In international law, there's a Latin saying - "Pacta sunt servanda," that means that deals should be honoured. This popular saying stresses the significance of respecting and maintaining agreements made between different sovereign states. The concept is straightforward - once the parties enter into a legally binding commitment, they are required to meet the responsibilities outlined in the agreement. "Pacta sunt servanda" is critical for keeping up international relations, as it helps build trust and stability. It ensures that the global community can rely on commitments made by states. It is the bedrock of treaty law.

Example
The Paris Agreement, an international pact under the UNFCCC, is a prime demonstration of "Pacta Sunt Servanda" in practice. In 2015, an accord was ratified that became effective the following year. Its principal objective is to control the increase of worldwide temperatures, not exceeding 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Addressing the consequences of climate change is the core mission of this treaty, ultimately aiming to realize its overall goal.

A coalition of countries has come together under the Paris Agreement to commit themselves to fighting climate change, and they have promised to lower their release of greenhouse gases. Adherence to these obligations is legally required of every country.

Honouring commitments to combat climate change is crucial in the context of the Paris Agreement. The principle of "Pacta Sunt Servanda" underscores this importance, stating that the pledges and targets outlined in the treaty must be implemented with good faith. The Paris Agreement serves as a critical instrument for countries responsible in the fight against climate change.

Reduction of its harmful outcomes can be accomplished when potent strategies are applied throughout the globe. By standing as a vital principle for the safekeeping of future generations and the Earth, countries are incentivized to adhere to the terms of this accord. Such commitment ensures its persistent relevance in being an essential contribution to the worldwide community.

Rebus Sic Stantibus
The principle of "rebus sic stantibus" in international law permits the termination or alteration of treaties due to a fundamental shift in circumstances that existed during the treaty's signing. This Latin term refers to a doctrine utilized to invoke such changes in the treaty.

At the time treaties are formed, certain conditions and expectations are always understood. However, under the principle of unforeseen change, the understanding is that if conditions that affect the treaty's basic principles change significantly, parties can argue that the treaty is no longer valid and that its obligations should be modified to address the new circumstances.

Every now and then, international law acknowledges the use of "rebus sic stantibus." However, this remedy is not something to be used lightly and comes with stringent requirements. It's not that just any circumstance shift warrants a treaty's termination or amendment. Rather, the alteration must be big enough to heavily modify the parties' obligations and anticipations. To top it off, the principle's usage must be invoked lawfully and honestly.

The implementation of "rebus sic stantibus" can lead to legal and diplomatic disputes over whether alterations to a treaty are warranted due to fundamental changes in circumstances. This process can prove intricate and contentious.

Challenges to Pacta Sunt Servanda
While "Pacta Sunt Servanda" is a fundamental principle in international law that emphasizes the importance of upholding agreements and treaties, there are situations in which it can face challenges or failures.
Here are some common scenarios where "Pacta Sunt Servanda" may not be fully realized:

• Unforeseen Changes in Circumstances: If there are significant, unforeseen changes in circumstances that make it extremely difficult or impossible for a party to fulfil its treaty obligations, it may seek to modify or terminate the treaty under the principle of rebus sic stantibus (fundamental change in circumstances).
   
• Conflicting Treaty Obligations: States may enter into multiple treaties with overlapping or contradictory provisions. In such cases, they may struggle to reconcile conflicting obligations, leading to challenges in complying with all of their commitments.
   
• Internal Legal or Constitutional Changes: A state's ability to meet its treaty obligations can be influenced by changes in its legal or constitutional system. Hence, adapting local regulations to match global pacts may become necessary in certain instances.
   
• Security Concerns: A state can suspend or terminate some treaty obligations during periods of armed conflict or national security threats to ensure safety. This is a crucial aspect to think about for the sake of national security.
   
• Resource Constraints: States may find it difficult to meet their treaty obligations if they face resource constraints, like economic constraints or other limitations. This could restrict their ability to offer financial aid or technical assistance to other parties.
   
• Failure to Enforce: In certain states, non-compliance with treaties can arise due to the neglect of domestic implementation of necessary legislation. Even if an agreement is intended to be upheld, this risk is present. The failure to take necessary steps for legislation compliance is the cause.
   
• Breach of Treaty by Other Parties: If one party neglects their promise in a treaty, it could potentially cause a chain reaction where other parties feel less motivated to follow through on their own responsibilities, essentially leading to the treaty becoming ineffective.
   
• Political Changes: Changes in political leadership or foreign policy priorities can disrupt existing treaties and the commitment of a state to them. Political shifts have the potential to significantly impact global agreements. These shifts can vary in intensity, ranging from small changes to complete overhauls.
   
• Lack of International Enforcement Mechanisms: Some treaties lack effective enforcement mechanisms or dispute resolution procedures, making it challenging to hold parties accountable for non-compliance.

In such cases, addressing the failure of "Pacta Sunt Servanda" often involves diplomatic negotiations, discussions, and, in some cases, dispute resolution mechanisms specified in the treaty itself. The resolution of these issues may result in treaty modification, termination, or, in some instances, international legal proceedings.

Conclusion:
Foundational to contract law and international relations is the principle of "Pacta sunt servanda" which espouses the importance of keeping agreements. Such principle anchors the concept of legal certainty, bolsters trust, and emphasizes fair play in contractual relationships, offering a dependable groundwork for global dealings.

By recognizing the importance of adaptability and fairness, the doctrine of "Rebus sic stantibus," meaning "things as they are," allows for the necessary modification or termination of contracts and international agreements. This ensures that parties aren't unfairly bound to contracts that have become unreasonable due to unforeseen and exceptional developments.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565