World Court Digest

---

---

II.	Substantive International Law - Second Part
11.	DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
11.1.	General Questions

¤ Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999
(Pakistan v. India)
Jurisdiction of the Court,
Judgment of 21 June 2000

[pp. ] 53. The Court's lack of jurisdiction does not relieve States of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means. The choice of those means admittedly rests with the parties under Article 33 of the United Nations Charter. They are nonetheless under an obligation to seek such a settlement, and to do so in good faith in accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter.

54. As regards India and Pakistan, that obligation was restated more particularly in the Simla Accord of 2 July 1972, which provides 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". Moreover, the Lahore Declaration of 21 February 1999 reiterated "the determination of both countries to implementing the Simla Agreement".

55. Accordingly, the Court reminds the Parties of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means, and in particular the dispute arising out of the aerial incident of 10 August 1999, in conformity with the obligations which they have undertaken (cf. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 456, para. 56).

---

---