Will the US, France and Japan – India’s new friends – stand up to be counted and will old friends such as Russia do the “needful” to get Dalveer Bhandari elected to the ICJ?
Some arcane provisions of the ICJ’s statute may help a deadlocked UN Security Council and General Assembly reach a decision on who fills the world court’s last vacant seat.
Tough race ahead as British, who stand to lose a privilege taken for granted for decades, pull out all stops.
As International Court of Justice Election Nears, India Pushes Campaign to Re-Elect Dalveer Bhandari
Lobbying for Bhandari’s re-election is taking place at the highest levels, including by the prime minister himself.
The stay on Jadhav’s execution will remain in force throughout the hearings on the merits of India’s case against Pakistan and until a final verdict is reached.
India’s nominations to international institutions are not representative of gender, caste and religion. The state cannot afford to be complacent about this lack of diversity.
India backed Mauritius’ resolution referring British control of the Archipelago to the ICJ but says it supports the US military presence in Diego Garcia.
The government apparently considered several names, which included sitting judges like Chief Justice J.S. Kehar and Justice Dipak Mishra, before deciding on Justice Bhandari.
Neeru Chadha topped the Asia-Pacific group in the vote for the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which took place in New York on June 14.
With none of the issues which have kept them apart for two years resolved, and the Jadhav case now casting its shadow, the outlook for progress is not good.
The fact that three vacancies – at the ICJ, ITLOS and the Continental Shelf Commission – have arisen at the same time makes the diplomatic task more complex
Hopefully the Jadhav matter will encourage Indian policy makers to take international law and its obligations and institutions more seriously, rather than as an encumbrance or distraction.
Disappointed With ‘Weak’ Arguments, Ruling: How Pakistan Reacted to ICJ Verdict on Kulbhushan Jadhav
“We based our case on jurisdiction and it proved weak.”
After Winning Provisional Battle in Jadhav’s Case at the ICJ, India Must Now Settle in for Long Haul
At this stage, it would probably be in India’s interest to stretch the ICJ case as long as possible, as this would at least ensure that Jadhav is not executed by Pakistan pending a final judgment.
If anything, Pakistan’s lawyers made it clear through their points that there is indeed a dispute between the parties over the interpretation and application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
External affairs minister Sushma Swaraj disclosed this information about the lead attorney in the Jadhav case late last night, in response to a tweet.
Arguments centred on question of urgency, and the status of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
India argued that human rights treated as “basics” all over the world had been thrown to the wind by Pakistan in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case.
With the first hearing of Jadhav’s case set for May 15 at the Hague, there are three possible primary arguments that Pakistan can make.
This is the first time India has initiated a case at the ICJ since 1971 and has chosen to do so because of the possibility that Pakistan might quickly carry put the death sentence imposed on the former Indian naval officer.
India appears keen to use diplomatic means to resolve the issue, but initiating proceedings against Pakistan before the International Court of Justice would serve us better.
While the ICJ ruling concluded that genocide had occurred in Srebrenica, it did not say genocide had happened in other parts of Bosnia.
The demise of the international jurist has left a void in the public international law scholarship that will be difficult to fill.
Chances of nuclear war between India and Pakistan may be remote, but the recent build-up of military activity along the border and the increasingly aggressive comments by leaders highlights the importance of the crusade against the atomic arms race.
The existence of a legal dispute between two states is a precondition for the court to take up a case involving them; India’s advocacy of disarmament showed there was none, the Indian side had argued.
India can take Pakistan to the International Court of Justice for denying it consular access to a citizen accused of espionage.
The Pakistani side thinks it has scored a major diplomatic triumph by getting an Indian man to confess to espionage and subversion, the Indian side dismisses the charges as baseless. Where does the truth lie?
We are not even prepared to recognise the gravity of the crime of communal violence and treat it on par with terrorism, let alone adopt legal remedies to deal with it.
India’s hands are tied by the declaration it filed with the ICJ in 1974 excluding certain disputes from the jurisdiction of the court. The case of the torture of Capt. Saurabh Kalia squarely falls within the excluded category.