Question

In relation to State responsibility, the Permanent Court of International Justice has observed that: ‘ It is a principle of international law and even a greater conception of law, that any breach of an engagement involves an obligation to make reparation’, in which of the following case?

• A. Chorzow Factory Case.
• B. Home Missionary Society Case
• C. Corfu Channel Case
• D. Genocide Convention Case
• A. Corfu Channel Case
• B. Trial Smelter Arbitration
• C. International Commission on the River Oder Case
• D. Case Concerning auditing of accounts between Netherlands and France.
• A. Island of Palmas Case
• B. Nuclear Tests Case
• C. Corfu Channel Case
• D. None of the above.
• A. 191
• B. 192
• C. 193
• D. 194
• A. South West Africa Case
• B. South West Africa Case
• C. Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case
• D. North Sea Continental Shelf Case
• A. Basel Convention, 1989
• B. Principle 21 of Rio Declaration
• C. Kyoto Protocol, 1997
• D. Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration
• A. On the request of Security Council Only
• B. On the request of General Assembly only
• C. On the request of General Assembly or Security Council or both.
• D. On the request of Economic and Social Council if authorised by the Security Council.
• A. Positivist
• B. Historical
• C. Sociological
• D. Naturalist
• A. Principle 16 of Rio Declaration
• B. International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation, 1990
• C. Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents 1992.
• D. All of the above.
• A. It is an International Court having jurisdiction on all countries.
• B. It is an International Court having jurisdiction on all countries.
• C. Its judgements have no binding force.
• D. Its jurisdiction is limited to States which have consented to its jurisdiction and its judgements are binding only on the parties to the dispute.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The passage lifts a specific sentence from a landmark PCIJ ruling on reparation for internationally wrongful acts, so the fastest way to the answer is recognising the source of that sentence rather than reasoning about state responsibility from scratch.

1. Chorzow Factory Case: This is where the exact principle appears, that breach of an engagement automatically creates an obligation to make reparation, handed down by the Permanent Court of International Justice in 1928 in the dispute between Germany and Poland over the Chorzow nitrate factory.
2. Home Missionary Society Case: Concerns a different question, state liability for failing to prevent a local revolt, and is not the source of the reparation principle quoted.
3. Corfu Channel Case: A later ICJ decision about mined waters and territorial responsibility; its subject matter does not match the quoted text.
4. Genocide Convention Case: Deals with responsibility for genocide specifically and post-dates the classical reparation doctrine referenced here.

The correct answer is Chorzow Factory Case.

Answer 2

The bracket marks a quotation about riparian states sharing perfect equality of use over a navigable river, a very specific holding that points to one particular PCIJ case among the four options.

1. Corfu Channel Case: About international straits and mine-clearing responsibility, not river rights, so it does not fit.
2. Trial Smelter Arbitration: Establishes the rule against causing transboundary pollution harm, a different doctrine from riparian equality on a river.
3. International Commission on the River Oder Case: This is the 1929 PCIJ ruling that coined the community-of-interest concept for riparian states on a navigable river, with equality of use and no preferential privileges, matching the quoted text in substance.
4. Case Concerning auditing of accounts between Netherlands and France: An unrelated financial-accounts dispute, not a river-rights case.

The correct answer is International Commission on the River Oder Case.

Answer 3

This bracket points to the classic description of sovereignty as coming bundled with a duty to protect other states' rights within one's own borders, a phrase closely associated with one particular arbitral award.

1. Island of Palmas Case: Arbitrator Max Huber's 1928 award is the direct source of this formulation, tying territorial sovereignty to a corresponding obligation to protect the rights of other states within the territory.
2. Nuclear Tests Case: Concerns unilateral state declarations and nuclear testing, unconnected to this sovereignty formulation.
3. Corfu Channel Case: Builds on the same broader idea in a different sentence of the passage, about not letting territory be used to harm others, but it is not where the quoted sovereignty-and-protection language originates.
4. None of the above: Ruled out because the Island of Palmas award clearly supplies this exact proposition.

The correct answer is Island of Palmas Case.

Answer 4

The quoted duty not to let jurisdictional activities cause pollution damage to other states comes from a specific provision of UNCLOS 1982, and the answer turns on matching the exact wording to the exact article.

1. 191: Deals with advisory opinions from the Seabed Disputes Chamber, unrelated to pollution obligations.
2. 192: States the general duty to protect the marine environment, but in broader terms than the specific text quoted.
3. 193: Concerns the sovereign right to exploit natural resources subject to environmental duties, again a neighbouring but distinct rule.
4. 194: Article 194(2) is worded almost identically to the passage, requiring states to take all necessary measures so that activities under their control do not cause pollution damage to other states and their environment.

The correct answer is 194.

Answer 5

The phrase two states follow it repeatedly for a long time is the giveaway here, it describes local or bilateral custom, a narrower doctrine than the general custom most international law questions test.

1. South West Africa Case (both listings): Concerned standing and interpretation of a League of Nations mandate, not the formation of custom between two states.
2. Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case: This is where the ICJ held that a practice consistently followed between just two states, Portugal and India, over a long period could itself become a binding local custom governing their relationship, matching the question's wording almost exactly.
3. North Sea Continental Shelf Case: Sets the test for general custom binding on states broadly, requiring widespread and representative practice plus opinio juris, a different and broader inquiry than a rule arising from just two states' conduct toward each other.

The correct answer is Right of Passage over Indian Territory Case.

Answer 6

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas, use your own property without harming another's, is the classical root of the international no-harm rule, and the challenge is picking the instrument that actually contains it, not just any instrument that touches environmental law.

1. Basel Convention, 1989: Regulates hazardous waste shipments across borders, a specific regulatory regime rather than the source of this general maxim.
2. Principle 21 of Rio Declaration: A numbering mismatch, the Rio Declaration's version of this idea sits at Principle 2, so citing it as Principle 21 does not correctly track the doctrine's source.
3. Kyoto Protocol, 1997: Sets emissions targets under the climate regime, unconnected to the origin of the sic utere tuo maxim.
4. Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration: Principle 21 states the sovereign right to exploit resources alongside the responsibility not to damage other states' environments, the textbook expression of sic utere tuo, and Principle 22 adds the call to develop rules on liability and compensation for such damage.

The correct answer is Principles 21 and 22 of Stockholm Declaration.

Answer 7

Article 96 of the UN Charter splits advisory-opinion requests into two tiers, direct requesters and authorised requesters, and the options here test whether that split is understood correctly.

1. Security Council only: Wrong because it ignores that the General Assembly has the same direct power.
2. General Assembly only: Wrong for the mirror reason, it ignores the Security Council's equally direct power under Article 96(1).
3. General Assembly or Security Council or both: Correct. Article 96(1) gives both organs an independent, unconditional right to seek an advisory opinion on any legal question.
4. ECOSOC if authorised by the Security Council: The authorising organ named is wrong, Article 96(2) requires ECOSOC and other organs or agencies to get authorisation from the General Assembly, not the Security Council, before requesting an opinion.

The correct answer is On the request of General Assembly or Security Council or both.

Answer 8

Auto-limitation says a state is bound by international law only because it has chosen, of its own sovereign will, to restrict itself, so the question is really asking which school treats state consent as the whole basis of legal obligation.

1. Positivist: Correct fit. Jellinek's auto-limitation theory is a positivist construct, sovereignty stays intact and obligation arises purely from the state consenting to limit its own conduct.
2. Historical: Explains law through the slow evolution of a community's customs and shared consciousness, not through a state's deliberate act of self-restriction.
3. Sociological: Frames law as serving social needs and interests, a functional lens rather than a consent-based one.
4. Naturalist: Roots law in universal moral or rational principles independent of what a state consents to, which runs directly counter to the consent-based logic of auto-limitation.

The correct answer is Positivist.

Answer 9

Polluter Pays is not confined to one treaty text, it recurs across general environmental law and sector-specific conventions, which is what this question is really testing.

1. Principle 16 of Rio Declaration: States the principle in so many words, national authorities should make the polluter bear the cost of pollution.
2. Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention, 1990: Builds cooperative response mechanisms for oil spills that operate alongside liability rules placing the cost of clean-up and damage on those responsible, carrying the same underlying logic into the marine pollution field.
3. Convention on Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, 1992: Places preventive and responsive obligations on operators and states for industrial accidents, again reflecting that the party causing the harm should bear its consequences.
4. All of the above: Follows once each of the three is shown to embody the same cost-allocation logic in its own domain.

The correct answer is All of the above.

Answer 10

Comparing the ICJ to the Supreme Court of India comes down to two things, how each acquires jurisdiction and who its rulings bind, and the options split along exactly those lines.

1. Jurisdiction on all countries (both listings): Overstates the ICJ's reach; it can only hear disputes involving states that have consented to its jurisdiction, through a treaty clause, special agreement, or an Article 36(2) declaration, not every state automatically.
2. Judgements have no binding force: Also wrong; under Article 59 of the ICJ Statute and Article 94 of the UN Charter, ICJ judgments bind the parties to that dispute, and non-compliance can be taken to the Security Council.
3. Jurisdiction limited to consenting States, judgements binding only on the parties: This is the accurate distinction. The Supreme Court of India has compulsory jurisdiction over all persons and matters under the Constitution, while the ICJ depends on state consent and its rulings bind only the specific parties to that case, not states generally.

The correct answer is Its jurisdiction is limited to States which have consented to its jurisdiction and its judgements are binding only on the parties to the dispute.