Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
Kashmir remains firmly under the UN’s continuing jurisdiction. Arbitration Clause 6 in UN Security Council Resolution 91 (1951) insulates the dignity of State territories and the principle of self-determination.
On 5 August 2019 India assumed powers it never possessed. “Resolution 91’s arbitration clause proves that Kashmir is not an internal or bilateral issue but an unsettled international dispute under UN jurisdiction. The Security Council retains the authority to compel arbitration through the ICJ, rendering India’s unilateral actions legally void. JKCHR calls on the UN to enforce its own resolutions and restore the right of self-determination to the people of Jammu and Kashmir.”
On 30 March 1951, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 91, which reaffirmed a truth that remains as relevant today as it was then: the status of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be decided unilaterally. The resolution reaffirmed that the future of the territory rests on a free and impartial plebiscite conducted under UN auspices. But buried within this resolution is a powerful tool that has been consistently ignored—**Paragraph 6**, which calls for arbitration under the auspices of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) if India and Pakistan cannot reach an agreement.
This arbitration clause is not a suggestion; it is a directive from the Security Council. Both India and Pakistan accepted the UN framework, meaning that neither can claim sovereign authority over the territory or reject third-party intervention. India’s actions on 5 August 2019, when it revoked Article 370 and unilaterally annexed Jammu and Kashmir, directly violate these solemn commitments made to the UN, Pakistan, and the Kashmiri people.
Resolution 91, reinforced by Resolution 122 (1957), freezes the question of sovereignty and prohibits domestic measures to alter Kashmir’s status. Arbitration under ICJ leadership was built into this framework as an enforcement mechanism, giving the Council a clear path to break the current deadlock. It is time to revisit this provision and restore international oversight.
For too long, India has claimed that Kashmir is a bilateral or internal matter. Paragraph 6 proves the opposite: the Security Council itself mandated neutral adjudication, and its resolutions remain legally binding under international law. By invoking this clause, the UN can reaffirm its primary responsibility for peace and security and revive a process that India once accepted but now seeks to evade.
The 30 March 1951, UN Security Council Resolution 91 (1951), affirming that Jammu and Kashmir’s status cannot be determined unilaterally and must be resolved through a **free and impartial plebiscite under UN auspices**. Importantly, Paragraph 6 of the Resolution introduces a binding arbitration mechanism: It “Calls upon the parties… to accept arbitration upon all outstanding points of difference… such arbitration to be carried out by an Arbitrator or a panel of Arbitrators, to be appointed by the President of the ICJ after consultation with the parties.”
This clause entrenches third-party dispute resolution and places Kashmir firmly under the UN’s continuing jurisdiction.
JKCHR urges the international community, especially UN Member States, to demand the implementation of Paragraph 6 of Resolution 91. This is not a new solution—it is a standing commitment. Enforcing this clause would not only counter India’s unilateralism but also restore credibility to the UN system, offering the Kashmiri people the justice and international protection they were promised over seven decades ago.