logo
Our Courses CSAT MAINS Optionals Current Affairs Prelims Videos Study Material Membership Login


Mains Specific:

Examine the significance of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres invoking Article 99 amidst Israel's Gaza attacks. Assess the role of the UN Charter and practical limitations faced by member countries.

Model Answer:-

The UN Charter is the founding document of the United Nations.
Based on the powers conferred through it, the UN can take action on a wide variety of issues.
The Charter is considered an international treaty, meaning UN Member States are “bound by it”.
However, in practice, there is little that member countries can be forced to do.

Guterres' Invocation:-
Guterres writes under Article 99, citing aggravation of threats to international peace and security.
Describes appalling human suffering, destruction, and trauma in Israel and the Occupied Palestine Territory.
Highlights casualties, healthcare system collapse, difficulties in humanitarian relief, and displacement due to IDF's constant bombardment.
Guterres urges the UN Security Council to help prevent a humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

Significance of Invoking Article 99:
  1. Article 99 of the UN Charter: This article grants the Secretary-General the authority to bring to the attention of the Security Council any issue that, in their opinion, may threaten international peace and security.
  2. Role of the Secretary-General: Invoking Article 99 indicates the Secretary-General's concern about a situation that could potentially escalate and threaten peace and security. It serves as a diplomatic tool to draw attention to pressing issues that require immediate attention.
  3. International Attention and Diplomatic Pressure: By invoking Article 99, the Secretary-General seeks to mobilize international attention and diplomatic efforts to address the situation, urging member countries to engage in dialogue and peaceful resolution.
Role of the UN Charter and Limitations Faced by Member Countries:
  1. Foundation for International Relations: The UN Charter serves as the foundation for international relations, emphasizing principles of sovereignty, collective security, and peaceful conflict resolution.
  2. Practical Limitations: Member countries have sovereignty and autonomy in their decision-making processes, which can limit the UN's ability to enforce actions or resolutions without the consent or cooperation of involved parties.
  3. Political and Geopolitical Realities: Challenges arise when member countries have vested interests, political alliances, or geopolitical considerations that hinder consensus-building or resolution implementation.
  4. Security Council Dynamics: The Security Council's composition and the use of veto power by its permanent members can hinder decisive action or resolutions, impacting the UN's ability to address conflicts effectively.
Implications:
In the context of Israel's Gaza attacks, invoking Article 99 could indicate the Secretary-General's urgency in preventing further escalation of violence, advocating for dialogue, and urging member countries to prioritize de-escalation efforts and respect international humanitarian law.However, the practical implications and outcomes depend on the willingness of involved parties to engage in diplomatic efforts, adhere to international norms, and work towards a peaceful resolution, despite geopolitical complexities and divergent interests.
Conclusion:
The significance of invoking Article 99 lies in its role as a diplomatic instrument to raise awareness, mobilize international attention, and encourage dialogue, yet its effectiveness often relies on the cooperation and political will of member countries in resolving conflicts and maintaining international peace and security.

Mains Specific:

Discuss the complexities and challenges associated with interstate river water disputes, taking the recent dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over the Krishna river as a case study.

Model Answer: 

Interstate river water disputes, such as the recent conflict between Andhra Pradesh and Telangana over the Krishna river, are complex and often pose significant challenges due to various factors:

Factors Contributing to Complexity:

  1. Limited Water Resources: Rivers are a shared resource among multiple states, leading to competition for limited water resources, especially during times of scarcity or drought.
  2. Legal Framework: Disputes are often governed by complex legal frameworks, including interstate river water-sharing agreements, tribunal rulings, and the constitutional provisions of water allocation among states.
  3. Political and Historical Context: Historical grievances, political differences, and varying state interests can exacerbate disputes, making negotiations challenging.
  4. Environmental Impact: Balancing water allocation while considering the ecological impact on the river basin and downstream areas is crucial, as excessive water diversion can affect the river's health and biodiversity.
Andhra Pradesh-Telangana Dispute over Krishna River:
  1. Srisailam and Nagarjuna Sagar Projects: Both states have projects on the Krishna river. Disputes often arise regarding the allocation and utilization of water from these projects, leading to conflicts over reservoir levels and water release.
  2. Interstate Water Sharing Tribunal: The Krishna River Management Board and the Brijesh Kumar Tribunal's recommendations for water distribution have been points of contention, with both states having divergent interpretations and interests.
  3. Political Dynamics: Post-division of Andhra Pradesh, the new state of Telangana's formation intensified existing disputes, as both states vie for their share of Krishna river water.
Challenges and Resolution:
  1. Legal Recourse: Resolving disputes often involves legal recourse through tribunals or boards. However, the implementation of tribunal orders and agreements can face challenges due to lack of compliance or delays.
  2. Technical and Scientific Solutions: Utilizing advanced technology and scientific methods for equitable water distribution and efficient water management can help address disputes.
  3. Negotiation and Mediation: Diplomatic negotiations and mediation between states play a crucial role. Building trust, dialogue, and finding win-win solutions are essential for long-term resolution.
  4. Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM): Adopting IWRM approaches that consider multiple stakeholders' needs, ecological aspects, and sustainable water usage can help mitigate conflicts.
Conclusion:

Interstate river water disputes demand a multifaceted approach involving legal, political, technical, and environmental considerations. Resolving conflicts necessitates a balanced approach, fostering cooperation, and adhering to legal frameworks, ultimately aiming for sustainable and equitable water-sharing arrangements that benefit all stakeholders involved.

Mains Specific:

Examine the delicate balance between upholding parliamentary privileges and ensuring democratic representation in the context of recent controversies, such as the 'cash for query' scandal. Analyze the constitutional framework, judicial precedents, and the role of parliamentary committees in addressing allegations of unethical conduct.

Model Answer:- 

The delicate balance between upholding parliamentary privileges and ensuring democratic representation often comes to the forefront during controversies like the 'cash for query' scandal.

Role of Ethics Committee:-
Formed in 2000 to monitor the moral and ethical conduct of Parliament members.
Examines cases of 'unethical conduct' referred to it, filed by members or outsiders.
The Committee makes a prima facie inquiry before deciding to examine a complaint and presents its report to the Speaker, who places it before the House for consideration.
The term 'unethical' is not explicitly defined; left to the Committee's discretion.
Example: In 2007, an MP accompanying a female companion, impersonating her as his wife, was deemed 'unethical,' leading to the recommendation of a 30-sitting suspension.

Privileges Committees:-
The Parliamentary privileges evolved in medieval Britain (14th-16th Century) to protect the interest of the House of Commons and its members from the excesses of the King.
It includes the power of the House to punish its members and outsiders for breach of privileges.
The privileges committee or special inquiry committee examines the more serious accusations against a member.
Example: In 1951, a special committee found a member guilty of promoting business interests for financial benefits.
A special committee inquired into the 'cash for query' scam of 2005, recommending expulsion for 10 MPs.

Expulsion and Constitutionality:-
The Constitution under Article 101 lists down the grounds for vacation of a seat by an MP.
It includes voluntary resignation, disqualification, and continuous absence from the House for 60 sittings.
Expulsion is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has provided conflicting judgments in this regard.
Raja Ram Pal versus Hon'ble Speaker (2007): Upheld Parliament's power to expel members for breach of privilege.
Amarinder Singh versus Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha (2010): Held expulsion by State Assembly as unconstitutional.

Balancing House Privileges and Democratic Representation:-
The allegations of ‘cash for query’ against Mahua Moitra are serious in nature.
Serious allegations, such as 'cash for query,' raises questions about expulsion's proportionality.
Concerns about leaving citizens without representation until the next elections or a bye-election.
Suggestion to establish fast-track courts for time-bound trials (60 days) in cases recommended by committees.
If convicted, disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951; otherwise, continue as a House member.

Conclusion:

Maintaining the delicate balance between parliamentary privileges and democratic representation requires a nuanced approach. Upholding privileges should not obstruct ethical standards or accountability. The role of parliamentary committees in investigating and addressing allegations of unethical conduct is crucial in preserving the integrity of parliamentary democracy. Balancing autonomy with accountability is essential for fostering public trust and upholding democratic values.