Comprehension
The International Court of Justice recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights may entail irreparable consequences. However, this power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision.
The condition of urgency is met when the acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment” before the Court makes a final decision on the case. The Court must therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings. The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of the right found to be plausible.
Having determined that Ukraine can plausibly assert a right under the Genocide Convention and that there is a link between this right and the provisional measures requested, the Court then considers whether irreparable prejudice could be caused to this right and whether there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to this right before the Court gives its final decision.
The condition of urgency is met when the acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment” before the Court makes a final decision on the case. The Court must therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings. The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of the right found to be plausible.
Having determined that Ukraine can plausibly assert a right under the Genocide Convention and that there is a link between this right and the provisional measures requested, the Court then considers whether irreparable prejudice could be caused to this right and whether there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to this right before the Court gives its final decision.
Question: 1
Under what statutory authority did the court pass the ‘provisional measures’ against the Russian Federation?
Under what statutory authority did the court pass the ‘provisional measures’ against the Russian Federation?
Show Hint
Provisional measures by ICJ are grounded in Article 41 of its Statute, not in the UN Charter or treaties like the Genocide Convention.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Charter of the United Nations 1945
- Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945
- Genocide Convention, 1948
- None of the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Relevant provision.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) derives its authority to indicate provisional measures from Article 41 of its Statute, which is part of the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945.
Step 2: Purpose of provisional measures.
These measures aim to prevent irreparable prejudice to the rights in dispute before the Court issues a final judgment, provided there is urgency and a real and imminent risk of such prejudice.
Step 3: Context of the case.
In the Ukraine v. Russian Federation matter under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ relied on Article 41 to indicate provisional measures, but the statutory source of this authority remains the ICJ Statute, not the Convention itself. \[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) derives its authority to indicate provisional measures from Article 41 of its Statute, which is part of the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945.
Step 2: Purpose of provisional measures.
These measures aim to prevent irreparable prejudice to the rights in dispute before the Court issues a final judgment, provided there is urgency and a real and imminent risk of such prejudice.
Step 3: Context of the case.
In the Ukraine v. Russian Federation matter under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ relied on Article 41 to indicate provisional measures, but the statutory source of this authority remains the ICJ Statute, not the Convention itself. \[ \boxed{Answer: B} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
What ‘irreparable prejudice’ is being talked about in the above paragraph?
What ‘irreparable prejudice’ is being talked about in the above paragraph?
Show Hint
ICJ looks at the totality of harm — treaty breaches, military acts, and humanitarian law violations — when assessing irreparable prejudice.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Violation of the Genocide Convention by Russian Federation.
- Special military operations carried out against the Ukraine.
- Violation of Humanitarian laws during the armed conflict by Russian Federation.
- All of the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding “irreparable prejudice” in ICJ context.
The term refers to harm that cannot be undone by a later judgment and therefore requires urgent preventive action through provisional measures.
Step 2: Application to Ukraine v. Russian Federation.
In this dispute, the alleged irreparable prejudice includes:
- Violations of the Genocide Convention,
- Ongoing military operations against Ukraine,
- Breaches of humanitarian law during armed conflict.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Since all these elements constitute the irreparable prejudice referred to in the proceedings, the correct choice is (D). \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
The term refers to harm that cannot be undone by a later judgment and therefore requires urgent preventive action through provisional measures.
Step 2: Application to Ukraine v. Russian Federation.
In this dispute, the alleged irreparable prejudice includes:
- Violations of the Genocide Convention,
- Ongoing military operations against Ukraine,
- Breaches of humanitarian law during armed conflict.
Step 3: Conclusion.
Since all these elements constitute the irreparable prejudice referred to in the proceedings, the correct choice is (D). \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
The reason behind the Russian-Ukraine crisis is:
The reason behind the Russian-Ukraine crisis is:
Show Hint
UN Charter Article 2(4) is central to disputes involving use of force between states.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- The violation of Geneva Convention of the Refugees 1951
- The violation of the Agreement between Confederation of Independent States and Europe
- Threat or use of force contrary to the Purpose and Principles of the United Nations Charter
- Neither (A) nor (B)
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Relevant international law.
The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2(4)).
Step 2: Application to crisis.
The Russian military action against Ukraine has been characterised internationally as a violation of this principle, constituting the underlying cause of the crisis. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
The UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (Article 2(4)).
Step 2: Application to crisis.
The Russian military action against Ukraine has been characterised internationally as a violation of this principle, constituting the underlying cause of the crisis. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
If one of the two parties to the dispute fails to appear before the Court during the oral proceedings, the other party may call upon the court to decide the matter in favour of its claim. Which of the following provision provides for this?
If one of the two parties to the dispute fails to appear before the Court during the oral proceedings, the other party may call upon the court to decide the matter in favour of its claim. Which of the following provision provides for this?
Show Hint
Article 53 ICJ Statute permits decisions in absence of a party, but only after verifying legal and factual basis of claims.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article 51 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article 52 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article 53 of the Statute of the ICJ
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Provision details.
Article 53 of the ICJ Statute allows the Court to decide a case in favour of one party if the other party fails to appear, provided the claim is well-founded in fact and law.
Step 2: Safeguard against default judgments.
Even in absence of one party, the Court examines the merits of the claim to ensure fairness and compliance with international law. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Article 53 of the ICJ Statute allows the Court to decide a case in favour of one party if the other party fails to appear, provided the claim is well-founded in fact and law.
Step 2: Safeguard against default judgments.
Even in absence of one party, the Court examines the merits of the claim to ensure fairness and compliance with international law. \[ \boxed{Answer: D} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Under which of the following provisions, Ukraine sought jurisdiction to appear before the Court?
Under which of the following provisions, Ukraine sought jurisdiction to appear before the Court?
Show Hint
When seeking ICJ jurisdiction, states often cite both general ICJ jurisdiction clauses and specific treaty provisions.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Article 36 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article IX of the Genocide Convention
- Both (A) and (B)
- Neither (A) nor (B)
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Jurisdictional basis before ICJ.
- Article 36 of the ICJ Statute outlines the Court’s jurisdiction over cases referred to it, including treaty disputes.
- Article IX of the Genocide Convention specifically gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Convention, including responsibility for genocide.
Step 2: Ukraine’s claim.
Ukraine invoked both provisions to establish jurisdiction — ICJ’s general jurisdiction under Article 36 and the treaty-specific jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
- Article 36 of the ICJ Statute outlines the Court’s jurisdiction over cases referred to it, including treaty disputes.
- Article IX of the Genocide Convention specifically gives the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment of the Convention, including responsibility for genocide.
Step 2: Ukraine’s claim.
Ukraine invoked both provisions to establish jurisdiction — ICJ’s general jurisdiction under Article 36 and the treaty-specific jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. \[ \boxed{Answer: C} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
The Russian Federation, in the current dispute submitted to the court, cited the defence of Article 51 of the UN Charter. What is the defence of Article 51?
The Russian Federation, in the current dispute submitted to the court, cited the defence of Article 51 of the UN Charter. What is the defence of Article 51?
Show Hint
Article 51 UN Charter = legal recognition of the right to self-defence against armed attack.
Updated On: Aug 17, 2025
- Self-defence
- Force Majeure
- Consent
- Pacta sunt servanda
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Provision of Article 51.
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member State, until the Security Council takes measures to maintain international peace and security.
Step 2: Application in Russian defence.
Russia claimed that its actions were justified under the right of self-defence, invoking Article 51 as a legal ground in the Ukraine dispute.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) Force majeure is a principle excusing performance due to uncontrollable events, unrelated to armed defence.
- (C) Consent refers to permissibility based on agreement.
- (D) Pacta sunt servanda means treaties must be performed in good faith, unrelated to the defence invoked.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Article 51 of the UN Charter recognises the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member State, until the Security Council takes measures to maintain international peace and security.
Step 2: Application in Russian defence.
Russia claimed that its actions were justified under the right of self-defence, invoking Article 51 as a legal ground in the Ukraine dispute.
Step 3: Eliminating incorrect options.
- (B) Force majeure is a principle excusing performance due to uncontrollable events, unrelated to armed defence.
- (C) Consent refers to permissibility based on agreement.
- (D) Pacta sunt servanda means treaties must be performed in good faith, unrelated to the defence invoked.
\[ \boxed{Answer: A} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on International Law
- The countries of Novara and Elderia are in a dispute over the construction of a dam on the river Nelara – with Elderia bringing the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Novara argues that past ICJ rulings in similar cases should guide the decision, while Elderia insists on a fresh interpretation of the law. Analyze how Articles 59, 38 and 38(1) of the Statute of ICJ would influence the court’s decision-making in this case.
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- A nation engages in human rights violations within its own borders, including acts of genocide against a specific ethnic group. Under erga omnes obligations, what are the legal responsibilities of the international community, even if there is no direct threat to neighbouring states?
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- Statement 1: Opinio juris prevents unwanted general practice from becoming customary law.
Statement 2: Opinio juris is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation.
Choose the correct option:
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- In a landmark case, the Supreme Court was handling a highly technical environmental dispute involving multiple stakeholders and scientific complexities. Given the intricate details of environmental policies and scientific evidence, the Court appointed an amicus curiae, an expert in environmental law and science, to assist by providing impartial information and insights on the matter. The amicus curiae made recommendations based on international standards, which helped the Court in reaching its final decision.
Based on the concept of amicus curiae, which of the following statements is correct?
- CBSE CLASS XII - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
- Which of the following principles confers nationality on the basis of blood/lineage?
- TS PGLCET - 2025
- Legal Studies
- International Law
View More Questions
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu’ 2008(3) Apex Court Judgements 232 (SC), while granting the custody to the maternal grandparents observed: In our judgement, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this. In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of minor, a Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a humane problem in live in relationship and is required to be solved with human touch. A Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the Court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, may bound, to give due weight to a child’s ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable consideration. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgement, the Court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the Court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘Gaurav Nagpal v. Semedha Nagpal’-(2009)1 SCC 42, while giving paramount importance to the welfare of the child, which should include moral and ethical values, besides ethical well-being, observed as under:
When the court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents, each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues. The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mausami Moitra Ganguli case, the Court has to give due weightage to the child’s ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favorable surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than the others.
(Extracts from Jaswinder Singh and Another vs Surjit Singh, AIR 2010 (NOC) 425 (P. & H.))- CLAT PG - 2025
- Family Laws
- The Companies Act, 2013 does not deal with insolvency and bankruptcy when the companies are unable to pay their debts or the aspects relating to the revival and rehabilitation of the companies and their winding up if revival and rehabilitation is not possible. In principle, it cannot be doubted that the cases of revival or winding up of the company on the ground of insolvency and inability to pay debts are different from cases where companies are wound up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013. The two situations are not identical. Under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013, even a running and financially sound company can also be wound up for the reasons in clauses (a) to (e). The reasons and grounds for winding up under Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013 are vastly different from the reasons and grounds for the revival and rehabilitation scheme as envisaged under the IBC. The two enactments deal with two distinct situations and in our opinion, they cannot be equated when we examine whether there is discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For the revival and rehabilitation of the companies, certain sacrifices are required from all quarters, including the workmen. In case of insolvent companies, for the sake of survival and regeneration, everyone, including the secured creditors and the Central and State Government, are required to make sacrifices. The workmen also have a stake and benefit from the revival of the company, and therefore unless it is found that the sacrifices envisaged for the workmen, which certainly form a separate class, are onerous and burdensome so as to be manifestly unjust and arbitrary, we will not set aside the legislation,solely on the ground that some or marginal sacrifice is to be made by the workers. We would also reject the argument that to find out whether there was a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or whether the right to life under Article 21 Constitution of India was infringed, we must word by word examine the waterfall mechanism envisaged under the Companies Act, 2013, where the company is wound up in terms of grounds (a) to (e) of Section 271 of the Companies Act, 2013; and the rights of the workmen when the insolvent company is sought to be revived, rehabilitated or wound up under the Code. The grounds and situations in the context of the objective and purpose of the two enactments are entirely different.
(Extracted, with edits and revision, from the judgement in Moser Baer Karamchari Union Thr. President Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Union of India and Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 547)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Company Law
- Ahmadi, J. (as he then was) speaking for himself and Punchhi, J., endorsed the recommendations in the following words-The time is ripe for taking stock of the working of the various Tribunals set up in the country after the insertion of Articles 323-A and 323-B in the Constitution. After the incorporation of these two articles, Acts have been enacted where-under tribunals have been constituted for dispensation of justice. Sufficient time has passed, and experience gained in these last few years for taking stock of the situation with a view to finding out if they have served the purpose and objectives for which they were constituted. Complaints have been heard in regard to the functioning of other tribunals as well and it is time that a body like the Law Commission of India has a comprehensive look-in with a view to suggesting measures for their improved functioning. That body can also suggest changes in the different statutes and evolve a model on the basis whereof tribunals may be constituted or reconstituted with a view to ensuring greater independence. An intensive and extensive study needs to be undertaken by the Law Commission in regard to the Constitution of tribunals under various statutes with a view to ensuring their independence so that the public confidence in such tribunals may increase and the quality of their performance may improve.
Before parting with the case, it is necessary to express our anguish over the ineffectiveness of the alternative mechanism devised for judicial review. The judicial review and remedy are the fundamental rights of the citizens. The dispensation of justice by the tribunal is much to be desired.
(Extracted with Edits from R.K. Jain v. Union of India, 1993 (4) SCC 119)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
- The elements of tort of negligence consist in – (a) duty of care; (b) duty is owed to the plaintiff; (c) the duty has been carelessly breached. Negligence does not entail liability unless the exacts a duty in the given circumstances to observe care. Duty is an obligation recognised by law to avoid conduct fraught with unreasonable risk of damage to others. The question whether duty exists in a particular situation involves determination of law. Hence, three ingredients are necessary for the existence of a duty of care: (i) foreseeability of the damage, (ii) proximity of relationship between the parties; and (iii) whether it is “just, fair and reasonable” that the law should impose a duty of care. In Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman, 1990 2AC 605, the court held that breach of duty is concerned with the standard of care that ought to have been adopted in the circumstances and whether the defendant’s conduct fell below that standard i.e., whether he was careless.
The court while quoting Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum, 1997 stated that as a tort, negligence consists of legal duty to take care and breach of that duty. Duty determines whether the type of loss suffered by the plaintiff in the particular way in which to occurred can ever be actionable. The division of negligence into duty, breach and consequent damage is convenient for the purpose of exposition but it can be confusing because the issues will often overlap. The process of determining a breach of duty involves three steps: First, it is necessary to ascertain the qualities of the reasonable person, given the qualities attributed to him, would have taken in the circumstances. The factors that are permissible to take into account in this regard are prescribed by law, but the amount of care that the reasonable person would have taken is a question of fact. Thirdly, it must be determined whether the defendant took less care than the reasonable person would have taken.
(Extracts from Managing Director, Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Deepti Singh and Ors., 2019 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Law of Torts
- Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws within the territory of India. Article 15(1) states that the State should not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. Article 15(4) stipulates that nothing in Article 15 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Article 16 deals with equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. Clause (1) of Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Clause (2) stipulates that no citizen shall be discriminated in or be ineligible for any employment or office under the State on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. Clause (4) of the provision states that nothing in Article 16 shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens, which in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The purpose of the equal opportunity principle in Article 16(1) and the reservation provision in Article 16(4) has emerged as a focal point of the jurisprudence on reservations in this Court. A discussion of the journey of the competing models of equality that the Court has espoused and their evolution over the course of the years is necessary to understand the constitutional vision on equality.
The impugned constitutional amendments by which Article 16 (4-A) and 16 (4-B) have been inserted, flow from Article 16 (4). They do not alter the structure of Article 16 (4). They retain the controlling factors or the compelling reasons which enables the State to provide for reservation keeping in mind the overall efficiency of the state administration under article 335. Sub-categorization within a class is a constitutional requirement to secure substantive equality in the event that there is a distinction between two sections of a class; Sub-classification must not lead to the exclusion of one of the categories in the class. A model that provides sufficient opportunities to all categories of the class must be adopted; and Sub-classification among a class must be on a reasonable basis.
Justice Bela Trivedi opined, in dissent, that presidential list of scheduled castes notified under Article 341 cannot be altered by the States. Any change to this list can only be made by a law enacted by Parliament. Sub-classification, according to her would amount to tampering with the Presidential List and undermine the object Article 341, which aims to eliminate political influence in the SC-ST List. Further, she emphasised the importance of adhering to the rule of plain and literal interpretation. She mentions that any preferential treatment for a sub-class within the presidential list would deprive other classes within the same category of their benefits. In the absence of executive or legislative power, state lack the competence to sub-classify castes and the benefit reserved for all SCs. Allowing states to do so would constitute a colourable exercise of power, which is impermissible under law. Justice Trivedi concluded by affirming that affirmative action by States must remain within constitutional boundaries and held that the law laid down in E.V. Chinnaiah case was correct and should be upheld.
(Extract from The State of Punjab & Ors. v. Davinder Singh & Ors. 2024 SC)- CLAT PG - 2025
- Constitutional Laws
View More Questions