Traditionally, the maps shown by nations fundamentally characterise the features of the political boundaries of a nation. Recently, Pakistan has redrawn its official map whose legal moorings lay in UNSC resolutions — thereby warranting the geographical demarcation of our political/national boundaries. Objectively, the maps are used as evidence in international relations, establishing legal relations or creating new law. Arguably, Pakistan has given a befitting law fare response (a smack in the face for the Indian establishment) vis-à-vis the unjust and illegal revocation of the Kashmir special status on August 5, 2019. Pakistan’ new map rightly endorses the disputed status of Indian Occupied Kashmir vindicated by the UNSC resolutions upholding the principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter.
Despite some legal limitations, the International courts and tribunals, and international negotiations, often apply maps as if they were unimpeachable. Relation between international law and political boundaries remains inevitable given the arguments, firstly that historically the legal concept of the border has undergone continuous transformations determined by the fluctuating purposes attached to it and by the modifications experienced by various socio-political entities, and secondly, the emerging trends of current international law– namely the increase of boundary disputes and the shift from pure territorial to “functional” borders, providing evidence of both. This infers the fact: the border is not an exact place; it is rather a series of spatial limits– incessantly changing through which States assert their power, and one may happen to be within or beyond them regardless of where that person is physically located.
However, the most applicable rule settling the territorial disputes is: they must be resolved through international law which regulates relations between states, and any dispute between states should in principle be solved via international law. Today, using force or the threat of force to solve international disputes remains oxymoron except in cases where UN Security Council resolutions so authorize. In the newly crafted Pakistani map, Jammu and Kashmir (IoK) comes in its entirety, including Gilgit-Baltistan, has been shown in one distinct colour, the Foreign Office said. Further, the Line of Control (LoC) has been marked with a red dotted line. The state of Jammu and Kashmir and its accession is yet to be decided through a plebiscite under the relevant UNSC resolutions,” the map reads. The map also reinforces claim on Junagadh & Manavadar illegally occupied by India; depicts Pakistan’s claim on Siachen Glacier; clarifies position on Sir Creek; and shows FATA part of KP.
The map also rejects India’s claims about Sir Creek. Pakistan’s move to release the new map signals a hardening of Islamabad’s position vis-à-vis the Kashmir issue. The official communiqué clarified that Pakistan’s position remains clear and unambiguous that the resolution of the Kashmir dispute lies in the “realisation of the Kashmiris’ inalienable right to self-determination through a free and impartial plebiscite under the auspices of the United Nations”. “We are challenging their [India] illegal occupation and claiming our right to the area [through the map],” he added. As for the Indo-Chinese border dispute, New Delhi believes that it all began with the Chinese onslaught on their forward posts. But over time, new material made public suggested that it was India’s flirtation with maps and claiming territory, which even the British had not marked, led to the war and tension in the region. In this context, the part of Kashmir and Ladakh border with China remains unmarked– as the frontiers undecided along the LAC.
Obviously, some disputes are treated as threats to international peace and security even if two states are not fighting. Particularly when internal conflicts involve violations of universal norms such as self-determination, human rights, or democratic governance, concerted international actions-including the threat or use of force-are being taken to prevent, conclude, or resolve them astutely. The ground for Kashmir resolution are already ripened as India has long ago (since 1989) lost its peaceful occupation of the Vale and since in the given ethnic and cultural divisions widely appearing between a Hindu state occupation over its Non-Hindu population. Territorial disputes arise when sovereignty claims over land by more than one state overlap. If there exist treaties or other legal documents concerning the territory in question-the case of Kashmir between India and Pakistan.
While self-determination is the core for a state-foundation through twin criteria: when aspirant people seek to separate from an established state, either attempting to establish their own separate state via secessionism or to join another state via irredentism
While self-determination is the core for a state-foundation through twin criteria: when aspirant people seek to separate from an established state, either attempting to establish their own separate state via secessionism or to join another state via irredentism. Given the complexity of the Kashmir issue, the Kashmir dispute cannot be resolved bilaterally by India and Pakistan alone – even if the two countries were willing to work together to resolve their differences. This is because the conflict has many sides: India, Pakistan, China, and the Kashmiris. Given the Peace and the human rights situation in Kashmir, the UNSC has a responsibility to play its role –richly warranted via UNSC resolution 47 in 1948 and subsequently endorsed by the UN resolution in 1960 (1514 (XV), more commonly known as the Declaration Granting Independence to Colonial.
This declaration decreed that ‘the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation… is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations’ and proclaimed that ‘all peoples have the right to self-determination; under this right they freely determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development’ (A/RES/1514 [XV]). And yet subsequently, another declaration was Resolution 2625 (XXV), more commonly known as the Declaration on Principles of International Law, Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States per the Charter of the United Nations, proclaimed in October 1970. This declaration explicitly stated that the principle of self-determination’s goal was ‘to bring a speedy end to colonialism”. Indeed, the Declaration on Principles of International Law proclaimed:
”….Convinced that the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a major obstacle to the promotion of international peace and security, Convinced that the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples constitutes a significant contribution to contemporary international law, and that its effective application is of paramount importance for the promotion of friendly relations among States, based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality,…” Understandably, the Shimla agreement does not stop the UN to play its intervening role in the Kashmir dispute. The UNSC must take into account the latest report on Kashmir unveiled by the USIP. The Indian government’s insistence on Kashmir being a purely domestic issue is “a fiction maintained only by a large security presence”, says the report . “New Delhi will increasingly find it hard to manage its narrative about constitutional and political changes ushering in peace to Kashmir. Most indicators of violence in Kashmir have been on the rise since the August 2019 decision,” the report adds.
The writer is an independent ‘IR’ researcher and international law analyst based in Pakistan