Shooting from your hip again? A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You need to study the relevant UN Chapters first before spewing rubbish.
My Indian friend, You have been misinformed. The UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are neither
"Unenforceable" nor
"Non-binding" ... You, just like many other Indians (and some Pakistanis too), have fallen victim to the false Indian State Propaganda on Kashmir. Let me explain:
1) UN maintains that "NO SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION CAN BE DESCRIBED AS UNENFORCEABLE."
2) There always has been a general inability of the Permanent Five to agree upon imaginative and expansive applications of Chapter VI ... In Somalia, the Security Council deployed the UN's first operation, UNOSOM I, in mid-1992 to separate warring combatants and help delivery of humanitarian relief ....
UNOSOM I entered and operated without invoking Chapter VII
Further Reading:
http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/6/1/1305.pdf
3) India approached UN under Chapter VI of the UN charter , BUT the decision taken by UN reflected that its resolutions were not based exclusively on this chapter .... The resolutions , apart from chapter VI , are based upon other chapters , including chapter VII
The fact that there does not exist any provision for the deputing of UN peace keeping mission under chapter VI makes it obvious that UN resolutions were not exclusively based on chapter VI .... The interim measures which included cease fire and deputation of United Nations Military Observer Group were based on Article 40 of chapter VII ...
Besides chapter VI and VII , UN resolutions are based on other chapters also(i.e Article 1 , Chapter I (2) and Article 55 , Chapter IX) ...
^^ And this is not my personal opinion. That is Rosalyn Higgins' opinion on 'Kashmir Resolutions and under which chapter they were passed' .. Source: 'Higgins, Rosalyn. United Nations Peace Keeping 1946-67: Documents and Commentary. London, UK: Oxford University Press, 1970. (349-51)
(Rosalyn Higgins is an expert on International Law; a Doctor of Juridical Science. She has served as a Judge in the International Court of Justice for fourteen years (and was elected President in 2006). Her competence has been recognised by many academic institutions, having received at least thirteen honorary doctorates)
4) While a recommendation under Chapter VI by itself "may not" be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January.
(13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).
5) The UNSC Resolutions endorsed a binding agreement between India and Pakistan reached through the mediation of UNCIP, that a plebiscite would be held, under agreed and specified conditions. A letter dated December 23, 1948, from India's Secretary-General of the Ministry of External Affairs to the Representative of UNCIP, stated that the Indian Prime Minister's acceptance of the 5 January resolution was conditioned on Pakistan's acceptance of the resolution. By this letter, India consented to be bound by the resolution of 5 January and, through this, the resolution of 13 August as well.
(Aide Memoire No. 1, Letter Dated 23 December 1948 From the Secretary General of the Ministry of External Affairs and Commonwealth Relations of the Government of India to Mr. Alfredo Lozano, Representative of UNCIP at 23, U.N. Doc. S/1196 (1949)
6) Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law
Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.
(i)
The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.
http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873
7) The binding nature of these UN resolutions (as acknowledged by Indian officials)
Finally some quotes from Indian officials on Kashmir exemplifying their commitment to plebiscite rather than forced accession as history has found them do :-
We adhere strictly to our pledge of plebiscite in Kashmir; a pledge made to the people because they believe in democratic government; We don't regard Kashmir as a commodity to be trafficked in -Krishna Menon (Press statement in London, reported in the Statesman, New Delhi, 2nd August, 1951)
The Government of India not only reaffirms its acceptance of the principle that the question of the continuing accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India shall be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations, but is anxious that the conditions necessary for such a plebiscite should be created as quickly as possible -Letter from Govt. of India to UN Representative for India and Pakistan, 11th September, 1951
I want to say for the purpose of the record that there is nothing that has been said on behalf of the Government of India which in the slightest degree indicates that the Government of India or the Union of India will dishonour any international obligations it has undertaken.
-Krishna Menon (Statement at UN Security Council, 24th January, 1957)
The resolutions of January 17, 1948 and the resolutions of the UNICP, the assurances given, these are all resolutions which carry a greater weight; that is because we have accepted them, we are parties to them, whether we like them or not. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at UN Security Council, 20th February, 1957)
These documents (UNCIP reports) and declarations and the resolutions of the Security Council are decisions; they are resolutions, there has been some resolving of a question of one character or another, there has been a meeting of minds on this question where we have committed ourselves to it. -Krishna Menon, (Statement at the Security Council, 9th October, 1957)
India believes that sovereignty rests in the people and should return to them. -Krishna Menon, (The Statesman, Delhi, 19th January, 1962)
Therefore, India is bound by word and deed to leave the future of Kashmir to the will of its people.
Owen Dixon! Oh yeah! So the recommendations of a clown called Dixon overrides the UN Resolutions? For God's sake these were just his recommendations that were to be forwarded for consideration to the UN. It was up to both parties whether to accept or reject his recommendations.
So why did he say what you reproduced above? Because...
Dixon was fully aware of the difficulties that beset the problem. The attitude of both India and Pakistan had hardened. Pakistan had been emboldened by the support it had received from the United States and a number of Western countries. It was not prepared to relinquish its gains (Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan which was contrary to the UN Resolution 47 that Pak vacate all of J&K before a plebiscite is held). New Delhi felt, rightly, that the Security Council dominated then by Western countries had all through not only tried to overlook India’s legal, political and moral claims, but willfully created situations to humiliate it and deprive it of its legitimate due. And Dixon was part of the Western conspiracy.
Thus Dixon's recommendations were trashed not only by India but by Pakistan too which wanted a plebiscite only in the Kashmir Valley, Ladakh and a part of Jammu but not P0K and GB. He thus resigned out of frustration.
Sir Owen Dixon, the prominent Australian jurist, was the UN appointed official mediator between India and Pakistan. I am not even discussing his
recommendations (or the reasons for which Pakistan didn't accept them). He met with the Indian and Pakistani officials many times to discuss the
demilitarization process and
exercise of the functions of government during plebiscite period (necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite). But India was not willing to agree to any form of demilitarization (or to provisions governing the period of the plebiscite that were necessary for holding a free and fair plebiscite) and that's why, in the final report submitted by him to the Security Council, he blamed India for halting the process.
Later, the UN in its Resolution No. 98, adopted on 23rd December 1952, after a thorough examination of the matter in the Security Council, proposed a demilitarization plan. But again, India rejected the proposal (Pakistan agreed to it).
So, the UN appointed official mediator blamed India for refusing to accept any demilitarization plan, and later India rejected UN demilitarization proposals (thus proving Sir Owen Dixon right). Now compare it with the Indian State Propaganda/claim:
"the plebiscite could not be held because Pakistan refused to withdraw its forces"
In the face of the clear and irrefutable evidence that comes from the UN itself, the Indian claim holds no credibility and the Indian State Propaganda is patently an attempt to deceive the world. The simple truth is that India did not allow the creation of conditions necessary for the holding of a free and fair plebiscite under UN auspices.
