India's Jadhav ICJ Case; Terror in Balochistan; Trump's Firing of FBI Director Comey

Why has India taken its complaint against Pakistan to International Court of Justice? Will this Indian action internationalize Kulbhushan Jadhav case? What are the risks for India? Can Pakistan use this opportunity to highlight India's use of proxies to commit acts of terror in Pakistan? Will Pakistan accept ICJ's jurisdiction in this matter?



Why did the Taliban and/or ISIS and/or LeJ target Maulana Ghafoor Haideri, a top leader of the right-wing Islamist party led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman? Are they unhappy with the Jamiat Ulema e Islam (JUI) known to be sympathetic to militant groups? Why have been attacking JUI and JI leaders? What do they hope to accomplish by this latest attack?

Why did President Donald Trump fire FBI Director James Comey? Is it really because of his mishandling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation? Or is it an attempt by the Trump administration to impede FBI's ongoing probe of alleged collusion of the Trump campaign with the Russians? Will it backfire on Mr. Trump? What are the chances that the US Congress will move to impeach President Trump?

Viewpoint From Overseas host Faraz Darvesh discusses these questions with panelists Misbah Azam and Riaz Haq (www.riazhaq.com)

https://youtu.be/-vv5s-DoEvg





Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Kulbhushan Jadhav Case

Remembering JI Chief Qazi Husain Ahmad

Hinduization of India Under Modi

Trump Appointments

Panama Verdict

Are Iran and Russia Supporting the Afghan Taliban?

Talk4Pak Youtube Channel

Views: 294

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 19, 2017 at 7:38am

https://www.dawn.com/news/1334111

At this stage, it was easier and more likely for the ICJ to favour the Indian request as the threshold for assuming jurisdiction was not very high. Please see below paragraph 15 of the decision:

“15. The Court may indicate provisional measures only if the provisions relied on by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which its jurisdiction could be founded, but need not satisfy itself in a definitive manner that it has jurisdiction as regards the merits of the case (see, for example, Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, para. 17).”

At this stage, ICJ wasn’t even looking to confirm whether the rights sought to be protected by India exist (i.e. consular access to an Indian citizen convicted of activities subversive to the national security of Pakistan).


“42. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court is not called upon to determine definitively whether the rights which India wishes to see protected exist; it need only decide whether these rights are plausible (see above paragraph 35 and Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, para. 64)."

ICJ yet to decide on consular access for Jadhav

“43. The rights to consular notification and access between a State and its nationals, as well as the obligations of the detaining State to inform without delay the person concerned of his rights with regard to consular assistance and to allow their exercise, are recognized in Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Vienna Convention. Regarding Pakistan’s arguments that, first, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention does not apply to persons suspected of espionage or terrorism, and that, second, the rules applicable to the case at hand are provided in the 2008 Agreement, the Court considers that at this stage of the proceedings, where no legal analysis on these questions has been advanced by the Parties, these arguments do not provide a sufficient basis to exclude the plausibility of the rights claimed by India, for the same reasons provided above (see paragraphs 32-33).”

No decision on the death penalty

The dispute relates to whether consular access should have been granted by Pakistan and not whether the death penalty is lawful. Please see below paragraph 56 of the decision:

“56. The Court notes that the issues brought before it in this case do not concern the question whether a State is entitled to resort to the death penalty. As it has observed in the past, “the function of this Court is to resolve international legal disputes between States, inter alia when they arise out of the interpretation or application of international conventions, and not to act as a court of criminal appeal” (LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 15, para. 25; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 5 February 2003, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 89, para. 48).”

Pakistan can still argue on jurisdiction
-----
Pakistan will be given ample opportunity to present its arguments in the next round. Please see below paragraph 60 of the decision:

“60. The decision given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or to the merits themselves. It leaves unaffected the right of the Governments of India and Pakistan to submit arguments in respect of those questions.” 

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 21, 2017 at 7:34am

Killing of #US Intelligence Agency #CIA's Dozen+ Informants in #China Has Crippled U.S. #Spying Operations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/20/world/asia/china-cia-spies-espio...

WASHINGTON — The Chinese government systematically dismantled C.I.A. spying operations in the country starting in 2010, killing or imprisoning more than a dozen sources over two years and crippling intelligence gathering there for years afterward.

Current and former American officials described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades. It set off a scramble in Washington’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies to contain the fallout, but investigators were bitterly divided over the cause. Some were convinced that a mole within the C.I.A. had betrayed the United States. Others believed that the Chinese had hacked the covert system the C.I.A. used to communicate with its foreign sources. Years later, that debate remains unresolved.

But there was no disagreement about the damage. From the final weeks of 2010 through the end of 2012, according to former American officials, the Chinese killed at least a dozen of the C.I.A.’s sources. According to three of the officials, one was shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building — a message to others who might have been working for the C.I.A.

Still others were put in jail. All told, the Chinese killed or imprisoned 18 to 20 of the C.I.A.’s sources in China, according to two former senior American officials, effectively unraveling a network that had taken years to build.

Assessing the fallout from an exposed spy operation can be difficult, but the episode was considered particularly damaging. The number of American assets lost in China, officials said, rivaled those lost in the Soviet Union and Russia during the betrayals of both Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen, formerly of the C.I.A. and the F.B.I., who divulged intelligence operations to Moscow for years.

The previously unreported episode shows how successful the Chinese were in disrupting American spying efforts and stealing secrets years before a well-publicized breach in 2015 gave Beijing access to thousands of government personnel records, including intelligence contractors. The C.I.A. considers spying in China one of its top priorities, but the country’s extensive security apparatus makes it exceptionally hard for Western spy services to develop sources there.

At a time when the C.I.A. is trying to figure out how some of its most sensitive documents were leaked onto the internet two months ago by WikiLeaks, and the F.B.I. investigates possible ties between President Trump’s campaign and Russia, the unsettled nature of the China investigation demonstrates the difficulty of conducting counterespionage investigations into sophisticated spy services like those in Russia and China.

----------

The C.I.A. has tried to rebuild its network of spies in China, officials said, an expensive and time-consuming effort led at one time by the former chief of the East Asia Division. A former intelligence official said the former chief was particularly bitter because he had worked with the suspected mole and recruited some of the spies in China who were ultimately executed.

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 21, 2017 at 8:06pm

#India's #ICJ mistake means #Pakistan will go to world court on #Kashmir: Justice Markhandey http://DAWN.COM

https://www.dawn.com/news/1334320

Former Indian Supreme Court judge Markandey Katju has said that India's decision to approach the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of Indian spy Kulbushan Jadhav is in fact "a serious mistake" on New Delhi's part.

In a Facebook post, Katju, who is also the former chairman of the Press Council of India, was of the opinion that the move had in fact created an opening for Pakistan to approach the ICJ to look at "many other issues", including the Kashmir dispute.

Voicing his concern about India's decision to approach the ICJ, Katju said the reason why Pakistan did not seriously object to the question of jurisdiction was because it may in fact benefit Islamabad on other fronts.

"Now it is certain that Pakistan will approach the ICJ for deciding the Kashmir dispute...Pakistan must be very happy that we went to the ICJ over a single individual's fate, as now they can raise all kinds of issues, particularly Kashmir, in international fora, to which we had always objected till now. By going to the ICJ we may have opened up a Pandora's box," Katju said.

Comment by Riaz Haq on May 30, 2017 at 6:29am

Kulbhushan Jadhav continues to provide 'crucial intelligence', says FO spokesperson

https://www.dawn.com/news/1336142/kulbhushan-jadhav-continues-to-pr...

Indian spy Commander Kulbhushan Jadhav continues to provide crucial intelligence with regard to recent terrorist attacks in Pakistan, Foreign Office (FO) spokesperson Nafees Zakaria told DawnNews on Monday.

Jadhav's death sentence was stayed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague on May 18, following proceedings in which Pakistani and Indian lawyers argued over the legitimacy of the death sentence awarded to Jadhav by a Pakistani military court.

Insisting that Pakistan held enough evidence to prove that Jadhav was a spy, Attorney General of Pakistan Ashtar Ausaf during an exclusive interview to DawnNews said that Pakistan has information on Jadhav that could not be disclosed due to the security reasons.

He said, "The evidence would only be presented before the ICJ once it resumes the hearing."

He said the ICJ's procedural order of May 18 was neither Pakistan's defeat nor India's success and emphasised that when the case re-starts, "Pakistan would be on solid ground to win".

Responding to a question regarding the constitution of a new legal team, Ausaf said that there were no plans to change the team, however, he said it would be "expanded".

When asked why he did not represent Pakistan at the May 15 hearing at the ICJ, Ausaf disclosed that he "knew prior to the judgement that the ICJ is going to announce the provisional order".

Jadhav, who was tried by a Pakistani military court under Section 59 of the Pakistan Army Act and Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923, confessed before a magistrate and court that he was tasked by Indian spy agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), to plan, coordinate and organise espionage and sabotage activities seeking to destabilise and wage war against Pakistan by impeding the efforts of law enforcement agencies for the restoration of peace in Balochistan and Karachi, the ISPR had maintained.

A the ICJ, India blamed Pakistan for denying consular access to Jadhav while Pakistan insisted that was not eligible for consular access and that the ICJ does not have the adequate jurisdiction to give a judgment on the case.

Rejecting Pakistan's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction in the matter, the court reasoned it could hear the case because it involved, on the face of it, an alleged violation of one of the clauses of the Vienna Convention, which both Pakistan and India ascribe to and whose interpretation falls under its purview.

"[Meanwhile] Pakistan should take all measures to ensure that Jadhav is not executed till the final decision of this court," the court said.

Comment

You need to be a member of PakAlumni Worldwide: The Global Social Network to add comments!

Join PakAlumni Worldwide: The Global Social Network

Pre-Paid Legal


Twitter Feed

    follow me on Twitter

    Sponsored Links

    South Asia Investor Review
    Investor Information Blog

    Haq's Musings
    Riaz Haq's Current Affairs Blog

    Please Bookmark This Page!




    Blog Posts

    Biden's Gaza Ceasefire Veto Defies American Public Opinion

    Aaron Bushnell, an active serviceman in the United States Air Force, burned himself to death in front of the Israeli Embassy in protest against the US policy in Gaza. Before setting himself on fire in what he called an "extreme act of protest", he said he would "no longer be complicit in genocide". Polls show that the vast majority (63%) of Americans want an immediate end to the carnage being perpetrated by Israel in Gaza.  …

    Continue

    Posted by Riaz Haq on February 27, 2024 at 5:30pm

    Pakistan Elections: Imran Khan's Supporters Skillfully Used Tech to Defy Powerful Military

    Independent candidates backed by the Pakistan Tehreek e Insaf (PTI) party emerged as the largest single block with 93 seats in the nation's parliament in the general elections held on February 8, 2024.  This feat was accomplished in spite of huge obstacles thrown in front of the PTI's top leader Imran Khan and his party leaders and supporters by Pakistan's powerful military…

    Continue

    Posted by Riaz Haq on February 16, 2024 at 9:22pm — 1 Comment

    © 2024   Created by Riaz Haq.   Powered by

    Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service