Law 2022 Paper I 50 marks Describe

Q7

(a) Describe the various powers and functions of the General Assembly. (20 marks) (b) Explain the maxim "Pacta Tertiis Nec Nocent Nec Prosunt" with relevant case laws. (15 marks) (c) Does the Right to Self-Defence under International Law include Right to take Pre-emptive Action? (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) महासभा के विभिन्न कार्यों तथा शक्तियों का वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) "पैक्टा टर्टिस नेक नोसेंट नेक प्रोसुंट" नियम को सुसंगत वाद विधियों की सहायता से स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) क्या अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानून के अंतर्गत आत्मरक्षा के अधिकार में अग्रिम कार्रवाई (प्रि-एंप्टिव एक्शन) करने का अधिकार शामिल है? (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Law questions

Directive word: Describe

This question asks you to describe. 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 primary directive is 'describe' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'explain' and analytical evaluation respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction on UN Charter framework; detailed body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing how these three areas—institutional functions, treaty law principles, and use of force—intersect in contemporary international legal order.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Detailed enumeration of GA powers under UN Charter Articles 10-17—deliberative functions, budgetary control, admission of members, electing non-permanent SC members and ICJ judges, initiating studies, and recommending measures for peaceful settlement
  • Part (a): Distinction between recommendatory vs. binding nature of GA resolutions, with specific reference to Uniting for Peace Resolution 377(V) and its legal significance
  • Part (b): Accurate exposition of 'Pacta Tertiis' maxim as customary rule codified in VCLT Articles 34-38, with distinction between objective and subjective treaty regimes
  • Part (b): Case law application—Free Zones of Upper Savay (PCIJ), Reparation for Injuries (ICJ), North Sea Continental Shelf (ICJ), and Nuclear Tests (ICJ) demonstrating third-party effects
  • Part (c): Analysis of Article 51 self-defence parameters—necessity, proportionality, immediacy—and the Caroline formula (1837) as customary baseline
  • Part (c): Critical evaluation of pre-emptive vs. preventive self-defence distinction, referencing Nicaragua (ICJ), Oil Platforms (ICJ), and controversial 2003 Iraq intervention/Israeli Osirak strike
  • Part (c): Assessment of post-9/11 'Bush Doctrine' and its rejection/accommodation in contemporary state practice, including Indian position on cross-border terrorism responses

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of UN Charter provisions (Arts. 10-17 for GA; Art. 51 for self-defence; Arts. 34-38 VCLT for treaty law), with correct article numbers and contextual placement within Charter structure; distinguishes between primary and subsidiary organsGenerally correct identification of Charter provisions but with minor errors in article numbering or conflation of GA with Security Council powers; vague reference to 'UN Charter' without specificityIncorrect or fabricated article citations; fundamental confusion between GA and SC functions; failure to identify VCLT as codification source for pacta tertiis principle
Case-law citation20%10Accurate citation of minimum 4-5 relevant ICJ/PCIJ decisions across sub-parts: for (b)—Free Zones, Reparation for Injuries, North Sea Continental Shelf, Nuclear Tests; for (c)—Nicaragua, Oil Platforms, Armed Activities on Territory of Congo; includes case years and ratio relevanceCites 2-3 major cases with generally correct facts but imprecise on legal holdings; may conflate similar cases or miss distinguishing jurisprudential development over timeNo case law or entirely incorrect case names; cites domestic Indian cases inappropriately for international law questions; confuses PCIJ with ICJ decisions
Doctrinal analysis20%10Sophisticated unpacking of doctrinal tensions: for (b)—objective vs. subjective regimes, erga omnes obligations as exception; for (c)—strict construction vs. 'accumulation of events' doctrine, Webster's Caroline formula vs. post-9/11 anticipatory self-defence expansion; demonstrates awareness of scholarly debate (Bowett, Dinstein, Gray)Basic doctrinal explanation without depth; presents pre-emptive self-defence as settled or entirely prohibited without nuance; limited engagement with counter-argumentsMerely descriptive with no doctrinal engagement; conflates pre-emptive with preventive self-defence; presents treaty law as absolutely excluding third-party effects without exception analysis
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Integrates Indian constitutional and practice perspectives: Article 253 implementation of treaty obligations; Vishaka guidelines on international law domestic incorporation; India's GA voting patterns; 2016 surgical strikes and Balakot 2019 as state practice on self-defence against non-state actors; compares with Israeli, American, and NATO doctrinal positionsBrief mention of India's UN membership or generic reference to 'international law in India' without specific constitutional mechanism; superficial comparison of state practicesNo Indian angle; entirely Eurocentric/Western case selection; ignores India's significant stake in self-defence debates given cross-border terrorism experience
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes three sub-parts into coherent thesis on UN Charter's institutional balance and evolving interpretation; addresses contemporary relevance—GA's revitalization debates, treaty law in multilateral environmental agreements, and IHL challenges in asymmetric warfare; offers measured prediction on self-defence doctrine's trajectory post-Ukraine conflictSeparate conclusions for each sub-part without integration; generic restatement of points; no forward-looking application to current international legal challengesNo conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces entirely new arguments in conclusion; factual errors in contemporary application (e.g., claiming GA resolutions are generally binding)

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