Myanmar draws a distinction between the right to invoke State responsibility under general international law and standing before the Court. It argues that, even if it were established that a “non-injured” Contracting Party to the Genocide Convention has the right to invoke another State’s responsibility for violations of the Convention, this would not necessarily entail the right to bring a case before the Court. To this end, Myanmar contends that there exists a difference between the common interest in the accomplishment of the purposes of the Genocide Convention and a State’s individual legal interest that may be enforce through the institution of proceedings before the Court. In Myanmar’s view, only States “specially affected” by an internationally wrongful act have standing to bring a claim before the Court.
Myanmar further submits that The Gambia’s claims are inadmissible in so far as they are not brought before the Court in accordance with the rule concerning the nationality of claims which, according to Myanmar, is reflected in Article 44 (a) of the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Myanmar asserts that the rule concerning the nationality of claims applies to the invocation of responsibility by both “injured” and “non injured” States and irrespective of whether the obligation breached is an erga omnes partes or erga omnes obligation. Consequently, in Myanmar’s view, The Gambia lacks standing to invoke Myanmar’s responsibility.
Hypothetically, if The Gambian state was to exercise criminal jurisdiction over the persons responsible for Crimes of Genocide, then such jurisdiction would be called as:
- Extra-territorial jurisdiction
- Universal jurisdiction
- Contentious jurisdiction
- A state cannot exercise jurisdiction over such crimes without having any connection with them
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Universal jurisdiction allows a state to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused
person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, especially for crimes of a grave
nature, such as genocide.
The correct option is (B): Universal jurisdiction
Erga omnes partes means:
- Obligations that are so integral to the subject and purpose of the treaty that no reservations or derogations are permissible
- Obligations arising out of customary principles of international law that states have not objected to
- Obligations essentially arising after gaining membership of the United Nations
- Both (A) and (B)
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Erga omnes partes refers to obligations that are so essential to the treaty’s objectives
that reservations or derogations are not allowed, underscoring their universal and binding
nature.
The correct option is (A): Obligations that are so integral to the subject and purpose of the treaty that no reservations or derogations are permissible
Article 44 (a) of the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts states that ‘the responsibility of a State may not be invoked if: (a) the claim is not brought in accordance with any applicable rule relating to the nationality of claims.’ Can Gambia invoke the principles of state responsibility against Myanmar for Crimes of Genocide?
- No, as The Gambia cannot fulfill the conditions stipulated in Article 44 (a)
- Yes, as the nationals of The Gambia have also faced persecution from Myanmar
- Yes, the Article has no relevance as the Genocide Convention expects the accomplishment of its high purposes
- No, Bangladesh is an appropriate state to bring claims and hold Myanmar internationally responsible.
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The Genocide Convention upholds the responsibility to protect human rights uni-
versally, allowing non-injured states to raise claims for the fulfillment of its objectives, making
Article 44(a) inapplicable.
The correct option is (C): Yes, the Article has no relevance as the Genocide Convention expects the accomplishment of its high purposes
Myanmar claims that the reservation by Bangladesh to Article IX of the Genocide Convention not only precludes Bangladesh from bringing a case against Myanmar, but it also bars any “non-injured” State, such as The Gambia, from doing so. Is this claim maintainable? (Article IX - Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.)
- Yes, because Bangladesh is the injured state and its reservation imposes a restriction on dispute itself precluding any state from raising it
- No, it does not affect the locus standi of The Gambia as being party to the Convention, it has its own right
- No, Gambia can only file the dispute before ICJ after Bangladesh consents to the same
- Option (A) subject to (C).
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The reservation by Bangladesh does not affect The Gambia’s independent standing
to bring a case under the Genocide Convention as a signatory with a collective interest in its
enforcement.
The correct option is (B): No, it does not affect the locus standi of The Gambia as being party to the Convention, it has its own right
Myanmar has made a reservation to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention to restrict the competent organs of the UN to take actions under the Charter of the UN as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide. Myanmar claims that since ICJ is the principal organ of the UN, there is a limitation on Article IX. The claim is:
- Maintainable, as the reservation explicitly prohibits the intervention of UN organs.
- Not maintainable, as Article VIII concerns the discretionary function which is different from the judicial function of the ICJ
- Maintainable, as the two provisions of the treaty i.e., Article VIII and IX are to be interpreted harmoniously
- Not maintainable, as ICJ as a successor of PCIJ is regulated by the Statute of ICJ and not the UN Charter
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The claim is not maintainable because Article VIII pertains to discretionary actions
by UN organs, which differs from the judicial role of the ICJ under Article IX. The ICJ
operates under its Statute, separate from the discretionary powers covered by the UN Charter.
The correct option is (B): Not maintainable, as Article VIII concerns the discretionary function which is different from the judicial function of the ICJ
Top Questions on Public International Law
- In which year the International Law Commission (ILC) was established?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- Which of the following international conventions co-ordinates cybercrime investigations among States parties?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- The Hague Codification Conference of 1930 mainly dealt with which of the following topics?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- Which provision of the Charter of the United Nations provides for the codification and progressive development of International Law?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- ‘Harm’, in relation to a product liability under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 does not include
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts