Comprehension
The consensual structure of the international legal order, with its strong emphasis on the sovereign equality of states, has always been somewhat precarious. In different waves over the centuries, it has been attacked for its incongruence with the realities of inequality in international politics, for its tension with ideals of democracy and human rights, and for standing in the way of more effective problem-solving in the international community. While surprisingly resilient in the face of such challenges, the consensual structure has seen renewed attacks in recent years. In the 1990s, those attacks were mainly “moral” in character. They were related to the liberal turn in international law, and some of them, under the banner of human rights, aimed at weakening principles of nonintervention and immunity. Others, starting from the idea of an emerging “international community,” questioned the prevailing contractual models of international law and emphasised the rise of norms and processes reflecting community values rather than individual state interests. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the focus has shifted, and attacks are more often framed in terms of effectiveness or global public goods. Classical international law is regarded as increasingly incapable of providing much-needed solutions for the challenges of a globalized world; as countries become ever more interdependent and vulnerable to global challenges, an order that safeguards states’ freedoms at the cost of common policies is often seen as anachronistic. According to this view, what is needed-and what we are likely to see-is a turn to nonconsensual lawmaking mechanisms, especially through powerful international institutions with majoritarian voting rules.
[The extract is part of the article “The Decay of Consent: International Law in an Age of Global Public Goods” by Krisch N, in the American Journal of International Law].
Question: 1

Abstract refers to the principle of ‘non-intervention’. Which of the following statements is not true with respect to the principle of ‘non-intervention’ enshrined in Article 2(7) of the UN Charter:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • The United Nations should not intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state
  • The United Nations shall not require the Members to submit such matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction to settlement under the present Charter
  • The principle of non-intervention shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter-VII of UN Charter.
  • As per the wordings of Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, the obligation with respect to ‘non-intervention’ under this provision applies to both the United Nations and its members.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The non-intervention principle generally limits the UN's involvement in the internal affairs of member states, but not individual members. This limitation is waived when international peace and security are at stake.
The correct answer is (D): According to Article 2(7) of the UN Charter, the 'non-intervention' obligation in this article applies to both the UN and its member states.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 2

Extract refers to several institutions with law-making power. Security Council may be one such institution. Which of the following statements is not true with respect to the Security Council?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
  • Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
  • Decisions of the Security Council on procedural shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members
  • Decisions of the Security Council on procedural shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members, including the concurring votes of the permanent members
Show Solution

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

For procedural matters in the Security Council, a decision needs nine affirmative votes; the permanent members' agreement is not required. This differs from substantive matters.
The correct answer is (C): Procedural decisions in the Security Council are adopted with nine affirmative votes, which does not require the concurring votes of the permanent members.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 3

Extract refers to ‘norms and processes reflecting community values’. In this context, Jus cogens norms serve to protect the fundamental values of the international community. Which of the following is not true with respect to jus cogens?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • It is a norm accepted and recognised by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted.
  • It can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character
  • A treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law (Jus Cogens).
  • States are bound by Peremptory norms of general international law (Jus Cogens) only when they have given express consent to it in writing.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Jus cogens norms are universally binding on all states, regardless of individual consent, due to their status as fundamental international law principles.
The accurate choice is (D): States are only obligated by Peremptory norms of general international law (Jus Cogens) if they have explicitly agreed to them in writing.

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 4

Article 25 of the UN Charter states, ‘The Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the _______ in accordance with the present Charter.’ Which of the following organ(s) of the United Nations is/are being referred to in Article 25:

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • Security Council
  • International Court of Justice
  • Security Council and General Assembly
  • Security Council and International Court of Justice
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

According to Article 25 of the UN Charter, all member states must abide by Security Council decisions. This grants the Security Council the power to enforce actions for global peace and security.
The correct choice is (A): Security Council

Was this answer helpful?
0
Question: 5

Which of the following statements is not true with respect to ‘customary international law’?

Updated On: Jan 13, 2026
  • In the Asylum case 1950, ICJ declared that a customary rule must be ‘in accordance with a constant and uniform usage practiced by the States in question’
  • In the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, 1969, ICJ remarked that state practice had to be ‘both extensive and virtually uniform in the sense of the provision invoked’
  • In the Nicaragua v. United States case, 1986, ICJ said that it was not necessary that the practice in question had to be ‘in absolutely rigorous conformity’ with the purported customary rule
  • In the Right of Passage over Indian Territory case, 1960, ICJ denied the existence of local custom between the two states.
Show Solution

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

The provided statement contradicts the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) finding in the Right of Passage case, where local custom between India and Portugal was acknowledged.
The correct answer is (D): The 1960 Right of Passage over Indian Territory case saw the ICJ affirm the presence of local custom between the two nations, which contradicts the given statement.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Public International Law

Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam

An unpleasant tussle ensured between the TATA Sons and Cyrus Pallonji Mistry (“CPM”) in October 2016, when Mistry, who was the sixth chairman of Tata Sons, was ousted from the position of Executive Chairman of Tata Sons Limited. CPM took over as the chairman in 2012 after Ratan Tata announced his retirement. Tata Group patriarch Ratan Tata had personally asked Cyrus Mistry to resign as chairman of Tata Sons as the board had lost faith in him, but his refusal led to the removal via majority vote. Cyrus Investments Private limited and Sterling Investment Corporation Private Limited belonged to the Shapoorji Palloni Group in which CPM held a controlling interest (about 2% of the issued share capital of Tata Sons). Seven out of the nine directors of Tata Sons voted for CPM’s replacement after Farida Khambata abstained and Mistry was declared ineligible to vote as he was an interested director. Mistry challenged his removal, accusing the board of mismanagement and of oppressing minority shareholders. however, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) rejected his petition. After this Mistry challenged his removal in National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). In 2018, NCLAT order restored Mistry as the group’s executive chairman. Tata Sons challenged that NCLAT order in Supreme Court. CPM also challenged the order for few more relief. Supreme Court stayed NCLAT’s order reinstating Cyrus Mistry as the executive chairman of Tata Sons and restoring his directorships in the holding company as well as three group companies, with a preliminary observation that the first impression of the order was “not good” and that the tribunal ‘could’ not have given consequential relief that had not been sought in the first place. Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided the case in favour of Tata Sons. One of the issues decided by Supreme Court was that “whether the case was fit to be qualified as a situation of ‘Oppression and Mismanagement’ under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013?”. On this issue, the Supreme Court observed that “unless the removal of a person as a chairman of a company is oppressive or mismanaged or done in a prejudicial manner damaging the interests of the company, its members or the public at large, the NCLT cannot interfere with the removal of a person as a Chairman of a Company in a petition under Section 241 of the Companies Act, 2013.” This case highlighted the point that “an executive chairman does not have sovereign authority over the company. In corporate democracy, decision making always remains with the Board as long as they enjoy the pleasure of the shareholders. Likewise, an executive chairman will continue as long as he/she enjoys the pleasure of the Board. An assumption by the executive chairman that he/she would have a free hand in running the affairs of the company is incongruous to corporate governance and corporate democracy. The Tribunal held that the concept of ‘free hand rule’ is antithesis to collective responsibility and collective decision making”.
[Based on Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Cyrus Investment Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC 122].
View Solution
Alastair Hudson in his book ‘Securities Law’ First Edition (Sweet & Maxwell), 2008 at page 342, refers to ‘Restricted Offers’ and noticed that there is no contravention of Section 85 of FSMA 2000, if: “(b) the offer is made to or directed at fewer than 100 persons, other than qualified investors, per EEA State”. The purpose underlying that exemption, the author says, is mainly the fact that the offer is not being made to an appreciable section of “the public” such that the policy of the prospectus rules generally is not affected. Further, the author says that “Self-evidently, while an offer to 99 ordinary members of the public would be within the literal terms of the exemption, it would not be the sort of activity anticipated by the legislation. Moreover, if a marketing campaign were arranged such that ordinary members of the people were approached in groups of 99 people at a time in an effort to avoid the prospectus rules, then that would not appear to be within the spirit of the regulations and might be held to contravene the core principle that a regulated person must act with integrity.”
I may, therefore, indicate, subject to what has been stated above, in India that any share or debenture issue beyond forty-nine persons, would be a public issue attracting all the relevant provisions of the SEBI Act, regulations framed thereunder, the Companies Act, pertaining to the public issue. Facts clearly reveal that Saharas have issued securities to the public more than the threshold limit statutorily fixed under the first proviso to Section 67(3) and hence violated the listing provisions which may attract civil and criminal liabilities. Principles of listing, which I may later on discuss, is intended to assist public companies in identifying their obligations and responsibilities, which are continuing in nature, transparent in content and call for high degree of integrity. Obligations are imposed on the issuer on an ongoing basis. Public companies who are legally obliged to list their securities are deemed to accept the continuing obligations, by virtue of their application, prospectus and the subsequent maintenance of listing on a recognized stock exchange. Disclosure is the rule, there is no exception. Misleading public is a serious crime, which may attract civil and criminal liability. Listing of securities depends not upon one’s volition, but on statutory mandate.
[Extract from Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited v. Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Para 89-91, Civil Appeal No. 9833/2011 (SC)]
View Solution
The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words, they do not supplant the law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone a great deal of change in recent years. In the past, it was thought that it included just two rules namely: (1) no one shall be a judge in his own case (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa) and (2) no decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable hearing (audi alteram partem).
Very soon thereafter a third rule was envisaged and that is that quasi-judicial enquiries must be held in good faith, without bias and not arbitrarily or unreasonably. But in the course of years many more subsidiary rules came to be added to the rules of natural justice. Till very recently it was the opinion of the courts that unless the authority concerned was required by the law under which it functioned to act judicially there was no room for the application of the rules of natural justice. The validity of that limitation is not questioned.
If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative enquiries. Often times it is not easy to draw the line that demarcates administrative enquiries from quasi-judicial enquiries. Enquiries which were considered administrative at one time are now being considered as quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a just decision is the aim of both quasi-judicial enquiries as well as administrative enquiries. An unjust decision in an administrative enquiry may have more far reaching effect than a decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry as observed by this Court in Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 990/68, decided on 15-07- 1968], the rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. What particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to a great extent on the facts and circumstances of that case, the framework of the law under which the enquiry is held and the constitution of the Tribunal or body of persons appointed for that purpose. Whenever a complaint is made before a court that some principle of natural justice had been contravened the court has to decide whether the observance of that rule was necessary for a just decision on the facts of that case.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, (1969) 2 SCC 262, decided on April 29, 1969, hereafter ‘A.K. Kraipak’].
View Solution
The doctrine of promissory estoppel is by now well recognized and well defined by a catena of decisions of this Court. Where the Government makes a promise knowing or intending that it would be acted on by the promise and, in fact, the promise, acting in reliance on it, alters his position, the Government would be held bound by the promise and the promise would be enforceable against the Government at the instance of the promise notwithstanding that there is no consideration for the promise and the promise is not recorded in the form of a formal contract as required by Article 229 of the Constitution. The rule of promissory estoppel being an equitable doctrine has to be moulded to suit the particular situation. It is not a hard-and-fast rule but an elastic one, the objective of which is to do justice between the parties and to extend an equitable treatment to them. This doctrine is a principle evolved by equity, to avoid injustice and though commonly named promissory estoppel, it is neither in the realm of contract nor in the realm of estoppel. For application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel the promise must establish that he suffered in detriment or altered his position by reliance on the promise.
Normally, the doctrine of promissory estoppel is being applied against the Government and defence based on executive necessity would not be accepted by the court. However, if it can be shown by the Government that having regard to the facts as they have subsequently transpired, it would be inequitable to hold the Government to the promise made by it, the court would not raise an equity in favour of the promise and enforce the promise against the Government. Where public interest warrants, the principles of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked. The Government can change the policy in public interest. However, it is well settled that taking cue from this doctrine, the authority cannot be compelled to do something which is not allowed by law or prohibited by law. There is no promissory estoppel against the settled proposition of law. Doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked for enforcement of a promise made contrary to law, because none can be compelled to act against the statute. Thus, the Government or public authority cannot be compelled to make a provision which is contrary to law.
[Extract from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2011) 3 SCC 193, decided on January 20, 2011, hereafter ‘Shree Sidhbali Steels’].
View Solution