Law 2023 Paper I 50 marks Differentiate

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 fast-developing world, the stability appears to have become the casualty in international law." Differentiate between traditional International Law and new International Law in light of the above statement. 20 (b) "States show considerable flexibility in the procedures, whereby they give effect to the rules of the International Law, within their territory." Explain the acceptability of norms of International Law in India, citing relevant cases on the subject. 15 (c) How do you distinguish between 'Continental Shelf' and 'Exclusive Economic Zone'? Explain giving examples. 15

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "विधि को स्थायी होना चाहिए, हालांकि यह स्थिर नहीं रह सकती है, क्योंकि इसे स्थायित्व एवं परिवर्तन की संविरोधी आवश्यकताओं में सामंजस्य बनाना है और तीव्र विकासमान विश्व में अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि में स्थायित्व अपघटन के रूप में प्रतीत होता है ।" उपर्युक्त कथन के आलोक में परम्परागत अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि एवं नवीन अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि में भेद बतलाइए । 20 (b) "राज्य अपने भूभाग पर अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि के नियमों को प्रभाव देने के लिए प्रक्रिया में पर्याप्त लचीलापन दर्शाते हैं ।" इस विषय पर संगत वादों का उद्धरण देते हुए भारत में अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि के मानकों की स्वीकार्यता की व्याख्या कीजिए । 15 (c) 'महाद्वीपीय ममतटभूमि (शेल्फ)' तथा 'अनन्य आर्थिक परिक्षेत्र' में आप कैसे विभेद करेंगे ? सोदाहरण व्याख्या कीजिए । 15

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2023 Law questions

Directive word: Differentiate

This question asks you to differentiate. 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 'differentiate' in part (a) demands systematic contrast between traditional and new international law, while parts (b) and (c) require 'explain' and 'distinguish' 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 the stability-change paradox → body addressing each part sequentially with clear sub-headings → conclusion synthesizing how international law balances continuity and transformation in India's context.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Contrast traditional international law (state-centric, consent-based, bilateral, static) with new international law (human rights focus, erga omnes obligations, multilateral institutions, dynamic interpretation); cite examples like Lotus case vs. Barcelona Traction or use of force norms pre/post-UN Charter
  • Part (a): Analysis of how 'stability casualty' manifests—rapid norm creation through soft law, R2P, climate treaties outpacing state practice and opinio juris
  • Part (b): Article 253 and 51(c) of Indian Constitution as constitutional basis; dualist transformation requirement explained with Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) for CEDAW principles
  • Part (b): Specific judicial precedents: Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum (1996) for Stockholm principles, Narmada Bachao Andolan (2000) on international environmental norms, PUCL v. Union of India on ICCPR rights
  • Part (c): Distinction based on legal regime (UNCLOS Part VI vs. Part V), sovereign rights content (exploration/exploitation of resources vs. broader economic rights), and spatial extent (200nm EEZ vs. continental shelf extending to 350nm or 100nm from 2500m isobath)
  • Part (c): Practical examples: India's continental shelf claims in Bay of Bengal (beyond 200nm) adjudicated in Bangladesh v. Myanmar (ITLOS 2012); EEZ fishing rights disputes like the Italian marines incident (Enrica Lexie, 2012)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of UN Charter Articles 2(4), 51, 103; UNCLOS Articles 56, 57, 76, 77, 86; Indian Constitution Articles 253, 51(c), 372; Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties Articles 53, 64 for jus cogens; no conflation of continental shelf regimes pre/post-1958 Geneva ConventionGeneral reference to 'UNCLOS provisions' or 'Constitutional provisions' without specific articles; minor errors in distance calculations (200nm/350nm/100nm)Confusion between Geneva Convention 1958 and UNCLOS 1982; misstating Article 253 as enabling legislation rather than treaty-making power; incorrect shelf limits
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Lotus (1927), Barcelona Traction (1970), Nicaragua (1986), Genocide Convention (Bosnia v. Serbia 2007); For (b): Vishaka (1997), Vellore (1996), Narmada Bachao (2000), Gramophone (1984), Jolly George (1978); For (c): Bangladesh v. Myanmar (2012), Libya v. Malta (1985), North Sea Continental Shelf (1969)Mention of landmark cases without ratio or year; omission of post-1990s Indian cases on international law incorporationNo case law for part (b); confusing ITLOS with ICJ; citing municipal cases irrelevant to international law reception
Doctrinal analysis20%10Sophisticated engagement with: (a) sources doctrine (Article 38 ICJ Statute) and 'modern' sources like UNGA resolutions, soft law; (b) monism-dualism debate with Indian hybrid practice; (c) sovereign rights vs. sovereignty distinction in maritime law; critical analysis of 'automatic incorporation' vs. 'specific transformation' tensionDescriptive treatment of sources without analyzing hierarchy or emergence; superficial mention of dualism without Indian constitutional mechanicsConflating international law with foreign law; no doctrinal framework; treating all international norms as self-executing
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10Comparative constitutional reception: US (Medellín), UK (dualist), EU (monist); India's unique position—Article 253 enabling legislation, judicial creativity in Vishaka guidelines, executive power in treaty-making (Ram Jawaya Kapur); critical evaluation of parliamentary scrutiny deficit in treaty implementationBrief mention of dualism without comparative depth; no critique of India's treaty-making processNo comparative or constitutional dimension; ignoring Article 253's central role; conflating treaty-making with legislative power
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesized conclusion on how India navigates stability-change tension—judicial activism filling legislative gaps (Vishaka, Puttaswamy), need for comprehensive legislation on treaty implementation; contemporary relevance: India's UNCLOS arbitration with Bangladesh, climate litigation, data protection and international standards; forward-looking observation on codification vs. progressive developmentSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; generic statement on importance of international lawNo conclusion; abrupt ending; conclusion contradicting body; no contemporary application or policy suggestion

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