Rejoinder submitted by the Government of Pakistan

REJOINDER SUBMITTED BY THE

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

INTRODUCTION

This Rejoinder is submitted to the International Court of Justice by the
Government of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent")
pursuant to an Order of the Acting President of the Court in answer to the
Reply submitted on 17 April 1972 by the Govemment of India (hereinafter
referred to as "the Applicant").
2. The Respondent reaffirms the statements of fact and submissions of law
made in the Counter-Memorial dated 29 February 1972and denies al1state-
ments, allegations, assertions, submissions and contentions contained in the
Applicant's Reply, which are repugnant to or inconsistent with thecontents of
the said Counter-Memorial.
3. The Respondent suhmitsthat the Applicant has misconceived the
statements and submissions made by the Respondent and has attempted to
side-track the various issues of fact and iaw raised in the Counter-Mernorial.
4. The Respondent now proceeds to give Rejoinder to the various state-
ments of fact and submissions of law embodied in the Applicant's Reply. The
Respondent reserves its position with regard to al1facts, arguments, points,
submissions and contentions which are set out in the Applicant's Memorial
and Reply and which are not expressly admitted by the Respondent in the
Counter-Memorial and the Rejoinder. CHAPTER 1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

(Reply of India, Paragraphs 5-10)

A. India Is in Breach of Its Obligationsunder the Convention and theTransit
Agreement

5. The Respondent reasserts the Statement of fact and law as set out in
paragraphs 5 and 6 of Part 1of the Counter-Memorial.
6. The Respondent suhmits that the Indian action, taken on 4 February
1971, unilaterally suspending al1 Pakistani flights over lndian territory was
mala fide and contrary to India's international obligationsunder the Con-
vention and the Transit Agreement. The purported termination or suspension
of the Convention and Transit Agreement was against the recognized prin-

ciples of law and had no legal effect. The Indian action in suspending over-
flights ove? its territory was contrary to the principlepacfa sunrservanda
and was discriminatory in character.
7. The Applicant erroneously assumes that the Convention and Transit
Agreement were not in forceafter 1965conflict hetween the twocountries and
suhsequently were never revived. On the basis of the assumption, the Appli-
cant has asserted that suspension of Pakistani fiights over India was not in
hreach of the Convention and the Transit Agreement. The Resoondent
suhmits that the Convention and the Transit ~greement were in operation on
4 Februarv 1971between the two countries and the Indian action constitutes

a violation of itsinternational obligationsthereunder

B. Principal Questionbeforethe Court

8. In the Respondent's view the principal question before the Court is
whether the decision of the Council in rejecting the Preliminary Objection of
the Government of lndia is correct in law. In the alternative. it is submitted
that in theevents thal have happened and in thecircumstance~disclosedin the
Application of Pakistan submitted to the Council of ICAO, the plincipal
hefore the Court is whether the Council has no jurisdiction-to

entertain the said Application presented by Pakistan.

C. India's Negafive Attitude to Sertle the Dispute Amicably
Even in Disregard to Recommendations of the Council

9. The Resoondent denies the alleeations made in naraaraoh 9 of the
Applicant's ~éply.Refore appro~chingthe Council of 16~0.-~a.kistan made
repeÿted eBoris tu settle the dispute ~ith the Government of India hy peaceful
neaotiaiions but wirhout anv fruitful results 1. ElTorta to settlc the matter
peacefully were also made p;rsuant to (a) the Council Resolution, dated 8
April 1971 2, (b) and recommendations of the Council made at its Vienna

1 Indian Memorial(hereinafterreferredto as I.M.), 77-79,supra.
2 See Draft CouncilMinutesLXXI1/22(çlosed)Part 1-Decisions,14 April1971. REJOINDER OF PAKISTAN 459

Session 1and (cl paragrüph 4 of the ICA0 Swrctüry General's letter, dated
30 July 1971 2, which rciterared the Council rcsolutton of 8 April 1971. All
along India's attitudehas been nerrative.
10: Ii is rîitcrated thït the ~p~licant in ils Preliminary Objection dealt
wiih the merits of the dispute and referrcd to the cvents and circumstanccs

which are extraneous and irrelevant to the issues in question.

1 SccDrafi CouncilMinuics LXXIII/IZ(closed)Dccisions,14 May 1971.
2 Counier-Mernorialof Pakistan, Fehruary 1972-Annex II, p. 398,supra. CHAPTER II

T'hF. EVENTS OF 1965 AND 1966

(Reply of India, Paragraphs 11-24)

A. Convention and Transit Agreement Arein Force
Between India and Pakistan

11. The Applicant erroneously asserts in paragraph 11 of the Reply that
since the outbreak of armed hostilities between the two c~u~tries in 1965 th~ ~ ~
Convention and the Transit Agreement were not in force as ktween India
and Pakistan. The Respondent submits that the armed conflict of 1965,as is
apparent from subsequent events, did not affect the treaties in force hctween
the two countries. Moreover, the Convention and Transit Agreement
expressly provide for the exigency of war and only give freedom of action to

a contractina State in relation to its riehts as a be-li'eerentor neutral. When.
however, theconflict ends, and belligeFentor neutral rights cease Io exist, thé
provisions of the Convention and the Transit Agreement have to he im~le-
mented. The Respondent reiterates the statementicontained in paragraphs 7,
8 and 9 of the Counter-Memorial,

B. There1s no Speciul Agreement of 1966 andIndian
Norificarionof IOFebruary Is nof Relevanf

12. The Applicant has unjustifiahly descrihed !the steps taken in 1966 to
implement the Convention and the Transit Agreement as the "Special
Agreement of 1966". As mentioned above, the brief conflict of 1965 did not
affect treaty relations between the two countries. Indeed. the Indus Water
Treary of 1960and the Rann of Kutch Arbitralion Agreement continued to

be implemented. In order to normalize relations berween the Iwo countries,
the Prime Minister of India and the Prcsident of Pakistan signed the Tashkent
Declîration 1 and in Article VI thereof agreed "Io take measures Io imple-
ment the cxisting agreements hetwecn lndia and Pakistan". In order to
implement the existing agreements letiers were exchanged between the Rime
Minister of India and the Prcsident of Pakistan on 3 Februïry 1966 and 7
February 1966 2 respectively, in which they decided to immediately resume
overiiights across each other's territory "on the same basis as that prior to
1 August 1965".

13. The Notification dated 10 February 1966 3of the Government of India
has no bearing whatsoever on the Applicant's international obligations
towards Pakistan. The reference to the Aeronautical Information Circular
(AI0 in paragraphs 12 and 13 is irrelevantand uncalled for. 11whuld be
appropriate Io point out in the following paragraphs thc îctual significance of
AIC which can be issued under Annex 15 4to the Convention.

1 I.M., pp. 352-353,supra.
2 Ibid.,p.354,supra.
3 Ibid.,p.lu),supra.
4 InrernafionaSl fandordrand Recommended Procficu. Aeronautical Information
ServicesA,nnexlS Io the Conventionon InternationalCivilAviation, Chicago.1944,
thereinaiterreferredto asAnnex 15. Annex 15 lays down the Standard and Recommended Practices in
(i)
resnect of Aeronautical Information Services to be provided by the
int tract Sint^s. Chapter 6 of the Annex requires thit "AICshall be
originated wbenever it is necessary to promulgate aeronautical infor-
mation which doas not qualify:
(a) Under the specificationsin 4.1 for inclusion in Aeronautical Infor-
mation Publication; or

(6) Under the specification under 5.1 for the origination of NOTAM
(Notice to Airmen)" 1.

(ii) The Annex in Chapter 6also lays down that "an AIC shall be originated
whenever it is desirable to promulgate:
(a) a long term forecast of any major change in legislation, regulations,
procedures or facilities;

(6) information of a purely explanatory or advisory nature liable to
affect flight safety; and

(c) information or notification of an explanatory or advisory nature
concerning technical, legislative or purely administrative matters.
Note: The publication of an AIC does not remove the obligation set
forth in Chapters 4and 5 2."

(iii) In paragraph 13 of the Reply, the Applicant has not given the correct
and full quotation from Annex 15 regarding the issue of AIC and has
omitted the words "a long term forecast of any major change in legis-
lation", for which AIC can be promulgated. In Chapter 4, paragraph
4.1, the Annex lays down that Aeronautical Information Publication
(AIP) shall contain current information relating to those subjects
enumeiated in Appendix 1 to the Annex. Paragraph 6.1 of Appendix 1
to the Annex reads as follows:

"6.1 Entry, Transit and Departure.
Regulations (including Customs, Immigration and Health, and
requirements for advance notification and applications for permission)
concerningentry, transit and departure of:

1. civil aircraft on internarional flights;
2. non-immigrant prtssengers andcrew;
3. carao:
4. proii;ions for facilitating entry and departure for search, rescue,
salvage, investigation, repair or salvage in connection with lost
or damaged aircraft 3."

(iv) In view of the requirements uoder wbich an AIC can be issued under
Annex 15, Chapter 6, including the note tbereunder. it is clear that the
"entry and transit regulations" can only belaid down in AIP and not in
AIC. In accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 6.1 of Appendix
1 to Annex 15 referred to above, India has laid down in its AIP, the
following regulations governing the flight of foreign aircraft into or in
transit across Indian terntory:

Ibidp..,12.
2 Annex 15,Chap. 6, p. 12.
3 Annex 15,Appendix 1,p. 18. It will benoticed that the letter does not state that the resumption of over-
fliehts will be conditional on oermission of the Government of India in each ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
particular case. Ir is not now open to the Applicant to rely on municipal Inw

in an attcmpt to avoid international obligations. Thc correct position in this
resoect has been set out in oara~rauhs 35 and 36 of the ~ounter-~emorial.
i4. The position stated-in paragraph 14 of the Reply is incorrect. The
assertions in paragraph 10 of the Counter-Memorial are not irrelevant. In

fact ~pplicant hastried to retract from its original stand taken in the Prelim-
inary Objection before ICAO in paragraph 28 thereof. India had stated
therein that the "air transit and ovedying each other's temtory was governed
bv a 'Soecial Réeime' betweenIndia and Pakistan in 1948 and continues tn
be so governed iptil today". This is incorrect as India herself had invoked

the orovisions of the Convention and the Transit Agreement in 19.2 1 hy
appÏoaching the ICAO Council against Pakistan.
15. The Respondent reaffirms the facts contained in paragraph 11 of the
Counter-Memorial and asserts that the position taken hy the Applicant in

naraeraoh 15of the Reolv is incorrect and misleadine.
16: ~he position takk in paragraph 16 of the ~&ly is incorrect. In para-
graphs 12 and 13 of the Counter-Memorial. the Respondent has given a
c- - ~ ~ ~ ~roretatinn of the orovisions of theTashkent Declaration and of the ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
. ~ ~ ~
contents of the letters thüt 'kre exchangcd between the Prime Minister of
lndia and the President of Pakistan in February 1966.The interpretation is
f~ ~ ~ ~fortificd hv the submissions in Daraer.ohs -.and 13of the Reioinder. ~,~ ~ ~
17. The ~espvndent submits that in paragraph 17of the Reply, the alleged
"incontrovertihle basic facts" are misconceived and incorrect. Firstly. the

l~ ~~ ~ exchaoeed between the Prime Minister of India and the ~residéntof
Pakistan in ~ebruary 1966 referred Io the resumption of overflights on the
samc basis 3s that onor IO I August 1965.Secondly. tnking into considcrütion
the ohlieation to imolement theexistinr! aereements in terms of Article VI of

the ~ashkent ~eclaiation, the phrase "onthe same basis" could only mean
that the overflights were resumed on the hasis of the Convention and the
Transit ~greement. The Applicant has misconstrued paragraph 14 of the
Counter-Memorial. The Respondent reaffirms contents thereof and reiterates

the facts stated therein.

C. Indian Governmenl'sPermissionWasnof
Soughrfor Landings

18. The statement made in paragraph 18 of the Reply hy the Applicant is
denied. It is stated that there are two types of aircraft operations: (a) sche-
duled and IbJnon-scheduled. In resoect of scheduled services no oermission is
required "rider the Transit ~greement for either non-traffic la"dings or for

flying across the territories of the parties to the Agreement. There is not a
sinde case whete oermission was souaht bv either Pakistan or India in resoect
of scheduled services for making non-traffic landings or flying across other's
territory. In case of non-scheduled services, no prior permission is required

for making non-traffic landines under Article 5 of the Convention. However.
in respectof overflights of non-scheduled flights, the State overflown has a
right to require Ilindings in its territory. 11is denied thltt prior permission was
requested for non-scheduled flights to make non-trafic landings in India. As

' Counter-Mernorial.AnnexEI, p. 399. supra.regards instances enumerated in paragraph 18 by the Applicant, it is stated
that the instances firstly, relate to non-scheduled flights and secondly, relate
to obtaining Air Defence Clearances as required under the Air Defence
Reeulatians 1 laid down in the Aeronautical Information Publication of
1n2a and apply to al1 aircraft irrespective of their nationality and do not
~DDItYo Pakistan aircraft only. The Air Defence Clearance does not constitute
"piior permission" as alleged by the Applicant.
In any case the position as regards the five instances mentioned in para-
graph 18 of the Reply, is as under:

Cases . .. . . ..3) and (5) relate to the aircraft AP-AMC a Dakota
(DC3) type aircraft rneüntfor calibration of nii\.igational aids u,hich hüd
to mïkc non-trafic landings in India to upliit fuel. It 1ssubniitted thst
with regard to these instances the same procedure was followed by the
two countries even prior to September 1965 conflict. The following
instances of the cases prior to September 1965should suffice:
(1) Case A: Year 1964.
On 5 August 1964 DGCA, Pakistan, sent a signal to DGCA,
India. reauestine no obiection for the technical landine of Pakistan
aircraft AP-AM? at ~élhi on a flight from Karachi Dacca. On
6 August 1964 DGCA, India, gave no objection to the aircraft
makine technical landi-e at-Delhi.
(2) Case Ë: Year 1965.
On 16 August 1965 DGCA, Pakistan, sent a signal to DGCA,
India. reauestine no obiection for the technical landinr! of Pakistan
aircraft AP-AM? at ~élhi on a flight from Dacca tot<arachi. On
17 August 1965 DGCA, India, gave no objection to the aircraft
making technical landing at Delhi.

Case (4) quoted by the Applicant relates to a helicopter. In this case
also, the same procedure as prior to September 1965 was followed as is
apparent from the fouowing:
(3) Case C: Year 1963.
On 5 October 1963 a signal was sent by DGCA, Pakistan, to
DGCA. India. reauestine no obiection to the ooeration of a ferrv
flight b; PIAH~I~O~~~IAP foAm Oarac c toiDacca making
technical landings in India. The DGCA, India, by a signal of 21
October 1963 regretted its inability to grant permission but sub-
sequently agreed by a signal of 11November 1963to the helicopter
making technical landing in India.

19. It is denied that there existed any special agreement of 1966 and that
there was any uniform practice of the two countries which was inconsistent
with the Convention and the Transit Aaeement. The Resoondent reasserts
that the Convention and the Transit ~Geement were in &ration betwsen
thetwo countries.

1 API, India, Ssond Edition,RAC. 6-3-Extracts Annexure1to thisRejoin-
deNote:Curiouslymough the said"instanw" werenot mentionedby the Applicant
in theroceedingsbeforethe Council.It is only in the Replythat the Applicanthas
referredto them. D. The TwoIncidents Show thaf the Convention and the Transir
Agreement Conrinued to Be in Operation

20. The statement made in parabaph 20 of the Reply is misconceived and
incorrect. It is submitted that the two incidents mentioned in paragraph 14
of the Counter-Memorial have been correctly cited hy the Respondent.
21. The version given hy the Applicant in paragraph 21 of the Reply is
erroneous and misleading. The correct position is as under:

(i) Pakistan had a right to conduct the inquiry in10 the accident of the
lndian aircraft hy virtue of Article 26 of the Convention. Under this
Article India had a naht to aoooint Ohservers and Advisers to be
present ît the Inquiry afid also réL:civthe inquiry rcport froni Pükistan.
Undcr Anncx 13 to the Convention also, India hdd a right to appoint
accreditedrepresentative, advisors and toapprove the publication of the
inquiry report by Pakistan 1. The signals and letters sent to DGCA,
Pakistan, hy DGCA, India, in connection with the inquiry are annexed 2
which indicate that Pakistan and India carried out their obligations and
exercised thcir rights in nccorddnCe with the Convention and Annex 13
thcreto. Itshows that the Convention conrinued to be in force between
the two countries.
(ii) and (iii) Rule 77A of the Pakistan Aircraft Rules is in accordance with

Article 26 of the Convention and Annex 13 thereto. Similar rules are in
force in India.
(iv) The ~e,~ondent does no1 nccepr the averments made in paragraph 21
(iv). The Kespondent is not aware of the accident iii Nepal which took
dace in March 1958and the investiration conductcd in respect thereof.
in the absence of full parriculars and documents, the ~erpondent does
not admit the statement by the Appliwnt. Suffice to say thdt so far as
lndia isconcerned, ils participation in thc inquiry conducted by Pakistan
was in accordüncc with the Convention and Annex 13thereto.
(v) The statement made by the ,\pplicant in paragraph 21 (v) is incorrect
and uniustified. Pakistan and tndia both arc parties to the Convention
and haie accepied the Procedure~ for Air ~av-igation Services as set out
in ICA0 Document 4444. The Pükiitün Inspecter investigating the

accident to the Indian aircrîft had to make insuiries whcther the
relevant procedures laid down in the document had been complied
with hy the Indian Air Trafic Controller. A State which is not a Party
to the Convention may or may not follow the Procedures but only
Contrîcting States couid invokc the provisions of the süid Document.
Pakistan and India being pdrties IO the Convention, Pakistan invoked
the provisions of the said Document and lndia complied thetewith.

22. The Respondent denies the contents of paragraph 22 of the Reply. In
this connection it is stated that ICAO in its Air Navigation Plans had shown
the whole of the disputed State of Jammu and Kashmir included in Delhi
ER. The question was taken up with ICAO hy Pakistan so that the ICAO
Charts in the Regional Air Navigation Plans, Document 8700, were amended

Annexnr13nto the International CivilAviation, Chicago, 1944(hereinafterreferred to
asAnnex 13),para. 5.5of Chap. 5 and paras.6.1,6.2 of Chap: 6.
2 AnnexureIIto this Rejoinder.to indicate the correct position which was in conformity with the recom-
mendations contained in Annex 11 (para. 2.7.1) to the Convention which

States "that the delineation of airspace wherein air traffic services are tobe
provided, should relate to the nature of the route-structure and the need for
efficient service rather than to the international boundaries". This matter was
taken up at the LIM MID RAN Meeting held in Geneva in 1965 which
endorsed Pakistan's proposal and made a recommendation accordingly. But
as further action on this recommendation was not taken, the matter was dis-
cussed between the Delegations of Pakistan and India durine the Manila
Regional Air Navigatiun heeting 1968.Summary oi this informal meeting is
annexed 1.Pursuant to the decision rnken at th15informa1 meeting, a meeting
hetween the representatives of the two countries was held in ~anekbk in 1970
Report of themeeting is annexed 2. This clearly shows that bGh India and
Pakistan acted in accordance with the Convention.
23. The statement made in paraaraph 23 of the Reolv is whollv erroneous.

lt is submitted thiit it is clear fiom par3graphs 20, 21 anb 22 of th;s Rejoinder
that the two incidents cited by the Respondent in sub-p3ragrilphj (a, and
(b) of paragraph 14of the Counter-Memonïl. have bccn correctlv cited and
show that the~convention and the Transit Agreement continuid to be in
operation between the two countries.
24. The Respondent maintains that both the incidents are whollv consistent
with the treatier continuing in force. It is stated chat the incident\referred to
by the Respondenr involved the quedon of overflying or landing in each
other's territory, and had relevance to the Respondent's assertion that the
Convention and the Transit Agreement continued to be in operation hetween
the two countries.

--
1 AnnexureIII to this Rejoinder.
2 Amexure IV to this Rejoinder. CHAPTERIII

THE "BASIS" ON WHICH OVERFLIGHTS WERE
RESUMED IN FEBRUARY 1966

A. Proper Consrrucrionof theLerters ExchangedBerween
thePresidentof Pakisran and the Prime Minister of India

25. In paragraph 25 of the Reply, the Applicant has misconstroed the
Tashkent Declaration, the letters dated 3 and 7 February 1966 exchanged

between the Prime Minister of India and the President of Pakistan and the
signals exchanged between the Civil Aviation authorities of the two countries.
T~e ~ef~ ~nce therein to the alleeed Notification of 10 Februarv ~~,6 is ~ ~ ~
irrelevanr. Thc Rcspondent rîaffiris rhe stairmenis made in Pitrdgr3phs 13.
21. 32, 34 and 35 of the Countcr-Mcmorilil. Thecorrect posiiion i- 3s folloxs:

1. It is denied that the Resoondent failed to oerform its obliaations under the
Tashkent Dccliiration 2; itdid XIIrhrtt it could thereund'r. Ir is suhmitred
thlit the Tashkent L)eclrtrrttiondid embody an obligation on the pariies to

implement al1existing agreements between the two countries. In any case,
so far as resumption of overflights is concerned, the Applicant is estopped
from relying on the alleged package-deal oron the alleged non-restoration
of srafrdsquo anre the armed conflict. This has been admitted by the
Applicant in its Note of 3 February 1971, wherein it was stated as under:

"The Government of India wish to remind Government of Pakistan that
after Indo-Pakistan conflict of AueustlSeotemher 1965 thev would have
been well within their right to disallow the iesumption of ovirflight so long
as relations between India and Pakistan had not been fully normalized.
However, on a specific request made hy the then President of Pakistan, the

Government of India agreed, in February 1966 to forego their right to
demand prior settlement of outstanding issues and consented to resume
mutual overflights 1."
2. The letters exchanged between the Prime Minister of India and the Presi-
dent of Pakistan in February 1966 provided for the resumption of over-
flights "on the same hasis as that prior to 1st August 1965". Taking into

consideration the obligation of the parties to implement existing Agree-
ments laid down in Article VI of the Tashkent Declaration, the "basis"
on which the overflinhts were resumed could onlv mean the Convention
and the Transit ~Geement which on India's own admission were in
existence prior to 1 August 1965. The Applicant's contention that this
"hasis" related to fixing of routes, procedures for obtaining permission,

etc.,is erroneous as no such basis existed prior to 1 August 1965 and no
such condition was laid down in the letters exchanged.
3. That the "basis" on which overflighis were resumed was the Convention
and the Transit Agreement, is apparent among others, from the following
facts:

(a) Under the Convention, aircraft engaged in non-scheduled interna-

i Counter-Memorial. Annex IV. tional air services have the right to make technical landing without
obtainingprior permission and to transit non-stop subject to the State
overflown to require landing. Again under the Transit Agreement the
right to make technical landing and to ovedy without landing is
available to the scheduled international air services. The resumotion
of overflights under rhe lerrers exchanged pertained fo borh schcduled
and non-scheduled flights and the Ietrer read with Arrtclc VI of the
Tashkent Declaration, constituted an agreement for the restoration
of overflights and technical landings as eiivisaged in the Transit
Agreement andthe Convention.
(b) The signals 1 exchanged between DGCA, Pakistan. and DGCA.
India, were merely administrative steps pursuant tothe letters ex:
changed between the Prime Minister of India and the President of
Pakistan. The letter of 3 February 1966 from the Prime Minister of

India states: "instructions are being issued to Civil and Military
authorities accordingly." The letter of the President of Pakistan of
7 February 1966states: "1 am also issuing immediate instructions to
our Civil and Military authorities to permit resumption of air flights
of India and Pakistan planes across each other's territory on the same
basis as that prior to 1 August 1965." The first signal which was sent
to DGCA, India, by DGCA, Pakistan, on 15 January 1966 reads as
follows: "Request coniüm, no objection to the resumption of normal
operations by PIA to and across India." In reulv DGCA. India.
stated: "Reference your signal of 15 January 1966;our ~ovérnment
has agreed to restoration of overflights of scheduled services between
India and Pakistan. We would suagest meeting soonest oossihle to
determine details including ear~iestdate of the rësumption'and routes
over which overflights can he resumed. We would be grateful for
immediate reply regarding date and venue." The signal of 7 February
1966 to DGCA, India, reads: "we agree to the resumption of over-

flights in accordance with the procedure existing before 1 August
1965." PIA's inter-wing schedule for ovemights was Hed with
DGCA, India, in this signal. To this signal, DGCA, India, replied on
8 February 1966, that "we agree to the resumption of overflights of
scheduled services that PIAC proposes to resume". In this signal,
schedule of Indian Airlines was filed with DGCA, Pakistan.
It is clear from this signal that Indian authorities only acknow-
ledged the details of the overfiights of Pakistan International Airlines
Corporation. No prior permission was requested for such flights.
On 9 February 1966,DGCA, Pakistan, signalled to DGCA, India, '
that whereas al1 former routes over Pakistan hrritory which existed
before 1August 1965were made available for the operation of Indian
Airlines Corporation and Air India International, India did not open
al1 the routes for PIA operations. Therefore, Pakistan authorities
informed DGCA,India that "till the opening of the routes by India
al1 the routes over Pakistan will be available to Indian Airlines on

provisional basis". To this India replied on 9 February 1966, that
"opening of other PDRs (predetermined routes) are under active
consideration".
In the circumstances it is clear that these signals were merely
administrative steps towards implementation of the existing agree-

1 AnnexureVto this Rejoinder. ments. By no stretch of interpretation can these signals he construed
to constitute an "agreement" between the two countries replacing the
Convention and the Transit Agreement. India's Notification dated 10
February 1966which provided that "Pakistan Bights over Indin could
take place only with the permission of the Central Government and

in accordance with the terms and conditions of such permission"
could not absolve India from its oblieations under the Conv~n~ ~ ~- - ~ .~~~~.~~
and the Transit Agreement.
(c) It is denied that between 1966 to 1971, Pakistan aircraft on scheduled

and non-scheduled Biehts invariablv comolied with the Notificat~o~
of the Government ofïndia of 10~ébrua& 1966eitber for ovefiying
lndian territory or for technical landings. The position has alreadv
been explainedinparagraph 18of the ~ejoinder.

B. The Convention and theTransit Azreement Were in Ooeration when
India Unilaterally and Illegally ~uipendedthe ~verflightsof~aki-
stani Aircraft in February 1971. The CoirncilHus Jurisdicrion
to Deal with theMatter

26. The Convention and the Transit Agreement nere in operation hetueen
India and Pakistan nt the lime of illegal suspension of Pakistan overtlights in
February 1971. The Inhan aircrnft Ianded al Lahore in the circumstanca

disclosed in paragrnph 19 of the Counter-Memorinl. Notwithstanding the
best ellorts of the Government of Pakistan. the hiiacken: desrroved theaircraft
on 2 February 1971. On 3 February 1971 the ~pplicant in it; Note claimed
damages in respect of destruction of the aircraft, etc. On the following day
in their Note of 4 February 1971, the Applicant demanded compensation for

the loss of the aircraft, etc., andthe damages caused by the destruction of the
hijacked aircraft in Lahore. It was further stated that "until the matter is
satisfactorily resolved, the Government of India suspends with immediate
effect the overflights of al1Pakistani aircraft, civil or military over the territory
of India. This decision is made not to inconvenience people of India and

Pakistan but is taken with the bope that the Government of Pakistan will
settle this matter amicahlv and oeacefullv without delav" 1~ Th- ~ ~C F ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .
has since sought to link the sus&nsion iith the alleged'breach by Pakistan
of the Convention and the Transit Agreement, which is an after-thought. The

suspension was arbitrary and illegal and the Council has jurisdiction to deal
with the matters presented hy Pakistan. RWOINDER OF PAKISTAN 471

be the leader of the Kashmir Liberation Front, named Mohd. Maqhool
Butt. Now this Maabool Butt was involved in some murder case in

Kashmir and u,as tried and sentenccd Io death. How he managed IO
escape thejail has uptil now remïincd ï mystery. Regarding his enlisting
the official assistance in the draniatic escape from the iail ilis beinr:said
that he was deliberately allowed to escape and cross ;ver to ~akistan in
order to use his services there for furtherance of the plans."

As reported in the Hindirstan Times, Delhi of 3 Fehruary 1971 1, the then
Chief Minister of Indian occupied Kashmii Government had made allegation

that hijacker Mohammad Hashim Qureshi had received protection from a
Central Agency and had stated that the Kashmir Police had wanted to inter-
rogate Qureshi but the Central Agency (of India) had refused them per-
mission.

The position was summed up by MI. Z. A. Bhutto (now President of
Pakistan) before the Security Council in his speech on 13December 1971
wherein he said: "India had instigated a hijacking incident in Lahore in

January 1971 as a pretext to han air transport between East and West
Pakistan."

30. The reference to the airspace of the disputed state of Jammu and
Kashmir ~- ~araeraoh 16 is not irrelevant.
31-33. TG of the aircraft could not be restored to the Captain
because the hiiackers never gave up physical control of the aircraft. Attempts
bv the ~akistan authoritiesto oersuade them to release the olane were not
successful. Any attempt to Jiborm or arrest them or 10 ilse force ngîinst [hem

would have been disastrous. Mention mus1ïlso be mïdeof thescrious lawand
o- ~ - ~ ~ation created bv the huee crowd collected at the air~ort. Notwith-
standing this serious situation, the authorities tried on 2 ~ebruary 1971 to
isolate the hi~iackersso that conditions could be created which could permit
takine nosse&ion of the aircraft.As soon as the hiiackers realized this. the"

proc&ded to destroy the aircraft. The position regarding the Indian 'reliif
plane has already been explained in paragraph 19 (g) of the Counter-Memo-
rial. The hiiackers and their accomolices are beine tried before a Snecial .
court headédby a Senior Judge of the Supreme court of Pakistan.
34. If the Indian planes ceased to overfly Pakistan from 4 February 1971,

~ ~w~-~~~e to~ ~di~'s-ownaccord. Pakistan did not take anv action to disallow
the overflights of Indian aircraft, even after India's unilateral and illegal
suspension of overflights of Pakistani aircraft.
35. The contention of the Applicant in paragraph 35 is misconceived and
the Respondent reaffirms thestatement madein paragraph 21 (A) at page 377,

supra, of the Counter-Memorial.

1 I.M., pp. 136-137, supra. CHAPTER V

JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OP

JUSTICE

Ondia's Reply, Paragraphs 36-41)
36. The Respondent reasserts that the Appeal of the Government of India
against the decision of the Council in respect of the Application of Pakistan

could be founded, if at all, on the following provision:
(a) Article 37 of the Statute.
(b) Article 84 of the Convention.
(c) Article II, section 2, of the Transit Agreement.

37. The Respondent had contended in paragraph 24 (A) of the Counter-
Memorial that the Court's jurisdiction could not he based on Article 36 (1)
of the Statute since that Article relates to the original jurisdiction of the
Court and comprises "al1 cases which the parties refer to it"; and that in the
instant case. no reference has been made bv the narties. The A~oiicant. while
conceding this point, has now referrcd tLthe litter part of paragraph 1 of
Anicle 36 as the basir of the Court's jurisdistion \r,hich readüsfollou,~:
"The jurisdiction of the Court comprises ... al1 matters specially

provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and
Conventions in force."
The Applicant further States that "the Chicago Convention and the
Transit Agreement are treaties and Conventions in force". Since the Appli-
cant now contends that this i.ris~ ~ ~on is hased on the~C~icaeo-~onvention
and Transit Agreement %hich are "treaiies and Conveniions in force", the
Applicant's statement i.;a cleÿr adniission of rhe Pdctrhat the Convention and
the~ransit Aereement were in force between the narties at the time the cause
of action aroie and continued to be so. ~owever, it is submitted that the
reference to Article 84 of the Chicago Convention is to the Permanent Court
of International Justice and not to theInternational Court of Justice, whereas
in Article 36 (1) the term "Court" refen to theInternational Court of Justice.

Conseauently jurisdiction can be based, if at all. on Article 84 of the Con-
vention and-~rticle II, section 2. of the Trÿnsir Agreement. as read with
Article 37 of the Statute. Article 37 of the Stature, which provides for a suc-
cession ofjurisdiction from the Permanent Court to the mesent Court. is the
provision which is applicable in the instant case, since it provides:
"Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a
matter to ... the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter
shall, as between the parties to the present statute, be referred to the
International Court of Justice."

It may be mentioncd that the submissions of the Respondent in respect of
Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court set out in paragraph 24(B) of the
Counter-Memorial, have not been contested by the Applicant.
38. The Respondent submits that the contentions of the Applicant in
paragraph 38 of the Reply are fallacious and reaffirms the asseoions made
in paragraph 25of the Counter-Memorial. . , CHAPTER VI

PRINCIPLES OF LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION AND

SUSPENSION

(India's Reply, Paragraph 42)

A. Obligation to Act in Good Faith

42. The oblieation to observe Treaties in eood faith which has been
contended by the Respondent isnow conceded bythe~pplicant. In paragraph
42 of the Reply the Applicant has stated that: "it was in absolute aood faith
that it suspe-nded theConvention and the Transit Agreement vis-à-visPaki-
stan." The Applicant has thus admitted that, but for its suspension of the
Convention and the Transit Agreement (which the Respondent claims to be
illeaal and ineffective). there would have been an oblieation to imolement the
provisions of the said~reaties in God failhl ~his im$es that~theconvention
and Transit Agreement were in force betwccn the two countries at least till 4
Februarv 1971. The Resoondent reasserts that the Aoolicant has not acted
in good>aith since, firstl;, the groundsput forward foi'the suspension of the

overtiights did not relate to the provisions of these Treaties at al1 and sec-
ondlv. iustification for the suspension of overfliehts on theeround of breach
of the Convention and the Transit ~greement- was given-much later and
helatedly the suspension of the said Treaties was claimed. The relevant Notes
of the Applicant have already been referred to in paragraph 26 of the Re-
joinder.

(india's Reply, Paragraphs 43 to 47)

B. Suspension of the Convention and ihe Transit Agreement

43. The Respondent suhmits that in paragraph 43 of the Reply, the
Applicant has totally misconceived the points raised in paragraphs 29 to 31
of the Resoondent's Counter-Memorial. In these oaraaraohs of the Counter-
~emorial; the Respondent had put forward contentions explaining why the
Convention and the Transit Agreement were not suspended during the armed
conflict of Se~tember 1965. and were in ooeration between the oarties at the
time of thes"spension of ~akistani flightL over India. Among others it was

pointed out that when a Treaty specifically provides for the exigency of war or
national emere-ncv...hen those exuress orovisions had to befollowed.
44. The Applicant erroncously contends in paragraph 44 of the Rcply that
"the aloresaid contention raised by I'akiitan is outside the jurisdiction of the
Council". In any case. in the events that have happened and in the circum-
stance<, thc qu&tions before the Council arosc out ~fdisagreements hetween
the Iwo countries relating to the application or interpret;it\on of the Convcn-
tion and the Transit Agreement and were not in any way outside the juris-
diction of the Council
45-47. With reference to paragraphs 45, 46 and 47 of the Applicant's
Reply, it is submitted that there is no special Agreement of 1966inconsistent
with~or contradictory to the provisions of the-Convention and the TransitAereement. The socalled "Special Agreement of 1966". was merely a
measure tu implcment the convention and the Transit ~greement andnot

an Agreement intended to replace thcm. The contention of the respondent,
bascd on Articles 82 and 83 of the Convention, that there could be no special
agreement inconsistent with thc terms of the Convention, has bccn validly
made. The Applicant kas contcnded that "the Convention having been
suspended thequestion of inconsistency does not arise". It is also important
to note that in the latter part of paragraph 35of the Reply the Applicant has
stated as follows:

"If the Convention andthe Transit Agreement had not been suspended,
the Respondent would be right in contending that the joint effect of
~rticles82 t~ 83of the Convention is that there could not~beanv . .cial
arrangement between the contracting States, which is inconsistent with
the provisions of the Convention. It is precisely because the Convention
and-the Transit Aareement had been susoended as hetween India and
Pakistan, that the Gpecial Agreement of 1966'(set out in paragraphs 18
and 19of the Applicant's Memorial) could be validly entered into by the
two countries."

Since the conduct of the parties clearly shows that Treaties were not suspended
or terminated as a result of the brief conflict of September 1965 and having
regard to the Tashkent Declaration and also to parasaph 42 of India's Reply
and on India's own admissions, no agreemeni con<r&y to the Convention
and Transit Agreement could be entered into by the twocountries and in fact

none was entered.

Ondia's Reply, Paragraphs48 to 54)

C. Righr of Unilaferal Suspensionor Terminalion of a Treary

48. The statement of law and the contentions set out in paragraphs 37 to
42 of the Respondent's Counter-Memorial are valid and are reaffirmed. It is
noted that the Applicant relies on the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties 1969 and accepts the provisions thereof as representing the law in
force on the subject.
49-54. The Applicant has avoided a direct rebuttal of the points raised in
paragraphs 38 to 42 of the Counter-Memorial and hm also misconceived the
issues set out therein.

(a) The Respondent had contended that where termination or suspension
of a Treaty is sought on the ground of material breach, any provision
which is embodied in the Treaty itself has to be applied. Article 60 of the
Vienna Convention which deals with the termination or suspension of a
Treaty provides in paragraph 4 that such a right is without prejudice to
any provision in a Treaty applicable in the event of breach. Article 95
of the Convention, and Aiticle III of the Transit Agreement expressly
lav down the procedure for denunciation of the Convention and the
.~.;ansit ~greement and the method hy uhich a party mdy withdraw

therefrom. On the other hand whcn there is an assertion relating to a
breach of the Convention or the Transit Agreement and dcnial thereof by
the other pdrty, a procedure kas been laiddown under Article II, section
2, of the Transit Agreement, and Article 84 of the Convention to resohe
the issue and to remedy the situation.(b) The Respondent submits that when it isclaimed to suspend a Treaty on
the ground of material hreach, that breach, apart from heing material,
must relate to a specific provision of the Treaty in question. The alle-
gations of the Applicant in relation to the hijacking incident, apart from
heing false, do not relate to the breach of any specific provision of the
Convention or the Transit Agreement. let alone anv "material breach"
thereof. The contention of the~pplicant that the conduct of the Respon-
dent in respect of the aircraft "amounted to the very negation of al1the
aims~~ ~ ob~.cts, ~ ~ ~cheme and orovisions. of the Transit A-reement"
is vague and does not refer to any specificprovision thereof.
-(cJ The allegations regarding Pakistao's responsibility regarding the de-
struction-of~ndianaircraft at Lahore Airuort are false. Ït has also been
incorrectly siated rhat the Respondent shOued no re~rd for the "most
elemcniary notions of safety in civil aviation and made it impossible for
the ~~plicant to enjoy its rights under the Convention, and ifs privileges
under the Transit Agreement over Pakistan's territory". The fact is that
India has never been hindeied in her rights and privileges under the
Convention and Transit Agreement by Pakistan, and not a single
incident has occurred in which Indian overflights across Pakistan have

been obstructed.
.d),The Resoondent had suhmitted that when one oartv claims susoension
of a Treity on the grounds of material breach and théother partGobjects
thereto, the former is obliged to settle the issue by consent of the parties
or by resorting to third party settlement, specially where the Treaty
provides a procedure for their party settlement. The general principle of
law nemojudex in re sua is also consistent with and supports this con-
tention.
(e) Even Article 60 of the Vienna Convention provides that a "material
breach" of a Treaty entitles another party to "invoke the breach" as a
-round for terminatinn the Treatv or susoendine its ooeration in whole
or in part. The internationa ah commissionin iti Commentary on
this Article has pointed out that the formula, "invoke as a ground" is
intended to underline that the right arising under the ~rticÏe is not a
right arbitrarily to pronounce the Treaty terminiited. If the other party
contests the breach, or its character as a "material" breach, there will
be a difference between the parties with regard to which the normal
obligations incumbent upon the parties under the United Nations
Charter and under general international law to seek a solution of a
question through pacific means will apply. (Report of the International
Law Commission on the second part of ils 17th Session aiid on ifs 18th
Session, 1966,p. 83.) In the instant case the Convention and the Transit
Agreement have specifically provided a procedure for the settlement of
such a difference, and hence a pariy alleging "material hreach" would
have to invoke il as a ground while resorting to the procedure for
settlement under the Convention and the Transit Agreement.
(f) The Respondent had contended that in view of the fact that Pakistan
denied that any hreach of the Agreement had taken place, India could
not uniiaterallv susuend the Agreement since a remedv under Article 11,
section 2, of the T;nnsit ~greimenl. and Article 84 of the Con\,ention,
was availablc. In any evcnt, any question relatiiig ru the suspension of
the treaties is a question relating to their application or non-application
and interpretation and is within thejurisdiction of the Council undcr the
aforemcntioned provisions. RWOtNOER OF PAKISTAN

(india's Reply, Paragraphs 55 to 57)

D. Plea of Acquiescence

~ ~ The~ ~snond.~t a~ ~rts that the nrincinleembodied in Article45 of the
Vienna Convention on the law of Treatier. is applicable in the instant case in

relation to theconduct of India. As indicütcd in paragrd~h 43 of the Rcspon-
den~ ~-~-u~ter-Memo~-~l. ~ ~ Annlicant sent a letter to the ICA0 Council on
4 February 1971 bringin; to iti'notice the hijacking incident and making
certain assertions against the Respondent. When the Applicant referred the

mat~ ~ ~ ~~~e couniil. it assumed that the Council had Gisdiction but when
the ~espondent~approached the Council it was surpris& that the Applicant
objected to its jurisdiction. The submissions made by the Applicant in the
latter part of paragraph 55 of the Reply, are also erroneous since a bare

assertion that the Convention stands suspended does not afiect the jurisdiction
of the Council.
56-57. The suhmissions of the Annlicant in naramanhs 56 and 57 of the

Reply are also incorrect. By claimini that the &terkti&nal Court of Justice
has iurisdiction. the Applicant has admitted that the Convention and the
~ransit ~greemént are inforce between India and Pakistan.

(india's Reply, Paragraphs 5ô-59)

E. TheAdvisory Opinionof the InternationalCourt of
Justice in the Reference regardingNamibia

58. The Kespnndent reasserts ihat in the Refcrcnce beforc the honourable
Couri rcgarding Namibia the question was whcther the Mandate of South

Africa "ver Namibia w~sterminated bv the United Nations General Assem-
bly~kith the concurrence of the Sec;rity Council for material breach of
obligations under the Mandate. The Court expressed its opinion on the issue
of revncation of the Mandate on the basis that the General Assemblv and

Secunty Council possessed supervisory powers. and in that capacity could
terminate the Mandate for breach of obligations by South Africa. It is
suhmitted with resnect that the Advisory Ooinion ofthe Court in the said
~eference has no bearing on the points of law invnlved in the present pro-

ceedings.
59. The Applicant hasfailed to noticethe context in which the observations
of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice were quoted in paragraph 47 of the Counter-
Memorial. The Respondent does not accept the analysis thereof and the

interpretation put thereon by the Applicant in paragraph 59. CHAPTER VI1

NO INHERENT LIMITATIONS ON THE COUNCIL'S
JURISDICTION

(India's Reply, Paragraphs 60 to 62)

A. Composition, Powers and Functionsof the Council

60-61. The Respondent submits that the points raised by the Applicant in
paragraphs 60, 61 and 62 of the Reply are erroneous and misconceived.
ICA0 isa Soecializd Agencv of the United Nations and there is no inherent
limitation on the jurisdiction df its Council by virtue of its composition.
charïcter, dulies and functions. The Council is set up hy the Multilatcral

Treaiy. u,hich according to esiabli5hcd oractive ouahi to rcceive a hroad and
libcr~l'interprctation. The Convention hiis conferred on the Council adjudi-
catory, judicial and quasi-judicial functions and ihe Contracting States have
acceoted the same. Further. the fact that an aooeal has been orovided to the
lnternaiionlil Court of ~ustice against thc decisions of the ~ouncil, is clearly
indicative of the compciency tirthe Couniil to go iiito the various matters
and issues under the Convention andthe Transit Agreement.
62. Where one Party denies the jurisdiction of the Council, as the Applicant
has done in the instant case, it is for the Council itself to determine whether
it has iurisdiction. While decidina this issue the Council is cornDetent to
cxïmik the assertions made on th; basis orwhich itsjurisdiction isiisputed.
This ivould, in the present case, include an enquiry into ihc questjon whether
or not the Convention and the Transit Agreement continued in force. or
were validly suspended înd/or terminatcd. ~he harc assertion of the Applicant

that the Trcaties in quedon stood suspended, cannot divesr the Council of
its right to determine its own jurisdiction. In the interoretalion of the Greco-
~urk:ish Agreement of 1 ~ecember 1926 the permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice held as follows:
"For, according to its very terms, Article IV of the Final Protocol
expressly contemplates questions which may arise within the Mixed
Commission: there can. therefore. he no douht that onlv auestions
arising in the course ofthe deliherations of the ~ommission are con-

templated. But, that being so, it is clear-having regard amongst other
things to the principle that, as a general rule, any body possessing juris-
dictional powers has the right in the first place itself to determine the
extent of ils jurisdiction-that questions affecting the extent of the
jurisdiction of the Mixed Commission must he settled by the Commis-
sion itself without action by anyother bodybeing necessary 1."

1 P.C.I.J.SeriesB, No. 16,p. 20. REJOINOER OF PAKlSTAN

(India's Reply, Paragraphs 63 to 74)

B. Znterpretationof Article 84 of the Convention and
Article II, Sectio2, of the TranrsitAgreement

63. The contention and the comments of the Applicant in paragraphs 63

to 74 are misconceived and incorrect. According to the Respondent the
position isstated in the following paragraphs.
64. The Applicant has submitted that the construction of Article 84of the
Convention and Article 11. Section 2, of the Transit Ameement should be
neirher narrow nor liheral but should be such an interprëtation as to satisfy
the principle of "strict proof of consent". The Applicant has also asserted
that on a fair and reasonable construction. the words "interoretation" and
"application" cannot cover "suspension" or "termination". ~hc Respondent
submits that the assertions of thc Applicant are erroneous.
65. The Kesoondent submits that the Convention. beina a Multilateral
Treaty setting kp an International Organization, mu&, therefore, receive a
wide and liheral interpretation. The Respondent relies on the principle of
effective interoretation. which also aoolies to iurisdictional clauses. In this
context the esp ponden easserts the avermënts in paragraph 54 of the
Counter-Memorial and submits that the cases cited therein support the
application of this principle.
66. In paragraph 73 of the Reply, the Applicant hasstated that the case of

the Factory at Chorzdw 1,along with the other three cases cited in paragraph
54 of the Counter-Memorial. have no bearing at al1 on the question of the
limit of jurisdiction which falls to be considered in the present case. and
therefore, il is not necessary to discuss the facts of the said cases and the
principles laid down therein. This is incorrect. Firstly, ail these cases support
the principle of effective interpretation of the jurisdictional clause and sec-
ondly. the case concerning the Factory at Chorzdw clearly illustrates that
when allegations regarding the hreach of a Treaty are denied by the other
Party, a disagreement relating to the "interpretation" or "application" of a
Treaty does exist.
67. ln the case concerninrr thFactorv or Chorz6w. the orovision conferrinrr
jurisdiction on the llerman&t Court of internation ~alitice aas Article 2%
parag~aph 1, of the Geneva Con\,ention of 15 May 1922. which stated:
"should differences of ovinion res~ecting the construction and ao~lication of
Articles 6 to 22 arise bétween the ~erman and Polish Governments, these
shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice.!' The
Court in Judgment No. 7, exercised jurisdiction on the hasis of this clause

for alleged breaches of the Convention by Poland. In Judgment No. 9, in an
effective interpretation of the above jurisdictional clause, the Court further
held that by implication the Court also had jurisdiction tu determine com-
pensation for breach of the Treaty.
68. In paragraph 68 of the Reply, the Applicant has stated that the
existence of a "dispute" or "disagreement" is not denied, the only question is
whether the disnute or disaereement relates to "interoretation" or "aoolica-
tion" of the convention or-the Transit Agreement. ~he Respondent kserts
th31 the "disagrcement" or "dispute" is about the application, non-applica-
tion or interpretation of the Convention and the Transit Agreement.
69. The submissions of the Applicant regarding the observations of the

1 P.C.I.J., Series No. 9.480 ICA0 COUNCIL

Lnternational Court of Justice in the South West Africa cases in 1962 are
incorrect and unjustified. It is further denied that the suspension of the Con-
vention and the Transit Agreement was de horsthe Treaty and iepresented the
exercise of a right under a well-settled rule of international law.
70-72. The Respondent further suhmits that the language of Article 84
of the Convention, specially the expressions, "interpretation" and "applica-
tion" are wide enough 10cover a dispute as to application or non-application.

suspension or termination thereof. The observations of the International
Court of Justice inthe South West Africa case, 1962 1,the case of Heyman v.
Darwins 2 and the comments of Mr. B. P. Sinha 3quoted by the Respondent,
are relevant and support the above propositions.
73. With reference to paragraph 73 of the Reply it is suhmitted that the
Applicant has failed to appreciate the principles enunciated in the three cases
mentioned therein.
74. The Respondent reafims that the principle of effective interpretation
applies to the present case wherein no question of usurping the function of

legislation arises.

(india's Reply, Paragraphs 75-76)

C. ComplaintunderSecrionI, Article II, of the Transit Agreement

75. The contention in paragraph 75 of the Reply is wholly misconccivrd
and has no basis in law and in fact. The Respondent reasserts the facts and
law set out in oaraeraohs 56. 57 and 58 of the-Counter-Mernorial
76. The Respondent doeinot a&ept the correctness of the opinion of the

former Director of Legal Bureau of ICA0 and reaiiùms the ~osition set out
in paragraph 57 of theCounter-Metnorial. RWOINDER OF PAKISTAN

CHAPTER VI11

MANNER AND METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE COUNCIL
IN REACHING THE DECISION

(Reply of India-Paragraphs 77-79)

77. Thestatement made in this paragraph by theApplicant is misconceived
and incorrect. The Respondent reasserts that the manner and method em-
ployed by the Council in reaching the decisions are proper, fair and valid.
The Respondent does not accept the various statements and contentions
made in paragraphs 93 to 99 of the Memorial. To the extent it was necessary.
they have been sufficiently met by the statements in paragraph 59 of the .
Counter-Memorial.
78. The Respondent submits that Article 52 of the Convention is subject
to Article 66 (b) of the Convention. Whether or not a statutorv mai.ritv.of
14 votes isrequ/red for any deci.,ion by the Council in any marier undei the
Transit Agreement is itself under consideration of the Council. In this con-
nection. the ICA0 Secretaria1 r>reoarc.dand ciri.ulated a oaner (No. C-WPI
5465-21'-10-71)on this question and it is yet to be discusséd'by ihe ~ouncii.
Therefore, the Memorandum of 10August 1971 submitted by the Secretary
General of ICA0 to members of the Council is onlv a Secietariat oaoer
whiçh does no1 represent the deciiiim of the ~ouncil: Likewise, the obkr-
vïtions of the President u,hich have hren relied upon by the Applicant are not

conclusive. It may be added that some hlembers of theCouncilai themeeting
held on 29 July 1971 look the view that Article 52 was subject 10 Article 66
of the Convention. This is evident from the view%of the Congolese represen-
tative at the Council (MI. Ollassa) who said:
"Mr. President, 1 do not understand. 1s the majority of the Council
always the same, even when there are States that are not parties to an
agreement? . ..1really do not understand. There are 19 States that are
parties to an agreement; the statutory majority should therefore be based
on 19. We cannot base the maioritv on States which are not varties to an
agreement and hy virtue of Article 66 of the Convention cdnnot p~rtici-
pate in a vote. That is incredible1."

The Nigerian and Austrdliïn \lembers supported the above views 2.
The Applicant's statemcnt regarding the number of votes isincorrect as is
apparent from the following srdtement of the Pre5ident of the Council:

"1 said nothing about the statutory majority, although 1 said at the
beginning of thesc proceedings, as early as February or March, that
accordina to the legal odnion 14votes were necessarv in anv vote taken
on thic sÜbject. In sis ciseitdoes not matter because-there was only one
vote in fdvour of the contention. So the contention has no1 been ap-
oroved hy the Council and ureconiinuc Io have iurisdiction. That is all
1 am going to say and 1 suggest that we do not-need to discuss at this

1 I.M., para. 140,p. 287supra. , ,
2 Ibid.para. 144,p. 287and para. 173,p. 290,supra. moment what the statutory majority is. The result is the same. Any other
explanatinns of vote 1."
79. The statement made in paragraph 79 hy the Applicant is misconceived

and incorrect. It is suhmitted that the propositions put to vote hy the Presi-
dent are not governed hy Rules 41 and 46 of the Rules of Procedure for the
Councilz. In formulating and putting the propositions the President was
exercising his authority under Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure for the
Council, which reads:
"R~dle35 (a) The President shall convene meetings of the Council, he
shall ~reside at and declare the opening and closing of each meeting,
direci the discussion, accord the right to speak, put questions and
announce the decisions.

(b) He shall ensure the observance of these Rules, and shall rule on
points of order and on any matter related to the interpretation or
application of these Rules."
The President had, therefore, the right to put questions to the Council. The
President said:

"... The question 1am putting to the Council is that the Council has no
iurisdiction toconsider the disagreement. That is al11 want the Council
io vote on: that the Council haino jurisdiction. 1want to find out how
many agree that the Council has no jurisdiction ... unless the Council
decides now that it has no jurisdiction, we carry on as we were hefore
the preliminary objection of India 3."

Under Rule 37 of the Rules, the rulings of the President can be appealed
against and overruled hy a majority of the votes cast. The said Rule reads:
"Rule 37 Rulings given hy the President during a meeting of the Council

on the application of these Rules of Procedure may he appealed
against by any Memher of the Council and the appeal shall he put to
vote immediately. The ruling of the President shall stand unless
overruled hy a majority of the votes cast."
The ruling of the President was not appealed against hy any Memher, includ-
ine the Aoolicant. durine the entire oroceedines and. therefore. cannot he
a&ailed now. In 'any &se, the ~pilicant ha: acquiesced in ihe manner
emvloyed by the President in putting the questions. The only objection raised

bv ihe ~~oiicant was re~ardine the text if the oro~ositions and not that the
esid ide Cou ld not forkulate the propositions "or that the propositions
ought to have been introduced and seconded. In any event, the Council and
the Court. whose iurisdictions are international. are not hound to attach to
matter ofform an-d procedure the same degree of importance which they
might possess in municipal law.

1I.M., para.141, p.287,supra.
2 Rulesof Procedurefor the Council, April1970,ICA0 Doc. 755914.
I.M.,para.77, p.281,supra. CHAPTER IX

SUBMISSION

80. Upon the basis of the statements of fact and law in the Respondent's
Counter-Memorial. suoolemented bv those set out in the Reioinder and
which may be subsequ&tly rndde and ÿrgued before this tlonou;able Court,
the Respundent most rerpectfully reiteraic115prayers that the Court ndjudge
and declare in accordance with, and on the basis of the prayers set out in Part
V of the Counter-Memorial which are herehy reaffirrned and incorporated by
reference herein.

(Signed) Samuel Thomas JOSHUA,
Charga d'AlTaires,
Embassy of Pakistan at the Hague,
The Hague, Deputy Agent of the
16 May, 1972. Government of Pakistan. TABLE OF CASES CITED

A. INTERNATIONALCOURT OP JUSTICE

1. South West Africa, Preliminary Objections,Jutlpment, I.C.J. Reports 1962.
2. Legal Consequencesfor States of the ContinuedPresence of South Africa
in.Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstandingSecurity Council Resolu-
tion276 fI970), Advisory Opinion,I.C.J. Reports 1971.

B. PERMANENT COURTOP INTERNATIONALJUSTICE

1. Factory at Chorzdw,Jurisdiction,Judgment No. 8, 1927,P.C.I.J., Series A,
No. 9.

C. OTHER

Heyman and another v.Darwins,Ltd. [1942] Al1England Reports.

BOOKS

B. P. Sinha, UnilateralDenunciarionof Treaty Becaure of Prior Violationî of
Obligationsby Other Party, 1966. RUOINDER OF PAKISTAN 485

ANNEXES TO THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED Bi'
THE GOVERNMENTOF PAKISTAN

Annex 1

AIR DEFENCE CLEARANCE REOULATIONS OF INDIA-EXTRACT FROM
THE AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION PUBLICATION, INDIA
(SECOND EDITION)

Page: RAC 6-3
REQUIREMENT FOR AIR DEFENCE CLEARANCE

No flight of aircraft civil/military, Iodian or foreign, originating within the
ADIZs, defined under paragraph 1 ahove and those penetrating into these
ADIZs are permitted without Air Defence Clearance: The procedures for
issue of Air Defence Clearance is outlined in the succeeding paragraphs.
Aircraft flying without an Air Defence Clearance or failing to comply with
any restriction or deviating from flight plan will be liable ta identification
and interception procedures promulgatein RAC 611.

3. PROCEDURE FOR ISSUE OF AIR DEFENCE CLEARANCE
(ADC).

3.1. Generai:

Except the local flights conducted within the immediate vicinity of an
aerodrome aircraft when operating ta, through or within the ADlZs shall
obtain Air Defence Clearance hefore take off, through the ATC concerned.
3.2. ADCshall he valid for the entire route irrespective of intermediate
halts for flights originating in one ADIZsIFlR and transiting through other
ADIZIFIR.
3.3. ADC shdl be ohtained heforedeoartureand in the event of de~arture
heing dclayed for more than 30 minutes'at the acrodrome of depariuie or at
intermediare halts, a fresh ADC shall bc obtaincd. ln the case of communica-
tion difficultv or delav in receiot of ADC. or non-existence of communication
al the plîce.of depri;rure, the aircrafr cquippcd uirh radio may be îlloucd
to take off\i,ith instructions to obtain ADC immcdiatcly aftcr airhornc from
the FICs concerned.

3.4. Flying Club aircraft intending to operate beyond the immediate
vicinity of an aerodrome where no ATC unit is functioning may obtain ADC
from the nearest IAF ATC Unit. The IAF ATC Unit will advise the FIC
concerned regarding the movcmcnt of the Fl)ing Club aircrîft.
3.5. Scheduled aircrüft or Flyinç Club aircrdft returning Io the aerodrome
of denarture on the same d. .mav be issued with Airforce defence clearance
for return flight also, if so desired, provided that a fresh defence clearance will
have to be obtained in the event of the delay for more than 30 minutes in
excess of the estimated departure time for the return flight. Annex II

FM 221022 VIDDYA

TO DD OPKCYAFI

YA 323 (.) REF YR SIG 7-11169-IBOF TWENTY SECOND APRIL
STOP V N KAPOOR CONTROLLER OF AERONAUTICAL INSPEC-
TION CALCUTTA NOMINATED AS OUR REPRESENTATIVE ON
THE INQUIRY STOP PLEASE ADVISE THE PLACE AND DATE ON
WHICH HIS PRESENCE IS REQUIRED (.)

FM 240810 VIDDYA

TO DD OPKCYADG

355 (.) REFERENCE OPKCYADG SIG 7-11169lIB TOO 231225 AND
YR SIG TOO 240252 STOP INDIAN AIRLïNES OPERATIONS AND
ENGINEERING PERSONNEL CAPT J. JOSEPH OPERATIONS
MANAGER CMA CAPT ML GANDHI AIR SAFETY OFFICER AND
MR NS RAJAN ASSISTANT CHlEF INSPECTOR WILL ACT AS
ADVISERS TO ACCREDITED REPRESENTATIVE STOP REQUEST
GRANT OF NECESSARY FACILITIES INCLUDING GRANT OF
ENTRY PERMIT (.)

No. l/12/69-AS

CNIL AVIATiON DEPARTMENT

Officeof theirector General of Civil Aviation

Dared New Delhi-22,1June 1970.

The Director General of Civil Aviation,
Govemment of Pakistan,
19, Napier Barracks, Karachi

(Attention: Wg. Cdr. W. D. Ahmed, Deputy Director

Flight Inspection)

Subjecr: Accident to Indian Airlines A/c F-27 VT-DOJ IC-260 on 21-4-69
at Daulatpur nearKhulna.

Dear Sir,
Inreply to your letter No. 7-11169-IB,dated 21 May 1970,this is to inform
you that the Departmentbas no objection to your providing copy of the RUOINDER OF PAKISTAN 487

summary of accident to ICA0 and other agencies as referred to in your letter.
Yours faithfully,

(Signed) G. R. KATHPALIA,
Director of Air Safety,
for Director General of Civil Aviation.

GOVERNMENT OF MDlA

Officeof the Director General of Civil Aviation

East Block II and III, R. K. Puram

No: 1/12/69-AS ,

Doted New Delhi-22, 26 September 1970.

To
The Director General of Civil Aviation,
Government of Pakistan,
19, Napier Barrach,
Karachi-4.

(Attention: Wg/Cdr. W. D. Ahmed)

Subject: Accident to I.A.C. Aircraft F-27 VT-DO1 IC-260 on 21-4-1969 at
Daulatpur near Khulna.

Dear Sir,
May 1refer to your letter No. 7-11169-IB,dated 24 July 1970.
So far the investigation report on the ahove-mentioned accident ha. not
been received. You are requested to have the transmission of the report

expedited to this office.
Yours faithfully,

(Signed) G. R. KATHPALIA,
Director of Air Safety,
for Direcror Generolof Civil Aviation.

V. N. KAPUR,

CONTROLLER OP AERONAUTTCALINSPECnON,

CALCUTIA AIRPORT,
DUM DUM, CALCUITA 52

D.O. REF. No. AS-/C/ADOJ/PT.II

Dated Dum Dum, 18November1969.

Dear Wg/Cdr Ahmed,
Please refer to your D.O. letter No. 7-11/69/1B,dated 28/29 October 1969.
Regarding Radar Scope observations relating to 14002 and 14302 weather,it is not possible to provide the same asno observations were made then due
to temporary unse~iceability of the weather radar.
Concerning grant total of the flight experience of both the Captains,
namely, Robin Ghosh and M. M. Singh, the figures are asfollows:
Capt. Robin Ghosh .. 7684: 25 Hrs.
Capt. M. M. Singh .. 7146: 00HI%.

You are quite right, the error is typographical.
1 have already contacted the Approach .Controller for obtaining his
statement with regard to the query raised by you concerning requirements of
para. 6-3, para. 4-4 of ICA0 Documents 4444/RAC/501/9 (9th edition). As
soon as his statemcnt and clarification on the samc, if any, are obtained 1
willbe forwarding the same to you.

Yours sincerely,
(Signed) V. N.KAPUR.

W/Cdr. W. D. Ahmed,
Dy. Director Flight Inspection,
Department of Civil Aviation,
19, Napier Barracks, Karachi,
West Pakistan. SUMMARY OF INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS HELD ON 21 NOVEMBER 1968

CONCERNlNO THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN DELHI AND LAHORE FlRS

1. Present at the discussions were from India MI. S. Datta, from Pakistan
MI. S. A. Khan and Mr. S. 1. Lakhani. and from ICAO Mr. W. Binaozhi.

Mr. P. C. Armour (LCAOREP, ~angkok). hlr. J. G. Karlsson (ICAOREP;
Cairo) and Mr. K. Leipelt (Tl0 KACISAR. Bangkok).
2. The backer-~-~ for ~~~ informal discus~ ~~ ~~is the Kec. 3/3 of.~h~ ~ ~
LIM MID RAN Meeting in Geneva 1965concerning the proposal to realign
the houndary between Delhi and Lahore FIRs.

3. It was agreed during the discussions that the matter should not be
raised during the present meeting. The representatives of lndia and Pakistan
agreed that they should stress to their respective administrations that the
urgency of the matter required that it be resolved without delay. For this
purpose they should recommend that a meeting hetween the civil aviation

administrations of the two countries with the participation of ICAO. he
held as early as possible.
4. It was suggested that, in the interim period the ATS Charts in Doc.
87001may reflect the distribution of responsihilities between the two States.
The reoresentative~ ~~ Pakistan and India aereed that this matter should also

beleft;O the meeting bctuecn the two admizstrations for their consideration.
5. hlr. Binîghi indicated that necessary corrections for the next edition of
Doc. 8700are to hc submitted to lCAO before the end of Fcbruary 1969.

Manila, 25 Novemher 1969.

(Signed) S. DATTA, (Signed) S. A. KHAN,
Delegate of India to the Delegate of Pakistan to the
MIDISEA RAN Meeting. MIDjSEA RAN Meeting.

1 ICAO DOC. 8700. Regional Air Navigation Planfor Middle Eastand South
East AsianRegions. INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION

REPORT OF INFORMAL MEETING BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN

Bangkok, 4-6 June 1970

1. Participants:

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

Dr. Saroj Datta Director of Aeronautical Com-
munications.
MI. R. N. Mazumdar Assistant Director, Air Routes
and Aerodromes.

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Mr. M. Y. Wazirzada Director of Aerodromes.
MI. M. M. Sharif Director, Map Publications, Sur-
vey of Pakistan.

ICAO

MI. P. C. Armour ICAO Representative, Far East
and Pacific Office.
MI. G. Peche Technical Officer, RACISAR.
MI. N. N. Chen Technical Officer, COM.

2. Place and Duration:

The meeting was held at the ICAO Reaional Office. Sala Santitham.
Bangkok. ~he opening session was held at 14.30 houk on 4 June. ~he
meeting closed at 12.30hours on 6 June.
3. Aaenda:
~ie purpose of the meeting was to discuss the matter of the common
boundary hetween the Delhi and Lahore Flight Information Regions.
4. Discussion:

4.1 A discussion paper (DPII) summarising the previous bistory of the
matter was presented by the Regional Office. A copy of the discussion
paper is attached to this report.
4.2 At the opening session the Delegate of Pakistan tabled the following

proposal with respect to the proposed boundary of the Lahore FIR, for
consideration by the meeting:

Beginning at 3000N 6620E to 3000N 7330E then north-wards
along the geographical boundaries of West Pakistan to 3274N
7419E then along the UN Cease Fire Line in Kashmir area to
3453N 7701E to 353lN 7750E then along international boundary RUOINOER OF PAKISTAN 491

between China-Sinkiang and the contiguous areas the Defence of
which is under the actual control of Pakistan to 3702N 7434E then
along the geographical boundaries of West Pakistan to 3000N

6620E.
Note: This agreement is without prejudice to the final disposition
of the territory of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with
the UN Security Council Resolutions.

4.3 The Delegate of Pakistan pointed out that ihe above proposal recognizes
the practical and operational situation as itexists at present. The area
proposed to be formally incorporated in the Lahore FIR is under the
complete control of Pakistan, which exercises responsibility for the
provision and operation of al1 air navigation facilities and services
witbin the area. These responsibilities include air traffic services, com-
munications, and search and rescue.
4.4 He further eiplained that if Pakistan's above proposal was not accept-
able to lndia in its present form it could be stated simply, without
reference to any boundaries, by saying that the area under the control
of India and Pakistan respectively should form the respective FIRs
until such time that the status of Jammu and Kashmir is finally decided.
4.5 The Delegate of India stated that he was not in a position to enter into

discussion relating to the question of political and military boundaries,
or political and military control of the area.
4.6 The Delegate of Pakistan stated that airspace over this area, whichis
under the actual control of Pakistan, had to be defined one way or
another. either bv defininri lateral limits. with references to latitudes and
longitudej, cedie-tire line, iiitcrnltiion3i bounddries. erc., or hy sdying
that the airspa~.over the arelts iindei the actual control of 1'3kisidnand
India. will he çonirolled bv Lshore and Dclhi FICI res~eciivelv. There
is noother way of defininithe FIR.
4.7 The Delegate of India referred to ICAO Annex II in which it is recoi-
mended that FIR boundaries need not necessarily be coincident with
national boundaries. The Delegate of Pakistan stated that the civil
aviation authorities of Pakistan have full respect for the ICAO Annexes,
and pointed out that paragraph 2.7.1 of Annex II referred to by the
Delegate of India reads as follows:

"2.7.1. RECOMMENDATION. The delineation of airspace, wherein
air traffic services areto be provided, should be related to the nature of
the route structure and the need foi efficient service rather than to
national boundaries."

4.8 The Pakistan proposal is related to the route structure, some of these
routes being as follows:
Rawalpindi-Skardu
Rawalpindi-Gilgit
Lahore-Rawalpindi-Skardu
Lahore-Rawalpindi-Gilgit.
The proposal is, therefore, directly related to the nature of the route
structure, and also to the need for efficient services which can only be

provided by Lahore FIC. It is clearly in the interest of flight safety that
the part of the airspace over Jammu and Kashmir which is under the
administrative control of Pakistan, should be included in the Lahore
FIR.4.9 The Delegate of India was of the opinion that the matter should be
considered ourelv from the oractical view of meetine r-a~~.~ments for
civil aviation, wiih particul&regard to the question of responsibility for
air traffic services, and the safety of air transport. He recognized that
under the conditions now nrevailine Lahore FIC had beei exercisine
this responsibility inpürt if the airspace now under consideration. 11;

therefore suggested that rcsponsibiliiy for air tiaffic services in that pan
of the oirspace could be formally deleguted to the Lîhore FIC without
any change in ihe FIR boundaries.
4.10 Put inro the forni of a firm proposal, this ~'3sstated by the Dclegate of
India as follows:
That for ATS purposes an area bounded by a straight line
joining point 3650N 7415E to 3508N 7707E and this point another
straight linejoining point 3440N 7345E. should become the deûned
area over whicb Lahore FIC could exercise its responsibility from
gound level to say, 25,000 feet. Delhi RC should exercise ATS
responsibility in the airspace above 25,000 feet in this area.

These arrangements would be subject to review at any time, and any
chanaes considered necessarv at a later date could then be discussed.
l'héDelegate of India also suggcsted ihat in the event of acceptance
of theabove proposol, Pokistan should withdriiwits Notam No. 5issued
on 25/3/1960.
4.11 In the discussion which foilowed, the question was raised by the Dele-
gate of Pakistan as to wby the Indian proposal included an upper limit
of 25.000 feet over the area and sue~ested a reduction in the area com-
prising the Lahore FIR. while unde; the existing situation Lahore FIC
now exercises responsibiliry over the whole airspace with no upper
limit.

4.12 The Delegate of lndia explained that imposing an upper limit would
facilitate the movement of overiiying highlevel jet aircraft, and such
aircraft would not be required to report in and out of too many FIRs.
In bis opinion the Indian proposai met the Pakistani requirements as
set out in the report of the LIM MID RAN Meeting (quoted in para. 4
of the Attachment). The oronosed uooer limit of 25.000 feet can cer-
tainly be examined'and if "ecéssarybéèxtendedabove thüt levcl.
4.13 The Delegate of Pakistan stated that ifrhearguments put forward by the
Indian Deleaate in suooort of his orooosal were acceoted there was no
reason uhy ihepropo;~l of the lndjan ~elegateshould not be applied to
the whole of the Kashmir terrirory, because the disputed territory is not
onlv ihe area defined in Pakistan's ..ooosal..but includes the whole of
~aihmir.
4.14 The Delegate of Pakistan re-emphasized bis view that the only proper
solution to the oroblem is to recomize the actual situation wherebv
Lahore FIC exercises full jurisdictioi over traffic in the area defineby
the Pakistan proposal. This situation should be formally rccognized by
acceotance of the Pakistan orooosal.
4.15 ~he~elegate of lndia re-stated his point that there need be no reference
to disputed boundaries or amendmcnt of FIR boundsries. He cmpha-
sized again that he was not in a position to enter into discussions
regarding thesc points. He stated thai acceptance of the proposal he had
made would bea first step towards a long-term solution of the problem.

4.16 He also drew attention to an air traffic control problem requiring RWOINDER OF PAKISTAN 493

solution in the eastern part of the continent-the Calcutta/Dacca
area-where Calcutta had for some time been exercising air traffic
control responsibility within a defined area of the Dacca FIR under
authority delegated by Dacca. He made the proposal that a further
delegation of authority should be given by Dacca to Calcutta, without
any change to the FIR boundaries, in an area located north of a line
joining the CO-ordinates 89.01E 25.OSN and 90.00E 25.13N hetween

Flight Levels 50 and 200.
4.17 The delegate of Pakistan pointed out that questions relating ta delega-
tions of authority in other Indian and Pakistan FIRs were not open for
discussion, according ta the agreement on the agenda reached prior to
this meeting. However, he was prepared to take note of India's proposal
relating ta the Dacca/Calcutta FIRs, and it would be studied by his
Administration.
4.18 He then referred to charts published by ICAO, particularly those
incliided ~--~ ~ ~~~ISEA Air Navieation Plan and Publication (Doc.
8700) and expressed'his strong vie; that they should be amendèd to
make it clear that air navigation facilities and services in the area to the

west and north of the ceasë-fire line in the Kashmir territory, under the
actual control of Pakistan, were provided by Pakistan and not by India
as it now appears on the charts.
4.19 He was of a firm opinion that ICAO charts should reflect the correct
position as given in the United Nations maps. He requested this to be
done by insertion on the charts of a note reading as follows:

The area 1shown as part of the Delhi FIR is in dispute between India
and Pakistan, and charts and maps published by the United Nations
show this area as a disputed area. In the area now uoder the actual
control of Pakistan, air navigation services are provided by Lahore
FIC.

4.20 TheICAO Representativepointed out that the question of markings on
ICAO charts included in ANP documents, and the form of wording
used on these charts, was amatter for the Secretary-General to decide
but he was surethat the Secretary-General would give careful considera-
tion ta Pakistan's request.
4.21 The Delegate of India requested that any proposed changes ta the
ICAO charts in respect of the areaunder disputeshould be referred to the
Governments of India and Pakistan before being incorporated in the
charts.

4.22 The Deleeate of Pakistan exoressed his view if a note. such as that
indicated boit, is referred ri>'~iats~ilis likrly to mcet i,irh ohjecrions
from India, and the purpose ot'the noie ivhich is iolely in the inierest of
flieht safetv. will not beachieved.
4.23 TL ~^elegaie of Pakistan tabled a request that the lndian civil aviation
authorities should amend their Aeronautical Information Publication
and relevant NOTAMs so as to reflect the correct position.
4.24 The Delegate of India ohserved that unilateral action by any State
concemed with the matter under discussion will further retard progress
towards a solution of the problem, rather than facilitate such progress.
4.25 The Delegate of Pakistan pointed out that if al1other attempts fail, there

1 This areawould beindicatedon the chat.494 ICA0 COUNCIL

willbe no other alternative except to take unilateral action in the interest
of Aightsafety in this area.
4.26 Conclusion:
It was regretted hy the participants that this meeting had heen incon-
clusive, and it was felt that further discussions on the matter should he
held. in due course. to attemvt to resolve the vrohlems at issue. In the
meenlime it was exiected thai the points documented in this report. and
the proposîls put forward, will receivecareful consideration by the two
Governments. RUOINDER OF PAKISTAN

AMex v

DD 1509152

FROM: OPKCYA

TO : VIDDYA

:$-65jAT.(.) REQWT CONFIRM NO OBJECTION TO THE
RESUMPTiON OF NORMAL OPERATIONS BY PIAC TO AND
ACROSS INDU (.)
. -

FROM : VIDDYA (171135)

TO : OPKCYA

YA 274 ( REF YR SIG 3-651AT-1

TOO 150915 ACKD (.) WRITING TO YOU (.1

T : OPKCYA

FROM : 040940 VIDDYA

TO : DDOPKCYA

YA 054 (.) OUR COVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO RES-
TOUTION OF OVERFLIGm OF SCHEDULED SERVICES
BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN(. ) WE WOULD
SUGGEST MEETING LUONEST POSSIBLE TO DETERMINE
DETAILS INCLUDING EARLIEST DATE OF RESUMPI?ON
AND ROUTES OVER WHICH OVERFLYING COULD BE
RESUMED (.) WE WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR (.MME
DIATE REPLY REGARDING DATE AND VENUE

DD 0709452

FROM : OPKCYA (DGCA PAKISTAN)
TO : VIDDYA (JXCA INDIA)496 ICAOCOUNCIL

081505 VIDDYA
YA 101 (.)REF Y,OURSIGNAL MO 070945 (. LE AGREE
TO RESUMPTION OF OVERFLIGHTS BY SCH~:DULED
SERVICES EFFECTIVE OOû1 LT IOTH FEJ3 3966 ( ) WE
NOTE THE DETAILS OF OVERFLIGHTS OF SCHEDULED
SERVICES THAT PIAC PROPOSE TO RESUME ( )
FM : 0911272 OPKCYA

TO : DD VTDDYA
DCAIATS-27/65 (.) PARA ONE . IN ACCORDANCE
WITH AGREEMENT BETWEEN OUR GOVERNMENTS RWOINDEROF PAKISTAN 497

FM VIDDYA 091403

TO DD OPKCYA

Y A 117 (. REF YR SIGNAL 091127 (.)WE HAVE OPENED
UP PDR CONCERNING YR OVER-FLIGHTS (. OTHER
PDR ARE UNDER A(7I?VE CONSIDERATION . IT IS
CONFIRMED THAT ROUTE DHANBAD-DACCA IS DIRECT
AND NOT VIA CALCUTTA (.) FLIGHTS MENTIONED IN
OUR SIG TOO 081505 WILL COMMENCE OPERATING FROM
--T-.- - -- .- SU- - -TED-IN YR SIG MO 091127 ON
FROVISIONAL BASIS, (.

FROM: OPKCYA

TO : VIDDYA

.?IfiGlAT.l . PIA DACCAICALCWAIDACCA AND498 ICACOUNCIL

CALCUTTA 1505 PK-428 DEP CALCUTTA .MON WED FR1
SUN 1535 ARR CHITTAGONG1715 (. ALL TIMES LX)CAL
(.) AIRCRAFT F-27( .

FI\? 191321 VIDDYA

TO DD OPKCYA