(a) Identify and evaluate the reasons for deadlock in the WTO negotiations on fisheries between the developing and developed…

(a) Identify and evaluate the reasons for deadlock in the WTO negotiations on fisheries between the developing and developed countries. (20 marks) (b) What is the realist prescription to the States to ensure their survival in an anarchical world? (15 marks) (c) Russian-Ukraine crisis has cast a dark shadow on the energy needs of the member states of the European Union (EU). Comment. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) विकासशील एवं विकसित देशों के बीच डब्लू टी ओ में मत्स्य पालन वार्ता में उत्पन्न गतिरोध के कारणों की पहचान एवं मूल्यांकन करें। (20 अंक) (b) अराजक विश्व में देशों को अपनी उत्तरजीविता सुनिश्चित करने हेतु यथार्थवादी उपाय क्या है? (15 अंक) (c) रूसी-यूक्रेन संकट ने यूरोपीय संघ (ई यू) के सदस्य देशों की ऊर्जा जरूरतों पर एक काली परछाई डाल दी है। टिप्पणी करें। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Political Science & IR questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 primary directive is 'evaluate' for part (a), while parts (b) and (c) require 'what' and 'comment' respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time and words to part (a) given its 20 marks, with roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, three distinct sections for each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects the three themes—multilateral trade failure, realist state survival, and energy geopolitics—around the broader theme of power asymmetries in international relations.

Key points expected

Part (a): Differential treatment debate—developed nations' subsidies vs. developing countries' demand for S&DT (Special and Differential Treatment) under WTO rules; India's position on artisanal vs. industrial fishing
Part (a): Technical barriers—IUU (Illegal, Unreported, Unregulated) fishing standards, capacity constraints of developing states, and the 'peace clause' impasse in fisheries subsidy negotiations
Part (b): Classical realism (Morgenthau)—national interest defined as power, balance of power politics, and self-help mechanisms in anarchic international system
Part (b): Neorealism (Waltz)—structural constraints, distribution of capabilities, bipolarity vs. multipolarity stability, and alliance formation as survival strategies
Part (c): EU energy dependency—pre-crisis 40%+ reliance on Russian gas, Nord Stream 1 & 2 pipelines, and Germany's Energiewende vulnerabilities
Part (c): Crisis response—REPowerEU plan, LNG diversification (Qatar, US), accelerated renewable transition, and internal EU solidarity mechanisms under TFEM
Integrated insight: How realist logic (part b) explains both fisheries deadlock (part a) and energy weaponization (part c)—power politics overriding multilateral cooperation

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	10	For (a), distinguishes 'identify' from 'evaluate' by listing structural causes then critically assessing their relative weight; for (b), precisely defines 'realist prescription' as actionable state strategies, not merely theory description; for (c), treats 'comment' as analytical assessment, not mere narration—comparing pre- and post-crisis EU energy security	Addresses all three parts but conflates directives—describes rather than evaluates fisheries deadlock, lists realist concepts without prescription focus, or narrates Ukraine crisis without analytical comment on energy implications	Misreads directives—describes without evaluation in (a), confuses realism with idealism in (b), or provides generic Ukraine commentary without EU energy focus in (c); missing sub-parts or severe imbalance
Content depth & accuracy	20%	10	Demonstrates command across all three domains: WTO fisheries negotiations (MC12 outcomes, India's artisanal fishing exemption demands), realist IR theory (Morgenthau's six principles, Waltz's structural realism, offensive vs. defensive realism distinction), and EU energy architecture (ENTSO-E, TTF gas pricing, REPowerEU targets with specific percentages)	Covers all three parts with acceptable accuracy but lacks depth—mentions WTO deadlock without MC specifics, describes realism generically without classical/neorealist distinction, or notes EU gas dependency without policy response details	Significant factual errors or omissions—confuses WTO with UNCLOS on fisheries, conflates realism with liberal institutionalism, or misidentifies EU energy sources; superficial treatment of two or more parts
Structure & flow	20%	10	Clear tripartite structure with explicit sub-headings (a), (b), (c); seamless transitions between parts via thematic linkage (e.g., 'This deadlock exemplifies the realist logic examined below'); integrated conclusion synthesizing multilateral failure, realist imperatives, and energy geopolitics	All three parts present with basic organization but weak connectivity—parts read as disconnected essays; abrupt transitions; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesis; or minor imbalance in length allocation	Disorganized or missing structure—no clear part demarcation, jumbled content across sub-questions, severe imbalance (e.g., 70% on one part), or absent/meaningless conclusion; examiner must hunt for relevant content
Examples / case-law / data	20%	10	Rich empirical grounding: for (a)—India's 2022 fisheries subsidy proposal, SIDS (Small Island Developing States) coalition positions, WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Article 8; for (b)—contemporary applications like NATO expansion as balance-of-power response; for (c)—specific data: EU's 155 bcm Russian gas imports (2021), REPowerEU target of reducing Russian gas to zero by 2027, Germany's €200 billion energy support package	Some relevant examples but incomplete—mentions developing-developed divide without specific country positions, cites Morgenthau without contemporary application, or notes EU gas crisis without quantitative data or specific policy instruments	Minimal or no empirical support—generic references to 'rich countries' and 'poor countries', no named realist theorists or concepts applied to cases, vague 'energy problems' without EU-specific content; examples factually wrong or irrelevant
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	10	Synthesizes three parts into coherent argument about institutional failure under power asymmetries—WTO fisheries deadlock as manifestation of realist power politics, EU energy crisis as validation of realist energy security imperatives, with forward-looking insight on 'friend-shoring' and critical raw materials as emerging realist strategies; may critically assess limits of realism (e.g., collective action possibilities)	Brief conclusion restating main points without synthesis; or attempts synthesis but forced/unclear; no critical reflection on theoretical or policy implications; ends descriptively rather than analytically	No conclusion, or generic platitude ('in conclusion, all three issues are important'); or conclusion contradicts body content; completely misses opportunity for integrated analysis across the three sub-parts

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 →