Law 2024 Paper I 50 marks Explain

Q6

(a) Peaceful settlement of international disputes has been developed on the principles of International Law concerning friendly relations and cooperations among States. Explain. (20 marks) (b) The present world 'Economic Order' is supposed to be granted by the operation of free market forces propelled by free competition and enterprises, based on free movement of goods and services including technology. Elucidate. (15 marks) (c) International Law and Municipal Law are two branches of unified knowledge of law, which are applicable to human community in someway or the other. Elaborate with the help of prevalent theories. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विवादों का शांतिपूर्ण निपटारा राज्यों के मैत्रीपूर्ण संबंध एवं परस्पर सहयोग संबंधी अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि के सिद्धांतों पर विकसित हुआ है। व्याख्या कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) वर्तमान विश्व 'आर्थिक व्यवस्था', मुक्त बाजार शक्तियों द्वारा संचालित, मुक्त प्रतिस्पर्द्धा द्वारा उद्देलित तथा वस्तुओं एवं सेवाओं के मुक्त संचालन, जिसमें तकनीकी भी सम्मिलित है, पर आधारित उद्यमों द्वारा अनुमित किया जाता है। स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि एवं राष्ट्रीय विधि, विधि के एकीकृत ज्ञान की दो शाखाएं हैं, जो कि मानव समुदाय पर किसी-न-किसी रूप से लागू होती हैं। प्रचलित सिद्धांतों की सहायता से विस्तारित कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Law questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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 'explain' demands clear exposition with reasoning and illustration. Structure: Introduction defining peaceful settlement and UN Charter principles → Part (a): 40% word budget covering negotiation, mediation, arbitration, ICJ, and UNGA/SC roles under Chapter VI → Part (b): 30% on Bretton Woods, WTO, IMF, neo-liberal critique and Global South perspective → Part (c): 30% on monism, dualism, and transformation theories with Indian constitutional position → Conclusion synthesizing how these three themes interconnect in contemporary international legal order.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): UN Charter Article 2(3) and Chapter VI provisions; distinction between political (negotiation, mediation, good offices) and legal (arbitration, judicial settlement) means; ICJ's role under Statute Article 36; obligation to settle disputes peacefully as erga omnes norm
  • Part (a): 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration (UNGA Res 2625) as customary law codification; principle of free choice of means vs. obligation of result; recent examples like India-Pakistan Indus Waters Treaty arbitration or South China Sea arbitration
  • Part (b): Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank) and GATT/WTO architecture as foundation of post-1945 economic order; principles of MFN, national treatment, and tariff bindings
  • Part (b): Critique from NIEO (1974 Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States) and dependency theory; India's position on TRIPS, agriculture subsidies, and special differential treatment; digital trade and technology transfer issues
  • Part (c): Dualism (Triepel, Anzilotti) vs. Monism (Kelsen's grundnorm, Lauterpacht) vs. Transformation theory; specific reference to Article 253 and 51(c) of Indian Constitution; Vishaka, Vellore Citizens' Welfare cases on treaty implementation
  • Part (c): Automatic incorporation vs. legislative incorporation debate; PUCL v. Union of India (2014) on unimplemented treaties; recent judicial trend of harmonious construction

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precise citation of UN Charter Articles 2(3), 33, 36-38 for (a); Bretton Woods agreements and WTO Marrakesh Agreement provisions for (b); Constitution Articles 253, 51(c), 372 and specific clauses for (c); no conflation of similar provisionsGeneral reference to 'UN Charter' or 'Constitution' without specific articles; some provisions correctly cited but others approximated or confusedIncorrect articles cited (e.g., citing Chapter VII for peaceful settlement); fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional distribution of treaty-making power; missing key treaty provisions entirely
Case-law citation20%10For (a): Corfu Channel, Nicaragua v. USA, or recent South China Sea arbitration; for (c): Vishaka, Vellore Citizens' Welfare, PUCL 2014, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld or comparable foreign precedents; cases precisely linked to legal propositionsMentions some relevant cases but without accurate facts or holding; or cites cases without connecting to the specific doctrinal point being madeNo case law cited; or cites irrelevant cases (e.g., domestic criminal cases for international law questions); misstates ratio of cited cases
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): Explains why peaceful settlement is jus cogens-compatible and distinguishes pacific settlement from collective security; for (b): Balances free market theory with structural critique; for (c): Critically evaluates all three theories with Kelsen's hierarchy, Triepel's will-theory, and Fitzmaurice's intermediate positionDescribes theories descriptively without critical evaluation; or covers only two of three theories in (c); analysis remains surface-level without identifying tensions between approachesConfuses theories (e.g., calls Kelsen a dualist); no recognition of doctrinal evolution; purely narrative description without analytical framework
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (a): Compares ICJ with regional courts (ITLOS, ECJ, African Court); for (b): Contrasts Washington Consensus with Beijing Consensus/BRICS alternatives; for (c): Compares Indian position with UK (dualist), US (self-executing treaties), and EU (direct effect) approaches; references specific constitutional amendments or judicial developmentsBrief mention of foreign position without elaboration; or focuses only on India without comparative dimension; some comparison but without legal precisionNo comparative element; or false comparisons (e.g., claiming India follows monism); no constitutional analysis for part (c)
Conclusion & application20%10Synthesizes all three parts: shows how peaceful settlement mechanisms enable economic order stability, and how municipal law implementation determines effectiveness; applies to contemporary issues (Ukraine conflict and sanctions, India's treaty practice in 2020s, judicial globalization trends); forward-looking but groundedSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; or generic conclusion about 'importance of international law'; some application but not contemporaryNo conclusion; or conclusion merely repeats introduction; no application to current events or India's specific position; abrupt ending

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