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