Here's an interesting reader's comment: Quote Shilpa Kedari • 6 hours ago
going to the ICJ is a double edged sword.... It's an advisory body that does not have a binding juristdiction on most matters....because the states consider such matters "their internal affairs" and mark the words,....ICJ has "requested" Pakistan to hold off the death sentence...and not passed a binding judgement ( because it cannot as it does not have jurisdiction over internal affairs of countries) Now if Pak raises any of Kashmir matters with ICJ and ICJ passes a request against India to reverse any of its state actions on Kashmir....what will India do.. Going to ICJ amounts to asking a 3rd party intervention.....whihc is in contrast to the stands of ....." our internal matter" or "Bilateral Issue " ....that India has been taking....and ironically India here is invoking 3rd party intervention. India has to be careful now how the ICJ interventions play out in future against India Unquote (Source: <http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/kulbhushan-jadhav-gets-icj-relief-5-reasons-why-india-sought-the-court-s-intervention-after-46-years/story-aYf3xs4Z215DDR3UyX5oCO.html>.) Sukla On 10/05/2017, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > 'The Wire' has provided a further update: > > Quote > Though details are still awaited, Indian officials said late on > Tuesday night that owing to the urgency of the matter, New Delhi had > requested the ICJ in The Hague to act without the customary oral > hearing, and that the court – which is the judicial arm of the United > Nations – had agreed to request a stay from Pakistan on Jadhav’s > execution until further notice. > > “In my capacity as president of the court, and exercising powers > conferred upon me under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the rules of the > court, I call upon Your Excellency’s Government, pending the court’s > decision on [India’s] request for the indication of provisional > measures, to act in such a way as will enable any order the court may > make on this request to have its appropriate effects,” Judge Ronny > Abraham of France, the ICJ’s president wrote to the Pakistani > government on May 9. > Unquote > > (Source: > <https://thewire.in/133951/indias-request-icj-asks-pakistan-stay-execution-kulbhsushan-jadhav/>.) > > This had been referred to by the ET as well: > Quote > Sources have confirmed to the Economictimes.com that the ICJ’s > President Ronny Abraham in a letter to the Pakistan government said, > “In my capacity as President of the Court, and exercising the powers > conferred upon me under Article 74, paragraph 4, of the Rules of the > Court, I call upon Your Excellency’s Government, pending the Court’s > decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures, to > act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on this > Request to have its appropriate effects.” > Unquote > > That does significantly alter the scenario. > > But, still, by all appearance, there is no "stay", if only because the > ICJ can, understandably, issue only advisories. > > Nevertheless, that'll definitely have practical impact. > > And, finally, let's hope that the process of the threatened execution > now gets, at the very least, halted. > > Sukla > > -- > Peace Is Doable > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
