UNSC adopts Pakistan-sponsored resolution on peaceful settlement of disputes: Foreign Office
UN Security Council
on Tuesday unanimously adopted a Pakistan-sponsored resolution on "Strengthening Mechanisms for
Peaceful Settlement of Disputes
", according to the Foreign Office.
Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar
, who is on an official visit to take part in the Security Council proceedings during the presidency of Pakistan, was presiding over the session when the resolution was adopted.
"The resolution is an important contribution to the promotion of international peace and security through the use of
preventive diplomacy
,
conflict prevention measures
and dispute resolution by peaceful means," the Foreign Office (FO) said.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
The
Security Council Resolution 2788
(2025) seeks to strengthen mechanisms for peaceful settlement of disputes, as envisaged in Chapter VI of the
United Nations
Charter, and urges member states to utilize peaceful means for settling disputes, it said.
The resolution calls upon the member states to take necessary measures for the effective implementation of UNSC resolutions for peaceful settlement of disputes.
Live Events
The resolution calls for enhancing efforts by all regional and sub-regional organisations for peaceful settlement of disputes and to strengthen cooperation between these organisations and the United Nations.
The adoption of the Pakistan-sponsored resolution would serve as an important instrument to achieve these goals for peace and security at the regional and global level, the FO said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
23 minutes ago
- News18
India's Position On CPEC 'Clear', Any Third-Country Role 'Unacceptable': Govt In Rajya Sabha
Last Updated: In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, MoS for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh said that India's position on the matter remains 'clear and consistent' India on Thursday strongly reiterated its opposition to the expansion of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), especially any involvement of third countries in the project. In a written reply to the Rajya Sabha, Minister of State for External Affairs Kirti Vardhan Singh said that India's position on the matter remains 'clear and consistent." The government was responding to questions in Parliament about the May 21 trilateral meeting held in Beijing between China, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, where regional connectivity was reportedly discussed, including possible cooperation linked to the CPEC. 'The Government of India is aware of a China-Pakistan-Afghanistan meeting held in Beijing, China, on 21 May 2025. The government's position on CPEC is clear and consistent," Singh said. Singh stated that the CPEC passes through parts of the Indian Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir, which are under illegal occupation by Pakistan. 'Government has consistently protested to parties concerned over the inclusion of the so-called 'China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through parts of the Indian Union Territories of Ladakh and Jammu & Kashmir under illegal occupation of Pakistan, as a flagship project of 'OBOR/BRI' and asked them to cease these activities," he added. The minister stressed that India has always opposed the inclusion of these territories in international projects such as CPEC, which is promoted as a flagship component of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The minister further noted that India is fully aware of all developments, including international meetings involving countries participating in CPEC discussions, and continues to monitor them closely from the perspective of national security. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, Pakistan's Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar and Afghanistan's acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi met in Beijing earlier this May. (With inputs from ANI) view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Scroll.in
3 hours ago
- Scroll.in
ICJ delivers an unambiguous order on states' responsibilities to halt climate change
In a much-awaited readout of its advisory opinion on climate change, the president of the International Court of Justice Iwasawa Yuji on July 23 spelt out in crystal-clear terms the legal and customary obligations of states under international law and climate treaties to ensure the planet survives the catastrophic impacts of climate change. The opinion paved the way for states to be held accountable for fossil fuel emissions and the resultant climate harm. The order has been hailed by the Pacific Islands states especially, Vanuatu, which led the global demand for the opinion, as unprecedented and as going above all expectations. The advisory opinion clearly mentioned that failure of states to take measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by continuing fossil fuel production, granting exploration licences or fossil fuel subsidies constituted an internationally wrongful act. States also have an obligation to regulate private actors as a matter of due diligence. In relation to climate damage, the court held that in the event that restitution should prove to be materially impossible, responsible states have an obligation to compensate. Some states argued during the hearing in December that it was difficult to fix responsibility. But the court held that it was scientifically possible to determine the emissions contribution of each state in both current and historical terms. The court also stated that injured states could separately invoke the responsibility of states committing wrongful acts that caused climate harm and seek reparations. Judge Yuji said climate change was more than a legal problem: it concerns an existential problem of 'planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet'. A complete solution to this daunting and self- inflicted problem, the court said, required all forms of human and scientific knowledge and human will and wisdom at the individual, social and political level to change habits, comforts and the current way of life. The court expressed the hope that its conclusions would allow the law to inform and guide social and political action to address the climate crisis. Two questions The court had been requested by the United Nations General Assembly to address two critical questions in its advisory opinion, the hearings for which were completed in December 2024 in The Hague. The court first examined the obligations of states to address climate change for current and future generations under international laws including human rights law, the United Nations Charter, the Law of the Sea and climate treaties and agreements. Secondly, it considered the legal consequences that states face if they failed to meet their obligations and caused serious climate harm. The United Nations General Assembly resolution seeking this advisory opinion was the result of a six-year campaign by law students of the University of the South Pacific. The advisory opinion was a transformational shift to seeking climate justice, said Vishal Prasad, the campaign director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. 'Everything we hoped for is there,' he said. 'We are grateful and happy with the outcome.' The court also addressed intergenerational equity by underscoring the need for action to save the planet. It sends a strong message to young people and 'gives us hope, a tool for climate justice, a strong tool to carry on the fight for climate justice', Prasad said. Placing responsibility Some important observations made by the court include placing clear responsibility on polluters and those states causing climate harm and the obligation of such states to pay for damage and restoration for the loss of habitat and biodiversity. The court clarified that states were obliged to adhere to both customary and international laws as well the climate treaties: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement and other United Nations conventions on biodiversity, desertification as well as human rights and the Law of the Sea. It was not merely enough to prepare Nationally Determined Contributions as obligated by the Paris Agreement that set out ambitions and targets of each state to curb greenhouse gas emissions but also to ensure that all states were collectively moving towards the common goal of curbing emissions. 'Beyond expectations' Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, said the opinion was above and beyond his expectations because it directly addressed fossil fuels, reiterating that it was wrong for states to give exploration licences or to subsidise or produce fossil fuels. The key contribution of the advisory opinion was two- fold, said Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu's case and international lawyer at Blue Ocean Law. She said the court has mentioned the whole spectrum of obligations that applies to the conduct of states that have caused climate change and that states that failed to regulate fossil fuels, and continue with subsidies, are liable. 'When you violate your obligations and commit a wrongful act, you need to stop that and you need to make reparations for the injuries that you have caused,' she said. The implications of this advisory opinion are tremendous, she added. The advisory opinion endorsed the 'polluter pays' principle. 'We have come to the era of accountability and states can be held accountable for current and past emissions, states can be held to account for failing to meet their obligations.' she said. Experts from the Center for International Environmental Law commended the ruling for offering a legal foundation for climate accountability. 'The world's highest court has spoken – reinforcing what frontline communities have long demanded: justice means remedy,' said senior attorney Joie Chowdhury of the centre. The court's decision lays a stronger legal foundation for climate accountability, offering a vital lifeline to frontline communities and nations, with far-reaching consequences for climate litigation, multilateral negotiations, and campaigns across the world. Merely adhering to the climate agreements was not enough the Court held and that states had an obligation to do more and their best to limit climate harm. Added Sebastien Duyck, senior attorney at the Center For International Environmental Law, 'When a court like the ICJ recognises new connections between conduct and legal norms, like the idea that failing to curb fossil fuels-related emissions can violate international legal obligations, it does not stop there. That recognition opens the door for further legal claims.'
Scroll.in
5 hours ago
- Scroll.in
India calls for ceasefire in Gaza, says temporary pauses in hostilities not enough
India on Wednesday called for a ceasefire in Gaza, saying that 'intermittent pauses in hostilities' amid Israel's war on the Palestinian territory were inadequate to address the scale of challenges faced by its residents. Highlighting the 'persisting humanitarian crisis' in Gaza at a United Nations Security Council debate, Parvathaneni Harish, India's permanent representative to the United Nations, said that residents of the country are grappling daily with 'acute shortages of food and fuel, inadequate medical services and lack of access to education'. There is a need to deliver humanitarian assistance in a safe, sustained and timely manner, Harish said during the Security Council debate on the 'Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question'. 'There is no substitute to peace,' the diplomat said. 'A ceasefire must be put in place. All hostages must be released. Dialogue and diplomacy remain the only viable paths to achieving these objectives. There are no other fixes or solutions.' Israel's military offensive in Gaza began in October 2023 after Palestinian militant group Hamas killed 1,200 persons during its incursion into southern Israel and took hostages. Israel has been carrying out unprecedented air and ground strikes on Gaza since then, leaving more than 61,000 persons dead. Tel Aviv has also enforced a severe blockade on humanitarian aid, which UN officials say has brought the population to the verge of famine. On Wednesday, Harish also told the Security Council that the health and education situation in Gaza was 'particularly troubling', citing World Health Organization estimates that around 95% of hospitals in the region had been damaged or destroyed. He said that more than 6.5 lakh children have had no schooling for over 20 months as per reports by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. #IndiaAtUN PR @AmbHarishP delivered 🇮🇳's statement at the @UN Security Council Quarterly Open Debate on the Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question. @MEAIndia @IndianDiplomacy — India at UN, NY (@IndiaUNNewYork) July 23, 2025 Harish added that India's commitment towards the Palestinian cause is 'unwavering' and expressed hope that an upcoming UN conference on the Israel-Palestine conflict would lead to 'concrete steps' towards achieving a two-state solution. The conference on the matter is scheduled from July 28 to July 30. India's longstanding position has been to support a two-state solution for establishing a sovereign, viable and independent state of Palestine within recognised and mutually agreed borders, living side by side with Israel in peace. The diplomat's remarks on Wednesday came more than a month after India on June 12, along with 19 other countries, abstained from voting on a resolution that the UN General Assembly adopted demanding a ceasefire in Gaza. Hundred and forty-nine countries voted in favour of the non-binding resolution demanding an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in Israel's war on the besieged Palestinian territory. Israel and the United States were among the 12 countries that voted against it. The resolution reiterated demands for the unconditional release of remaining hostages held by Hamas and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian aid in Gaza. It also condemned the use of starvation and the denial of aid as tactics of war and demanded that Israel immediately lift the blockade on Gaza and open all border crossings for aid deliveries. In December 2023, India was among 153 nations that voted in favour of a resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly to demand a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. New Delhi had in July 2024, reiterated its call at the UN for an immediate and complete ceasefire in Gaza. Meanwhile, Israel and Hamas have been holding ceasefire talks in Qatar. Earlier efforts to reinstate a brief ceasefire that took effect in January had stalled due to major disagreements between Hamas and Israel.
