Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 April 2017
[Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice.
[By 13 votes to 3, the Court rejected the Government of Pakistan’s objections on the question of its competence and found that it had jurisdiction to entertain India’s appeal. By 14 votes to 2, it held the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization to be competent to entertain the Application and Complaint of the Government of Pakistan, and in consequence rejected the appeal made to the Court by India against the decision of the Council assuming jurisdiction in those respects.
[President Zafrulla Khan and Judge Lachs appended Declarations to the Judgment. Judges Petrén, Onyeama, Dillard, de Castro and Jimenéz de Aréchaga appended Separate Opinions. Judge Morozov and Judge ad hoc Nagendra Singh appended Dissenting Opinions. None of these have been re-produced in I.L.M.]
* [Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice.
[By 13 votes to 3, the Court rejected the Government of Pakistan’s objections on the question of its competence and found that it had jurisdiction to entertain India’s appeal. By 14 votes to 2, it held the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization to be competent to entertain the Application and Complaint of the Government of Pakistan, and in consequence rejected the appeal made to the Court by India against the decision of the Council assuming jurisdiction in those respects.
[President Zafrulla Khan and Judge Lachs appended Declarations to the Judgment. Judges Petrén, Onyeama, Dillard, de Castro and Jimenéz de Aréchaga appended Separate Opinions. Judge Morozov and Judge ad hoc Nagendra Singh appended Dissenting Opinions. None of these have been re-produced in I.L.M.]