The Calcutta Weekly Notes July 31 1950

133) : “ But whatever the prosecution’s view in my opinion the criminality of the acts alleged must be determined with reference to the rules of international law existing at the date of the commission of the alleged acts So far as the terms of the dmand of (unconditional) surrender go there is nothing in them which either expressly or by necessary implication would authorize the victor nation [...] It is therefore pertinent to inquire what is the extent of the lawful authority of a victor over the vanquished in intenational relations Apart from the right of reprisal the victor would no doubt have the right of punishing persons who have violated the laws of war. [...] The. aim of India Pandit Nehru did well in emphasising was to localise the conflict and to assist a speedy and peaceful settlement of the prsent impasse in the Security Council by getting the Soviets back into it and People's China properly represented. [...] The argment before the Privy Council proceeded on the footing that the v.-ndors were teant: in common and the first Defendant had no power to enter into the agreement of the 29th November. [...] The trial Judge declared that the Plaitiff etas entitled to specific performance of the agreement of the 29th November 1946 to the extent of the share of the second and third Defendants with abatement of onthird of the purchase price in respect of the interest of the first Defendant.