1 A few thoughts on yesterday’s provisional measures hearing in the #Jadhav case (#India v #Pakistan) at the #ICJ re consular access rights.
2 Both parties could have better framed their arguments with reference to the specific requirements of the ICJ for provisional measures.
3 Pakistan asked the ICJ to hold merits hearing within 6 weeks. Since execution wouldn’t be carried out before late summer, no need for PMs.
4 In my view, this proposal isn’t feasible and doesn't resolve alleged urgency, risk of irreparable harm.
5 Pakistan focused on merits more than narrow question of consular access. But accusing India of wrongdoing doesn’t excuse VCCR obligations.
6 More complex argument is that relief sought by India on merits goes beyond any relief a VCCR violation could require or Court would grant.
7 This line of argument relates to the requirement that PMs must aim to protect rights that are plausible. But whether scope of relief…
8 …sought by India on merits is available isn't relevant to narrower request for stay of execution pending decision on disputed VCCR rights.
9 Pakistan suggests carve-out to consular access rights in spy/terror cases, but assertion was unsupported. It’s a merits issue.
10 Neither side clarified import of 2008 Agmt on Consular Access. Whether it modifies parties’ VCCR rights & obligations is also for merits.
11 It seems unlikely that Pakistan’s efforts to question plausibility of rights asserted (as opposed to relief sought) precludes PMs. End.
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.