2008 Agreement On Consular Access India Pakistan

Although the application of the principle of self-determination to the specific case of Jammu and Kashmir has been explicitly recognized by the United Nations. It was similarly confirmed by India and Pakistan when the Kashmir dispute was submitted to the Security Council. As Jammu and Kashmir are not part of the territory of the two countries with the creation of India and Pakistan as sovereign states, the two countries have reached an agreement allowing their people to exercise their right to self-determination under the impartial aegis and under conditions free from any constraint on both sides. The agreement is enshrined in UN Security Council resolutions, which are explicitly accepted by both governments. It binds the two governments and no accusation of non-compliance with any of their provisions by either party can render it ineffective. 5. Both sides welcomed the release of prisoners and fishermen on the eve of these talks as a gesture of goodwill and for human reasons. It was agreed to exchange, by 31 December 2008, the names of the points to impose full sentences and whose national status was confirmed in order to facilitate their release in January. It was also agreed that the verification of the status of nationality would now be completed within six weeks of the availability of consular access. It was also agreed to facilitate the rapid release of fishermen and boats. By the application of art. 41 VCLT and art. 73 VCCR, India argues that the provisions of the 2008 agreement are not applicable in this case.

It also relies on the dimension of Article 36 of the VCCR (pages 35-47 of the Verbatim Record 2019/1) to define the erga omnes character of consular access as a formal judicial procedure. In passing, it addresses the terms “complement and strengthening of provisions” in the text of Article 73. I think that is a serious shortcoming. The word “complementary” can mean something that “completes and supports” the provisions. If it was designed to expand the provisions, then there is no need for a separate pronunciation of the words “confirm,” “complementary,” “amplifying” or “amplifying” in the article.

Comments are closed.