Law 2021 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) Discuss the various efforts made towards the codification of International Law during the 20th century. 10 (b) Explain different theories on the relationship between International law and Municipal law. 10 (c) Explain the principle of 'Double Criminality' and the 'Rule of Speciality' under the international law of extradition. 10 (d) Define 'Double Nationality' and 'Statelessness'. Evaluate the efforts taken to eliminate or reduce them. 10 (e) What is 'Intervention' and on what grounds do the States justify intervention ? Explain. 10

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) 20वीं शताब्दी के दौरान अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय विधि का संहिताकरण करने की दिशा में किए गए विभिन्न प्रयासों की विवेचना कीजिए । 10 (b) अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय विधि एवं राष्ट्रीय विधि के बीच संबंधों पर विभिन्न सिद्धान्तों को स्पष्ट कीजिए । 10 (c) प्रत्यर्पण की अन्तर्राष्ट्रीय विधि के अन्तर्गत 'दोहरी अपराधिकता' का सिद्धान्त तथा 'विशिष्टता का नियम' को स्पष्ट कीजिए । 10 (d) 'दोहरी राष्ट्रीयता' और 'राष्ट्रीयता' को परिभाषित कीजिए । इन्हें समाप्त करने या कम करने के प्रयासों का मूल्यांकन कीजिए । 10 (e) 'हस्तक्षेप' क्या है और राष्ट्र किन आधारों पर हस्तक्षेप को उचित बताते हैं ? स्पष्ट कीजिए । 10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Law questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

This multi-part question requires balanced treatment across five 10-mark sub-parts with ~150 words each. For (a) 'discuss' demands coverage of codification efforts from Hague Conferences to ILC and UN conventions; (b) 'explain' needs clear exposition of monism, dualism and transformation/incorporation theories; (c) 'explain' requires precise definitions of double criminality and speciality with treaty references; (d) 'define' and 'evaluate' necessitates conceptual clarity plus assessment of 1961 and 1963 UN Conventions; (e) 'what' and 'explain' calls for definition of intervention and grounds like humanitarian intervention, self-defence, and protection of nationals. Allocate approximately 25-28 words per mark, ensuring each sub-part has a brief introduction, substantive content, and micro-conclusion.

Key points expected

  • (a) Codification efforts: Hague Peace Conferences (1899, 1907), League of Nations era, UN Charter Article 13(1), ILC establishment 1947, Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations (1961), Law of Treaties (1969), and State Responsibility
  • (b) Theories: Monism (Kelsen's grundnorm, primacy of international law), Dualism (Triepel, Anzilotti, distinct legal orders), Transformation vs Incorporation doctrines; Indian position via Article 253 and Vishaka guidelines
  • (c) Double Criminality: offence must be crime in both requesting and requested states; Rule of Speciality: extradited person tried only for offence specified in request—cite R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison (Ex parte Osman) and Indian Extradition Act 1962
  • (d) Double Nationality: simultaneous citizenship of two states; Statelessness: no citizenship; efforts—1961 Convention on Reduction of Statelessness, 1963 European Convention on Nationality, Indian Citizenship Act provisions on termination and registration
  • (e) Intervention: dictatorial interference by state in affairs of another; grounds—humanitarian intervention (NATO Kosovo 1999 debate), self-defence (Article 51), protection of nationals (Tunis and Morocco 1956), invitation/consent, collective security (Chapter VII); prohibition under Article 2(7) with exceptions

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites UN Charter Article 13(1) for ILC mandate; Article 253 for treaty implementation in India; Extradition Act 1962 Sections 3, 7, 21; 1961 and 1963 Statelessness Conventions; Article 2(7) and Chapter VII for intervention; Vienna Convention dates accurateMentions UN Charter and ILC but wrong articles; knows Extradition Act exists but no sections; conflates 1961 and 1963 conventions; vague on Article 2(7) exceptionsNo treaty/article references; confuses Hague Conferences with UN; cites non-existent provisions; fundamental errors like 'Article 21 of UN Charter'
Case-law citation20%10Cites R v. Governor of Pentonville Prison (Ex parte Osman) [1990] for speciality; Jeevan Reddy v. State of Madras or PUCL v. Union of India for municipal-international law interface; Nicaragua v. USA (1986) for intervention prohibition; Lotus case (1927) for jurisdiction principlesNames Osman or Nicaragua but no year/details; mentions Vishaka but not as international law incorporation; generic 'ICJ held' without case namesNo case law; fabricated cases; confuses criminal law cases with international law; cites municipal cases irrelevant to international law questions
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a) distinguishes progressive development vs codification; (b) contrasts Kelsen's monism with Triepel/Anzilotti dualism, notes British transformation vs US self-executing treaties; (c) explains why double criminality protects sovereignty, speciality prevents abuse; (d) analyzes de jure vs de facto statelessness; (e) evaluates humanitarian intervention doctrine's contested legitimacy post-R2PLists theories without comparison; describes double criminality mechanically; notes statelessness is bad without doctrinal depth; lists intervention grounds without evaluationConfuses monism/dualism; thinks double criminality means two crimes; describes double nationality as 'having two passports' only; no doctrinal terminology
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (b) contrasts British dualist transformation with monist Netherlands constitution; Indian position via Article 253, 73rd/74th Amendment implementation of treaties; (d) compares German law on option nationality vs Indian Citizenship Act 1955 termination provisions; (e) references India's stance on R2P and non-intervention in Sri Lanka 1987 vs Maldives 1988Mentions India is dualist without Article 253; vague 'different countries have different laws'; knows Citizenship Act exists but no comparative elementAssumes all countries same; no Indian constitutional reference; claims India follows monism; irrelevant comparison like US-UK only without India
Conclusion & application20%10Each sub-part has micro-conclusion: (a) ILC's role in progressive development remains vital; (b) harmonization trend via Article 253 but dualism persists; (c) balancing sovereignty and cooperation in extradition; (d) 1961 Convention inadequate, need for statelessness determination procedures; (e) R2P's emergence but unilateral humanitarian intervention remains contested; overall coherence across partsGeneric conclusions like 'thus codification is important'; no forward-looking element; conclusions repeat introduction without synthesisNo conclusions for individual parts; abrupt endings; contradictory conclusions across sub-parts; conclusion unrelated to content

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Law 2021 Paper I