|I.||Substantive International Law - First Part|
|1.||THE FOUNDATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW|
|1.3.||Estoppel and Acquiescence|
Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999
(Pakistan v. India)
Jurisdiction of the Court,
Judgment of 21 June 2000
[p. ] 45. Pakistan has further argued, in the alternative, that, if the reservation were held to be valid, India would in any event be prevented from relying upon it against Pakistan by the operation of estoppel. For this purpose, Pakistan has cited Article 1 of the Simla Accord, paragraph (ii) of which provides inter alia that
"the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them ..."
The Court regards this provision as an obligation, generally, on the two States to settle their differences by peaceful means, to be mutually agreed by them. The said provision in no way modifies the specific rules governing recourse to any such means, including judicial settlement. Thus the Court cannot interpret that obligation as precluding India from relying, in the present case, on the Commonwealth reservation contained in its declaration.
The Court cannot therefore accept the argument in the present case based on estoppel.