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

Question

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)

UPSC Answer Check · Accepted Answer

(a) Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, pending Security Council action. The phrase “inherent right” is ambiguous: some read it as preserving customary law, including anticipatory force; others confine it to response after an armed attack. Anticipatory self-defence, rooted in the Caroline doctrine, permits force only where necessity is instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means or moment for deliberation. Pre-emptive self-defence, associated with the Bush doctrine, targets threats that are imminent but not yet materialised. The ICJ in Nicaragua (1986) required an armed attack or at least the most grave use of force, and in Oil Platforms (2003) stressed that self-defence must be necessary and proportionate to an armed attack. Thus, while anticipatory force may be defensible in extreme cases, pre-emptive force is generally impermissible under Article 51 unless the threat is so imminent as to amount to an armed attack.

(b) The General Assembly is not a World Parliament because its principal powers under Articles 10 to 14 are recommendatory, not legislative. It may discuss and make recommendations on international peace and security, budgetary matters, admission of members, and the Charter, but it cannot bind member states. Parliament-like law-making presupposes compulsory legislative authority, whereas the GA operates on sovereign equality and consensus. The “Uniting for Peace” resolution of 1950 allowed the GA to recommend collective measures when the Security Council was blocked, giving it a functional substitute for Security Council action, but this did not convert recommendations into binding law. The tension is sharper because the GA uses one-state-one-vote, while the Security Council reflects weighted voting and great-power responsibility. Thus, the GA’s legitimacy is deliberative and representative, but its legal effect remains limited to persuasion, moral authority, and treaty-making impetus rather than coercive legislation, especially in human rights and development.

(c) State succession concerns the transfer of rights and duties when a new state replaces or emerges from an existing one. The continuity theory, or universal succession, treats the successor as the same legal person, so treaties, property, debts and obligations pass automatically. The personality theory, or clean-slate doctrine, treats the successor as a new legal person, so it is not automatically bound by predecessor treaties. The 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession to State Treaties reflects this balance: multilateral treaties may continue for new independent states, while bilateral treaties generally do not, unless agreed. Succession to state property and debts is governed by equity, with assets and liabilities allocated according to the part of the territory concerned. Thus, succession is not a single rule but a compromise: continuity preserves stability, while clean slate protects sovereignty, and treaty, property and debt outcomes depend on the type of succession and the applicable convention.

(d) The Rome Statute defines crimes against humanity in Article 7 as acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack. This contextual element distinguishes them from isolated crimes and from war crimes, which are linked to armed conflict. The enumerated acts include murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment or severe deprivation of liberty, torture, rape and other sexual violence, persecution, enforced disappearance, apartheid and other inhumane acts. The definition is not limited to international conflict; it applies in peacetime or wartime, provided the attack is widespread or systematic and directed at civilians. India, as a signatory but not a party, has not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, yet the definition reflects emerging international norms that India has engaged with in its domestic criminal law and treaty practice, especially in debates over the ICC and national jurisdiction.

(e) The contiguous zone is a maritime belt beyond the territorial sea, extending to 24 nautical miles from the baseline under Article 33 of UNCLOS. It is not a zone of sovereignty; foreign vessels enjoy freedom of navigation, while the coastal state may exercise limited control to prevent or punish infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws. India’s position is governed by the Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976, particularly Section 5, which gives India jurisdiction in the contiguous zone for enforcing those four categories of regulations. The 2005 Amendment Act aligned India’s contiguous-zone claim with UNCLOS by extending it to 24 nautical miles, replacing the earlier 12-nautical-mile limit. Thus, India’s contiguous-zone power is regulatory and preventive, not territorial: it safeguards customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary administration without restricting navigation, and it must be exercised in accordance with UNCLOS and the Act.

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Is anticipatory and pre-emptive use of force for self-defence…

Model answer

What "Discuss" is asking you to do

Structure that answers it

Where marks are lost

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Key points expected

Evaluation rubric

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Must cover

Loses marks

Earns more

Extra mark

Practice this exact question

More from Law 2025 Paper I