Q5
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "Triumph of Positivism has reduced an individual to be an object of international law rather than a subject of international law." Comment on the status of the individual under international law in the light of the above statement. 10 (b) What do you mean by 'Contiguous Zone' ? Explain with reference to Indian practices on the subject. 10 (c) Explain the impact of recognition on the powers and privileges of the States. 10 (d) Explain the principle of 'Jus cogens' with reference to 'Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties, 1969'. 10 (e) "International Criminal Court is more of a Eurocentric Organisation than an International Court." Explain the jurisdiction of International Criminal Court in light of the above statement. 10
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित प्रश्नों में से प्रत्येक का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : 10×5=50 (a) "प्रत्यक्षवाद के विजय ने व्यक्ति को अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि का विषय बनाने के बजाय अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि का वस्तु बना दिया ।" उक्त कथन के आलोक में अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि में व्यक्ति की प्रस्थिति पर टिप्पणी कीजिए । 10 (b) 'संलग्न परिक्षेत्र' से आप क्या समझते हैं ? इस विषय पर भारतीय अभ्यास (पद्धति) के संदर्भ में व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (c) राज्यों की शक्तियों एवं विशेषाधिकारों पर मान्यता के प्रभाव की व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (d) 'संधियों की विधि पर वियना अभिसमय, 1969' के संदर्भ में 'जस कोजेन्स' के सिद्धांत की व्याख्या कीजिए । 10 (e) "अंतर्राष्ट्रीय अपराध न्यायालय, एक अंतर्राष्ट्रीय न्यायालय की अपेक्षा यूरोपकेन्द्रित संगठन अधिक है ।" उक्त कथन के आलोक में अंतर्राष्ट्रीय अपराध न्यायालय के क्षेत्राधिकार की व्याख्या कीजिए । 10
Directive word: Comment
This question asks you to comment. 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 'comment' in part (a) requires critical evaluation with balanced argumentation, while parts (b)-(e) demand explanation and analysis. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words each), spending roughly 10-12 minutes per part. Structure each answer with: brief introduction stating position, analytical body addressing specific requirements (doctrinal evolution for (a), UNCLOS provisions for (b), recognition theories for (c), VCLT articles for (d), ICC Statute critique for (e)), and a concise conclusion synthesizing the position.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Positivist doctrine (Austin, Kelsen) vs natural law; individual as object in classical positivism; modern developments (human rights law, individual criminal responsibility, ICJ Barcelona Traction dictum) showing limited subjectivity
- Part (b): Definition of Contiguous Zone under UNCLOS Article 33; 24 nautical miles limit; customs/fiscal/immigration/sanitary powers; India's Maritime Zones Act 1976 and 2002 amendments; specific enforcement practices
- Part (c): Constitutive vs declaratory theories of recognition; impact on treaty-making capacity, diplomatic immunity, UN membership, standing before ICJ; Estrada doctrine contrast
- Part (d): Jus cogens definition per VCLT Article 53; peremptory norms characteristics; examples (genocide, slavery, torture, aggression); void ab initio consequence under Article 53; Article 64 on emergence of new norms
- Part (e): ICC jurisdiction under Rome Statute Articles 5-12; complementarity principle; Security Council referral power; critique of African focus, non-ratification by US/China/Russia/India; ASP composition and prosecutorial discretion concerns
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precisely cites UNCLOS Article 33 for (b), VCLT Articles 53 and 64 for (d), Rome Statute Articles 5, 12, 17 for (e); India's Maritime Zones Act 1976 with section numbers; no conflation of contiguous zone with EEZ or territorial sea | Mentions correct treaty names but with approximate or missing article numbers; general reference to Indian legislation without specificity; minor confusion between maritime zones | Incorrect treaty citations (e.g., citing VCLT 1969 for ICC); wrong statutory references; fundamental misunderstanding of zone definitions or jus cogens effects |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | Cites Barcelona Traction (1970) for individual standing; Nicaragua v. USA (1986) for jus cogens; ICC cases (Lubanga, Al-Bashir, Kenyatta) for prosecutorial focus; relevant ITLOS or PCA maritime decisions | References famous cases without specific names or years; general mention of ICJ jurisprudence; omits recent ICC precedents relevant to African criticism | No case law cited; invents fictitious cases; cites domestic Indian cases irrelevant to international law questions |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | For (a): nuanced analysis of positivist-normativist debate with Kelsen's grundnorm vs Lauterpacht's human rights; for (c): clear exposition of constitutive (Kelsen, Lauterpacht) vs declaratory (Hall, Brierly) theories; for (e): sophisticated critique of complementarity and selectivity | Basic identification of schools without analytical depth; one-sided presentation without critique; conflates related doctrines | Misidentifies doctrines (e.g., calling positivism natural law); no doctrinal framework; purely descriptive without analytical engagement |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | For (b): compares India's 24-mile zone with other states' practices; for (e): contrasts ICC with ad hoc tribunals (ICTY/ICTR), hybrid courts (ECCC, SCSL), and proposed Asian/African alternatives; notes India's non-ratification stance with constitutional concerns | Mentions India's position superficially; limited comparison across jurisdictions; omits regional court alternatives | No comparative element; ignores Indian constitutional/statutory framework entirely; Eurocentric answer without Global South perspective |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across parts: for (a), balanced verdict on individual's evolving status; for (e), constructive suggestions on ICC reform (Assembly of States Parties reform, Security Council accountability); connects to contemporary developments (Ukraine referral, Palestine investigation) | Summary restatement without synthesis; generic conclusion applicable to any question; no forward-looking recommendations | No conclusion; abrupt ending; contradictory final position; entirely misses the evaluative demand of 'comment' and 'explain' directives |
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 2023 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "Preamble of the Indian Constitution is indicative of basic values tha…
- Q2 (a) "The Constitution of India has provided for a clear-cut distinction between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic and…
- Q3 (a) "Superintendence, direction and control of elections is vested in the office of the Election Commission and therefore, the appointment…
- Q4 (a) What do you understand by breakdown of constitutional machinery in a State ? Critically examine the powers of the President in imposing…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each : 10×5=50 (a) "Triumph of Positivism has reduced an individual to be an object of in…
- Q6 (a) "Law must be stable, and yet it cannot stand still, as it needs to reconcile the conflicting needs of stability and change and in the f…
- Q7 (a) "Preamble of the UN Charter is representative of the aspirations of humanity in ensuring peace and security across the globe." How far…
- Q8 (a) "WTO provides a platform for agreements amongst its members which form the legal foundation of global trade." Critically evaluate the i…