Law 2021 Paper I 50 marks Distinguish

Q6

(a) Distinguish whether 'Recognition of States' is an act of policy or of law. Also distinguish between Constitutive and Declaratory theories on the recognition of States. 20 (b) What do you understand by 'State Succession'? Discuss various theories of State succession and explain the rights and obligations arising out of State succession. 15 (c) Explain the main features of Law of the Sea. What is the difference between the jurisdiction over "Territorial Sea' and 'Exclusive Economic Zone'? 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भेद कीजिए कि 'राज्यों की मान्यता' नीति का एक कृत्य है या विधि का । राज्यों की मान्यता के सृजनात्मक एवं घोषणात्मक सिद्धान्तों में भेद भी बताइए । 20 (b) 'राज्य उत्तराधिकार' से आप क्या समझते हैं ? राज्य उत्तराधिकार के विभिन्न सिद्धान्तों की विवेचना कीजिए, तथा राज्य उत्तराधिकार से प्रादुर्भूत (उत्पन्न) होने वाले अधिकारों एवं दायित्वों को स्पष्ट कीजिए । 15 (c) समुद्र की विधि की मुख्य विशेषताओं को स्पष्ट कीजिए । 'क्षेत्रीय (भूमागीय) समुद्र' और 'अनन्य आर्थिक क्षेत्र' की अधिकारिता में क्या अंतर है ? 15

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

Directive word: Distinguish

This question asks you to distinguish. 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

The directive 'distinguish' in part (a) demands clear differentiation between policy vs. law dimensions of recognition and between Constitutive and Declaratory theories. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief introduction on recognition theories → detailed comparison for (a) → conceptual definition and theories of state succession for (b) → UNCLOS features and jurisdictional comparison for (c) → concluding synthesis on evolving nature of statehood and maritime law.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Recognition as act of policy (political discretion, Estrada doctrine) vs. act of law (legal duty, collective recognition through UN membership); Constitutive theory (statehood created by recognition, Oppenheim, Lauterpacht) vs. Declaratory theory (statehood exists independent of recognition, Montevideo Convention criteria)
  • For (a): Critical analysis of which theory dominates contemporary practice; reference to mixed/qualified recognition in practice (Tibet, Kosovo, Palestine)
  • For (b): Definition of state succession (succession of states vs. succession of governments); theories: universal succession (Grotian/Vattelian), clean slate/tabula rasa, organic succession, continuity theory
  • For (b): Rights/obligations: treaty succession (Vienna Convention 1978), succession to state property/debts, nationality of natural/legal persons, membership in international organizations (UN practice: India-Pakistan 1947, Russia-USSR 1991)
  • For (c): UNCLOS 1982 main features: territorial sea, contiguous zone, EEZ, continental shelf, high seas, deep seabed (Area); institutional framework (ISA, ITLOS, CLCS)
  • For (c): Territorial Sea (12 nm, full sovereignty, innocent passage) vs. EEZ (200 nm, sovereign rights for economic purposes, jurisdiction limited to specified activities, freedom of navigation remains)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Montevideo Convention 1933 criteria for statehood; accurately references Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties 1978 and UNCLOS 1982 articles (Art. 2, 3, 55-75, 76); correctly distinguishes between de jure and de facto recognition in part (a)Mentions general conventions without specific articles; conflates some UNCLOS zones or misstates succession convention dates; broadly accurate on Montevideo criteria but misses Article 1 specificsConfuses Vienna Convention 1978 with 1969 on treaties; misstates EEZ limits (confuses with territorial sea); fails to mention any specific convention for state succession or law of the sea
Case-law citation20%10Cites relevant ICJ cases: North Sea Continental Shelf (1969) for customary law formation; Nicaragua v. USA (1986) on non-recognition effects; Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali) 1986 on uti possidetis; Lotus Case (1927) on jurisdiction; references ITLOS cases like M/V Saiga for EEZ jurisdictionMentions one or two major cases without detailed application; references PCIJ cases generically; cites Indian cases like Vishaka for municipal relevance without international law connectionNo case law cited; or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Kesavananda for recognition theories); confuses international and domestic jurisprudence
Doctrinal analysis20%10Critically evaluates Constitutive vs. Declaratory theories with reference to Lauterpacht's 'Recognition in International Law' and Chen's synthesis; analyzes why modern practice favors declaratory with constitutive elements; examines succession theories with O'Connell's and Verzijl's contributions; discusses EEZ as revolutionary development from Grotian mare liberum vs. mare clausumDescribes theories without critical evaluation; presents Constitutive and Declaratory as mutually exclusive rather than converging; mentions clean slate vs. universal succession without analyzing why Vienna 1978 adopted compromise approachMerely lists theories without explanation; confuses Constitutive with Declaratory; fails to identify any scholar or seminal work; describes EEZ as 'extension of territorial sea'
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10References Indian constitutional provisions: Article 253 for treaty implementation; compares India's EEZ policy with other maritime nations; discusses India's position on Kosovo, Palestine recognition; analyzes how UK, US, EU approaches to recognition differ; references Bangladesh-India maritime boundary arbitration (2014) for EEZ delimitationMentions Article 253 generically without linking to UNCLOS implementation; references one comparative example (e.g., US recognition policy) without depth; mentions India-Bangladesh case without detailsNo constitutional or comparative references; fails to mention India's Maritime Zones Act 1976; no awareness of how municipal law implements international obligations
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes that recognition has evolved from political act to legal obligation under erga omnes norms; connects state succession to contemporary issues (Crimea 2014, South Sudan 2011, Brexit implications); evaluates EEZ regime's effectiveness for developing coastal states; proposes reforms for ISA governance or climate change impacts on maritime boundariesSummarizes main points without synthesis; makes generic statements about importance of international law; mentions contemporary relevance without specific applicationNo conclusion; or merely restates question; conclusion contradicts body of answer; fails to address any contemporary relevance of the three topics

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