I do not have the strength to read, much less to watch the reaction of Indian media on ICJ’s judgment on Jadav’s case. But I can still wager that almost everyone in the media will miss the most important implications (moral and principled ones, if not legal implications) of the judgment.
The Court rejected Pakistan’s argument that because India has abused rights the former does not have an obligation to abide by international standards and treaties. As it will defeat the purpose of these standards.
If we apply the same principle to India it would mean that even if Pakistan has breached international laws and/or rights against India, India must abide by international standards and treaties when dealing with Pakistan. Which means that the Ministery of External Affairs cannot continue to claim that “it will only talk with Pakistan when it stops terrorism”. Individual claims of supporting terrorism might or might not be true but they cannot be a reason to break diplomatic mechanisms and end peace negotiations.
India’s undoing of talks and diplomatic standards is a far graver threat to international peace and human survival than this particular case.
—
Yes, one might claim that “the grounds in Jadav’s case are Vienna convention but there are no bases for India Pakistan peace talks and de-escalation of tensions”. This only further shows how criminally insane Indian position is that there are no binding mechanisms.