Joe Shearer
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 27,493
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Do you run marriage beauro for gays?
I'm willing to do that for you. Special case.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you run marriage beauro for gays?
So what is the procedure then?I'm willing to do that for you. Special case.
So what is the procedure then?
For pic, see my profile.Vital stats and pic, which will be put on the net. Friends of mine half my age inform me that there are....sites.
Legally ??
I for one am actually happy that for once Pakistani sources are not looking stupid or backtracking. Almost as if the roles have reversed; the Indians are ones looking like people on LSD.
After almost 18 years following defence affairs, I for once can happily say this for an Indian claim " Abay Kya bakwas kar raha hai?"
I will do nothing of the sort.
#40 vindicated my disgusted response; @Eagle 's noble post reminded me of Donne's lines, "Ask not for whom the bell tolls...."
Go in peace.
http://www.icj.org/human-rights-in-kashmir-report-of-a-mission/
This is the full paragraph on Page 92 of the report quoted earlier. Cherry-picking is not only dishonest, it is highly misleading:
"It has also been argued that the effect of the Simla Agreement of July 1972 (see pp. 22-23 above) was to make the settlement of the future of Jammu and Kashmir exclusively a matter for bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan, thus effectively excluding any exercise of self-determination by the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir except to the extent that the exercise was agreed by both India and Pakistan. As an interpretation of the meaning of the Simla Agreement, this may well be correct. The Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir. However, the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir were not parties to the Agreement and neither India nor Pakistan, both of which had conflicts of interest with the peoples of Jammu and Kashmir can be regarded as having authority to bind them. The members of the IC mission do not see, therefore, how the Simla Agreement can be regarded as having deprived the peoples of Jam m u and Kashmir of any rights of self-determination to which they were entitled at the time of the Agreement."
What ICJ Report is arguing is for India to provide the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, and it clearly notes that "the Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir."
Similarly, the rest of the quotes taken out of context do not amount to much from a legal standpoint.
What ICJ Report is arguing is for India to provide the people of Kashmir the right to self-determination, and it clearly notes that "the Simla Agreement is clearly binding on Pakistan and deprives the Pakistan Government of locus standi to intervene in Jammu and Kashmir."
What legal weight does ICJ's position actually have on two sovereign nuclear powers, who have recognized and binding obligations under the Simla Agreement?
Translation: The ICJ report has no legal standing.