FOOLS_NIGHTMARE
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
- Messages
- 18,063
- Reaction score
- 12
- Country
- Location
International court accepts Pakistan right to object stance over controversial dams' construction violating 1960's Indus Water Treaty
The International Court of Arbitration of The Hague has rejected India’s objection to the jurisdiction of arbitration court and accepted Pakistan’s stance against India.
A legal team headed by the Attorney General of Pakistan appeared in the international arbitration court at the Hague.
It is pertinent to note that Pakistan was represented by a team of international experts assisted by a team of the Attorney General for Pakistan including Advocate Zohair Waheed and Advocate Leena Nishter while Barrister Ahmed Irfan Aslam acted as Pakistan’s agent in the PCA.
It is pertinent to note that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a non-UN intergovernmental organisation located in The Hague.
On 19 August 2016, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instituted arbitral proceedings against the Republic of India under Paragraph 2(b) of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
A Court of Arbitration was constituted pursuant to Annexure G. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as Secretariat to the Court of Arbitration pursuant to Paragraph 15(a) of Annexure G.
There are fears that India would be withholding waters of Pakistan’s share due to the construction of controversial dams.
The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
It is reported India already stopped the flow of water by closing the spillway gates of dams.
In this regard, India had to present the designs of dams in the international arbitration court, but in the same breath, Indian had objection of the jurisdiction of the arbitration court.
But now, the forum declared it unacceptable and accepted Pakistan’s request for hearing.
Pakistan applied for the neutral expert Forum, then the ICJ became an arbitration court in2019.
India then used the tactic of challenging the neutral’s jurisdiction, but it failed miserably.
In the Award, the Court addressed six distinct (though interrelated) objections, which the Court had distilled from India’s correspondence
Finds that India’s non-appearance in these proceedings does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence.
Finds that the Court of Arbitration has competence, in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, to decide all questions relating to its competence.
Finds that the matters referred to arbitration in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration concern a dispute or disputes within the meaning of Article IX(2) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
Finds that the initiation of the present proceedings was in accordance with Article IX(3), (4), and (5) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. E. FINDS that the Court of Arbitration was properly constituted in accordance with Paragraphs 4 to 11 of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
Finds that India’s request for, and the World Bank’s appointment of, a Neutral Expert does not, pursuant to Article IX(6) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence or limit its competence.
Finds that Paragraph 1 of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 does not create an independent test for the necessity of the constitution of a Court of Arbitration beyond the requirements of Article IX of the Treaty.
The court declared that the Court of Arbitration is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration. RESERVES for further consideration and directions all issues not decided in this Award.
www.samaaenglish.tv
The International Court of Arbitration of The Hague has rejected India’s objection to the jurisdiction of arbitration court and accepted Pakistan’s stance against India.
A legal team headed by the Attorney General of Pakistan appeared in the international arbitration court at the Hague.
It is pertinent to note that Pakistan was represented by a team of international experts assisted by a team of the Attorney General for Pakistan including Advocate Zohair Waheed and Advocate Leena Nishter while Barrister Ahmed Irfan Aslam acted as Pakistan’s agent in the PCA.
It is pertinent to note that the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a non-UN intergovernmental organisation located in The Hague.
On 19 August 2016, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instituted arbitral proceedings against the Republic of India under Paragraph 2(b) of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
A Court of Arbitration was constituted pursuant to Annexure G. The Permanent Court of Arbitration acts as Secretariat to the Court of Arbitration pursuant to Paragraph 15(a) of Annexure G.
What is Pakistan’s stance?
Pakistan has objected to the design of the 330 MW Kishanganga Dam on the Jhelum River and the 850 MW Ratle Hydroelectric Plant on the Chenab River.There are fears that India would be withholding waters of Pakistan’s share due to the construction of controversial dams.
The International Court of Justice, which has its seat in The Hague, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
It is reported India already stopped the flow of water by closing the spillway gates of dams.
In this regard, India had to present the designs of dams in the international arbitration court, but in the same breath, Indian had objection of the jurisdiction of the arbitration court.
But now, the forum declared it unacceptable and accepted Pakistan’s request for hearing.
Pakistan approaches World Bank
Pakistan approached the World Bank (WB) in 2016, on which India raised that it was a not a neutral expert forum.Pakistan applied for the neutral expert Forum, then the ICJ became an arbitration court in2019.
India then used the tactic of challenging the neutral’s jurisdiction, but it failed miserably.
In the Award, the Court addressed six distinct (though interrelated) objections, which the Court had distilled from India’s correspondence
Court Findings Key Points
In light of its findings in relation to India’s objections, the Court unanimously made the following findings and declarations:Finds that India’s non-appearance in these proceedings does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence.
Finds that the Court of Arbitration has competence, in accordance with Paragraph 16 of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, to decide all questions relating to its competence.
Finds that the matters referred to arbitration in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration concern a dispute or disputes within the meaning of Article IX(2) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
Finds that the initiation of the present proceedings was in accordance with Article IX(3), (4), and (5) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960. E. FINDS that the Court of Arbitration was properly constituted in accordance with Paragraphs 4 to 11 of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
Finds that India’s request for, and the World Bank’s appointment of, a Neutral Expert does not, pursuant to Article IX(6) of the Indus Waters Treaty 1960, deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence or limit its competence.
Finds that Paragraph 1 of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty 1960 does not create an independent test for the necessity of the constitution of a Court of Arbitration beyond the requirements of Article IX of the Treaty.
The court declared that the Court of Arbitration is competent to consider and determine the disputes set forth in Pakistan’s Request for Arbitration. RESERVES for further consideration and directions all issues not decided in this Award.
SAMAA TV - Latest Breaking News, Pakistan, World, Video news Home - SAMAA
Find latest breaking, trending, viral news from Pakistan and information on top stories, weather, business, entertainment, politics, sports and more. For in-depth coverage, Samaa English provides special reports, video, audio, photo galleries, and interactive guides.
