India's Legal Maneuvering: Indus Water Treaty and Pakistan's Diplomatic Dilemma
| India suspends Indus Treaty, cites Vienna Convention; Pakistan's ICJ access blocked by 2019 declaration, past threats remain unexecuted.Exclusive Input: @manojkumargupta n18oc_india
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
China's claim on Arunachal not supported by international law
China has once again renamed places in Arunachal Pradesh, this time as many as 27 of them, to reinforce its claim over the Indian State which it calls Zangnan. China claims that its effort to 'standardise' the names is fully within its sovereignty. It maintains that Arunachal Pradesh is in South Tibet, and cites the presence of the second-most important Tibetan Buddhism monastery in Tawang and the birth of the sixth Dalai Lama in Arunachal to support its claim. China's territorial claims in Arunachal Pradesh and its maritime claims covering most of the islands of the South China Sea are grounded in its perspective of international law, which is heavily based on sovereignty. Though the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence figure in China's vision of international law, the most elemental in China's view is the principle of sovereignty. China mixes its content of sovereignty with abundance of historical evidence to support its territorial and maritime claims which are at odds with the established principles of international law and are in contravention of the decisions of international courts and tribunals. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has expressly rejected on several occasions the mode of acquiring territory grounded in the reasoning of consolidation by historical title. In Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, the ICJ noted that 'the notion of historical consolidation has never been used as a basis of title in other territorial disputes, whether in its own or in other case law', and that 'the theory of historical consolidation is highly controversial and cannot replace the established modes of acquisition of title under international law, which takes into account many other important variables of fact and law' (ICJ Judgment 2002, Rep. 303, para. 65). Jianming Shen, Chinese scholar, defends consolidation by historical title in light of inter-temporal and international law. He argues that 'the evaluation and determination of historic titles should be made in light of the rules of international law which were in force at the time when such title was allegedly acquired, not in accordance with the rules of law at the time of subsequent disputes'. The first territorial dispute that went before the ICJ was relating to deciding the title of the Minquiers and Ecrehos (two groups of islets situated between the British island of Jersey and the coast of France). In the case, the court was asked to determine which of the parties had produced the more convincing proof of title to these group of islands. The ICJ did not consider indirect presumption from events in history, but evidence which relates directly to the possession of the Minquiers and Ecrehos group or in other words direct evidence of possession and the actual exercise of sovereignty (Minquiers and Ecrehos (Fr./UK), 1953 ICJ Rep. 47). After considering this evidence, the court arrived at the conclusion that the sovereignty over the Minquiers and Ecrehos belonged to the U.K. 'Uti Possidetis Juris' China's renaming exercise goes against another established principle of title to a territory, the principle of uti possidetis juris (Roman law rule translated as 'as you possess, so may you possess) that is the principle that the boundaries of newly independent states should follow those of the previous colonies. China does not recognise the McMahon line, drawn by the British colonial authorities in 1914 at the Anglo-Tibetan Shimla Conference, which established the boundary between British India and Tibet. Though Chinese representatives were present at Shimla, they refused to sign or recognise the accords on the basis that Tibet was under Chinese jurisdiction and therefore did not have the power to conclude treaties. The Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso and Mali) judgment by the ICJ in 1986 is illustrative of the principle of uti possidetis juris. The ICJ gave priority to the principle which accords preeminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty, and whose primary aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries which existed at the time when independence was achieved. The ICJ emphasised both its general applicability and the function of the principle in preventing 'the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the challenging of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power' (1986 ICJ Rep. 554, para.20). Maps and international law China tries to buttress its territorial and maritime claims with the support of map. In its maritime claim in the South China Sea, China uses the nine-dash-line map to support its claim. Generally, there is a lack of clarity whether the map has any legal relevance to the delimitation of China's boundaries in the South China Sea. The question is does the map make the claim more persuasive from the perspective of an international court or tribunal? The principle that emanates from international jurisprudence and doctrinal discussions is that cartographic materials do not by themselves have any legal value. In the Frontier Dispute, the ICJ stated that in frontier delimitations, 'maps merely constitute information' and that 'of themselves, and by virtue solely of their existence, they cannot constitute a territorial title' (1986 ICJ Rep. 554 para.54). They constitute extraneous evidence of varying reliability that might, depending on the circumstances, be used together with other evidence to establish a fact. In light of the above, it can be concluded that China's assertive stance in Arunachal and the far-reaching pretensions in the South China Sea do not meet the standards of international law. (The author is a Senior Assistant Professor in international law at the Indian Society of International Law, New Delhi. Views are personal)
Time of India
2 days ago
- Time of India
Cambodia says to file complaint with ICJ over Thai border dispute
Cambodia: will file a complaint with the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over border disputes with Thailand, Prime Minister Hun Manet said Monday, after a Cambodian soldier was killed in a recent frontier clash. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now "Cambodia hopes that the Thai side will agree with Cambodia to jointly bring these issues to the International Court of Justice... to prevent armed confrontation again over border uncertainty," Hun Manet said during a meeting between MPs and senators. Military clashes between the Southeast Asian neighbours erupted in 2008 and have led to several years of sporadic violence, resulting in at least 28 deaths. The most recent occurred Wednesday, when a Cambodian soldier was killed in a location known as the Emerald Triangle - a joint border area between Cambodia, Thailand and Laos. The day after, Cambodia's foreign ministry sent a letter to the Thai embassy in Phnom Penh demanding "an immediate and thorough investigation" into the "unprovoked attack". Describing the incident as "a violation of Cambodian sovereignty", Phnom Penh said it remained committed to resolving the issue through "peaceful and diplomatic avenues". Prime Minister Hun Manet said that even if the Thai side did not agree on bringing the issue to the ICJ, Cambodia would still file the complaint. He added that the border dispute was being "incited by small extremist groups in both countries", which could lead to further clashes. Thailand's ministry of foreign affairs did not immediately respond to a request for comment from AFP. Cambodia's military had said they were attacked first in Wednesday's incident, while the Thai side said their soldiers were responding to gunshots. The Thai and Cambodian militaries met the following day, agreeing to ease tensions. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Thailand says a Joint Boundary Committee will meet in the next two weeks to resolve the issue. The Emerald Triangle is among the areas that will be named in the ICJ complaint, Hun Manet said. Another is Ta Moan Thom Temple, the backdrop for a video posted on social media earlier this year showing a woman singing a patriotic Khmer song which led to Bangkok lodging a formal protest to Phnom Penh. Cambodia and Thailand have long been at odds over their more than 800-kilometre-long (500-mile) border, which was largely drawn during the French occupation of Indochina. The 2008 military clashes erupted over a patch of land next to Preah Vihear Temple, a 900-year-old structure near their shared border. This led to several years of sporadic violence before the International Court of Justice ruled the disputed area belonged to Cambodia.
India.com
2 days ago
- India.com
US' biggest enemy openly rebukes Trump diplomat for...; not China, Iran, Russia, the country is...
Donald Trump (File) US-Cuba relations: has accused the United States mission of fomenting internal discord in the island nation, and issued a verbal warning to Mike Hammer, the top US diplomat in Havana. In a statement on Friday, the Cuban Foreign Ministry said it has issued a verbal warning to Hammer, accusing the US Chief of Mission of 'interventionist' behavior, Reuters reported. Cuba slams US diplomat for 'interventionist' behavior Cuba alleged that Mike Hammer had incited 'Cuban citizens to commit serious criminal acts, attack the constitutional order, or encourage them to act against the authorities', and claimed that his actions violated the Vienna Convention norms on diplomatic relations, the report said. 'The immunity he (Hammer) enjoys as a representative of his country cannot be used as cover for acts contrary to the sovereignty and internal order of the country to which he is accredited, in this case Cuba,' Cuba's statement said. The latest escalation is being view as part of rising tensions between US and Cuba– long time foes since the Cold War era– under the Donald Trump administration. Cuba, which was close ties to the erstwhile Soviet Union, is still considered close to Russia, the US' arch nemesis. Why Cuba chastised Trump diplomat? Cuba's scathing chastisement of Mike Hammer comes after the US diplomat, who arrived in the Caribbean nation six months ago, started meeting political dissident across the Island, drawing the ire of the Cuban government, which has accused him of seeking to foment unrest in the country. Since his arrival, Cuba has criticized Hammer on multiple occasions, but has not restricted his travels across the island. The Cuban foreign ministry's statement comes days after Hammer told a presser in Miami that Trump administration was preparing further sanctions against Cuba. US' response to Cuba's statement Meanwhile, the US statement has defended the actions of its top diplomat in Cuba, saying 'Chief of Mission Mike Hammer and the U.S. Embassy proudly represent President Trump by implementing an America First foreign policy and seeking accountability for the Cuban regime for its malign influence across the Americas.' 'We will continue to meet with Cuban patriots, religious leaders, and those fighting for the freedoms of Cubans,' a State Department official said, according to Reuters. The rising US-Cuba tensions come at a time when the country is facing its worst economic crisis in decades, a predicament Cuba blames on the Cold War-era US embargo, which restricted financial transactions, trade, tourism and fuel imports into the island nation.
