Law 2021 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q7

(a) Discuss the powers of the Security Council for the maintenance of world peace and security. Has the 'Veto Power' proved a hindrance in discharge of its duties by the Security Council? Explain. 20 (b) Discuss the United Nations Declaration on the establishment of a New International Economic Order along with the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States. 15 (c) "Humanity is in peril in the present world due to terrorism." Suggest the ways to protect it in the context of human rights. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विश्व शांति एवं सुरक्षा स्थापित करने हेतु सुरक्षा परिषद की शक्तियों की विवेचना कीजिए । सुरक्षा परिषद द्वारा अपने कर्तव्यों के निर्वहन में क्या 'वीटो अधिकार' (Veto Power) एक बाधा साबित हुआ है ? स्पष्ट कीजिए । 20 (b) एक नवीन अंतर्राष्ट्रीय आर्थिक व्यवस्था (Economic Order) के साथ-साथ राष्ट्रों के आर्थिक अधिकारों और कर्तव्यों के चार्टर की स्थापना पर संयुक्त राष्ट्र की घोषणा की विवेचना कीजिए । 15 (c) "वर्तमान विश्व में मानवता, आतंकवाद के कारण खतरे में है ।" मानवाधिकारों के संबंध में इसकी (मानवता की) रक्षा के उपाय सुझाइए । 15

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

The directive 'discuss' requires a critical examination of multiple dimensions with balanced argumentation. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on UN's evolving role → part (a) covering Chapter VII powers, Articles 39-42, veto under Article 27 with Cold War and contemporary examples → part (b) examining 1974 NIEO Declaration and CERDS 1974, linking to permanent sovereignty over natural resources → part (c) analyzing terrorism-human rights tension with UN Security Council resolutions 1373, 1566 and Indian constitutional jurisprudence → conclusion synthesizing reform proposals including India's claim for permanent membership.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Chapter VII powers (Articles 39-42, 43), distinction between pacific settlement and enforcement action; veto power under Article 27(3) with specific instances (Syria 2011-2022, Ukraine 2022, Gaza 2023-24) and reform proposals like G4 initiative
  • Part (b): 1974 UN Declaration on NIEO (GA Res 3201 S-VI) and Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (GA Res 3281), principles including permanent sovereignty over natural resources, right to nationalize with compensation, and its limited legal status post-1990s globalization
  • Part (c): Terrorism as threat to humanity with UN framework (Res 1373, 1566, 1963 Convention); tension with human rights (due process, fair trial, prohibition of torture); Indian experience (POTA, UAPA, Supreme Court decisions in Kartar Singh, Arup Bhuyan)
  • Critical analysis of veto's paralyzing effect in contemporary conflicts versus its original purpose as 'great power unanimity' concept; mention Uniting for Peace Resolution 377(V) as circumvention mechanism
  • Synthesis connecting all three parts: how economic inequality (NIEO) and security Council dysfunction contribute to terrorism, requiring integrated approach to human security

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of UN Charter provisions: Chapter VII (Articles 39-42, 43), Article 27(3) on veto; GA Resolutions 3201, 3281 for NIEO/CERDS; SC Resolutions 1373, 1566 for terrorism framework; no conflation of ICJ advisory jurisdiction with Security Council powersGeneral reference to 'Chapter VII' or 'UN Charter' without specific articles; vague mention of '1974 declarations' without distinguishing NIEO from CERDS; conflation of GA and SC resolutionsIncorrect articles (e.g., citing Article 51 for SC powers), confusing NIEO with NAM, or treating CERDS as binding treaty; fundamental errors in identifying veto provision
Case-law citation20%10Relevant ICJ decisions: Nicaragua v. USA (1986) on use of force; Lockerbie cases (1992) on SC binding decisions; Certain Expenses (1962) on peacekeeping financing; Indian Supreme Court cases: Kartar Singh (1994) on anti-terror laws, Arup Bhuyan (2011) on membership in terrorist organizationMention of ICJ existence without case-specific application; general reference to 'Supreme Court judgments on terrorism' without naming cases; missing Lockerbie's significance for SC supremacyNo case law cited; invented or misattributed decisions; confusing domestic criminal cases with international law precedents
Doctrinal analysis20%10Sophisticated engagement with: (a) collective security vs. collective self-defense distinction; veto's legitimacy crisis and 'responsibility to protect' tension; (b) NIEO's soft law status and New Haven policy-oriented jurisprudence; (c) 'absolute' vs 'qualified' rights in terrorism context, derogation under ICCPR Article 4, and Indian 'balancing test' jurisprudenceDescriptive treatment of doctrines without critical evaluation; stating veto is 'controversial' without analyzing why; mentioning human rights are 'important' without explaining limitation principlesNo doctrinal framework evident; purely factual narration; conflating legal doctrines (e.g., R2P with humanitarian intervention without distinction)
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): comparison with Uniting for Peace and General Assembly's residual role; for (b): contrast with Bretton Woods institutions' voting structures; for (c): comparative anti-terror frameworks (UK Terrorism Act 2000, USA PATRIOT Act) against Indian UAPA; constitutional validity analysis under Articles 14, 19, 21 with Puttaswamy (2017) privacy jurisprudenceBrief mention of India's permanent membership claim without elaboration; superficial comparison of anti-terror laws; missing constitutional dimension entirely in part (c)No comparative or constitutional analysis; ignoring Indian legal framework despite question's relevance; treating all jurisdictions identically
Conclusion & application20%10Integrated conclusion linking three parts: how SC reform (eliminating/modifying veto), economic justice (revitalizing NIEO principles in SDG framework), and human rights-compliant counter-terrorism form tripod of sustainable peace; specific reform proposals: G4 expansion, Code of Conduct for veto in atrocity situations, India's constructive role in UN peacekeeping; forward-looking on digital terrorism and AI governanceSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; generic call for 'reform' without specificity; repetitive summary of points madeNo conclusion; abrupt ending; conclusion contradicting body arguments; purely aspirational statements without legal grounding

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