European Parliament on last Tuesday strongly condemned Indian government’s continuous obduracy in denying the Kashmiris their fundamental right to self- determination ardently protected and guaranteed by the United Nations Security Council resolutions. Recently, PM Imran Khan welcomed the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting on occupied Jammu and Kashmir, saying the gathering was a reaffirmation of the council’s passed resolutions– advocating the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people. Truthfully, implications of the UN resolutions –which are the true representation of international law– are by no means referred as transient or temporary, rather the resolutions’ effect is everlasting and binding on the fate of Kashmir. The Indian notion/argument to discern the resolutions as moribund and inapplicable cannot be validated under international law. In accordance to the veracity and objective imbibed in the UNSC resolution of 1948, the fate of Kashmir was to be decided over UN-supervised plebiscite. Just after the resolution, the conditions for holding a plebiscite were also laid; yet the implementation of the resolution, however, India has consistently found ways for its delay. So the agenda of the partition of sub-continent remained yet undecided because of the Indian policy of lingering this dispute. By use of the controversial ‘Instrument of Accession’ and changing the demography of Kashmir by India, the expropriation and seizure of land in the IOK is a machination to dodge the international law contested by Pakistan since the partition of the Indian Subcontinent in 1947. Article 49 of the IV Geneva Convention clearly says that “the occupying forces shall not deport of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The UNSC resolution 47 passed on April 21, 1948, reads: ”…..Noting with satisfaction that both and Pakistan desire that the question of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir to India or Pakistan should be decided through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite, Considering that the continuation of the dispute is likely to endanger international peace and security”. As for the formulation of the UNSC resolutions, the Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or an act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of the settlement. Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. It was the very background that the UNSC passed its resolution on Kashmir in 1948-49. Arguing logically, the setting up of an independent body by the UNSC in the aftermath of its resolutions of 1948-49 seemed a specific step that was acted upon, and it seems not possible to imagine a resolution that establishes a standalone body could ever be viewed as being only recommendatory or advisory and not mandatory in character. In Resolution 47, the mandate of UNCIP was extended and additional powers were conferred on it. A clear and elaborate programme was laid down for the activities of the commission. The resolution also addresses the governments of India and Pakistan and directed progressive demilitarisation. It also called for the establishment of a provisional government. The resolution is very minute in its details and passed with a clear intention of leaving no specifics out. The nature, intendment and impeccability of the resolution lead ineluctably to the conclusion that it was meant to be implemented by both states. The recently introduced settlement plan by the Modi Government– accompanied by the revocation of Article 370 and 35-A by the Modi government– is seen in the purview of the continued violation of the Geneva Convention In this backdrop, It can be fairly assessed that the UN resolution 122 passed in January 1957 stated: ”Reminding the Governments and authorities concerned of the principle embodied in its resolutions 47 (1948) of 21 April 1948, 51 (1948) of 3 June, 1948, 80 (1950) of 14 March 1950 and 91 (1951) of 30 March 1951, and the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan resolutions of 13 August 1948 and 5 January 1949, that the final disposition of the State of Jammu and Kashmir will be made in accordance with the will of the people expressed through the democratic method of a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under the auspices of the United Nations”. And yet most significantly, the basic theory of legal effects vis-à-vis UNSC resolutions or the resolutions passed by the UNGA which have a profound impact on public international law. These effects can be classified into three categories: The first is ‘substantive effects’. These include binding, authorizing or (dis)empowering effects. The second category is ‘causative effects’– highlighting determinations of fact or of law bring ‘substantive effects’ into existence. The third category is modal effects – how and when the substantive effects come into existence (the immediate/ deferred, / retroactive/ non-retroactive, reversible or irreversible effect). Each of these categories of legal effects behaves differently according to whether the effects are intrinsic or extrinsic. Intrinsic effects are based on the special treaty powers of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly. With regard to the UNSC resolutions on Kashmir, it may be fairly argued that those resolutions have had a lasting and binding impact by holding an intrinsic, substantive, and causative effect on the fate of the Kashmir resolution whenever it comes into effect. This is an unacceptable hypothesis that says that the resolutions have lost its legal moorings. The August 1948 resolution contains proposals for holding a plebiscite in Kashmir which would allow the people to choose between accession to either Pakistan or to India. As for the Indian content, it asserts that the resolution states that the plebiscite will be held when a ceasefire is arranged and when Pakistan and India withdraw their troops from Kashmir. Neither of these conditions has been met. But the non- fulfilment of the required condition cannot give a passport to the Indian government to ruthlessly rule, occupy and annex the Kashmir vale. Thus, India’s position seems dwindling and waning since one considers the legal principle expressed in the Latin maxim nulluscommodumcaperepotest de injuria suapropria (no one can take advantage of his own wrong). The recently introduced settlement plan by the Modi Government– accompanied by the revocation of Article 370 and 35-A by the Modi government– is seen in the purview of the continued violation of the Geneva Convention. According to the Geneva Convention, it is an outright apartheid which has been explained as “any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of the racial group or groups…the expropriation of land property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof”. Agreeably, two important ingredient for floating a UNSC resolution are none but the peace and HR exigencies. To be continued The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan