Kulbhushan Jadhav verdict: Will it be a unanimous verdict?
New Delhi, July 17: India is hopeful of a favourable verdict in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. The 16 judge Bench at the International Court of Justice comprise judges from both India and Pakistan.
This is an indication that the verdict may not be a unanimous one. China has always taken a stance in similar cases involving national security and espionage to deny consular access. If it were to follow the same, then there is a likelihood that China may dissent.
Sources tell OneIndia that while there may be dissent from some quarters, the majority would take a view based on the facts and circumstances of the case. The majority is expected to take a view based on international conventions and India has maintained that Pakistan has violated the same.
Article 94 of the United Nations Charter says that all members of the United Nations have to comply with the decisions of the ICJ. In this case, both India and Pakistan have signed and ratified it.
There is also an Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations for the compulsory settlement of disputes and both India and Pakistan are parties to this protocol as well.
The verdicts of the ICJ in contentious cases are final and without appeal. However there is no way that the ICJ can enforce its decisions. In such an event, the United Nations Security Council would come into picture. The UNSC can can compel countries to follow the court's ruling.
Now this comes attached with some riders and problems as well. A judgment against one of the five permanent council members or its ally nations can be vetoed by that member. In case, Pakistan refuses to enforce the order, the question is will China stand in the way, like it did for long in the case of Jaish-e-Mohammad chief, Maulana Masood Azhar.
In this context one would need to recall the Republic of Nicaragua vs the United States case. The court decided in favour of Nicaragua and awarded reparations to Nicaragua. The US refused to take part in the proceedings and also blocked the enforcement of the judgment by the UNSC.
While countries are bound by the judgment, the other rider is that the UNSC can always refuse to intervene. If this is the case, then there is no way that the judgment can be enforced. Lastly, there can be a coercive measure that the UNSC can adopt. This can be done only if international peace is at stake and this option has never been taken so far.