Comprehension
The International Court of Justice recalls that, pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, it has the power to indicate provisional measures when irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings or when the alleged disregard of such rights may entail irreparable consequences. However, this power will be exercised only if there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights claimed before the Court gives its final decision. The condition of urgency is met when the acts susceptible of causing irreparable prejudice can “occur at any moment” before the Court makes a final decision on the case. The Court must therefore consider whether such a risk exists at this stage of the proceedings. The Court is not called upon, for the purposes of its decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to establish the existence of breaches of obligations under the Genocide Convention, but to determine whether the circumstances require the indication of provisional measures for the protection of the right found to be plausible. Having determined that Ukraine can plausibly assert a right under the Genocide Convention and that there is a link between this right and the provisional measures requested, the Court then considers whether irreparable prejudice could be caused to this right and whether there is urgency, in the sense that there is a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to this right before the Court gives its final decision.
Question: 1
Under what statutory authority did the court pass the ‘provisional measures’ against the Russian Federation?
Under what statutory authority did the court pass the ‘provisional measures’ against the Russian Federation?
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
- Charter of the United Nations 1945
- Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945
- Genocide Convention, 1948
- None of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The statutory authority under which the court passed the 'provisional measures' against the Russian Federation is the Statute of the International Court of Justice 1945. According to Article 41 of this Statute, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has the power to indicate provisional measures to prevent irreparable prejudice to rights being subjected to judicial proceedings when there is an urgency, meaning a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will occur before the final decision is made. In this context, the ICJ's decision is intended to protect plausible rights asserted under the Genocide Convention by Ukraine, ensuring they are not irreparably harmed before the Court's final ruling.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2
What ‘irreparable prejudice’ is being talked about in the above paragraph?
What ‘irreparable prejudice’ is being talked about in the above paragraph?
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
- Violation of the Genocide Convention by Russian Federation.
- Special military operations carried out against the Ukraine
- Violation of Humanitarian laws during the armed conflict by Russian Federation.
- All of the above
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The question pertains to the concept of "irreparable prejudice" as mentioned in the context of a judicial proceeding by the International Court of Justice. The paragraph outlines the circumstances under which the Court can decide on provisional measures, which are urgent actions that can be taken to prevent potential harm or prejudice before a final decision is reached.
In this specific case, "irreparable prejudice" refers to harm that could be caused by various actions allegedly undertaken by the Russian Federation, which are under judicial scrutiny. These include:
- Violation of the Genocide Convention by the Russian Federation.
- Special military operations carried out against Ukraine.
- Violation of humanitarian laws during the armed conflict by the Russian Federation.
The term "irreparable prejudice" signifies that the Court needs to act quickly to prevent any irreversible damage to rights in question, such as those related to the Genocide Convention that Ukraine can plausibly claim. This involves situations where such prejudice could happen "at any moment" before the final judgment.
Thus, the correct response recognizing all these potential violations leading to "irreparable prejudice" is: All of the above.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3
The reason behind the Russian-Ukraine crisis is:
The reason behind the Russian-Ukraine crisis is:
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
- The violation of Geneva Convention of the Refugees 1951
- The violation of the Agreement between Confederation of Independent States and Europe
- Threat or use of force contrary to the Purpose and Principles of the United Nations Charter
- Neither (A) nor (B)
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The Russian-Ukraine crisis is attributed to the "Threat or use of force contrary to the Purpose and Principles of the United Nations Charter." This is the correct answer among the given options. The reasoning behind this choice can be understood by examining the function and principles of international law as they relate to conflicts between nations.
The United Nations Charter, established in 1945, outlines foundational principles for maintaining international peace and security, including the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Violating these principles can lead to international tensions and conflicts.
In this specific context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) plays a crucial role in adjudicating disputes between nations and ensuring adherence to international law. According to the ICJ's Statute, provisional measures can be indicated to prevent irreparable harm or prejudice to the rights under judicial proceedings. This involves determining urgency, as represented by a real and imminent risk of irreparable damage occurring before a case is resolved. When the ICJ identifies such a risk, it may issue measures to protect the plausible rights of a state, such as Ukraine, under conventions like the Genocide Convention.
In summary, the crisis stems from actions perceived as threats or uses of force against the principles of the United Nations Charter, highlighting the importance of international laws in conflict resolution. The Geneva Convention and other agreements are not directly cited as causes in this particular case.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4
If one of the two parties to the dispute fails to appear before the Court during the oral proceedings, the other party may call upon the court to decide the matter in favour of its claim. Which of the following provision provides for this?
If one of the two parties to the dispute fails to appear before the Court during the oral proceedings, the other party may call upon the court to decide the matter in favour of its claim. Which of the following provision provides for this?
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
- Article 41 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article 51 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article 52 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article 53 of the Statute of the ICJ
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
The relevant provision from the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that allows the Court to decide a matter in favor of the party that calls upon it if the opposing party fails to appear during oral proceedings is Article 53 of the Statute of the ICJ. This article stipulates that if one party does not appear, the other party may request the Court to proceed with the case and make a decision based on the claims and evidence presented by the attending party. This ensures that the legal process continues without hindrance and that justice can be served even in the absence of one disputing party.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5
Under which of the following provisions, Ukraine sought jurisdiction to appear before the Court?
Under which of the following provisions, Ukraine sought jurisdiction to appear before the Court?
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
- Article 36 of the Statute of the ICJ
- Article IX of the Genocide Convention
- Both (A) and (B)
- Neither (A) nor (B)
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is C
Solution and Explanation
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) can assert jurisdiction under multiple provisions depending on the nature of the case. For Ukraine to appear before the ICJ, jurisdiction could be grounded on the following legal provisions:
- Article 36 of the Statute of the ICJ: This article provides the basis for the Court's jurisdiction. It allows the ICJ to hear cases brought by states that recognize the Court's jurisdiction as compulsory or through special agreement.
- Article IX of the Genocide Convention: This article specifically provides that disputes between parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of the Genocide Convention, including ones concerning the responsibility of a State for genocide, are to be submitted to the ICJ.
In the context presented, Ukraine sought jurisdiction under both of these provisions as they allow for the legal basis needed to bring the case concerning the allegations related to the Genocide Convention and the need for provisional measures.
Thus, the correct choice from the options provided is:
| Both (A) and (B) |
This solution is grounded in the context of the powers and obligations of the ICJ as highlighted, focusing on both the overall jurisdictional grounds of the Court and the specific applicability concerning the Genocide Convention in matters of urgent provisional measures.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 6
The Russian Federation, in the current dispute submitted to the court, the defence of Article 51 of the UN Charter. What is defence of Article 51?
The Russian Federation, in the current dispute submitted to the court, the defence of Article 51 of the UN Charter. What is defence of Article 51?
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
- Self-defence
- Force Majure
- Consent
- Pacta sunt servanda
Show Solution
Verified By Collegedunia
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
In the context of the question regarding the Russian Federation's submission to the court, the defense refers to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This article explicitly pertains to the right of self-defense. Article 51 allows a nation to engage in self-defense if an armed attack occurs against it, until the United Nations Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security. Among the provided options:
- Self-defence
- Force Majure
- Consent
- Pacta sunt servanda
The correct interpretation of Article 51 is Self-defence.
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Top CLAT PG Questions
- Our society is governed by the Constitution. The values of constitutional morality are a non-derogable entitlement. Notions of “purity and pollution”, which stigmatise individuals, can have no place in a constitutional regime. Regarding menstruation as polluting or impure, and worse still, imposing exclusionary disabilities on the basis of menstrual status, is against the dignity of women which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Practices which legitimise menstrual taboos, due to notions of “purity and pollution”, limit the ability of menstruating women to attain the freedom of movement, the right to education and the right of entry to places of worship and, eventually, their access to the public sphere. Women have a right to control their own bodies. The menstrual status of a woman is an attribute of her privacy and person. Women have a constitutional entitlement that their biological processes must be free from social and religious practices, which enforce segregation and exclusion. These practices result in humiliation and a violation of dignity. Article 17 prohibits the practice of “untouchability”, which is based on notions of purity and impurity, “in any form”. Article 17 certainly applies to untouchability practices in relation to lower castes, but it will also apply to the systemic humiliation, exclusion and subjugation faced by women. Prejudice against women based on notions of impurity and pollution associated with menstruation is a symbol of exclusion. The social exclusion of women, based on menstrual status, is but a form of untouchability which is an anathema to constitutional values. As an expression of the anti-exclusion principle, Article 17 cannot be read to exclude women against whom social exclusion of the worst kind has been practised and legitimised on notions of purity and pollution. Article 17 cannot be read in a restricted manner. But even if Article 17 were to be read to reflect a particular form of untouchability, that Article will not exhaust the guarantee against other forms of social exclusion. The guarantee against social exclusion would emanate from other provisions of Part III, including Articles 15(2) and 21. Exclusion of women between the age group of ten and fifty, based on their menstrual status, from entering the temple in Sabarimala can have no place in a constitutional order founded on liberty and dignity.
[Extracted from Indian Young Lawyers Association v. State of Kerala, (2019) 11 SCC 1 (hereafter IYLA)] - An Ordinance which is promulgated by the Governor has (as clause 2 of Article 213 provides) the same force and effect as an Act of the legislature of the State assented to by the Governor. However - and this is a matter of crucial importance – clause 2 goes on to stipulate in the same vein significant constitutional conditions. These conditions have to be fulfilled before the ‘force and effect’ fiction comes into being. These conditions are prefaced by the expression “but every such Ordinance” which means that the constitutional fiction is subject to what is stipulated in sub-clauses (a) and (b). Sub-clause (a) provides that the Ordinance “shall be laid before the legislative assembly of the state” or before both the Houses in the case of a bi-cameral legislature. Is the requirement of laying an Ordinance before the state legislature mandatory? There can be no manner of doubt that it is. The expression “shall be laid” is a positive mandate which brooks no exceptions. That the word ‘shall’ in sub-clause (a) of clause 2 of Article 213 is mandatory, emerges from reading the provision in its entirety. As we have noted earlier, an Ordinance can be promulgated only when the legislature is not in session. Upon the completion of six weeks of the reassembling of the legislature, an Ordinance “shall cease to operate”.
Article 213(2)(a) postulates that an ordinance would cease to operate upon the expiry of a period of six weeks of the reassembly of the legislature. The Oxford English dictionary defines the expression “cease” as : “to stop, give over, discontinue, desist; to come to the end.” P Ramanatha Aiyar’s, The Major Law Lexicon defines the expression “cease” to mean “discontinue or put an end to”. Justice C K Thakker’s Encyclopaedic Law Lexicon defines the word “cease” as meaning: “to put an end to; to stop, to terminate or to discontinue”. The expression has been defined in similar terms in Black’s Law Dictionary.
The expression “cease to operate” in Article 213(2)(a) is attracted in two situations. The first is where a period of six weeks has expired since the reassembling of the legislature. The second situation is where a resolution has been passed by the legislature disapproving of an ordinance. Apart from these two situations that are contemplated by sub-clause (a), sub-clause (b) contemplates that an ordinance may be withdrawn at any time by the Governor. Upon its withdrawal the ordinance would cease to operate as well.
[Extracts from the judgment of majority judgment in Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, Civil Appeal No. 5875 of 1994, decided on January 2, 2017 hereafter ‘KK Singh’] - The other material which prompted the High Court to reach the conclusion that the subsoil/minerals vest in the State is … recitals of a patta which ….. states that if minerals are found in the property covered by the patta and if the pattadar exploits those minerals, the pattadar is liable for a separate tax in addition to the tax shown in the patta and …. certain standing orders of the Collector of Malabar which provided for collection of seigniorage fee in the event of the mining operation being carried on. We are of the clear opinion that the recitals in the patta or the Collector’s standing order that the exploitation of mineral wealth in the patta land would attract additional tax, in our opinion, cannot in any way indicate the ownership of the State in the minerals. The power to tax is a necessary incident of sovereign authority (imperium) but not an incident of proprietary rights (dominium). Proprietary right is a compendium of rights consisting of various constituent, rights. If a person has only a share in the produce of some property, it can never be said that such property vests in such a person. In the instant case, the State asserted its ‘right’ to demand a share in the ‘produce of the minerals worked’ though the expression employed is right – it is in fact the Sovereign authority which is asserted. From the language of the BSO No.10 it is clear that such right to demand the share could be exercised only when the pattadar or somebody claiming through the pattadar, extracts/works the minerals – the authority of the State to collect money on the happening of an event – such a demand is more in the nature of an excise duty/a tax. The assertion of authority to collect a duty or tax is in the realm of the sovereign authority, but not a proprietary right….
The only other submission which we are required to deal with before we part with this matter is the argument of the learned counsel for the State that in view of the scheme of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereafter ‘MMDRA’) which prohibits under Section 4 the carrying on of any mining activity in this country except in accordance with the permit, licence or mining lease as the case may be, granted under the Act, the appellants cannot claim any proprietary right in the sub-soil…
[Extract from the judgment in Thressiamma Jacob v. Dept. of Mining & Geology, (2013) 9 SCC 725] (hereafter ‘T Jacob’) - A nationwide lockdown was declared by the Central Government from 24 March 2020 to prevent the spread of the CoVID-19 pandemic. Economic activity came to a grinding halt. The lockdown was extended on several occasions, among them for the second time on 14 April 2020. On 17 April 2020, the Labour and Employment Department of the State of Gujarat issued a notification under Section 5 of the Factories Act to exempt all factories registered under the Act “from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. for adult workers” under Sections 51, 54, 55 and 56. The stated aim of the notification was to provide “certain relaxations for industrial and commercial activities” from 20 April 2020 till 19 July 2020.
Section 5 of the Factories Act provides that in a public emergency, the State Government can exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of the Act, except Section 67. Section 5 is extracted below: “5. Power to exempt during public emergency. — In any case of public emergency the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt any factory or class or description of factories from all or any of the provisions of this Act except section 67 for such period and subject to such conditions as it may think fit: Provided that no such notification shall be made for a period exceeding three months at a time. Explanation.— For the purposes of this section ‘public emergency’ means a grave emergency whereby the security of India or of any part of the territory thereof is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance.” (emphasis supplied) The notification in its relevant part is extracted below:
“... NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5 of the Factories Act, 1948, the ‘Factories Act’ PART B Government of Gujarat hereby directs that all the factories registered under the Factories Act, 1948 shall be exempted from various provisions relating to weekly hours, daily hours, intervals for rest etc. of adult workers under section 51, section 54, and section 55 and section 56 with the following conditions from 20th April till 19th July 2020, –
(1) No adult worker shall be allowed or required to work in a factory for more than twelve hours in any day and Seventy Two hours in any week.
(2) The Periods of work of adult workers in a factory each day shall be so fixed that no period shall exceed six hours and that no worker shall work for more than six hours before he has had an interval of rest of at least half an hour.
(3) No Female workers shall be allowed or required to work in a factory between 7:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
(4) Wages shall be in a proportion of the existing wages (e.g. If wages for eight hours are 80 Rupees, then proportionate wages for twelve hours will be 120 Rupees).”
[Extract from judgment of the Supreme Court in Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. The State of Gujarat decided on 1 October, 2020, (hereafter ‘GMS’)] - In view of various counter claims regarding registration or non-registration, what is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of a FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register a FIR forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of FIR, such as, whether the information is falsely given, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible etc. These are the issues that have to be verified during the investigation of the FIR. At the stage of registration of a FIR, what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. If, after investigation, the information given is found to be false, there is always an option to prosecute the complainant for filing a false FIR.
[Excerpted from the judgment delivered by Sathasivam, C.J.I. in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 (hereafter ‘Lalita Kumari’)]
View More Questions