UPSC Essentials | Mains answer practice — GS 2: Questions on ICJ’s ruling on the Kyoto Protocol and State Reorganisation Commission (Week 114) | UPSC Current Affairs News

UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative for the practice of Mains answer writing. It covers essential topics of static and dynamic parts of the UPSC Civil Services syllabus covered under various GS papers. This answer-writing practice is designed to help you as a value addition to your UPSC CSE Mains. Attempt today’s answer writing on questions related to topics of GS-2 to check your progress.

🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for July 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨

QUESTION 1

How did the State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) balance linguistic, administrative, economic, and security considerations in India’s 1956 reorganisation?

Story continues below this ad

QUESTION 2

“The ICJ’s advisory opinion has revived the legal relevance of the Kyoto Protocol in international climate law.” Discuss the findings of the ICJ regarding the Kyoto Protocol’s status post‑Paris Agreement and the implications for state obligations under international law.

General points on the structure of the answers

Introduction

— The introduction of the answer is essential and should be restricted to 3-5 lines. Remember, a one-liner is not a standard introduction.

— It may consist of basic information by giving some definitions from the trusted source and authentic facts.

Body

— It is the central part of the answer and one should understand the demand of the question to provide rich content.

Story continues below this ad

— The answer must be preferably written as a mix of points and short paragraphs rather than using long paragraphs or just points.

— Using facts from authentic government sources makes your answer more comprehensive. Analysis is important based on the demand of the question, but do not over analyse.

— Underlining keywords gives you an edge over other candidates and enhances presentation of the answer.

— Using flowcharts/tree-diagram in the answers saves much time and boosts your score. However, it should be used logically and only where it is required.

Way forward/ conclusion

Story continues below this ad

— The ending of the answer should be on a positive note and it should have a forward-looking approach. However, if you feel that an important problem must be highlighted, you may add it in your conclusion. Try not to repeat any point from body or introduction.

— You may use the findings of reports or surveys conducted at national and international levels, quotes etc. in your answers.

Self Evaluation

— It is the most important part of our Mains answer writing practice. UPSC Essentials will provide some guiding points or ideas as a thought process that will help you to evaluate your answers.

THOUGHT PROCESS
You may enrich your answers by some of the following points

QUESTION 1: How did the State Reorganisation Commission (SRC) balance linguistic, administrative, economic, and security considerations in India’s 1956 reorganisation?

Story continues below this ad

Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— The British had administered India with two systems running in parallel — a system of direct control in its provinces, and a system of indirect control across 565 princely states.

— The JVP committee set up in 1949, comprising Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, head of the States Ministry Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Congress president Pattabhi Sittaramaya, cautioned against the “disintegrative effects of reorganisation”.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

Story continues below this ad

— The creation of Andhra opened a floodgate of demands for linguistic statehood. Less than three months after the state officially came into being, the Centre set up the States Reorganisation Commission (SRC) under Justice Fazl Ali.

— Justice Ali submitted a 267-page report on September 30, 1955. Based on the SRC’s recommendations, the political map of India was redrawn to comprise 14 states and six Union Territories (UTs).

UPSC Essentials | Mains answer practice — GS 2 (Week 114)

— In its December 1953 resolution on the SRC in Parliament, the Centre had made clear that language would not be the only criterion for the reorganisation of states.

— Language and culture are significant because they reflect a common way of life in that location. However, when considering a state reorganisation, other essential aspects must also be considered. The first and most important consideration is to preserve and strengthen India’s unity and security. Financial, economic, and administrative factors are practically equally significant, not just for each state but for the entire country.

Conclusion:

Story continues below this ad

— “It is neither possible nor desirable to reorganise States on the basis of the single test of either language or culture, but that a balanced approach to the whole problem is necessary in the interests of our national unity,” the SRC report stated.

(Source: What R N Ravi’s criticism of linguistic states misses)

Points to Ponder

Read more about State Reorganisation Commission

Read about other commission formed with reference to the State reorganisation

Related Previous Year Questions

How have the recommendations of the 14th Finance Commission of India enabled the States to improve their fiscal position? (2021)

Story continues below this ad

‘The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially.’’ Comment. (2024)

QUESTION 2: “The ICJ’s advisory opinion has revived the legal relevance of the Kyoto Protocol in international climate law.” Discuss the findings of the ICJ regarding the Kyoto Protocol’s status post‑Paris Agreement and the implications for state obligations under international law.

Note: This is not a model answer. It only provides you with thought process which you may incorporate into the answers.

Introduction:

— The Kyoto Protocol, which was finalised in 1997 and came into effect in 2005, was the first legal instrument under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The agreement sought to operationalise the provisions of the UNFCCC through specific climate actions from countries. It assigned specific targets to rich and developed countries to reduce their emissions in particular time frames, called commitment periods.

Story continues below this ad

— In a major decision, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol’s status and legitimacy. According to the International Court of Justice, the Kyoto Protocol is not only still in existence, but it is also legally relevant, and governments are still required to comply with its requirements.

Body:

You may incorporate some of the following points in your answer:

— The ICJ opinion is the first authoritative statement on the legal standing of the Kyoto Protocol since the Paris Agreement.

— So far, the prevailing perception has been that the 2015 Paris Agreement replaced and superseded the Kyoto Protocol. In other words, the Kyoto Protocol ceased to exist, or at least became non-operational or dead, when the Paris Agreement went into effect in 2016, or at the latest when the Kyoto Protocol’s second commitment period expired in 2020. However, the Kyoto Protocol was never cancelled or annulled through any mechanism. The International Court of Justice has recently confirmed that it is still in effect and has the standing of international law.

— The Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period ran from 2008 to 2012, and the second from 2012 to 2020. Developed countries, a group of about 40 mentioned by name in Annex-I of the UNFCCC, had to reduce their GHG emissions by assigned amounts during these periods from baseline values in 1990. These countries also had to provide finance and technology to developing countries to help them tackle climate change, in accordance with the provisions of the UNFCCC.

— The United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the world’s largest emitter, both in current terms at that time and historically, did not have any obligation to reduce its emissions. Several other countries, such as Canada and Japan, either walked out of the Kyoto Protocol at a later stage, or refused to accept binding targets for the second commitment period.

— Developed countries contended that climate goals could not be met unless major emitters, such as China, contributed to the effort. China, designated as a developing country under the UNFCCC, surpassed the United States as the world’s greatest GHG emitter by the mid-2000s. However, it had no duty to limit its emissions.

— The Paris Agreement did not replace or abolish the Kyoto Protocol. However, the Kyoto Protocol’s third commitment term beyond 2020 has never been defined.

Conclusion:

What does the ICJ ruling mean for the Kyoto Protocol?

— The ICJ has ruled that the Kyoto Protocol remains in force, and countries party to it still have to fulfil their legal obligations under its provisions.

— The Court considers that the lack of agreement on a further commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol after the adoption of the Paris Agreement does not mean that the Kyoto Protocol has been terminated. The Kyoto Protocol, therefore, remains part of the applicable law.

— The international court also declared that failing to comply with the Kyoto Protocol’s stipulations would be an internationally unlawful act.

— The ICJ ruling came after it was asked by the UN General Assembly to give its advisory opinion on the obligations of countries to protect the climate system, and the legal consequences of not fulfilling them. To give its ruling, the court examined the provisions of the three climate treaties — the 1994 UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement — and several other environment-related international laws that have a bearing on the climate system.

(Source: What the ICJ ruling means for the Kyoto Protocol)

Points to Ponder

Read about Kyoto Protocol and Kigali Amendment

Read about ICJ