Pakistan briefs P-5 about security tensions on LoC, IB

[Contrarian]

Actually, the operative word is OR, as in, "through bilateral negotiations OR by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them".

'Or' is a grammatical conjunction in a sentence to distinguish between alternate ideas/arguments in a sentence. The clause of the Simla Agreement in question is divided into two arguments/ideas. The first refers to "through bilateral negotiations", which is self-explanatory. The second part of the sentence after the 'or' therefore refers to an idea that is an alternative to the first part, and since the first part specifically refers to "bilateral", the second part of the sentence can only mean "non-bilateral", which would include third party mediation.

My response to Ares in an earlier post covers this.

You are assuming that consent once given for mediation keeps existing in a continuum.
It does not. As of this day and for the last many decades, India refuses any third party mediation that includes UN.
In fact now the UNMOGIP is being asked to vacate their offices in Delhi that they were given earlier.

And as long as India refuses any third party mediation, Pakistan's efforts in going to UN, US, x/y/z are wasted and are essentially simply a show for Pakistani domestic audience that their leaders are alive to the 'problem of saving Islam in Kashmir'

 

[ares]

I am not contesting that, but what I am pointing out is that in reiterating the commitment of both States to the UN Charter, the Simla Agreement accepts the fact that Chapter VII resolutions issued by the UNSC will be implemented by the two States. Now I am not saying that the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir are Chapter VII, they are not, but that the first para of the Simla Agreement accepts third party intervention in Pakistan-India affairs by virtue of accepting the UN Charter which allows for Chapter VII resolutions that are considered to be binding on member States.

Shimla agreement states that relationship between the two states will be governed by UN charter.

Now UN charter is the whole constitution of UN..one has to see the UN law specific to the dispute at hand.

Now Chatpter 6 ( pacific settlement of disputes) Article 35 of the same UN charter (under which Kashmir dispute resides) tells us that UNSC resolution passed under here have non mandatory enforceability and only implementable if all parties to the dispute agree with the dispute settlement method i.e. voluntary enforceability.

Now if UN resolution are not implemented and one of the parties to the dispute does not agree with dispute settlement method provided by UN, then UN resolution is not binding on that particular dispute.

 

[pumkinduke]

They're not getting to me, its the self-righteousness that made me respond, otherwise I wanted no part of this sorry spectacle these guys are calling a discussion.

did somebody burst ur bubble...! lol
whats wrong with you ! ur a thinkthank so behave as one, ur using words like shit and all and provoking other members too...
control urself and set an example to be calm

 

[Usama78]

And, no F's were given by India.

Then which India do the people crying for "Pakistan's LOC violation," belong to?
Specially, here on PDF!

 

[acid rain]

Then which India do the people crying for "Pakistan's LOC violation," belong to?
Specially, here on PDF!

People on pdf don't constitute even a nth miniscule percentage of india.... besides, pdf Indians are actually taunting the pakstani for crying in front of everyone.

 

[Hiptullha]

People on pdf don't constitute even a nth miniscule percentage of india.... besides, PDF curries are actually taunting the Pakistanis for being responsible neighbours and attempting to bring peace.

Then which India do the people crying for "Pakistan's LOC violation," belong to?
Specially, here on PDF!

Indian victim complex.
"W-why are Pakistanis responding to our violations? Why can't they do what Bangladesh is doing? Why is Pakistan not a slave country of rising shining supa pawa? TOURIST FOILED STATE PAKISTAN!!!"

 

[acid rain]

Indian victim complex.
"W-why are Pakistanis responding to our violations? Why can't they do what Bangladesh is doing? Why is Pakistan not a slave country of rising shining supa pawa? TOURIST FOILED STATE PAKISTAN!!!"

The Jihadi punks of wonder land would be prosperous and hopeful of a future as Bangladeshi if they weren't as retarded as they are atm.

 

[Hiptullha]

The Jihadi punks of wonder land would be prosperous and hopeful of a future as Bangladeshi if they weren't as retarded as they are atm.

"W-why is Pakistan not being controlled by a puppet government like in Bangladesh? TOURIST JOYHAD FOILED STATE!!!"

 

[acid rain]

"W-why is Pakistan not being controlled by a puppet government like in Bangladesh? TOURIST JOYHAD FOILED STATE!!!"

Failed state indeed 10th compared to what? 29th or so of Bangladesh.

 

[Hiptullha]

Failed state indeed 10th compared to what? 29th or so of Bangladesh.

Haha, typical PDF Indian chatter.
"FOILED STATE"
"JOYHADIST"
"GORILLA MUTANTS"
"BONGLADESH IS BETTER THAN U"

 

[acid rain]

Haha, typical PDF Indian chatter.
"FOILED STATE"
"JOYHADIST"
"GORILLA MUTANTS"
"BONGLADESH IS BETTER THAN U"

You actually don't think Bangladesh is better than you? ? They surpassed you lot a long time back in all patameters achmed.

The only thing you are good at is collecting aid...they are a bit more shameful.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Deciding to appoint 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Selecting a 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Appointing the 3rd party would require mutual agreement.
Implementing 3rd party's proposal would require mutual agreement.

Correct, and the point is that the Simla Agreement explicitly allows for third party mediation - that the third party mediation has to be through "mutual consent" is self-evident, as I have already pointed out, if you actually read my previous posts.

That said, by explicitly endorsing the commitment of both State's to the UN Charter, the Simla Agreement also accepts the potential of third party involvement that one or both States may not agree to, if the UNSC were to issue binding UN Resolutions under Chapter VII of the Charter.

Okay, let us assume that you are correct. When can we expect to see third party mediation happen and previous Resolutions being implemented if Pakistan's stance is so credible as you claim?

(The fact will remain that unless India agrees, never. Just as stipulated in the Simla Agreement.)

Implementation of the resolutions requires both States to come to an agreement on demilitarization and other contentious issues that have to be addressed prior to a plebiscite being held in the territory - Pakistan is willing to enter into negotiations on those contentious issues, and involve third parties to help in arriving at a fair solution - It is India that is reneging on her commitment to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, which the Simla Agreement endorses, as I have explained in previous posts.

 

[VCheng]

Implementation of the resolutions requires both States to come to an agreement on demilitarization and other contentious issues that have to be addressed prior to a plebiscite being held in the territory - Pakistanis willing to enter into negotiations on those contentious issues, and involve third parties to help in arriving at a fair solution - It is India that is reneging on her commitment to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, which the Simla Agreement endorses, as I have explained in previous posts.

But why would India do any of that when the status quo and long term trends support its position perfectly well?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If it can't be implemented how it 'fits' the Simla Agreement, is beyond me. However, post Simla Agreement the only 'peaceful means of dispute resolution' is converting LoC into IB. Nothing else is acceptable by India.

The UNSC resolutions "fit" the Simla Agreement because they were 'accepted by both States' and 'raised in the UN', and therefore satisfy the conditions of being "mutually acceptable third party mediation" as well as "commitment to the UN Charter". Implementation of an agreement always has pitfalls, as can be seen with the repeated contests over interpretations of the Indus Water Treaty - disagreements over the "how" of implementation do not make the mutually accepted UNSC resolutions on Kashmir invalid or out of sync with the Simla Agreement.

But why would India do any of that when the status quo and long term trends support its position perfectly well?

That is a question for India to answer - I am merely pointing out the fact that the Simla Agreement supports the official Pakistani position on the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

 

[VCheng]

That is a question for India to answer - I am merely pointing out the fact that the Simla Agreement supports the official Pakistani position on the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir.

Actually Sir, the Simla Agreement supports India's position far more than it does Pakistan's, a fact that is not lost on the world community.