The Institute for Domestic and International Affairs, Inc.

International Court of Justice India v. Pakistan

Director: Marina Shuty

 2007 Institute for Domestic & International Affairs, Inc. (IDIA) This document is solely for use in preparation for Rutgers Model United Nations 2007. Use for other purposes is not permitted without the express written consent of IDIA. For more information, please write us at idiainfo@idia.net

History of Conflict in the Region ________________________________________________ 1

Summary of Conflict between India and Pakistan ______________________________________ 5 India ____________________________________________________________________________ 7 Pakistan _________________________________________________________________________ 8

Pakistan v. India _____________________________________________________________ 9 Written Proceedings: Application of Pakistan ______________________________________ 9

I. Statement of Law _______________________________________________________________ 9 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ______________________________________________________ 11 III. Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the present case __________________ 11

Written Proceedings: Memorial of India _________________________________________ 13

I. Allegations of Pakistan concerning the Aerial Incident _______________________________ 13

Discussion Questions _________________________________________________________ 15 Works Referenced ___________________________________________________________ 16

Rutgers Model United Nations History of Conflict in the Region

Kashmir is a region located in the Northwest area of the Indian subcontinent. It includes the regions of Kashmir Valley, Jammu, and Ladakh, and is located between the Himalays and Pir Panajal range. Because of its significant Muslim population and various cultural alliances, it has been an area of dispute between the states of India and Pakistan.1 The conflict in Kashmir
Kashmir

escalated into a full war, becoming the First Kashmir War. In 1948, India brought the

issue before the United Nations Security Council. As a result, the Committee for India and Pakistan was formed with the purpose of monitoring the situation. When India brought the issue to the attention of the Security Council, the body passed Resolution 47 on 21 April 1948 calling for an immediate ceasefire.2 The resolution required Pakistan to withdraw from Kashmir and asserted that Pakistan held no authority over the politics of Jammu and Kashmir. The resolution suggested that India maintain only minimal military presence in the area. Most importantly, the resolution stated that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan would be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite.3 The UN mandated ceasefire occurred on 31 December 1948 and a seemingly legal border within Kashmir known as the Line of Control emerged between India and Pakistan. While both India and Pakistan agreed to the mandated plebiscite, it has never taken place. Moreover, despite the ceasefire, neither India nor Pakistan removed troops from the disputed territory. The UN
http://jammukashmir.nic.in/ A Comprehensive Note on Jammu and Kashmir: The United Nations. Embassy of India, Washington D.C. Accessed 2 July 2007. http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Kashmir/Kashmir_MEA/UN.html. 3 United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) on the India-Pakistan Question. Adopted 21 April 1948. Document No. S/726. http://www.kashmiri-cc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm.
2 1

Rutgers Model United Nations

responded by passing additional resolutions that reaffirmed the position of its earlier resolutions, however, these held little force. In addition to conflict between Indian and Pakistan, the area has experienced conflict and disagreement in the region between other states as well. India also faced problems with neighboring China regarding control of specific regions within Jammu and Kashmir. Conflict arose over an uninhibited area of Kashmir known as Arunachal Pradesh, located along the Himalayas on the India-China border between Burma and Bhutan. In addition, both parties also later laid claim to the region of Aksai Chin, located at the Western end of the India-China border, broadening the scope of the conflict. The dispute between the two countries arose due to ambiguities regarding the border dating back to 1913. India began drawing maps that including ridges of the Himalayas formerly considered within Chinese domain as part of India. China protested that the area in question has historical cultural and geographic ties to Tibet and continues to maintain this position. By 1962, military incidents along the border were increasingly common, however Indian politicians believed that there would not be a war with China. India deeply miscalculated the situation and as a result was militarily unprepared when on 10 October 1962 the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) opened fire on fifty Indian troops. The Chinese justified the attack, stating that the Indian soldiers were on Chinese soil. The Chinese staged successful attacks along the border and by November the PLA occupied both Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh. The war ended on 19 November 1962 when China declared a unilateral ceasefire to go into effect the following day. India continues to assert that land on the Chinese side of the Line of Actual Control belongs to the province of Jammu and Kashmir.4 India moved from conflict with China into a second war with Pakistan. The Second Kashmir War was the result of a series of military incidents along the disputed border between April and September 1965. Full fighting broke out following when
Calvin, James Barnard. The China-India Border War (1962). Marine Corps Command and Staff College. April 1984. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm.
4

Rutgers Model United Nations

Pakistans Operation Gibraltar was unsuccessful in invading and capturing Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan was confident that India was weakened from its 1962 engagement with China and would thus be unable to defend Kashmir against capture. Pakistan also worked under the belief that the people of Kashmir were unhappy with Indian rule and believed that fomenting rebellion could lead to overthrow of the government. The Pakistani insurgents responsible for infiltrating Kashmir and fomenting rebellion were quickly discovered, largely due to the contribution of the Kashmiri people. Operation Gibraltar was a complete failure. Pakistan justified its actions by voicing its concern that India was attempting to illegally annex Kashmir.5 In response to Pakistans attempted subversion, on 15 August 1965 Indian troops crossed the ceasefire line and attacked the area of Kashmir administered by Pakistan. The Pakistani account of the war asserts that Indias attack was unprovoked. While Indias campaign was initially successful in gaining important positions in the northern sector of Kashmir, within weeks Pakistan countered and made gains of its own in areas such as Tithwal, Uri, and Punch. Moreover, despite the devastating failure of Operation Gibraltar, Pakistan choose to launch an ambitious counter strike against India to regain territory in Kashmir. The attack was titled Operation Grand Slam and was designed to occupy Akhnoor, a town in Jammu of strategic importance to India. Capturing this region would allow Pakistan to interdict supplies to Indian troops and drastically limit Indian communications. The operation was initially successful as Pakistan had the

advantage of greater troop numbers and the element of surprise. India retaliated using its air force to attack Pakistan further south of Kashmir. Pakistan never captured Akhnoor and India realized the significance of air power.6 It was not until 6 September 1965 that the International Border was actually crossed as prior land attacks were confined to the disputed area of Kashmir.7 Indian
Amin, Agha Humayun. Grand Slam: A Battle of Lost Opportunities. Defense Journal: Pakistan. 2000. http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm. 6 Ibid. 7 Indo-Pak War [September, 1965]: Lahore Offensive. Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5
5

Rutgers Model United Nations

troops crossed the Ichhogil Canal and moved deeper into Pakistan, but were soon pushed back by the Pakistani air force. The following days were characterized by battles in which both parties incurred heavy losses and neither made substantial gains. The

stalemate continued until 20 September 1965 when the UN Security Council passed a unanimous resolution mandating an unconditional ceasefire from both nations.8 On 22 September, the war ended.9 The ceasefire, which was generally unpopular in both Pakistan and India, lasted for just six years of tenuous peace before war broke out once more in 1971. In the early months of 1971, Pakistan was already fully embroiled in domestic political and civil conflict. Pakistan was traditionally divided in to West and East, with the former being the dominant group despite the latters majority. When the 1970 elections resulted in victory for the East Pakistanis, the government in place refused to relinquish power.10 While the Pakistani government attempted to suppress radicals, the rebellion was fomenting in the East leading to the declaration of East Pakistani independence on 27 March 1971, although some contend that the actual announcement was made over the radio on 26 March.11 With that, the state of Bangladesh was born. The Pakistani government ardently rejected the independence movement and used brutal force, killing or displacing hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis.12 India was involved in the Bangladeshi Liberation War from the moment East Pakistan declared its independence. India shared a border with Bangladesh and allowed refugees entrance into the country. Nearly ten million refugees fled to India, causing constraints on the host countrys resources, however, Indian support for her neighbor continued. While Pakistan had the critical support from the United States and China,
United Nations Security Council Resolution 211 (1965). The India Pakistan Question. Adopted 20 September 1965. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/222/82/IMG/NR022282.pdf?OpenElement 9 Indo-Pak War [September, 1965]. Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=6 10 General Elections 1970. Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A140&Pg=2 11 Declaration of Independence. Virtual Bangladesh. 1 May 2005. http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/declaration.html 12 Bangladesh: The War for Bangladeshi Independence, 1971. Library of Congress Country Studies. September 1988. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0027)
8

Rutgers Model United Nations

India countered by garnering sympathy for Bangladesh in other members of the Security Council, such as France and Great Britain. With support within the Security Council divided, the Soviet Union became critical in determining how the United Nations would respond to the conflict. India signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviet Union in August 1971.13 Although India clearly played a principle role in the Bangladeshi Liberation War, it was not until 3 December 1971 that actual hostility broke out between longtime opponents India and Pakistan. In response to a massive buildup of Indian troops along the Bangladeshi border, Pakistan launched a preemptive air assault on Indian bases. The Indian Army drove the Pakistani Army out of northwest and gained five thousand square miles of territory within Pakistan-administered Kashmir. Fighting continued on land, sea, and air for two weeks.14 The conflict between India and Pakistan brought the world to the verge of nuclear engagement during the Cold War.15 The Indo-Pakistani war ended after only a fortnight, however, the Pakistani forces incurred great losses and were forced to surrender. The following day, 17 December 1971, India imposed a unilateral ceasefire. Months later, India and Pakistan met and signed the Simla Accord on 2 July 1972. The agreement mandated that each party would respect the ceasefire line and commit to solving the question of Kashmir by peaceful means. Simla has been the basis for all discussions regarding Kashmir between India and Pakistan, although the agreement itself was fairly vague.16

Summary of Conflict between India and Pakistan

Although the conflict between India and Pakistan has existed for many decades, it was the start of a specific conflict in 1998 which led to the International Court of Justice case on the topic. On 11 and 12 May 1998, a new and dangerous element was added to
13

Bangladesh War of Independence. Wars of the World. OnWar.com 16 December 2000. http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr70/fbangladesh1971.htm 14 Ibid. 15 Shalom, Stephen R. The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971. Source: The U.S. Response to Humanitarian Crises, Z Magazine, Sept. 1991. http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue47/articles/a07.htm 16 Background. Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant Groups Continue. Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/back.htm.

Rutgers Model United Nations

the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir. The Indian government successfully tested five nuclear devices, and three weeks later, Pakistan detonated its own device. These

developments shocked the international community and led to enormous criticism. In the months following the tests, shelling and gunfire between Indian and Pakistani troops along the Line of Control increased. As concern mounted, it became clear that the Kashmir issue needed to be addressed bilaterally. The prime ministers of both countries met and signed the Lahore Declaration, which committed the two parties to reopen discussion on Jammu and Kashmir and to notify each other of future weapons tests. Following the agreement, each country continued to further its arms program, however, they did adhere to conditions of the declaration and inform the other party of such tests. On 11 April 1999 India tested the long-range missile. Pakistan responded just four days later, shooting long and medium range missiles. On 16 April India again carried out a ballistic missile test causing international speculation that the Asian subcontinent was descending into a Cold War-style arms race.17 A small-scale war erupted between India and Pakistan in May 1999, creating worldwide anxiety over the use of nuclear force. The conflict occurred when Pakistan attempted to use military force against India by deploying approximately 2,000 regular and irregular troops over the Line of Control near Kargil. Due to its mountainous locale and severe climate, Kargil is only sparsely patrolled during several months of the year. The Pakistani operation moved into this area, which overlooked the Sringar-Leh highway. The road is vital for transporting supplies and personnel in northern Kashmir and blocking the route was an indirect attack on Indian garrisons in Ladakh and the Siachen Glacier. The Pakistani operation would also redirect some of the Indian armys attention from Kashmir to Kargil, hopefully providing support to the militants.18 On 4 July 1999 Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif met with American President Bill Clinton in Washington, D.C. where he pledged to withdraw the Pakistani regular and irregular troops. Following the agreement most fighting ceased, although
17 18

Background. Human Rights Watch. Hoyt, Timothy D. Politics, Proximity and Paranoia: The Evolution of Kashmir as a Nuclear Flashpoint. 16.

Rutgers Model United Nations

extremists militants continued to fight. India launched a final round of attacks on these lingering militants the last week of July and the war officially ended on 26 July 1999. This day is commemorated as Kargil Victory Day in India. Immediately following the Kargil War, another incident occurred in which conflict between India and Pakistan escalated. On 10 August 1999 India shot down a Pakistani naval plane called the Atlantique, for allegedly violating Indian airspace of the Rann of Kutch. Pakistan claims that debris from the crash was found on the Pakistani side of the border and that the plane was unarmed. The personnel on the plane were killed, and the aircraft ruined, leading to damages in the Pakistan military unit. As a result, Pakistan filed a case against India on 21 September 1999 with the International Court of Justice (ICJ), insisting that India violated international law. Pakistan sought USD $60 million in reparations. Indias legal representation responded to the suit by arguing that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction over the case.19

India
In reference to the origin of the conflict that began in 1947, India maintains that Pashtun Pakistani tribal people from the North West Frontier province entered Kashmir to foment a Muslim rebellion against the maharaja in response to his taxation policies in the Punch district. India contends that the tribal rebels received support and supplies from Pakistani soldiers. The Indian government moreover claims that the Kabailis invasion was an attempt to overthrow the maharajah rather than a demonstration of protest over taxation policy. According to India, Hari Singh agreed to cede the province as Pakistani tribes reached Srinagar20 India also claimed that Pakistan was over-agressive during the Lahore Agreement. India perceived Pakistans attack as a flagrant violation of its sovereignty and quickly countered with massive force.21 Over the course of two months, Indian troops slowly
19 20

Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises. Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute. World: South Asia. BBC News. 16 January 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1762146.stm. 21 Hoyt. 16.

Rutgers Model United Nations

retook the mountains, despite the obvious strategic advantage that Pakistan held by having the higher ground.22 India declined to escalate the conflict as the army did not cross the Line of Control or the international border into Pakistani territory.23 In reference to the most recent conflict between Indian and Pakistan, India has voiced that it feels that nuclear weapons would lead to security and peace due to their deterrent effect. Moreover the state of India responded to Pakistani accusations by citing that the plane they shot down seemed hostile, was not following international protocol, and did not respond to warnings. Additionally, India asserted that the plane was in violation of an Indo-Pakistani agreement from 1991, which stipulated military aircraft not fly within ten kilometers of the border. They continued that the International Court of Justice did not have jurisdiction over the issue and should not be addressing the case.24

Pakistan
The Pakistani account of the original conflict events differ from the Indian perspective. As such, they claim that India acted aggressively, purporting that its army began moving troops toward Kashmir following the indecision of partition. Pakistan was alarmed by this maneuver and further distressed when India began taking measures to incorporate Kashmir into its bureaucratic and federal system. Pakistan asserts that the maharajah agreed to sign the Treaty of Accession under duress, invalidating the agreement. Moreover, Pakistan maintains that the Maharajah relinquished his right to cede Kashmir upon fleeing from the province.25 Pakistan is adamant that their military was not involved in the tribal invasion. According to Pakistan, head of state Mohammad Ali Jinnah ordered the head of the Pakistaini Army to send troops to support the tribal invasion already underway.
22

Malik, VP. Kargil: Where Defence Met Diplomacy. The Indian Express. 25 July 2002. http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/07/25o03.htm 23 Hoyt 16. 24 Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises. Research Programs: South Asia Program. The Henry L. Stimson Center. Accessed July 2007. http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216. 25 Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute. World: South Asia. BBC News. 16 January 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1762146.stm.

Rutgers Model United Nations

Additionally, immediately following the Kargil War an incident occurred that benefited India while further injuring Pakistan. On 10 August 1999 India shot down a Pakistani naval plane called the Atlantique for allegedly violating Indian airspace of the Rann of Kutch. Pakistan claims that debris from the crash was found on the Pakistani side of the border and that the plane was unarmed. According to Pakistan, the plane was on a routine training mission.26 In reference to the recent conflict, Pakistan justified its testing of nuclear weapons by stating that nuclear weapons would merely change the nature of the fighting. When discussing the plane that flew over India, Pakistan asserts that the plane was simply on a routine training mission, and should not have been shot down. They state that this aggression was costly to both their economy and national spirit, and such demand reparations.27

Pakistan v. India
What follows are written memorials for the case brought by the nation of Pakistan against India. The descriptions listed here are not the actual memorials, but rather are designed to supplement the memorials formally filed by the applicant and respondent.

Written Proceedings: Application of Pakistan I. Statement of Law

Pakistan claims that India incurred legal responsibility for the breach of its fundamental obligations under the United Nations Charter, as well as those arising under bilateral treaties, apart from constituting a breach under well-established obligations of customary international law. The particular legal grounds on which Pakistan bases its claim are as follows: (1) Breaches of the Charter of the United Nations: The facts on which Pakistan bases its complaint disclose serious violations of the
26

Application Instituting Proceeding: Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India). International Court of Justice. Filed 21 September 1999. General List No. 119. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf. 27 Ibid.

Rutgers Model United Nations

10

various provisions of the United Nations Charter, particularly Article 2, paragraph 4, according to which all Member States of the United Nations are under an obligation to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Indias unprovoked and blatant use of force against an unarmed Pakistani aircraft over Pakistani territorial airspace contravenes the basic purpose of the United Nations, i.e., to maintain international peace and security and to develop friendly relations among nations. (2) Breaches of the Bilateral Agreement: Indias actions described above also constitute serious violations of the provisions of the Agreement concluded on 6 April 1991 between Pakistan and India on Prevention of Airspace Violations of which Article 1 enjoins both parties to ensure that air violations of each others airspace do not take place. Moreover, the Agreement clearly rules out the use of force even in case a violation is believed by either side to have taken place. Article 1 also stipulates that if any inadvertent violation does take place, the incident will be promptly investigated and the other sides headquarters informed of the results without delay. (3) Breaches of the obligations of customary international law not to use force against another State: India committed breaches of the obligations imposed on States by customary international law not to use force against another State. Attacking and shooting down Pakistans unarmed aircraft inside Pakistans airspace, without warning and without any provocation on its part, constitutes serious breach of that obligation. (4) Breaches of the obligation of customary international law not to violate the sovereignty of another State: The incursion into Pakistans airspace by the Indian air force jet fighters and their attack on, and shooting down of, unarmed Pakistans naval aircraft on routine training mission inside Pakistan airspace constitutes violation of Pakistans sovereignty and

Rutgers Model United Nations

breach by India of its obligation under customary inter national law.

11

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

On 10 August 1999, an unarmed Atlantique aircraft of the Pakistan Navy was on a routine training mission with sixteen personnel on board. While flying over Pakistan airspace it was fired upon with air to air missiles by Indian air force planes, without warning. All sixteen personnel, mostly young naval trainees, on board the aircraft were killed. This act of blatant military aggression was unprovoked and in contravention of all universally accepted existing international norms relating to sovereignty and inviolability of national borders. The Atlantique aircraft was conducting scheduled instrument flight training. In accordance with the standard operating procedures, the Karachi civil airport was informed of the flight plan of the aircraft. All through the one hundred minutes of flying time, the Pakistan naval aircraft was visible on the radar within Pakistan airspace. Moreover, since the aircraft was flying at a height of 7,000-9,000 feet, it was visible on the Pakistani radar in Karachi and should have been visible on Indian radar at Nalya Air Base, in Gujrat, throughout the flight time. By this criminal act India once again violated Pakistans airspace and territorial sovereignty by sending helicopters into Pakistan territory to remove parts of the wreckage before Pakistans search party discovered it, in order to produce evidence for its initial claim that the Atlantique had been shot down over Indian airspace. Subsequently, because of the overwhelming evidence which left no shadow of doubt that the plane was well within Pakistani airspace, Indian officials were obliged to admit that the Atlantique had indeed been shot down over Pakistans airspace.

III. Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the present case

(1) Should the Government of India not find it possible to voluntarily submit to the Jurisdiction of the Court thus enabling the Court to proceed directly to the merits of the Case, the Government of Pakistan submits the following basis for invoking the Jurisdiction of the Court:

Rutgers Model United Nations

12

A. Jurisdiction of the Court is founded on Article 17 of the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes as read with Article 36(1) and Article 37 of the Statute of the Court 1) As the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International disputes of 1928 continues to apply to India and Pakistan the jurisdiction of the Court is founded on Article 17 thereof, as read with Article 37 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The General Act for Pacific Settlement of international disputes applied by succession to India and Pakistan by virtue of the Indian independence (International Arrangements) Order of 1947 and the Agreement as to the Devolution of International Rights and Obligations upon the Dominions of India and Pakistan as well as the principles of public international law concerning State succession. Pakistan re-affirmed its continued succession and adherence to the said Convention vide its communication to the Secretary General dated 30th May 1974. The secretary-general of the United Nations also received a communication from the Government of India on 18th September 1974, setting out Indias view why it could not have succeeded to the Convention. It is the contention of the Government of Pakistan that the arguments conveyed in Indias Communication are erroneous and India continues to be a party to the said Convention by succession. 2) The Government of Pakistan also contends that the reservations made by India while becoming a party to the General Act on 21st May 1931 do not fall under the permissible reservations exhaustively set out in Article 39 of the General Act. They are inadmissible and have no legal effect. B. The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is also founded on the provision contained in Article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court which states, The Jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. There is therefore, a fundamental obligation on the part of the Member States to settle disputes which could lead to a breach of peace, by peaceful means in conformity

Rutgers Model United Nations

13

with principles of justice and international law. This obligation has to be carried out meaningfully and in good faith and precludes parties from excluding all means of peaceful settlement which, unfortunately, is the stance of the Government of India. In this context, it is significant that the Government of India has not come out with any positive step for pacific settlement of the dispute.

Written Proceedings: Memorial of India I. Allegations of Pakistan concerning the Aerial Incident
The allegations made by Pakistan in its Application and in its Memorial are squarely denied. Pakistans claim for compensation is purely a propaganda exercise and an attempt to cover up its misdeeds. Pakistan is entirely responsible for its own acts. India reserves its right to counter specifically all allegations made by Pakistan. At the present stage, the Government of India does not intend to engage the Court with submissions on facts and will thus confine this Counter Memorial only to the issues concerning Preliminary Objections to the jurisdiction of the Court. II. There is No Basis for Jurisdiction The Memorial of Pakistan signally fails to indicate any basis of consent to the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36 of the Statute. As the Court itself has frequently recalled, the well-established principle of international law embodied in the Courts Statute, namely, that the Court can only exercise jurisdiction over a State with its consent exists invariably based on the consent of the respondent and only exists insofar as this consent has been given. Nothing should be done which creates the impression that the Court, in an excess of zeal, has assumed jurisdiction where none has been conferred upon it. The rule boni judicis est ampliare jursdictionem applies, so far as the Court is concerned, only subject to that fundamental limitation. I. Main Arguments a. First Argument: The reservation would be contrary to the Provisions of the Charter b. Second Argument: The reservation would be contrary to Articles 36, 37 and 38 of the Statute of the Court

Rutgers Model United Nations

14

c. Third Argument: The reservation would be contrary to Article 36(3) of the Statute d. Fourth Argument: The Government of India would be Estopped from Invoking the Reservation against Pakistan e. Fifth Argument: Applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

Rutgers Model United Nations Discussion Questions

Does the International Court of Justice have the authority cited by Pakistan in the legal proceedings? If yes, are these still justified given Indias counter arguments? What role do you think past conflicts have played on this specific case? Do you believe this case is primarily based on the aerial incident or past conflicts between India and Pakistan? What reparations do you feel are deserved by Pakistan, if any? Why or why not do you believe these reparations are/are not appropriate?

15

Does an individual country or non-state actor have the right to intervene in the name of the maintenance of international peace and security if the United Nations or the Security Council do not authorize such actions? If a nation decides to act outside of the purview of the United Nations, should it be held liable for any violations of international law? What recommendations would you provide to prevent future conflict, both in the justice system and on an ordinary basis between India and Pakistan?

Rutgers Model United Nations Works Referenced

A Comprehensive Note on Jammu and Kashmir: The United Nations. Embassy of India, Washington D.C. Accessed 2 July 2007. http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/Kashmir/Kashmir_MEA/UN.html.

16

Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises. Agreement Between India and Pakistan on the Advance Notice of Military Exercises. Research Programs: South Asia Program. The Henry L. Stimson Center. Accessed July 2007. http://www.stimson.org/southasia/?sn=sa20020109216. Amin, Agha Humayun. Grand Slam: A Battle of Lost Opportunities. Defense Journal: Pakistan. 2000. http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/sept/grand-slam.htm. Application Instituting Proceeding: Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India). International Court of Justice. Filed 21 September 1999. General List No. 119. http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/119/7123.pdf. Background. Behind the Kashmir Conflict: Abuses by Indian Security Forces and Militant Groups Continue. Human Rights Watch. http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/kashmir/back.htm. Background. Human Rights Watch. Bangladesh: The War for Bangladeshi Independence, 1971. Library of Congress Country Studies. September 1988. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgibin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+bd0027) Bangladesh War of Independence. Wars of the World. OnWar.com 16 December 2000. http://www.onwar.com/aced/chrono/c1900s/yr70/fbangladesh1971.htm Calvin, James Barnard. The China-India Border War (1962). Marine Corps Command and Staff College. April 1984. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1984/CJB.htm. Declaration of Independence. Virtual Bangladesh. 1 May 2005. http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/history/declaration.html

Rutgers Model United Nations

17

General Elections 1970. Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A140&Pg=2 Hoyt, Timothy D. Politics, Proximity and Paranoia: The Evolution of Kashmir as a Nuclear Flashpoint. 16. Indo-Pak War [September, 1965]: Lahore Offensive. Timeline: Events 1958-1969. Story Of Pakistan: A Multimedia Journey. 1 June 2003. http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A068&Pg=5 Malik, VP. Kargil: Where Defence Met Diplomacy. The Indian Express. 25 July 2002. http://meaindia.nic.in/opinion/2002/07/25o03.htm

Schofield, Victoria. Kashmir: The Origins of the Dispute. World: South Asia. BBC News. 16 January 2002. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1762146.stm. Shalom, Stephen R. The Men Behind Yahya in the Indo-Pak War of 1971. Source: The U.S. Response to Humanitarian Crises, Z Magazine, Sept. 1991. http://coat.ncf.ca/our_magazine/links/issue47/articles/a07.htm United Nations Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) on the India-Pakistan Question. Adopted 21 April 1948. Document No. S/726. http://www.kashmiricc.ca/un/sc21apr48.htm. United Nations Security Council Resolution 211 (1965). The India Pakistan Question. Adopted 20 September 1965. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/222/82/IMG/NR022282.p df?OpenElement