About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

35 Supremo Amicus [1] (2024)

handle is hein.journals/supami35 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREMO AMICUS f VOLUME 35 | May, 2024 ISSN 2456-9704 RE-DEFINING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND RELATIONS: KULBHUSHAN JADHAV CASE. By Aryan Srivastava From Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur Abstract India v. Pakistan (2019) was one of the most talked about legal disputes between nations, hanging in between was the life of Kulbhushan Jadhav. International Court of Justice pronounced its judgement in favor of India with a 15:1 majority ruling. Despite some misconception this case was not one regarding legitimacy of the claims that Jadhav was spy, ratherthe main issue revolved around the fact that India was denied consular access to tlblushui) Jadhav despite multiple requests. This is one casc where Pakistan took the de fense o i e h i international law. The said case 4 olined h jurisdiction of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) and the bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan of 2008. This research article will show a detailed analysis of the said case and how the ratio how this case affects the international theatre. This case becomes worth studying because it not only deals with consular access but issues relating to interpretation of norms and obligation of nation states to treaties and agreements. Hence, this paper will rely on secondary data from other articles, books, jurists and the official documents of the ministries of both nations and the international court of justice as well as other case laws on similar lines and the authors own analysis to provide the reader with an extensive understanding of consular access and jurisdiction of treaties and agreements through the help of Kulbhushan Jadhav Case. Introduction Two major aspects to talk about in this case are that of consular access and jurisdiction. Consular access as we all know it in general parlance is the grant of legal protection and consultation, to an accused foreigner, by his/her respective consulate/high commission. It is something that is 1 Article 2, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, Done at Vienna on 24 April 1963. Entered into generally allowed by the nation to a foreigner however the same was denied by Pakistan herein. So, the question pertained whether such a refusal was even valid in the first place. To better understand what consular access entails we can take up an illustration: Let's say that there are two countries A and B, Person 1 from country B is visiting country A where he has now been accused of a crime. Here he gets a right to consular access meaning that he can now Person 1 can contact the Consulate of Country B in Country A and ask for representation and related help so that their home country can interfere on their citizen 's behalf The law regulating Consular Relations is the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963. According to the Article 2 of the same statute establishment of Lconsular relations is also implied as soon as diplomatic relations are established between the two Jnations, however severance of diplomatic relations does not necessarily ipso facto mean severance of consular relations'. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations codifies a well-known centuries long practice of where citizens from foreign country, if accused of a crime, were allowed to be represented by the representatives of their home country. The practice could've gone without the need of it being codified as an International Custom, however that would have left a lot of grey area where states could have creeped through a gap or a loophole to avoid providing consular access. It is important to note that the convention itself realises that it is a centuries long practice that is not immune to customary practices. Historically speaking this convention was brought into existence in 1963, a time when cold war was at its peak and the age of espionage was rampant too so no major power had much objection due to their own self- interest to secure their own agents and plug any possible leaks in their security by ensuring that their citizens were represented elsewhere by their own people. Coming over to the second major aspect of jurisdiction in this case, it might seem settled as to who has the right to prosecute over the crimes committed in one's territory and who can be prosecuted, however there force on 19 March 1967. United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 261 www.supremoamicus.org PIF 6.242

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most