If Pakistan goes to the ICJ mala fide interests are at play

[GlobalVillageSpace]

If Pakistan goes to the ICJ mala fide interests are at play
Global Village Space

In response, a set of recommendations has been sent to the Prime Minister’s office on Friday. These recommendations have been kept confidential so that the adversary in the case is not made aware of Pakistan’s strategy, stated Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf. He revealed that Pakistan aims to plead its case forcefully to the ICJ on Monday. However, this stance or ‘strategy’ appears to be highly perplexing if the relevant precedents and assessments given by legal experts are taken into perspective.

Prominent lawyer Saad Rasool appeared on Dr. Moeed Pirzada’s show last night and explained why this ‘letter’ by the Indians to the ICJ revealed their hypocrisy.
(See Video in article)

It is vital to understand that Pakistan is in not obliged to accept ICJ jurisdiction in this matter. Furthermore, accepting to engage India in the ICJ would be grievously detrimental to Pakistan’s national interest.

What is the ICJ and what can it actually do?
India’s application to the ICJ has no locus standi and Pakistan risks calamitous consequences on its national security if it entertains India by consenting to participate in any ICJ proceedings regarding Kulbhushan Jadhav’s arrest and prosecution. We have endeavored to highlight few principles concerning ICJ’s jurisdiction and role in international and bilateral affairs between the two countries.

read full story: If Pakistan goes to the ICJ mala fide interests are at play

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

that is what we should do. Question ICJ juristriction. Making evidences public will make our security officials lives at risk and can put counter espionage people identities in danger.

 

[Jacob Martin]

Of course the ICJ proceedings will have "calamitous" consequences for Pakistan. Can you imagine having to explain the judicial process by which you decide to hang people? What can be more detrimental to Pakistan's national security than having to explain how they pass a death sentence?

 

[GlobalVillageSpace]

that is what we should do. Question ICJ juristriction. Making evidences public will make our security officials lives at risk and can put counter espionage people identities in danger.

India has quoted ICJ non jurisdiction on a number of times against Pakistan. If Pakistan goes to start defending its case - it will open a can of worms. Read our earlier pieces also on ICJ.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

Of course the ICJ proceedings will have "calamitous" consequences for Pakistan. Can you imagine having to explain the judicial process by which you decide to hang people? What can be more detrimental to Pakistan's national security than having to explain how they pass a death sentence?

we don't have to explain it. India hae same law what we have.
ICJ have no juristriction over Pakistan's domestic laws on security issues. We gave a declaration to UN which is exact copy of indian declatration. We used indian weapon against them.

 

[Vigneshwara]

If pakistan does not show up at ICJ it would mean a victory for India as it would easily pave way for the shimla agreement to kick in and on every international forum India would say pakistan did not abide by the ICJ hence pakistan cannot knock at the doors of UN.

 

[Jacob Martin]

we don't have to explain it. India hae same law what we have.
ICJ have no juristriction over Pakistan's domestic laws on security issues. We gave a declaration to UN which is exact copy of indian declatration. We used indian weapon against them.

I am afraid your understanding of the situation is too myopic to change. India does not hang people after secret (mock) trials where no one knows the procedure followed, evidence placed and laws involved.

As for the declaration that you are referring to - India has not approached ICJ under its compulsory jurisdiction, as recognised by both India and Pakistan. Hence the declaration has no effect whatsoever. Pakistan’s declaration is in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction exercised by the ICJ under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, whereas India has approached the court under Article 36(1) which relies on other treaties to confer jurisdiction upon the court. in this case, the other treaty is the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which assigns a role to the ICJ in the event of disputes between parties over the convention’s implementation.

You see, we have excellent lawyers at our disposal, and unlike Pakistan we don't approach a world body to make a mockery of ourselves. Whoever drafted that exception for your government was clearly a moron, and couldn't even word the exception properly.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

I am afraid your understanding of the situation is too myopic to change. India does not hang people after secret (mock) trials where no one knows the procedure followed, evidence placed and laws involved.

As for the declaration that you are referring to - India has not approached ICJ under its compulsory jurisdiction, as recognised by both India and Pakistan. Hence the declaration has no effect whatsoever. Pakistan’s declaration is in relation to the compulsory jurisdiction exercised by the ICJ under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, whereas India has approached the court under Article 36(1) which relies on other treaties to confer jurisdiction upon the court. in this case, the other treaty is the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which assigns a role to the ICJ in the event of disputes between parties over the convention’s implementation.

You see, we have excellent lawyers at our disposal, and unlike Pakistan we don't approach a world body to make a mockery of ourselves. Whoever drafted that exception for your government was clearly a moron, and couldn't even word the exception properly.

good for you because we didn't gave him any access due to our domestic law concerning security situation. ICJ don't have any juristriction over our domestic laws.

I am afraid your understanding of the situation is too myopic to change. India does not hang people after secret (mock) trials where no one knows the procedure followed, evidence placed and laws involved.

army act of both countries are same along with same laws on espoinage. BRITISH INHERITANCE.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, had issued a notification giving Pakistan’s stance.

The operative part of the notification states further, “President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to declare that [the] Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Provided that this Declaration shall not apply to: a) disputes the resolution of which the parties shall entrust to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future; or b) disputes relating to questions which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; c) disputes relating to or connected with any aspect of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective self-defence or the discharge of any functions pursuant to any decision or recommendation of international bodies, the deployment of armed forces abroad, as well as action relating and ancillary thereto in which Pakistan is, has been or may in future be involved; d) disputes with regard to which any other party to a dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice exclusively for or in relation to the purposes of such dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of a party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than 12 months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court; e) all matters related to the national security of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; f) disputes arising under a multilateral treaty or any other international obligation that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has specifically undertaken unless: i) all the parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court, or ii) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan specifically agrees to jurisdiction, and iii) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is also a Party to the treaty. g) any dispute about the delimitation of maritime zones, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, the exclusive fishery zone and other zones of national maritime jurisdiction or the exploitation of any disputed area adjacent to any such maritime zone; (I.4) Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of international organizations concerned.”

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/204212-ICJ-lacks-jurisdiction-in-Kulbhushan-case

simla agreement saved them in 1999. Then why did they came to ICJ. They broke simla agreement. Now next time, they won't be able to say anything on Pakistan raising kashmir issue as india had broken simla agreement themselves.
either kalboshan or simla agreement. India had to decide now. Oh sorry too late.

If pakistan does not show up at ICJ it would mean a victory for India as it would easily pave way for the shimla agreement to kick in and on every international forum India would say pakistan did not abide by the ICJ hence pakistan cannot knock at the doors of UN.

Simla agreement???
then why is india knocking doors of ICJ.
by the way india already used the technique in the past that we are about to used now.

 

[Jacob Martin]

good for you because we didn't gave him any access due to our domestic law concerning security situation. ICJ don't have any juristriction over our domestic laws.


army act of both countries are same along with same laws on espoinage. BRITISH INHERITANCE.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, had issued a notification giving Pakistan’s stance.

The operative part of the notification states further, “President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to declare that [the] Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan recognizes as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Provided that this Declaration shall not apply to: a) disputes the resolution of which the parties shall entrust to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future; or b) disputes relating to questions which fall essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; c) disputes relating to or connected with any aspect of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective self-defence or the discharge of any functions pursuant to any decision or recommendation of international bodies, the deployment of armed forces abroad, as well as action relating and ancillary thereto in which Pakistan is, has been or may in future be involved; d) disputes with regard to which any other party to a dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice exclusively for or in relation to the purposes of such dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of a party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than 12 months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court; e) all matters related to the national security of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan; f) disputes arising under a multilateral treaty or any other international obligation that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has specifically undertaken unless: i) all the parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court, or ii) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan specifically agrees to jurisdiction, and iii) the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is also a Party to the treaty. g) any dispute about the delimitation of maritime zones, including the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, the exclusive fishery zone and other zones of national maritime jurisdiction or the exploitation of any disputed area adjacent to any such maritime zone; (I.4) Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of international organizations concerned.”

https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/204212-ICJ-lacks-jurisdiction-in-Kulbhushan-case

simla agreement saved them in 1999. Then why did they came to ICJ. They broke simla agreement. Now next time, they won't be able to say anything on Pakistan raising kashmir issue as india had broken simla agreement themselves.
either kalboshan or simla agreement. India had to decide now. Oh sorry too late.


Simla agreement???
then why is india knocking doors of ICJ.
by the way india already used the technique in the past that we are about to used now.

Copying and pasting won't work. The fact is that the plaint has been filed under a separate provision than the one under which Pakistan gave its declaration. So it does not apply, period.

As for Simla Agreement, I am at a loss to understand how you are interpreting its provisions. Notwithstanding the fact that this scenario is outside the purview as it is not a dispute in the sense envisaged under the Agreement, even if you want to see it as that, read this part of the Agreement:

Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organization, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations.

So if the Agreement is to be read in that way, as you suggest, then India is ensuring that the terms of the Agreement are honoured.