GS-II Paper: International Court Of Justice
International Court of Justice (ICJ) has directed Pakistan to review conviction order of Kulbhushan Jadhav and, until then, put his death sentence on hold. ICJ has also asked Pakistan to allow India consular access at earliest.
Observation made by ICJ:
Islamabad has violated Article 36 of Vienna Convention of Consular Relations, 1963, by not informing India about Jadhav’s arrest immediately after Pakistan Army had taken him into custody. India had been deprived of ‘right to communicate with and have access to Jadhav, to visit him in detention and to arrange for his legal representation’.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial body of the UN. Established in 1946 to replace the Permanent Court of International Justice, the ICJ mainly operates under the statute of its predecessor, which is included in the UN Charter. It has two primary functions: to settle legal disputes submitted by States in accordance with established international laws, and to act as an advisory board on issues submitted to it by authorized international organizations.
Who nominates the candidates?
Every state government, party to the Charter, designates a group who propose candidates for the office of ICJ judges. This group includes four members/jurists of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (machinery which enables arbitral tribunals to be set up as desired and facilitates their work) also picked by the State. Countries not part of the statute follow the same procedure where a group nominates the candidates.
Each group is limited to nominate four candidates, two of whom could be of their nationality. Within a fixed duration set by the Secretary-General, the names of the candidates have to be sent to him/her.
What are the qualifications of ICJ judges?
The 15 judges of the Court are distributed as per the regions:
Source: The Hindu
GS-II Paper: The complexities of Naga identity
The Nagaland government’s move to compile a Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland (RIIN) opens up possibilities in the context of the decision to link the register to the Inner Line Permit (ILP) system without a consensus on the definition of an ‘indigenous inhabitant’.
Opposition from NSCN (I-M)
a) The person settled permanently in Nagaland prior to December 1, 1963.
b) His or her parents or legitimate guardians were paying house tax prior to this cut-off date.
c) The applicant, or his/her parents or legitimate guardians, acquired property and a patta (land certificate) prior to this cut-off date.
1. Cut-off date – While the move to streamline the ILP system to curb the influx of “illegal migration” to Nagaland has been welcomed by civil society, public opinion is still divided on compiling RIIN without a consensus on the cut-off date.
2. De-link the work of streamlining the ILP mechanism – As the Nagaland government has begun a consultation process on RIIN, it will be under pressure to de-link the work of streamlining the ILP mechanism from the proposed register and put it on hold till the ongoing peace process concludes and the final solution is worked out.
Source: The Hindu
Copyright© Aspire IAS Academy. All rights reserved. Powered by CLT Technologies & Edu-Publishers Private Limited.