Answer the following questions in about 150 words each:

(a) Keeping in view the growth of International Law in the contemporary era, do you think the classical definition of International Law has become redundant? (10 marks)

(b) Distinguish between

Question

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each:

(a) Keeping in view the growth of International Law in the contemporary era, do you think the classical definition of International Law has become redundant? (10 marks)

(b) Distinguish between 'De-facto' and 'De-jure' Recognition. (10 marks)

(c) What are Territorial Asylum and Extraterritorial Asylum? Explain. (10 marks)

(d) What are the various Rights of States over 'territorial-waters'? (10 marks)

(e) Distinguish between Arbitration and Judicial settlement as methods of peaceful settlement of disputes in International Law. (10 marks)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

The directive 'distinguish' dominates parts (b) and (e), while (a) requires critical evaluation, (c) demands explanation, and (d) needs enumeration. Allocate approximately 30 words per mark: ~30 words for each 10-mark sub-part. Structure each part as: brief conceptual anchor → specific content demanded → concluding link to contemporary relevance. For (a), begin with Oppenheim's classical definition, then trace the transformation through UN era developments; for (b) and (e), use parallel columns or clear point-wise distinction; for (c) and (d), define precisely with treaty references.
- (a) Classical definition (Oppenheim: law between sovereign states only) contrasted with modern expansion to IOs, individuals, MNCs, and non-state actors; mention Article 3 of UN Convention on State Responsibility and soft law instruments
- (b) De-facto recognition as provisional, revocable, without full diplomatic privileges vs De-jure as permanent, irrevocable, complete; cite examples like British recognition of Soviet Russia 1921 (de facto) vs 1924 (de jure)
- (c) Territorial asylum under Article 14 UDHR and 1951 Refugee Convention vs Extraterritorial asylum (diplomatic asylum, asylum in legations) limited to regional custom (Latin American Caracas Convention 1954)
- (d) Sovereignty over territorial waters: innocent passage (UNCLOS Article 17), contiguous zone (Article 33), exclusive jurisdiction over crimes, hot pursuit right (Article 111); mention SS Lotus case and Territorial Waters Order 1967 (India)
- (e) Arbitration as ad hoc/tribunal-based, party-controlled procedure (Alabama Claims, PCA) vs Judicial settlement as permanent court with pre-determined rules, binding precedents (ICJ, ITLOS); contrast compulsory jurisdiction under ICJ Article 36(2) vs arbitration agreements

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Provision / section accuracy	20%	10	Precisely cites UNCLOS Articles 2, 17, 33, 111 for (d); 1951 Refugee Convention and Caracas Convention 1954 for (c); ICJ Statute Article 36 and PCA rules for (e); demonstrates exact knowledge of which provisions govern each institution	Mentions general treaty names (UNCLOS, Refugee Convention) without specific articles; conflates territorial waters zones or confuses diplomatic asylum with universal application	No treaty citations; confuses territorial sea with EEZ; states diplomatic asylum is universally recognized; misidentifies arbitration as judicial settlement
Case-law citation	20%	10	Cites SS Lotus (1927) for territorial jurisdiction; Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru, 1950) for extraterritorial asylum limits; Nicaragua v USA (1984) for ICJ jurisdiction; Alabama Claims (1872) for arbitration; Anglo-Iranian Oil Co (1952) for recognition effects	Mentions one or two landmark cases without factual context; cites cases generically without linking to specific legal propositions in the answer	No case law; invents cases or cites domestic Indian cases irrelevant to international law; confuses ICJ with domestic Supreme Court decisions
Doctrinal analysis	20%	10	For (a), engages with Kelsen's pure theory vs Austin's command theory; for (b), explains constitutive vs declaratory theories of recognition; for (e), contrasts legal positivism in judicial settlement with party autonomy in arbitration; mentions Lauterpacht and Oppenheim	Describes doctrinal positions superficially without naming theorists; presents recognition theories as factual rather than jurisprudential debates	No doctrinal engagement; treats all concepts as self-evident facts; confuses international law doctrines with constitutional law doctrines
Comparative / constitutional angle	20%	10	References Indian practice: Territorial Waters Order 1967; Indian Maritime Zones Act 1976; India's declaration under ICJ Article 36(2); comparison with Bangladesh maritime boundary arbitration (PCA 2014); Indira Gandhi's grant of asylum to Dalai Lama 1959 as territorial asylum example	Mentions India generically without specific legislative or diplomatic practice; conflates Indian domestic asylum law with international obligations	No Indian or comparative examples; treats international law as entirely external to state practice; ignores South-South dimensions of recognition practice
Conclusion & application	20%	10	For (a), concludes that classical definition is modified but not redundant—states remain primary subjects; for (b), notes strategic use of de facto recognition in contemporary state practice (Palestine, Kosovo); for (e), assesses which method suits which dispute type; each part has crisp 1-2 line conclusion	Generic conclusions repeating introduction; no application to contemporary issues; fails to synthesize across sub-parts where possible	No conclusions for individual parts; abrupt endings; introduces new arguments in conclusion; exceeds word limit significantly in one part at expense of others

Q5

Directive word: Distinguish

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2022 Paper I