Law 2025 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Is anticipatory and pre-emptive use of force for self-defence permissible under Article 51 of the UN Charter? Discuss. (10 marks) (b) "The General Assembly of the United Nations cannot be called World Parliament." In this context, critically analyse the limitations on the General Assembly. (10 marks) (c) Discuss the different theories of State Succession and the rights and duties arising out of the State Succession. (10 marks) (d) How does the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court define "Crime against Humanity"? Explain. (10 marks) (e) What is 'Contiguous Zone'? Discuss the Indian position on this subject. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए: (a) क्या आत्मरक्षा के लिए पूर्वानुमानित और पूर्व-प्रेरित बल का उपयोग संयुक्त राष्ट्र के चार्टर के अनुच्छेद 51 के अंतर्गत अनुमन्य है? विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) "संयुक्त राष्ट्र की महासभा को विश्व संसद नहीं कहा जा सकता है।" इस संदर्भ में, महासभा की सीमाओं का आलोचनात्मक विर्लेषण कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) राज्य उत्तराधिकार के विभिन्न सिद्धांतों और राज्य उत्तराधिकार से उत्पन्न होने वाले अधिकारों और कर्तव्यों की विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय आपराधिक न्यायालय की रोम संविधि "मानवता के विरुद्ध अपराध" को कैसे परिभाषित करती है? समझाइए। (10 अंक) (e) 'सन्निहित क्षेत्र (कॉटिगुअस जोन)' क्या है? इस विषय पर भारत की स्थिति की विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Law questions

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 balanced examination with critical analysis across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words (20%) per sub-part given equal 10-mark weighting, ensuring each part receives: brief context, doctrinal exposition, and a nuanced conclusion. Structure as: (a) Article 51 interpretation with Caroline/Nicaragua tests; (b) GA powers vs. Parliament contrast; (c) succession theories with treaty/property outcomes; (d) Rome Statute Article 7 elements; (e) UNCLOS Article 33 with Indian Maritime Zones Act provisions.

Key points expected

  • (a) Distinguishes anticipatory self-defence (Caroline doctrine, 'instant, overwhelming necessity') from pre-emptive self-defence (Bush doctrine), citing Nicaragua (1986) and Oil Platforms (2003) to show Article 51's armed attack requirement; notes Article 51's 'inherent right' ambiguity
  • (b) Contrasts GA's recommendatory powers (Article 10-14) with binding legislative authority; cites 'Uniting for Peace' resolution (1950) as functional substitute; notes weighted voting vs. sovereign equality tension
  • (c) Contrasts universal succession (continuity theory) with clean slate (personality theory); applies 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession; distinguishes state property/debts from treaty obligations
  • (d) Identifies Rome Statute Article 7's contextual element (widespread/systematic attack against civilian population) and enumerated acts including deportation, torture, enforced disappearance; distinguishes from war crimes
  • (e) Defines contiguous zone (Article 33 UNCLOS: 12-24 nautical miles); cites Indian Maritime Zones Act 1976 (Section 5) for customs/fiscal/immigration/sanitary jurisdiction; notes 2005 amendment alignment

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Provision / section accuracy20%10Precisely cites Article 51, Articles 10-14 of Charter, 1978 Vienna Convention Articles 8-30, Rome Statute Article 7(1)-(2), UNCLOS Article 33 and Indian Maritime Zones Act 1976 Sections 4-5 with correct section numbers across all five partsMentions most relevant provisions but with occasional section number errors or omits one key treaty reference (e.g., misses 1978 Vienna Convention or confuses Article 7 with Article 8 of Rome Statute)Vague references to 'UN Charter' or 'International law' without specific articles; conflates contiguous zone with exclusive economic zone; misstates Rome Statute definition elements
Case-law citation20%10Cites Caroline correspondence (1837), Nicaragua v. USA (1986), Oil Platforms (2003), Armed Activities (2005) for (a); references Effect of Awards (1954), Certain Expenses (1962) for (b); mentions German Settlers in Poland (1923), Lighthouse Arbitration (1956) for (c)Cites 1-2 major cases per relevant sub-part but misses jurisprudential evolution (e.g., only Nicaragua without Oil Platforms; omits ICJ's restrictive interpretation trend)No case law cited or cites irrelevant decisions; confuses ICJ advisory opinions with contentious cases; invents non-existent case names
Doctrinal analysis20%10For (a): analyzes 'armed attack' requirement vs. 'threat' ambiguity; for (c): contrasts universal succession (Grotian) with clean slate (positivist) schools; for (d): explains 'chapeau' requirements and policy-level nexus; demonstrates command of scholarly debatesIdentifies main doctrinal positions without deep engagement; describes theories without explaining their normative implications or why one prevailedDescriptive listing without analytical framework; fails to distinguish theories from their legal consequences; conflates state succession with government succession
Comparative / constitutional angle20%10For (b): compares GA with parliamentary sovereignty models (UK), EU legislative competence; for (e): contrasts Indian 24-mile contiguous zone with Bangladesh-Myanmar maritime boundary arbitration (2012); notes constitutional limitations in Article 253 read with Schedule VIIMakes superficial comparison (e.g., 'unlike national parliament') without institutional specificity; mentions Indian legislation without constitutional anchoringNo comparative or constitutional dimension; treats UN bodies and Indian law as isolated regimes without systemic integration
Conclusion & application20%10Each sub-part concludes with balanced assessment: (a) notes ILC's Articles on State Responsibility and contemporary cyber threats; (b) acknowledges GA's legitimizing function despite power asymmetry; (c) suggests codification gaps; (d) notes Kampala amendments; (e) evaluates India's maritime enforcement challengesConclusions present but generic ('thus it is important'); fails to address contemporary relevance or policy implications specific to each sub-partMissing conclusions or abrupt endings; conclusions contradict earlier analysis; no forward-looking or evaluative element

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 2025 Paper I