Law 2025 Paper I 50 marks Critically examine

Q8

(a) Critically examine the International Law relating to development and use of nuclear weapons with special focus on the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), 2017. (20 marks) (b) Discuss the different types of 'Asylum' and make a distinction between Territorial and Extraterritorial Asylum. (15 marks) (c) The simplest and most utilized mode of settlement of international dispute is negotiations, which does not involve a third party, unlike mediation. Discuss which of these modes is best suited for settlement of international disputes. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) परमाणु हथियारों के निषेध पर संधि (टी पी एन डब्ल्यू) 2017 पर विशेष ध्यान केंद्रित करते हुए, परमाणु हथियारों के विकास और उपयोग से संबंधित अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विधि का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) विभिन्न प्रकार के 'आश्रय (शरण)' की विवेचना कीजिए और प्रादेशिक और बाह्य-प्रादेशिक आश्रय (शरण) के मध्य विभेद कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विवादों के निपटारे का सबसे सरल और सर्वाधिक प्रयुक्त तरीका वार्ता है, जो मध्यस्थता के विपरीत, किसी तीसरे पक्षकार को सम्मिलित नहीं करता है। इन तरीकों में से कौन-सा अंतर्राष्ट्रीय विवादों के निपटारे के लिए उत्तम है, विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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 'critically examine' for part (a) demands balanced analysis with judgment, while (b) requires 'discuss' and (c) needs evaluative comparison. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, 30% each to (b) and (c). Structure: Introduction linking nuclear weapons to global security; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear sub-headings; conclusion synthesizing India's position across all three themes.

Key points expected

Part (a): Critical analysis of TPNW 2017 provisions (Articles 1, 4, 6, 7), its relationship with NPT 1968, and India's non-participation rationale
Part (a): ICJ Advisory Opinion 1996 on legality of nuclear weapons threat/use; customary law status and humanitarian law implications
Part (b): Classification of asylum (territorial, extraterritorial, diplomatic, naval); distinction based on locus of protection and state consent
Part (c): Comparative evaluation of negotiation vs mediation with examples (Indus Waters Treaty 1960 negotiations vs Tashkent Declaration 1966 mediation)
Part (c): Assessment criteria for choosing mode: urgency, power asymmetry, complexity, and preservation of bilateral relations

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Provision / section accuracy	20%	10	For (a): Precisely cites TPNW Articles 1 (prohibitions), 4 (disarmament timeline), 6 (victim assistance), 7 (environmental remediation); contrasts with NPT Articles I-VI and CTBT. For (b): Accurately defines territorial asylum under Article 14 UDHR and extraterritorial asylum (diomatic asylum under Havana Convention 1928, naval asylum). For (c): Correctly distinguishes negotiation (Article 33 UN Charter) from mediation (good offices under Hague Convention 1899).	Mentions TPNW existence and general prohibition; describes asylum types superficially; lists negotiation and mediation without clear procedural distinctions or treaty references.	Confuses TPNW with NPT or CTBT; conflates territorial and diplomatic asylum; treats negotiation and mediation as interchangeable without legal basis.
Case-law citation	20%	10	For (a): ICJ Advisory Opinion on Legality of Nuclear Weapons 1996 (7-7 split, no comprehensive prohibition); Marshall Islands cases 2016 (jurisdiction dismissal). For (b): Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) 1950 (territorial asylum limits); US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran 1980 (embassy inviolability). For (c): Corfu Channel 1949 (negotiation obligation); North Sea Continental Shelf 1969 (equitable principles via negotiation).	Names ICJ 1996 opinion without holding details; mentions Asylum Case without ratio; cites generic dispute examples without legal significance.	No case law cited; or cites irrelevant domestic cases; confuses judicial settlement with negotiation/mediation modes.
Doctrinal analysis	20%	10	For (a): Analyzes 'humanitarian initiative' doctrine vs deterrence doctrine; critiques TPNW's lack of verification mechanism and NWS boycott. For (b): Applies effective control doctrine to territorial asylum; critiques non-refoulement extension to diplomatic asylum. For (c): Evaluates consensual vs imposed settlement theories; applies Zartman's 'ripeness' theory to mediation suitability.	Describes TPNW as 'good but ineffective'; explains asylum distinction factually without doctrinal depth; states mediation needs third party without theoretical framework.	Purely descriptive without critical engagement; no identification of underlying legal doctrines or scholarly debates.
Comparative / constitutional angle	20%	10	For (a): Compares India's 'no first use' policy with TPNW; constitutional morality argument (Article 51 for peace). For (b): Contrasts Latin American diplomatic asylum practice (Havana, Caracas, Montevideo Conventions) with European state practice; Indian position (Dalai Lama 1959, Tibetan refugees). For (c): Compares India-Pakistan bilateral negotiation (Indus Waters) vs third-party mediation failure (Kashmir 1965-66); ASEAN preference for negotiation vs African Union mediation institutionalization.	Mentions India is not TPNW party; notes India grants asylum to Tibetans; gives one generic comparison between negotiation and mediation.	No Indian or comparative examples; entirely Euro-centric or abstract treatment.
Conclusion & application	20%	10	Synthesizes across parts: India's strategic ambiguity (nuclear modernisation despite TPNW), humanitarian commitment (asylum to refugees), and preference for bilateralism (negotiation over mediation) reflect consistent sovereignty-centric foreign policy. Proposes way forward: TPNW universalization needs security assurances; asylum needs codification; dispute settlement mode selection requires contextual flexibility. Balanced judgment on which mode is 'best'—negotiation for sovereignty-preservation, mediation for asymmetrical power.	Separate conclusions for each part without integration; generic call for peace and cooperation; no clear position on negotiation vs mediation superiority.	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; or contradicts own analysis; no application to contemporary challenges.

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 →