(a) Is it a legal duty of States under international law to settle their disputes by peaceful means? Can failure of peaceful means entitle States to use force to settle their disputes? Discuss. 20

(b) Is the threat or the use of 'Nuclear Weapons' in

Question

(a) Is it a legal duty of States under international law to settle their disputes by peaceful means? Can failure of peaceful means entitle States to use force to settle their disputes? Discuss. 20

(b) Is the threat or the use of 'Nuclear Weapons' in any circumstances permitted under International law ? Answer the question in the light of the advisory opinion given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ). 15

(c) Discuss the role of United Nations in protection and improvement of human environment. 15

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'discuss' requires a balanced, analytical treatment with arguments for and against. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief introduction on peaceful settlement as foundational to UN Charter, then address each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings, and conclude with an integrated observation on the evolving normative framework governing force, nuclear weapons, and environmental protection.
- Part (a): Article 2(3) and Article 33 of UN Charter as sources of legal duty; distinction between obligation to settle peacefully and prohibition on use of force under Article 2(4); exceptions under Article 51 (self-defence) and Chapter VII; whether failure of peaceful means creates automatic right to use force—reference to Nicaragua and Oil Platforms cases
- Part (a): Analysis of 'peaceful means' under Article 33—negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement; whether exhaustion of these is prerequisite to lawful force; India's position on bilateral dispute resolution
- Part (b): ICJ Advisory Opinion on Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996)—unanimous findings on humanitarian law and environmental law applicability; 7-7 split on legality with President's casting vote; 'generally contrary' but 'unclear' on self-defence extreme circumstance; India's nuclear doctrine of 'no first use' as policy position
- Part (b): Customary international law development post-1996; Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017; NPT obligations; distinction between threat and use under international law
- Part (c): UNCHE Stockholm 1972 and UNEP establishment; UNCED Rio 1992 (Earth Summit)—Rio Declaration principles, Agenda 21, Climate Change and Biodiversity Conventions; Johannesburg Summit 2002; SDGs 2015 particularly SDG 13-15
- Part (c): Specific UN organs—UNEP, UNFCCC Secretariat, IPCC; General Assembly resolutions on environment; Security Council's emerging role (climate security debates); India's participation in UN environmental conferences and domestic implementation through EPA 1986
- Part (c): Principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR); polluter pays principle; precautionary principle—judicial incorporation in India through Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum and MC Mehta cases

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Provision / section accuracy	20%	10	Precise citation of UN Charter Articles 2(3), 2(4), 33, 51, Chapter VII for part (a); accurate reproduction of ICJ's 1996 Advisory Opinion holdings for part (b); correct naming of UN conferences (Stockholm 1972, Rio 1992, Johannesburg 2002) and instruments for part (c); no conflation of treaty provisions	Broadly correct identification of Charter provisions and UN conferences but with minor errors in article numbers or dates; conflation of advisory opinion with contentious jurisdiction; incomplete listing of environmental principles	Significant errors in legal provisions (e.g., citing Article 2(4) for peaceful settlement duty); confusion between ICJ advisory and contentious jurisdiction; misidentification of UN environmental milestones or omission of key instruments
Case-law citation	20%	10	For (a): Nicaragua v. USA (1986) on use of force parameters; Corfu Channel on peaceful means; Oil Platforms on self-defence conditions. For (b): Detailed engagement with Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) including individual opinions. For (c): Reference to ICJ environmental jurisprudence (Pulp Mills, Whaling in Antarctic) and Indian Supreme Court environmental precedents	Mention of Nicaragua and Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion without elaboration of ratio; generic reference to 'ICJ cases' without specificity; omission of Indian judicial precedents on environmental principles	No case law citation or incorrect attribution (e.g., citing Lotus case for nuclear weapons); confusion between ICJ and other tribunals; irrelevant case law from domestic contract or tort jurisprudence
Doctrinal analysis	20%	10	For (a): Sophisticated analysis of jus ad bellum evolution, whether Article 33 creates procedural or substantive obligation, and relationship between peaceful settlement failure and lawful force. For (b): Critical examination of nuclear deterrence doctrine, humanitarian law compatibility, and opinio juris development. For (c): Theoretical exposition of sustainable development, intergenerational equity, and anthropocentric vs. ecocentric approaches	Descriptive treatment of doctrines without critical engagement; acknowledgment of tensions (e.g., sovereignty vs. environment) without resolution; superficial treatment of deterrence doctrine	Purely descriptive answer with no doctrinal engagement; conflation of distinct concepts (e.g., self-defence with peaceful settlement); failure to identify legal versus policy dimensions of nuclear weapons
Comparative / constitutional angle	20%	10	For (a): Comparison with regional dispute settlement mechanisms (EU, AU, ASEAN); India's constitutional position on peaceful settlement (Article 51). For (b): Contrast with NPT nuclear weapon states' positions; India's 'no first use' doctrine as constitutional morality expression. For (c): Comparative analysis of environmental rights (Swiss, Ecuadorian constitutions) and Indian constitutional environmental jurisprudence (Articles 48A, 51A(g))	Brief mention of India's constitutional provisions without elaboration; generic reference to 'developed vs. developing countries' without specific comparison; omission of regional mechanisms	No comparative or constitutional dimension; purely international law treatment without Indian constitutional connect; irrelevant comparison with unrelated legal systems
Conclusion & application	20%	10	Integrated conclusion linking three sub-parts through theme of limitation on state sovereignty; contemporary application to Ukraine conflict (peaceful settlement failure), nuclear threats in current geopolitics, and climate litigation (ICJ advisory opinion request 2023); forward-looking observations on UN reform; India's constructive role in all three domains	Separate conclusions for each sub-part without integration; dated examples (pre-2010); generic call for 'strengthening UN' without specificity	No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely summarising points already made; irrelevant personal opinions without legal basis; failure to address any contemporary developments

Q8

Directive word: Discuss

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2021 Paper I