India: UK being undemocratic, cabalistic in its approach towards ICJ elections

India has called out the United Kingdom for its 'undemocratic' and 'cabalistic' tactics to win elections at the International Court of Justice.

UK is using every possible trick to bag the ICJ seat. It's down to the wire for the race to elect the fifth judge of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). India and UK are faced with a diplomatic war to get their candidates Dalveer Singh and Christopher Greenwood respectively, elected. The next round of voting is on Monday, 20 November.

Britain on Sunday, after deliberations at the Security Council, has decided to stall the voting process by invoking the 'joint conference' mechanism after a single round of balloting given that at the last round of voting the Indian representative had a near two-thirds majority (121 votes) in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) while the British candidate had only a slim majority at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

A source in the Indian government has told India Today that 'the ever growing support for India at the UNGA is reflective of world opinion' and could be the reason why UK is stalling the entire process of voting to avoid an embarrassment of India winning two-thirds majority.

Speaking at a gathering, the Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations in New York Syed Akbaruddin outrightly rejected the idea of a joint mechanism reminding past instances of such deadlocks that were resolved through voting saying, "Diplomacy is the solution. Voting is the way that diplomats resolve their differences, rather than through convoluted, cabalistic solutions of a bygone era."

"Everyone can see where the momentum lies.  This is not the first such election which has taken so long. Look at 2014. How many rounds of votes were there? Look at 2011. How many rounds of votes were there? How do we resort to such mechanism when the electoral process is on? The elections are now on Monday afternoon. I do understand sometimes democracy is a difficult process to adhere to. The ills of democracy need to be resolved through more democracy, not less of it," the Indian envoy said.

The legal opinion provided in the 1984 UN Juridical Yearbook (Chapter VI, para 15 and 21) unequivocally argues against resorting to the option of 'joint conference' mechanism.

Paragraph 15 states, "It is the view of the Office of Legal Affairs that to proceed to a fourth or fifth meeting is a more normal procedure than a joint conference. This seems to be supported by the 1956 case. Moreover, the resort to a joint conference also raises a number of difficult issues on which the relevant provisions of the Statute do not provide any clear solution. With no clear solution in sight if the 'joint conference' is invoked and no clarity on how it would play out, the UN juridical yearbook concludes in para 21 that, In the light of the above, should a deadlock occur, a joint conference should not automatically be resorted to.  It seems more practical that the electoral organs should proceed to further meetings."

India's focus is one to get a two-thirds majority at the UNGA and also more crucially to gain two more seats at the UNSC. Convert the one abstention and wean away one more onto the Indian side so that India gets eight seats at the UNSC and wins, a top official said.

This idea was highlighted by Ambassador Akbaruddin when he hosted diplomats at a reception ahead of the ICJ elections on Monday. "We see the election today at the tipping point. It is now no longer about an individual. We started with the election being about an individual, it is now no longer about an individual. It is also no longer about a representative or a nominee of a country. It is now about whether the outcome of the election of the World Court that is what it is; the ICJ is the World Court. Does the Judge elected to the World Court reflect the sentiments of 'we the people of the world'? The only gauge of that is the General Assembly of the United Nations", he said.

There have been several instances of deadlocks between the General Assembly and the Security Council during ICJ elections. On these occasions, the balloting took place in many more rounds than what has been competed this time. On each such occasion, the candidate who was consistently leading in the General Assembly was elected ultimately.

WATCH VIDEO | India has called out the UK for its tactics at the International Court of Justice