CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE CASE OF KULBHUSHAN JADHAV BY: CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE CASE OF KULBHUSHAN JADHAV AUTHORED BY: MAANVI TRIVEDI
CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE CASE OF KULBHUSHAN JADHAV
AUTHORED
BY: MAANVI TRIVEDI
Symbiosis
Law School, Hyderabad
CHAPTER- I
ABSTRACT
‘The
Indian Spy Case’ is a one of the landmark verdicts given by the International
Court of Justice[1]in
which Kulbhushan Jadhav, a citizen of India had been arrested, detained and
convicted to death sentence by the Pakistan Court on the allegation that he was
indulged in terrorist activities and was a spy to the Indian Government. The
Indian Government post the decision given by the Pakistan Court, filed a case
against Pakistan in the present matter, before the ICJ.[2]
The present matter questioned the validity and application of Article 36 of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). Further, the jurisdiction of
the International Court of Justice [3]was
also challenged in the current case with India requesting before the ICJ to
decide on the consular rights of India that had been violated by Pakistan in
the course of this case. In the current research paper, the author aims at
analysing the verdict pronounced by the ICJ in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav by
primarily focussing into the aspect of VCCR and its applicable provisions, the
aspect of Bilateral Agreement on Consular Access and the registration purview
of the same in relation to Article 102 of the United Nations Charter.[4]
KEYWORDS:
Bilateral Agreement, Indian Spy, International Court of Justice, Kulbhushan
Jadhav, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
INTRODUCTION
It is
unusual for antagonistic organizations to deploy bordering territory as a
launch pad for obstructive and clandestine activities. The pertinent
issue is if the adjoining nation is cognizant of it. An issue on
similar lines arose in the year of 2016 wherein an Indian Citizen, previously
associated with the Indian Navy had been arrested, detained and convicted to
death sentence by the Pakistan Court on the allegation that he was indulged in
terrorist activities and was a spy to the Indian Government. Post this decision
of the Pakistan Court, the country of India then requested the ICJ to intervene
and provide intermediate reliefs and decide the case. It further led to the
challenging of the VCCR. The Law of Consular relations includes within its
purview the procedure for designating consular representations[5],
the obligations of the recipient nation [6]for
the international respondents, and the rights and safeguards possessed by the
international respondent, the transmitting nation, and the consular authorities.
As per the International Law, the aspect of Consular Access is dealt with by
the VCCR which has primarily established and given out the legal framework for
consular access. Another aspect to such consular access was that of the
Bilateral Agreement between the two disputing nations, India and Pakistan and
whether the same binds on the nations or not considering the viewpoint of
registration of such agreement under Article 102(2) of the United Nations
Charter. [7]The
Article 102[8]
of the United Nations Charter usually administers the Bilateral Agreement
however, because the same was not registered it could not be presented before
the United Nations courts, leaving ICJ with the jurisdiction to try this case.
A case
like that of Kulbhushan Jadhav wherein Indian citizens are detained and
sentenced by the Pakistan Courts on the grounds of them being spy is not new to
India. Previously as well several Indians such as that of Ravidra Kaushik who
was given life imprisonment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the case of Mr.
Inayat Masih who was also detained on similar grounds and been awarded death
sentence by the Supreme Court of Pakistan are a few instances known by the
public.
On 10th
April, 2016 Kulbhushan Jadhav was awarded with death sentence by the Pakistan
Court on the allegation that he was indulged in terrorist activities and was a
spy to the Indian Government. Post this decision of the Pakistan Court, the
country of India then requested the ICJ to intervene and provide intermediate
reliefs and decide the case. The ICJ has a mandatory jurisdiction to resolve
any conflict being presented before it by any of the nations over any and all
of the issues including the ones arising between nations regarding the
inference or implementation of the Convention. The ICJ as a result of such
application by India put a halt on the execution of such sentence as an interim
relief. The court after taking into consideration all of the essential
contributories and facts of the case arrived at the conclusion that Pakistan
had violated the VCCR in the course of trial of Kulbhushan Jadhav by depriving
him a councillor and not intimating him about the rights, he is entitled to
under Article 36[9]
, not intimating India considering the two also had a bilateral agreement
between them. Considering the above- mentioned facts, the ICJ decided that
India should be given consular access. The ICJ further ruled that Kulbhushan
Jadhav shall be freed from Pakistan and shall return to his home country, India
safely. Whilst like every other case before any court one of parties won and
the other one lost, the important point to be considered here is that
irrespective of the grave tension between the two nations regarding this case,
International Law prevailed and aided in maintaining peace between the nations.
In the course of trial, the ICJ elucidated on the importance of consular
access, ‘UN Charter's norm of non-intervention in
domestic affairs and fair trial in the global scenario.
RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES
In light
of the landmark case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the main objectives of the
researcher are as follows:
1.
To analyse the significance and applicability of
the Bilateral Agreement on Consular Access between India and Pakistan.
2.
To understand the importance of consular access
in cases of disputes arising among nations.
3.
To comprehend about the powers and Jurisdiction
of the ICJ, in case of unregistered agreements.
4.
To examine the applicability of the VCCR.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
1.
What is the Bilateral Agreement on Consular
Access and how is it applicable in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav?
2.
Can the provisions of the VCCR be over powered by
the provisions of any existing Bilateral Agreement or treaty among the
signatory states?
3.
Does the ICJ have jurisdiction to try the cases
in the presence of any unregistered Bilateral Agreement or Treaty existing
among any signatory nations?
4.
Is there any exception to the applicability of an
individual’s or Nation’s consular access?
RESEARCH
METHODOLOGY
The present research paper requires
the use of a doctrinal methodology of research to facilitate a better
comprehension of the topic. The doctrinal method of research is primarily
concerned with legal propositions and doctrines. It encompasses the
interpretation of terms as well as pointing to the precedents applicable to the
present topic. In the course of making this research paper while deploying the
doctrinal method the researcher has referred to secondary sources such as
several research papers, articles, case comments, books, legal precents etc so
as to provide an in-depth understanding of the topic. Hence, the researcher
proposes doctrinal research as it best fits the analysis of the current
subject.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
In the course of this research paper
while analysing the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the researcher came across
various problems such as that of the enforceability of the judgments given by
the ICJ, the applicability of The VCCR
on nations in the cases where there already exists an understanding in the form
of treaties, agreements. Additionally, while the VCCR in its regulations
provides for grant of consular access, it does not explicitly provide via the
use of any phrase, provision or proviso clause of whether there can be an
exception to the same or if it is mandatory to provide consular access. Lastly,
there also exists ambiguity among the nations about the obligatory requirement
of adhering to the decisions of ICJ.
LIMITATION
OF THE STUDY
While
dwelling on the concept and applicability of consular relations, Bilateral
Agreements and the VCCR the ambit of the present research paper has been
limited to those aspects which are relevant and have been disputed for
understanding the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav with respect to the VCCR, Bilateral
Agreements existing between India and Pakistan only.
LITERATURE
REVIEW
In a
research paper titled, ‘Kulbhushan Jadhav Case: A Mystery of a Win-Win
Situation for Pakistan and India’[10]by
Usman Hameed and Zarfishan Qaiser, the researchers highlighted on the need of
robust safety protocols are essential to address the consular access safety
breaches among the nations. International standards must be persuaded at the
global scale to end the ongoing banter with regards to consular access.
‘The
Right to Access Consular Assistance and Protection and its Relevance to the
Architecture of a Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration’ [11]an
article penned by Rodolfo Marques discussed on the significance of consular
access and human rights in the present scenario with growing competitiveness
among the nations as well as considering the wide scale migrations which happen
throughout the globe. It also discusses the several international treaties,
agreements, documents etc and their impact as well as applicability in the
global scenario.
A
research paper titled, ‘Deconstructing the Jurisprudence Of The
International Court Of Justice In Jadhav Case (India V. Pakistan)’[12]
while elucidating on the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav the researcher was of the
view that the ICJ has taken an ambivalent and inert stance in this case. He
further elaborated on how the conduct and willingness of the nations plays a
vital role for the application of consular access and that eventually even post
the decision of the IJ, one of the major determining factors in a case is the
prevalent geopolitical situation among the nations.
In a
book titled, ‘The Law of Consular Access: A Documentary Guide[13]’
by William J. the author has elucidated on the expansion and advancements in
the field of law in the national as well as a global scenario which has further
increased the significance of International Law. The author has discussed the
aspect of consular access in detail and their applicability and relation to the
VCCR, Bilateral Agreements, Multilateral treaties in the light of landmark
cases like that of Kulbhushan Jadhav.
A Report
published on Hein Online ‘The Jadhav Case’ [14]
has highlighted on the applicability and binding nature of consular access as
well as that of the decisions of the ICJ by referring to the case of Kulbhushan
Jadhav along with other landmark judgments on consular access and binding
nature of the decisions of the ICJ. It has expressly stated and analysed on how
the judgments given by the ICJ have an obligatory application on the signatory
nations even when there exist several bilateral agreements, treaties on
consular access.
CHAPTER II
ANALYSIS
OF THE BILATERAL AGREEMENT ON CONSULAR ACCESS
In the
past, tension-filled relations have existed between India and Pakistan. After a
short spell of consensus, India and Pakistan drafted and signed The
Bilateral Agreement on Consular Access in response to worldwide strain and a
yearning for peace. It is a brief document that establishes the aim and intent
of the agreement, accompanied by a seven-part enumeration of the treaty's
terms. The protocols of the treaty conclude it. Phrases like “agree, shall,
and undertakes” appear in the document's text.[15]This
phrasing reinforces the idea that the agreement imposes binding
responsibilities on the signatories. The aim segment outlines the purpose
for which the two countries arrived at the agreement and establishes
the foundation for implementation of such provisions. It also establishes that
the two countries are “willing of pursuing the ideal of human treatment of
citizens from either nation arrested, detained, or imprisoned.”
In these
seven provisions, the first and the second provision make it compulsory for
India and Pakistan to maintain and exchange the records two times in a year of
the detained, arrested or imprisoned citizens. Further, it also states that
there exists an obligation on the part of the nation carrying out such
activities to intimate the High Commission of the country to which the person
subjected to such arrest, detention or imprisonment belongs to. Post such
intimation, the next provision while further elaborating on the duties of the
country subjecting the person to an arrest, detention or imprisonment mandates
that they shall also intimate the arrested or detained or imprisoned persons
country about the judgment passed for such person. The fourth provision states
that consular access has to be provided in a time span of not more than three
months to the country which is in a conflict. Further on, the fifth provision
discusses about the release and sending back of a person post his provided
detainment or arrest or imprisonment period. The opposing country is also
empowered under the sixth provision to review the issue in hand on its merits.
Moreover, the seventh provision provides the discretionary power to the country
carrying out such detention, arrest or imprisonment for releasing the person
before the stipulated time of his serving of the above on the grounds of
humanity and compassion.[16]
The ICJ faces
a peculiar quandary as a result of the Bilateral Agreement on Consular Access
signed and consented upon by India and Pakistan. Pursuant to the Article
102 of the Charter of the United Nations it is mandatory for treaties to be
registered with the United Nations. [17]Article
102(2) states that the, failure to adhere with the same amounts to
the prohibition of any such unregistered treaties from being presented before
any organisation of the United Nations. Considering that the
Bilateral Agreement between India and Pakistan was unregistered in the
beginning of the proceedings, the provision of Article 102 is applicable to the
case of Kulbhshan Jadhav.
The United Nations has acknowledged
and adjudicated concerns relating to the treaties that were not
registered in the past, establishing a row of governing rulings in United
Nation courts. Yet, these decisions given by the court does not resolve
the circumstance posed in the case of Kulbhshan Jadhav, whereby a
country directly challenges a treaty which was not registered, before the
ICJ. Moreover, Pakistan's dependency in its plea to the Court on the Bilateral
Agreement between the two countries was contested by India considering that the
same was not registered[18].
In its opening argument India claimed that the bilateral agreement existing
between the two disputing countries could not be enforced in the case of
Kulbhushan Jadhav before the ICJ, considering that the same was not registered
as provided under Article 102, at the time when the proceedings were initiated.[19]
In the
present case, the primary provisions which have been questioned are the fourth
and the sixth provision considering that Pakistan had clearly violated the two
by not providing consular access to India within a time span of not more than
three months and also considering that for the purpose of defending this action
, it took the shelter of sixth provision which is an exception to the forth
provision as it exempts the adherence to the fourth provision in the cases
involving political or national security.
The ICJ came
to the conclusion regarding the consular access as per the Bilateral Agreement
that no provision of the agreement can be held to be denying the consular
access including that of the sixth provision and that such action has also led
to the infringement of Article 36 of the VCCR[20].
The ICJ also elucidated that if any of the signatory nations had the intention
to provide for an exception to any of the seven provisions, then they should
have explicitly express the same. Lastly, it held that the provisions of VCCR cannot
be over powered by any of the treaties, agreements etc among any of the nations
and that any treaties, agreements etc being formulated shall be held to be
legitimate only if they “confirm, supplement, extend or amplify” the VCCR. Hence,
the ICJ ruled in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav that Pakistan had violated
India’s Right of Consular Access in the light of the Bilateral Agreement
existing between the two nations keeping in mind the fourth provision of this
agreement as well as the Article 36 of the VCCR.[21]
CHAPTER III
APPLICABLITY
OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS(VCCR)
The VCCR
is a convention which addresses the aspect of consular relations among the
nations relying on the Bilateral Agreements, traditions and beliefs of various
nations. This convention consisting of seventy -nine articles became
operational in the year of 1967 and has been endorsed by one eighty countries
globally. It empowers the provisions on International Law to be applicable in
situations wherein the VCCR has not provided with specific applicable
provisions.
One of
the most important provisions which has been dealt with in the case of
Kulbhushan Jadhav is that of Article 36 and Article 73 of the VCCR[22]which
imposes certain responsibilities on the signatory nations with regards to the
consular access. It mandates on the nation subjecting an individual to arrest,
detention or imprisonment to intimate such individual’s country about such
arrest, detention or imprisonment and further gives him the right to his
consular representatives to have the subject’s physical access and visitation,
freedom of communication and consultation while he is subjected to such arrest,
detention or imprisonment.
In the
case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the primary arguments of Pakistan in relation to
Article 36 of the VCCR were with regards to its applicability in the light of
the exceptions in the cases of political, national security and espionage. Further,
it also contented that in the case of India and Pakistan, the Bilateral
Agreement signed by the two disputing nations is the governing document and not
the VCCR.
In the
light of the above- mentioned contentions the ICJ gave out the ruling that
Article 36 of the VCCR does not include or state within its ambit anything with
regards to an exception, even in the cases of political, national security and
espionage. While emphasising the significance of the convention's
conceptualization, it stated that the convention's main objective is to assist
to the establishment of amicable relationships between countries and to promote
the practice of consular pursuits pertaining to citizens of the sending State.
Hence, the ICJ reached at a consensus that the consular representatives are
entitled to their consular access as provided by the provision and if the same
is not followed b the sending state it is the infringement of Article 36 and
the individual’s right to consular access.
Further, it clearly established that considering the main objective for
the introduction of such convention no provision of the VCCR excludes an
individual or nations right to consular access.
Additionally,
with regards to Pakistan’s claim that in the case of India and Pakistan, the
Bilateral Agreement signed by the two disputing nations is the governing
document and not the VCCR the ICJ referred to the sixth provision of the
Bilateral Agreement and stated that the same cannot be regarded as an exception
so as to deny an individual’s right to consular access. The ICJ came to the
conclusion regarding the consular access as per the Bilateral Agreement that no
provision of the agreement can be held to be denying the consular access
including that of the sixth provision and that such action has also led to the
infringement of Article 36 of the VCCR. The ICJ also elucidated that if any of
the signatory nations had the intention to provide for an exception to any of
the seven provisions, then they should have explicitly expressed the same.
Lastly, it held that keeping in mind the provisions of Article 73 of theVCCR,
the provisions of VCCR cannot be over powered by any of the treaties,
agreements etc among any of the nations and that any treaties, agreements etc
being formulated shall be held to be legitimate only if they “confirm,
supplement, extend or amplify” the VCCR.
In the
case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the court after taking into consideration all of the
essential contributories and facts of the case arrived at the conclusion that
Pakistan had violated the VCCR in the course of trial of Kulbhushan Jadhav by
depriving him a councillor and not intimating him about the rights, he is
entitled to under Article 36, not intimating India considering the two also had
a bilateral agreement between them. Considering the above- mentioned facts, the
ICJ decided that India should be given consular access.
CHAPTER- IV
DECONSTRUCTING THE JUDGMENT/ANALYSIS OF THE
JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF KULBHUSHAN JADHAV
In the
case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, the main stance and claim of India were for the “Suspension
of the death sentence, Restitution in integrum and Release of Jadhav forthwith. After taking into consideration
all the necessary facts, agreements and applicable legislations the ICJ came to
the conclusion regarding the consular access as per the Bilateral Agreement
that no provision of the agreement can be held to be denying the consular
access including that of the sixth provision and that such action has also led
to the infringement of Article 36 of the VCCR. The ICJ also elucidated that if any
of the signatory nations had the intention to provide for an exception to any
of the seven provisions, then they should have explicitly expressed the same.
Lastly, it held that the provisions of VCCR cannot be over powered by any of
the treaties, agreements etc among any of the nations and that any treaties,
agreements etc being formulated shall be held to be legitimate only if they
“confirm, supplement, extend or amplify” the VCCR. In the LaGrand Case,[23]
the courts of United State of America had awarded death sentence to two
individuals of German nationality for murder and attempt to bank robbery. The
convicted individuals were not intimated about their rights of consular access
as has been provided and mandated by the Article 36 of the VCCR. Post the
awarding of such sentence, Germany requested and applied to the ICJ so as to
put a stay on the execution proceedings, till the case was decided by the ICJ.
After taking into consideration, all the necessary factors the ICJ came to the
conclusion that United States of America had infringed the consular rights of
the accused and that of Germany as provided by theVCCR. It further established
that the scope of Article 36 of the VCCR is not restrictive in nature and
extends to “creation of individual rights” on consular access “without delay”
so as to safeguard the rights and freedoms of an individual as well as that of
any nation.
The ICJ upheld
the decision of the LaGrand Case in the Avena Case[24]
wherein Mexico alleged that United States of America had infringed the consular
rights as provided under the Article 36 of the VCCR of Mexico. The ICJ again
held that United States of America had infringed the consular rights of
individuals. Further, it was also held
that the Nation is bound to follow the decisions rendered by the ICJ and if the
same had been adhered to it would amount to infringement of the Constitutional
rights of the nation as well. Hence, the above- mentioned precedents establish
the jurisdiction, authority and powers enjoyed by the ICJ while deciding a
dispute arising amongst its signatory countries.
The ICJ ruled
in the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav that Pakistan had violated India’s Right of
Consular Access in the light of the Bilateral Agreement existing between the
two nations keeping in mind the fourth provision of this agreement as well as
the Article 36 of theVCCR. It also established
that Article 36 of the VCCR does not include or state within its ambit anything
with regards to an exception, even in the cases of political, national security
and espionage. The Court concludes that a thorough re-assessment and judicial
review of Kulbhushan Jadhav's conviction and punishment is the suitable
recourse in this case. To be efficacious, the overview and reassessment
of Kulbhushan Jadhav's verdict shall ensure that comprehensive
consideration is provided to the implication of the infringements of the
protections provided for in Article 36 of the Convention and that the infringement and
any potential bias induced by the infringement are closely
investigated. It is further asserted that the requirement to ensure
competent assessment and revision can be fulfilled in a wide range of manners.
Pakistan is free to pursue its own means. But, the liberty of opting for one's
own methods entails limitations. The necessity to facilitate competent
assessment and consideration is an outcome requirement which needs to be met
unequivocally. As a result, it held that Pakistan must adopt all necessary
efforts to ensure remediating and reassessment, particularly, if required,
passing suitable regulations. Lastly, the Court observes
that it granted an interim order instructing Pakistan to adopt all available
steps to put a halt to the execution of Kulbhushan Jadhav, until the end of the
case before the ICJ. The Court believes that a prolonged execution
halt is a necessary prerequisite for an appropriate assessment and deliberation
of Kulbhushan Jadhav's conviction and punishment.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
AND SUGGESTIONS
The
detainment and arrest of an Indian national named, Kulbhushan Jadhav by
Pakistan gave rise to a series of conflicts and disagreements among the nations
post the verdict of death sentence being awarded to Kulbhushan Jadhav on the
allegation that he was indulged in terrorist activities and was a spy to the
Indian Government. The Indian Government as a result of such decision, requested
the ICJ for intervention and fair trial. The present case, in the course of
being tried at the ICJ highlighted on the significance ofVCCR, the Bilateral
Agreement existing between the two disputing countries as well as it also
upheld the jurisdiction of the ICJ to decide any dispute arising among any two
nations. It also clearly upheld the supremacy of the VCCR over any of Bilateral
Agreements, treaties etc existing among the countries. With the prevailing
standards emphasis on consular relations, competent implementation of consular
legislation is vital. The present case establishes that the
responsibilities levied by VCCR Article 36 extend invariably to all VCCR signatory
countries and their citizens who encounter oneself in the region of
another VCCR signatory country irrespective of the fact if they are those
suspected of being indulged in terrorist activities and spying or irrespective if
their citizenship is contested among the nations. The ICJ's decision requires a
substantial reform in the law of consular relations. While reviewing Article 36
in the light of the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, it is understandable that there
are various challenges with its implementation in the internal judicial system
of a country. In many circumstances, an injured citizen must demonstrate that
the agreement is “self-executing “or is a component of the enacting country's
national law before requesting such remedy under Article 36. It must convince
the court that the rights given are susceptible of personal implementation and
refer to the precise redress desired for eventual infringement. Such a
time-consuming procedure frequently prevents the respondent from asserting its
privileges under Article 36. The issue of Article 36 enforcement transcends
above any country's national courts to concerns brought before the ICJ. The
designation of the entitlement to consular access as a distinct privilege
conferred to the foreign respondent requires the courts to exercise greater
caution in implementing the enhanced conduct of foreign citizens confined under
their jurisdiction. Additionally, the ambiguity still existing on the aspect of
law on consular access and the VCCR was again reiterated in the case of
Kulbhushan Jadhav which emphasized on the need for the amendment of the VCCR considering
its pertinent brevity and inadequate spectrum of protections, as well as the
dearth of a suitable implementation framework. Taking cognizance of the
Preamble's phrasing and Article 36's heading, the agreement's existing
terminology is debatable. If the convention is revised to expressly say that it
does impart individual rights and if it expressly provides out the consequences
for its violation, more efficient implementation of the convention can be
achieved. This precludes the possibility of nations reaching at their own
understanding of the treaty rather than embracing the ICJ 's norms. It would additionally increase global and institutional responsibility
by requiring governments who refuse to grant personal recourse to be
increasingly open and emphatic regarding their decision.
Hence, the
judgment rendered by the ICJ has had an immense impact on the relationship
among the two nations as well as on the role and powers of the ICJ, on the
significance of consular access and importance of a humane treatment for all
individuals irrespective of their race, caste, nationality etc.
[1] Siddharth Varadarajan, Beyond
the Hurrahs, Eight Takeaways from the ICJ Ruling on Kulbhushan Jadhav, The Wire, July 18, 2019. https://thewire.in/diplomacy/eight-takeaways-from-the-icj-ruling-on-kulbhushan-jadhav
[2] International Court of Justice
(Here After Referred to as ICJ).
[3] Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations (Here After to as VCCR).
[4] United Nations Charter, Article
102.
[5] Luke T. Lee J.D. & Jon
Quigley, Consular Law and Practice, Oxford
University Press, 3rd ed., 2008.
[6] Supra note 2
[7] United Nations Charter, Article
102(2).
[8] Id.
[9] VCCR, Article 36.
[10] Zarfishan Qaiser, Kulbhushan
Jadhav Case: A Mystery of a Win-Win Situation for Pakistan and India, International Journal Documentation and
Research Institute, Vol. 8, pp 233-239, 2008.
[11] Roberto Ribeiro C. Marques, The
Right to Access Consular Assistance and Protection and its Relevance to the
Architecture of a Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, International Journal of Postcolonial studies,
Vol. 23, pp 410-414, December 2020.
[12] Atul Alexander, Deconstructing
the Jurisprudence Of The International Court Of Justice In Jadhav Case (India
V. Pakistan), NLUA Law Review,
March 12, 2021.
[13] William J., The Law of Consular
Access: A Documentary Guide, Routledge
Research in International Law, 1st ed., 2011.
[14] Ashish Shukla, Report on Jadhav
Case, Indian Council of World Affairs,
August 27, 2019.
[15] Samriddhi Sharma, Agreement on
Consular Access between the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and
the Government of the Republic of India, Blog
Forum, May 21, 2008
[16] Supra Note 16.
[17] Supra Note 8.
[18] Jadhav Case, Application
Instituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court, May 8, 2017.
https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20170508-APP-01-00-EN.pdf?forcedefault=true
[19] Id.
[20] Supra Note 10.
[21] Id.
[22] VCCR, Article 73.
[23] Germany v. United States of
America (LaGrand), ICJ GL NO. 104 2001.