India Didn’t Win: How Pakistani Media Covered ICJ’s Jadhav Verdict

From blaming the Foreign Office, to seeing a silver lining in the verdict, here’s how Pakistani media reported it.

Pakistani media opines that Pakistan has not yet lost and has moved from a bilateral to multilateral dialogue with India. (Photo: The Quint)

On Thursday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stayed the execution of Indian Navy officer Kulbhushan Jadhav. The ICJ instructed Pakistan to not go forth with the execution till the proceedings were concluded by the court.

While the current verdict was a major victory for India, things were less than favourable across the border in Pakistan, where politicians and people took to blaming the government for the verdict and some went as far as “rejecting” the ICJ.

This is how Pakistani media reported the judgement.

Dawn Strikes Defiant Tone: ‘Pakistan Didn’t Fail’

The country’s oldest newspaper, Dawn, wrote that the ICJ’s verdict was a “definite setback” for the country, but by no means did it result in Pakistan’s failure.

Pakistan’s attorney-general said that Jadhav would be “provided with every opportunity and remedy available under the law to mount a defence.” He also stated that all forums of appeal had not been exhausted by him yet “including a request filed by his mother, which was currently pending before the appropriate forum.”

The newspaper also wrote “Pakistan hasn’t failed to convince the ICJ that Jadhav is a spy/terrorist as this is something that will be considered only at the merits stage of the case”.

It also highlighted how the ICJ has not yet given a verdict on the allowance of consular access to Jadhav.

Daily Times Op-Ed Sees a ‘Silver Lining’ in the Stay

The opinion-editorial in Daily Times by Yasser Latif Hamdani highlighted that Pakistan’s case rested on “a question of jurisdiction” which was based on a proposition that “the bilateral agreement between Pakistan and India on consular access trumps Vienna Convention 1963.”

But that particular argument was acknowledged in the op-ed as being weak.

“A bilateral treaty cannot override or curtail a multilateral international convention to which a state is party. It can only expand it.”

Hamdani argues that while critics are slamming Pakistan for going to the ICJ, not going to the court would not have helped the country in any case.

He even writes about the “one silver lining” that has come from the current verdict:

“India’s decision to invoke the jurisdiction of a multilateral body itself is a victory for Pakistan. It ends the policy of bilateralism that has been the cornerstone of India’s Pakistan policy. Pakistan has always favoured the multilateral approach and with this a new vista has opened up for the future.”

Qureshi and Foreign Office Tripped Up: The Express Tribune

Legal experts in the country have blamed the Foreign Office’s officials for “poorly handling” the case and “not giving proper advice to relevant quarters”, in The Express Tribune.

If Indians could show reservations over the ICJ jurisdiction on Kashmir, Pakistan might also adopt the same approach in the matter related to the trial of terrorists by civilian and military courts.

Senior Lawyer to <i>Express Tribune</i>

India was accused of fixing the case before the ICJ by managing the ICJ’s registrar office by a senior official to the newspaper.

We were very surprised how swiftly Jadhav’s case was fixed before the ICJ.

Experts Say ICJ’s Judgement is ‘Provisional’: Geo News

Reema Omer, an international legal advisor, said that the court proceedings will continue for the next two-three years, and in such cases, a provisional stay is often pronounced, reported Geo News.

“In the laymen’s term, it is an interim order. Till now the jurisdiction of the court and merit has not yet been decided,” Omer said.

Pakistan is a party to the Vienna Convention. It has to abide by the rules. To say that Pakistani lawyer talked for 40 mins, not 90 – is an excuse and a diversion... Indians have raised Article 36 which is simple that if there is a dispute on a treaty signed by two parties then ICJ will resolve the dispute.

Following the judgment, Foreign Office spokesperson Nafees Zakaria stated that Pakistan had challenged the authority of the ICJ after consulting with all institutions and agencies. "No institution can be party to Pakistan's national security," Zakaria said.