KSLU Solved Question Papers
Public International Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 7
2016 Dec Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 7 Public International Law 2016 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 2016 Dec examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2016 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 2016 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 · 13 questions answered
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'Duties and rights of states are only the duties and rights of men who compose them' - Discuss.[16]
Answer
For full marks, cover: the source and meaning of the statement (Westlake, 1894: States the "immediate", men the "ultimate" members of international society); the classical view it challenges (Oppenheim §§ 13 and 149); the case for the statement: States act only through men (ILC Articles, article 4), men answer for international crimes (Nuremberg; Geneva IV article 146; ILC article 58), men owe duties beyond obedience, men hold rights (Danzig opinion 1928; LaGrand), immunities exist for the State's sake (Arrest Warrant); the case against it: the State as a legal person distinct from its members (Reparation; Barcelona Traction), State continuity (Tinoco), collective responsibility and reparation (Chorzow), the State's own right in diplomatic protection (Mavrommatis); an evaluation (dual responsibility); a conclusion.
The statement and its meaning
The statement comes from John Westlake, Chapters on the Principles of International Law (Cambridge, 1894), chapter VI. Westlake wrote that international society "is the most comprehensive form of society among men, but it is among men that it exists". He went on: "States are its immediate, men its ultimate members. The duties and rights of states are only the duties and rights of the men who compose them."
Westlake's point is that a State is not a being apart from people. It is an organised group of human beings. When international law gives a State a right or lays a duty on it, the benefit and the burden fall in the end on people. They fall on the officials who act for it and on the population that lives under it.
The question is how far this is true in law, as well as in fact.
The classical view it challenges
The orthodox doctrine of the early twentieth century put States at the centre. Oppenheim (International Law, vol. I, 1912, § 13) wrote that "States solely and exclusively are the subjects of International Law". He added that "An individual human being, such as a king or an ambassador for example, is never directly a subject of International Law". In § 149 he called individuals "mere objects of International Law". On this view, a State's rights and duties belong to an abstract legal person. They are not those of the men who compose it.
The case for the statement
1. States act only through men. A State has no hands. Under the ILC Articles on State Responsibility 2001, article 4, "The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State". Every organ is a person or a body of persons. So every wrongful act of a State is, in fact, the act of human beings.
2. Men answer personally for international crimes. The Nuremberg Tribunal held in 1946 that "Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities". It held that only by punishing individuals can international law be enforced. The Fourth Geneva Convention 1949 obliges each party to search for persons alleged to have committed grave breaches. It must bring them, "regardless of their nationality, before its own courts" (article 146). The Eichmann trial in Israel (1961 to 1962) applied the same idea to a former official of another State. The ILC Articles keep the two kinds of responsibility side by side. They are "without prejudice to any question of the individual responsibility under international law of any person acting on behalf of a State" (article 58).
3. Men owe duties beyond obedience to their State. Nuremberg also held that "individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience". An official cannot shelter behind the State's orders.
4. Men hold rights under international law. The Permanent Court gave the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig opinion on 3 March 1928 (PCIJ Series B, No. 15). It accepted that a treaty can give rights directly to individuals if the parties so intend. Railway officials could rely on the Polish-Danzig agreement in the Danzig courts. In LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), judgment of 27 June 2001, the International Court held that article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations created individual rights. The LaGrand brothers held those rights, and Germany could invoke them. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 and the human rights treaties carry this much further.
5. Immunities exist for the State, not for the man. In Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), judgment of 14 February 2002, the Court held that a foreign minister's immunities "are not granted for their personal benefit". They exist "to ensure the effective performance of their functions on behalf of their respective States". The minister enjoys the State's right because he is the man who carries out the State's business.
The case against the statement
1. The State is a legal person distinct from its members. Law, municipal and international, treats a corporate body as separate from the people who compose it. In Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3, the Court applied that distinction to a company and its shareholders. A wrong done to the company did not give the shareholders' State a claim, so Belgium could not claim for the Belgian shareholders. The same logic applies to a State. Its rights are not simply a bundle of its citizens' rights.
2. Organisations, too, are persons apart from their members. The Court decided Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations in 1949 (ICJ Reports 1949, p. 174). It held that the United Nations had international personality of its own. It could bring a claim in its own name, separate from the claims of its Member States.
3. The State continues while its men change. In the Tinoco arbitration, Aguilar-Amory and Royal Bank of Canada Claims (Great Britain v. Costa Rica), 1 RIAA 369 (1923), Chief Justice Taft adopted the settled principle that "Changes in the government or the internal policy of a state do not as a rule affect its position in international law". Though the government changes, "the nation remains, with rights and obligations unimpaired". The restored government of Costa Rica could not simply disown the acts of Tinoco's government. If a State's rights and duties were only those of the men composing it, they would change with each generation and each government. They do not.
4. Responsibility is collective. When a State breaks international law, the State itself must make reparation. In Factory at Chorzow (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ Series A, No. 17 (1928), reparation had to wipe out the consequences of the illegal act. It is paid by the State as a whole, from public funds. It is not paid by the officials who acted.
5. Diplomatic protection is the State's own right. In Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (Greece v. Great Britain), PCIJ Series A, No. 2 (1924), the Permanent Court held that Greece, in taking up its national's case, was "asserting a right of its own". Once a State has taken up a case, "the State is sole claimant". The injured man does not own the claim.
Evaluation
Both sides hold part of the truth.
- In fact and in morals, Westlake is right. States exist for people and act through people. Every right of a State benefits people, and every duty is performed by people.
- In legal technique, the State remains a distinct person. It has its own rights and duties, continues through changes of government, and answers collectively for its wrongs.
- Modern law combines the two. One act may engage both the State's responsibility and the individual's criminal responsibility. That is the meaning of ILC article 58. Individuals have also become subjects of international law in their own right, as holders of human rights and bearers of criminal duties.
Table: the two views
| Point | For Westlake's statement | Against it |
|---|---|---|
| Who acts | Only men act (ILC art. 4) | Their acts are attributed to the State as a person |
| Crimes | Men are punished (Nuremberg; Geneva IV art. 146) | The State also answers, collectively (Chorzow) |
| Rights | Men hold rights (Danzig; LaGrand) | The claim on the international plane is the State's (Mavrommatis) |
| Continuity | The men change | The State continues (Tinoco) |
| Personality | States are groups of men | Law gives groups separate personality (Barcelona Traction; Reparation) |
Conclusion. Westlake's statement that "The duties and rights of states are only the duties and rights of the men who compose them" is true as a description of who acts and who benefits. It is borne out by individual criminal responsibility (Nuremberg; ILC article 58), by individual rights (Danzig; LaGrand) and by the purpose of immunities (Arrest Warrant). It is not literally true in law. The State is a distinct and continuing person (Tinoco), it makes reparation collectively (Chorzow), and it owns its claims (Mavrommatis). Modern international law therefore holds both the State and the men who act for it responsible, each in its own right.
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.