Public International Law

Internal Assessment 2

Maximum Marks : 30 marks

Submission date/Soft deadline : 23:59 hours on 17th April (Monday)
Hard deadline :23:59 hours on 18th April (Tuesday)

Instructions
Please read carefully. These are meant to assist you and not intimidate you!

Format and expectations:

1. This question paper has two sections.

Section A – Hypothetical (20 marks)
Section B - Focused question (10 marks). Attempt one of the three questions.
2. The test broadly aims to assess the comprehension, application, analytical and critical skills
on concepts which have been introduced through discussions in class, and/or readings in the
manual. Many such readings are already available on the shared folder, and some have been
shared by me during class (in the slides or through the chat window).
3. Metrics to evaluate the questions will broadly include:
Section A: identification of the issue; familiarity and the understanding of tools, concepts
involved; survey and review of relevant literature introduced in class and/or the manual;
analysis of facts, argumentation, and persuasiveness.
Section B: identification of the issue; familiarity and the understanding of the case and/or
concepts involved; survey and review of relevant case and/or materials; critical analysis,
reflection, and persuasiveness.
4. Cite legal provisions, precedents [with paragraph & page numbers], examples wherever
applicable in the answers. However, please quote the relevant parts of the provisions/cases
only where necessary considering there is a word limit.
5. The details of the grading brackets as well as the criteria for awarding such grades are
provided in the course manual. Kindly refer to “Grading of Student Achievement” of the
course manual. An indicative rubric is given below.

Formatting Requirements:

6. The submission should be on MS Word only.

Page 1
 7. Each answer in Section A not more than 500 words (excluding footnotes). Breach of word limit
will be penalised: - 2 marks will be deducted for anything above 500 and upto 600; and - 1
mark will be deducted at every subsequent 50 words over 600.
Similarly, Section B response may not be. more than 500 words (excluding footnotes). Breach
will be treated similarly.
In its entirety, the entire paper should not be more than 1500 words. Reduction of the penalty,
if warranted as per the Examiner, will be decided by the Examiner in very exceptional cases.
8. Explanatory footnotes are not allowed.
9. Save your document as <name>. For example: “Aman”, “Kanika Parmar”, “Rudraksh
Lakra”.
10. It is strongly encouraged that students use any clear font with a consistent font size (pt.11/12),
have single line spacing, and be justified. The footnotes, similarly, should bear the same
formatting – although, a smaller font size is encouraged.
11. Inability to comply with these formatting requirements, may lead to a one-time penalty upto
5 marks wherever the penalty is not specified.

Rules for Submission

12. The submission will have to be over UMS.

13. Submissions must be made by the soft deadline. While a ‘hard deadline’ is also available –
penalties will be imposed as per the scale given below. In any case, no submissions will be
accepted after the same.

From the soft deadline to 12 hours after the deadline 3 marks

From 12 hours after the soft deadline to the hard deadline 1 mark per hour

Plagiarism

14. We have already had a long chat about plagiarism in the first few weeks of classes. While the
assignments are designed to avoid it, and I hope to be available to encourage all attempting
this to be confident about their own reflections and articulations – a breach, to ensure fairness
in evaluation, will invite a penalty. The rule, as stated in the manual, is if the percentage of
plagiarism is 26% to 49% on Turnitin, the penalty will be deduction of marks. If the percentage of
plagiarism is 50% or above, fail grade will be given to the student in the assessment.
Collusion of any kind is also being treated as plagiarism which may involve a penalty that
may also lead to a complete cancellation of the exam.

Page 2
Flexibilities & Other information

15. While there is little scope (and often no scope) for changes in deadlines, for alternative tests,
and the rules above, please see the part on Flexibilities in the Class Policy and approach
Aman and Kanika as soon as possible if you have a compelling case. The decision to offer
any flexibilities will be discussed by the instructors. Most such cases have anyway been
accommodated.
16. The teaching team is available for a chat if you want some help to unpack the questions and
need some clarity on the rules. While the idea is not to handhold you to the answers or assist
you with the drafting (by doing initial reviews etc.), we can chat with you (individually or
in groups) to make this a fruitful learning exercise.

All the best!

I really hope we learn more by the process and (hopefully) don’t get carried away by the pressures of exams and
the myopia attached to marks.

[Questions start on the next page]

Page 3
 Section A – Hypothetical

1. The Kingdom of Banaganapalli is the biggest island country in the Kalat Belt of the South Atlantic
Ocean, off the coast of West Africa. It is a constitutional monarchy that formally got independence from
the Democratic Republic of Rewah, an East African developed country in the year 2002. After the
second world war, Rewah did not lose control over Banaganapalli but declared it as a ‘Non-Self-
Governing Territory’ (NSGT) under Chapter XI of the UN Charter and got itself recorded as the
administering authority.1

2. The Kalat Belt is famous for the ‘tumbbad tree’ which besides being a central part of the culture
and religion of the people in the Kalat Belt (irrespective of ethnicities) was also a source of food,
medicine, construction material and clothing. Owing to its properties, it was also a vital part of the
ecosystem and ecology of the region. Banaganapalli and adjoining areas was one of the richest tumbbad
region and continues to be one till this day – especially its western part and islands in the vicinity. By
2023, after several forest fires in the Amazon Forest, the tumbbad trees and the forest patches in the
Kalat Belt are collectively and popularly understood as the “lungs of the earth” whose destruction may
now create a huge environmental and ecological disaster.

3. Considering how its lumber has a combustion point nearly five times that of other lumber, its
weight being one-third the weight of most hardwoods, and how it dries in days without a kiln (without
wrapping, cracking, or splitting) – it had great commercial value. It is widely known that the ones who
colonised the Kalat Belt greatly profited from the commercial exploitation of the tumbbad tree.

4. The Republic of Hispaw, a developed country in East Africa was another formidable power that
greatly benefitted from colonialism in the Kalat Belt. In the 19th century, Hispaw colonised almost all
the islands of the Kalat Belt besides Banaganapalli which came under the colonial administration of
Rewah from 1784. However, Hispaw managed to get control over one enclave – Mayurbhanj which is
a tumbbad rich area of 491 square kilometers close to the western coast of Banaganapalli. The region
had around 10,000 indigenous people who swore allegiance to the native prince of historical West-
Banaganapalli (then known as Kingdom of Cooch-Behar). Mayurbhanj was given to Hispaw as part of
a Friendship Treaty in 1751 by the native prince of historical West-Banaganapalli as compensation
towards damaging of a ship of Hispaw by the native prince’s naval fleet. Through a Viceroy, it set up
an administrative unit in Mayurbhanj and brought with the Viceroy around 5000 people from Hipsaw
who were primarily interested in the trade around the trees. Rewah when it brought a united
Banaganapalli under its control did not disturb this arrangement, and had trade, and cultural relations
with the people and the governing bodies of the enclave. It also allowed the people of Mayurbhanj and
government of Hispaw free movement (without visa) to the coast through territories under its
administration. Today, the region has about 80,000 people with mixed roots considering the inter-

1See, Chapter XI, Articles 73 and 74 of the UN Charter, available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-
11. In essence, NSGTs are "territories whose people have not yet attained a full measure of self-government” and the UN
Member states that have or assume responsibilities for the administration of such Territories are called administering
powers. For more on NSGTs see, https://www.un.org/dppa/decolonization/en/nsgt.

Page 4
marriages among people from Rewah, Banaganapalli, Hispaw and the original inhabitants of
Mayurbhanj.

5. Using Mayurbhanj as a base and with the assistance of

a local governor of Mayurbhanj – Pandurang, in a war with
the indigenous people of Kharan in 1756, Hispaw took over
an island Kharan. Kharan was around 300 square
kilometers, and off the western coast of Banaganapalli – and
another tumbbad rich region. Hispaw sold off the island to
Pandurang for 750000 mayurs (local currency of
Mayurbhanj) pursuant to the Treaty of Kharan, 1757 and
declared Pandurang as the King of Kharan. Pursuant to this
Treaty, Pandurang also acknowledged the supremacy of
the Hispaw Government, and Hipsaw took on the charge
of looking after the defence of Kharan. As a token of such
supremacy, Kharan’s government had to present annually
to the Hispaw Government 80 percent revenue share from
commercialization of Tumbbad. The internal affairs of
Kharan were to be managed by Pandurang’s government.
The people of Kharan referred to this as a “sale” of their
region and they saw both Pandurang’s monarchy as forms
of colonial rule, and have since then actively rebelled
against both. Owing the military prowess of Pandurang’s
government – all such protests were quelled.

6. Unlike Rewah, after the coming into existence of the UN Charter, Hispaw refused to declare
Mayurbhanj and Kharan as NSGTs. Considering the population of Mayurbhanj had a significant
number of people from Hispaw (or having lineage that could be rooted to people from Hispaw), the
government of Hispaw under Prime Minister, Ms. Hastar thought it seemed to be like as integral as
any other part of the Republic of Hispaw. For Kharan, it felt that it was anyway a protected state with
great degree of internal autonomy. Upon mounting pressures from several UN leaders in 1960s, Hastar
acknowledged how since 1900s the State of Hispaw, Rewah and almost all member states of the League
of Nations anyway maintained that the two areas had reached a stage of development where their
existence as independent nations had been provisionally recognized, subject to the rendering of
administrative advice and assistance by Rewah until such time as they are able to stand alone.

7. By 2000, the struggle for freedom in Banaganapalli led by the National Social Conference of
Banaganapalli crossed boundaries and reached Mayurbhanj and Kharan. By 2018, there was substantial
support in both regions to move towards complete self-governance, free from Hipsaw. By 2022, with
the influence and aid of the National Social Conference of Banaganapalli which formed the government
to aid and advice Empress Rahi Barve, the titular queen of Banaganapalli, there was almost clear
support among the 60 percent people in Mayurbhanj that they may prefer joining Banaganapalli – with
some even mentioning how the regions are historically connected. A slightly smaller group (around
40 percent) felt strongly about this in Kharan. Almost all major independent media across the world
say that this policy of the Government of Banaganapalli was owing to its interest in getting an absolute
Page 5
control over the commercialization of tumbbad in and around Banaganapalli, which Empress Rahi
Barve refers to as the “golden lungs” of the Belt.

8. On 5 January 2023, a local citizen's council called the “Varishta Panchayat of Free Mayurbhanj”
(VPFM) rises in rebellion, overthrows the Viceroy with aid and assistance from Banaganapalli and
takes control of the office and the residence of the Viceroy. The same day, Mx. Jobu Tupaki, an officer
of the Banaganapalli Administrative Service was, for one day, designated the Head of State of
Mayurbhanj by VPFM, so that, they could sign an agreement with the Empress of Banaganapalli, and
formally merge Mayurbhanj with Banaganapalli. Though sudden, there is virtually no dissent among
the original supporters who were influenced by freedom from Hipsaw.

9. Similarly on 10 January 2023, the Banaganapalli army stormed into the capital of Kharan, did a
plebiscite in the region under military control and finding 52 percent support for union with
Banaganapalli, also declared Jobu Tupaki as the Head of State for Kharan. By 15 January 2023,
Banaganapalli passed a constitutional amendment – declaring Mayurbhanj and Kharan as ‘Associate
States’ with Banaganapalli in-charge of defence, external affairs and communications of these two
associate states. By 20 January, upon formal transfer by Jobu Tupaki, both Kharan and Mayurbhanj
joined the Union of Banaganapalli. Hipsaw objected to both on the ground that the Kharan and
Mayurbhanj were not independent states capable of making this union. While not commenting on
status of Kharan and Mayurbhanj, almost 50 states in the United Nations (especially the permanent
members of the UN Security Council) expressed grave concerns on the interreference by Banaganapalli,
and some even condemned the military action even though there were no hostilities or casualties.

10. To further break off ties with Hipsaw (both symbolically and
materially), the Government of Banaganapalli decided to destroy (by fire)
the ports and facilities used for trade in lumber of the colonial
governments in its region, and in Mayurbhanj and Kharan. This would
also involve destruction of a part of the forested areas – especially in the
affected patch. Several indigenous groups and environmental groups also
said that the results would be disastrous in a richly endowed forest: and
setting fire to the patch, would not just destroy the trees but also the
ecosystem around it. They also argued how this would stand in violation
of a regional customary international law obligation. Tiding over the
wave, Hispaw also made similar arguments. Banaganapalli, however, felt
that there is no legal obligation – and weighed against the reasons, it was
necessary to do so.

11. As per a prominent group in Kharan came out with a report

highlighting how there is a legal obligation to protect the belt. Among other things, the group cited
how the Organisation of African Union (OAU) in 2015, passed a resolution A/RES/70/306 which was
affirmed by all states barring Banaganapalli, Hispaw, Rewah and two other states in the Belt:

“The OAU,
[…]

Page 6
 1. Declares and reaffirms that:
a. The tumbbad tree is central to the cultural and ecological environment of the Kalat Belt. Its
protection is a responsibility of not just the states in the Kalat Belt but also all member states.
b. The protection of the tree includes a protection of the flora, fauna, and ecology of the region.
c. Any use, including the commercial exploitation of the tumbbad tree and the forests, must be
sustainable and regulated. Any use outside the narrow-limited avenues, will be contrary to the rules
of international law and may also amount to abuse of rights.
[….]”

In addition to this, the report shows how twenty states in the region have national legislations
outlawing any form destruction of the forested area – especially an unsustainable practice that may
lead to destruction of the forest being prohibited. The five states Banaganapalli, Hispaw, Rewah and
two other states in the Belt have no such laws. The report also shows how all states in Africa (barring
Banaganapalli) are also parties to the Convention on the Preservation of the Tumbbad, 2010 which lays
down, barring the definitional provisions and methods for implementation, only one provision which
states: “Subject to national security interests, each State Party undertakes to take serious efforts towards
protection and preservation of the ecology of the Kalat Belt”.

Banaganapalli has not responded to this report.

Based on the above account, please answer the following questions:

1. Were Mayurbhanj and Kharan capable to unite with Banaganapalli? [10 marks]

2. Will it be legal for Banaganapalli to take forward its plan to burn the ports and facilities
which were earlier under the control of Hispaw? [10 marks]

***

Page 7
 Section B – Focused Questions
[25 marks]

Attempt one of the three questions.

Question 1
Based on the decision of the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) in Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the
Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion of
11th April 1949), United Nations (UN) General
Assembly Resolution 365 was passed (see image
alongside with highlighted text), and Israel was
asked present a formal apology, to arrest the culprits
and to pay an indemnity of $54,624.2

It appears from the resolution, using the terms of the

opinion, that the UN possessed not just international
legal personality, but also the capacity to bring a
claim, and the competence to invoke such
procedures.

Interestingly, the ICJ begins its substantive analysis

by stating that the “questions asked of the Court relate to
the ‘capacity to bring an international claim’” (page 7).
Moving forward, it says – “In order to answer this
question, the Court must first enquire whether the Charter
has given the Organization such a position that it
possesses, in regard to its Members, rights which it is
entitled to ask them to respect. In other words, does the
Organization possess international personality” (page 8)

After establishing the “personality” of the United

Nations (UN) – after the first point of enquiry, how persuasively (or effectively) do you think the court
has attempted to link this “personality” to establish the second element i.e. the capacity to bring an
international claim against states?

Additionally, by a reading of the judgment do you feel that by having an international legal personality,
one gets both the capacity to bring a claim, and competence “to resort to the customary methods recognized
by international law for the establishment, the presentation and the settlement of claims” ?

2See, Annual report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, 1 July 1949-30 June 1950 available at:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/682454?ln=en

Page 8
Please note that this is not a case analysis

Question 2

In the Request for provisional measures, in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) at the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), Myanmar argued:

“54. Myanmar accepts that at least some obligations under the Genocide Convention are erga omnes partes .
55. However, even if The Gambia has an interest in Myanmar’s compliance with erga omnes partes obligations
under that Convention, it does not follow without more that The Gambia also has standing to bring a case before
the Court in respect of a claimed breach by Myanmar, without being specially affected.”3

The attempt is to suggest while each State party may have an interest in the compliance with these erga
omnes partes obligations – this “interest” is not sufficient to confer standing to bring a claim against another
State for the breach of the Genocide Convention at the International Court of Justice. Gambia was anyway, as
can be seen from the map below, a country which was far away from Myanmar and never really
arguing that it was directly affected by how the Rohingyas were treated in Myanmar.

From your reading of the relevant parts in the Judgment of 20 July 2012 (along with Separate opinions
of Judge Cançado Trindade, Judge Skotnikov, Dissenting Opinions of Judge Xue, and Judge ad Hoc

3See paras 49-67 of the Verbatim Records of Public sitting held on Wednesday 11 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace
Palace in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(The Gambia v. Myanmar) available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/178/178-20191211-ORA-01-00-
BI.pdf.

Page 9
Sur) in Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium V Senegal), how far do
you agree with this argument advanced by Myanmar.

Please note that this is not a case analysis

Question 3

You are a teacher of Public International Law and have asked students to prepare an essay on: “Is the
declaratory theory better than constitutive theory in assessing statehood today?”

The student relies on Chat GPT and provides the following answer.4

“There is no universally agreed-upon answer to this question, as both the declaratory theory and the constitutive
theory have their strengths and weaknesses when it comes to assessing statehood today.

The declaratory theory holds that a state exists as soon as it has declared itself to be one, and that this declaration
is sufficient to establish its statehood. This theory is widely recognized in international law and has been used to
determine the statehood of many countries.

On the other hand, the constitutive theory holds that a state only exists when it is recognized as such by other
states. According to this theory, statehood is not an inherent characteristic of a particular territory or population
but is instead a social construct created through recognition by other states.

While the declaratory theory has been widely adopted in international law, some scholars argue that the
constitutive theory better reflects the reality of statehood today. They argue that in the modern era, statehood is
not just a matter of a territory and population, but also depends on a wide range of factors, including political
stability, economic development, and recognition by other states.

Ultimately, the choice between the declaratory theory and the constitutive theory depends on the specific context
in which it is being applied. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, and the best approach may vary
depending on the circumstances of a given case.”

Not talking about the concerns attached with plagiarism, write a review of the student essay to
highlight what the answer misses, and could do better in attempting the question.

***

4 The is a direct lift-off from ChatGPT.

Page 10
 Indicative Rubric

Letter Grade Grading of an

Grade Definitions
Grade Value answer on 10

Outstanding work with strong evidence of

knowledge of the subject matter, excellent
O 8 8+ Outstanding organizational capacity, ability to synthesize
and critically analyse and originality in thinking
and presentation.

Sound knowledge of the subject matter,

A+ 7.5 7.5-7.9 Excellent thorough understanding of issues; ability to
synthesize critically and analyse

Good understanding of the subject matter,

ability to identify issues and provide balanced
A 7 7 – 7.4 Good
solutions to problems and good critical and
analytical skills.

Adequate knowledge of the subject matter to go

A- 6 6.5 – 6.9 Adequate to the next level of study and reasonable critical
and analytical skills.

Limited knowledge of the subject matter,

B+ 5 6-6.4 Marginal irrelevant use of materials and poor critical and
analytical skills.

Poor comprehension of the subject matter; poor

B 4 5.5-5.9 Poor critical and analytical skills and marginal use of
the relevant materials.

“Pass” in a pass-fail course. “P” indicative of at

B- 3 5-5.4 Pass least the basic understanding of the subject
matter.

Page 11
 Pass 1: Pass with Basic understanding of the
P1 2 4.5-4.9 Pass 1
subject matter.

Pass 2: Pass with Rudimentary

P2 1 4-4.4 Pass 2
understanding of the subject matter.

Fail: Poor comprehension of the subject matter;

poor critical and analytical skills and
F 0 Less than 4 Fail
marginal use of the relevant materials. Will
require repeating the course.

Page 12