M A I N   N E W S

India holds Pak responsible

THE HAGUE, April 4 (PTI) — India today told the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that Pakistan was “solely responsible” for the incident in which its naval aircraft was shot down last August in the Kutch region and that Islamabad must “bear the consequences of its own acts”.

New Delhi made this assertion while pleading with the ICJ to adjudge and declare that it has no jurisdiction to consider Pakistan’s complaint seeking reparations and compensation from India for the downing of the aircraft in which all 16 naval personnel were killed on August 10.

“It is India’s respectful submission that the court should adjudge and declare that it does not have any jurisdiction to deal with the present application (of Pakistan) and the same may be dismissed,” Attorney-General Soli Sorabjee told the court while opening India’s arguments on the second day of the public hearings to determine whether the ICJ had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

Mr Sorabjee and his team of lawyers, including from the UK and France, in their submissions exclusively focussed on the legal issues concerning jurisdiction except for the brief remarks on Pakistan’s responsibility for the incident.

“We do not propose to circumvent the court order by attempting to make submissions on merits,” Mr Sorabjee said, adding that “we shall refrain from making statements of a purely political nature as that would reduce the high level of proceedings before this court to a partisan political debate and would be a clear abuse of the judicial process’’.

The Indian strategy at the public hearings at the Great Hall of Justice was in clear contrast to Pakistan’s approach yesterday when Islamabad’s lawyers referred to the Kashmir issue, Kargil conflict, Indo-Pakistan relations and alleged motives behind the shooting down incident.

The court had already made it clear in its order on November 13 last that the question of jurisdiction to entertain Pakistan’s application “shall first be addressed’’ before going into the merits of the case.

Pakistan in its application wanted the ICJ to judge and declare that the acts of India constituted breach of various obligations for which New Delhi bore “exclusive legal responsibility’’.

It also had an obligation to make reparations to Islamabad for the loss of the aircraft as well as compensation to the heirs of those killed, Pakistan maintained.

Reiterating India’s policy of promotion of peaceful settlement of international disputes, Mr Sorabjee said New Delhi’s plea lack of jurisdiction for ICJ cannot imply lack of good faith, nor lead to the inference that it has something to hide.

“If that were a correct proposition, every country which has the right to raise a plea of lack of jurisdiction would incur the odium of acting in bad faith. The number would be quite sizeable,” said Mr Sorabjee.

This was in apparent response to Pakistani contention yesterday that India should accept the ICJ jurisdiction if it had nothing to hide.

Mr Sorabjee said jurisdiction could not be squeezed out by “tortuous and far-fetched interpretations” of the provisions of the UN charter or the stature of the court.

The Attorney-General also rejected Pakistan’s contention that the Simla accord gave a legal basis for invoking the ICJ’s jurisdiction in respect of bilateral disputes.

He submitted that the Simla Agreement did not contain a compromisory clause and was not concerned with the judicial settlement of disputes. “The emphasis in the Simla Agreement is on bilateral approach to the resolution of disputes with Pakistan,” he said.

Mr Ian Brownlie, a member of the International Law Commission from the UK, pointed out the legal infirmities in Pakistan’s submissions and elaborated them while issues like implied residual jurisdiction based on the UN charter were addressed by Dr P.S. Rao, External Affairs Ministry’s Legal Adviser.