Comprehension
The Russian Federation’s specific claims alleging genocide, and invoking that alleged genocide as the basis for military action against Ukraine, include:
a. On 21 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation stated in an official address that there was a “genocide” occurring in Ukraine, “which almost 4 million people are facing.”…
b. The President of the Russian Federation then announced a “special military operation” and stated that “[t]he purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime.”…
c. In an interview on 25 February 2022, the Russian Ambassador to the European Union was asked about President Putin’s reference to genocide as justification for Russia’s unlawful acts against Ukraine and said “[w]e can turn to the official term of genocide as coined in international law. If you read the definition it fits pretty well.”…
Therefore, the parties’ dispute over first, the existence of acts of genocide, and second, Russia’s claim to legal authority to take military action in and against Ukraine to punish and prevent such alleged genocide, is a dispute that concerns the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the [1] Convention. Accordingly, the Court should recognize its jurisdiction on a prima facie basis for purposes of indicating provisional measures.
[Excerpted from: Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by Ukraine, February 26, 2022, in Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), International Court of Justice]
a. On 21 February 2022, the President of the Russian Federation stated in an official address that there was a “genocide” occurring in Ukraine, “which almost 4 million people are facing.”…
b. The President of the Russian Federation then announced a “special military operation” and stated that “[t]he purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev regime.”…
c. In an interview on 25 February 2022, the Russian Ambassador to the European Union was asked about President Putin’s reference to genocide as justification for Russia’s unlawful acts against Ukraine and said “[w]e can turn to the official term of genocide as coined in international law. If you read the definition it fits pretty well.”…
Therefore, the parties’ dispute over first, the existence of acts of genocide, and second, Russia’s claim to legal authority to take military action in and against Ukraine to punish and prevent such alleged genocide, is a dispute that concerns the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the [1] Convention. Accordingly, the Court should recognize its jurisdiction on a prima facie basis for purposes of indicating provisional measures.
[Excerpted from: Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by Ukraine, February 26, 2022, in Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), International Court of Justice]
Question: 1
Ukraine filed the application excerpted above concerning “a dispute . . . relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of ” an international convention (the “Convention”), whose name has been replaced with ‘[1]’ in the excerpt above. What is the full name of the Convention?
Ukraine filed the application excerpted above concerning “a dispute . . . relating to the interpretation, application and fulfilment of ” an international convention (the “Convention”), whose name has been replaced with ‘[1]’ in the excerpt above. What is the full name of the Convention?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 1979
- Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966
- Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
Article IX of the Convention provides that disputes between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice (the “ICJ”) at the request of:
Article IX of the Convention provides that disputes between Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice (the “ICJ”) at the request of:
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
- Any State not party to the dispute
- The Secretary-General of the United Nations
- Any of the parties to the dispute
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): Any of the parties to the dispute.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
Article II of the Convention defines ‘genocide’ to mean certain acts, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Which of the following is not included in the list of such acts under Article II of the Convention?
Article II of the Convention defines ‘genocide’ to mean certain acts, “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Which of the following is not included in the list of such acts under Article II of the Convention?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Killing members of the group
- Promoting the cultural activities of the group
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): Promoting the cultural activities of the group.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
The ICJ held hearings for provisional measures in response to Ukraine’s application excerpted above on March 7, 2022. Which of the following did the Russian Federation do in relation to these hearings?
The ICJ held hearings for provisional measures in response to Ukraine’s application excerpted above on March 7, 2022. Which of the following did the Russian Federation do in relation to these hearings?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- It appeared before the ICJ, and also submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter
- It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and did not submit any written pleadings either
- It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter
- It appeared before the ICJ, but chose not to submit any written pleadings
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): It chose not to appear before the ICJ, and submitted written pleadings objecting to the ICJ’s jurisdiction over the matter.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Which of the following relates to the conditions under which States may resort to war or the use of armed force in general?
Which of the following relates to the conditions under which States may resort to war or the use of armed force in general?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Jus gentium
- Jus ad bellum
- Jus in bello
- Jus cogens
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): Jus ad bellum.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
Who among the following is the author of the work Mare Liberium, and is also often called the ‘Father’ of modern international law?
Who among the following is the author of the work Mare Liberium, and is also often called the ‘Father’ of modern international law?
Updated On: Aug 23, 2024
- Jeremy Bentham
- Baruch Spinoza
- Hugo Grotius
- Mohamed ElBaradei
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): Hugo Grotius.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 7
Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recognises certain sources of law that it must apply in deciding disputes submitted to it. Which of the following is or are included under Article 38(1)?
Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice recognises certain sources of law that it must apply in deciding disputes submitted to it. Which of the following is or are included under Article 38(1)?
Updated On: Aug 22, 2024
- International conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognised by the contesting states
- International custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law
- The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations
- All the above
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (D): All the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 8
Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that Article 38 “shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto”. Which of the following is the meaning of the phrase ex aequo et bono?
Article 38(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that Article 38 “shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto”. Which of the following is the meaning of the phrase ex aequo et bono?
Updated On: Aug 23, 2024
- The thing speaks for itself
- According to the right and good
- By that very fact or act
- Towards all
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (B): According to the right and good.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 9
Which among the following was established by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947, to undertake the mandate of the Assembly, under article 13(1)(a) of the Charter of the United Nations to “initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of ... encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification”?
Which among the following was established by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1947, to undertake the mandate of the Assembly, under article 13(1)(a) of the Charter of the United Nations to “initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of ... encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification”?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- The International Law Commission
- The International Court of Justice
- The International Criminal Court
- The World Trade Organisation
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (A): The International Law Commission.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 10
Who among the following first coined the term ‘genocide’?
Who among the following first coined the term ‘genocide’?
Updated On: Jul 11, 2024
- Hersch Lauterpacht
- Judge Radhabinod Pal
- Raphael Lemkin
- Mirjan Damaska
Hide Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The correct option is (C): Raphael Lemkin.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top Questions on Public International Law
- Match the followingSelect the correct option:
I. Uti Possidetis 1. Principle in customary international law providing that where there has been a fundamental change of circumstances since an agreement was concluded, a party to that agreement may withdraw from or terminate it. II. Pacta Sunt Servanda 2. Two or more states equally exercise sovereignty with respect to a territory and its inhabitants. III. Condominium 3. Doctrine that territory remains with the possessor state at the end of war or occupation unless otherwise determined by a treaty or an agreement. IV. Rebus Sic Stantibus 4. Proposition that treaties are binding upon the parties to them and must be performed in good faith. - AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- A key pillar of International Refugee law is that “No Contracting State shall expel or return [...] a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.” This is also referred to as:
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- Consider the following statements with respect to Geographical Indication protection
(i) The WTO TRIPs Agreement identifies Geographical Indications as Intellectual Property
(ii) Lucknow Chikankari and Bikaneri Bhujia are recognised Gs in India
(iii) The G registration can be obtained in respect of goods and services
(iv) The G registration is valid for a period of 15 years only and is non-renewableWhich of the statements given above is/are incorrect?- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- A fundamentality principle of international humanitarian law is the principle of proportionality. Which of the following statement most appropriately describes the principle?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Public International Law
- Which of the following is not a core international human rights treaty?
- AILET LLM - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Public 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