Bhan­dari’s win could spell hope for Jad­hav

Hindustan Times (Delhi) - - NATION - HT Cor­re­spon­dent let­ters@hin­dus­tan­

ing of hu­mil­i­a­tion.

Bri­tain has al­ways had a rep­re­sen­ta­tive on the court, which is based in The Hague, since 1946, as have other per­ma­nent mem­bers of the UN Se­cu­rity Coun­cil un­der an un­writ­ten ar­range­ment. The un­der­stand­ing is not dis­sim­i­lar in na­ture to the one that has al­lowed the US and Europe to lead World Bank and In­ter­na­tional Mone­tary fund re­spec­tively.

From I ndia’s per­spec­tive “that’s an im­por­tant given that needs to be chal­lenged”. One of­fi­cial said the bat­tle was about “pres­tige” and once this “mat­ter of pres­tige” was changed, oth­ers would fol­low. Such as the per­ma­nent mem­ber­ship of the Se­cu­rity Coun­cil. In­di­ans were gen­er­ally pleased with the way the con­test turned out “de­spite all that has been thrown at us” by the ri­val and co­horts, es­pe­cially other mem­bers of the per­ma­nent club that could be hard to pin in a se­cret bal­lot.

Bhan­dari be­gan the Mon­day con­test win­ning the gen­eral as­sem­bly 110-79, 113-76, 111-79, 118-72 and, fi­nally, 121-68, clearly show­ing which way the gen­eral body, and the world, was go­ing and de­ci­sively. But he dropped one vote in the Se­cu­rity Coun­cil from last week to lose 5-9, but kept the line there.

The elec­tion was ad­journed to be re­sumed at a later date. NEWDELHI: The out­come of In­dia’s ef­fort to se­cure a sec­ond term for Dalveer Bhan­dari at the In­ter­na­tional Court of Jus­tice (ICJ) could have a sig­nif­i­cant im­pact on the case of Kulb­hushan Jad­hav, sen­tenced to death by a Pak­istani mil­i­tary court.

Bhan­dari, who was elected to his cur­rent seat in 2012, ap­peared to be bet­ter placed than his Bri­tish ri­val on Mon­day but the com­pli­cated elec­tion process in­volv­ing the UN Gen­eral As­sem­bly and Se­cu­rity Coun­cil re­mains dead­locked. If for some rea­son, In­dia fails in its ef­forts to se­cure Bhan­dari’s re-elec­tion, it will have to go through the process of nom­i­nat­ing an “ad hoc judge” to the 12-mem­ber ICJ tri­bunal that is hear­ing the case of Jad­hav, whose death sen­tence was put on hold by The Hague-based court.

Ar­ti­cle 31 of the ICJ’S statute states that if the panel in­cludes “a judge of the na­tion­al­ity of one of the par­ties, (the other) party may choose a per­son to sit as judge”. An ad hoc judge can also be cho- sen if the panel in­cludes “no judge of the na­tion­al­ity of the par­ties”, ac­cord­ing to the ar­ti­cle. In Oc­to­ber, Pak­istan nom­i­nated for­mer chief jus­tice Tas­saduq Hus­sain Jil­lani as its ad hoc judge in the panel that will re­sume hear­ing Jad­hav’s case in De­cem­ber.

Ex­perts be­lieve In­dia could be at a dis­ad­van­tage if Bhan­dari does not get re-elected as there may not be an In­dian rep­re­sen­ta­tive on the tri­bunal at a cru­cial stage when the panel be­gins con­sid­er­ing the “memo­ri­als” or writ­ten sub­mis­sions made by New Delhi and Is­lam­abad on Jad­hav. In­dia submitted its me­mo­rial in Septem­ber while Pak­istan has time till De­cem­ber 13.

The ICJ has asked Pak­istan not to go ahead with the ex­e­cu­tion of Jad­hav, ac­cused of in­volve­ment in spy­ing and sub­ver­sive ac­tiv­i­ties, till it gives its fi­nal rul­ing. The Pak­istan Army said last month its chief is close to a de­ci­sion on Jad­hav’s mercy pe­ti­tion.

In­dia has dis­missed the charges against Jad­hav, say­ing the for­mer naval of­fi­cer was kid­napped from Chaba­har port, where he was run­ning a busi­ness.


United Na­tions Se­cu­rity Coun­cil mem­bers cast their vote dur­ing a meet­ing on the elec­tion of five mem­bers of the In­ter­na­tional Court of Jus­tice, at the UN head­quar­ters in New York.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.