Pakistan to move ICJ over India's human rights violations in Occupied Kashmir

[1Paki$tani]

LoL

India is doing serious Geneva Convention violation in occupied Kashmir hence there is jurisdiction of ICj in the matter. People of Occupied Kashmir are NON COMBATANTS under Geneva Convention and hence they cannot be targeted by Indian occupied armed forces.

Plus its a disputed territory btw Pak & Ind so india cannot claim that its internal matter otherwise they'll have to say goodbye to Their Monkey KhulbushanYadev aka mubarak patel... now Pakistan can rock the Stage & for long time it will bring international coverage kashmir & Kashmir issue will get highlighted again and again... Indian image will start to sink with their facist policies & economy is already going in reverse gear.

Sorry Guys but he has a point. I wrote about this on the second day after revocation of 370 when ICJ was listed as one of the option.

Here is India's acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction:

Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory
India
18 September 1974

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.​

If you review the Indian declaration Pakistan would be excluded on many grounds. Though Vienna convention could be a ground but it will be a limited ground.

Personally and professionally ICJ is a dead end of Pakistan and we must not embarrass ourselves.

People are very easily forgetting the air craft case of 1999.

 

[SecularNationalist]

Sorry Guys but he has a point. I wrote about this on the second day after revocation of 370 when ICJ was listed as one of the option.

Here is India's acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction:

Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory
India
18 September 1974

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.​

If you review the Indian declaration Pakistan would be excluded on many grounds. Though Vienna convention could be a ground but it will be a limited ground.

Personally and professionally ICJ is a dead end of Pakistan and we must not embarrass ourselves.

People are very easily forgetting the air craft case of 1999.

Well we all know what the outcome will be but it's beneficial in a sense that it will damage India,s reputation as a human rights violator world wide and shatter their claim of Kashmir being an internal matter of India.And finally if war occurs we will be able to justify that we adopted that path as a last resort.

 

[rak_987]

Pakistan Govt. can do a lot of damage by pulling out of Simla declaration and proving the world India has made this 1972 treaty null and void.

 

[Soumitra]

Pakistan Govt. can do a lot of damage by pulling out of Simla declaration and proving the world India has made this 1972 treaty null and void.

If you can pull out of Shimla Agreement we can pull out of Indus Water Treaty

 

[Kabira]

Pakistan Govt. can do a lot of damage by pulling out of Simla declaration and proving the world India has made this 1972 treaty null and void.

Shamla agreement was a sham. India already pulled out of it with this move.