• Monday, September 25, 2017

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India)

Discussion in 'Strategic & Foreign Affairs' started by GDP Adil Khan Niazi, May 19, 2017.

  1. GDP Adil Khan Niazi

    GDP Adil Khan Niazi FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    239
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 542 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Germany
    1.png 2.png 3.png 4.png 5.png 6.png 7.png 8.png

    Sources: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=585&p1=3&p2=3&case=119&p3=5


    Pakistan’s challenge to UN court echoes India’s in 1999
    Back then, India pleaded “the ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear such disputes.” The court dismissed its claim


    [​IMG]
    The International Court of Justice in The Hague. Photo: AFP

    With the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague now hearing a case brought by India against the conviction of an Indian national, Kulbhushan Jadhav, in Pakistan, Islamabad has challenged the jurisdiction of the court – just as India did back in 1999 in the Atlantic patrol plane case.

    On that occasion, India was responding to a compensation claim filed by Pakistan after the Indian Air Force shot down a Pakistan Navy aircraft with 16 persons on board on August 10, 1999. India pleaded that “the ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear such disputes.” The court dismissed India’s claim.

    THE DAILYBrief

    Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox
    Yesterday, hearings began in the case of Jadhav, who was arrested in Balochistan in March of last year and charged with conducting espionage and sabotage activities against Pakistan. India claims that the death sentence handed to him by a military court is “an act of premeditated murder.” New Delhi insists Jadhav is a retired officer of the Indian Navy and was kidnapped from Iran, where he was involved in business activities. Leading the Indian legal team, senior advocate Harish Salve focused on denial of consular access to Jadhav, in breach of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

    Pakistan’s counsel, Khalid Qureshi, arguing that the case did not fall under the ICJ’s jurisdiction, told the court: “India has not provided any evidence to rebut that Jadhav is a terrorist.”

    He added: “Pakistan has concrete evidence of Jadhav’s involvement in subversive activities and he was sentenced in accordance with law.” Jadhav, he said, he entered into Pakistan on a fake passport. “Kulbhushan Jadhav confessed to having conspired to fan terrorism inside Pakistan, while the passport he was found in possession of bore a Muslim name.”

    Pakistan also believes that the approach to ICJ is premature and that Jadhav had other options available to him under the law, with the Supreme Court of Pakistan having the power to make a ruling on his conviction.

    Meanwhile, India’s complaint about denial of consular access may not be watertight. Under Article 5 of Geneva Convention IV, non-combatants detained for spying forfeit their rights of communication during times of hostilities. Moreover, while such as a person has the right to a fair trial, there is nothing to stop a death sentence being passed.

    India is seeking the suspension of the death sentence handed to Jadhav by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) in April this year. “India was not informed of Jadhav’s detention until after his arrest and learned only through the media about the death sentence,” its application states. The ICJ has stayed the execution while the case is heard.



    Sources: http://www.atimes.com/article/pakistans-challenge-un-court-echoes-indias-1999/
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. bhutjolokia

    bhutjolokia FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    308
    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Ratings:
    +0 / 391 / -1
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    confusing.

    [​IMG]

    and

    "Pakistan’s challenge to UN court echoes India’s in 1999
    Back then, India pleaded “the ICJ has no jurisdiction to hear such disputes.” The court dismissed its claim
    "

    This two are contradictory or these two are seperate cases??.
     
  3. Falcon26

    Falcon26 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    416
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1,215 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    The ICJ is a serially politicized body, but by accepting to entertain Indian ploys to play out the issue there, Pakistan has to accept the outcome. An outcome which will be decidedly against Pakistani interest. There was no reason for Pakistan to allow the ICJ to handle this case. In my mind, this is a serious abdication of responsibility by the Pakistani authorities and blatantly criminal.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 6
  4. EAK

    EAK FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    1,687
    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2012
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,476 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    What was the final judgement,,?
     
  5. Falcon26

    Falcon26 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    416
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1,215 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Essentially, the same. In 1999 the ICJ had no jurisdictions over Indo-Pak disputes but it suddenly has jurisdiction. It's a pay-to-play body and Pakistan has brought to the floor the noose with which it will be hanged. Sad.
     
  6. Roybot

    Roybot ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    19,323
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Ratings:
    +16 / 43,324 / -12
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Australia
    The jurisdiction varies, 1999 was a military incident. In Jadhav's case India has invoked the Vienna Convention, and the Vienna convention does come under the jurisdiction of the ICJ.

    Apples and Oranges.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  7. Falcon26

    Falcon26 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    416
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1,215 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    This Jadhav case is a military issue since he was a spy. But kudos to India. It was handed an easy victory thanks to the mindless Pakistanis
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 3
  8. Roybot

    Roybot ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    19,323
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Ratings:
    +16 / 43,324 / -12
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Australia
    You can't just arrest someone and label him a spy, that's a slippery slope that you don't wanna go down on.

    Pakistan will have to prove it to the international community that Jadhav is indeed a spy and prove that he is indeed responsible for the death of many Pakistani citizens. I don't know why Pakistanis are seeing this as a bad thing, I mean what better way to humiliate India in front of the whole word, by proving that Jadhav indeed is a spy and that he was working for India and fomenting terrorism in Pakistan?

    This is a golden opportunity for Pakistan, prove it in the ICJ, rather than running around with a poor compiled dossier of India's alleged nefarious terrorism designs over Balochistan!
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
    • Thanks Thanks x 8
  9. Falcon26

    Falcon26 FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    416
    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2015
    Ratings:
    +2 / 1,215 / -0
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Well, your own media is slowly also claiming that he was associated with RAW. Anyways, you guys have won today.

    http://indianexpress.com/article/ex...-hague-verdict-plays-out-in-pakistan-4662831/
     
  10. ranjeet

    ranjeet ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    16,303
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2013
    Ratings:
    +1 / 36,787 / -31
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    Read point (i) here
    [​IMG]
    In Jadhav's case India has alleged violations of Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention. Both India and Pakistan are signatory of Vienna Convention.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2017
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  11. Roybot

    Roybot ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    19,323
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2010
    Ratings:
    +16 / 43,324 / -12
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Australia
    Media reports doesn't count for anything. The Indian government has maintained that Jadhav is a retired naval officer, who was running a business in Iran and that he was abducted from Iran and brought to Pakistan.

    India has gotten just a stay order, only a small battle, Pakistan should bring the evidence against Jadhav to the ICJ and win the war!
     
  12. H!TchHiker

    H!TchHiker SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,322
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2016
    Ratings:
    +4 / 3,113 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    It was Pakistan mistake to entertain this at ICJ and now they have to face the result of poor planning ..India will win every case at international level due to its economical and polictical wiehtage ...lol people are fool to believe that same laws and principle will apply for Pakistan and India ...
    Might is right ...if we are so serious about jurisdiction why don't we simply hang the KY and send a message that we don't accept ...
    It is visible we need a way out not to hang KY and make it excuse to public that look it is from ICJ
     
  13. third eye

    third eye ELITE MEMBER

    Messages:
    17,075
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Ratings:
    +22 / 22,961 / -7
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    India
    The bottom line is that PA did not expect India to go to the ICJ.

    Even when it did become clear that the ICJ was being involved, they did a shoddier job in their defence. They may as well have not gone to The Hague.

    Alternatively, since the faith in Military justice is immense in Pak, the Judge Advocate General of the PA should have attempted to put his country's case !!

    Not for economic or political reasons.

    For the logic it presents
     
  14. SOUTHie

    SOUTHie SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,181
    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2016
    Ratings:
    +1 / 2,231 / -0
    Country:
    India
    Location:
    Mauritius
  15. Leviza

    Leviza SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    2,642
    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Ratings:
    +4 / 2,332 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Vienna Convention does not cover RAW agents and SPYs ... cut the crap
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2