Correct option is A
The correct option is: A – (1), (2), and (3) only
Explanation:
(1) War is beyond the scope of international law.
Justice Radhabinod Pal took the view that, at the time, international law did not treat the very fact of going to war as a crime and that war, as such, lay outside the then-existing framework of international criminal liability.(2) Conduct of war is within the scope of the rules of international law.
He distinguished between war itself and the manner in which war is conducted, accepting that rules such as those in the Hague and Geneva regimes governed the conduct of hostilities and were part of international law.(3) The Pact of Paris brought about no change in the status of war.
Pal argued that the Kellogg–Briand Pact (Pact of Paris), though renouncing war as an instrument of national policy, did not transform war into an international crime nor fundamentally alter its legal status for purposes of criminal responsibility of individuals.
These three propositions correctly reflect key elements of his dissent, so (1), (2), and (3) together (Option A) are right.
Why the Other Statements Are Incorrect
(4) International law has developed so much as to make war a crime.
Pal rejected the idea that aggressive war was already a crime in positive international law and criticised the retroactive criminalisation of “crimes against peace”.
This statement is the opposite of his position and therefore cannot be attributed to him.(5) Conspiracy is an independent crime under international law.
He was highly critical of the conspiracy charge, disputing its use as an independent, free‑standing crime in international law in the way the Tokyo Charter framed it.
Thus, treating conspiracy as an accepted, independent international crime does not reflect his dissent.
English
10 Questions
20 Marks
12 Mins
