## Facts

- After the diversion of an Indian civil aircraft to Pakistan in February 1971, India suspended overflights of its territory by Pakistani civil aircraft.
- Pakistan alleged that India’s suspension breached the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) and the International Air Services Transit Agreement (Transit Agreement).
- Pakistan filed an Application and a Complaint with the ICAO Council on March 3, 1971, invoking the dispute-settlement provisions of the treaties.
- India raised preliminary objections before the ICAO Council, arguing the Council lacked jurisdiction.
- On July 29, 1971, the ICAO Council rejected India’s preliminary objections and assumed jurisdiction over both the Application and the Complaint.
- India appealed to the International Court of Justice on August 30, 1971, relying on Article 84 of the Chicago Convention and Article II of the Transit Agreement, which permit appeal from Council decisions.
- Before the ICJ, Pakistan objected that the Court was not competent to hear India’s appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the ICJ was competent to hear an appeal from the ICAO Council’s decisions rejecting India’s preliminary objections.
2. Whether the ICAO Council had jurisdiction under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention and the corresponding provision of the Transit Agreement to entertain Pakistan’s Application and Complaint.
3. Whether India’s unilateral claim of suspension or termination of the treaties could render the treaties’ jurisdictional clauses inoperative.
4. Whether alleged procedural irregularities in the ICAO Council proceedings affected the validity of the Council’s assumption of jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The ICJ held that it was competent to entertain India’s appeal under the appellate mechanisms set out in the Chicago Convention and the Transit Agreement.
- The ICJ held that the ICAO Council was competent to deal with both Pakistan’s Application and Complaint because the dispute related to the interpretation or application of the relevant treaties.
- The ICJ rejected the argument that a unilateral assertion of suspension or termination could defeat the operation of the treaties’ jurisdictional clauses.
- The ICJ concluded that alleged procedural defects in the ICAO Council’s handling of the matter were not determinative of the Council’s competence for purposes of the appeal.
- The ICJ dismissed India’s appeal, leaving the ICAO Council to proceed to the merits.

## Legal Principles

- Treaty provisions authorizing appeal from an international administrative body’s jurisdictional decisions can confer appellate jurisdiction on the ICJ when invoked in accordance with the treaty terms and the ICJ Statute.
- A dispute alleging breach of treaty obligations governing civil aviation and transit rights constitutes a “disagreement relating to the interpretation or application” of those treaties for jurisdictional purposes.
- Jurisdictional clauses are not rendered inoperative by a party’s unilateral claim that a treaty has been suspended or terminated; otherwise, consent-based dispute settlement could be neutralized by assertion alone.
- In reviewing an organ’s assumption of jurisdiction, the ICJ’s task is centered on the existence and scope of treaty-based competence rather than a full reconsideration of procedural complaints unrelated to that competence.

## Conclusion

The ICJ sustained both its competence to hear India’s appeal and the ICAO Council’s jurisdiction over Pakistan’s treaty-based claims, holding that unilateral assertions of treaty suspension cannot nullify agreed jurisdictional mechanisms, and it dismissed India’s appeal.


Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pak.), 1972 I.C.J. 46 (Aug. 18)