Pakistan will change legal team that lost Round 1 to India at ICJ

(THIS ARTICLE IS COURTESY OF THE HINDUSTAN TIMES NEWS)

Kulbhushan Jadhav case: Pakistan will change legal team that lost Round 1 to India at ICJ

The Hague-based court had on Thursday stayed the execution of Jadhav, 46, considered to be a spy by Pakistan.

WORLD Updated: May 19, 2017 23:09 IST

Imtiaz Ahmad
Imtiaz Ahmad
Hindustan Times, Islamabad
Kulbhushan Jadhav

A boy watches as television channels that show news about International Court of Justice hearing the case of former Indian naval officer Kulbhushan Jadhav.(AP Photo)

Pakistan’s foreign policy chief Sartaj Aziz has said a new team of lawyers will be formed to present the case against Kulbhushan Jadhav at the International Court of Justice even as opposition parties blasted the government for its handling of the matter.The current legal team was widely criticised after the ICJ ordered Pakistan on Thursday to stay Jadhav’s execution till its final decision on India’s petition to annul his death sentence. Opposition parties sought the team’s immediate removal.

Aziz said a new team of lawyers will be constituted to “present Pakistan’s stance vigorously” at the ICJ. “Pakistan’s security is so important and we have to maintain our fundamental sovereign right,” he told Samaa news channel.

He also defended the existing legal team, saying it had “courageously presented Pakistan’s stance”.

Some senior lawyers said authorities had started sending out feelers about setting up the new legal team. “Some law firms have been approached by the ministry of law to discuss such a possibility,” said a law ministry official in Islamabad.

There was also discussion about hiring a foreign law firm with a record of handling cases at The Hague-based ICJ.

“The consensus emerging in Pakistan is that while the country has a case, it was the legal team that let us down,” said leading analyst Zahid Hussain.

Read more

Some of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s detractors accused him of “selling out” to the Indian side and opposition parties described the ICJ’s decision as a “setback for Pakistan”.

Some opposition leaders alleged the ICJ’s order was the result of a “covert deal”. They linked it to Sharif’s recent meeting in Murree with Indian steel tycoon Sajjan Jindal.

Shafqat Mehmood, a spokesman for Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party, demanded that Sharif disclose all details of his “covert meeting” with Jindal. In a statement, he raised critical questions on the matter and sought an explanation from the premier.

Mehmood asked Sharif to come to the National Assembly and explain why Pakistan did not appoint an ad hoc judge at the ICJ because it had a right to do so, and why the Foreign Office did not take legal advice before initiating correspondence on the issue.

There was considerable debate on the performance of Khawar Qureshi, Pakistan’s lead lawyer, at the ICJ hearing on Monday. Qureshi, part of the London-based law firm Serle Court, became the youngest advocate to appear at the ICJ in 1993.

Read more

But opposition leaders questioned why the government had selected a lawyer who had not handled a single international law case at the UK Supreme Court, and why authorities had sent a first year associate from the attorney general’s office to the ICJ instead of the attorney general himself.

The Pakistan People’s Party said the case at the ICJ had been mishandled and demanded the government convene a meeting of the national security committee on the issue of Jadhav.

PPP vice president Sherry Rehman told reporters that Pakistan had failed to plead its case and the counsel completed his arguments within 50 minutes, as against the allocated time of 90 minutes.

Rehman, a former minister, said Pakistan should have appointed an ad hoc judge under the ICJ’s rules as an Indian judge was part of the tribunal. She said the opportunity to do this was available till May 10 but was missed out. She added that Jadhav’s issue should have also been raised at the UN General Assembly.

But Aziz told the media the ICJ’s order would not have any bearing on the legal process currently underway in Pakistan against Jadhav. “A stay is granted automatically even in our courts when you file an appeal. But it doesn’t mean that you have lost the case,” he said on Thursday.

The ICJ is yet to adjudicate on the merits of Jadhav’s case, he said. “When that stage comes, Pakistan will forcefully present its case,” he added.

Are George H.W. And George W, Dick Cheney, And Donald Rumsfeld War Criminals

This week we have seen where the African nations and some of their leaders have made a protest to the ICC (International Criminal Court) at the Hague about how the world has a double standard toward African Nations and the so called Third World Countries. They complain and in my opinion rightfully so, that there is a double standard being inforced toward them. At the very least the African leaders feel that a sitting Head of State should not be brought to trial, not even if being tried while absent, as long as that person is a Nation’s Leader.

The ICC began on July 1st of 2002 and to date only three nations who had signed it’s intent to be a part of this court have changed their mind, one of these is the United States.Does it surprise you that the George W Bush administration would back out of this contract and never sign it? There is another court system at the Hague that is called the ICJ (International Court of Justice), (also known as The World Court). We, the U.S. have backed out of it (mostly) also. The ICJ’s job is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations. Their main function is to settle legal disputes among countries and to provide opinions submitted by international agencies and by the UN General Assembly.There are five sitting members on the United Nations Security Council and to take any action requires that if any of the five veto an action the action is vetoed. In1986 the Court ruled that the American covert war against Nicaragua was illegal. When this happened the United States withdrew from it’s jurisdiction. Now the United States only accepts the court’s jurisdiction on a case by case basis. If this kind of action isn’t hypocritical what is, this policy is stating that we will be a part of it only when being a part of it isn’t against us or one of our allies.

Back in about 2006-07 while I was still attending college I wrote a paper entitled “America What Are You Going To Do When When George, Dick, and Donald, Are Deemed To Be War Criminals”. I did not know at that time that our leaders or even anyone in our country is exempt. The ICC or the ICJ could on it’s own volition charge such people but it would hold no validity. So, I’m pretty sure that the courts would not waste their time with going through the process. I am going to start with the ICJ and the actions that they and the American Government took in 1986. When the Court ruled against the U.S. about the covert war in Nicaragua we simply withdrew from the Courts jurisdiction to keep America’s leaders above their law. Also, in 1986 this covert war was against American law, the American Congress had already ruled that to be any part of this war by the American Government would be illegal. At this snapshot in time George H.W. Bush was the sitting American Vice President. VP Bush used to be the Director of the CIA, and in Congressional Hearings were held about our involvement in that war Mr Bush declared that the meetings that were held at the White House were something he had no knowledge of. What are the chances of that you think? He was the former CIA Director and the sitting Vice President during meetings held in the White House and he had no knowledge of them, laughable. When the minutes of these meetings (plural) came to light it was shown that not only did Mr Bush know of these meetings, he Chaired them, it would have been unreasonable to have thought otherwise. Yet what legal actions were taken by either the ICJ OR THE ICC, or what legal actions were taken by the American Government to impeach Mr Bush and fill legal action against. As you probably know, no actions of any kind were taken against him unless you believe letting him run for and obtain the Presidency of our country a punishment. Aman that should have been in prison the past 27 years is instead being lauded with what Newt Gingrich refers to as welfare, and the American taxpayer is and has been paying those millions of dollars.

Now let’s scoot on up the calendar to 2002 when the American Government withdrew from accountability from the ICC under Junior George Bush’s administration. In America we had the 911 attack in 2001 and we shortly thereafter attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan which was an action I approved of then and now, but it has been almost 13 years now and we (Americans) are still pumping blood and billions into that theatre with no solid end in sight. At the time of this post we are still debating on how long we will keep “some troops” in country. Has this end result of how things are going to end up as in Afghanistan been worth what we have paid in blood and money? The end result is that three way talks between the U.S., the Taliban and the puppet Government in Kabul on how to bring the Taliban into the Afghan government. Most likely within three of less years their President will either be dead or living in exile in America and the Taliban and their partners will again completely rule that country. Remember when the U.S. illegally invaded Iraq in 2003, a military mistake we made there again was in not going in taking out the Leaders and getting out now look at what the situation is there now.

I do not believe that going into Afghanistan in 01 made any of our leaders war criminals, possibly inept for not having an endgame in place, but war criminals, no. Why I believe George W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld  are war criminals are because of Iraq. They plainly manufactured evidence to get our country into a war that we by our own Constitution forbid our President from doing. Then to make matters worse our political leaders did what seems to be everything they could do to stay in country as long as possible. In an attempt to go in and take out their President why was it necessary for us to go in and totally destroy their infrastructure? We had no legal right to invade that country yet once again our leaders could not be held accountable by the international community because of the double standards our leadership is allowed to function under. But you know what is even worse, the U.S. Congress nor the Judicial system have the guts to even charge people like the Bushes, Cheney, or Rumsfeld with the crimes they are blatantly guilty of. To say their actions did no harm is laughable both to our countries credibility and to the thousands of our own military personnel loss of life and limb. Now these three live like kings on our tax dollars when they should have long ago at the very least been put into prison for life, either at Leavenworth or the Hague.