KSLU Solved Question Papers
Public International Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 7
2013 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 7 Public International Law 2013 Dec Question Paper with Solutions
First published on munotes.in on 21 October 2026.
Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.
Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.
Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.
munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Karnataka State Law University. It is not affiliated with Karnataka State Law University, and is not endorsed by it.
The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.
The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Karnataka State Law University at the 2013 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2013 Dec examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2013 Dec examination, reproduced as Karnataka State Law University set them, in the order it set them. Long reading passages are shortened to their first and last lines and our summary; the original paper prints them in full. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.
Duration 3 hours · Total marks 100 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all the 5 questions. (2) One essay type and one short note question or problem from each unit have to be attempted, which is referred as Part (a) and Part (b). (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written in English or Kannada completely.
How to use this volume
Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.
Q1
Unit I
(a)Explain the theories relating to relationship between International law and Municipal law.[15]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the three questions the theories answer (one system or two; how a rule enters municipal law; which prevails); monism (Kelsen, Lauterpacht) and dualism (Triepel, Anzilotti, Oppenheim § 20 and § 21); incorporation and transformation; the answer on the international plane (VCLT article 27, ILC article 3); the theories tested in practice: Britain (Trendtex, Chung Chi Cheung, R. v. Keyn, Mortensen v. Peters, Rayner, Miller), the United States (The Paquete Habana; Constitution article VI), India (article 51(c), article 253, Gramophone, Jolly George Verghese, Vishaka, Maganbhai); an evaluation and a table; a conclusion.
The three questions
Every State lives under its own municipal law and under international law. The theories on their relationship answer three questions.
- Are they one legal system or two?
- How does a rule of international law become part of municipal law?
- If the two conflict, which prevails, and in which forum?
Question 1: one system or two?
Monism says they form one legal order. Hans Kelsen argued that all legal norms derive their validity from a single chain, and that each State's legal order rests on international law. Hersch Lauterpacht stressed that all law is ultimately addressed to individuals. Most monists give international law primacy.
Dualism says they are two separate systems. It was developed by Heinrich Triepel (1899) and Dionisio Anzilotti (1905). L. Oppenheim adopted it, writing (§ 20, 1912) that the law of nations and municipal law "are essentially different from each other". He named three differences: their sources, the relations they regulate, and their substance. Municipal law is "a law of a Sovereign over individuals", while the law of nations is "a law not above, but between Sovereign States".
Question 2: how does a rule enter municipal law?
Incorporation (adoption). Rules of international law become part of municipal law automatically, unless they conflict with a statute. This fits monism, and in many common-law countries it is applied to custom.
Transformation. A rule becomes part of municipal law only when the State expressly adopts it, usually by legislation. This fits dualism. Oppenheim put it plainly (§ 21). The law of nations "can neither as a body nor in parts be per se a part of Municipal Law". It becomes so only by adoption through municipal custom or statute.
Question 3: which prevails?
On the international plane, international law always prevails. A State cannot excuse a breach by pointing to its own law. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 says a party "may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty". Article 3 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility 2001 says an act's wrongfulness is not affected by its being lawful under internal law.
On the municipal plane, it depends on each State's constitution. Oppenheim's dualist rule was that in "indubitable conflict" municipal courts "must apply" municipal law. The State is then internationally responsible, but its courts follow its own law.
The theories tested in practice
1. Britain: incorporation for custom, transformation for treaties.
Custom. In Trendtex Trading Corporation v. Central Bank of Nigeria [1977] QB 529, a company sued the Central Bank of Nigeria on a letter of credit for cement imports, and the bank pleaded State immunity. Lord Denning MR said "the rules of international law are incorporated into English law automatically and considered to be part of English law unless they are in conflict with an Act of Parliament". The Court applied the newer, restrictive rule of immunity, and the bank was not immune. Earlier, in Chung Chi Cheung v. The King [1939] AC 160, Lord Atkin said the courts treat the rules nations accept among themselves "as incorporated into the domestic law", so far as they are not inconsistent with statute.
Limits. In R. v. Keyn (1876) 2 Ex D 63, a German master was convicted of manslaughter after a collision within three miles of Dover. The conviction was quashed by seven votes to six, because English courts lacked jurisdiction over such waters without a statute. Then came Mortensen v. Peters (1906) 8 F (J) 93. The Danish master of a Norwegian trawler was convicted under a Scottish fishery by-law for trawling beyond three miles. The High Court of Justiciary held that a clear statute must be applied even if it conflicts with international law.
Treaties. In J. H. Rayner (Mincing Lane) Ltd v. Department of Trade and Industry [1990] 2 AC 418, Lord Oliver said "a treaty is not part of English law unless and until it has been incorporated into the law by legislation". In R (Miller) v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5, the Supreme Court called this "the so-called dualist theory", under which international law and domestic law "operate in independent spheres".
2. The United States: incorporation for custom; treaties as supreme law.
In The Paquete Habana; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), the United States navy captured two Spanish fishing boats off Cuba. The Supreme Court held the capture unlawful under a customary rule exempting coastal fishing boats. It said "international law is part of our law". As for treaties, article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land".
3. India: incorporation for custom, transformation for treaties, harmonious construction.
Article 51(c) of the Constitution directs the State to "foster respect for international law and treaty obligations". Article 253 empowers Parliament to make laws implementing treaties.
- In Gramophone Company of India Ltd v. Birendra Bahadur Pandey, AIR 1984 SC 667, the Supreme Court held that rules of international law are accommodated in Indian law without legislation unless they conflict with an Act of Parliament. Courts must interpret Indian law, where possible, to avoid conflict with international law.
- In Jolly George Verghese v. Bank of Cochin, AIR 1980 SC 470, the Court held that ratifying the ICCPR "does not automatically make the Covenant an enforceable part of the corpus juris of India". Yet it read the civil-prison provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure consistently with article 11 of the Covenant.
- In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, there was no Indian law on sexual harassment at work. The Court read CEDAW into the fundamental rights and laid down binding guidelines. It said "any International Convention not inconsistent with the fundamental rights and in harmony with its spirit must be read into these provisions".
- In Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783, Shah J said legislation is not a condition of entering into a treaty. It is needed only where the treaty affects citizens' rights or changes domestic law.
Evaluation
Neither pure theory describes practice. Dualism explains why treaties need legislation and why courts follow a clear statute. Monism explains why States remain bound internationally whatever their own law says. Most States take a middle course. They use incorporation for custom and transformation for treaties, and read their own law, where possible, consistently with international law.
Table
| Point | Monism | Dualism | Practice (Britain, India) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of systems | One | Two | Two, but closely linked |
| Entry of custom | Automatic | Only by adoption | Automatic unless a statute conflicts (Trendtex, Gramophone) |
| Entry of treaties | Automatic | By legislation | By legislation when rights are affected (Rayner, Maganbhai) |
| Point | Monism | Dualism | Practice (Britain, India) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conflict in a national court | International law prevails | Municipal law prevails | A clear statute prevails (Mortensen) |
| Conflict internationally | International law prevails | International law prevails | International law prevails (VCLT art. 27) |
Conclusion. Monism treats international and municipal law as one order, and dualism, as Oppenheim stated it, as two. Incorporation and transformation describe how international rules enter municipal law. Internationally, a State can never plead its own law, as article 27 of the VCLT and article 3 of the ILC Articles provide. In practice Britain, the United States and India incorporate custom, as Trendtex, The Paquete Habana and Gramophone show. Britain and India require legislation for treaties, as Rayner, Miller and Jolly George Verghese show. All three read their law to agree with international law where they can.
The rest of the answers
The first answer is free. The rest come with the KSLU B.A. LL.B. Semester 7 solved papers.
You have read the question paper and its first answer in full. Buy the solved papers once and you can read every answer of every solved paper in this semester.
Solved papers: ₹499 Already bought it? Sign in
The question paper itself stays free.
Found an error in this volume? Report it and we will check it against the paper.