Pakistan ready to fight Kulbhushan's case in ICJ vigorously

[Vigneshwara]

What is in common between treaties/agreements and application grounded on denial of consular access? What is in common between UNSC resolutions and jurisdiction of ICJ? Please don't amalgamate functions of different organs of UN. Simla is a bilateral agreement, India has always asserted this, so tell me something new.

India's declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of ICJ as compulsory;

I have the honour to declare, on behalf of the Government of the Republic of India, that they accept, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate such acceptance, as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, and on the basis and condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice over all disputes other than:

(1) disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method or methods of settlement;
(2) disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations;
(3) disputes in regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Republic of India;
(4) disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to aggression, fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies, and other similar or related acts, measures or situations in which India is, has been or may in future be involved;
(5) 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;
(6) disputes where the jurisdiction of the Court is or may be founded on the basis of a treaty concluded under the auspices of the League of Nations, unless the Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction in each case;
(7) disputes concerning the interpretation or application of a multilateral treaty unless all the parties to the treaty are also parties to the case before the Court or Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction;
(8) disputes with the Government of any State with which, on the date of an application to bring a dispute before the Court, the Government of India has no diplomatic relations or which has not been recognized by the Government of India;
(9) disputes with non-sovereign States or territories;
(10) disputes with India concerning or relating to:

(a) the status of its territory or the modification or delimitation of its frontiers or any other matter concerning boundaries;
(b) the territorial sea, the continental shelf and the margins, the exclusive fishery zone, the exclusive economic zone, and other zones of national maritime jurisdiction including for the regulation and control of marine pollution and the conduct of scientific research by foreign vessels;
(c) the condition and status of its islands, bays and gulfs and that of the bays and gulfs that for historical reasons belong to it;
(d) the airspace superjacent to its land and maritime territory; and
(e) the determination and delimitation of its maritime boundaries.

(11) disputes prior to the date of this declaration, including any dispute the foundations, reasons, facts, causes, origins, definitions, allegations or bases of which existed prior to this date, even if they are submitted or brought to the knowledge of the Court hereafter.
(12) This declaration revokes and replaces the previous declaration made by the Government of India on 14th September 1959.

New Delhi, 15 September 1974.

(Signed) Swaran SINGH,
Minister of External Affairs.

In short -- As per India's own declaration ICJ can't entertain a matter which is between India and a common wealth nation (Pakistan is a common wealth country, FYI). Through declaration India itself barred Pakistan from bringing any matter related to Kashmir to ICJ, poppycock that Pakistan's objection to jurisdiction in this matter would pave other ways is absolutely foolish and amusing. When India doesn't allow other nation to bring a matter before ICJ which directly falls within the jurisdiction of domestic laws of India then how on earth can India expect other nation to allow India to bring a matter before ICJ which directly falls within the jurisdiction of the domestic laws of that nation?

Pakistan's declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of ICJ as compulsory;

I have the honor, by direction of the President of the lslamic 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 as 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 bas 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;

h) disputes with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan pertaining to the determination of its territory or the modification or delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries;

i) all disputes prior to this Declaration although they are filed before this Court hereafter. [The] Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan reserves the right at any time, by means of a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with effect from the moment of such notification, either to amend or terminate this Declaration.

This Declaration revokes and substitutes the previous Declaration made on 12 September 1960.

(Signed) Dr. Maleeha Lodhi
Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan
to the United Nations.

In short -- ICJ recedes jurisdiction when matter in question falls within the jurisdiction of the domestic laws of Pakistan, same is true when matter in question relates to national security of Pakistan. Jadav was sentenced to death under domestic laws of Pakistan, along with terrorist activities he was also found guilty of espionage and for your information spy doesn't get consular access under international customary laws. That explained, ICJ doesn't enjoy jurisdiction in this particular case.

fgcm trials are not considered as fair, closed room trials are not considered as fair, if you really had proof against KY then you would have done a open court trial, the reality is that pakistan has no evidence against him and hence a closed room trial was done. The international community do not consider the closed room trials as fair, even sartaj aziz said there was no evidence against him.