Pakistan ready to fight Kulbhushan's case in ICJ vigorously

[Soulspeek]

Though Indus starts from China, its catchment area falls majorly in India along with its major tributaries. Do you realize the effect, if only one of the tributary, either Sutluj or Beas, is diverted or muzzled?

Your impression is wrong about China holding any special trump card on Indian rivers. Only major river that comes out from tibet area is Bramhaputra. Even here, its catchment area is mostly rainforest areas of our NE. It gets it waters mainly from these regions. Doing anything silly on Bramhaputra has its implications, as Bramhaputra flows through Bangladesh too. In fact it is the lifeline of Bangladeshis. China wont make two enemies for one Pakistan.

And you will find us waiting for that moment.......Indus flow starts from China, not from India......and there are other rivers as well to India from China.....you can guess what will happen next.

And ICJ will have to go through alot of things......do they have authority to listen to cases that have already been judged by a court of sovereign state(s).......can they pass judgment on cases like espionage, treason, sabotage, terrorism, infiltration etc......how will they enforce the sovereign state(s) to oblige the judgment......and so on and so forth.

To your knowledge ICJ has two main functions:

• To settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted by States, and

• To give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies.

 

[gutto786]

Finally Nawaz Sharif managed to push the case to court. Now there will chest thumping and lies upon lies to 22 crore carrots.
The drama will unfold like this:
After fierce fight Pakistani lawyers will loose. Stay order will be given on kulbhoshan death sentence. After few years he will be released as part of some secret Army deal
Sab dhakan bethey hoye hein

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

Why it dosent come to your mind that ISI can very easily plant fake passport to frame him??

india have accepted his faek passports. Secondly ISI is not that much powerful to get him a fake visa too from iran.
Most of indian newspapers wrote their own version of why he got fake passpot.

1. If pakistan challenges ICJ over jurisdiction then pakistan would never be able to go to UN over kashmir and for water due to IWT.
2. India would fight this case to the hilt and would leave no stone unturned.
3. Confessional statements hold no sanctity as it could be extracted using torture and drugs, pakistan does not have any evidence till date hence, the reason why pakistan keeps talking about confessional statements.

1) no sir. ICJ juristriction is different for different issues. India challenged ICJ juristriction when last time and still it is on ICJ door again. Just wishful thinking.
2) india can jus fight but according to indian own newspapers like the hindu, india can't win it.
3) confessional statement in frnt of majestrate holds great value. Go and read indian laws before tlking like this.
Why would Pakistan make evidences public to satisfy you only. If we have made him public than without any doubt we have evidences and we were prepared to fight in ICJ that's why we made that declaration in march.

The same would apply for kashmir and water issues as there is an agreement between India and pakistan in the form of shimla agreement and IWT. Its a win-win situation for India if pakistan declines ICJ then kashmir and water issue would completely become bilateral and if pakistan appears at ICJ we would get the counselor access and it would expose pakistan on the world stage due to lack of evidence.

water is not a bilateral issue. World bank representing 193 country country is guarantor.
ICJ don't have juristriction over:
1) domestic matters of Pakistan.
2) india disputes with common wealth countries.
wheras ICJ have juristriction over:
1) bilateral agreements
2) issues related to diplaomatic missions.

in our case.

 

[litman]

he will be released and statement will be issued by ISPR:" the death penalty has been withdrawn. kalbhushan is being released inorder to improve the the relations between the two neighboring countries. the issue of kalbhushan has been settled"
govt will issue a statement "hamari aman ki koshishon ko kamzori na samjha jay "
military fan boys on pdf will call it a "wise move" by the army and enlighten others with the future benefits of this move.
all those mothers in baluchistan and karachi who have lost their kids due to terrorist activities of that basta*d will get nothing.

 

[Vigneshwara]

india have accepted his faek passports. Secondly ISI is not that much powerful to get him a fake visa too from iran.
Most of indian newspapers wrote their own version of why he got fake passpot.


1) no sir. ICJ juristriction is different for different issues. India challenged ICJ juristriction when last time and still it is on ICJ door again. Just wishful thinking.
2) india can jus fight but according to indian own newspapers like the hindu, india can't win it.
3) confessional statement in frnt of majestrate holds great value. Go and read indian laws before tlking like this.
Why would Pakistan make evidences public to satisfy you only. If we have made him public than without any doubt we have evidences and we were prepared to fight in ICJ that's why we made that declaration in march.


water is not a bilateral issue. World bank representing 193 country country is guarantor.
ICJ don't have juristriction over:
1) domestic matters of Pakistan.
2) india disputes with common wealth countries.
wheras ICJ have juristriction over:
1) bilateral agreements
2) issues related to diplaomatic missions.

in our case.

ICJ in pakistan's case as well and it cannot quote its a different issue, it would be a win for india in either case because india wanted pakistan to say jurisdiction does not apply then the kashmir and water issue would become bilateral.

Forced confessional statements before any majestrate or video does not hold good in any open court, the reason why KY is not being provided consular access is that KY would reveal that he was made to read under duress and extreme torture.

he will be released and statement will be issued by ISPR:" the death penalty has been withdrawn. kalbhushan is being released inorder to improve the the relations between the two neighboring countries. the issue of kalbhushan has been settled"
govt will issue a statement "hamari aman ki koshishon ko kamzori na samjha jay "
military fan boys on pdf will call it a "wise move" by the army and enlighten others with the future benefits of this move.
all those mothers in baluchistan and karachi who have lost their kids due to terrorist activities of that basta*d will get nothing.

He would be released to save face of the PA as there is no evidence on kulbushan, even your anchor Moeed Pirzada stated that pakistan should not go to ICJ as it would loose the case badly.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

ICJ in pakistan's case as well and it cannot quote its a different issue, it would be a win for india in either case because india wanted pakistan to say jurisdiction does not apply then the kashmir and water issue would become bilateral.

if that's what win is than you did it in atlantiqu case. then why still at ICJ. infact it's a win for Pakistan that india challenged ICJ juristriction have come back to it accepting it's juristriction.

 

[invader]

Pakistan have prepared a 3 point strategy on kalboshan case at ICJ
1) Pakistan will challenge ICJ Juristriction over this case. According to legal experts ICJ donot have juristriction over this case.
2) Pakistan will fight this case at any cost.
3) all evidences against kalboshan will be provided to the court if necessary including kalboshan confessional statements in the court.

courtesy: Neo news

Now as i told indians all intelligence agencies keep a close eye on their enemy spy until his mission is revealed and all evidences are gathered during this time. When all is known and enough evidences are gathered they are arrested and according to some eye witness i have met the enemy spy soon after being caught accept their crimes because mostly they are even told their real name and family residence by the Counter espoinage guys whoo areest them.
Same happened with kalboshan.

Why have you revealed the strategy to the indians ?
Now we will be ready to defend against these imp points.

 

[Vigneshwara]

if that's what win is than you did it in atlantiqu case. then why still at ICJ. infact it's a win for Pakistan that india challenged ICJ juristriction have come back to it accepting it's juristriction.

The only thing matters now is if pakistan would accept the ICJ or not, if it declines then Indian wins and if pakistan accepts then it would over ride pakisan's domestic laws and a fresh re-trial would begin and pakistan would not be able to prove kulbushan's involvement in anything as confessional statements are not admissible as it could also be extracted under duress.

 

[lastofthepatriots]

The point is very simple

If you disregard ICJ Today ; we can also do so in Future

That is Indus water treaty

All Agreements and International commitments hence forth become useless

It's very simple. You mess with water we will go to war.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

The only thing matters now is if pakistan would accept the ICJ or not, if it declines then Indian wins and if pakistan accepts then it would over ride pakisan's domestic laws and a fresh re-trial would begin and pakistan would not be able to prove kulbushan's involvement in anything as confessional statements are not admissible as it could also be extracted under duress.

Pakistan would accept ICJ decision only if ICJ is ready to accept that it's in juristriction of ICJ to hear the domestic security issue of Pakistan, which it can't(the same way ICJ cannot hear indian issues with common wealth countries).

Why have you revealed the strategy to the indians ?
Now we will be ready to defend against these imp points.

how could you defend the fact that Pakistan had already told UN in march that ICJ can't hear our domestic and security issues.
how could you defend against solid evidences which we have against hussain mubarak patel.

The only thing matters now is if pakistan would accept the ICJ or not, if it declines then Indian wins and if pakistan accepts then it would over ride pakisan's domestic laws and a fresh re-trial would begin and pakistan would not be able to prove kulbushan's involvement in anything as confessional statements are not admissible as it could also be extracted under duress.

if we tell ICJ that it's not in their juristriction to hear over domestic issues, we win.

And will you be able to win this time around?

According to ICJ rule, ICJ can hear any isuue related to dipomtic issues or bilateral agreements.
ICJ cannot hear any other issue without the willingness of both parties. ICJ will dismiss te case.

 

[Vigneshwara]

Pakistan would accept ICJ decision only if ICJ is ready to accept that it's in juristriction of ICJ to hear the domestic security issue of Pakistan, which it can't(the same way ICJ cannot hear indian issues with common wealth countries).


how could you defend the fact that Pakistan had already told UN in march that ICJ can't hear our domestic and security issues.
how could you defend against solid evidences which we have against hussain mubarak patel.


if we tell ICJ that it's not in their juristriction to hear over domestic issues, we win.


According to ICJ rule, ICJ can hear any isuue related to dipomtic issues or bilateral agreements.
ICJ cannot hear any other issue without the willingness of both parties. ICJ will dismiss te case.

If pakistan had informed ICJ in march but still ICJ wants you to show up then, it means ICJ does not accept it as a domestic matter, if pakistan makes the folly of not showing up at ICJ then international community would not take pakistan seriously relating matters of dispute with india, this will be a win for india as pakistan would not be able to internationalize the issue and we would be building dams at will. About the evidence of a different name you sentenced him on the grounds of spying and sabotage and not for trespassing with a different passport, so the proofs have to be about spying and sabotage charges for which pakistan has no evidence and pakistan would loose the case badly and humiliation would follow.

 

[Qutb-ud-din Aybak]

If pakistan had informed ICJ in march but still ICJ wants you to show up then, it means ICJ does not accept it as a domestic matter, if pakistan makes the folly of not showing up at ICJ then international community would not take pakistan seriously relating matters of dispute with india, this will be a win for india as pakistan would not be able to internationalize the issue and we would be building dams at will. About the evidence of a different name you sentenced him on the grounds of spying and sabotage and not for trespassing with a different passport, so the proofs have to be about spying and sabotage charges for which pakistan has no evidence and pakistan would loose the case badly and humiliation would follow.

don't worry it's normal. India also did that and later challenged ICJ juristrictions on atlantique issue.

 

[Vigneshwara]

don't worry it's normal. India also did that and later challenged ICJ juristrictions on atlantique issue.

But, India is not the one who is running to UN and world bank for kashmir issue and water issue, this will give India full leverage on both issues with pakistan and international community will not be able to have a say in it.

 

[Emmie]

The same would apply for kashmir and water issues as there is an agreement between India and pakistan in the form of shimla agreement and IWT. Its a win-win situation for India if pakistan declines ICJ then kashmir and water issue would completely become bilateral and if pakistan appears at ICJ we would get the counselor access and it would expose pakistan on the world stage due to lack of evidence.

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.

 

[Zee-Gen]

Though Indus starts from China, its catchment area falls majorly in India along with its major tributaries. Do you realize the effect, if only one of the tributary, either Sutluj or Beas, is diverted or muzzled?

Your impression is wrong about China holding any special trump card on Indian rivers. Only major river that comes out from tibet area is Bramhaputra. Even here, its catchment area is mostly rainforest areas of our NE. It gets it waters mainly from these regions. Doing anything silly on Bramhaputra has its implications, as Bramhaputra flows through Bangladesh too. In fact it is the lifeline of Bangladeshis. China wont make two enemies for one Pakistan.

And so does your impression about India holding any special trump card on Pakistan's rivers......first of all it was merely a reply to your "Indus water" comment, you dont have to follow on since this thread is not about IWT and secondly let the time come, your will see with your BOTH eyes what follows next......till than chills.