Q6
(a) Critically examine various theories relating to the relationship between International Law and Municipal Law. (20 marks) (b) Elaborate various theories of State succession. (15 marks) (c) Discuss various modes of acquisition and loss of Nationality. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि एवं राष्ट्रीय विधि के बीच संबंधों पर विभिन्न सिद्धांतों का समालोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) राज्य उत्तराधिकार के विभिन्न सिद्धांतों का सविस्तार वर्णन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) राष्ट्रीयता के अर्जन और खोने के विभिन्न प्रकारों की चर्चा कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Critically examine
This question asks you to critically examine. 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 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced analysis with evaluation of strengths and weaknesses, while 'elaborate' for (b) and 'discuss' for (c) require comprehensive exposition. 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 integrated introduction, three clearly demarcated sections for each sub-part, and a synthesizing conclusion that reflects on the interconnection between international law obligations and state continuity.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Monist and Dualist theories with variants (moderate monism, moderate dualism); Transformation and Adoption doctrines; British and American practice; Article 253 and 51(c) of Indian Constitution; Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) and PUCL v. Union of India on treaty implementation
- Part (a): Critical evaluation of harmonization theory and Jenks' 'common law of mankind'; specific relief to treaty-based rights in Indian courts; limitations of automatic incorporation
- Part (b): Universal succession vs. clean slate doctrine; O'Connell's and Brownlie's theories; succession to treaties (Vienna Convention 1978), debts, and state property; continuity of nationality in cases of merger, dissolution, and secession
- Part (b): Practice regarding Jammu and Kashmir (2019 reorganization) and Bangladesh succession 1971; distinction between state succession and government succession
- Part (c): Jus sanguinis and Jus soli as primary modes; naturalization, registration, and option; loss through renunciation, deprivation, and long residence abroad; Indian Citizenship Act 1955 and amendments (1986, 2003, 2019)
- Part (c): Nottebohm case (genuine link theory); Sarbah v. Home Office; statelessness prevention under 1961 Convention; contemporary issues of citizenship deprivation in India (Assam NRC, CAA 2019)
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precisely cites Article 253, 51(c), 372 of Indian Constitution for part (a); Vienna Convention on Succession of States 1978 articles for part (b); Sections 3-9 of Citizenship Act 1955 with amendment years for part (c); no conflation of constitutional provisions | Mentions constitutional articles and statutory sections but with minor errors in numbering or conflates 1978 and 1983 Vienna Conventions; broadly correct on Citizenship Act provisions | Incorrect or invented constitutional provisions; confuses state succession with diplomatic succession; omits statutory framework entirely or cites repealed provisions |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | Cites Vishaka, PUCL, Gramophone Co., and Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum for part (a); Nottebohm (ICJ 1955) for genuine link in part (c); references to Opinions on Namibia and Western Sahara for state succession; uses Indian cases like Sarbah v. Home Office | Cites 2-3 relevant cases with correct facts but misses landmark judgments; mentions Nottebohm without elaborating ratio; omits Indian precedents on treaty implementation | No case law cited or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., Kesavananda for this topic); misstates case holdings or invents case names |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | Critically evaluates Triepel, Anzilotti, Kelsen's monism, and Fitzmaurice's harmonization theory with their limitations; analyzes O'Connell's functional theory vs. radical clean slate; distinguishes between universal and partial succession with contemporary relevance | Describes monism and dualism without critical evaluation; lists succession theories without analyzing their practical application; superficial treatment of doctrinal debates | Merely defines terms without doctrinal depth; confuses theorists' positions; presents theories as mutually exclusive without acknowledging convergence |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | Contrasts British dualism (Parliamentary sovereignty) with American self-executing treaties; examines Indian 'hybrid' position through judicial interpretation; compares German Basic Law (Article 25) and French constitutional practice; analyzes Kashmir reorganization and CAA 2019 through succession/nationality principles | Mentions UK and US positions without detailed comparison; notes Article 253 but misses comparative constitutional dimensions; superficial reference to CAA without legal analysis | No comparative element; purely descriptive account of Indian law; politically charged rather than legally analytical treatment of contemporary issues |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes that modern trend favors harmonization over strict monism/dualism; connects state succession principles to ongoing situations (climate change-induced statelessness, Crimea 2014); proposes balanced approach to nationality deprivation; demonstrates awareness of India's evolving international law integration | Summarizes main points without synthesis; generic conclusion on need for international cooperation; no forward-looking application | No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats introduction; irrelevant digression on unrelated international law 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 2022 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) 'Absolute equality may itself be a cause of inequality.' In the light of this s…
- Q2 (a) "Amending power does not extend to damaging or destroying the basic structure or framework of our Constitution." Discuss. (20 marks) (b…
- Q3 (a) Can the constitutional head of the State be truly described as the nerve-centre of the federal system? Explain in the light of powers a…
- Q4 (a) In the Parliamentary system, though there is no separation between the legislature and the executive in terms of personnel, there is se…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Keeping in view the growth of International Law in the contemporary era, do you…
- Q6 (a) Critically examine various theories relating to the relationship between International Law and Municipal Law. (20 marks) (b) Elaborate…
- Q7 (a) Describe the various powers and functions of the General Assembly. (20 marks) (b) Explain the maxim "Pacta Tertiis Nec Nocent Nec Prosu…
- Q8 (a) When is an aircraft considered to be 'in flight' for the purposes of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft…