Pakistan submitted its reply to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Kulbhushan Jadhav case on Wednesday.

Pakistan&#39;s reply comes after India had submitted its written response to registrar Philippe Couvreur of the ICJ in the same case in September this year.

According to Geo News, dismissing India&#39;s stance on former Indian Naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, Pakistan in its reply has alleged that Jadhav is not an ordinary person and had entered the country with the intent of spying and carrying out sabotage activities.

The reply, which was submitted by the Foreign Office&#39;s Director (India), Fariha Bugti, also claimed that Jadhav case does not fall under the purview of the Vienna Convention.

Citing sources, Geo News reported that that the reply also encompasses the charge-sheet against Jadhav and narrates Pakistan&#39;s stance in a comprehensive manner.

Earlier this month, Pakistan agreed to facilitate the visit Jadhav&#39;s mother and his wife and also assured their safety, security and freedom of movement in the nation, India&#39;s External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said.

Jadhav was arrested in Pakistan&#39;s Balochistan Province over charges of alleged involvement in espionage and subversive activities for India&#39;s intelligence agency - the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW).

India, however, maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran, where he had business interests after retiring from the Indian Navy.

Jadhav was sentenced to death by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) in Pakistan this year in April.

However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on May 18, 2017, stayed the hanging after India approached it against the death sentence.

India has appealed to the court to impose emergency measures for Jadhav&#39;s execution to be suspended until the legal battle in Hague concludes, while also accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention by failing to provide him with consular access and for being in breach of international human rights law.

Citing sources, Geo News reported that that the reply also encompasses the charge-sheet against Jadhav and narrates Pakistan's stance in a comprehensive manner

Pakistan submitted its reply to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Kulbhushan Jadhav case on Wednesday. Pakistan's reply comes after India had submitted its written response to registrar Philippe Couvreur of the ICJ in the same case in September this year. According to Geo News, dismissing India's stance on former Indian Naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, Pakistan in its reply has alleged that Jadhav is not an ordinary person and had entered the country with the intent of spying and carrying out sabotage activities. The reply, which was submitted by the Foreign Office's Director (India), Fariha Bugti, also claimed that Jadhav case does not fall under the purview of the Vienna Convention. Citing sources, Geo News reported that that the reply also encompasses the charge-sheet against Jadhav and narrates Pakistan's stance in a comprehensive manner. Earlier this month, Pakistan agreed to facilitate the visit Jadhav's mother and his wife and also assured their safety, security and freedom of movement in the nation, India's External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said. Jadhav was arrested in Pakistan's Balochistan Province over charges of alleged involvement in espionage and subversive activities for India's intelligence agency - the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). India, however, maintains that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran, where he had business interests after retiring from the Indian Navy. Jadhav was sentenced to death by a Field General Court Martial (FGCM) in Pakistan this year in April. However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on May 18, 2017, stayed the hanging after India approached it against the death sentence. India has appealed to the court to impose emergency measures for Jadhav's execution to be suspended until the legal battle in Hague concludes, while also accusing Pakistan of violating the Vienna Convention by failing to provide him with consular access and for being in breach of international human rights law.

Pakistan submits reply to ICJ in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, says he's a spy

UN judges Wednesday began handing down their verdict in the trial of former Bosnian Serbian commander Ratko Mladic, accused of genocide and war crimes in the brutal Balkans conflicts over two decades ago.&nbsp;

Dubbed &quot;The Butcher of Bosnia,&quot; Mladic&#39;s trial is the last before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and comes as the court prepares to close its doors next month.

After rumours that he would not attend his verdict, the former general, 74, who once cut a swathe of fear against Bosnia, appeared relaxed in courtroom as he listened intently to presiding judge Alphons Orie.

Wednesday&#39;s verdict has been long awaited by tens of thousands of victims across the bitterly-divided region, and dozens gathered early outside the courtroom in The Hague, many clutching photos of loved ones who died or are among the 7,000 still missing.&nbsp;

&quot;Bosnia and Herzegovina: No impunity for war criminals!&quot;, read one banner, while another had a picture of Mladic with a human skull saying: &quot;Guilty of all!&quot;

&quot;We will see today. Will he be found guilty or will he be seen as a hero?,&quot; Munira Subasic, president of the Mothers of Srebrenica, told AFP.

Mladic has denied 11 counts including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 war that killed 100,000 and displaced 2.2 million as ethnic rivalries tore Yugoslavia apart. &nbsp;

Prosecutors accuse Mladic and his political counterpart Radovan Karadzic of seeking through ethnic cleansing to &quot;permanently remove&quot; Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from areas claimed by Bosnian Serbs.

Genocide 
Wednesday&#39;s verdict &quot;is one of the most important in the history of the tribunal&quot;, chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz told AFP.

Mladic &quot;was the mastermind behind the killing of thousands of people,&quot; he said. In a twist of fate, former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic died in 2006 while on trial.

Caught after 16 years on the run, Mladic faces two genocide charges including for the 1995 massacre in northeastern Srebrenica, where troops under his command slaughtered almost 8,000 Muslim men and boys.

The killings, in which the victims were marched away, shot in the back and dumped in mass graves, was one of the darkest episodes in the conflict, and has been called the worst atrocity on European soil since World War II.&nbsp;

Once a brutish military commander who strode around in combat fatigues, Mladic will also be judged for directing a 44-month campaign of sniping and shelling to terrorise citizens in Bosnia&#39;s capital Sarajevo, which left about 10,000 dead.

Mladic is further charged with taking hostage more than 200 NATO military personnel and keeping them as human shields to prevent NATO air strikes against the Bosnian Serb army.

Prosecutors have called for a life sentence, and Brammertz said that given Mladic&#39;s alleged &quot;high level of responsibility&quot; no other term &quot;will be acceptable to us&quot;.&nbsp;

In a complex case spread over five years, almost 600 witnesses testified and more than 10,000 exhibits were presented.

&#39;Not a monster&#39; 
But defence lawyers -- who in the past few days filed a flurry of requests to have their ailing client&#39;s health assessed -- have slammed his trial as &quot;political&quot;.&nbsp;

Just minutes before the verdict hearing began, they filed a new motion protesting that it was going ahead and saying he was appearing &quot;against the advice of medical specialists.&quot;

In a background paper handed out Wednesday to reporters, they insisted: &quot;The prosecution has failed to uncover a single order in which General Mladic ordered anyone to commit a crime.&quot;

They insist he is &quot;not a monster&quot; and have called for his acquittal.

After suffering at least three strokes, Mladic has been left with &quot;part paralysis of the entire right side of his body,&quot; lawyer Dragan Ivetic said.

&#39;We need justice&#39; 
For victims of the atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serb army however, the time has come for Mladic to face justice.

Subasic, who said she had begged Mladic to spare her son at Srebrenica, told AFP the truth had to be unveiled.

&quot;We need truth, we need justice. Without justice there&#39;s no trust, without trust there&#39;s no reconciliation,&quot; she said.

For Fikret Alic,a survivor of a Bosnian Serb camp, told AFP: who was in &quot;I hope justice will be done by this verdict, so that people will stop suffering. It will send a message to the world.&quot;

Mladic faces two genocide charges including for a 1995 massacre in northeastern Srebrenica, where troops under his command slaughtered almost 8,000 Muslim men and boys

UN judges Wednesday began handing down their verdict in the trial of former Bosnian Serbian commander Ratko Mladic, accused of genocide and war crimes in the brutal Balkans conflicts over two decades ago. Dubbed "The Butcher of Bosnia," Mladic's trial is the last before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and comes as the court prepares to close its doors next month. After rumours that he would not attend his verdict, the former general, 74, who once cut a swathe of fear against Bosnia, appeared relaxed in courtroom as he listened intently to presiding judge Alphons Orie. Wednesday's verdict has been long awaited by tens of thousands of victims across the bitterly-divided region, and dozens gathered early outside the courtroom in The Hague, many clutching photos of loved ones who died or are among the 7,000 still missing. "Bosnia and Herzegovina: No impunity for war criminals!", read one banner, while another had a picture of Mladic with a human skull saying: "Guilty of all!" "We will see today. Will he be found guilty or will he be seen as a hero?," Munira Subasic, president of the Mothers of Srebrenica, told AFP. Mladic has denied 11 counts including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed during the 1992-1995 war that killed 100,000 and displaced 2.2 million as ethnic rivalries tore Yugoslavia apart. Prosecutors accuse Mladic and his political counterpart Radovan Karadzic of seeking through ethnic cleansing to "permanently remove" Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from areas claimed by Bosnian Serbs. Genocide Wednesday's verdict "is one of the most important in the history of the tribunal", chief prosecutor Serge Brammertz told AFP. Mladic "was the mastermind behind the killing of thousands of people," he said. In a twist of fate, former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic died in 2006 while on trial. Caught after 16 years on the run, Mladic faces two genocide charges including for the 1995 massacre in northeastern Srebrenica, where troops under his command slaughtered almost 8,000 Muslim men and boys. The killings, in which the victims were marched away, shot in the back and dumped in mass graves, was one of the darkest episodes in the conflict, and has been called the worst atrocity on European soil since World War II. Once a brutish military commander who strode around in combat fatigues, Mladic will also be judged for directing a 44-month campaign of sniping and shelling to terrorise citizens in Bosnia's capital Sarajevo, which left about 10,000 dead. Mladic is further charged with taking hostage more than 200 NATO military personnel and keeping them as human shields to prevent NATO air strikes against the Bosnian Serb army. Prosecutors have called for a life sentence, and Brammertz said that given Mladic's alleged "high level of responsibility" no other term "will be acceptable to us". In a complex case spread over five years, almost 600 witnesses testified and more than 10,000 exhibits were presented. 'Not a monster' But defence lawyers -- who in the past few days filed a flurry of requests to have their ailing client's health assessed -- have slammed his trial as "political". Just minutes before the verdict hearing began, they filed a new motion protesting that it was going ahead and saying he was appearing "against the advice of medical specialists." In a background paper handed out Wednesday to reporters, they insisted: "The prosecution has failed to uncover a single order in which General Mladic ordered anyone to commit a crime." They insist he is "not a monster" and have called for his acquittal. After suffering at least three strokes, Mladic has been left with "part paralysis of the entire right side of his body," lawyer Dragan Ivetic said. 'We need justice' For victims of the atrocities committed by the Bosnian Serb army however, the time has come for Mladic to face justice. Subasic, who said she had begged Mladic to spare her son at Srebrenica, told AFP the truth had to be unveiled. "We need truth, we need justice. Without justice there's no trust, without trust there's no reconciliation," she said. For Fikret Alic,a survivor of a Bosnian Serb camp, told AFP: who was in "I hope justice will be done by this verdict, so that people will stop suffering. It will send a message to the world."

Judgement day begins for Ratko Mladic, 'Butcher of Bosnia'

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/kulbhushan-jadhav-excution-stayed-international-court-of-justice-3405" target="_blank">International Court of Justice(ICJ)</a> is the principal organ of the United Nation that aims to maintain and strengthen international peace and security.

Seated in Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the principal judicial organisation of the UN is the only organisation to not to have its seat in New York.&nbsp;

The world&#39;s highest international court is the successor of The Permanent Court of International Justice established in 1922. The court functioned from 1922-1940. It was dissolved after World War II.&nbsp;

The ICJ came into existence in 1946 succeeded the Permanent Court of International Justice.

The two official language of the court is English and French.&nbsp;

The court consists of 50 judges. They are elected for a period of nine years by the General Assembly(GA) and the UN Security Council(UNSC).

The members of the court must all be from different countries. However, they do not represent their countries. They are independent judges.&nbsp;

Three seats on the bench are occupied by African judges, two from Latin America and the Carribean, three from Asia, five from western Europe and the other western nations including&nbsp;two from eastern Europe.&nbsp;

Although no country is entitled to a seat, the court has always included a judge from each of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

The&nbsp; International Court of Justice has two important roles.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/dalveer-bhandari-re-elected-icj-judge-britain-pulls-out-24693" target="_blank">Britain congratulates India as Dalveer Bhandari gets re-elected as ICJ judge</a>

Also read: &#39;<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/proud-moment-for-us-pm-modi-on-justice-dalveer-bhandaris-re-election-to-icj-24713" target="_blank">Proud moment for us&#39;: PM Modi on Justice Dalveer Bhandari&#39;s re-election to ICJ</a>

The first is to resolve contentious cases, which primarily includes disputes between states, border disputes, diplomatic protections maritime delimitation, humanitarian law, use of armed force.These contentious cases account for over 80 per cent of its work.&nbsp;

All UN members are entitled to bring any proceedings in front of the court. Other non-member states can also access the court subject to certain conditions.&nbsp;

Once the court is seized the proceedings take place in two phases. The court submits their arguments, evidence and submissions in writings.&nbsp;Then their representatives, lawyers deliver oral arguments before the court hearing.&nbsp;

The court then begins its deliberations, which is confidential. Its questions are decided by the majority of judges present. On an average, these deliberations last&nbsp;between 4-6 months. Each deliberation is delivered in two languages. It is reproduced in several sealed copies. One of these copies is sent to each of the states involved in the deliberations.&nbsp;

The judgement of the court is final and without any appeal. By accessing the court on their own will, the states assume a commitment to comply with its decision. If a state refuses to abide by a decision of the court the opposition state may seek the intervention of the Security Council. The Security Council can take a decision to give an effect of the judgement under article 94 of the charter of the UN.

The second role of the ICJ is to respond to legal questions submitted to it by General Assembly, Security Council and other UN organs or agencies. The is known as Advisory Opinions. Unlike judgement in contentious cases, the Advisory Opinions are not binding on the United Nations.&nbsp;

The budget of the International Court of Justice accounts for less than one per cent of the regular budget of the United Nations.

Since its establishment, the court has dealt with 161 cases. It is not a criminal court. It does not take up cases related to individuals.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The world's highest international court is the successor of The Permanent Court of International Justice established in 1922. The court functioned from 1922-1940. It was dissolved after the second World war

International Court of Justice(ICJ) is the principal organ of the United Nation that aims to maintain and strengthen international peace and security. Seated in Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the principal judicial organisation of the UN is the only organisation to not to have its seat in New York. The world's highest international court is the successor of The Permanent Court of International Justice established in 1922. The court functioned from 1922-1940. It was dissolved after World War II. The ICJ came into existence in 1946 succeeded the Permanent Court of International Justice. The two official language of the court is English and French. The court consists of 50 judges. They are elected for a period of nine years by the General Assembly(GA) and the UN Security Council(UNSC). The members of the court must all be from different countries. However, they do not represent their countries. They are independent judges. Three seats on the bench are occupied by African judges, two from Latin America and the Carribean, three from Asia, five from western Europe and the other western nations including two from eastern Europe. Although no country is entitled to a seat, the court has always included a judge from each of the five permanent members of the Security Council. The International Court of Justice has two important roles. Also read: Britain congratulates India as Dalveer Bhandari gets re-elected as ICJ judge Also read: 'Proud moment for us': PM Modi on Justice Dalveer Bhandari's re-election to ICJ The first is to resolve contentious cases, which primarily includes disputes between states, border disputes, diplomatic protections maritime delimitation, humanitarian law, use of armed force.These contentious cases account for over 80 per cent of its work. All UN members are entitled to bring any proceedings in front of the court. Other non-member states can also access the court subject to certain conditions. Once the court is seized the proceedings take place in two phases. The court submits their arguments, evidence and submissions in writings. Then their representatives, lawyers deliver oral arguments before the court hearing. The court then begins its deliberations, which is confidential. Its questions are decided by the majority of judges present. On an average, these deliberations last between 4-6 months. Each deliberation is delivered in two languages. It is reproduced in several sealed copies. One of these copies is sent to each of the states involved in the deliberations. The judgement of the court is final and without any appeal. By accessing the court on their own will, the states assume a commitment to comply with its decision. If a state refuses to abide by a decision of the court the opposition state may seek the intervention of the Security Council. The Security Council can take a decision to give an effect of the judgement under article 94 of the charter of the UN. The second role of the ICJ is to respond to legal questions submitted to it by General Assembly, Security Council and other UN organs or agencies. The is known as Advisory Opinions. Unlike judgement in contentious cases, the Advisory Opinions are not binding on the United Nations. The budget of the International Court of Justice accounts for less than one per cent of the regular budget of the United Nations. Since its establishment, the court has dealt with 161 cases. It is not a criminal court. It does not take up cases related to individuals.

Everything you wanted to know about the International Court of Justice

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/dalveer-bhandari-re-elected-icj-judge-britain-pulls-out-24693">Dalveer Bhandari who was re-elected </a>to the International Court of Justice after Britain pulled out of the race thanked the Indian government on Tuesday.

&quot;The win wouldn&#39;t have been possible without the support of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/proud-moment-for-us-pm-modi-on-justice-dalveer-bhandaris-re-election-to-icj-24713">PM Narendra Modi and Sushma Swaraj</a>,&quot; Dalveer Bhandari said, adding,&quot;the win happened due to coincidence.&quot;

Reflecting on the victory, Bhandari said India is known as an &quot;emerging nation worldwide&quot;.

&quot;The voice of every nation in the UN should be fully heard,&quot; Bhandari said.&nbsp;

&quot;Reforms are imperative at the UN,&quot; he added.

Dalveer Bhandari&#39;s candidature was opposed by UN&#39;s permanent security member Britain unnerving&nbsp;Indian officials at the ICJ, however, the British government decided to pull out, in the end, ensuring victory for Bhandari.

Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York.

Britain&#39;s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said,&quot;The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections.&quot;

&quot;We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates,&quot; he said.

&quot;If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead,&quot; Rycroft added.

Reflecting on the victory, Bhandari said India is known as an "emerging nation worldwide"

Dalveer Bhandari who was re-elected to the International Court of Justice after Britain pulled out of the race thanked the Indian government on Tuesday. "The win wouldn't have been possible without the support of PM Narendra Modi and Sushma Swaraj," Dalveer Bhandari said, adding,"the win happened due to coincidence." Reflecting on the victory, Bhandari said India is known as an "emerging nation worldwide". "The voice of every nation in the UN should be fully heard," Bhandari said. "Reforms are imperative at the UN," he added. Dalveer Bhandari's candidature was opposed by UN's permanent security member Britain unnerving Indian officials at the ICJ, however, the British government decided to pull out, in the end, ensuring victory for Bhandari. Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York. Britain's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said,"The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections." "We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates," he said. "If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead," Rycroft added.

India an emerging nation, win at ICJ a coincidence, says Dalveer Bhandari after re-election

Congratulatory messages have been pouring in for Justice Dalveer Bhandari on his re-election to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday.

Justice Bhandari was re-elected to the last seat of the Hague-based ICJ after Britain withdrew its candidate from the election.

&quot;I congratulate Justice Dalveer Bhandari on being re-elected to the International Court of Justice. His re-election is a proud moment for us,&quot; Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted on Tuesday morning.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I congratulate Justice Dalveer Bhandari on being re-elected to the International Court of Justice. His re-election is a proud moment for us.
&mdash; Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/932831272929345536?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 21, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

&quot;Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. JaiHind,&quot; tweeted External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj.

Bhandari, India&#39;s nominee, received 183-193 votes in the United Nations General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York.

He will start his term from February 2018.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Dalveer Bhandari of India ???? is elected by <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/UNGA?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#UNGA</a> and the Security Council as a member of the International Court of Justice (<a href="https://twitter.com/CIJ_ICJ?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@cij_icj</a>) for the term 2018-2027. 
?? Watch Full &rarr; <a href="https://t.co/nqUvZqKq6v">https://t.co/nqUvZqKq6v</a> 
What is the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ICJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ICJ</a>? Full explainer&rarr; <a href="https://t.co/diHJdvy9pU">https://t.co/diHJdvy9pU</a> <a href="https://t.co/eQr1uKkYP2">pic.twitter.com/eQr1uKkYP2</a>
&mdash; UN Web TV (@UNWebTV) <a href="https://twitter.com/UNWebTV/status/932736875198140416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&nbsp;

Britain&#39;s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft congratulated the successful candidates, including Judge Bhandari of India.

&quot;If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead. We will continue to cooperate closely with India, here in the United Nations and globally,&quot; he said.

Earlier, it appeared that there was a neck-and-neck contest between Bhandari and Greenwood.

&quot;We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates,&quot; Rycroft said.

Britain&#39;s withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there will not be a British judge on the UN&#39;s most powerful court for the first time in its history.

Justice Bhandari was re-elected to the last seat of the Hague-based ICJ after Britain withdrew its candidate from the election.

Congratulatory messages have been pouring in for Justice Dalveer Bhandari on his re-election to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Monday. Justice Bhandari was re-elected to the last seat of the Hague-based ICJ after Britain withdrew its candidate from the election. "I congratulate Justice Dalveer Bhandari on being re-elected to the International Court of Justice. His re-election is a proud moment for us," Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted on Tuesday morning. I congratulate Justice Dalveer Bhandari on being re-elected to the International Court of Justice. His re-election is a proud moment for us. — Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) November 21, 2017 × "Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. JaiHind," tweeted External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj. Bhandari, India's nominee, received 183-193 votes in the United Nations General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York. He will start his term from February 2018. Dalveer Bhandari of India ???? is elected by #UNGA and the Security Council as a member of the International Court of Justice (@cij_icj) for the term 2018-2027. ?? Watch Full → https://t.co/nqUvZqKq6v What is the #ICJ? Full explainer→ https://t.co/diHJdvy9pU pic.twitter.com/eQr1uKkYP2 — UN Web TV (@UNWebTV) November 20, 2017 × Britain's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft congratulated the successful candidates, including Judge Bhandari of India. "If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead. We will continue to cooperate closely with India, here in the United Nations and globally," he said. Earlier, it appeared that there was a neck-and-neck contest between Bhandari and Greenwood. "We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates," Rycroft said. Britain's withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there will not be a British judge on the UN's most powerful court for the first time in its history.

'Proud moment for us': PM Modi on Justice Dalveer Bhandari's re-election to ICJ

Dalveer <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/we-need-to-do-an-effective-job-in-persuading-the-brits-to-step-down-shashi-tharoor-to-wion-24605">Bhandari was re-elected to the International</a> Court of Justice (ICJ) after Britain withdrew its candidate for election to the world court as the battle for the last seat concluded peacefully on Monday.

Earlier, Britain as a permanent member of &nbsp;UN Security Council(UNSC) had threatened to use a mechanism of Joint Conference to thwart Dalveer Bhandari&#39;s&nbsp;re-election chances even though nearly two-thirds of members of the UN General Assembly supported the Indian candidate.

Soon after the election results were announced, India&#39;s Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin was congratulated by representatives of other countries on the floor of the General Assembly.

India&#39;s external affairs minister tweeted on India&#39;s victory, saying: &quot;Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. Hai Hind.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. JaiHind. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ICJ?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#ICJ</a>
&mdash; Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) <a href="https://twitter.com/SushmaSwaraj/status/932716771685134338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

&quot;We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates,&quot; Britain&#39;s Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said.

&quot;If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead,&quot;&nbsp;he added.

Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York.

Rycroft, in a statement,&nbsp;said the UK had decided to withdraw Sir Chris Greenwood as a candidate for re-election as a Judge of the International Court of Justice.

&quot;The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections,&quot; he said.

Rycroft said that the UK will continue to support the work of the ICJ, &quot;in line with our commitment to the importance of the rule of law in the UN system and in the international community more generally&quot;.

The appointment to the highest court of justice became a bitter battle after the UK government sought to trigger the the Joint Conference mechanism comprising of three members each from the United Nations General Assembly(GA) and Security Council(SC) who would have used their powers to put Christopher Greenwood - the UK candidate on the hot seat instead of open voting to elect a judge to the ICJ.

However, in the end, Britain decided against using Joint Conference mechanism and pulled out of the race ensuring India&#39;s Dalveer Bhandari&#39;s candidature going through by a majority vote in the ICJ.&nbsp;

Britain&#39;s withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there won&#39;t&nbsp;a British judge on the UN&#39;s most powerful court for the first time in its history.

Based in The Hague, the ICJ has a bench of 15 judges, five of whom are elected every three years for a nine-year term.

Established in 1945, the role of the ICJ is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions.

The appointment to the highest court of justice became a bitter battle after the UK government sought to trigger the the Joint Conference mechanism

Dalveer Bhandari was re-elected to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) after Britain withdrew its candidate for election to the world court as the battle for the last seat concluded peacefully on Monday. Earlier, Britain as a permanent member of UN Security Council(UNSC) had threatened to use a mechanism of Joint Conference to thwart Dalveer Bhandari's re-election chances even though nearly two-thirds of members of the UN General Assembly supported the Indian candidate. Soon after the election results were announced, India's Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin was congratulated by representatives of other countries on the floor of the General Assembly. India's external affairs minister tweeted on India's victory, saying: "Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. Hai Hind." Vande Matram - India wins election to the International Court of Justice. JaiHind. #ICJ — Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) November 20, 2017 × "We are naturally disappointed, but it was a competitive field with six strong candidates," Britain's Permanent Representative to the United Nations Matthew Rycroft said. "If the UK could not win in this run-off, then we are pleased that it is a close friend like India that has done so instead," he added. Bhandari received 183-193 votes in the General Assembly and secured all the 15 votes in the Security Council after separate and simultaneous elections were held at the UN headquarters in New York. Rycroft, in a statement, said the UK had decided to withdraw Sir Chris Greenwood as a candidate for re-election as a Judge of the International Court of Justice. "The UK has concluded that it is wrong to continue to take up the valuable time of the Security Council and the UN General Assembly with further rounds of elections," he said. Rycroft said that the UK will continue to support the work of the ICJ, "in line with our commitment to the importance of the rule of law in the UN system and in the international community more generally". The appointment to the highest court of justice became a bitter battle after the UK government sought to trigger the the Joint Conference mechanism comprising of three members each from the United Nations General Assembly(GA) and Security Council(SC) who would have used their powers to put Christopher Greenwood - the UK candidate on the hot seat instead of open voting to elect a judge to the ICJ. However, in the end, Britain decided against using Joint Conference mechanism and pulled out of the race ensuring India's Dalveer Bhandari's candidature going through by a majority vote in the ICJ. Britain's withdrawal from the election to the prestigious world court would mean that there won't a British judge on the UN's most powerful court for the first time in its history. Based in The Hague, the ICJ has a bench of 15 judges, five of whom are elected every three years for a nine-year term. Established in 1945, the role of the ICJ is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions.

Britain congratulates India as Dalveer Bhandari gets re-elected as ICJ judge

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are &#39;unnerved&#39; by the prospect of India&#39;s nominee Dalveer Bhandari winning against Britain&#39;s candidate in the election to the last seat of the World Court as it would set a precedent that may challenge their power in the future, observers here feel.

Bhandari and Britain&#39;s Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice, the sources say.

The permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, Russia, France, and China -- appeared to have rallied behind Greenwood. Britain is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council.

In the 11 rounds of an election so far, Bhandari has been receiving the support of nearly two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly but is trailing by three votes against Greenwood in the Security Council.

The 12th round of elections has been scheduled for Monday.

Britain on Friday in an informal consultation of the UN Security Council members mooted the idea of joint conference mechanism as it feels that this could be their only face-saving exit strategy, informed sources said.

As shared with other members of the Security Council during informal consultations, Britain would prefer to stop voting on the ICJ elections&nbsp;after the first round as it fears that otherwise, India could well cross the two-thirds mark. In that scenario, it would be very difficult for the UN Security Council stop India&#39;s candidate from being elected to the ICJ.

However, the prospect of India winning against a P5 member through democratic means is something that this elite club of veto-wielding countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - are unnerved with, because this would set a precedent that they do not want to be repeated.

&quot;Today it is Britain, tomorrow it could be any one of us&quot; is the argument which has brought all these five countries together, sources say.

&quot;If the one (of the P5) is going to be knocked off today, the other fear that they might be knocked off tomorrow,&quot; according to a source.

Such an assessment of the UN insiders is based on informed sources, as voting for the ICJ election in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are based on secret ballots and there is no way to know who voted for whom.

In all the rounds of the election so far, Greenwood has consistently got nine votes and Bhandari five in the Security Council. It is likely that on Monday India might increase its tally.

It is understood that both New Delhi and Permanent Mission of India to the UN have been working overtime to convince the members of the Security Council on the need to go by the voice of the majority of the General Assembly.

But by Sunday evening it appeared that Britain was ready to execute its plan, as per which after the first round of voting they would call for a meeting of the Security Council and would seek a mandate to stop any further round of voting, and would call for adoption of joint conference mechanism, which was last adopted in 1921.

However, this might come as a silver lining for India, sources said.

This is because the Security Council vote to stop further rounds of the ICJ election would be open and not through a secret ballot.

As a result, countries, many of whom have been pledging friendship with India but secretly voting against its candidate would be exposed in the open of raising their hands against India. This is something that members of the Security Council would avoid.

Of the Permanent Five members, the US under President Donald Trump has just come out a 100-year plan of friendship with India and renamed Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region.

Incidentally, hours before the ICJ election, Trump would be meeting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley at the White House.

It is not sure if Trump plans to weigh in on this issue in favor of India.

Trump has repeatedly called himself as the &quot;best friend of India and Indian Americans&quot; in the White House.

Russia is an all-weather tested friend of India. Over the past several decades, France has emerged as a reliable friend of India.

The stand of China on a lot of issues is well known including India&#39;s membership to the Security Council and Beijing vetoing a move to designate Azhar Masood as a global terrorist by the UN.

So, it would be quite a surprise, if China favored an Indian candidate.

&quot;When chips are down, you always get support from developing countries,&quot; commented one India watcher at the UN.

The voting in the General Assembly which overwhelmingly favors India is reflective of the new global order, which is not pleasant to the world powers.

Despite best of the British effort, their vote tally in the General Assembly has decreased with every other round of voting.

India's nominee Dalveer Bhandari and Britain's Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice

The permanent members of the UN Security Council are 'unnerved' by the prospect of India's nominee Dalveer Bhandari winning against Britain's candidate in the election to the last seat of the World Court as it would set a precedent that may challenge their power in the future, observers here feel. Bhandari and Britain's Christopher Greenwood are locked in a neck-and-neck fight for re-election to the Hague-based International Court of Justice, the sources say. The permanent members of the Security Council -- the US, Russia, France, and China -- appeared to have rallied behind Greenwood. Britain is the fifth permanent member of the Security Council. In the 11 rounds of an election so far, Bhandari has been receiving the support of nearly two-thirds of the members of the General Assembly but is trailing by three votes against Greenwood in the Security Council. The 12th round of elections has been scheduled for Monday. Britain on Friday in an informal consultation of the UN Security Council members mooted the idea of joint conference mechanism as it feels that this could be their only face-saving exit strategy, informed sources said. As shared with other members of the Security Council during informal consultations, Britain would prefer to stop voting on the ICJ elections after the first round as it fears that otherwise, India could well cross the two-thirds mark. In that scenario, it would be very difficult for the UN Security Council stop India's candidate from being elected to the ICJ. However, the prospect of India winning against a P5 member through democratic means is something that this elite club of veto-wielding countries - Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States - are unnerved with, because this would set a precedent that they do not want to be repeated. "Today it is Britain, tomorrow it could be any one of us" is the argument which has brought all these five countries together, sources say. "If the one (of the P5) is going to be knocked off today, the other fear that they might be knocked off tomorrow," according to a source. Such an assessment of the UN insiders is based on informed sources, as voting for the ICJ election in both the Security Council and the General Assembly are based on secret ballots and there is no way to know who voted for whom. In all the rounds of the election so far, Greenwood has consistently got nine votes and Bhandari five in the Security Council. It is likely that on Monday India might increase its tally. It is understood that both New Delhi and Permanent Mission of India to the UN have been working overtime to convince the members of the Security Council on the need to go by the voice of the majority of the General Assembly. But by Sunday evening it appeared that Britain was ready to execute its plan, as per which after the first round of voting they would call for a meeting of the Security Council and would seek a mandate to stop any further round of voting, and would call for adoption of joint conference mechanism, which was last adopted in 1921. However, this might come as a silver lining for India, sources said. This is because the Security Council vote to stop further rounds of the ICJ election would be open and not through a secret ballot. As a result, countries, many of whom have been pledging friendship with India but secretly voting against its candidate would be exposed in the open of raising their hands against India. This is something that members of the Security Council would avoid. Of the Permanent Five members, the US under President Donald Trump has just come out a 100-year plan of friendship with India and renamed Asia-Pacific and the Indo-Pacific region. Incidentally, hours before the ICJ election, Trump would be meeting Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and his Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley at the White House. It is not sure if Trump plans to weigh in on this issue in favor of India. Trump has repeatedly called himself as the "best friend of India and Indian Americans" in the White House. Russia is an all-weather tested friend of India. Over the past several decades, France has emerged as a reliable friend of India. The stand of China on a lot of issues is well known including India's membership to the Security Council and Beijing vetoing a move to designate Azhar Masood as a global terrorist by the UN. So, it would be quite a surprise, if China favored an Indian candidate. "When chips are down, you always get support from developing countries," commented one India watcher at the UN. The voting in the General Assembly which overwhelmingly favors India is reflective of the new global order, which is not pleasant to the world powers. Despite best of the British effort, their vote tally in the General Assembly has decreased with every other round of voting.

UNSC permanent members unnerved by prospect of India's nominee winning ICJ election: Observers

India on Wednesday submitted its written pleadings to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former naval officer of the country whose death sentence by a Pakistan military court for alleged espionage had been suspended by the UN top court pending its final judgement.

The contents of the submission will not be made public.

&quot;India has, today, submitted its Memorial (written pleadings) to the ICJ in the Jadhav case involving egregious violation of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 by Pakistan. This is in furtherance of our application filed before the Court on May 8, 2017,&quot; external affairs ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said.

The ICJ has suspended the death sentence of Jadhav -- pending final judgement -- by after India moved the court in May, requesting immediate suspension of the sentence.

After consultations with advocates from both sides, ICJ President Ronny Abraham, asked India to make its submissions by September 13 and Pakistan to make its counter-submissions by December 13 before it starts hearing the matter.

&quot;... At a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the Parties on 8 June 2017...The Agent of India requested that each Party be granted a period of four months for the preparation of its pleading; and whereas the Agent of Pakistan indicated that periods of two months would be sufficient,&quot; the UN top court, which is based in The Hague, had said.

&quot;Taking into account the views of the parties, the Court fixes the following time-limits for the filing of the written pleadings -13 September 2017 for the Memorial of India; 13 December 2017 for the Counter-Memorial of Pakistan; and Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision,&quot; it added.

Pakistan claims to have arrested Mr Jadhav from restive Balochistan in March last year.&nbsp;

India, however, &nbsp;maintains that he was kidnapped from Iran where he had legal business interests after retiring from the navy.

On April 10, Jadhav was given the death sentence by a military court in Pakistan for alleged &quot;espionage and subversive activities&quot;.&nbsp;

On May 8, India moved the ICJ for instituting proceedings against Pakistan for violating the Vienna Convention &quot;in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian National&quot; and requested immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to the accused.

On May 18, the UN top court asked Pakistan to not execute Mr Jadhav before they decide the case.

As its main argument, Pakistan claimed that Mr Jadhav had confessed to the crime in a video and accused India of using the ICJ for its political theatrics. &nbsp;

Pakistan&#39;s counsel Khawar Qureshi contended that the former naval officer entered into Islamabad through Iran using fake passport. He told the court that Pakistan had given India all information regarding Jadhav&#39;s investigation, but didn&#39;t receive any response from New Delhi.&nbsp;

India asserted that Mr Jadhav was forced into confessing by the military while in captivity and he was tried by a military court in Pakistan. 
&nbsp;

The ICJ has suspended the death sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav by a Pakistan court pending final judgement by it after India moved the court in May

India on Wednesday submitted its written pleadings to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former naval officer of the country whose death sentence by a Pakistan military court for alleged espionage had been suspended by the UN top court pending its final judgement. The contents of the submission will not be made public. "India has, today, submitted its Memorial (written pleadings) to the ICJ in the Jadhav case involving egregious violation of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 by Pakistan. This is in furtherance of our application filed before the Court on May 8, 2017," external affairs ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said. The ICJ has suspended the death sentence of Jadhav -- pending final judgement -- by after India moved the court in May, requesting immediate suspension of the sentence. After consultations with advocates from both sides, ICJ President Ronny Abraham, asked India to make its submissions by September 13 and Pakistan to make its counter-submissions by December 13 before it starts hearing the matter. "... At a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the Parties on 8 June 2017...The Agent of India requested that each Party be granted a period of four months for the preparation of its pleading; and whereas the Agent of Pakistan indicated that periods of two months would be sufficient," the UN top court, which is based in The Hague, had said. "Taking into account the views of the parties, the Court fixes the following time-limits for the filing of the written pleadings -13 September 2017 for the Memorial of India; 13 December 2017 for the Counter-Memorial of Pakistan; and Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision," it added. Pakistan claims to have arrested Mr Jadhav from restive Balochistan in March last year. India, however, maintains that he was kidnapped from Iran where he had legal business interests after retiring from the navy. On April 10, Jadhav was given the death sentence by a military court in Pakistan for alleged "espionage and subversive activities". On May 8, India moved the ICJ for instituting proceedings against Pakistan for violating the Vienna Convention "in the matter of the detention and trial of an Indian National" and requested immediate suspension of the sentence of death awarded to the accused. On May 18, the UN top court asked Pakistan to not execute Mr Jadhav before they decide the case. As its main argument, Pakistan claimed that Mr Jadhav had confessed to the crime in a video and accused India of using the ICJ for its political theatrics. Pakistan's counsel Khawar Qureshi contended that the former naval officer entered into Islamabad through Iran using fake passport. He told the court that Pakistan had given India all information regarding Jadhav's investigation, but didn't receive any response from New Delhi. India asserted that Mr Jadhav was forced into confessing by the military while in captivity and he was tried by a military court in Pakistan.

Kulbhushan Jadhav case: India submits written pleadings to the International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has asked India to make its submissions in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case by September 13, and Pakistan by December 13, the Ministry of External Affairs said today.

Asked if the hearing in the case would begin after the submissions of the two countries, external affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay said the court will decide if it needs more submissions and then take a call on the future course of action.

The external affairs ministry also dismissed reports in the Pakistani media that the ICJ had rejected New Delhi&#39;s request seeking more time to make its submissions.

Asked about Pakistan&#39;s claim that the court had rejected India&#39;s request for more time, Gopal Baglay said it was not true as India had sought four months for its submissions to which the court had agreed by fixing the deadline in September.

Gopal Baglay clarified that the timelines had been decided in the June 8 meeting that ICJ President Ronny Abraham had with the agents of the two countries.

Pakistan&#39;s Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali was quoted by Dawn News as saying that India had asked time till December 13 to file its pleadings in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case and that &quot;the court has dismissed their request&quot;.

&quot;India had adopted the stance that the matter was one of life and death, but Pakistan had stated that the ICJ is not a court of appeals.&nbsp;

The ICJ is supposed to conclude whether or not Jadhav can receive consular access, for which a time period of two to three months is more than enough to file a response,&quot; the Pakistan attorney general said.

A 10-member bench of the ICJ had restrained Pakistan from executing Kulbhushan Jadhav in a hearing on May 18.

The former navy officer, 46, has been awarded the death sentence by a Pakistan army court for his alleged &quot;involvement in espionage and terrorist activities in Pakistan&quot;.

India moved the ICJ against the death sentence on May 8, describing the charges against Jadhav as &quot;concocted&quot; and his trial as &quot;farcical&quot;.&nbsp;

 
&nbsp;

Pakistan has been asked by the court to complete its submission by December 13 this year, India's external affairs ministry said

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has asked India to make its submissions in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case by September 13, and Pakistan by December 13, the Ministry of External Affairs said today. Asked if the hearing in the case would begin after the submissions of the two countries, external affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay said the court will decide if it needs more submissions and then take a call on the future course of action. The external affairs ministry also dismissed reports in the Pakistani media that the ICJ had rejected New Delhi's request seeking more time to make its submissions. Asked about Pakistan's claim that the court had rejected India's request for more time, Gopal Baglay said it was not true as India had sought four months for its submissions to which the court had agreed by fixing the deadline in September. Gopal Baglay clarified that the timelines had been decided in the June 8 meeting that ICJ President Ronny Abraham had with the agents of the two countries. Pakistan's Attorney General Ashtar Ausaf Ali was quoted by Dawn News as saying that India had asked time till December 13 to file its pleadings in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case and that "the court has dismissed their request". "India had adopted the stance that the matter was one of life and death, but Pakistan had stated that the ICJ is not a court of appeals. The ICJ is supposed to conclude whether or not Jadhav can receive consular access, for which a time period of two to three months is more than enough to file a response," the Pakistan attorney general said. A 10-member bench of the ICJ had restrained Pakistan from executing Kulbhushan Jadhav in a hearing on May 18. The former navy officer, 46, has been awarded the death sentence by a Pakistan army court for his alleged "involvement in espionage and terrorist activities in Pakistan". India moved the ICJ against the death sentence on May 8, describing the charges against Jadhav as "concocted" and his trial as "farcical".

Kulbhushan Jadhav case: ICJ asks India to make submissions by September 13

The Pakistani civilian government seems to have little information on Kulbhushan Jadhav -- it is the Pakistani military which is in the know -- because of which its legal team at the International Court of Justice was ill-prepared, sources have told WION.&nbsp;

Sources in the Pakistani administration told WION that a number of Pakistani MPs were left unsatisfied after a meeting of the parliamentary committee on national security on&nbsp;Tuesday, and that they left the meeting with a number of unanswered questions.&nbsp;

The gist of what the sources said was -- the Pakistani civilian government has little information on Jadhav.&nbsp;

That its legal team at the ICJ was therefore ill-prepared, leading to the court ordering Pakistan to not execute Jadhav until it has decided whether it will hear the case.&nbsp;

The sources told WION that the MPs feel the civilian government needs to push the military to share more information on Jadhav.&nbsp;

And that they feel Pakistan needs to expand its legal team -- while retaining Khawar Qureshi, who has so far led the team -- fighting the case at the ICJ.&nbsp;

The sources said the names of potential new lawyers were discussed at the meeting.&nbsp;

The sources also said the committee will meet again on May 30.&nbsp;

And that it is meeting so soon again because of the unanswered questions left over from Tuesday&#39;s meeting.&nbsp;

Pakistan accuses Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer, of spying in Balochistan.&nbsp;A Pakistani military court sentenced him to death in April.&nbsp;

India has taken Pakistan to the ICJ, accusing Pakistan of not allowing India consular access to Jadhav.&nbsp;That, India says, violates a treaty guaranteeing diplomatic assistance to foreigners accused of crimes.&nbsp;

(WION)

 
&nbsp;

The lack of info led to Pakistan's legal team at the ICJ being ill-prepared

The Pakistani civilian government seems to have little information on Kulbhushan Jadhav -- it is the Pakistani military which is in the know -- because of which its legal team at the International Court of Justice was ill-prepared, sources have told WION. Sources in the Pakistani administration told WION that a number of Pakistani MPs were left unsatisfied after a meeting of the parliamentary committee on national security on Tuesday, and that they left the meeting with a number of unanswered questions. The gist of what the sources said was -- the Pakistani civilian government has little information on Jadhav. That its legal team at the ICJ was therefore ill-prepared, leading to the court ordering Pakistan to not execute Jadhav until it has decided whether it will hear the case. The sources told WION that the MPs feel the civilian government needs to push the military to share more information on Jadhav. And that they feel Pakistan needs to expand its legal team -- while retaining Khawar Qureshi, who has so far led the team -- fighting the case at the ICJ. The sources said the names of potential new lawyers were discussed at the meeting. The sources also said the committee will meet again on May 30. And that it is meeting so soon again because of the unanswered questions left over from Tuesday's meeting. Pakistan accuses Jadhav, a former Indian Navy officer, of spying in Balochistan. A Pakistani military court sentenced him to death in April. India has taken Pakistan to the ICJ, accusing Pakistan of not allowing India consular access to Jadhav. That, India says, violates a treaty guaranteeing diplomatic assistance to foreigners accused of crimes. (WION)

Pak civilian govt has little info on Kulbhushan Jadhav & Army is not sharing

Pakistan has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hold an early hearing in the case of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a military court, a media report said today.

The Express Tribune, citing sources, reported that the Pakistan Foreign Office has sent a letter to the Hague-based ICJ&#39;s registrar, expressing Pakistan&#39;s desire for a quick hearing, preferably over the next few weeks.

The request was made in view of the upcoming elections for ICJ judges, scheduled to be held in November, it quoted the sources as saying.

A senior official, however, was quoted as saying that the ICJ might resume the hearing in the case in October.

&quot;The government (however) wants the hearing (to be held in the) next six weeks,&quot; he said.

Pakistan&#39;s attorney-general Ashtar Ausaf Ali is expected to attend the ICJ proceedings.

The federal government, however, has not taken any decision about replacing Pakistan&#39;s attorney Khawar Quraishi.

&quot;His performance is satisfactory...He raised all (relevant) legal points during the hearing,&quot; a senior official of the law ministry was quoted as saying.

The report, citing sources, also said the government was considering a few names for nominating them for the post of ad-hoc ICJ judge.

The name of a senior lawyer was also under consideration, it said.

The report comes just days after ICJ stayed Jadhav&#39;s execution and also endorsed the Indian request for consular access to him.

India on May 8 had moved the ICJ against the death penalty handed down to Jadhav by a Pakistani military court.

Legal experts were beginning to wonder why Pakistan wants to appoint a foreigner as an ad-hoc judge when every state prefers to nominate its own lawyers, the report said.

They are calling on the attorney-general&#39;s office to consult local lawyers before finalising a legal strategy in this regard, it said.

A senior lawyer, with vast experience of international arbitration, was quoted as saying that it was necessary to revamp the legal wing of the Foreign Office because it failed to give proper advice to deal with Jadhav&#39;s case.

Pakistan Bar Council&#39;s (PBC) executive member Raheel Kamran Sheikh expressed concern over Pakistan&#39;s dismal success rate in international arbitration at just two per cent.

He pointed out that &quot;India&#39;s success rate was 60 per cent&quot;.

&quot;We have lost important cases at international forums over the past couple of years, while spending more than a billion rupees in lawyers&#39; fees,&quot; he said.

According to Sheikh, the mishandling of Jadhav&#39;s case was a classic example of how the power struggle between military and political institutions played out and gaps in foreign policy and national security perspectives grew.

&quot;State may suffer irreparable damage if gaps are not immediately bridged...In the national interest by both centres of power,&quot; Sheikh said.

A senior official in the attorney-general&#39;s office was quoted as saying that although India got the stay on Jadhav&#39;s execution, ultimately Pakistan would win the case.

&quot;We are in no hurry to execute him (Jadhav) as he is making more disclosures,&quot; he claimed.

Jadhav&#39;s case is the latest flash-point in the tensions between Pakistan and India. The two countries last faced off at the ICJ 18 years ago when Islamabad sought its intervention over the shooting down of its naval aircraft.

(PTI)

 
&nbsp;

The request was reportedly made in view of the upcoming elections for ICJ judges which are scheduled to be held in November

Pakistan has asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hold an early hearing in the case of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a military court, a media report said today. The Express Tribune, citing sources, reported that the Pakistan Foreign Office has sent a letter to the Hague-based ICJ's registrar, expressing Pakistan's desire for a quick hearing, preferably over the next few weeks. The request was made in view of the upcoming elections for ICJ judges, scheduled to be held in November, it quoted the sources as saying. A senior official, however, was quoted as saying that the ICJ might resume the hearing in the case in October. "The government (however) wants the hearing (to be held in the) next six weeks," he said. Pakistan's attorney-general Ashtar Ausaf Ali is expected to attend the ICJ proceedings. The federal government, however, has not taken any decision about replacing Pakistan's attorney Khawar Quraishi. "His performance is satisfactory...He raised all (relevant) legal points during the hearing," a senior official of the law ministry was quoted as saying. The report, citing sources, also said the government was considering a few names for nominating them for the post of ad-hoc ICJ judge. The name of a senior lawyer was also under consideration, it said. The report comes just days after ICJ stayed Jadhav's execution and also endorsed the Indian request for consular access to him. India on May 8 had moved the ICJ against the death penalty handed down to Jadhav by a Pakistani military court. Legal experts were beginning to wonder why Pakistan wants to appoint a foreigner as an ad-hoc judge when every state prefers to nominate its own lawyers, the report said. They are calling on the attorney-general's office to consult local lawyers before finalising a legal strategy in this regard, it said. A senior lawyer, with vast experience of international arbitration, was quoted as saying that it was necessary to revamp the legal wing of the Foreign Office because it failed to give proper advice to deal with Jadhav's case. Pakistan Bar Council's (PBC) executive member Raheel Kamran Sheikh expressed concern over Pakistan's dismal success rate in international arbitration at just two per cent. He pointed out that "India's success rate was 60 per cent". "We have lost important cases at international forums over the past couple of years, while spending more than a billion rupees in lawyers' fees," he said. According to Sheikh, the mishandling of Jadhav's case was a classic example of how the power struggle between military and political institutions played out and gaps in foreign policy and national security perspectives grew. "State may suffer irreparable damage if gaps are not immediately bridged...In the national interest by both centres of power," Sheikh said. A senior official in the attorney-general's office was quoted as saying that although India got the stay on Jadhav's execution, ultimately Pakistan would win the case. "We are in no hurry to execute him (Jadhav) as he is making more disclosures," he claimed. Jadhav's case is the latest flash-point in the tensions between Pakistan and India. The two countries last faced off at the ICJ 18 years ago when Islamabad sought its intervention over the shooting down of its naval aircraft. (PTI)

Pakistan asks ICJ for early hearing in Jadhav case: Report

As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) temporarily put a stay on the death sentence awarded to the alleged Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav by a Pakistan military court, former attorney general Soli Sorabjee on Friday asserted that the verdict is just a small beginning and the matter should not be over-blown as the victory is yet to be achieved.

&quot;It is just a beginning of the good steps. But it is not the victory. This is the preliminary step. Of course, it is something we should be happy about, but we should not over-blow it,&quot; Sorabjee told ANI.

He said the ICJ verdict on Jadhav proves that the somewhere the international court believes that there is substance in India&#39;s allegations.

Commenting on the speculation being raised that whether Pakistan will accept the verdict passed by the ICJ or not, Sorabjee said that Islamabad has no other option other than to accept the order.

&quot;Pakistan has to accept the order of the International Court of Justice.Otherwise, it will be political suicide and Pakistan cannot afford to do that and I don&#39;t think it will do it,&quot; he said.

Earlier on Thursday, the ICJ stayed the execution and upheld India&#39;s right to have consular access to the former naval officer who has been declared spy by&nbsp;Pakistan and been awarded death sentence for espionage.

Justice Ronny Abraham of the ICJ asserted that the case was indeed debatable, while also adding that the ICJ had prime facie jurisdiction in the case.

The final verdict in the case is expected in August.

The only condition under which Jadhav now stands to face execution is if Islamabad does not comply with the ICJ&#39;s decision.

India can then go to the Security Council, which may then decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgement.

(ANI)

Sorabjee said the ICJ verdict on Jadhav proves that the somewhere the international court believes that there is substance in India's allegations

As the International Court of Justice (ICJ) temporarily put a stay on the death sentence awarded to the alleged Indian spy Kulbhushan Jadhav by a Pakistan military court, former attorney general Soli Sorabjee on Friday asserted that the verdict is just a small beginning and the matter should not be over-blown as the victory is yet to be achieved. "It is just a beginning of the good steps. But it is not the victory. This is the preliminary step. Of course, it is something we should be happy about, but we should not over-blow it," Sorabjee told ANI. He said the ICJ verdict on Jadhav proves that the somewhere the international court believes that there is substance in India's allegations. Commenting on the speculation being raised that whether Pakistan will accept the verdict passed by the ICJ or not, Sorabjee said that Islamabad has no other option other than to accept the order. "Pakistan has to accept the order of the International Court of Justice.Otherwise, it will be political suicide and Pakistan cannot afford to do that and I don't think it will do it," he said. Earlier on Thursday, the ICJ stayed the execution and upheld India's right to have consular access to the former naval officer who has been declared spy by Pakistan and been awarded death sentence for espionage. Justice Ronny Abraham of the ICJ asserted that the case was indeed debatable, while also adding that the ICJ had prime facie jurisdiction in the case. The final verdict in the case is expected in August. The only condition under which Jadhav now stands to face execution is if Islamabad does not comply with the ICJ's decision. India can then go to the Security Council, which may then decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgement. (ANI)

ICJ's Jadhav verdict just a beginning, not victory: Ex-attorney general Sorabjee

The UN&#39;s top court is to rule Thursday on an urgent bid by India to stop Pakistan from carrying out a death sentence imposed on an Indian national convicted of spying.

In an emergency hearing on Monday held only days after India lodged its case, lawyers for New Delhi called on the International Court of Justice to order Islamabad to suspend its execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav.

Jadhav was arrested in the southwestern province of Balochistan in March 2016 and Pakistani officials claim he has confessed to spying for Indian intelligence services.

A military court in Pakistan sentenced him to death last month.&nbsp;

The UN tribunal, based in The Hague, said in a statement issued Wednesday that it &quot;will deliver its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures made by India in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), tomorrow on Thursday 18 May 2017&quot;.

The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, will read out the decision at 3.30 pm.

The case, a rare foray for the two nations into the international courts, has highlighted the recent sharp upsurge in tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Locals hold &#39;Hawan&#39; in Mumbai, ahead International Court of Justice&#39;s verdict on <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KulbhushanJadhav?src=hash">#KulbhushanJadhav</a> today <a href="https://t.co/aimuMc3mbf">pic.twitter.com/aimuMc3mbf</a>
&mdash; ANI (@ANI_news) <a href="https://twitter.com/ANI_news/status/865059221401776128">May 18, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

India has denied Jadhav was a spy, and on Monday accused Pakistan of &quot;egregious violations of the Vienna convention&quot; by denying him access to legal counsel and consular visits, and refusing to reveal the charge sheet against him.

It wants the ICJ to decide whether Pakistan has broken the convention and international human rights law.

But in the meantime as the court considers whether to take up India&#39;&#39;s case, New Delhi asked the tribunal to order a stay of execution until the end of the legal battle.

Jadhav was &quot;an innocent Indian national, who, incarcerated in Pakistan for more than a year on concocted charges ... has been held incommunicado... and faces imminent execution,&quot; Indian lawyer Deepak Mittal told the tribunal Monday.

But Pakistani representatives accused New Delhi of &quot;political grandstanding&quot; and told the court Jadhav &quot;has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocent civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan&quot;.

Lawyer Khawar Qureshi denied the execution was imminent, though he did not give a timeframe.

The ICJ was set up in 1945 to rule on disputes between nations in accordance with international law.

The last time India and Pakistan took a dispute to the ICJ was in 1999 when Islamabad protested against the downing of a Pakistani navy plane that killed 16 people.

In that case, the tribunal decided it was not competent to rule in the dispute and closed the case.

India and Pakistan routinely accuse one another of sending spies into their countries, and it is not uncommon for either nation to expel diplomats accused of espionage, particularly at times of high tension.

But death sentences have rarely been issued in recent years.&nbsp;

(AFP)

The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, will read out the decision at 3.30 pm

The UN's top court is to rule Thursday on an urgent bid by India to stop Pakistan from carrying out a death sentence imposed on an Indian national convicted of spying. In an emergency hearing on Monday held only days after India lodged its case, lawyers for New Delhi called on the International Court of Justice to order Islamabad to suspend its execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav. Jadhav was arrested in the southwestern province of Balochistan in March 2016 and Pakistani officials claim he has confessed to spying for Indian intelligence services. A military court in Pakistan sentenced him to death last month. The UN tribunal, based in The Hague, said in a statement issued Wednesday that it "will deliver its order on the request for the indication of provisional measures made by India in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan), tomorrow on Thursday 18 May 2017". The president of the court, Ronny Abraham, will read out the decision at 3.30 pm. The case, a rare foray for the two nations into the international courts, has highlighted the recent sharp upsurge in tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals. Locals hold 'Hawan' in Mumbai, ahead International Court of Justice's verdict on #KulbhushanJadhav today pic.twitter.com/aimuMc3mbf — ANI (@ANI_news) May 18, 2017 × India has denied Jadhav was a spy, and on Monday accused Pakistan of "egregious violations of the Vienna convention" by denying him access to legal counsel and consular visits, and refusing to reveal the charge sheet against him. It wants the ICJ to decide whether Pakistan has broken the convention and international human rights law. But in the meantime as the court considers whether to take up India''s case, New Delhi asked the tribunal to order a stay of execution until the end of the legal battle. Jadhav was "an innocent Indian national, who, incarcerated in Pakistan for more than a year on concocted charges ... has been held incommunicado... and faces imminent execution," Indian lawyer Deepak Mittal told the tribunal Monday. But Pakistani representatives accused New Delhi of "political grandstanding" and told the court Jadhav "has confessed to having been sent by India to wage terror on the innocent civilians and infrastructure of Pakistan". Lawyer Khawar Qureshi denied the execution was imminent, though he did not give a timeframe. The ICJ was set up in 1945 to rule on disputes between nations in accordance with international law. The last time India and Pakistan took a dispute to the ICJ was in 1999 when Islamabad protested against the downing of a Pakistani navy plane that killed 16 people. In that case, the tribunal decided it was not competent to rule in the dispute and closed the case. India and Pakistan routinely accuse one another of sending spies into their countries, and it is not uncommon for either nation to expel diplomats accused of espionage, particularly at times of high tension. But death sentences have rarely been issued in recent years. (AFP)

International Court of Justice to rule on Kulbhushan Jadhav case today

Pakistan&#39;s defence minister&nbsp;Khawaja&nbsp;Asif has termed India&#39;s letter to International Court of Justice(ICJ) over the execution&nbsp;of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadav as &quot;an attempt to divert attention from state-sponsored terrorism in Pakistan&quot;. Pakistan&#39;s defence minister added, &quot;Kulbhushan has been convicted of offences against national security.&quot;&nbsp;

Earlier today the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stayed the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav who was sentenced to death by a Pakistan military court over charges of &quot;spying&quot;.

India&#39;s minister of state for external affairs&nbsp;V.K. Singh said, &quot;ICJ&#39;s approval to our stand proves that India was always right in saying that Pakistan was unnecessarily playing politics by giving a penalty of death sentence to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav.&quot;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Indian letter to ICJ attempt to divert attention frm state sponsored terrorism in Pak.Kulbushan convicted of offences against Nat security
&mdash; Khawaja M. Asif (@KhawajaMAsif) <a href="https://twitter.com/KhawajaMAsif/status/862215880880644096">May 10, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

The Hague-based ICJ stayed the hanging&nbsp;following India&#39;s submission that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business after retiring from the Indian Navy.

Jadhav&#39;s&nbsp;death sentence, which was given last month, had evoked a sharp reaction from India with the country warning Pakistan of consequences and damage to bilateral ties if the &quot;pre-meditated murder&quot; was carried out.

In its appeal to ICJ, India had accused&nbsp;Pakistan of &quot;egregious&quot; violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relation.

India had acknowledged that Jadhav had served with the Navy but denied that he had any connection with the government.

India&#39;s minister of external affairs, Sushma Swaraj tweeted saying, senior advocate, Harish Salve is representing India before ICJ.&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
Mr.Harish Salve, Senior Advocate is representing India before International Court of Justice in the <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KulbhushanJadhav?src=hash">#KulbhushanJadhav</a> case.
&mdash; Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) <a href="https://twitter.com/SushmaSwaraj/status/862014203506421760">May 9, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
I have spoken to the mother of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/KulbhushanJadhav?src=hash">#KulbhushanJadhav</a> and told her about the order of President, ICJ under Art 74 Paragraph 4 of Rules of Court.
&mdash; Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) <a href="https://twitter.com/SushmaSwaraj/status/862013393452105733">May 9, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

(WION with inputs from PTI)

Pakistan's defence minister has said Kulbhushan has been convicted of "offences against national security"

Pakistan's defence minister Khawaja Asif has termed India's letter to International Court of Justice(ICJ) over the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadav as "an attempt to divert attention from state-sponsored terrorism in Pakistan". Pakistan's defence minister added, "Kulbhushan has been convicted of offences against national security." Earlier today the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stayed the execution of Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav who was sentenced to death by a Pakistan military court over charges of "spying". India's minister of state for external affairs V.K. Singh said, "ICJ's approval to our stand proves that India was always right in saying that Pakistan was unnecessarily playing politics by giving a penalty of death sentence to Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav." Indian letter to ICJ attempt to divert attention frm state sponsored terrorism in Pak.Kulbushan convicted of offences against Nat security — Khawaja M. Asif (@KhawajaMAsif) May 10, 2017 × The Hague-based ICJ stayed the hanging following India's submission that Jadhav was kidnapped from Iran where he was involved in business after retiring from the Indian Navy. Jadhav's death sentence, which was given last month, had evoked a sharp reaction from India with the country warning Pakistan of consequences and damage to bilateral ties if the "pre-meditated murder" was carried out. In its appeal to ICJ, India had accused Pakistan of "egregious" violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relation. India had acknowledged that Jadhav had served with the Navy but denied that he had any connection with the government. India's minister of external affairs, Sushma Swaraj tweeted saying, senior advocate, Harish Salve is representing India before ICJ. Mr.Harish Salve, Senior Advocate is representing India before International Court of Justice in the #KulbhushanJadhav case. — Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) May 9, 2017 × I have spoken to the mother of #KulbhushanJadhav and told her about the order of President, ICJ under Art 74 Paragraph 4 of Rules of Court. — Sushma Swaraj (@SushmaSwaraj) May 9, 2017 × (WION with inputs from PTI)

India's letter to International Court of Justice on Kulbhushan an attempt to divert attention: Pakistan

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will on Monday hold public hearings in the case of retired Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court.

The announcement was made by ICJ on Wednesday, a day after it stayed Jadhav&#39;s execution following India&#39;s initiation of proceedings against Pakistan, accusing it of &quot;egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations&quot;.

&quot;The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings on Monday, May 15, 2017...In the proceedings instituted by India on May 8, 2017 against Pakistan.

&quot;The hearings will be devoted to the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by India,&quot; the ICJ said in a release.

India had told ICJ that Jadhav &quot;will be subjected to execution unless the court indicates provisional measures directing the government of Pakistan to take all measures necessary to ensure that he is not executed until th(e) Court&#39;s decision on the merits&quot; of the case.

India also pointed out that Jadhav&#39;s execution &quot;would cause irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India&quot;.

Noting that India has been informed by the ICJ that an action has been initiated on the &quot;provisional measures&quot; sought by New Delhi, external affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay in New Delhi said there is &quot;legal juridical procedure&quot; that will be followed.

Earlier, the ICJ president wrote to Pakistan prime minister, saying, &quot;In my capacity as president of the court,... I call upon Your Excellency&#39;s government, pending the court&#39;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.&quot;

On whether the &quot;provisional measures&quot; granted by the ICJ including a halt to Jadhav&#39;s execution was binding on Pakistan, Baglay referred to the clauses in ICJ rules which said, &quot;a request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases&quot;.

India had submitted that it has information that Jadhav was &quot;kidnapped from Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring from the Indian Navy and was then shown to have been arrested in Balochistan&quot; on March 3, 2016, and that the Indian authorities were notified of that arrest on March 25, 2016, a ICJ press release had said yesterday.

Jadhav, 46, was given death sentence last month by the Field General Court Martial in Pakistan, evoking a sharp reaction in India which warned Pakistan of consequences and damage to bilateral ties if the &quot;premeditated murder&quot; was carried out.

Jadhav was sentenced to death for &quot;espionage and subversive activities&quot;.

India acknowledges that Jadhav had served with the Navy but denies that he has any connection with the government.

India has also handed over to Pakistan an appeal by Jadhav&#39;s mother, initiating a process to get his conviction overturned.

(PTI)

Jadhav, 46, was given death sentence last month by the Field General Court Martial in Pakistan, evoking a sharp reaction in India which warned Pakistan of consequences and damage to bilateral ties if the "premeditated murder" was carried out.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will on Monday hold public hearings in the case of retired Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav, who has been sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. The announcement was made by ICJ on Wednesday, a day after it stayed Jadhav's execution following India's initiation of proceedings against Pakistan, accusing it of "egregious violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations". "The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, will hold public hearings on Monday, May 15, 2017...In the proceedings instituted by India on May 8, 2017 against Pakistan. "The hearings will be devoted to the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by India," the ICJ said in a release. India had told ICJ that Jadhav "will be subjected to execution unless the court indicates provisional measures directing the government of Pakistan to take all measures necessary to ensure that he is not executed until th(e) Court's decision on the merits" of the case. India also pointed out that Jadhav's execution "would cause irreparable prejudice to the rights claimed by India". Noting that India has been informed by the ICJ that an action has been initiated on the "provisional measures" sought by New Delhi, external affairs ministry spokesperson Gopal Baglay in New Delhi said there is "legal juridical procedure" that will be followed. Earlier, the ICJ president wrote to Pakistan prime minister, saying, "In my capacity as president 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." On whether the "provisional measures" granted by the ICJ including a halt to Jadhav's execution was binding on Pakistan, Baglay referred to the clauses in ICJ rules which said, "a request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases". India had submitted that it has information that Jadhav was "kidnapped from Iran, where he was carrying on business after retiring from the Indian Navy and was then shown to have been arrested in Balochistan" on March 3, 2016, and that the Indian authorities were notified of that arrest on March 25, 2016, a ICJ press release had said yesterday. Jadhav, 46, was given death sentence last month by the Field General Court Martial in Pakistan, evoking a sharp reaction in India which warned Pakistan of consequences and damage to bilateral ties if the "premeditated murder" was carried out. Jadhav was sentenced to death for "espionage and subversive activities". India acknowledges that Jadhav had served with the Navy but denies that he has any connection with the government. India has also handed over to Pakistan an appeal by Jadhav's mother, initiating a process to get his conviction overturned. (PTI)

International Court of Justice to hold public hearings on Kulbhushan Jadhav case on May 15

Malaysia on Friday reopened a decades-old dispute with Singapore calling on the UN&#39;s top court to overturn a 2008 ruling granting its neighbour sovereignty over a tiny but strategic island.

In a filing to the International Court of Justice, Kuala Lumpur maintained new documents had been discovered in British archives backing its territorial claim to the islet.

For several decades, Malaysia had laid claim to the island it knows as Pulau Batu Puteh, while Singapore, which calls it Pedra Branca, argued sovereignty had passed to it tacitly.

The island is in a strategically important position, 7.7 nautical miles (14 kilometres) off Johor on the eastern approach to the Singapore Strait from the South China Sea.

Singapore had operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the granite island, whose names mean &quot;white rock&quot; in Malay and Portuguese, for more than 130 years without protest from its neighbour.

But in a new map of its maritime boundaries drawn up in 1980, Kuala Lumpur claimed the islet as its own.

After years of negotiations failed, the parties turned to the tribunal in The Hague, which in 2008 ruled the island belonged to Singapore.

But in its filing Friday, Malaysia asked the court to revise that judgement based on the discovery of three documents in the British national archives between August last year and the end of January.

They included internal correspondence from the Singapore colonial authorities in 1958, a British naval incident report from 1958 and a map from the 1960s.

Kuala Lumpur maintained these documents showed that &quot;officials at the highest levels in the British colonial and Singaporean administration appreciated that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore`s sovereign territory,&quot; the ICJ said in a statement.

Under the court&#39;s rules, states can ask for a judgement to be revised if new facts come to light within 10 years of the first ruling. 
The ICJ will now have to decide whether the case can proceed.

(AFP)

In a filing to the ICJ, Malaysia maintained new documents had been discovered in British archives backing its territorial claim to the islet

Malaysia on Friday reopened a decades-old dispute with Singapore calling on the UN's top court to overturn a 2008 ruling granting its neighbour sovereignty over a tiny but strategic island. In a filing to the International Court of Justice, Kuala Lumpur maintained new documents had been discovered in British archives backing its territorial claim to the islet. For several decades, Malaysia had laid claim to the island it knows as Pulau Batu Puteh, while Singapore, which calls it Pedra Branca, argued sovereignty had passed to it tacitly. The island is in a strategically important position, 7.7 nautical miles (14 kilometres) off Johor on the eastern approach to the Singapore Strait from the South China Sea. Singapore had operated the Horsburgh Lighthouse on the granite island, whose names mean "white rock" in Malay and Portuguese, for more than 130 years without protest from its neighbour. But in a new map of its maritime boundaries drawn up in 1980, Kuala Lumpur claimed the islet as its own. After years of negotiations failed, the parties turned to the tribunal in The Hague, which in 2008 ruled the island belonged to Singapore. But in its filing Friday, Malaysia asked the court to revise that judgement based on the discovery of three documents in the British national archives between August last year and the end of January. They included internal correspondence from the Singapore colonial authorities in 1958, a British naval incident report from 1958 and a map from the 1960s. Kuala Lumpur maintained these documents showed that "officials at the highest levels in the British colonial and Singaporean administration appreciated that Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh did not form part of Singapore`s sovereign territory," the ICJ said in a statement. Under the court's rules, states can ask for a judgement to be revised if new facts come to light within 10 years of the first ruling. The ICJ will now have to decide whether the case can proceed. (AFP)

Revise order on Singapore islet dispute in light of fresh evidence, Malaysia tells ICJ

Top UN court today rejected an epic case brought by the tiny Marshall Islands against India for allegedly failing to halt the nuclear arms race.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its ruling in the country&#39;s case against India, the first to be decided, said it had accepted Indian arguments that ICJ&nbsp;should not have jurisdiction in the case, international news agency Reuters reported.

&nbsp;

The 16-judge bench was quoted as saying by Reuters&nbsp;that while the Marshall Islands may not be satisfied with progress on nuclear disarmament, it had failed to show that it has any ongoing legal dispute with India fit for the court&nbsp;to adjudicate.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It later rejected the Marshall Islands&#39; suit against Pakistan on the same grounds. The third suit, against Britain, was still to be decided.

&nbsp;

The Pacific archipelago, whose territory was used for dozens of atomic-bomb tests by the United States after World War Two, had argued that nuclear powers weren&#39;t doing enough to adhere to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

In a majority verdict by nine votes to seven, &quot;the court upholds the objection to jurisdiction raised by India,&quot; presiding judge Ronny Abraham was quoted as saying by AFP, and therefore the tribunal &quot;cannot proceed to the merits of the case.&quot;

&nbsp;

The tribunal found it lacked the jurisdiction in the case as there had been no prior recorded dispute or negotiations over the nuclear issue between the Marshall Islands and India.

&nbsp;

Majuro in 2014 accused nine countries of failing to comply with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, ICJ failed to take up cases against other countries --China, France, Israel, North Korea, Russia and the United States -- as they have not recognised the court&#39;s jurisdiction.&nbsp;

&nbsp;

It&#39;s also pertinent to mention that India and Pakistan have not signed the NPT, that &nbsp;commits all nuclear weapon states &quot;to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.&quot;

&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from AFP, Reuters)&nbsp;

The top UN court said it had accepted the Indian arguments that ICJ should not have jurisdiction in the case

Top UN court today rejected an epic case brought by the tiny Marshall Islands against India for allegedly failing to halt the nuclear arms race. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in its ruling in the country's case against India, the first to be decided, said it had accepted Indian arguments that ICJ should not have jurisdiction in the case, international news agency Reuters reported. The 16-judge bench was quoted as saying by Reuters that while the Marshall Islands may not be satisfied with progress on nuclear disarmament, it had failed to show that it has any ongoing legal dispute with India fit for the court to adjudicate. It later rejected the Marshall Islands' suit against Pakistan on the same grounds. The third suit, against Britain, was still to be decided. The Pacific archipelago, whose territory was used for dozens of atomic-bomb tests by the United States after World War Two, had argued that nuclear powers weren't doing enough to adhere to the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In a majority verdict by nine votes to seven, "the court upholds the objection to jurisdiction raised by India," presiding judge Ronny Abraham was quoted as saying by AFP, and therefore the tribunal "cannot proceed to the merits of the case." The tribunal found it lacked the jurisdiction in the case as there had been no prior recorded dispute or negotiations over the nuclear issue between the Marshall Islands and India. Majuro in 2014 accused nine countries of failing to comply with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, ICJ failed to take up cases against other countries --China, France, Israel, North Korea, Russia and the United States -- as they have not recognised the court's jurisdiction. It's also pertinent to mention that India and Pakistan have not signed the NPT, that commits all nuclear weapon states "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament." (WION with inputs from AFP, Reuters)

International Court of Justice rejects Marshall Islands suit against India, Pakistan

The United Nation&#39;s highest court -- the International Court of Justice -- will decide today whether it will hear a case filed by the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the UK for failing to stop the nuclear arms race.

Between 1946 and 1958, the islands were subjected to a string of nuclear tests conducted by the US. And so the country understands the devastating effects of nuclear weapons, AFP reported.&nbsp;

The tiny country -- it has a population of 55,000 -- accuses the India, Pakistan, and Britain&nbsp;of failing to abide by the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty.&nbsp;(India and Pakistan have not signed the treaty.)&nbsp;

The Marshall Islands had in 2014&nbsp;filed the cases against&nbsp;nine countries but 6 of them -- China, France, Israel, North Korea, Russia, and the US --&nbsp;do not accept the ICJ&#39;s jurisdiction.&nbsp;

That leaves the court to decide whether it will&nbsp;hear the case against the other three.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The Pacific island nation aims to bring the issue of nuclear arms to the forefront so that talks on nuclear disarmament can be started again, AFP reported. &nbsp;

The country argues that as per the NPT, all nuclear powers need &quot;to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament&quot;.

Critics however argue the hearing is only a ruse to divert the islander&#39;s fight with the US which&nbsp;carried out the tests, AFP reported.&nbsp;

&#39;Several islands in my country were vapourised&#39;

At a March hearing, the islanders described the after-effects of 67 nuclear tests carried out on Bikini and Enewetak atolls, AFP reported.&nbsp;

Former foreign minister, Tony deBrum said, &quot;Several islands in my country were vapourised and others are estimated to remain uninhabitable for thousands of years.&quot;

&quot;The entire sky turned blood-red,&quot; he told the court.&nbsp;

(WION with inputs from agencies)

The tiny Pacific island nation of 55,000 accuses the three countries of failing to halt the nuclear arms race

The United Nation's highest court -- the International Court of Justice -- will decide today whether it will hear a case filed by the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the UK for failing to stop the nuclear arms race. Between 1946 and 1958, the islands were subjected to a string of nuclear tests conducted by the US. And so the country understands the devastating effects of nuclear weapons, AFP reported. The tiny country -- it has a population of 55,000 -- accuses the India, Pakistan, and Britain of failing to abide by the 1968 nuclear non-proliferation treaty. (India and Pakistan have not signed the treaty.) The Marshall Islands had in 2014 filed the cases against nine countries but 6 of them -- China, France, Israel, North Korea, Russia, and the US -- do not accept the ICJ's jurisdiction. That leaves the court to decide whether it will hear the case against the other three. The Pacific island nation aims to bring the issue of nuclear arms to the forefront so that talks on nuclear disarmament can be started again, AFP reported. The country argues that as per the NPT, all nuclear powers need "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament". Critics however argue the hearing is only a ruse to divert the islander's fight with the US which carried out the tests, AFP reported. 'Several islands in my country were vapourised' At a March hearing, the islanders described the after-effects of 67 nuclear tests carried out on Bikini and Enewetak atolls, AFP reported. Former foreign minister, Tony deBrum said, "Several islands in my country were vapourised and others are estimated to remain uninhabitable for thousands of years." "The entire sky turned blood-red," he told the court. (WION with inputs from agencies)

Top UN court to decide if it will hear Marshall Islands nuclear case against India, Pak & Britain

international-court-of-justice

International Court Of Justice, News on International Court Of Justice, stories on International Court Of Justice, articles on International Court Of Justice, International Court Of Justice stories at Wion, International Court Of Justice news, International Court Of Justice latest news

international court-of-justice