LIAMCO) v Government of the Libyan Arab Republic, Award (12 April 1977) (1982) 62 Intl L Rep 140.

  22. Texaco Overseas Petroleum Company v California Asiatic Oil Company and the Government of Libyan Arab Republic (Compensation for Nationalised Property)(Award on the Merits) (1977) (1978) 17 ILM 1.

  23. Award in the Matter of an Arbitration between Kuwait and the American Independent Oil Company (AMINOIL) (1982) 21 ILM 976.

  24. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168.

  25. China-Measures Related to the Exportation of Rare Earths, Tungsten and Molybdenum-Reports of the Panel (26 March 2014) WT/DS431/R, WT/DS432/R and WT/DS433/R.

  26. Yogesh Tyagi, (2015) supra note 17.

  27. K Khoday, ‘The Emerging South and the Evolution of Sovereignty over Natural Resources’ in Global Trends: Law, Policy & Justice Essays in Honour of Professor Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo. (Oxford, New York, 2013).

  28. Mason Willrich, Energy and World Politics (New York: The Free Press 1975), p 15.

  29. Daniel Augustein,‘Paradise Lost: Sovereign State Interest, Global Resource Exploitation and the Politics of Human Rights’ (2016) 27:3 The European Journal of International Law, 669–691; Subhash C. Jain, ‘Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources and Nationalization in International Law’(1977) 19:3 Journal of the Indian Law Institute, pp. 241–256.

  30. Inserted by the Constitution (Fortieth Amendment) Act, 1976.

  31. A David Ambrose, ‘Directive Principles of State Policy and Distribution of Material Resources With Special Reference To Natural Resources – Recent Trends’ (2013) 55 Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 1–20.

  32. For a discussion on centre-state issues in natural resource ownership and control, see L Noronha and N Srivastava, D Datt and P V Sridharan, ‘Resource Federalism in India: The Case of Minerals’ (2009) 44:8 Economic and Political Weekly, pp. 51–59; Rohini Chaturvedi, ‘India's forest federalism’ (2016) 24:1 Contemporary South Asia, pp. 1–18.

  33. BP, BP Statistical Review of World Energy (BP, 2019); Available at https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf, Last accessed on 10 June 2019.

  34. Rajiv Kumar, ‘Nationalisation by Default: The Case of Coal in India’ (1981) 16:17 Economic and Political Weekly (Apr. 25, 1981), pp. 757–768.

  35. Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd. & Another v/s Mathias Oram & Others; Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 6933 of 2007; SC Judgment dated 10 July 2017.

  36. Ligia Noronha and Nidhi Srivastava, ‘Oil and gas federalism in India’ in Anderson George ed. Oil and Gas in Federal Countries (Oxford University Press, Canada, 2012, 121.

  37. For an overview of the oil crises of the 1970s and its implications, see Fiona Venn, The Oil Crisis (Routledge 2002).

  38. Saumitra Chaudhury, ‘Nationalisation of Oil Companies in India’ (1977) 12:10 Economic and Political Weekly, (Mar. 5, 1977), pp. 437+439–444.

  39. Somewhere in the 1950s, an Italian tycoon by the name Enrico Mattei referred to certain Anglo American Oil companies as ‘Seven Sisters’, which controlled the global oil and gas industry. The seven sisters comprised Anglo Persian Oil Company (British Petroleum), Gulf Oil (now divided into British Petroleum and Chevron), Standard Oil of California (Chevron), Texaco, Royal Dutch Shell, Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (now Exxon), and Standard Oil Company of New York (Mobil, and now ExxonMobil).

  40. Saumitra Chaudhury (1977) supra note 37.

  41. Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, (2003) 7 SCC 532.

  42. Apoorv Kurup, ‘Privatization and the Indian Judiciary’ (2006) 48:3 Journal of the Indian Law Institute, (July-September 2006), pp. 425–434.

  43. Lorenozo Cotula, ‘Reconsidering Sovereignty, Ownership and Consent in Natural Resource Contracts: From Concepts to Practice’ in M. Bungenberg, M. Krajewski, C. Tams, and J. Terhechte (eds.) European Yearbook of International Economic Law (Cham: Springer 2018), pp. 143–174.

  44. Ernest E. Smith and John S. Dzienkowski, ‘A Fifty-Year Perspective on World Petroleum Arrangements’ (1989) 24:1 Texas International Law Journal (Winter 1989), 13–46, cited in Reliance Industries Limited v. Reliance Natural Resources Limited (2010) 7 SCC 1.

  45. Natural Resource Governance Institute, ‘Granting Rights to Natural Resources Determining Who Takes Natural Resources Out of the Ground’, (NRGI March 2015); https://resourcegovernance.org/sites/default/files/nrgi_Granting-Rights.pdf last accessed on 10 December 2019.

  46. Usha Ramanathan, ‘On eminent domain and sovereignty’ (2010) 613 Seminar, September 2010.

  47. Art 253, Constitution of India.

  48. Prabhash Ranjan, Anmolan and Farheen Ahmed, ‘Is the Supreme Court Confused About the Application of International Law?’ (2016) The Wire, dated 28 September 2016; https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-international-law; Last accessed on 1 December 2019.

  49. State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 201.

  50. Jolly George Varghese Vs. The Bank of Cochin [AIR 1980 SC 470].

  51. Selvi & Ors vs State of Karnataka & Anr, Supreme Court Judgment on 5 May, 2010; Gramophone Company of India Ltd vs Birendra Bahadur Pandey & Ors Supreme Court Judgment on 21 February, 1984 ; T.Rajkumar vs Union of India Madras High Court judgment on 1 November, 2013,; P. Geetha vs The Kerala Livestock Development, Kerala High Court Judgment on 18 June, 2014.

  52. National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) Vs. Union of India. AIR 2014 SC 1863.

  53. Vishaka and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others. AIR 1997 SC 3011.

  54. Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum vs. Union of India. AIR 1996 SC 2715.

  55. The doctrine of Public trust propounds that certain properties such as rivers, streams etc are held by the government as a trustee of the public. Joseph L Sax expanded this concept to include environment and natural resources in his seminal work in 1969. Joseph L Sax, Joseph L. Sax, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resource Law: Effective. Judicial Intervention (1969) 68 Michigan Law Review, 471–566.

  56. M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388; See generally, Shibani Ghosh, ‘Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Law’ in Shibani Ghosh (Ed) Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles (Orient Black Swan, 2019).

  57. See Meenakshi Gogoi, ‘The Nexus between Sovereignty and ‘Eminent Domain’ under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Land Act, 2013’ (2018) 48:2 Social Change, 173–187.

  58. Samantha Besson (2011) supra note 5.

  59. W. A. Dunning, ‘Jean Bodin on Sovereignty’, (1896) 11:1 Political Science Quarterly, 82–104.

  60. Usha Ramanathan (2010) supra note 45.

  61. Meenakshi Gogoi (2018) supra note 56.

  62. Usha Ramanathan, ‘A word on Eminent Domain’ in L. Mehta (ed) Displaced by Development: Confronting Marginalisation and Gender Injustice, (Sage 2009), 133–145.

  63. Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

  64. Amlanjyoti Goswami, Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement: Law and Politics. (Indian Institute for Human Settlements 2011), IIHS. Retrieved from IIHS Knowledge gateway: http://iihs.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Land_Acquisition_Law_and_Politics_Amlanjyoti_Goswami.pdf, last accessed on 2 December 2019.

  65. Usha Ramanathan (2010) supra note 45.

  66. Sarbani Sen, The Constitution of India: Popular Sovereignty and Democratic Transformations (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007).

  67. S. N. Dwivedi, ‘Location of Sovereignty in India’, (1967) 9:1 Journal of the Indian Law Institute, pp. 71-84; Virendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [1955] 1 SCR 4.

  68. Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others (2012) 3 SCC 1.

  69. Reliance Industries Limited v. Reliance Natural Resources Limited (2010) 7 SCC 1.

  70. Vedanta Limited & Ors vs Directorate General of Foreign Trade, LPA 48/2017, CM APPL. 2395/2017, CM APPL. 27489/2017; Cairn India Limited & Ors vs Directorate General of Foreign Trade, in W.P.(C), 11600,30709 of 2015, Delhi High Court Judgment dated Oct 18, 2016.

  71. Para 8 of opinion by Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar in Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1.

  72. Reliance Industries Limited v. Reliance Natural Resources Limited (2010) 7 SCC 1.

  73. Zoheb Hossain and Alok Prasanna Kumar, ‘The New Jurisprudence of Scarce Natural Resources: An Analysis of the Supreme Court’s Judgment in Reliance Industries Limited vs Reliance Natural Resources Limited’, (2010) 4:1 Indian Journal of Constitutional Law, 104–114.

  74. Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1.

  75. A Alam, A A Faruque, ‘From sovereignty to self-determination: emergence of collective rights of indigenous peoples in natural resources management’. (2019/ in press) 32: 1 Georgetown International Environmental Law Review.

  76. Samantha Besson (2011) supra note 5.

  77. Y T Chekera and V O Nmehielle, ‘The International Law Principle of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources as an Instrument for Development: The Case of Zimbabwean Diamonds’ (2013) 6 African Journal of Legal Studies, 69–101.

  78. Lorenzo Cotula, (2018) supra note 42.

  79. AIR 1984 SC 239.

  80. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. V. Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536, State of Tamil Nadu v. Abu Kavur Bai AIR 1984 SC 326.

  81. Article 39 (b).

  82. Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others (2012) 3 SCC 1, para 64.

  83. Reliance Industries Limited v. Reliance Natural Resources Limited (2010) 7 SCC 1.

  84. Reliance Industries Limited v. Reliance Natural Resources Limited (2010) 7 SCC 1, para 114.

  85. Association of Natural Gas and others vs Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 489.

  86. Goa Foundation v. M/S Sesa Sterlite Ltd. & Ors, (2018) 4 SCC 218; Natural Resources Allocation, In re, supra note 87.

  87. Centre for Public Interest Litigation and others v. Union of India and others (2012) 3 SCC 1.

  88. Natural Resources Allocation, In re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (2012) 10 SCC 1.

  89. With reference to Article 14, Constitution of India.

  90. Ambrose (2013) supra note 30.

  91. Ibid.

Acknowledgements

I gratefully acknowledge the rich discussions with Professor Fazil Jamal, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on the subject and international energy law in general. I am thankful to Professor Nupur Chowdhury, Centre for Studies in Law and Governance, JNU for discussing the idea and encouraging to explore this area of study. I humbly thank the anonymous reviewer for the valuable comments that helped me in improving the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Energy Studies Programme, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, 110067, India

    Nidhi Srivastava

Authors
  1. Nidhi Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nidhi Srivastava.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Nidhi Srivastava: PhD Scholar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srivastava, N. State, courts and energy resources in India: revisiting permanent sovereignty over natural resources. Indian Journal of International Law 59, 209–228 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-020-00117-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-020-00117-w

Search

Navigation