Pakistan refuses to sign three multilateral pacts at SAARC summit: officials

[DESERT FIGHTER]

You are on my pro-jihad terrorist list

May you be "blasted" Ameen..

 

[mr42O]

For once NS did what he should.

 

[Pride]

I am not sure why few Pakistanis are jumping here and stating NS did it right. It is common infrastructural issues. If you don't sign it, you won't get it. So live with your power woes and connectivity issues. There was nothing gained due to this step.

 

[hunter_hunted]

Are you done? Many thanks for your scolding, father

You're welcome dear ........

 

[Super Falcon]

Is this nawaz stupid or what once he was sucking modis shoes now when time came he backed away when pakistan have gained something when needed to show agression to india he dident now for what

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No it does not. It is what Pakistan 'feels' it should be. But 'legally' its not.

I quoted the language of Simla and explicitly pointed out and explained why said language supports the Pakistani position - merely saying "no it does not" is not a proper rebuttal of my argument.

Simla agreement does not invalidate IWt because it is a binding contract, unlike UNSC 47, which is not.

How is the IWT a "binding contract" and the UNSC Resolutions that the Indian and Pakistani governments both officially accepted and committed to implement is not?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

saarc is just a dead horse

Yes, we should instead have agreements on horse based connectivity between the various SAARC countries to ensure its revival.

We can give the Indians exceptions of course - they can ride cows and elephants if they choose. Modi will be able to restore the pride of his ancient ancestors and ride a flying cow, horse, elephant or monkey with plastic surgery done to give it the head of a human

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

These deals are about road and rail transport, so how you will sign any deal with any SAARC(apart from Afghanistan) nation without involvement of India??

I was referring to bilateral trade deals, not "road and transport deals".

 

[surya kiran]

I quoted the language of Simla and explicitly pointed out and explained why said language supports the Pakistani position - merely saying "no it does not" is not a proper rebuttal of my argument.

How is the IWT a "binding contract" and the UNSC Resolutions that the Indian and Pakistani governments both officially accepted and committed to implement is not?

Because, under UN law, its non-binding. That's why. Its legal. I am not saying it. UN says it. Both the GoP and GoI and the entire world knows its non-binding. Its just you who seems to think its not. If a resolution is passed under Section VI its not binding If its passed under section VII its binding. UNSC 47 was passed under Section VI. Hence non-binding. Don't keep repeating the same thing man!

Simla agreement is bi-lateral. IWT is bi-lateral. If a government signs an agreement in a bi-lateral manner they agree to it. If you do not adhere to it, you can be pulled up in the international court as per provisions. Which is what Pakistan rightly does when there is trouble regarding dams on rivers. Some go India's way, some go Pakistan's.

If the Simla Accord says as per UN Charter, it is right and there is nothing wrong in it. Also, the part very clearly pointed out says bi-laterally. But as explained to you as per the UN Charter the said resolution is of no use. This is the primary reason nobody including China pays any heed to what you say in the UN.

The people at fault here, like I have said earlier are the chaps you hire as law makers. They do not read the damn agreement and clauses. This is the same shit as we hear India stealing water, bloody hell, you guys agreed to it! You guys seriously need to hire lawyers before signing international contracts.

 

[Sugarcane]

Well done!!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Because, under UN law, its non-binding. That's why. Its legal. I am not saying it. UN says it. Both the GoP and GoI and the entire world knows its non-binding. Its just you who seems to think its not. If a resolution is passed under Section VI its not binding If its passed under section VII its binding. UNSC 47 was passed under Section VI. Hence non-binding. Don't keep repeating the same thing man!

Simla agreement is bi-lateral. IWT is bi-lateral. If a government signs an agreement in a bi-lateral manner they agree to it. If the Simla Accord says as per UN Charter, it is right and there is nothing wrong in it. Also, the part very clearly pointed out says bi-laterally. But as explained to you as per the UN Charter the said resolution is of no use. This is the primary reason nobody including China pays any heed to what you say in the UN.

The people at fault here, like I have said earlier are the chaps you hire as law makers. They do not read the damn agreement and clauses. This is the same shit as we hear India stealing water, bloody hell, you guys agreed to it! You guys seriously need to hire lawyers before signing international contracts.

The highlighted part in your post is the only relevant part. The UN Charter does not make any distinction between "binding vs non-binding". The legal literature on the matter merely points to the fact that UNSC Resolutions under Chapter VII allow the UNSC to authorize enforcement actions to ensure implementation of the resolutions. Therefore, it is the "enforcement" part of Chapter VII resolutions that results in commentators calling them "binding" vs Chapter VI resolutions which do not have "enforcement actions" attached to them. Now then, the difference between the Chapter VI and Chapter VII should be clear to you - "the ability of the UNSC to authorize enforcement actions" - beyond that the commitment of UN Member States to implement UNSC Resolutions is the same, whether they are under Chapter VI or Chapter VII.

Now, going back to the highlighted section of your post, there is no "enforcement action" embedded within the Simla Agreement or the Indus Water Treaty - they are nothing but agreements/commitments between two States. In the case of the IWT, the agreement/commitment was entered into with the assistance of a third party, the World Bank. The UNSC Resolutions were, similarly, initiated after Indian government took the Kashmir Dispute to the UN for mediation. The UNSC issued resolutions that were accepted and committed to by the governments of both India and Pakistan, and that acceptance/agreement/commitment is essentially of the same value as any other piece of paper that two States sign, that does not have any enforcement mechanisms involved.

India or Pakistan could walk away from the Simla Agreement today and what do you think would happen? Nothing, zilch, nada. Why? Because there is nothing in the Simla Agreement, nor anything in the UN Charter, that would allow for any kind of "enforcement action" to be taken against the country that "violated the Simla Agreement". So how is the Simla Agreement, or any other bilateral agreement, any different from the agreement that India and Pakistan entered into when they accepted the UNSC Resolutions and committed to implementing them?

 

[ni8mare]

Just like I have heard Modi is a terrorist

......say Modi is hindu fascist genocider ...............terrorist term is for baby mujahidin

at least give respect where it is due

Stop calling IK a Taliban Khan and we will stop calling Modi a terrorist

no he is Taliban Khan you can call modi as hindu fascist genocider no problemo

 

[ni8mare]

Hahahahaha man you are a one fucking joke. I am damn glad that army is slaughtering pigs like u in Balochistan if you are BLA sympathizer than you should also be hunt down. Imran khan is just one man. If army is problem of all the issues related to Pakistan then do tell me why atleast 60% problems are not solved since last 7 Years. Infact problems have increased even your think head might have noticed it.

Army has not interfered with your democrazy thing. Your show at ISL failed again. And if army cannot win elections then so does IK (Although i am IK supporter but he also made stupid decisions) People around IK are also corrupt and were part of previous gvts .

And your ttp dogs are getting killed. And for your India . Then you all i can say is **** india and chutia modi chodi.

Now get lost ..... Mir shakeel k khabe

why you are shouting cool down now....

 

[Arya Desa]

Personally I never really understood true nature of Indo-Pak enmity. Its been 67 years since we separated and formed our own nation states, and as our founding father said it; relations between India and Pakistan should be like relations between US and Canada. So there you have it. Pakistani establishments never followed Jinnah's own vision. Then they blame India for all their own shortcomings!

An honest opinion, whether you choose to accept it is your prerogative:

pakistan's whole identity is Anti-India. It is not India, you have no positive build up. So how can you be friends with something your whole identity is derived against?

 

[Green Arrow]

All is ok, As long as it does not harm Pak' s interests