By Mian
Ibrar
Even
though the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may announce its verdict on
Thursday after its maiden hearing of the Indian appeal seeking temporary
measures for halting the execution of Indian spy Kulbhushan Jhadav, it is
intriguing to see a conspicuously biased behaviour of the ICJ right from the
moment India filed the petition as manifested in the unprecedented haste shown
to put Pakistan on notice in a case where ICJ knew it has no jurisdiction.
“Whatever
the case verdict may be, the ICJ has failed a major credibility test by showing
an ‘indecent and unprecedented haste’ in accepting the Indian plea, fixing the
public hearing of the case without giving appropriate time to Pakistan to
prepare for the case,” a general observation held by the analysts as noted by
this scribe of Pakistan Today.
As
discussed in the TV channel talk shows and newspaper reports, ICJ had taken
long enough time to enable the defending party (India) back in 1999 to prepare
when Pakistan had taken the downing of its naval plane by India in which
numerous people lost their lives.
“But
when India petitioned the case of its spy who was caught red handed in terror
sponsoring, terror-funding and acts of sabotage in Pakistan, the ICJ not only
took up the matter the same day, it also fixed its public hearing without
giving Pakistan even seven days to prepare.
“Pakistan
took the matter to the ICJ on 21 September 1999 and lodged a compensation claim
accusing India of shooting down an unarmed patrol aircraft and sought US$60
million in reparations and compensation for the victims’ families”.
It
took ICJ almost a year to come up with the verdict despite the fact the matter
was of serious nature between two nuclear neighbours that could’ve entered into
a full blown war. Yet, the ICJ showed no haste.
“Moreover,
since the ICJ itself had ruled in that case of the year 2000 that it had no
jurisdiction on bilateral matters between two commonwealth states citing an
exemption it filed in 1974 to exclude disputes between India and the other
Commonwealth States, and disputes covered by multilateral treaties, it put
Pakistan on notice in Jhadav case.”
Another
disturbing fact is that the bench hearing Khulbhushan’s case includes a judge
from India, Dalveer Bhandari.
“Even
if Pakistan’s counsel did not raise an objection to the presence of the Indian
judge on the premise of conflict of interest, the panel itself should have
excluded the judge. Moreover, the concerned judge of India should have recused
himself in best judicial practices and norms. Since he chose to stay on, one
cannot rule out the possibility that the Indian judge could be biased and may
also influence fellow judges.”
Another
fact that needs to note is that on May 8, the Indian media backed by official
claims ran a false story attributed to the ICJ that it had stayed the execution
of Khulbhushan. However, the ICJ did not bother to issue a rebuttal of the
Indian claim. This reflects how Indian media misleads the world on the basis of
white lies.
Intriguingly,
the ICJ neither rebutted nor contradicted the Indian media reports nor it
issued a clarification. This reflects the bias of the ICJ in favour of Indian
and against Pakistan. One cannot rule out the possibility that the Indian judge
in the ICJ panel might have played a key role in this regard.
When
some journalists approached the ICJ for clarification, the ICJ Information
Officer Boris Heim confirmed that the ICJ did not issue any stay orders against
the hanging of Khulbhushan. However, even after media’s questioning, no
rebuttal was issued which is again intriguing despite the fact that the
attention of ICJ was drawn towards the Indian propaganda.
The
three-page unofficial notification of the ICJ was released by the Indian media
prior to the release by the ICJ.
There
are instances where the ICJ did not act swiftly as it did on the Indian plea in
Khulbhushan’s matter. Moreover, the manner adopted to issue the notifications
as well as the letter to the other party was also unprecedented. Never ever the
ICJ has shown such a haste to hold a public hearing on any matter in a week’s
time. This also reflects the prejudice and favouritism adopted by ICJ on an
Indian appeal
India
in its petition stressed that Pakistan violated Vienna Convention on Counselor
Access to Khulbhushan but it chose to hide the fact that there was an exclusive
agreement signed by India and Pakistan in 2008 on consular access issues. Since
the bilateral agreements, which supplement international conventions, take
precedence over International conventions, the ICJ should have known about the
fact but ICJ did not raise this fact which thickens the plot.
The
UN secretary general has issued a notification stating that Pakistan has sought
exemption from ICJ about the matters related to its national security. The ICJ
was also oblivious to the fact that it had no jurisdiction over the matter
following the UN secretary general’s notification. However, not only ICJ
admitted Indian plea but fixed the hearing without giving ample time to
Pakistan to prepare for the case, hence, the ICJ looks too compromised and much
biased in its conduct that it cannot be trusted by the world irrespective of
the fact what verdict is issued by the court. The ICJ should review the way it
has acted in clear support to India as its credibility is at stake. The comity
of nations and countries who have signed the statute of the ICJ may no longer
trust the institution, if corrective measures are not adopted in time.
The article was published in Pakistan Today.
No comments:
Post a Comment