INDIA PAKISTAN BORDER DISPUTE

PROJECT SUBMITTED TO
MR. ANEESH V. PILLAI
(FACULTY: INTERNATIONAL LAW )

PROJECT SUBMITTED BY
SHALKI TIWARI

ROLL NO. 117

SEMESTER FIVE

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
History of Dispute between India and Pakistan
(1) Rann of Kutch
(2) Siachen Conflict:
(3) Kashmir Dispute
International Legal Aspect of the Conflict
(1) Rann of Kutch
(2) Siachen Conflict:
(3) Kashmir Dispute
Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY

2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Mr. Aneesh v.
Pillai for putting their trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the
faith in me to deliver. Thank you for an opportunity to help me grow.

My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of HNLU for the infrastructure in the
form of our library and IT Lab that was a source of great help for the completion of this project.

SHALKI TIWARI

(SEMESTER FIVE)

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This research is descriptive and analytical in nature. Secondary and Electronic resources have
been largely used to gather information and data about the topic.

Books and other reference as guided by Faculty have been primarily helpful in giving this project
a firm structure. Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.

Footnotes have been provided wherever needed, to acknowledge the source.

OBJECTIVE

 To study what are the reasons for dispute between India and Pakistan.

 To critically analyze what are the international legal aspects involved in the
dispute.

4
INTRODUCTION
In International law and relations, ownership of territory is significant because
sovereignty over land defines what constitutes a state. 1 Additionally, as Machiavelli suggested,
territorial acquisition is one of the goals of most states. 2 The benefits of having territory, though,
are only as great as a state’s borders are clear, because a state’s boundary must be well defined
for modern state to function.3 Hence Boundaries are the fertile source of disputes between the
States and therefore are required to be defined as far as possible. Once they are settled either by
treaty or awards of tribunals they are generally not disturbed in the view of the fact that
boundaries once established by treaties achieve permanence and create right in rem to the
parties.4

The dispute between India and Pakistan has its own nature. Though it had not been looked
into with an international law perspective, one may find clear international law violations
from both the sides. Territory being one of the major attribute of statehood, though any
threat to that may lead to a war like situation, but one must always try and maintain peace
and security as both the concerning nations are nuclear nations. This conflict between India
and Pakistan has been the longest continuing conflict.

1
Paul Gilbert, The philosophy of Nationalism, 91 (1998); to claim a right to statehood is to claim a right to some
territory over which the state can exercise political control.
2
Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 25 (W.K. Marriott ed. J.M. Dent & sons 1938) 1513
3
Gilbert, supra 92
4
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)

5
Dispute between India and Pakistan

RANN OF KUTCH (SIR CREEK CONFLICT)

The dispute lies in the interpretation of the maritime boundary line between Kutch and Sindh.
Before India's independence, the provincial region was a part of Bombay Presidency of British
India. After India's independence in 1947, Sindh became a part of Pakistan while Kutch
remained a part of India. Pakistan lays claim to the entire creek as per paras 9 and 10 of the
Bombay Government Resolution of 1914 signed between the then Government of Sindh and Rao
Maharaj, the ruler of the princely state of Kutch.5 The resolution, which demarcated the
boundaries between the two territories, included the creek as part of Sindh, thus setting the
boundary as the eastern flank of the creek. The boundary line, known as “Sir Creek”, is disputed
by India, which maintains that it is an "indicative line", known as a “ribbon line” in technical
jargon. India sticks to its position that the boundary lies mid-channel as depicted in another map
drawn in 1925, and implemented by the installation of mid-channel pillars back in 1924.6

In April 1965, a dispute there contributed to the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, when fighting
broke out between India and Pakistan. After cease-fire both India and Pakistan agreed to refer
this matter to Arbitration7. The arbitral Court Gave its Award on 19 th February, 1968. According
to the award, 320 sq. miles (i.e., about 10% of the Pakistani Claims) of the land belonged to
Pakistan and rest belonged to India.)8

SIACHEN DISPUTE

5
http://mrunal.org/2012/06/diplo-sir-creek.html
6
34, Vermont Law Review 358; RIVER BOUNDARY DELIMITATION AND THE RESOLUTION OF THE SIR CREEK
DISPUTE BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA Sikander Ahmed Shah.
7
Arbitration is recognized as one of the means of pacific settlement of disputes. Article 33, paragraph 1 of the U.N.
Charter provides that the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintainance
of the international peace and security shall first of all, seek solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation,
conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or nother peaceful means
of their own choice.
8
Karin Oellers-Frahm, Andreas Zimmermann, Dispute Settlement in Public International Law, Springer (2001) 2nd
ed.

6
The Siachen glacier is the highest battleground on earth, where India and Pakistan have fought
intermittently since April 13, 1984. Both countries maintain permanent military presence in the
region at a height of over 6,000 metres (20,000 ft).9

The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on the map beyond the
map coordinate known as NJ984210 but the 1972 Simla Agreement11 did not clearly mention who
controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed
"thence north to the glaciers." In 1949, a Cease-Fire Line Agreement (CFL) was signed and
ratified by India, Pakistan and the UN Military Observer Group that delineated entire CFL. In
1956-58, a scientific team led by the Geological Survey of India recorded its findings publicly
including information about the Siachen and other glaciers.12

Maps from Pakistan, the United Nations and other global atlases depicted the CFL correctly till
around 1967-72. The United States Defense Mapping Agency (now National Geospatial-
Intelligence Agency) began in about 1967 to show international boundary on their Tactical
Pilotage Charts as proceeding from NJ9842 east-northeast to the Karakoram Pass at 5,534 m
(18,136 ft) on the China border without justification or documentation 13. The Indian government
and military took notice, and protested the cartography. Prior to 1984 neither India nor Pakistan
had any permanent presence in the area. Having become aware of the US military maps and the
permit incidents, Colonel Narendra Kumar, then commanding officer mounted an Army
expedition to the Siachen area as a counter-exercise. 14 After the war since April 13, 1984 (for 28
years, 5 months and 4 weeks) the cease-fire went into effect from 2003. 15 And in the end, India
gained control of the entire Siachen Glacier and the crest of the main Saltoro Ridge west of the
glacier, territory formerly occupied by neither India nor Pakistan.16

9
Dr. H.O. Agrawal. International Law & Human Rights, Central Law Publications, 16th ed. (2009)
10
NJ9842, is the northernmost demarcated point of the India-Pakistan cease fire line known as the Line of Control.
The line was formally accepted as a cease fire line by the prime minister of India, Indira Gandhi and prime minister
of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as per the Shimla Agreement signed on July 3, 1972
11
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)
12
http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/bsbfirstpages/bsb8-4_misra_p1.pdf
13
Id.
14
Id.
15
http://www.nihcr.edu.pk/latest_english_journal/siachen_a_bi-product_of_kashmir_dr_ishtiaq.pdf
16
http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/cmc-papers/sand20075670.pdf

7
THE KASHMIR DISPUTE

Kashmir is the major source of conflict between India and Pakistan. This conflict has been
continuing ever since 1947 i.e., from the time of our independence. Before the independence,
when all the princely states in the British ruled India were asked to join either Union of India or
Dominion of Pakistan and those states which did not accede to either of the new Dominions by
15th August, 1947 would become Independent and sovereign. Even on the insistence by Lord
Mountbatten to join either of the dominion, Maharaja Hari Singh showed his indecisiveness.
Before Maharaja could reach to any conclusion, Prime Minister of J&K by a telegram to both
India and Pakistan expressed his desire to conclude a “Standstill Agreement” with both the
nations which contained temporary provisions of temporary nature to maintain status quo and
avoid administrative vacuum after lapse of paramountacy.17 Where the telegram sent to Pakistan
the offer was made only in regard to State’s communication and arrangements, the telegram sent
to India stated that the State of Jammu and Kashmir Government would welcome Standstill
Agreement with the Union of India on all existing matters with the outgoing British India
Government’.18 To this, where Pakistan accepted the proposal simply by an exchange of an
telegram on 16th August, India replied that it is looking forward for an authorized minister for
further perusal over the Agreement.19

But after a month or two, frustrated by the indecisive behavior of Maharaja and also with the fear
of accession of Kashmir to India, Pakistani troops disguised as local tribesmen and attack some
of the western border areas of Kashmir in October 194720. Foreseeing the threat in future,
Maharajain a letter dated October 26, 1947, informed the Governor General of India about the
“Grave Emergency” that has arisen in the state as a result of Pakistani invasion. Concluding his
letter, he also urged that ‘immidiate assistance must be made available at Srinagar-‘if my state
has to be saved.’ He also signed the Instrument of Accession.’ 21 accepting the Instrument of
Accession, Governor General of that time replied that as soon as the law and order is procured,
the question of accession must settled by the reference of people. The interstate conflict over the
17
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)
18
Id pg. 13
19
Id pg. 15
20
Bose, Sumantra, (2003), Kashmir – Roots of conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University Press, Cambridge
21
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)

8
territory of Kashmir broke out for the first time in 1947 when both India and Pakistan laid claim
to the area.22

In January 1948 the United Nations (UN) Security Council adopted Resolution 39 (1948)
establishing the UN Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) to investigate facts and
mediate the dispute in Kashmir. The Security Council enlarged the membership of UNCIP
through Resolution 47 (1948) and recommended various measures including the use of observers
to help restore peace. The first team of unarmed military observers deployed to the region in
January 1949. The Karachi Agreement of 27 July 1949 established a ceasefire between India and
Pakistan and tasked UNCIP with supervision along the ceasefire line. Since 1951, the UN
Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan has monitored the Line of Control (LOC).23

Pakistani military ruler Ayub Khan in September 1965, the Pakistani leadership embarked on a
dangerous escapade, "Pakistani troops disguised as local tribesmen would cross the porous
frontier and foment an insurgency" in Kashmir. Another phase of Operation Gibraltar called for a
full Pakistani invasion and seizure of the Kashmiri state. Delhi, which had embarrassingly lost a
war in 1962 to China, had an enormous incentive to assert its overwhelming conventional
superiority over Pakistan, and swiftly and punishingly crushed the Pakistani act of war. 24 Though
India routed the Pakistanis, Delhi stopped short of trying to attain control of Azad Kashmir.
Instead, in the 1966 Tashkent Agreement which officially ended the war, Delhi conceded to
"return to the status quo ante," which recognized the original Line of Control as the Indo-

Pakistani border25. But the future of Kashmir remained unresolved.

Although India and Pakistan fought an intense war in 1971, the focal point was not Kashmir but
rather Bangladesh-which was asserting its independence from Pakistan whose behalf India
fought. Still, Kashmir inevitably crept into the post-war negotiations between Indira Gandhi and
Bhutto, In the 1972 Simla Agreement, the two leaders declared their intent to "resolve to settle

22
Id. Pg17
23
Ganguly, Sumit, (1997), The Crisis in Kashmir – Portents of War, Hopes of Peace, The Woodrow Wilson Center
Press, Cambridge
24
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)
25
Id. Pg 56

9
their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations." 26 The Simla Agreement
simply reinforced the Line of Control as the de facto border between India and Pakistan. 27

Again in 1999, Pakistani troops under the guise of guerrilla infiltrators that would boldly violate
Indian sovereignty and cross the Line of Control, this time in the Kargil sector. A clear violation
of international law, the covert infiltration of an estimated 5,000 mujahedeen into Indian territory
evoked a massive response from Delhi, which decried Pakistani actions as a deliberate act of
war28. The international community’s worst nightmare had now become a reality: two nuclear
powers were actively engaged in live battle. The lack of diffusive rhetoric out of either Delhi or
Islamabad only fueled the propensity for escalation, with both sides accusing the other of
committing unacceptable violations of sovereignty. This de facto state of war endured for ten
exceedingly tense weeks until President Clinton convinced an increasingly isolated Pakistan to
withdraw its troops from the Indian side of the Line of Control.29

26
Ram Chandra Guha, India After Gandhi, Picador India (2007)
27
Id. Pg 399
28
Id. 340
29
Id.345

10
International Legal Aspect of the
Disputes
Although in Classical International Law, intervention by one state in the affairs of another State
was considered as right in certain circumstances, but Modern International Law declares it illegal
and unlawful.30 Para 4 of Art 2 of the United Nations Charter makes it clear that ‘all the
members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any State….’ Hence any action by Pakistan or
India to take over other country’s territory must be considered illgal and violative of
International Law

RANN OF KUTCH (SIR CREEK CONFLICT)

It has always been one of the aims of International Law to develop means and methods through
which the disputes among the nations must be settled peacefully and on the basis of justice.
Hence, Arbitration31 has evolved itself as one of the pacific means of settlement of dispute. In
this dispute, after ceasefire, both the countries agreed for settlement of dispute through
Arbitration and hence India chose Yugoslivakian arbitrator whereas Pakistan chose Iranian
Arbitrator and the third arbitrator Chairman of the Arbitral Court acted as the arbitrator 32.

In this case, India supports its stance by citing the Thalweg Doctrine in International Law.
The law states that river boundaries between two states may be, if the two states agree, divided
by the mid-channel. Though Pakistan does not dispute the 1925 map, it maintains that the
Doctrine is not applicable in this case as it only applies to bodies of water that are navigable,
which the Sir Creek is not which the Sir Creek is not. India rejects the Pakistani stance by
maintaining the fact that the creek is navigable in high tide, and that fishing trawlers use it to go

30
Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press 2nd ed. 2010
31
Article 27 of the Hague convention states that ‘International Arbitration has for its object the settlement of
differences between statesby Judges of their own choice and on the basis of the respect of their law.’
32
Dr. H.O. Agrawal. International Law & Human Rights, Central Law Publications, 16th ed. (2009)

11
out to sea.33 Another point of concern for Pakistan is that Sir Creek has changed its course
considerably over the years. If the boundary line is demarcated according to the Thalweg
principle, Pakistan stands to lose a considerable portion of the territory that was historically part
of the province of Sindh. Acceding to India's stance would also result in the shifting of the
land/sea terminus point several kilometres to the detriment of Pakistan, leading in turn to a loss
of several thousand square kilometres of its Exclusive Economic Zone under the United Nations
Convention on Law of the Sea.34.

A verdict was reached in 1968 that saw Pakistan getting 10% of its claim of 9,000 kms (3,500 sq.
miles).35

Though this award was criticized and was even termed as Political and partial, it was through
exchange of letters, Pakistan agreed to enforce the award36.

SIACHEN DISPUTE

The conflict in Siachen stems from the incompletely demarcated territory on the map beyond the
map coordinate known as NJ9842. The 1972 Simla Agreement did not clearly mention who
controlled the glacier, merely stating that from the NJ9842 location the boundary would proceed
"thence north to the glaciers." UN officials presumed there would be no dispute between India
and Pakistan over such a cold and barren region.37

Both India and Pakistan have wished to disengage from the costly military outposts. However,
after the Pakistani incursions during the Kargil War in 1999, India abandoned plans to withdraw
from Siachen without official recognition of the current line of control by Pakistan, wary of
further Pakistani incursions if they vacate the Siachen Glacier posts without such recognition. An
idea of declaring the Siachen region a "Peace Park" was presented by environmentalists and
peace activists in part to preserve the ecosystem of the region badly affected by the military
33
Carla S. Copeland, The Use of Arbitration To Settle Territorial Disputes; 1999 Fordham Law review volume 67
issue 6; http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3585&context=flr
34
http://indiancurrentaffairs.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sir-creek-dispute.pdf
35
Id.
36
Dr. H.O. Agrawal. International Law & Human Rights, Central Law Publications, 16th ed. (2009)
37
Aamir Ali, A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International Conflict?, Mountain Research
and Development Vol 22 No. 4 Nov 2002: 316–319

12
presence. In September 2003, the governments of India and Pakistan were urged by the
participants of 5th World Parks Congress held at Durban, to establish a peace park in the Siachen
region to restore the natural biological system and protect species whose lives are at risk. The
region was nominated for inclusion in the United Nations' World Heritage List as a part of
the Karakoram range, but was deferred by the World Heritage Committee. The area to the east
and west of the Siachen region have already been declared national parks: the Karakoram
Wildlife Sanctuary in India and the Central Karakoram National Park in Pakistan38

Ground-based and air surveillance, such as is used along the Mexico–US border, or was used in
1973 to monitor the Sinai Desert Cease Fire, could ensure this Transboundary parks are not a
new idea. Several transboundary parks are specifically designated as Peace Parks,
Transboundary parks are not a new idea. The first one, the Waterton-Glacier. International Peace
Park between Canada and the United States, was established 70 years ago. Several transboundary
parks are specifically designated as Peace Parks, There has been a dramatic increase in
transboundary parks in recent years—a demonstration of their viability and usefulness: from 59
such parks in 1998, the number has increased to 169 today, involving 113 countries. Examples
include the Cordillera del Condor Peace Transborder Reserve between Peru and Ecuador etc 39

THE KASHMIR DISPUTE

Of all the disputes between India and Pakistan, the Kashmir Conflict is the most perplexed one.
The state of Jammu and Kashmir, when was asked to join either of the dominions before 15
August 1947, it remained indecisive. Sec 17 Para 1 sub-section (b) 40 of The Independence of
India act 1947 had such effect that those states who did not accede to the either of the new
Dominions, by 15th August, became Independent and Sovereign. And hence Jammu and Kashmir
is ought to be an independent and sovereign state with all the attributes of a State under
International Law.41 Further when comes the question of recognition of state, recognition is not
38
Aamir Ali, A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International Conflict?, Mountain Research
and Development Vol 22 No 4 Nov 2002: 316–319
39
Id.
40
“the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian State lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the
date of the passing of this act between His Majesty and the Rulers of the Indian State…”
41
Population, Defined Territory, Government (section 5 of the J&k Constitution Act of 1939, all the powers relating
to a state are to be retained and possessed by his Majesty), Capacity to enter into International Relations

13
essential as a state becomes a member of the International Community ipso facto by rising into
its existence.42 Hence it must be accepted that the State of Jammu and Kashmir was an
independent state and was free to get into international relations with any other Country.

Now, when the Standstill Agreement was sent to both India and Pakistan, on one hand where
Pakistan accepted it readily, India replied that she is looking forward for further discussion in
this matter. The agreement offered to Pakistan was only with regard to State’s
Communications, , supplies, post office and telegraphic arrangements. Hence the Agreement was
concluded with Pakistan had no affect on the new status of the state. It was still free to make
treaties with other sovereign states on equal footing.43

Now with the rumors of Kashmir willing to accede in the union of India, militant Muslim
revolutionaries from western Kashmir and Pakistani tribesmen made rapid advances into the
Baramulla sector. Threatened from the fear of annexation, the Maharaja of the state informed the
Governor General of India about the ‘Grave emergency’ and asked India for help. The Indian
government accepted accepted the instrument of accession and has also in a letter provided that
as soon as the law and order was secured in the state, this question must be settled according to
the states’ law.44 Hence the treaty of accession was signed by Maharaja on October 26, 1947 and
by the Governor General of India, the very next day. The effect of execution of the instrument of
accession was that the maharaja acceded to the dominion of India on the three subjects of
Defence, External Affairs and Communication. The instrument of accession was just like a treaty
concluded between two competent state. Its ratification was not required and also, all the
principles oflaws of treaty was to apply to the instrument of accession.45

While the Indian Pakistani forces were engaged in fighting, the matter was brought before the
UN by India. The UN in the first instance decided to send a commission to India and Pakistan.
The commission, United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) made a proposal

42
Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press 2 nd ed. 2010. Further, Montevideo
Convention of 1933 on the Rights and Duties of the State provides under Art. 5 that, “The Political existence of the
state is independent of recognition by other states. Even before recognition, state has the right to defend its
integrity and independence, to provide for its services, and to define its jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these limitations than the exercise of the rights of the other States according to Internatberional
Law.”
43
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)
44
Id. Pg. 32
45
Id pg 35

14
for cease-fire, which India and Pakistan accepted on December 24, 1948. 46 The resolution
recommended that in order to ensure the impartiality of the plebiscite Pakistan withdraw all
tribesmen and nationals who entered the region for the purpose of fighting and that India leave
only the minimum number of troops needed to keep civil order. The Commission was also to
send as many observers into the region as it deemed necessary to ensure the provisions of the
resolution were enacted. Pakistan ignored the UN mandate and continued fighting, holding on to
the portion of Kashmir under its control (It still occupied by them and is called as Azad Kashmir
(PoK).) Subsequently India refused to implement the plebiscite claiming the withdrawal of
47
Pakistan forces was a prerequisite as per this resolution. UN failed to resolve the Kashmir
dispute.

KARGIL CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

In the armed conflict between India and Pakistan in the Kargil sector of Jammu and Kashmir, on
the Indian side of the line of control, in May 1999 Pakistani army and its irregulars committed a
number of violations of International Humanitarian Law. Article 3(1) of all the four Geneva
Conventions, 1949 prohibited ‘violence to life and person in particular murder of all kinds,
mutilation, cruel treatment and torture,’ but the Pakistani army committed these acts against
Indian soldiers. The International Red Cross has independently confirmed signs of injuries and
torture on the bodies obviously while in Pakistani custody. The brutalization of Indian army
personnel is not only the act of barbarism but it is a clear violation of recognized rules of
warfare48.

Indian soldiers being in the custody of Pakistan were required at all times to be humanly treated.
The Third Geneva Convention provided under Article 13 that any unlawful act or omission by
the detaining power causing death or seriously endangering the health of prisoners of war in its
custody is prohibited. The prohibitions of mutilation, cruel treatment and torture have been
prohibited under the Geneva Conventions as stated above. The acts committed by Pakistan have
been a clear violation of the rules regarding warfare. These acts constitute war crimes for which
there is both collective and individual responsibility49.

46
Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)
47
Id. Pg 65
48
S. K. Kapoor, International Law and Human Rights, Central Law Agency (2011)
49
Id.

15
Thus the above mentioned conflict between the two states of India and Pakistan which was of an
armed nature constituted the violation of International Human Rights on the part of Pakistan.

16
CONCLUSION

Presently, the dispute between India and Pakistan was regarded as one of the major unresolved
international dispute. United Nations Organization has failed to resolve the dispute by proper
ways50, it did not take adequate action against Pakistan. The dispute between India and Pakistan
usually is not seen with the purview of international law but there had been clear violations so
various conventions and legal aspects of IL. It is desirable that initiative should be taken to
resolve the problem between the two states once the dispute is settled in a just and peaceful
manner, bith the countries shall be able to live peacefully. The settlement of this dispute also
holds an international importance and not just to these two countries as both the nations are
nuclear armed nations and at any time war between these two nations threaten the whole world.
The most appropriate way of settlement between these two nation could be through negotiation
or Arbitration.

50
Art 39 of the UN charter provides that’the Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to peace,
breach of peace, or an act of any aggression and shall make recommendations, or decidewhat measures shall be
taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.’

17
References
• Dr. H.O. Agrawal, Kashmir Problem, Its Legal aspects, Central Law Publications (2010)

• S. K. Kapoor, International Law and Human Rights, Central Law Agency (2011)

• Ganguly, Sumit, (1997), the Crisis in Kashmir – Portents of War, Hopes of Peace, The Woodrow
Wilson Center Press, Cambridge

• Ram Chandra Guha, India After Gandhi, Picador India (2007)

• Dr. H.O. Agrawal. International Law & Human Rights, Central Law Publications, 16th ed. (2009)

• Paul Gilbert, The philosophy of Nationalism, 91 (1998);

• Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 25 (W.K. Marriott ed. J.M. Dent & sons 1938) 1513

Webliography

 http://mrunal.org/2012/06/diplo-sir-creek.html
 34, Vermont Law Review 358; RIVER BOUNDARY DELIMITATION AND THE
RESOLUTION OF THE SIR CREEK DISPUTE BETWEEN PAKISTAN AND INDIA
Sikander Ahmed Shah.
 Karin Oellers-Frahm, Andreas Zimmermann, Dispute Settlement in Public International
Law, Springer (2001) 2nd ed.
 http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/publications/bsbfirstpages/bsb8-4_misra_p1.pdf
 http://www.nihcr.edu.pk/latest_english_journal/siachen_a_bi-
product_of_kashmir_dr_ishtiaq.pdf
 http://www.cmc.sandia.gov/cmc-papers/sand20075670.pdf
 Bose, Sumantra, (2003), Kashmir – Roots of conflict, Paths to Peace, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge
 Anthony Aust, Handbook of International Law, Cambridge University Press 2nd ed. 2010
 Carla S. Copeland, The Use of Arbitration To Settle Territorial Disputes; 1999 Fordham
Law review volume 67 issue 6; http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3585&context=flr
 http://indiancurrentaffairs.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sir-creek-dispute.pdf
 Aamir Ali, A Siachen Peace Park: The Solution to a Half-Century of International
Conflict?, Mountain Research and Development Vol 22 No. 4 Nov 2002: 316–319

18