KSLU Solved Question Papers
Public International Law
Previous Year Question Paper with Solution
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) · Sem 7
2026 Jan Examination
munotes.in
Mumbai
B.A. LL.B. (Five Years) Sem 7 Public International Law 2026 Jan 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 2026 Jan examination.
Contents
The questions below are the paper as Karnataka State Law University set it at the 2026 Jan examination, in the order it was set.
MarksPage
MarksPage
The Paper as Set
The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the 2026 Jan 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 80 · 20 questions answered
Instructions printed on the paper
- N.B. (1) Answer all five Units. (2) One essay type question and short note/Problem compulsory in each Unit. (3) Figures to the right indicate marks. (4) Answer should be written either 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)Examine the theories relating to nature and basis of international law.[10]
Answer
For full marks, cover: what "nature" and "basis" mean; the nature of international law (law between equal States, made by them, weak enforcement, Austin's objection); the naturalist theory; the positivist theory with consent and auto-limitation; Kelsen's pure theory; the sociological theory; Lotus as the judicial statement of the consent view; jus cogens as the limit of consent; a short evaluation.
What the question asks
The nature of international law asks what kind of law it is. The basis asks why States are bound by it at all. A State is sovereign, which means it has no legal superior. So the real puzzle is how a sovereign can be bound. The theories below are different answers to that one question.
The nature of international law
Public international law is the body of rules that governs the relations of States with one another. It also governs international organisations and, to a growing extent, individuals.
It differs from municipal law (the internal law of a country) in four ways:
- It is horizontal. The same States that are bound make the rules. There is no world legislature above them.
- Courts are consensual. The International Court of Justice hears a State only if that State has accepted its jurisdiction.
- Enforcement is decentralised. There is no world police. Breach is met by protest, countermeasures, sanctions, or action by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
- Its sources are treaty and custom. Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lists conventions, custom and general principles of law. Judicial decisions and writings are subsidiary means.
Austin's objection. John Austin defined law as a command of a sovereign backed by a sanction. International law has no sovereign above States, so Austin called it "positive morality", not law. The modern answer is that a legal system is recognised by how its subjects treat it. States argue in terms of legal rights, plead before tribunals, and draft laws to fit treaties. Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution itself directs the State to "foster respect for international law and treaty obligations". Weak enforcement makes it a weak system, not a non-legal one.
The naturalist theory
The naturalists say international law binds because it is part of a higher law. That law is discovered by human reason. States do not make it; they find it.
Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suarez in sixteenth-century Spain belong here. Samuel Pufendorf took the pure form: there is no law of nations except natural law applied to States. Hugo Grotius (De Jure Belli ac Pacis, 1625) grounded the law on natural reason. He also accepted the agreed practice of nations as a second source, so he is a bridge to the next school.
Merit. It explains why some rules bind even a State that never agreed, such as the ban on genocide.
Weakness. Reason gives different answers to different people. Natural law was used both to justify colonial conquest and to condemn it. It cannot settle a dispute between two States that both appeal to reason.
The positivist theory
The positivists say international law binds because States have consented to it. Law is made by the will of States, not found. Consent is express in a treaty and tacit in custom. Bynkershoek, Triepel and Anzilotti developed this view. Anzilotti treated pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) as the basic rule of the system. Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 now states it. Every treaty in force binds the parties and must be performed in good faith.
The auto-limitation theory. Georg Jellinek refined consent theory. A sovereign cannot be bound by any will outside its own. So obligation comes from the State limiting itself. The objection is that it is circular. A State that limits itself can also remove the limit. A promise that lasts only as long as the promisor wishes is not a legal duty.
S.S. Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10 (judgment of 7 September 1927), is the classic judicial statement of the consent view. A French ship collided with a Turkish ship on the high seas, and Turkey prosecuted the French officer of the watch. France said Turkey needed a rule permitting it to do so. The Permanent Court disagreed. It said the basis of international law is the free will of independent States. A State is therefore free to act unless a prohibitive rule stops it. So Turkey had not breached international law.
Merit. Positivism matches how States actually behave: they negotiate, sign, ratify and enter reservations.
Weakness. It cannot explain why a new State is bound at birth by customary rules it never agreed to. It also cannot explain jus cogens. Article 53 of the Vienna Convention makes a treaty void if it conflicts with a peremptory norm. If consent were everything, States could agree to anything.
The modern theories
Kelsen's pure theory. Hans Kelsen said every norm draws its validity from a higher norm. The chain ends in a presupposed basic norm (the Grundnorm). For international law he identified it with pacta sunt servanda. The theory is rigorous, but a presupposed norm only names the point where the explanation stops.
The sociological theory. Leon Duguit and Georges Scelle said law grows out of social need. States are interdependent, and that interdependence produces rules. This explains why the law is most developed where interdependence is greatest: posts, aviation, shipping, health and trade.
The fundamental rights theory. Older writers said States have inherent rights of independence, equality, self-preservation and jurisdiction. Self-preservation was used to excuse almost any war, and article 2(4) of the Charter now prohibits the use of force.
Comparison
| Theory | Why States are bound | Chief names | Main defect |
|---|---|---|---|
| Naturalist | A higher law found by reason | Vitoria, Suarez, Pufendorf | Cannot say what the rules are |
| Positivist | Consent of States | Bynkershoek, Triepel, Anzilotti | Cannot explain new States or jus cogens |
| Auto-limitation | The State limits itself | Jellinek | Circular |
| Pure theory | A presupposed basic norm | Kelsen | Explanation stops at an assumption |
| Sociological | Social interdependence | Duguit, Scelle | Describes rather than obliges |
Evaluation
No single theory explains the whole subject. Consent explains the great bulk of the law: treaties and most of custom. A small core of peremptory norms binds whether or not a State agreed, and article 53 recognises it. Most writers today therefore hold a mixed view. The test of acceptance is still positivist, by "the international community of States as a whole", but its content reaches beyond any one State's will.
Conclusion. International law is a horizontal system of law made by States for States, weak in enforcement but treated as law by those it binds. Its basis is best explained by consent, as Lotus holds. Consent is limited by a narrow core of peremptory norms that no State can contract out of under article 53 of the Vienna Convention. The naturalist and positivist theories are therefore partial truths, and the modern position combines them.
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.