CHAPTER -1

INTRODUCTION

India v. Pakistan's legal dispute in the Jadhav case, which was heard by the International Court of
Justice (ICJ), is a significant one. A citizen of India named Kulbhushan Jadhav was arrested, put
on trial, and given a punishment in this case by Pakistani authorities. Pakistan has charged
former Indian Navy officer Jadhav with spying and taking part in terrorist operations. Pakistan's
allegedly breaking the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is at the core of the issue. India
petitioned the ICJ's jurisdiction to remedy these infractions and defend the its citizen Jadhav's
rights, who it claimed Pakistan had barred from consular access. The responsibility of states to
grant consular access and defend the rights of people in custody is laid forth in the Vienna
Convention on Consular interactions, an international convention that regulates consular
interactions between nations. India sought to dispute Pakistan's failure to offer Jadhav consular
access by taking this matter before the ICJ, contending that doing so violated international law.
This paper delves into the ruling of the ICJ in the Jadhav case, examining the legal justifications,
factors, and effects of the decision. The goal is to get a thorough understanding of the relevance
of this particular case as well as the function of the ICJ in resolving international issues. Examine
the legal justifications India used to make its case to the ICJ, paying particular attention to how
the Vienna Convention and customary international law were interpreted. We will also review
the ICJ's conclusions and how the Court rendered its decision that Pakistan had broken the
Vienna Convention by denying Jadhav consular access.

The study will also go over the ruling of the ICJ's wider ramifications. Jadhav's guilt or
innocence was not addressed by the Court's decision, but it did stress the value of consular access
as a basic privilege and the necessity of due process in international judicial processes. We will
examine how the ICJ's ruling may affect upcoming issues involving consular access and the
rights of people held in custody. It is important to highlight that the main emphasis of this study
is the Jadhav case's legal aspects and the ICJ ruling. The deeper backdrop of their ties is not
explored, including the political and territorial concerns between India and Pakistan. This study
intends to advance knowledge of international law, consular rights, and the function of the ICJ in
settling international conflicts by examining the Jadhav case and the ICJ's ruling.
1.1 AIMS

The aims of the project titled " An Analysis of the Jadhav Case's (India v. Pakistan) International
Court of Justice Decision". Examine the legal arguments Pakistan and India made in the Jadhav
case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ).Consider the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations' interpretation of the ICJ and how it affects consular access and the rights of those who
are under detention.

1.2 OBJECTIVES
1. The following are the objectives of the project titled "A Study of the International Court
of Justice's Decision in the Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan)":
2. Recognize the history and setting of the Jadhav case, particularly Pakistani officials'
involvement in arrest, prosecution, and sentence of Kulbhushan Jadhav.
3. Consider the Vienna Convention on Consular interactions and its applicability to the
Jadhav case when examining the legal framework governing consular interactions.
4. Examine the legal and factual components of the case as you evaluate the arguments
India and Pakistan made before the ICJ.
5. Analyze the logic behind the ICJ's decision and the legal justification for it, as well as
how it interpreted the pertinent rules and cases of international law.
1.3 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

In order to specifically explore the legal reasons, factors, and ramifications of Court's decision,
the paper concentrates on the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling in the Jadhav case. The
focus is on consular access and the rights of those who are in custody, with a study of the Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations and its applicability to the Jadhav case included. The paper
looks at the decision's wider implications in terms of consular rights, due process, and
international legal principles and Limitations of the project Instead of going further into India
and Pakistan's political and territorial concerns, the study largely focuses on the legal aspects of
the Jadhav case and the ICJ's ruling. The study is based on the data and legal arguments that are
currently accessible as of the knowledge cutoff date of September 2021. There may not be any
current details on recent developments in the Jadhav case. The focus of the study is the
procedural and legal difficulties involved in the case rather than whether Kulbhushan Jadhav is
guilty or innocent.
 CHAPTER-2

JADHAV CASE:AN ANALYSIS

Martin Luther King Jr.'s remark that " Justice everywhere is threatened by injustice anywhere " is
accurate. There has always been a troubling conflict between law and morality, when justice is
ripped apart, throughout the history of law. The same argument arises in international law as
well, where States attempt to settle disputes and uphold cooperative interstate relations. A man's
quest for independence could be another man's terrorist, and vice versa. Recent evidence of this
notion can be seen in the India v. Pakistan (Jadhav case) case.

FACT OF THE CASE

The Indian citizen named Kulbhushan Jadhav is involved to a legal dispute between India and
Pakistan known as the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. The main details of the case, as of my
knowledge limit in September 2021, are as follows. A former Indian naval commander named
Kulbhushan Jadhav was detained on March 3, 2016, in Balochistan, Pakistan, by Pakistani
police. Jadhav was allegedly involved in subversive operations in Pakistan, according to
Pakistan. while acting as a spy for Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) of India.On the other
side, India refuted Pakistan's claims and insisted that Jadhav was a former naval officer who had
been abducted from Iran and wrongly accused of being a spy. India claimed that Jadhav had no
ties to the Indian government and wanted access to him through the consulate; Pakistan
consistently refused. According to Article 40, 1 of the ICJ Statute, Article 38 of the ICJ Rules,
and other provisions, the jurisdiction was sought read in combination with Optional Protocol
Article 1, at the beginning of the procedural history.

Upon departure from the Indian Navy, Mr. Jadhav was conducting business in Iran when he was
kidnapped. India argued that Mr. Jadhav was unfairly condemned without receiving a fair trial or
consular access, and Pakistan asserted that Mr. Jadhav's arrest was related to his involvement in
espionage and sabotage activities. India filed a complaint with the International Court of Justice
(ICJ), the main UN tribunal, in May 2017 after the case received widespread attention. India said
that by denying Jadhav consular access, Pakistan had broken the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations.The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in favor of India in July 2019 and
declared that Pakistan had broken the terms of the Vienna Convention. The court instructed
Pakistan to effectively assess and reevaluate Jadhav's conviction and punishment. Pakistan then
passed the "International Court of Justice (Review and Reconsideration) Ordinance" in 2020 to
put the ICJ's ruling into effect. Pakistan asserted that it had given Jadhav the option to appeal, but
India maintained that the procedure was hardly impartial or open.

Issues raised

After Pakistan received the ICJ's stay order concerning Jadhav's execution, India and Pakistan
engaged in litigation before the court on May 15, 2017, regarding his case. India served as the
case's Senior Council and renowned lawyer Harish Salve was representing India. Both nations
presented 375 page written arguments along with an additional 100 page annexure. The case's
public hearing went on for at least five days.In response to Pakistan's conduct, India had
requested compensation based on the following concerns. The death penalty should be
immediately suspended.Given that Jadhav was denied admission to the Indian consulate, and it
was deemed that the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) and the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) were "brazenly defied" by the Pakistani military
court's decision..Direction to Pakistan: The punishment will be termed "illegal" and Jadhav will
be released if Pakistan is unable to have the ruling reversed. The military court's decision will be
implemented " within the bounds of Pakistani law." Pakistan raised concerns over what it alleged
to be irregularities, rights abuses, and illegal actions by India. Pakistan also asserted that India
was using language that implied military courts were "similar to kangaroo courts" in some
way.Based on his passport, they differed on Kulbhushan Jadhav's nationality as well. The request
of Pakistan that India should assist with the probe into the Jadhav case, which will act as a
prerequisite for granting India access to the consulate under Article 36, correct, or is the
responsibility under Article 36 unconditional and Article 1 of the Options Protocol grant the ICJ
jurisdiction over the current dispute.
Rules by ICJ

According to India, Pakistan violated Vienna Convention's Article 36 by acting in a certain way.

In addition, the court finds that Pakistan went against Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by not
explaining Jadhav's rights to him, delaying informing India that Jadhav was in their custody, and
denying Jadhav access to consular services or the right to legal counsel from India. Jadhav filed a
mercy appeal even after the Field Court Martial verdict in Pakistan, but the President of Pakistan
did not consider it, and the petition was not brought before the court since there is no record of
Jadhav's clemency procedure with Pakistan to do so. India maintained that a death penalty given
to Jadhav by the military tribunal in Pakistan is against international law and the terms of the
Vienna Convention. The court, however, argued that " its purview is restricted to interpreting and
applying the Vienna Convention, and it excludes any other rules of International Law" in this
case. India asks the court to overturn Kulbhushan Jadhav's death sentence. The court refused to
totally overturn the death penalty but said that India has the right to "restitutio in integrum" in
order to protect Jadhav's rights and India's as well. The International Court of Justice
unanimously ordered Pakistan to review and reevaluate the death penalty on July 17, 2019, by
referencing the ruling from the Mexico v. United States of America case, Avena and Other
Mexican Nationals, from 2004. The court ordered the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to
"immediately inform Jadhav of his rights and grant consular access" available to India to
represent his interest before the courts of Pakistan for effective justice by the Vienna Convention
on consular relations and to safeguard his right to a fair trial, which is absolute"

Analysis

The investigation of new avenues for the legal analysis of international agreements has served as
a model in this case. But pursuing justice has taken a lot of time., which inhibits the expansion of
the legal system in and of itself. By case-by-case analysis, one couldcompare the understanding
of the Vienna Convention to the core idea of jurisdiction that forms the basis of every legal
conflict. The Court further noted that there was a significant difference of opinion regarding the
consular assistance in regards to the detention of Mr. Jadhav,and trial.The Court decided that
Pakistan's refusal to grant consular access or proof of communication would be sufficient
justification for establishing the necessary jurisdiction. The Court mandated that certain legal and
factual concerns be clarified after determining that the observation satisfied the requirement for
jurisdiction,recognising the case as covered by the Vienna Convention and ruling that the
claimed terrorist or espionage conduct cannot restrict the Court's authority as per the Convention.
The Court's authority under the Vienna Convention or the ICJ statute cannot theoretically be
limited by a bilateral agreement, it was stated. According to India, when a citizen is detained or
imprisoned, all States may assert these rights under the Convention. These rights are relevant to
temporary measures and fall under the fundamental principles of consular protection. The Court
stated that, while temporary safeguards are in place, there is no requirement to establish with
certainty whether or not there are rights that India wants to see protected. only if these rights are
respected and tenable needs to be determined.

Furthermore, Pakistan made the decision to let Mr. Jadhav's family meet him after this Case
acted as a prototype for the defence of human rights.To demonstrate irreparable prejudice that
could affect the case, it is necessary to show the causal connection between the order of
temporary measures and the rights of the Parties.. This may be compared to how Pakistan treated
Mr. Jadhav by giving him the death punishment without giving him the chance to be heard,
which violated natural justice principles and resulted in irreparable damage. Last but not least,
the LaGrand case illustrates the urgency of provisional measures and the importance of timing
for applications for provisional measures.

CONCLUSION

The International Court of Justice must decide a pertinent legal matter affecting VCCR and
consular access in the La Grand and Avena case before Kulbhushan Jadhav’s case.Similar relief
of "review and consideration" was given to in both cases by the ICJ. However, the judgment was
only partially successful. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a ruling in the current
case as well, directing the State of Pakistan to reconsider its decision regarding Jadhav. Jadhav's
fate ultimately rests with Pakistan because the ICJ's rulings are not legally binding on other
nations. The ICJ's ruling is final, although the nations are free to abide by it or not. A peaceful
solution to the current issue might be found if the Indian government can figure out an efficient
strategy to heal the relationship with Pakistan.
 CHAPTER- 3

IMPLICATION OF JADHAV VERDICT IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: A STUDY

The following are the legal ramifications of the Jadhav decision in international law
Consular Rights In light of international law, the case reinforces the significance of consular
access as a fundamental right. It adds that in conformity with the VCCR, nations are required to
inform detained foreign people of their rights to consular aid and to enable consular access. It
serves as a reminder of the ICJ's authority to order temporary relief in matters involving conflicts
between states. This underscores the court's responsibility for ensuring that people's rights are
protected while the case is underway responsibilities of states The ruling underscores that in
cases involving foreign people, states are required to facilitate effective review and
reconsideration of convictions and penalties. This guarantees that everybody are given an equal
opportunity to argue their case and defend their rights. Diplomatic Relations The Jadhav issue
strained India and Pakistan's diplomatic ties. By emphasizing the value of upholding
international law and the consular access norms, the ICJ's decision can aid in the improvement of
diplomatic relations. Although the ICJ's decision is binding on the parties, the nations'
willingness to follow it determines whether the judgment will be carried out. In this matter,
continuing interaction and cooperation between India and Pakistan are necessary for the
implementation of the ICJ's ruling and its effects on Jadhav's predicament.

Does a suspected "spy" have VCCR-permitted access to consular services?

The Court next looked at India's accusations against Pakistan after deciding that the complaint
was admissible. Pakistan was accused by India of committing, in conjunction with Jadhav's
detention, trial, and conviction, there were " severe transgressions of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations.". The Pakistani government informed India of Jadhav's detention on March
25, 2016. The Pakistani military declared on April 10, 2017, that Jadhav had been found guilty
and given the death penalty by a military court for " sabotage and spying operations against
Pakistan." Beginning on March 25, 2016, India repeatedly asked Pakistan for consular access;
each time, Pakistan either declined the request or made it clear that it would only grant it if India
helped with the probe into Jadhav.India claimed in its plea that Pakistan's refusal to grant
consular access violated Pakistan's responsibilities under Article 36(1) of the VCCR.Kulbhushan
Jadhav allegedly engaged in actions connected to terrorism and espionage in Pakistan according
to Pakistani authorities. In their defense, they claimed that the VCCR did not apply to people
"who present a prima facie case of espionage activities from their own behaviour and the
materials in their possession. Pakistan claimed that the writers of the VCCR were aware that
some matters pertaining to consular relations, such as espionage, would not be covered by the
Convention. The Court stated in its decision that the VCCR's purpose and aim were to advance "
the growth of good relations between countries," and that it was evident the Convention does not
apply to people who are possibly epsoinage when the phrases were construed in good faith and in
accordance with their usual meaning. The Court further determined that it would be against the
treaty's intent to allow the rights it guarantees to be ignored when a foreign individual held by the
receiving state is alleged to have engaged in espionage.The Court concluded that there was no
indication that consular access would not be provided in situations of espionage due to national
security concerns after taking into account various ways of interpreting the Convention, such as
its own preparatory works.The Court rejected Pakistan's claim as a result and explicitly said that
some groups of people, such as those accused of espionage, cannot be denied the rights
guaranteed by Article 36 of the Convention. Not only was Pakistan's situation hazardous, but it
was also untenable. Making VCCR rights related to consular access dependent on the crime that
foreign nationals are accused of would have undercut the treaty's very intent. Through a specific
definition of their actions, it would have been possible for states to refuse foreign nationals
access to consular services. It should be highlighted that, according to international human rights
standards, the right of foreigners to consular access is regarded as integral to the right to a fair
trial. For instance, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that Foreign nationals
have the right to consular access, the opportunity to fully prepare their defence, and to receive a
fair trial. must be acknowledged and included among the minimal guarantees. Although this was
not specifically addressed in the main judgment, Judge Trindade went into great depth about it in
his separate opinion.
Breach of Article 36(1) of Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

The Court then looked into whether Pakistan had broken any of its VCCR commitments. The
competent authorities of the receiving State (in this example, Pakistan) are required by Article
36(1)(b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to inform any foreign citizens in their
custody of their rights under that provision. This obligation has already been handled. The Court
inferred from Pakistan's continued stance that the VCCR does not apply to someone who is
suspected of espionage that it failed to advise Jadhav of his rights under Article 36(1)(b) of the
VCCR. The Court ultimately decided that Pakistan had a responsibility to let Jadhav know about
his rights under that provision. Notifying the sending State (in this case, India) "without delay"
of the foreign national's arrest or detention is another provision of the VCCR. Pakistan has stated
that it informed the Indian High Commissioner about Jadhav's arrest on March 25, 2016, after
the Indian national was taken into custody on March 3, 2016. Article 36(1)(b) of the VCCR,
according to Pakistan, does not guarantee "immediate" consular access. Although the court
recognised that notice did not have to be "immediate," it felt that in this instance, alerting India
until three weeks after the arrest broke the VCCR's mandate that information be delivered
"without delay." Employees of the consulate "shall have the right to visit and communicate with
a national of the sending State who is in custody or detention.", to correspond with him, and to
set up his legal counsel.," according to Article 36(1)(c). Jadhav had the option to choose his own
lawyer, but he opted to have an internal defence officer represent him, Pakistan replied. The
Court clarified that this did not absolve Pakistan from preventing Jadhav's access to Indian
consular authorities so they could help with his legal representation. The Court came to the
conclusion that Pakistan had broken the VCCR's Article 36 on three separate occasions: Jadhav's
rights under the Convention were violated in three ways: first, by failing to inform him of them;
second, by delaying informing India of Jadhav's arrest and detention; and third, by refusing
Indian consular officials access to Jadhav, which was against their right to arrange for Jadhav's
legal representation among other things.

Remedies and reparation reparation

The Court determined that Pakistan had committed "internationally wrongful acts of a continuing
character" by violating Article 36 of the VCCR, and it ordered Pakistan to inform Jadhav of his
legal rights that article's paragraph (b) as soon as possible. Pakistan also had to grant Indian
consular officers access to Jadhav so they could arrange for Jadhav to have legal representation.
India also asked the International Court of Justice for a number of relief measures, such as a
acknowledgement that Jadhav's military trial and punishment were against the VCCR and
fundamental human rights, the annulment of the military court's decision and a prohibition
against Pakistan enforcing the judgment or conviction, as well as a directive to free Jadhav and
facilitate his safe return to India. Alternatively, India requested that Pakistan take action to
overturn the military court's ruling and refrain from carrying out the death penalty; or India
requested that Pakistan direct a trial devoid of Jadhav's confession before civilian courts that is in
accordance with human rights under ordinary law. Pakistan contended that the remedies sought
by India were not within the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice since the Court had
consistently and repeatedly reiterated the principle that it does not have the role of a criminal
appeal court. Pakistan argued that only an appeal criminal court could grant India's requests for
relief. Pakistan argued that the most effective course of action in this situation would be to
effectively assess and reevaluate the accuser’s verdict and sentence. However, India said that the
Jadhav case's remedy of " Relief through reconsideration and review is "highly inadequate.”. The
Court dismissed India's argument. The Court stated that Jadhav's conviction and sentencing
constitute not a otherwise, "only some breaches of treaty duties on consular access which
preceded them," in accordance with other decisions it has made in circumstances of denial of
consular access. The Court further emphasized that in circumstances of infringement ofVienna
Convention Article 36, "it is not to be presumed...that partial or total annulment of conviction or
sentence provides the necessary and sole remedy."As a result, the Court decided that Jadhav's
conviction and imprisonment needed "effective review and reconsideration," including, if
necessary, the passage of appropriate legislation., is the proper remedy in this situation as
compensation. According to the International Court of Justice, a continuous stay of execution for
Jadhav would be " a necessary prerequisite for a competent review and reevaluation of the
conviction and sentence." At this point, it is important to remember that in May 2017, in
response to India's request, the Court issued an order for interim measures and instructed
Pakistan to "take all measures at its disposal" to prevent Jadhav from being executed until the
Court's final ruling.

Effective review and reconsideration

The Court's primary remedy in prior cases involving the denial of consular access or notification,
such as its ruling in the LaGrand and Avena cases, has been "review and reconsideration."The
Court let Pakistan decide how to conduct a "effective review and reconsideration" in the instance
of Jadhav. However, it outlined a number of considerations Pakistan must make when carrying
out the ruling, including: The body reexamining Third, the Court made it clear that clemency
petitions to the Chief of Army Staff or the President are required for Jadhav's conviction and
sentencing to take "potential prejudice and the implications for the evidence and the right of
defence of the accused" into consideration. woudl be given "cardinal importance" in any review
and reconsideration.It is significant to note that the International Court of Justice did not express
an opinion regarding the fairness of the proceedings before military courts or make a firm
determination regarding whether reviewing military court proceedings before high courts would
be "effective" in determining whether violations of the VCCR actually prejudiced Jadhav's case.
 CHAPTER-4

EFFECTIVNESS OF INTERNATONAL LAW IN LIEU OF JADHAV CASE:A STUDY

It is possible to examine international law's efficiency from a variety of angles in relation to the
Jadhav case. Although international law offers a framework for resolving conflicts between
nations and defending individual rights, its success ultimately depends on a number of variables,
including state compliance, enforcement mechanisms, and the political environment in which the
issue is being litigated. Here are some important factors to think about. International Court of
Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction: The Jadhav case was brought before the ICJ, the main court of the UN.
The fact that both India and Pakistan acknowledged the ICJ's authority and took part in the
proceedings shows that governments are prepared to use international legal procedures for
conflict settlement as well as their willingness to accept the court's jurisdiction. This helps
international law work more effectively by giving states a platform to argue their claims and look
for a mutually agreeable solution. Provisional Measures and Compliance In the Jadhav case, the
ICJ ordered Pakistan to stop Jadhav's execution until the court's final decision. The fact that
Pakistan complied with these demands shows how effective the court's orders were and how
seriously it took its legality. It's crucial to remember that ICJ judgments and directives must be
followed by nations willing to do so, and there are few enforcement instruments available. The
usefulness of international law may be called into question in situations where states refuse to
abide by it.The ICJ's decision in the Jadhav case underlined the significance of consular access as
a fundamental right under international law. The court emphasized the importance of individual
rights and due process protections by highlighting governments' duty to offer consular aid to
detained foreign people. The ability of international law to establish rules and principles that
regulate state action and advance the defense of individual rights is what gives it its efficacy.
State Compliance and Political Aspects The political climate and the relationships between the
governments involved can have an impact on the effectiveness of international law. The
complicated connection between India and Pakistan in the Jadhav issue may affect how the ICJ's
ruling is carried out and how the conflict is settled. States must make a commitment to put their
legal commitments ahead of political considerations in order to comply with international law,
which can be a difficult task in some circumstances.
The Jadhav case emphasizes the need of diplomatic efforts in settling conflicts and putting
international law into effect. Finding a solution that adheres to legal duties can be facilitated
through diplomatic engagement between India and Pakistan as well as international engagement.
When states engage in constructive discussion and seek to find a solution that is agreeable to
both parties, the effectiveness of international law can be improved. It's crucial to remember that
a single instance like Jadhav does not sum up the effectiveness of international law. It is a bigger
question that necessitates taking into account state compliance generally, the development of
legal standards, the available enforcement tools, and state commitment to upholding their
international legal responsibilities. The Jadhav case exemplifies how international law can offer
a framework for resolving conflicts and defending individual rights. However, depending on a
number of variables, including political concerns and state actions, it may or may not be
beneficial in a given situation. For international law to fulfill its promise in resolving conflicts
and sustaining the rule of law, ongoing participation, dialogue, and adherence to legal
responsibilities are essential.

When the International Court of Justice is exercising contentious jurisdiction, as it did in this
case, its decisions are binding and enforceable against the States that are parties to the case. (The
Court may also provide advisory opinions pursuant to Article 96 of the UN Charter; this is
unimportant in this instance.)
The UN Charter's Article 94(1) stipulates that " every member of the UN promises to abide by
the International Court's rulings in any matter to which it is a party.." In accordance with Article
94(2), if a party to a case does not uphold its end of a judgement made by the Court, the other
party may turn to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, offer suggestions or
decide upon steps to be taken to give the judgement effect.."It is encouraging that Pakistan has
accepted the Court's decision. However, it is hoped that this case will prompt Pakistan and India
to begin taking their international obligations more seriously as well as their media to begin
showing an interest in the countries' obligations beyond this particular high-profile issue.

The way forward

When the International Court of Justice is acting as a contested tribunal, as it did in this case, its
decisions are binding and enforceable against the States that are parties to the case. (Under
Article 96 of the UN Charter, the Court may also provide advisory opinions; however, that is
unimportant in this case).Each member of the United Nations agrees to comply with the rulings
of the International Court in any case to which it is a party, according to Article 94(1) of the UN
Charter." The Security Council may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide
upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgement, as stated in Article 94(2), "if any
party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgement rendered by
the Court."The fact that Pakistan has endorsed the court's ruling is promising. However, it is
hoped that this lawsuit would force Pakistan and India to start treating their commitments to
other nations seriously and that their media will start taking an interest in their obligations
beyond this particular high-profile situation.

CONCLUSION
A number of significant facets of international law and how it is applied in the context of
international disputes are revealed by the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) ruling in the India
v. Pakistan case known as the Jadhav case. The case brought to light the importance of consular
access, individual rights, and the ICJ's authority to adjudicate these types of conflicts. The
significance of consular access as a fundamental right under international law was highlighted by
the ICJ's ruling in favor of India. It stressed that states have a responsibility to facilitate consular
assistance and notify detained foreign individuals of their rights. This emphasized the part that
international law plays in defending human rights and advancing due process safeguards. It also
demonstrated the power of the court and its capacity to shape state action when the ICJ issued
interim measures ordering Pakistan to stop Jadhav's execution. The fact that Pakistan complied
with these demands showed how powerful and effective the ICJ's rulings were.The case also
revealed governments' readiness to use international legal procedures for dispute resolution as
well as the ICJ's jurisdiction. Both India and Pakistan acknowledged the ICJ's authority and the
value of international law in providing a platform for amicable resolution by accepting the court's
jurisdiction. It’s crucial to remember that there are obstacles to international law's efficacy. The
willingness of governments to abide by ICJ decisions and orders is a prerequisite for compliance,
yet there are few enforcement instruments available. The application of international law and the
settling of disputes can be impacted by political processes and the bilateral relationships between
states. The Jadhav case ultimately affirms the importance of international law in resolving
conflicts between governments and defending human rights. To fully achieve the potential of
international law in resolving conflicts and sustaining the rule of law, it emphasizes the need for
continual diplomatic engagement, communication, and conformity with international legal
commitments. It’s important to note that the Jadhav case may have changed since my knowledge
cutoff in September 2021, so for the most recent information, it's crucial to reference recent legal
assessments and news sources.