UN backtracks on role of its observers in Kashmir, says limited to LOC

[M. Sarmad]

It's not an international dispute as there is no legal backing for J&K when it comes to Pakistan claiming it.

The Kashmir dispute remains on the list of unresolved international disputes on the agenda of the Security Council.

The legal basis on which Pakistan claims J&K are the UNSC Resolutions on Kashmir. The UN Security resolutions of August 13, 1948, and January 5, 1949, clearly laid down that "the question of the accession of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan will be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite."

These resolutions, as clarified by the UN representatives on several occasions, are still valid.

So, until and unless the Kashmiris decide to join India in a referendum held under UN auspices, Pakistan's claim will remain legally valid.

please refer to international organization United Nation that J&K was removed from international disputes.

My Indian friend, that was an inadvertent omission (British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant had not mentioned the Kashmir dispute in the context of unresolved long-running situations, despite the fact that it was included in the annual report) and the UN had set the record straight the very next day when it declared that the Jammu and Kashmir dispute remains on the UN Security Councils agenda, while rejecting as inaccurate that it has been removed from the list of unresolved issues.

Some articles today on Kashmir are inaccurate, UN Spokesman Farhan Haq said, referring to those reports, especially in Indian media.

He said the latest list of matters the Security Council is seized of continues to include the agenda item under which the Council has taken up Kashmir which, by a decision of the Council, remains on the list for this year, the spokesman added.

http://nation.com.pk/politics/17-Nov-2010/Kashmir-still-on-SCs-agenda-UN

http://www.rediff.com/news/report/kashmir-stays-on-unsc-agenda-list-for-this-year/20101117.htm



There is a difference between inadvertent omission of Jammu and Kashmir dispute in a statement by the President of Security Council (While it was duly mentioned in the Annual Report of the Security Council and was also present on its agenda) and the claims made by the Indian Media that "Jammu and Kashmir out of U.N. list of disputes", describing it as "a huge set back for Pakistan" ....

The next day, on November 16, 2010, the UNO had to clarify that Jammu and Kashmir dispute remained on its agenda and rejected such media reports as "inaccurate".

But the Indian Media obviously didn't make it clear to the gullible Indians that it was a 'mistake' (Maybe it was an intentional deception?) and as a result a lot of Indians still believe that Kashmir Dispute has been removed from the UN list of unresolved disputes since 2010 !!

And in regards to your second part, yes UN official acknowledged that indeed there is tension in J&K that includes the tensed part of Pak administered Kashmir as well.

Wrong again ......


New York: The United Nations’ Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is concerned over the tense situation in Kashmir, following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani.

http://nation.com.pk/international/...eral-expresses-concern-over-kashmir-situation

Pakistan is banking on non-binding UN resolution which it itself ignored to implement. Don't you think

The Agreement between India and Pakistan is binding on both.

 

[Joe Shearer]

They are 2 stupid to realise this, that is what we have been saying for years on end. TO Vacate out of P O K, as its illegally occupied. forgot 6 sense's i doubt they have 2.

Just realised they have a filter to translate P O K into Azad Kashmir (i,e example Azad Kashmir)

Hadn't noticed.

Thanks.

 

[Areesh]

your right, unfinished Pakistan will met its fate in the years to come.

Keep dreaming for it kid. Rest assured it is confirmed you would die with this dream. Before you departure to hell I am sure it would be this dream that would be in your eyes while Pakistan would be there where it is.

War would be from you guys. You guys talk about it and not us. We would just defend and we would defend well.

 

[Spectre]

Keep dreaming for it kid. Rest assured it is confirmed you would die with this dream. Before you departure to hell I am sure it would be this dream that would be in your eyes while Pakistan would be there where it is.

War would be from you guys. You guys talk about it and not us. We would just defend and we would defend well.

SieGe mentality within Pakistan is quite good for India

 

[Areesh]

SieGe mentality within Pakistan is quite good for India

And siege of "atoot ang"? It is under siege for past few weeks. From today

http://www.firstpost.com/india/kash...is-found-filled-with-300-pellets-2933878.html

 

[NirmalKrish]

Keep dreaming for it kid. Rest assured it is confirmed you would die with this dream. Before you departure to hell I am sure it would be this dream that would be in your eyes while Pakistan would be there where it is.

War would be from you guys. You guys talk about it and not us. We would just defend and we would defend well.

Yeah shivering, either your completely ignorant to history or your just plain stupid, we don't have a habit of starting wars, only disgusting vermin do. That is how bacteria attack multiply like crazy and unleash hell, but its victory only short lived, till the time the immune system (i,e good) recovers and takes control.

 

[Spectre]

And siege of "atoot ang"? It is under siege for past few weeks. From today

http://www.firstpost.com/india/kash...is-found-filled-with-300-pellets-2933878.html

Its the other way round if you care to think of it.

 

[Areesh]

Its the other way round if you care to think of it.

There is no other way around. "Atoot ang" is under siege like a middle finger to all the trolls on this forum.

 

[ito]

Kashmir is a dead issue. No use beating a dead horse. UN resolutions themselves are rendered useless after Simla. India will never revisit UN resolutions.

 

[NirmalKrish]

Not only shivering. You would be pissing in your dhoti too.

As for rest of the bakwas. Pakistan is here and would keep killing b@stards who are its enemies. Do whatever you can. Pakistan is here to stay and f*ck its enemy.

IS PDF funded and run by the ISI, with an IQ of 20, who writes contents like this, what a disgrace! the only idiots who will be pissing their pants are mullahs getting bombed by USA cruise missiles in a few years once the dispensation changes in Washington.

We could not give 2 hoots about your rants, it will go silent in the pages of history.... Dont worry India will be here to make Pakistan a living hell, time and time again!

 

[M. Sarmad]

Non binding recommendations under chapter VI of UN you mean?

My friend, we have discussed it before. Haven't we ?


While a recommendation by itself may not be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).




1. Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

13 Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873

 

[Spectre]

There is no other way around. "Atoot ang" is under siege like a middle finger to all the trolls on this forum.

Under siege by whom? Who is sieging whom - please think and then scurry away

 

[Dash]

Can somebody tell these fools that UN removed Jammu Kashmir from list of disputed territories way back in 2010.?

Claiming Srinagar and what not these delusional souls here.

No wonder why they get blasted and shhoed away from all the doors, because they are unaware of their own facts!!

@hellfire

 

[-xXx-]

My friend, we have discussed it before. Haven't we ?

While a recommendation by itself may not be binding, this is not the case in the Kashmir dispute. Here, the parties have consented to be bound by the resolutions of 13 August and 5 January. (13 M. WHITEMAN, DIGEST OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 360 (1968).

1. Self-Determination as a Binding Rule of International Law

13 Four instances may inform the principle of self-determination with a legal dimension.

(i) The principle of self-determination is binding upon the parties, whether they have adopted it as the basis or as a criterion for the settlement of a particular issue or dispute. In the peace treaties after World War I, and in the cases of Kashmir (after 1948), the Saar Territory (1955), and Algeria’s struggle for independence, the principle of self-determination was chosen as a basis for negotiation, and in the Agreement on Ending War and Restoring Peace in Vietnam (1973) the parties expressly recognized the South Vietnamese people’s right to self-determination.


http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e873

Read it again. The principle in itself is binding if adopted as a basis.

Now this if was itself non binding under UN resolution, thus we can say the principle of self determination was not even adopted as the recommendation could be rejected anytime by parties involved and can not be enforced. Under UN resolution, self determination was a subset, when whole set was non binding how can a subset be?

Self determination would have been binding if adopted in a binding agreement such as Simla or under chapter VII of UN just like case of East Timur.

But what are we discussing here, what document are you quoting?

I have given you Kofi Annan, Ban Ki Moon statements - the UN stalwarts, still somehow you are peddling the same arguments based on encyclopedia entries?

 

[Stephen Cohen]

Read it again. The principle in itself is binding if adopted as a basis.

Now this if was itself non binding under UN resolution, thus we can say the principle of self determination was not even adopted as the recommendation could be rejected anytime by parties involved and can not be enforced. Under UN resolution, self determination was a subset, when whole set was non binding how can a subset be?

Self determination would have been binding if adopted in a binding agreement such as Simla or under chapter VII of UN just like case of East Timur.

But what are we discussing here, what document are you quoting?

I have given you Kofi Annan, Ban Ki Moon statements - the UN stalwarts, still somehow you are peddling the same arguments based on encyclopedia entries?

Mate ; Have you ever heard of the proverb " Bhains ke aage been bajana "