Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardViewpoint Attribution

Read the following passage:

In the latter half of the twentieth century, the conceptual foundation of customary international law (CIL) underwent a profound shift. Traditional legal positivists, operating under the assumption that state sovereignty is absolute, maintained that CIL is formed exclusively through the consistent practice of states acting out of a sense of legal obligation (*opinio juris*). From this orthodox perspective, treaties and explicit agreements are the only other legitimate sources of international obligation.

However, the proliferation of international human rights declarations challenged this state-centric model. Modern normative scholars, most notably Elara Vance, argue that the traditionalist reliance on state practice is inherently regressive, as it structurally privileges the actions of historically dominant states while ignoring the normative aspirations articulated in UN General Assembly resolutions. Vance asserts that in the realm of human rights, *opinio juris* can be inferred directly from these multilateral declarations, effectively bypassing the need for consistent historical state practice to establish binding international norms.

While Vance’s framework successfully explains the rapid integration of human rights norms into CIL, it risks diluting the very binding force it seeks to expand. By divorcing CIL from actual state behavior, normative scholars inadvertently supply authoritarian regimes with a rhetorical tool: such states can formally endorse aspirational resolutions at the UN, generating *opinio juris* under Vance's model, while simultaneously violating those very norms domestically with impunity. A more robust understanding of CIL must recognize that while General Assembly resolutions can catalyze the formation of customary law, they cannot substitute for the hard evidence of state compliance without reducing international law to mere diplomatic signaling.

Based on the passage, which one of the following statements about United Nations General Assembly resolutions is most accurately attributed to Elara Vance?

  1. A
    They possess the capacity to accelerate the development of customary law but fundamentally depend on tangible state compliance to achieve binding force.
  2. B
    They reflect an inherently regressive approach to international law because they structurally prioritize the interests of historically dominant states.
  3. They are sufficient, independent of historical state behavior, for deriving the sense of legal obligation necessary to establish binding international human rights norms.Answer
  4. D
    They inadvertently provide authoritarian regimes with a mechanism to generate international legal obligations without requiring genuine domestic compliance.
  5. E
    They constitute the only legitimate source of international obligation outside of formal treaties and explicit agreements in the modern era.

Answer

The option stating that they are sufficient, independent of historical state behavior, for deriving the sense of legal obligation necessary to establish binding international human rights norms.
The correct answer accurately synthesizes Elara Vance's argument by combining her claim in the second paragraph with a definition provided in the first. Vance argues that 'opinio juris' can be inferred directly from UN declarations, 'bypassing the need for consistent historical state practice.' Because the first paragraph explicitly defines 'opinio juris' as a 'sense of legal obligation,' it is accurate to say Vance believes these resolutions are sufficient, independent of historical state behavior, for deriving this legal obligation.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the specific perspective targeted by the question.
The question asks specifically for a statement about UN General Assembly resolutions that aligns with Elara Vance's viewpoint.
In multi-perspective passages, isolating the specific subject prevents conflating their views with the author's opinions or opposing groups.
2
Locate Vance's direct claims regarding the resolutions in the passage.
Paragraph two states: 'Vance asserts that in the realm of human rights, opinio juris can be inferred directly from these multilateral declarations, effectively bypassing the need for consistent historical state practice.'
Finding the textual anchor for the specified viewpoint is required before evaluating the answer choices.
3
Connect specialized terminology to its defined meaning within the text.
Paragraph one defines 'opinio juris' as a 'sense of legal obligation'. Substituting this definition into Vance's claim reveals she believes a sense of legal obligation can be inferred directly from UN declarations.
LSAT questions frequently test comprehension by defining a term early in a passage and then requiring the reader to apply that definition to a later argument.
4
Evaluate the options to find the correct synthesis of Vance's view, while eliminating distractor traps.
The correct option paraphrases this synthesized claim perfectly. Distractors that quote the author's critique of Vance or the author's final conclusion must be eliminated due to viewpoint misattribution.
The credited response must reflect exactly what the target scholar believes, not what the author believes about the scholar's framework.

Key Concept

Distinguishing the explicit claims of a cited scholar from the author's critiques and synthesizing contextual definitions to correctly interpret those claims.
Estimated Time:3m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Viewpoint Attribution

More questions from this topic