India terms OIC resolution on Kashmir ''completely unacceptable''

[Donatello]

Be rest assured, India is doing that. And yes, also, West, South and North.

Forget central asia, nothing to do there, soon there will be nothing left. Even Iran wants to be part of the CPEC now.

 

[nForce]

Forget central asia, nothing to do there, soon there will be nothing left. Even Iran wants to be part of the CPEC now.

We are at a safe distance, thanks to the buffer countries in between.

 

[third eye]

How is the IWT enforceable? What happens if Pakistan or India refuse to implement it's recommendations?

Hasn't Pakistan gone to The Hague seeking redress ?

Back to the UN resolution , India has even asked the UNMOGIP to seek accommodation for itself like any other UN body & has been asked to vacate Govt premises. This should give an idea as to how seriously we take the UN resolution and the body meant to monitor .

Pakistan is clutching at straws for want of any other option. The realities are know but is difficult to explain to its people.

Just for the record, this is what the UNMOGIP website says:

' Following renewed hostilities of 1971, UNMOGIP has remained in the area to observe developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and report thereon to the Secretary-General.

 

[Echo_419]

Forget central asia, nothing to do there, soon there will be nothing left. Even Iran wants to be part of the CPEC now.

Doesn't matter Chabhaar is a independent project of CPEC

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So pakistani troops are not pakistani nationals... seems legit...

The language of the UNSC makes a clear distinction (correctly) between tribesmen &Pakistani Nationals (non-military combatants who are not or/and loosely under the control of the GoP) and Pakistani troops (combatants under the direct control of the GoP as part of its military). There are distinct references to the two entities in section II(A)-1 and II(A)-2, distinct terminology is used to describe the process of withdrawal of the two entities and different terminology is used to describe the degree of influence the GoP exercises over the 2 entities (see below for explanation on the last point).

The use of the terms 'best endeavor to secure withdrawal' (for tribesmen & Pakistani nationals) and 'agrees to withdraw' is done deliberately to illustrate the different nature of the two entities and the level of influence the GoP exercises over them. The 'tribesmen & Pakistani nationals' represented a non government force and even if their motives aligned with those of the GoP and the GoP facilitated their actions in Kashmir, these entities never functioned under the complete control of the GoP and therefore the GoP could only be expected to use its 'best endeavors to secure withdrawal'. The language becomes much more specific and direct when the UNSC addresses the withdrawal of Pakistani government troops, stating that Pakistan 'agrees to withdraw its troops'. There is no 'best endeavor' or 'try' in the latter because regular army troops are considered under the direct control of the GoP and the GoP could either agree to withdraw or refuse - there is no 'try' or use 'best endeavor' when it comes to a government making commitments about the deployments of her military.

I'm not sure why these obvious distinctions elude you, but it might explain why you don't understand the Pakistani position - either that or you are deliberately choosing to ignore the nuances of the resolution, much as the Indian government does.

Looks like I have to spoon feed every line of the truce agreement to you, unfortunately out of time right now.. will pick it up later.

No worries - we can pick it up whenever. I don't always have time to respond immediately either and this particular discussion is always interesting.

Hasn't Pakistan gone to The Hague seeking redress ?

And how will the decisions of the Hague be enforced?

Back to the UN resolution , India has even asked the UNMOGIP to seek accommodation for itself like any other UN body & has been asked to vacate Govt premises. This should give an idea as to how seriously we take the UN resolution and the body meant to monitor .

That India has reneged on her international commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is obvious.

' Following renewed hostilities of 1971, UNMOGIP has remained in the area to observe developments pertaining to the strict observance of the ceasefire of 17 December 1971 and report thereon to the Secretary-General.

What specifically did you want me to take-away from that statement by UNMOGIP?

 

[third eye]

And how will the decisions of the Hague be enforced?

The ICJ settles legal disputes between states, who must agree to abide by the Court's jurisdiction before their case will be heard.

That India has reneged on her international commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is obvious.

What specifically did you want me to take-away from that statement by UNMOGIP?

The answer to both the points / Q above is obvious , I cannot understand why someone like you cannot grasp it - India has told the UN to take a walk on the J&K issue.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The ICJ settles legal disputes between states, who must agree to abide by the Court's jurisdiction before their case will be heard.

And what happens if a State chooses not to abide by the decision of the ICJ? How does the ICJ enforce its rulings?

The answer to both the points / Q above is obvious , I cannot understand why someone like you cannot grasp it - India has told the UN to take a walk on the J&K issue.

And, if this is the excuse India wishes to use, I would reiterate my previous comment, "that India has reneged on her international commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is obvious."

 

[third eye]

And what happens if a State chooses not to abide by the decision of the ICJ? How does the ICJ enforce its rulings?

And, if this is the excuse India wishes to use, I would reiterate my previous comment, "that India has reneged on her international commitments to implement the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir is obvious."

Article 59
The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.

Article 60
The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.


..and its not an excuse, its a fact that Pak knows but chooses to gloss over

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Article 60
The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.

What actions can the court take to ensure its 'binding' judgement is implemented?

..and its not an excuse, its a fact that Pak knows but chooses to gloss over

Pakistan is not glossing over the fact that India is reneging on her international commitment, made multiple times - this is pretty clear. So why should any country trust India to adhere to her international commitments?

 

[third eye]

What actions can the court take to ensure its 'binding' judgement is implemented?

Suggest you visit the ICJ site for details

Pakistan is not glossing over the fact that India is reneging on her international commitment, made multiple times - this is pretty clear. So why should any country trust India to adhere to her international commitments?

To answer this Q you only need to review the number of international commitments that are happening with India - they speak for themselves.

To remind you, the Simla Accord states that both nation accept that its a bilateral issue & no 3rd partry needs to intervene. The UN is a 3rd party.

This is why the world does not step in.

Now you can go ahead and argue & counter argue till the cows come home but the reality on the ground will not change.

Have a great day.