Q7
(a) Following 'World War II' destruction, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund emerged as two historic institutions to promote economic recovery and to build a global monetary system to ensure economic stability around the world. Discuss at length. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the law on extradition. The procedure for granting asylum and approving extradition requests differ significantly. Explain. (15 marks) (c) What is intervention? Discuss the intervention on humanitarian grounds and the intervention due to self-defence. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) 'द्वितीय विश्व युद्ध' में हुए विनाश के उपरांत विश्व में आर्थिक स्थिरता सुनिश्चित किए जाने हेतु आर्थिक पुनःप्राप्ति को बढ़ावा देने एवं एक वैश्विक मौद्रिक प्रणाली का निर्माण करने के लिए विश्व बैंक और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय मुद्रा कोष, दो ऐतिहासिक संस्थानों, का अभ्युदय हुआ। विस्तृत वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) प्रत्यर्पण संबंधी विधि का वर्णन कीजिए। शरण देने की प्रक्रिया और प्रत्यर्पण आवेदन की मंजूरी प्रक्रिया में महत्वपूर्ण भिन्नता है। व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) हस्तक्षेप क्या है? मानवीय आधारों पर हस्तक्षेप तथा आत्म-प्रतिरक्षा के कारण हुए हस्तक्षेप का वर्णन कीजिए। (15 अंक)
Directive word: Discuss
This question asks you to discuss. 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 'discuss' demands a comprehensive, analytical treatment with balanced coverage across all three sub-parts. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks weightage, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief unified introduction, then dedicated sections for each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects institutional economic governance with sovereignty-limiting mechanisms like extradition and intervention.
Key points expected
- Part (a): Bretton Woods Conference 1944; IBRD and IDA structure; IMF's quota system and SDRs; conditionality and structural adjustment critiques; India's relationship with both institutions
- Part (b): Extradition under municipal law (Extradition Act 1962 in India) vs. international treaties; principle of double criminality and specialty; asylum under Article 14 of UDHR and territorial vs. diplomatic asylum; procedural divergence—executive discretion in asylum vs. judicial scrutiny in extradition
- Part (c): Definition of intervention under Article 2(7) UN Charter prohibition; R2P doctrine post-2005 World Summit; humanitarian intervention Kosovo 1999 vs. Syria debate; self-defence under Article 51—preemptive vs. preventive force debate; Caroline test and Nicaragua case standards
- Critical linkage: How IMF/WB conditionality represents 'economic intervention' contrasting with armed intervention; sovereignty as organizing tension across all three parts
- Contemporary relevance: India's stance on Ukraine intervention; Mallya/Nirav Modi extradition cases; IMF's role in India's 1991 and post-COVID economic stabilization
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Provision / section accuracy | 20% | 10 | Precisely cites Articles of Agreement of IMF and IBRD; accurately references Extradition Act 1962 sections, UN Charter Articles 2(4), 2(7), 51; correctly identifies R2P paragraphs 138-139 of 2005 World Summit Outcome Document | Generally correct identification of legal instruments but with minor errors in article numbers or conflating IBRD/IDA functions; vague reference to 'UN Charter provisions' without specificity | Confuses IMF with WTO functions, misstates extradition as purely executive or purely judicial, conflates humanitarian intervention with R2P, or cites non-existent treaty provisions |
| Case-law citation | 20% | 10 | Deploys ICJ jurisprudence: Nicaragua v. USA (1986) on intervention; Corfu Channel (1949); Oil Platforms (2003) on self-defence; references Indian Supreme Court in Vijay Mallya extradition (2017), Abu Salem cases; cites Prosecutor v. Tadić for humanitarian intervention standards | Mentions some ICJ cases but without holding or relevance; references generic 'international tribunals' without specificity; Indian case law limited to basic mention of extradition proceedings | No case law cited, or cites domestic criminal cases irrelevant to international law principles; confuses ICJ with ICC jurisdiction |
| Doctrinal analysis | 20% | 10 | Analyzes 'conditionality' as soft law intervention; examines 'responsibility to protect' vs. 'right to intervene' doctrinal tension; evaluates 'unwilling or unable' test in self-defence; critiques structural adjustment as neo-colonialism; distinguishes territorial from diplomatic asylum doctrinally | Describes doctrines without critical evaluation; lists types of intervention without analyzing legality; presents R2P and humanitarian intervention as synonymous | Merely defines terms without doctrinal depth; conflates asylum with extradition procedurally; treats all intervention as equally lawful or unlawful without nuance |
| Comparative / constitutional angle | 20% | 10 | Compares Latin American diplomatic asylum practice (Colombia-Peru Asylum Case 1950) with universal territorial asylum; contrasts US bilateral extradition treaties with India's multilateral approach; examines Article 253 read with Entry 10 Union List on treaty implementation; references Kesavananda on sovereignty implications | Basic comparison of asylum types without case reference; mentions Indian constitutional provisions without analyzing treaty-making power; limited comparative scope | No comparative element; ignores constitutional dimensions entirely; treats all states' practices as uniform |
| Conclusion & application | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes how economic governance institutions and sovereignty-limiting mechanisms reflect evolving international order; applies to India's contemporary challenges—IMF engagement, extradition delays with UK/UAE, abstention on Ukraine intervention; proposes reforms for R2P implementation or extradition treaty network expansion | Summarizes main points without synthesis; generic conclusion on 'need for reform'; limited application to Indian foreign policy | No conclusion or abrupt ending; conclusion merely repeats introduction; no contemporary application or forward-looking recommendations |
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…