Q5
Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Define International Law. Enumerate its weaknesses and give suggestions for improvement. (10 marks) (b) What is State recognition? Draw a distinction between recognition de jure and de facto. (10 marks) (c) Examine the importance of nationality and discuss the modes of acquisition of nationality. (10 marks) (d) Distinguish between the concept of territorial sea and inland water. Comment on the breadth of territorial sea that is internationally accepted. (10 marks) (e) Examine the importance of 'the Economic and Social Council' as a principal organ of the United Nations. (10 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि को परिभाषित कीजिए। इसकी कमियों को इंगित कीजिए तथा उनमें सुधार हेतु सुझाव दीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) राज्य मान्यता क्या है? विधित: (डी जुरे) मान्यता तथा वस्तुत: (डी फैक्टो) मान्यता के मध्य अंतर स्थापित कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) राष्ट्रीयता के महत्व का परीक्षण कीजिए तथा राष्ट्रीयता के अधिग्रहण के तरीकों का वर्णन कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) राजक्षेत्रीय समुद्र तथा अंतर्देशीय जल की अवधारणा के मध्य अंतर स्थापित कीजिए। अंतर्राष्ट्रीय रूप से स्वीकृत राजक्षेत्रीय समुद्र की चौड़ाई पर टिप्पणी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) संयुक्त राष्ट्र के प्रमुख अंग के रूप में 'आर्थिक तथा सामाजिक परिषद' के महत्व का परीक्षण कीजिए। (10 अंक)
Directive word: Define
This question asks you to define. 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 'define' for part (a) requires a precise conceptual foundation, while other parts demand 'distinguish,' 'examine,' and 'comment.' Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words total), spending roughly 2 minutes per part. Structure each answer as: definition/concept → elaboration → critical point or contemporary relevance. For (a) begin with Oppenheim's definition; for (b) use declaratory vs. constitutive theory context; for (c) link to Nottebohm case; for (d) cite UNCLOS 1982; for (e) reference SDG coordination role.
Key points expected
- (a) Definition of International Law per Oppenheim/J.L. Brierly; weaknesses including lack of enforcement, no compulsory jurisdiction, dependence on state consent; suggestions like strengthening ICJ jurisdiction, codification, and international criminal law expansion
- (b) State recognition as acknowledgment of statehood per Montevideo Convention criteria; de jure (full legal recognition, permanent) vs. de facto (factual existence, provisional) with examples like Bangladesh 1971 or Taliban Afghanistan
- (c) Nationality as legal bond (Nottebohm principle); importance for diplomatic protection, voting rights, state succession; modes: birth (jus soli/jus sanguinis), naturalization, marriage, adoption, domicile, reintegration
- (d) Territorial sea (sovereignty over 12 nautical miles per UNCLOS III, 1982) vs. inland waters (bays, ports, rivers where sovereignty is complete); breadth evolution from 3-mile rule to 12-mile consensus
- (e) ECOSOC's coordinating role under UN Charter Articles 61-72; specialized agencies coordination, ECOSOC reform post-2005 World Summit, sustainable development governance, contrast with Security Council authority
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precisely cites Montevideo Convention 1933 for (b), UNCLOS III 1982 Article 3 for (d), UN Charter Articles 61-72 for (e); mentions specific articles on nationality acquisition in Indian Citizenship Act 1955 for (c); no conflation of treaty provisions | Generally correct treaty references but vague on articles or conflates UNCLOS I/II/III; mentions 'UN Charter' without specificity; minor errors in citing Montevideo criteria | Confuses territorial sea with contiguous zone or EEZ; cites wrong treaty sources; omits key legal instruments entirely or substitutes domestic law for international law |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | Cites Nottebohm case (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, 1955) for nationality; Lotus case or Nicaragua v. USA for international law weaknesses; Tinoco Arbitration for recognition; relevant ICJ advisory opinions on territorial sea; specific ECOSOC resolutions | Mentions landmark cases without full citation or mixes facts; references Nottebohm principle without case name; vague allusion to 'ICJ decisions' without specificity | No case law cited; invents fictitious cases; confuses PCIJ with ICJ decisions; cites domestic Indian cases for international law questions inappropriately |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | Explains declaratory vs. constitutive theories of recognition for (b); analyzes dualism vs. monism for (a); distinguishes active vs. passive nationality in (c); applies sectoral sovereignty theory for (d); evaluates ECOSOC's subsidiary vs. principal organ debate for (e) | Mentions theories superficially without elaboration; identifies doctrines but misapplies them; conflates related concepts like recognition of states vs. governments | No doctrinal framework presented; purely descriptive answers; confuses fundamental theoretical distinctions or presents them incoherently |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | Contrasts Indian citizenship law (Citizenship Act 1955, CAA 2019 implications) with international norms for (c); compares US/UK practice on territorial sea breadth historically for (d); references India's position on ECOSOC reform for (e); notes Global South critiques of international law for (a) | Brief mention of Indian constitutional provisions without integration; superficial comparison without analytical depth; generic references to 'developing countries' | No comparative or constitutional dimension; purely theoretical treatment ignoring Indian or contemporary state practice; irrelevant domestic law citations |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Each sub-part ends with contemporary relevance: (a) Russia-Ukraine conflict and enforcement gaps; (b) Palestine/Israel or Kosovo recognition controversies; (c) Rohingya statelessness or CAA debates; (d) South China Sea disputes; (e) COVID-19 and ECOSOC's coordinating failures; balanced critical assessment | Generic concluding sentences without specific contemporary links; descriptive endings without evaluative thrust; uneven coverage across sub-parts | No conclusions or abrupt endings; irrelevant or factually wrong contemporary references; purely theoretical closure without application to current international relations |
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 2024 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Examine the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in appeals from High Co…
- Q2 (a) The concept of Public Interest Litigation is an exception to the rule of 'locus standi'. Elaborate in the light of its evolution, aims…
- Q3 (a) "Article 194, which is an exact reproduction of Article 105, deals with the State Legislatures and their members and committees." On th…
- Q4 (a) In recent years, the concept of 'Cooperative Federalism' has played a pivotal role in constitutional governance of the nation but at th…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Define International Law. Enumerate its weaknesses and give suggestions for imp…
- Q6 (a) Peaceful settlement of international disputes has been developed on the principles of International Law concerning friendly relations a…
- Q7 (a) Following 'World War II' destruction, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund emerged as two historic institutions to promot…
- Q8 (a) Describe the constitution of United Nations Security Council's 'Counter-Terrorism Committee'. To what extent has this Committee been ef…