Source: News Bharati English06 Oct 2016 12:20:08

Hague, October 6: The United Nations' International Court of Justice in Hague rejected the plea by the Marshall Islands that accused India, Pakistan and Britain not complying with the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However, it is to be noted that India is not signatory to the NPT. These islands earlier accused nine countries for the same but it was left with court to decide only regarding three nations.
The court posted an official reasoning for the rejection. It said, “Marshall Islands filed an Application against India alleging a failure to fulfill obligations concerning negotiations relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. India raised several objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application, and the Marshall Islands requested the Court to reject these objections. The Court first considers India’s objection based on the alleged absence of a dispute between the Parties at the time of the filing of the Application.”

The Court held that, given its very general content and the context in which it was made, that statement did not call for a specific reaction by India, so no opposition of views can be inferred from the absence of any such reaction. The Court concluded that it cannot be said that India was aware, or could not have been¾taken individually or together unaware, that the Marshall Islands was making an allegation that India was in breach of its obligations. These statements were thus insufficient to bring into existence a legal dispute between the Parties.

The court further said,” The dispute between the Parties can be inferred from India’s conduct. The Court recalls that neither of the Marshall Islands’ statements made in multilateral fora offered any particulars regarding India’s conduct. In this context, the Court concludes that India’s conduct cannot show an opposition of views and does not provide a basis for finding a dispute between the two States. The Court therefore concludes that India’s objection to jurisdiction based on the absence of a dispute between the Parties must be upheld.” The Court pointed out that it found no need to consider the other objections raised by India.