💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open

Subject: International Relations

  • Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Issue

    Why in the News?

    A China Coast Guard formation patrolled the Senkaku waters as Beijing escalated tensions with Japan over recent remarks on Taiwan.

    Senkaku-Diaoyu Islands Issue

    About the Senkaku–Diaoyu Islands Issue:

    • Location & Status: A small uninhabited island group in the East China Sea, claimed by Japan, China, and Taiwan.
    • Names: Japan calls them Senkaku, China Diaoyu, and Taiwan Diaoyutai.
    • Administration: Japan has administered the islands since 1972 after the Okinawa Reversion Agreement with the United States.
    • Geography: Consists of five islands and three rocks, covering ~7 sq km; the largest is Uotsuri.
    • Strategic Location: Situated near major shipping lanes linking East Asia to global trade routes.
    • Natural Resources: Surrounding waters believed to hold oil and natural gas deposits, highlighted in a 1969 UN report.
    • Fisheries: Rich fishing grounds add significant economic importance.
    • Geopolitical Value: Located at the junction of interests of Japan, China, Taiwan, and the United States, making it a strategic flashpoint.

    What is the Dispute?

    • Japanese Claim: Japan incorporated the islands in January 1895, asserting they were terra nullius based on surveys from 1885 that found no Chinese administration.
    • Chinese & Taiwanese Claim: Cite dynastic-era maps, navigation records, and Qing documents to argue sovereignty predates Japanese control.
    • Post–World War II Status: The US took control under the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, administering the islands as part of the Nansei Shoto region.
    • 1971 Shift: Transfer of Senkaku and Okinawa back to Japan under the Okinawa Reversion Agreement sparked protests from China and Taiwan.
    • Resource Trigger: China’s active claim strengthened after the 1969 UN report identified potential hydrocarbon reserves.
    • 2012 Escalation: Japan’s purchase of three privately owned islands led to widespread protests, attacks on Japanese businesses, and a surge in nationalist sentiment in China.
    • Current Tensions: Chinese Coast Guard vessels frequently enter surrounding waters to assert Beijing’s claim.
    • Broader Dynamics: Linked to nationalism, unresolved historical grievances, and strategic competition between China, Japan, and the United States across the Indo-Pacific.
    [UPSC 2022] Which one of the following statements best reflects the issue with Senkaku Islands, sometimes mentioned in the news?

    Options: (a) It is generally believed that they are artificial islands made by a country around South China Sea.

    (b) China and Japan engage in maritime disputes over these islands in East China Sea.*

    (c) A permanent American military base has been set up there to help Taiwan to increase its defence capabilities.

    (d) Though International Court of Justice declared them as no man’s land, some South-East Asian countries claim them.

     

  • [14th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Donald Trump shakes up the global nuclear order

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] The USA is facing an existential threat in the form of China, that is much more challenging than the erstwhile Soviet Union.  Explain.

    Linkage: China’s denial of nuclear testing and its call for the U.S. to uphold the moratorium illustrate the sharper, more complex strategic rivalry between the two powers. This directly aligns with the PYQ’s theme that China poses a subtler and more challenging strategic threat to the U.S. than the Soviet Union.

    Mentor’s Comment

    This editorial examines how recent U.S. actions under Donald Trump have disrupted long-standing global nuclear norms, especially the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) framework. The article evaluates implications for global nuclear stability, India’s strategic environment, and emerging arms-race dynamics. It has been rewritten to suit UPSC Mains standards, with structured analysis, value addition, and exam-oriented elements.

    INTRODUCTION

    The global nuclear order, built since 1945 through treaties, moratoria, and non-proliferation norms, is undergoing significant strain. The U.S. announcement of resuming nuclear testing and redefining CTBT obligations marks a decisive departure from three decades of restraint. This shift impacts nuclear doctrines, arms control regimes, and the behaviour of declared and undeclared nuclear weapon states.

    WHY IN THE NEWS 

    The CTBT framework faces its sharpest crisis in 27 years after Donald Trump declared that the U.S. may resume nuclear explosive testing, reversing the long-standing global moratorium. This marks the first major deviation from post-Cold War consensus and directly challenges existing verification norms. With Russia abandoning CTBT ratification and China refusing explosive testing, the U.S. move risks triggering a new technological arms race, raising concerns for India’s regional security environment.

    How the Nuclear Order Evolved

    1. Post-1945 restructuring: Nuclear stockpiles reduced from ~65,000 warheads in the 1970s to ~12,500 today; nine states now possess nuclear weapons.
    2. NPT framework: NPT created a hierarchy between five permanent nuclear powers and later entrants such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
    3. Moratorium period: CTBT negotiations from 1993-96 led to a global halt on explosive tests despite the treaty never entering into force.

    Why the U.S. Nuclear Test Resumption Matters

    1. Resumption of explosive testing: President Trump instructed the U.S. DoE and DoD to prepare for renewed testing, reversing a voluntary halt maintained since 1992.
    2. Shift in doctrine: U.S. pursuit of low-yield warheads and submarine-launched cruise missiles signals a move to battlefield-oriented nuclear systems.
    3. Erosion of restraint: The U.S. argues Russia and China conduct “non-explosive yield tests,” challenging Washington’s previous compliance stance.

    Why the CTBT Is Facing Breakdown

    1. Treaty not in force: CTBT requires ratification by 187 signatory states; key holdouts include the U.S., China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea.
    2. Russia’s reversal: Russia withdrew CTBT ratification in 2023, citing U.S. non-ratification.
    3. Competing interpretations: China and Russia continue “zero-yield” testing; the CTBT Organization’s monitoring system detects global activity through 300+ stations.

    How New Technology Is Altering the Arms Race

    1. Low-yield weapons: U.S. development of W76-2 warheads creates escalation risks due to tactical usability.
    2. Unmanned and hypersonic systems: Renewed R&D on missile defence, high-tech cruise systems, and autonomous platforms challenges existing deterrence logic.
    3. Doctrinal changes: Nuclear powers pursue counterforce-oriented designs to survive adversary first strikes.

    Implications for India

    1. Regional chain reaction: Testing by the U.S., Russia, or China is likely to push Pakistan to follow, widening the deterrence gap with India.
    2. China-Pakistan axis: Deepening technological cooperation complicates India’s security environment.
    3. NPT/CTBT dilemma: India may face pressure on whether to revisit explosive testing if others abandon restraint.

    CONCLUSION

    The breakdown of CTBT norms marks the most significant shift in the nuclear order since the 1990s. Renewed explosive testing by major powers could trigger competitive modernization cycles and weaken global arms control regimes. For India, the challenge lies in balancing credible deterrence with adherence to restraint-based global norms.

    Value Addition

    What is CTBT?

    • A multilateral arms-control treaty that bans all nuclear explosions, for both civilian and military purposes.
    • Aims to freeze qualitative nuclear arms race by preventing the development of new warhead designs.

    When was it negotiated?

    • Negotiated at the Conference on Disarmament (CD) between 1993-1996.
    • Adopted by the UNGA on 10 September 1996.
    • Opened for signature on 24 September 1996.

    Why is it not in force?

    • CTBT will enter into force only when all 44 Annex-II states (states with nuclear capabilities at the time) ratify it.
    • As of today, 8 Annex-II states have not ratified/signed:
      U.S., China, India, Pakistan, DPRK, Israel, Iran, Egypt.
    • Because of this, the treaty remains legally incomplete, though politically influential.

    Key Provisions

    1. Total Prohibition
      • Bans all nuclear explosions, including:
        • High-yield tests
        • Low-yield tests
        • Subcritical tests (disputed)
      • Applies to all environments: underground, underwater, atmospheric, outer space.
    2. Verification Regime
      • International Monitoring System (IMS) with 300+ stations, using:
        • Seismic sensors
        • Hydroacoustic monitors
        • Infrasound detectors
        • Radionuclide sampling
      • International Data Centre (IDC) analyses global test signals.
      • On-site inspections permitted after treaty enters into force.
    3. Confidence-Building Measures
      • Exchange of information, calibration explosions, technical cooperation.

    Institutional Mechanism

    • CTBTO Preparatory Commission (CTBTO-PrepCom) established in 1997.
    • Manages:
      • IMS network construction
      • Data analysis
      • Training and inspection readiness
    • Works despite treaty not being in force.

    Significance

    • Creates the strongest global norm against nuclear testing since 1998.
    • Slows modernization of nuclear arsenals.
    • Provides scientific verification for early detection of clandestine tests.
    • Complements Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and FMCT debates.

     

  • ​Fishing troubles: On India, Sri Lanka, the Palk Bay fishing issue

    Introduction

    The Palk Bay, a narrow strip separating Tamil Nadu from Sri Lanka, has historically been a shared fishing zone. However, repeated arrests of Indian fishermen for crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line (IMBL) underline a persistent challenge. Bottom trawling, a destructive fishing practice, has been the core issue fueling ecological degradation, diplomatic tension, and economic distress. The recent arrest on November 9, 2024, reopens the debate on reconciling traditional livelihoods with sustainable and legal marine resource use.

    Why in the news?

    The arrest of 14 Tamil Nadu fishermen by the Sri Lankan Navy marks another flashpoint in the Palk Bay fishing dispute. This incident is significant because:

    1. Persistence of conflict: Despite decades of talks, fishermen from both nations continue to cross maritime boundaries for catch-rich zones.
    2. Scale of problem: Over 128 fishermen from Tamil Nadu remain in Sri Lankan custody, with boats seized.
    3. Diplomatic urgency: The issue features regularly in bilateral meetings, yet lacks a lasting policy resolution.
    4. Ecological threat: The practice of bottom trawling continues to damage coral beds and marine biodiversity, making it a cross-border environmental crisis.

    Why do Tamil Nadu fishermen continue to cross the IMBL?

    1. Livelihood dependence: For thousands of families, fishing remains the only sustainable income source. The depletion of nearshore fish stocks has pushed them toward Sri Lankan waters.
    2. Cost-pressure fishing: Each voyage involves high operational costs, forcing fishermen to maximize yield through fast, large-scale trawling.
    3. Traditional persistence: The term “tradition” is often invoked to justify trawling, despite its destructive ecological footprint.
    4. Rapid voyages: Quick trawling runs enhance profitability but heighten the risk of arrest and confiscation.

    What is bottom trawling and why is it destructive?

    1. Definition: Bottom trawling involves dragging weighted nets along the seabed.
    2. Ecological damage: It destroys coral reefs, seabed habitats, and fish spawning grounds.
    3. Stock depletion: Leads to overfishing and long-term decline of commercially valuable species.
    4. Conflict trigger: Sri Lankan fishermen, especially from the Northern Province, oppose bottom trawling as it depletes shared marine resources vital for their post-war recovery.

    What are the diplomatic and institutional mechanisms in place?

    1. Joint Working Group (JWG) on Fisheries: Met in Colombo on October 29, 2024 to address arrests and sustainable fishing practices.
    2. Bilateral discussions: Fishermen’s representatives met counterparts in March 2024, but lacked formal sanction or actionable outcomes.
    3. Pending initiatives: The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna-led People’s Power Party in Sri Lanka, in power for over a year, has yet to show urgency in resolving the dispute.

    What policy solutions have been suggested?

    1. Research collaboration: Proposal for a Palk Bay Research Station for ecosystem monitoring and sustainable fishing methods.
    2. Technology transition: Gradual shift from bottom trawling to deep-sea fishing and small-boat operations.
    3. Incentivization: Financial and policy support to Tamil Nadu fishermen to switch to non-destructive gear and practices.
    4. Diplomatic liberalism: New Delhi may consider easing travel and fishing permits within limits to facilitate safe, sustainable livelihoods.
    5. Regulatory measures: Imposing a progressive ban on bottom trawling in Indian waters to signal intent and compliance.

    Conclusion

    The Palk Bay issue is not merely a border dispute, it is a test of India’s ability to balance livelihood protection with ecological responsibility and regional diplomacy. Persuading fishermen to abandon bottom trawling requires education, compensation, and innovation, not coercion. A cooperative framework, rooted in mutual trust and science-based regulation, can transform a contentious boundary into a shared zone of prosperity and peace.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2013] In respect of India-Sri Lanka relations, discuss how domestic factors influence foreign policy.

    Linkage: Domestic political pressures from Tamil Nadu fishermen and state parties shape India’s diplomatic stance toward Sri Lanka. This internal-external linkage influences how New Delhi balances livelihood concerns with bilateral maritime cooperation.

  • [11th November 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: A celebration of India-Bhutan ties

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2024] Discuss the geopolitical and geostrategic importance of Maldives for India with a focus on global trade and energy flows. Further, also discuss how this relationship affects India’s maritime security and regional stability amidst international competition.

    Linkage: This PYQ reflects the same strategic framework as India-Bhutan relations; where geography, stability, and mutual trust drive India’s Neighbourhood First and Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) vision.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The 70th birth anniversary of Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the fourth King of Bhutan, serves as a moment to celebrate not just a monarch’s life but the enduring India-Bhutan partnership that he helped shape. His leadership modernised Bhutan and deepened one of South Asia’s most stable and mutually respectful bilateral relationships built on trust, hydropower diplomacy, and shared values of sustainable development and cultural harmony.

    Introduction

    The former King of Bhutan, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, turned 70 on November 11, 2025. Revered by his people as a Bodhisattva King, he ruled Bhutan from 1972 until his abdication in 2006 in favour of his son, King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck. Known for introducing the concept of Gross National Happiness (GNH) and steering Bhutan into the modern era, his legacy also symbolizes the deep and evolving friendship between India and Bhutan. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Thimphu for the celebrations marks the continuation of this historic bond. This underlines India’s Neighbourhood First Policy and commitment to strengthening Himalayan partnerships.

    The Legacy of a Sage King

    1. Modernisation of Bhutan: King Jigme Singye Wangchuck guided Bhutan into the 21st century with policies balancing economic progress, environmental sustainability, and cultural preservation.
    2. Buddhist Leadership Ethos: Revered almost like a Buddha, he was loved for his humility and focus on inner happiness, embodied in the philosophy of Gross National Happiness.
    3. Abdication for Reform: His voluntary abdication in 2006 for his son represented a rare act of democratic foresight, leading Bhutan towards constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy.

    India-Bhutan Relations: A Model of Neighbourhood Diplomacy

    1. Neighbourhood First Priority: Bhutan was the first foreign country visited by PM Modi in 2014 after assuming office, highlighting Bhutan’s symbolic and strategic importance.
    2. Mutual Cultural Affinity: The relationship is grounded in shared civilizational ethos, Buddhism, and trust, rather than transactional diplomacy.
    3. Joint Celebrations: Modi’s participation in the birthday celebrations reflects India’s continued recognition of Bhutan as a trusted Himalayan partner.

    Hydropower Diplomacy: The Cornerstone of Economic Partnership

    1. Strategic Energy Partnership: India and Bhutan have developed one of South Asia’s most successful hydropower cooperation models, with electricity from Bhutan’s rivers exported to India.
    2. Economic Impact: Projects like the Punasangchhu-I and Punasangchhu-II hydropower projects contribute significantly to Bhutan’s GDP and India’s clean energy imports.
    3. Job Creation and Development: Revenue from hydropower has raised Bhutan’s per capita income, reflecting a sustainable model of bilateral interdependence.
    4. Private Sector Expansion: Future projects are likely to be developed by private Indian companies in collaboration with Bhutanese partners, expanding beyond state-led initiatives.

    Issues of National Security and Strategic Alignment

    1. Advisory Role of the King: Former King Jigme Singye Wangchuck continues to play a strategic advisory role (K4) on national security and foreign policy.
    2. Security Cooperation: India’s Royal Bhutan Army (RBA) works closely with Indian defence forces to secure borders and enhance counter-insurgency cooperation.
    3. Operation All Clear (2003): Bhutan’s successful military operation, supported by India, removed insurgent groups from its territory; a hallmark of trust-based defence partnership.
    4. Geopolitical Balance: Bhutan continues to balance relations with India while cautiously managing ties with China, guided by India’s support in maintaining sovereignty and stability.

    India’s Continued Developmental Support

    1. Hydropower Assistance: India remains Bhutan’s largest partner in hydropower development, ensuring energy security for both nations.
    2. Community Development Projects: Support extends to education, healthcare, and monastic infrastructure, reinforcing India’s soft power in the region.
    3. Trade and Connectivity: India’s assistance in roads, border management, and trade routes enhances regional connectivity under the BBIN framework.

    Conclusion

    The celebration of King Jigme Singye Wangchuck’s 70th birthday is more than an homage to a revered monarch, it is a testament to the unbroken trust, shared development, and mutual respect between India and Bhutan. The hydropower-driven partnership continues to set an example of how small states and large neighbours can coexist through equality, respect, and common vision. As India continues to invest in Bhutan’s progress, this Himalayan partnership stands as a model of enduring regional cooperation and spiritual kinship.

  • Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) Report by World Bank

    Why in the News?

    The World Bank’s November 2025 Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) Report says India must deepen financial reforms and boost private capital to reach its $30 trillion economy goal by 2047.

    What is the Financial Sector Assessment (FSA) Report?

    • Overview: It is a joint evaluation by the IMF and World Bank under the Financial Sector Assessment Program (FSAP), launched in 1999 to review a country’s financial stability and institutional soundness.
    • Objective: Assesses the resilience, inclusiveness, and stability of the financial system, analysing how well it supports sustainable and equitable growth.
    • Scope: Covers banks, NBFCs, insurance, capital markets, and payment systems, along with regulation, supervision, and crisis management frameworks.
    • Methodology: Uses stress tests, policy diagnostics, and supervisory assessments to evaluate financial soundness and regulatory effectiveness.
    • Frequency: Conducted every 5–7 years, tracking policy reforms and emerging risks in both advanced and emerging economies.

    Key Highlights: India’s FSA Report 2025

    • Improved Stability: Found India’s financial system more diversified, inclusive, and resilient than in 2017, aided by regulatory reforms.
    • Reform Success: Credited India for recovering from the 2010s banking crisis and COVID-19 shocks through RBI’s tighter supervision of banks and NBFCs.
    • Regulatory Strengthening: Praised the extension of RBI’s authority over cooperative banks and scale-based regulation for NBFCs.
    • Digital Financial Inclusion: Highlighted India’s UPI, Aadhaar, and Jan Dhan ecosystem as global benchmarks for financial access and gender inclusion.
    • Capital Market Expansion: Reported capital markets’ size rising from 144% to 175% of GDP since 2017, driven by investor confidence and strong infrastructure.
    • Policy Recommendations: Advised improving credit-risk management, developing conduct-risk oversight for mutual funds, and empowering self-regulatory bodies.
    • Private Capital Mobilization: Urged creation of credit-enhancement and securitization platforms to attract global long-term investors.
    • Strategic Vision: Emphasized that continued reforms, deeper markets, and financial integration are essential to achieving India’s $30 trillion economy goal by 2047.
    [UPSC 2015] Which one of the following issues the ‘Global Economic Prospects’ report periodically?
    Options:
    (a) The Asian Development Bank
    (b) The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
    (c) The US Federal Reserve Bank
    (d) The World Bank*

     

  • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO)

    Why in the News?

    China has rejected President Trump’s claim of secret nuclear tests, reaffirming its commitment to the CTBT amid renewed U.S. calls for nuclear testing and revived Cold War–style tensions.

    About Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO):

    • Establishment: Formed in 1996 under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) to build and operate a verification regime ensuring compliance with the global ban on nuclear explosions.
    • Headquarters: Vienna, Austria.
    • Mandate: To monitor adherence to the CTBT through a global verification system capable of detecting any nuclear test anywhere in the world.
    • Verification System: Operates the International Monitoring System (IMS) with 337 facilities, including seismic, hydroacoustic, infrasound, and radionuclide stations to detect underground, underwater, or atmospheric nuclear tests.
    • Data Centre: The International Data Centre (IDC) analyses and distributes real-time data to member states, providing early warning of suspicious activities.
    • Preparatory Commission: Functions until the CTBT formally enters into force, maintaining operational readiness and supporting states’ verification capabilities.
    • Scientific Applications: The IMS also contributes to tsunami warning systems, atmospheric research, and disaster response, reinforcing the CTBTO’s global utility beyond disarmament.

    Back2Basics: How are CTBT and NPT related?

    • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) are closely linked pillars of the global nuclear arms control regime:
      1. Shared Goal: Both aim to prevent nuclear proliferation and promote disarmament.
      2. Scope Difference: The NPT focuses on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and promoting peaceful nuclear use; the CTBT bans all nuclear explosions for any purpose.
      3. Chronological Link: The NPT (1970) came first, creating the legal framework for non-proliferation; the CTBT (1996) built on it by prohibiting testing, reinforcing the NPT’s disarmament pillar.
      4. Verification and Compliance: The CTBT adds technical verification through the International Monitoring System, complementing NPT’s safeguards under the IAEA.
      5. Disarmament Pathway: Ratification of the CTBT is often viewed as a key step toward fulfilling Article VI of the NPT, which obliges nuclear powers to pursue disarmament.

    Status of the Treaty and Ratification Gap:

    • Adoption: It was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1996 and opened for signature on September 24, 1996.
    • Membership: As of 2025, 187 states have signed and 178 have ratified the treaty.
    • Enforcement: It will become legally binding only after 44 specific “Annex 2” states, those with nuclear technology at the time ratify it.
    • Pending Ratifications: Eight critical states have not ratified the treaty- China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, and the United States (signatories but unratified), and India, Pakistan, and North Korea (non-signatories).
    • Recent Setback: In 2023, Russia revoked its ratification, though it continues to observe a testing moratorium, weakening the treaty’s political momentum.
    • Global Compliance: Despite legal limbo, a de facto moratorium on nuclear testing has largely held since the 1990s; only North Korea has violated it with tests since 2006.
    • Significance: The CTBT remains a cornerstone of the global non-proliferation regime, its verification network providing both deterrence and transparency even without formal legal enforcement.
    [UPSC 2015] Consider the following countries:

    1.  China 2. France 3. India 4. Israel 5. Pakistan

    Which among the above are Nuclear Weapons States as recognized by the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)?

    (a) 1 and 2 only * (b) 1, 3, 4 and 5 only  (c) 2, 4 and 5 only  (d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5

     

  • Bangladesh’s accession to the UN Water Convention

    Why in the News?

    In 2025, Bangladesh became the first South Asian nation to join the UN Water Convention (Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes).

    About UN Water Convention:

    • Overview: Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, adopted in Helsinki (1992) and enforced in 1996 under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).
    • Globalisation: Originally regional (Europe, Central Asia); opened to all UN Member States in 2016 after a 2013 amendment, becoming a global treaty for transboundary water governance.
    • Objective: Promotes sustainable management of shared water resources and conflict prevention through cooperative mechanisms.
    • Key Goals: Implements SDG-6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG-16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) via equitable water sharing and joint management.
    • Obligations for Parties:
      • Prevent and reduce transboundary pollution and unsustainable extraction.
      • Use shared waters equitably and reasonably.
      • Coordinate national and transboundary water management policies.
      • Establish joint bodies or commissions for shared basins.
    • Institutional Mechanism: Managed by the UNECE Secretariat, which organises meetings, facilitates implementation, and promotes basin-level cooperation among signatories.
    • Legal Character: Functions as a framework convention, complementing rather than replacing bilateral treaties (e.g., Indus Waters Treaty, Ganga Treaty).
    • Significance: Serves as a legal and institutional mechanism for Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), regional peacebuilding, and climate-resilient governance.
    • Related Instruments: Inspired the UN Watercourses Convention (1997); both operate in complementary scopes within international water law.

    Why did Bangladesh join (2025):

    • First in South Asia: Became the first South Asian nation to ratify the Convention amid escalating water stress and climate vulnerability.
    • Hydrological Dependence: Over 90% of river inflows come from outside Bangladesh, mainly India and China, making Dhaka highly vulnerable to upstream interventions.
    • Upstream Projects: Concerns over China’s Motuo Hydropower Project (Yarlung Tsangpo/Brahmaputra) and India’s unresolved Teesta water-sharing dispute drove the decision.
    • Environmental Risks: 60% of population exposed to floods; half live in drought-prone areas, heightening need for cooperative governance.
    • Legal Context: Bangladesh’s 2019 High Court ruling granting rivers legal personhood reinforced its institutional focus on water rights.
    • Strategic Motivation: Seeks global legal recourse, access to data-sharing mechanisms, and international funding for climate adaptation and water security.

    Implications for India:

    • Shift from Bilateralism: India prefers bilateral river treaties (e.g., Indus, Ganga). Bangladesh’s multilateral engagement introduces scope for third-party mediation, contrary to India’s stance.
    • Ganga Treaty Renewal (2026): Bangladesh may invoke “equitable utilisation” to seek a higher share of Ganga waters under Convention norms.
    • Teesta River Pressure: The stalled Teesta agreement could face renewed international pressure, citing fairness and sustainability principles.
    • Regional Domino Effect: Likely to motivate Nepal and Bhutan to join, potentially transforming South Asia’s hydro-diplomatic architecture.
    • Strategic Concerns: Bangladesh’s simultaneous trilateral cooperation with China and Pakistan raises apprehensions of a Beijing-influenced hydro-bloc.
  • Civil War in Sudan

    Why in the News?

    The United Nations Secretary-General has warned that the civil war in Sudan is “spiralling out of control” after the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) seized the strategic Darfur city of El-Fasher.

    Civil War in Sudan

    About the Civil War in Sudan:

    • Outbreak: Began in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) led by Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) led by Gen. Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (Hemedti).
    • Causes: Rooted in Sudan’s failed democratic transition after the 2019 overthrow of Omar al-Bashir and the October 2021 military coup.
    • Immediate Trigger: Power struggle over RSF integration into the national army under the proposed political framework agreement.
    • Conflict Spread: Fighting engulfed Khartoum, Omdurman, and Darfur, causing massive civilian casualties and infrastructure collapse.
    • Humanitarian Toll: Over 8.5 million displaced, famine conditions emerging, and public health systems near total breakdown.
    • Atrocities: Both sides accused of war crimes, ethnic killings, and looting, particularly in Darfur.
    • Territorial Shift: RSF’s capture of El-Fasher (2025) consolidated its control over western Sudan.
    • Foreign Actors: Egypt supports SAF; UAE and Russia’s Wagner Group back RSF, fuelling proxy dynamics.

    What Lies Ahead?

    • Risk of Partition: Sudan may split RSF holding the west, SAF dominating the northeast, leading to de-facto fragmentation.
    • Regional Destabilisation: Prolonged conflict could spill into the Horn of Africa and Red Sea corridor, worsening insecurity.
    • Political Outlook: Civilian transition appears remote; both factions remain focused on military dominance.
    • Economic Collapse: Inflation above 250%, agricultural failure deepening food insecurity.
    • Regional Impact: Refugee influx threatens Chad, South Sudan, and Ethiopia with cross-border instability.
    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following pairs: Country Reason for being in the news
    1. Argentina Worst economic crisis
    2. Sudan War between the country’s regular army and paramilitary forces
    3. Turkey Rescinded its membership of NATO
    How many of the pairs given above are correctly matched?
    Options: (a) Only one pair (b) Only two pairs* (c) All three pairs (d) None of the pairs

     

  • BRICS Pay and the Push to De-dollarize Global Finance

    Why in the News?

    Since 2014, BRICS nations have worked to cut dependence on the U.S. dollar, launching the New Development Bank (NDB), Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA), and now BRICS Pay to promote local currency trade and rival the SWIFT system.

    BRICS Pay and the Push to De-dollarize Global Finance

    About BRICS Pay Initiative:

    • Overview: BRICS Pay is a proposed cross-border digital payment and settlement platform developed by the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) to facilitate trade in local currencies and reduce reliance on the U.S. dollar and the SWIFT network.
    • Origins: The idea emerged after the 2014 Fortaleza Summit, where BRICS established its own financial architecture, the New Development Bank (NDB) and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA).
    • Purpose: To enable direct financial transactions among member nations using local currencies, minimizing the role of Western-controlled financial systems and avoiding U.S.-led sanctions.
    • Development Path:
      • 2017: BRICS agreed to enhance currency cooperation via swaps, local currency settlements, and direct investments.
      • Early 2020s: The BRICS Payments Task Force (BPTF) was created to design interoperable systems.
      • 2024 Kazan Summit: Leaders highlighted strengthening of correspondent banking networks and settlements in local currencies under the BRICS Cross-Border Payments Initiative.
    • Prototype: A demo of BRICS Pay was unveiled in Moscow (October 2024), marking a concrete step toward implementation.
    • Supporting National Systems:
      • India: Unified Payments Interface (UPI)
      • China: Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CIPS)
      • Russia: System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS)
      • Brazil: Pix instant payment system
    • Strategic Importance: The initiative seeks to establish a self-reliant financial network, bypass SWIFT, and enhance monetary sovereignty among emerging economies.

    Back2Basics: Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) System

    • Establishment: Founded in 1973 by 239 banks from 15 countries to standardize and secure cross-border financial communications.
    • Headquarters: La Hulpe, Belgium.
    • Nature: A messaging network, not a bank, it does not hold or transfer funds but enables secure interbank communication for financial transactions.
    • Coverage: Connects over 11,000 financial institutions across 200+ countries, making it the largest international payment messaging system.
    • Operation:
      • Assigns each member a Bank Identifier Code (BIC) of 8–11 characters.
      • Standardizes message formats to ensure seamless global financial communication.
      • Facilitates fund transfer instructions, trade settlements, and foreign exchange operations.
    • Governance:
      • Supervised by G10 central banks, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the National Bank of Belgium.
      • Managed by a 25-member board of directors, representing about 3,500 member institutions.
    • Strategic Role:
      • Forms the backbone of global finance, allowing efficient movement of capital.
      • Exclusion from SWIFT acts as a powerful economic sanction tool, isolating nations (e.g., Russia and Iran) from the international financial system.
    • Significance: SWIFT’s dominance reflects Western control over global finance, making it a central target for alternative networks like BRICS Pay, China’s CIPS, and Russia’s SPFS that seek a multipolar monetary order.

     

    [UPSC 2023] With reference to the Central Bank digital currencies, consider the following statements:

    1. It is possible to make payments in a digital currency without using US dollar or SWIFT system.

    2. A digital currency can be distributed with a condition programmed into it such as time-frame for spending it.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    Options: (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2* (d) Neither 1 nor 2

     

  • What are the challenges with the High Seas Treaty

    Introduction

    The High Seas Treaty, formally known as the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement, establishes a legal framework to conserve and sustainably use marine biodiversity in areas outside national control. It covers nearly two-thirds of the ocean’s surface. Adopted under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, it aims to address threats from climate change, overfishing, and pollution through tools like Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs). Ratified by over 60 nations in 2024, it will come into effect in January 2026. This makes it one of the most comprehensive global conservation instruments after the Paris Agreement.

    Why in the News? 

    The High Seas Treaty being ratified by 60+ nations represents a historic step in ocean governance, a domain previously beyond formal protection. For the first time, the international community has agreed on a legally binding mechanism to preserve marine life that exists outside any country’s jurisdiction. This is strikingly different from the earlier regime under UNCLOS, which lacked clear provisions for protecting biodiversity.

    What is the High Seas Treaty About?

    1. Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ): Creates an all-inclusive framework to conserve and manage marine biodiversity beyond national boundaries.
    2. Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs): Recognised as a common heritage of humankind, ensuring equitable benefit-sharing between nations.
    3. Area-Based Management Tools (ABMTs): Establishes Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to safeguard biodiversity and improve climate resilience and food security.
    4. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs): Mandates prior assessment of projects with potential cross-border or cumulative ecological impact.
    5. Capacity Building and Technology Transfer: Facilitates scientific collaboration, especially for developing nations, combining modern science and indigenous knowledge.

    Major Challenges with the High Seas Treaty

    1. Uncertainty over Core Principles
      1. Common Heritage vs. Freedom of High Seas: The “common heritage” principle promotes equitable access and benefit-sharing, while “freedom of the high seas” allows unrestricted navigation and resource use.
      2. Partial Application: The treaty applies the “common heritage” principle only partially, especially for MGRs, reflecting a compromise rather than resolution.
      3. Result: Creates ambiguity in rights and responsibilities of states in exploration, research, and benefit distribution.
    2. Ambiguity in Marine Genetic Resources (MGRs) Governance
      1. Undefined Governance Mechanism: Earlier, no clear framework existed for using or sharing MGRs.
      2. Biopiracy Concerns: Developing nations fear exploitation by developed countries, who could monopolize genetic discoveries and profits.
      3. Equity Gap: The lack of clarity risks excluding Global South nations from scientific and commercial benefits.
    3. Implementation and Enforcement Gaps
      1. Jurisdictional Complexity: The high seas lie beyond national boundaries, making monitoring and enforcement difficult.
      2. Institutional Limitations: While UNCLOS provides a broad legal foundation, there’s no dedicated global enforcement body to ensure compliance.
      3. Dependence on Voluntary Reporting: Could weaken accountability, especially in regulating corporate activities.
    4. Financial and Technological Inequities
      1. Unequal Capabilities: Developing countries lack access to marine technologies for monitoring and sustainable use.
      2. Technology Transfer Gap: The treaty mandates capacity-building, but without specific funding mechanisms, commitments may remain rhetorical.
      3. Risk: Could widen the North-South divide in ocean research and benefit sharing.
    5. Balancing Conservation and Development
      1. Sustainable Use vs. Conservation: Striking a balance between environmental protection and economic opportunities (like deep-sea mining or biotechnology) remains contentious.
      2. Unclear Prioritization: Without clear hierarchy between ecological and developmental objectives, policy conflicts may persist.

    Conclusion

    The High Seas Treaty represents a landmark effort to bring order and justice to the global commons. Yet, the true test lies in resolving philosophical ambiguities and ensuring equitable implementation. Without robust funding, technology sharing, and accountability mechanisms, it risks becoming another well-intentioned but weak global accord. For India, aligning its Blue Economy strategy with the treaty’s framework will be key to ensuring both ecological and economic dividends.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2022] Discuss global warming and mention its effects on the global climate. Explain the control measures to bring down the level of greenhouse gases which cause global warming, in the light of the Kyoto Protocol, 1997.

    Linkage: Both Kyoto Protocol and High Seas Treaty are UN-backed frameworks aimed at addressing global commons issues, air and ocean respectively.