Nation states follow the principle by in parem non habet imperium: “Between equals, there is no sovereign power.” This is confirmed by Article 2, paragraph 1, of the United Nations Charter, which states that no state is subject to another state. John Austin therefore asserted that “so-called” international law, which is not a sovereign and so unenforceable power, is not a law at all, but a “positive morality” drawn from “opinions and feelings… “more ethical than legal.”  In international law and international relations, a protocol is generally an international treaty or agreement that complements a previous treaty or international agreement. A protocol may modify the previous contract or add additional provisions. The parties to the previous agreement are not required to adopt the protocol. This sometimes becomes more evident by calling it an “optional protocol,” especially if many parties to the first agreement do not support the protocol. When the modern system of international (public) law developed from the tradition of the Ius gentium of the late Middle Ages, it was called the law of nations, a direct translation of the concept ius gentium by Hugo Grotius and the rights of the people of Emer de Vattel. The modern term of international law was coined in 1789 by Jeremy Bentham and established itself in the 19th century.  From the spring and autumn period of the eighth century BC, China was divided into many ethnic Han states that were often at war. The result has been the emergence of rules on diplomacy and contracting, including ideas on the just motives for war, the rights of neutral parties, and the consolidation and division of states; These concepts have sometimes been applied to relations with non-Han “barbarians” along the western periphery of China.  In the period that followed, two major schools of thought were developed, Confucianism and legalism, both of which felt that national and international legal domains are closely linked, and attempted to establish competing normative principles to guide external relations.
Similarly, the Indian subcontinent has been characterized by a series of ever-changing countries that, over time, have developed rules of neutrality, contract law and international behaviour. Temporary and permanent embassies have been established between states to maintain diplomatic relations and relations have been established with states far from Europe and East Asia.  The 15th century saw a confluence of factors that contributed to the development of international law in its current framework. The influx of Greek scholars from the collapsing Byzantine Empire, as well as the introduction of the printing machine, stimulated the development of science, humanism and notions of individual rights. The strengthening of navigation and exploration by Europeans has invited scientists to develop a conceptual framework for relations with different peoples and cultures. The creation of centralized states, such as Spain and France, brought more prosperity, ambition and trade, which in turn required increasingly demanding rules and rules. Although European democracies tend to support a broad universalist interpretation of international law, many other democracies have differing views on international law. Several democracies, including India, Israel and the United States, take a flexible and eclectic approach by recognizing aspects of international law as universal, considering other aspects as arising from the treaty or customs, and considering certain aspects as not subject to international law at all.