{"id":3111,"date":"2017-06-12T10:28:01","date_gmt":"2017-06-12T04:58:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/?p=3111"},"modified":"2017-06-12T10:46:13","modified_gmt":"2017-06-12T05:16:13","slug":"kashmir-dispute-and-international-court-of-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/editors-take\/kashmir-dispute-and-international-court-of-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Kashmir Dispute and International Court of Justice?"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/fb:like>

PUNCHLINE <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Taking Kashmir To ICJ <\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

By<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Z.G. Muhammad <\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Can the Kashmir Dispute, once again make it to the center stage of the International Politics and the United Nations? This question started making rounds in diplomatic and media circles in India and Pakistan, and few other world capitals after New Delhi choose to take the case of one of its officers Kulbushan Jadev under the custody of Pakistan on the charges of spying to the International Court of Justice.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Some political commentators in India viewed the decision of taking Jadev case to the UN court as good a faux pas<\/em> as that of Jawaharlal Nehru taking the Kashmir Dispute to the United Nations on January 1, 1948. From O.M. \u00a0Mathai, Nehru\u2019s Secretary to M.J. Akbar, Nehru\u2019s biographer many writers have recorded Nehru, later on, was repentant about his decision and was highly critical and caustic about the International community and the UN. Independent commentators in India have also observed New Delhi\u2019s decision to take Jadev case to the ICJ has provided Pakistan an opportunity to take Kashmir DE Novo to the United Nations.\u00a0 However, \u00a0some right-wing analysts in New Delhi believing \u00a0Pakistan as against India is an isolated country, so it will not take the risk of taking Kashmir to the ICJ \u00a0have been defending the action of the BJP government.<\/p>\n

It is more than understandable that the Nawaz Sharif government is not enthusiastic to take the Kashmir problem in any of its manifestation to the UN court. Minus, a very junior officer of the Pakistan Foreign Office, stating that the legal aspects of taking Kashmir to the ICJ were being examined there were no statements on this issue neither from any senior officer in Pakistan Foreign office nor Sartaj Aziz, Advisor to Prime Minister of Pakistan on Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n

To put a seal on the on the going debate in Delhi on taking the Jadvev case to the ICJ. Thereby nudging Islamabad to use the opportunity for agitating before the UN court the Kashmir problem Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj on past Monday categorically stated that \u2018Pakistan cannot take Kashmir to the UN Court because both the countries are bound by the Shimla Agreement and Lahore Declaration to solve it bilaterally. The Minister also identified three \u201cpillars\u201d that govern talks with Pakistan: \u201cWe want to sort out all issues with Pakistan through talks bilaterally and not through the mediation of any group, country or associations. Talks and terror cannot go together. No flip-flop or one step forward-two steps backward.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Nawaz Sharif government may or may not use the opportunity provided by New Delhi for approaching the United Nations court for ensuring implementation of more than a dozen resolution passed by the United Nations Security guaranteeing the right to self-determination to people of Jammu and Kashmir. It may not seek it the intervention of the ICJ for ending the unabated human rights violations in the state. \u00a0Nevertheless, the statement of the External Affairs Minister has renewed the debate on much talked about the question, if a bilateral agreement between two countries can supersede international agreements. It equally has once again brought into focus the Shimla Agreement, if it’s any clause has subverted the right to self-determination guaranteed to the people of Jammu and Kashmir by the UN.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Kashmir problem, despite our behaving ostrich, is an international dispute that continues to be on the United Nations agenda and routinely it continues to resonate on the floor of UN General Assembly almost every year. Moreover, any development in the State causes a statement from the United Nations Secretary-General, and that does happen in the case of troubled North-East States. Shimla Agreement is just a bilateral agreement primarily concerning the development arising out of dismemberment of East Pakistan and birth of Bangladesh. New Delhi brought the Kashmir Dispute on the table as a victor with the hope of making crest-fallen \u00a0Pakistan agree for status quo and recognizing the Ceasefire Line as an international border. It could not take away the right to self-determination accrued to people of the state as a \u2018war booty\u2019 but succeeded in incorporating mention of the \u00a0Kashmir problem in the bilateral agreement.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is a recognized fact; no bilateral agreement can override an international agreement. International agreements are binding for the nations, while as bilateral agreements between two countries that concern right to self-determination of people guaranteed by the United Nations Security are not binding for the comity of nations unless a referendum is held over the acceptability of this agreement by the people whose fate such an agreement affects.\u201d Neither, India nor Pakistan have got this agreement since it was signed on midnight of 2-3 July 1971 brought before the UNSC in as much as it concerns the Kashmir Dispute. The fact of the matter is that even change of nomenclature from CFL to LOC has not been brought before the UN.<\/p>\n

Had the Shimla Agreement changed the status of the Kashmir Dispute, the UN Security Council would not have involved itself if it was a bilateral issue. \u00a0It’s resolutions including the latest one No. 1172 of June 6, 1998, signed 27 years after the bilateral agreement was signed stand as a testimony. The United Military Observers Group that had come into being as result of the UNSC resolution continue to be present on both the sides of the LOC. \u00a0Even the Shimla pact has not changed the status of the Dispute. \u00a0The agreement \u00a0in Para 4 (ii) \u00a0reads: \u201cIn Jammu and Kashmir the line of control resulting from the CFL of December 17, 1971, shall be respected by both the sides without prejudice to the recognized position<\/u><\/strong> of either side.\u201d \u2018The recognized position is that the Kashmir question has to be resolved according to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council.\u2019 The para six of the agreement unequivocally recognizes the Jammu and Kashmir as a Dispute that calls for a \u201cfinal settlement.\u201d\u00a0 And \u2018further the establishment of peace remained contingent on the resolution of the question.\u2019 It also bound the respective heads to meet for \u2018arranging modalities and arrangements\u2019 for \u2018final settlement\u2019 of Jammu and Kashmir state. The modalities and arrangements could be anything from holding a plebiscite to the appointment of a UN-designated plebiscite administrator or<\/p>\n

The agreement cannot be read in bits and pieces, the very first clause of the agreement states that \u201cthe charter of the United Nations shall govern the relations between the two countries.\u201d Under the charter, a state has right to bring to the notice of the General Assembly of the Security Council that threatens the maintenance of international peace and security. Equally, under Chapter VI and Article 34, the Security Council can investigate any dispute or any situation which might lead to international friction. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by the two countries. The Kashmir Intifada 2010- 2017. The surgical strike, continuous ceasefire violations, the war of attrition over non-state actors and a grave human rights breaches in the state since 1990 \u00a0have elevated the Kashmir Dispute\/ Problem\/Issue to an alarming level as a threat to the international peace. That makes imperative for the UNSC to take notice of in discharge of its mandate.<\/p>\n

Published in Greater Kashmir on 12-6-2017<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/fb:like><\/span>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

PUNCHLINE
\nTaking Kashmir To ICJ
\nBy
\nZ.G. Muhammad
\n 
\nCan the Kashmir Dispute, once again make it to the center stage of the International Politics and the United Nations? This question started making rounds in diplomatic and media circles in India and Pakistan, and few other world capitals after New Delhi choose to take the case of one of its officers Kulbushan Jadev under the custody of Pakistan on the charges of spying to the International Court of Justice.
\nSome political commentators in India viewed the decision of taking Jadev case to the UN court as good a faux pas as that of Jawaharlal Nehru taking the Kashmir Dispute to the United Nations on January 1, 1948. From O.M. \u00a0Mathai, Nehru\u2019s Secretary to M.J. Akbar, Nehru\u2019s biographer many writers have recorded Nehru, later on, was repentant about his decision and was highly critical and caustic about the International community and the UN. Independent …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2152,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3111","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-editors-take"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3111"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3111"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3111\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3114,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3111\/revisions\/3114"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3111"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3111"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/peacewatchkashmir.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3111"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}