Baloch Nationalists can approach ICJ , need not be a "State"

In a Press release few days back Dr.Wahid Baloch ,President of Baloch Society fo North America BSO-NA.ORG said Baloch people will be filing a case in International Court of Justice . Immediately after breaking the news some of us received an email from Information Department of ICJ , stating "Only States may be parties in cases before the Court" as per Article 34 of the Statute of the court [ See the content reproduced below] .

However IntelliBriefs wish to point out  ARTICLE 93 , Para 2 , of the Charter which empowers the General Assembly to determine the conditions on which a state not a member of UN , may become a party to the Statute of the court .

ARTICLE 93 , Para 2 , says

A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may become aparty to the Statute of the International Court of Justice on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation ofthe Security Council.

We wish to reproduce "ANALYTICAL SUMMARY OF PRACTICE" of ARTICLE 93

During the discussion 8/ in the Security Council and its Committee of Experts of the request of Liechtenstein to learn the conditions upon which it could become aparty to the Statute of the Court, the objection was raised that Liechtenstein was nota sovereign State, since it had yielded important parts of its sovereignty toSwitzerland. The arguments set forth below were among those adduced in support of thatview, (l) Liechtenstein did not conduct its foreign affairs independently, but did soonly through Switzerland. (2) Liechtenstein was a member of a customs union withSwitzerland, which meant that it was not autonomous in the matter of customs.(3) Liechtenstein did not have its own currency. (U) Liechtenstein did not have apostal system, its postal affairs being handled by Switzerland. (5) The administrationof the telegraph system of Liechtenstein was also in the hands of Switzerland.(6) Liechtenstein did not have an army of its own. (?) The League of Nations hadrefused to permit Liechtenstein to become a party to the Statute of the Permanent Courtof International Justice

The majority of the Committee of Experts and of the Security Council, however, was of the opinion 9/ that Liechtenstein was a State within the meaning of Article 93 (2). The arguments set forth "below were among those advanced in support of that opinion. (l) Most writers and jurists considered Liechtenstein as a State. (2) It had a population, a Government and a constitution. (3) The customs union treaty between Liechtenstein and Switzerland did not affect the independence of the former; the treaty stated that the customs union was without prejudice to the sovereign right of the Prince of Liechtenstein. (k) The fact that Switzerland represented Liechtenstein in foreign countries did not affect the sovereignty of the latter; there were several undoubted States which relied on the diplomatic service of other States.


The Security Council by a vote of 9 to none, with 2 abstentions, adopted the draft resolution recommended for adoption by the Committee of Experts and setting forth the
conditions in question for Liechtenstein


SOURCE: The question whether an applicant was a "state" withinthemeaning of Article 93 (2)

Further Article 35 (2) of UN  says " A state which is not a Member of the United Nations may bring to the attention of the Security Council or of the General Assembly any dispute to which it is a party if it accepts in advance, for the purposes of the dispute, the obligations of pacific settlement provided in the present Charter "

Therefore , it is appropriate for Khan of Kalat to consider an attempt to make use of the court to decide this point . In this regard if an attempt were to be made by Baloch leaders they should decide which of the above 2 -- Article 35 (2) OR Article 93 (2) -- should be adopted .

Baloch intellectuals should make use of these available avenues without taking these emails seriously . Pakistan may raise preliminary objections similar to what Mrs.Laurence Blairon of Information Department has mentioned . However this matter would be decided by the court .

Not to mention the Agreements signed by Khan of Kalat dated ( 11th April 1952) and also (1st January 1955) will be void , as they were signed under duress . Only Instrument of accession signed on 27th March 1948 will be taken into consideration , as per my well informed source .

Baloch leaders should make an attempt .

---

Secretary of the Court has sent the following mail regarding this

Dear Sir,

Today I read an article on your website entitled "Balochistan case is ready to be filed at International Court of Justice". As Head of the Information Department of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is mentioned in the article, I wish in this respect to clarify matters.

The Court's activities are limited to rendering judgments in legal disputes between States submitted to it by the States themselves and giving advisory opinions when it is so requested by UN organs or specialized agencies of the UN system.

Article 34 of the Statute of the Court, which is part of the Charter of the United Nations, provides: "Only States may be parties in cases before the Court". At the moment, these are the 192 Member States of the United Nations only.

It follows that neither the Court nor its Members can consider applications from private individuals or groups, provide them with legal advice or assist them in their relations with the authorities of any country.

I trust you will find this information useful.

Yours faithfully,

Laurence Blairon (Mme Mrs.)
Secrétaire de la Cour Secretary of the Court
Chef du département de l'information Head of the Information Department
Cour internationale de Justice International Court of Justice
Palais de la Paix Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ La Haye The Hague
Pays-Bas The Netherlands
T: + 31 (0)70 302 23 36
F: + 31 (0)70 302 23 38
E: information@icj-cij.org
Site Internet website: www.icj-cij.org