INTIERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
R.EPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVI!SORYOPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING THE AERIAL INCIDENT
OF 10AUGUST 1999
(PAKISTAN v.INDIA)
0R.DER OF 19 NOVEMBER 1999
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
(PAKISTAN c.INDE)
ORDONNANCE DU 19 NOVEMBRE 1999 Official :itation
Aerial Incident of10 August 1999 (Pukistan v. India),
Order of 19 NovembI.C.Reports p. 1038
Mode officiel de citation:
Incident ukrien du 10 août 1999 (Pakistun c. Inde),
ordonnance19 novembre 1999, C.I.Jp. 1038il 1999,
Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 1 N"de vent766 1
ISBN 92-1-070838-5 19 NOVEMBER 1999
ORDER
AERIAILINCIDENT OF 10AUGUST 1999
(PAKISTAN v. INDIA)
INCIDIENTAÉRIEN DU 10AOÛT 1999
(PAKISTAN c.INDE)
19NOVEMBRE 1999
ORDONNANCE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1999 YEAR 1999
GeneralList
No. 119 19 November 1999
CASE CONCERNING THE AERIAL INCIDENT
OF 10AUGUST 1999
(PAKISTAN v.INDIA)
ORDER
Present: President SCHWEBE ;LVice-PresidenWEERAMANTR Yudges
ODA,BEDJAOUIG , UILLAUME H,ERCZEGH S, I, FLEISCHHAUER,
KOROMA, VERESHCHETIN H,IGGINS, PARRA-ARANGUREN,
KOOIJMANS ; RegistruVALENCIA-OSPINA.
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
Having regard to Article 48 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 44 and 48 of theles of Court,
Having regard to the Application filed in the Registry of the Court on
21 September 1999,whereby the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instituted
proceedings against the Republic of India in respect of a dispute concern-
ing the destruction on 10August 1999of a Pakistani aircraft;
Whereas on 21 September 1999a certified copy of the Application was
transmitted to the Republic of India;
Whereas the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has appointed as Agent His
Excellency Mr. Saeed M. Khan, Ambassador of Pakistan to the Nether-
lands; and whereas the Republic ofIndia has appointed as Agent His
Excellency Mr. Prabhakarenon, Ambassador of India to the Nether-
lands, as Co-Agent Mr. P. S. Rao, Joint Secretary and Legalser inthe Ministry of External Affairs, and as Deputy Agent Ms Murugesan
Manimekalai, Counsellor at the Embassy of India in the Netherlands;
Whereas, in its Application, Pakistan, in order to found the jurisdic-
tion of the Court, invokes Article 36, paragraphs 1and 2, of the Statute
and the declarations whereby the two Parties have recognized the com-
pulsory jurisdiction of the Court;
Whereas, by letter dated 2 November 1999,the Agent of India notified
the Court that his Government "wish[ed] to indicate its preliminary
objections to the assumption of jurisdiction by the . . . Court . . . on the
basis of Pakistan's Application"; and whereas those objections, set out in
a note appended to the letter, were as follows:
"(i) That Pakistan's Application did not refer to any treaty or con-
vention in force between India and Pakistan which confers
jurisdiction upon the Court under Article 36 (1).
(ii) That Pakistan's Application fails to take into consideration the
reservations to the Declaration of India dated 15 September
1974filed under Article 36 (2) of its Statute. In particular, Paki-
stan, being a Commonwealth country, is not entitled to invoke
the jurisdiction of the Court as subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1
of that Declaration excludes al1 disputes involving India from
the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of any State which 'isor
has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations'.
(iii) The Government of India also submits that subparagraph 7 of
paragraph 1 of its Declaration of 15 September 1974bars Paki-
stan from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court against India
concerning any dispute arising from the interpretation or appli-
cation of a multilateral treaty, unless at the same time al1 the
parties to such a treaty are also joined as parties to the case
before the Court. The reference to the UN Charter, which is a
multilateral treaty, in the Application of Pakistan as a basis for
its claim would clearly fa11within the ambit of this reservation.
India further asserts that it has not provided any consent or
concluded any special agreement with Pakistan which waives
this requirement";
Whereas, at a meeting between the President of the Court and the rep-
resentatives of the Parties held on 10 November 1999, the Parties provi-
sionally agreed to request the Court to determine separately the question
of jurisdiction in this case before any proceedings on the merits, on the
understanding that Pakistan would first present a Memorial dealing
exclusively with this question, to which India would have the opportunity
of replying in a Counter-Memorial confined to the same question;
Whereas, by letter of 12 November 1999, the Agent of Pakistan con-
firmed the agreement to the procedure given ad rejkrendun~ on 10Novem-
ber 1999; Whereas it is necessary for the Court to be informed of al1the conten-
tions and evidence of fact and law on which the Parties rely in thematter
of itsjurisdiction;
Taking into account the agreement concerning the procedure reached
between the Parties, consulted under Article 31 of the Rules of Court,
and their views regarding the time-limits to be fixed for that purpose,
Decides that the written pleadings shall first be addressed to the ques-
tion of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Application;
Fixcs the following time-limits for the filing of those pleadings:
10January 2000for the Memorial of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan;
28 February 2000 for the Counter-Memorial of the Republic of India;
and
Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.
Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this nineteenth day of November one thou-
Sand nine hundred and ninety-nine, in three copies, one of which will be
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Government of
the Republic of India, respectively.
(Signed) Stephen M. SCHWEBEL,
President.
(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar.
INTIERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
R.EPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVI!SORYOPINIONS AND ORDERS
CASE CONCERNING THE AERIAL INCIDENT
OF 10AUGUST 1999
(PAKISTAN v.INDIA)
0R.DER OF 19 NOVEMBER 1999
COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
(PAKISTAN c.INDE)
ORDONNANCE DU 19 NOVEMBRE 1999 Official :itation
Aerial Incident of10 August 1999 (Pukistan v. India),
Order of 19 NovembI.C.Reports p. 1038
Mode officiel de citation:
Incident ukrien du 10 août 1999 (Pakistun c. Inde),
ordonnance19 novembre 1999, C.I.Jp. 1038il 1999,
Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 1 N"de vent766 1
ISBN 92-1-070838-5 19 NOVEMBER 1999
ORDER
AERIAILINCIDENT OF 10AUGUST 1999
(PAKISTAN v. INDIA)
INCIDIENTAÉRIEN DU 10AOÛT 1999
(PAKISTAN c.INDE)
19NOVEMBRE 1999
ORDONNANCE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
1999 YEAR 1999
GeneralList
No. 119 19 November 1999
CASE CONCERNING THE AERIAL INCIDENT
OF 10AUGUST 1999
(PAKISTAN v.INDIA)
ORDER
Present: President SCHWEBE ;LVice-PresidenWEERAMANTR Yudges
ODA,BEDJAOUIG , UILLAUME H,ERCZEGH S, I, FLEISCHHAUER,
KOROMA, VERESHCHETIN H,IGGINS, PARRA-ARANGUREN,
KOOIJMANS ; RegistruVALENCIA-OSPINA.
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
Having regard to Article 48 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 44 and 48 of theles of Court,
Having regard to the Application filed in the Registry of the Court on
21 September 1999,whereby the Islamic Republic of Pakistan instituted
proceedings against the Republic of India in respect of a dispute concern-
ing the destruction on 10August 1999of a Pakistani aircraft;
Whereas on 21 September 1999a certified copy of the Application was
transmitted to the Republic of India;
Whereas the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has appointed as Agent His
Excellency Mr. Saeed M. Khan, Ambassador of Pakistan to the Nether-
lands; and whereas the Republic ofIndia has appointed as Agent His
Excellency Mr. Prabhakarenon, Ambassador of India to the Nether-
lands, as Co-Agent Mr. P. S. Rao, Joint Secretary and Legalser in COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
ANNEE 1999 1999
19novembre
19 novembre1999 ROlegénéral
no119
AFFAIRE DE L'INCIDENT AÉRIEN
DU 10AOÛT 1999
(PAKISTAN c. INDE)
ORDONNANCE
Présents: M. SCHWEBEpLr,ésident; M. WEERAMANTRv i,e-président;
MM. OI)A, BEDJAOUI,GUILLAUME,HERCZEGH,SHI,
FLEISCHHAUER K,OROMA,VERESHCHETIN M, me HIGGINS,
MM. PARIRA-ARANGURK EN, IJMANju,ges; M. VALENCIA-
OSPINAg,reftfier.
La Cour internationale de Justice,
Ainsi composée,
Vu l'article48 du Statutde la Cour et les articles 44 et 48 de son Règle-
ment.
Vu la requête enregistréeau Greffe de la Cour le 21 septembre 1999,
par laquelle la Républiqueislamique du Pakistan a introduit une instance
contre la Républiquede l'Inde au sujet d'un différend relatifa la destruc-
tion, le 10août 1999,d'un avion pakistanais;
Considérant que, le 21 septembre 1999,une copie certifiéeconforme de
la requête aétéansimiàela Républiquede l'Inde;
Considérantque la Républiqueislamique du Pakistan acommegné
agent S. Exc.. Saeed M. Khan, ambassadeur du Pakistan aux Pays-
Bas; et que laépu.bliquede l'Inde a désignécomme agent S. Exc.
M. Prabhakar Menori, ambassadeur de l'Inde aux Pays-Bas, comme co-
agent M. P. S. Rao, secrétaireadjoint et conseillerjuridique au ministèrethe Ministry of External Affairs, and as Deputy Agent Ms Murugesan
Manimekalai, Counsellor at the Embassy of India in the Netherlands;
Whereas, in its Application, Pakistan, in order to found the jurisdic-
tion of the Court, invokes Article 36, paragraphs 1and 2, of the Statute
and the declarations whereby the two Parties have recognized the com-
pulsory jurisdiction of the Court;
Whereas, by letter dated 2 November 1999,the Agent of India notified
the Court that his Government "wish[ed] to indicate its preliminary
objections to the assumption of jurisdiction by the . . . Court . . . on the
basis of Pakistan's Application"; and whereas those objections, set out in
a note appended to the letter, were as follows:
"(i) That Pakistan's Application did not refer to any treaty or con-
vention in force between India and Pakistan which confers
jurisdiction upon the Court under Article 36 (1).
(ii) That Pakistan's Application fails to take into consideration the
reservations to the Declaration of India dated 15 September
1974filed under Article 36 (2) of its Statute. In particular, Paki-
stan, being a Commonwealth country, is not entitled to invoke
the jurisdiction of the Court as subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1
of that Declaration excludes al1 disputes involving India from
the jurisdiction of this Court in respect of any State which 'isor
has been a Member of the Commonwealth of Nations'.
(iii) The Government of India also submits that subparagraph 7 of
paragraph 1 of its Declaration of 15 September 1974bars Paki-
stan from invoking the jurisdiction of this Court against India
concerning any dispute arising from the interpretation or appli-
cation of a multilateral treaty, unless at the same time al1 the
parties to such a treaty are also joined as parties to the case
before the Court. The reference to the UN Charter, which is a
multilateral treaty, in the Application of Pakistan as a basis for
its claim would clearly fa11within the ambit of this reservation.
India further asserts that it has not provided any consent or
concluded any special agreement with Pakistan which waives
this requirement";
Whereas, at a meeting between the President of the Court and the rep-
resentatives of the Parties held on 10 November 1999, the Parties provi-
sionally agreed to request the Court to determine separately the question
of jurisdiction in this case before any proceedings on the merits, on the
understanding that Pakistan would first present a Memorial dealing
exclusively with this question, to which India would have the opportunity
of replying in a Counter-Memorial confined to the same question;
Whereas, by letter of 12 November 1999, the Agent of Pakistan con-
firmed the agreement to the procedure given ad rejkrendun~ on 10Novem-
ber 1999;des affaires extérieures de l'Inde, et comme agent adjoint Mme Muru-
gesan Manimekalai, conseiller à l'ambassade de l'Inde aux Pays-Bas;
Considérant que, clans sa requête,le Pakistan, aux fins de fonder la
compétence de la Coiir, invoque les paragraphes 1 et 2 de l'artic36 du
Statut, ainsi que les déclarations par lesquelles les deux Parties ont
reconnu la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour;
Considérant que, par lettre du 2 novembre 1999,l'agent de l'Inde a fait
savoir à la Cour que son gouvernement (<souhait[ait]présenter des excep-
tions préliminaires à la compétence de la Cour ... pour connaître de la
requêtedu Pakistan)); et que ces exceptions ont été formulées, dans une
note jointe à cette letitre, ainsi que suit:
«i) La requêtedu Pakistan ne renvoie à aucun traité ni convention
en vigueur entre l'Inde et le Pakistan qui donnerait compétence
à la Cour en vertu du paragraphe 1de l'article 36 du Statut.
ii)Le Pakistan 11etient pas compte dans sa requête desréservesfor-
mulées dans la déclaration que l'Inde a faite le 15 septembre
1974 conformément aux dispositions du paragraphe 2 de I'ar-
ticle 36 du ;Statut. En particulier, le Pakistan, étant un Etat
membre du Commonwealth, n'est pasen droit d'invoquer la juri-
diction de la Cour, du fait que l'aliné2 du premier paragraphe
de ladite déclaration exclut de la juridiction de la Cour tous les
différends mettant en cause l'Inde dans ses relations avec tout
Etat qui «esl: ou a étémembre du Commonwealth de nations)).
iii) Le Gouvernement de l'Inde déclareaussi que l'alinéa7 du pre-
mier paragraphe de sa déclaration du 15 septembre 1974 em-
pêchele Pak.istan d'invoquer contre I'lnde la juridiction de la
Cour en cas de différend relatif à l'interprétation ou à I'appli-
cation d'un traité multilatéral, à moins qu'en même temps
toutes les parties au traité ne soient également devenues parties
à l'affaire dont la Cour est saisie. En invoquant dans sa requête
la Charte de:; Nations Unies, qui est un traité multilatéral, pour
fonder sa demande, le Pakistan tombe clairement sous le coup
de cette réserve.L'Inde affirme en outre qu'elle n'adonnéaucun
consentement ni conclu avec le Pakistan aucun compromis
qui dérogeà cette prescription »;
Considérant que, au cours d'une réunion que le président de la Cour a
tenue avec les représentants des Parties le 10 novembre 1999, les Parties
sont provisoirement convenues de demander qu'il soit statué séparément,
avant toute procédure sur le fond, sur la question de compétence en
l'espèce,étant entendu que le Pakistan présenterait d'abord un mémoire
consacré à cette seule question et que le l'Inde pourrait lui répondre dans
un contre-mémoire limitéà la mêmequestion;
Considérant que, par lettre du 12 novembre 1999, l'agent du Pakistan
a confirmé l'accord sur la procédure donné ad rqfbrendum le 10novembre
1999 ; Whereas it is necessary for the Court to be informed of al1the conten-
tions and evidence of fact and law on which the Parties rely in thematter
of itsjurisdiction;
Taking into account the agreement concerning the procedure reached
between the Parties, consulted under Article 31 of the Rules of Court,
and their views regarding the time-limits to be fixed for that purpose,
Decides that the written pleadings shall first be addressed to the ques-
tion of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the Application;
Fixcs the following time-limits for the filing of those pleadings:
10January 2000for the Memorial of the lslamic Republic of Pakistan;
28 February 2000 for the Counter-Memorial of the Republic of India;
and
Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.
Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this nineteenth day of November one thou-
Sand nine hundred and ninety-nine, in three copies, one of which will be
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the
Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Government of
the Republic of India, respectively.
(Signed) Stephen M. SCHWEBEL,
President.
(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar. Considérant qu'il échetque la Cour soit informéede tous les moyens
de fait et de droit sur lesquels les Parties se fondent au sujet de sa com-
pétence ;
Compte tenu de l'accord intervenu entre lesParties, consultées en vertu
de l'article31du Règlement, au sujet de la procédure, ainsi que de leurs
vues quant aux délais à fixer à cet effet,
Décideque les piècesde la procédureécriteporteront d'abord sur la
question de la compéitencede la Cour pour connaître de la requête;
Fixe comme suit les dates d'expiration des délaispour le dépôtde ces
pièces:
Pour le mémoire dela Républiqueislamique du Pakistan, le 10janvier
2000 ;
Pour le contre-mérrioirede la République del'Inde, le 28février2000;
Réservela suite de la procédure.
Fait en anglais et erifrançais, le texte anglais faisant foi, au Palais de la
Paix, à La Haye, le dix-neuf novembre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-
neuf, en trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la
Cour et les autres seront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement de la
Républiqueislamique du Pakistan et au Gouvernement de la République
de l'Inde.
Le président,
(Signé) Stephen M. SCHWEBEL.
Le greffier,
(Signé) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA.
Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial
Order of 19 November 1999