Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-03T05:26:19.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Self–Determination in International Law: The Tragic Tale of Two Cities–Islamabad (West Pakistan) and Dacca (East Pakistan)*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Ved P. Nanda
Ved P. Nanda*
Affiliation:
International Legal Studies Program, University of Denver College of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The following inquiry into the internal conflict in East Pakistan suggests that under special circumstances a claim to self-determination, even in a non–colonial setting, may be valid under international law. Although the inherent difficulty is realized in (1) defining self-determination and (2) laying down the precise guidelines for a decision-maker to determine “special” nature of the circumstances, nonetheless it is submitted that a contextual analysis of the East Pakistani conflict, which follows here, demonstrates that at this stage a tentative set of criteria can and should be developed to resolve the conflicting claims revolving around the principles of “territorial integrity,” “self-determination,” and “non-intervention.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , April 1972 , pp. 321 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1972 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This is an adapted version of a paper the author presented at a conference sponsored by The American Association for the International Commission of Jurists and the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies in Aspen, Colorado, on September 10, 1971. The author has greatly benefited from the comments of many conferees; however, he is especially grateful to Professors Richard Lillich, Brunson MacChesney, Myres McDougal, and Frank Newman; Niall MacDermott, Secretary General, International Commission of Jurists; John Salzberg, Executive Secretary, American Association for the I.C.J.; and Karel Vasak, Secretary General, International Institute of Human Rights, Strasbourg, for their valuable suggestions, and to Miss Britt Anderson, a second-year student at the University of Denver College of Law, for her research assistance. None of the aforementioned necessarily endose the views submitted here, for which the author assumes all responsibility.

References

1 Colonialism as traditionally defined has been a political-economic relationship between a dominant Western nation and a subservient non-Western people. Under this definition, the relationship between East and West Pakistan is non-colonial. However, the economic and political domination of the East by West Pakistan has been a constant source of irritation to East Pakistan (see notes 51–71 below and the accompanying text), and the relationship has been described as “neo-colonial.”

2 See, generally, D. Nincic, The Problem of Sovereignty in the Charter and in the Practice of the United Nations 219–259 (1970); V. Van Dyke, Human Rights, The United States and the World Community (1970); H. Johnson, Self-Determination within the Community of Nations (1967); Panel, : “Problems of Self-Determination and Political Rights in the Developing Countries,” 1966 Proceedings, Am. Soc. Int. Law 129–150 Google Scholar; R. Emerson, Self-Determination Revisited in the Era of Decolonization (Occasional Paper No. 9, Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, 1964); R. Higgins, The Development of International Law through the Political Organs of the United Nations 90–106 (1963).

3 The account of the events is mainly drawn from the following sources: The New York Times; The Washington Post; The Times (London); The Economist (London); Le Monde (Paris); Manchester Guardian Weekly; Statesman Weekly (Calcutta); Far Eastern Economic Review (Hong Kong); Organiser Weekly (New Delhi); and Motherland (New Delhi).

4 See, e.g., The Economist, April 13, 1971, at 29–30; New York Times, March 28, 1971, p. 1, cols. 7–8; ibid., March 29, 1971, p. 1, cols. 5, 8; ibid., March 30, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; p. 10, col. 4; ibid., March 31, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; p. 3, col. 1; ibid., April 4, 1971, p. 8, col. 1; New York Times Magazine, May 2, 1971, at 24, 94.

5 The Economist, April 13, 1971, at 29–30; New York Times Magazine, note 4 above, at 94. On Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s trial, see, e.g., reports in New York Times, Sept. 28, 1971, p. 10, col. 1; ibid., Sept. 29, 1971, p. 7, col. 1.

6 New York Times, March 28, 1971, p. 1, col. 7; p. 3, cols. 2, 4; ibid., March 29, 1971, p. 1, cols. 1, 8; p. 14, col. 5.

7 The foreign correspondents were admitted into East Pakistan in May. New York Times, May 17, 1971, p. 14, col. 4. For reported accounts, see, e.g., sources cited in notes 81–86 below; Jack, , “Dacca Diary,” Motherland Magazine, Sept. 26, 1971, p. 1 Google Scholar; Kann, , “A Nation Divided,” Wall Street Journal, July 23, 1971, p. 1, col. 1Google Scholar; ibid., July 27, 1971, p. 1, col. 1.

8 See, e.g., notes 4, 78–86 and the accompanying text. See, however, for a report on a White Paper published by the Pakistan Government, New York Times, Aug. 6, 1971, p. 2, col. 1; Manchester Guardian Weekly, Aug. 14, 1971, p. 4, col. 4.

9 The Times (London), Aug. 27, 1971, p. 6, col. 8, puts the figure at more than 8 million. According to official Indian sources, the number of refugees in India as of the end of September, 1971, exceeded 9 million. New York Times, Sept. 29, 1971, p. 9, col. 1; ibid., Sept. 30, 1971, p. 6, col. 1; Motherland, Oct. 10, 1971, p. 1, col. 1. On the plight of the refugees, see e.g., Far Eastern Economic Rev., Aug. 28, 1971, at 77–84; New York Times, Sept. 30, 1971, p. 10, col. 1; ibid., Oct. 6, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; Manchester Guardian Weekly, Oct. 9, 1971, p. 14, col. 1.

10 On the election results, see Far Eastern Economic Rev., Jan. 9, 1971, pp. 19–21; 1971 International Affairs (Moscow) (No. 3) at 73–76 (March, 1971); Naqvi, , “West Pakistan’s Struggle for Power,” 4 South Asian Rev. (London) 213, 224–225 (April, 1971)Google Scholar. See also Nag, , “Epar Bangla; Opar Bangla—Jai Bangla, Jai Hind,” Organiser, Dec. 12, 1970, at 5 Google Scholar.

11 The Economist, March 6, 1971, at 19–20; Far Eastern Economic Rev., March 6, 1971, p. 12; New York Times, March 23, 1971, p. 10, col. 1.

12 For a few selected accounts of the situation before the conflict, see Naqvi, note 10 above, at 213–229; Bamds, , “Pakistan’s Disintegration,” 27 World Today 319, 321–322 (Aug., 1971)Google Scholar; Ahmad, , “Pakistan Faces Democracy—A Provisional Nationality,” 242 Round Table (London) 227, 232–237 (April, 1971)Google Scholar; Rafferty, , “Pakistan After the Flood,” 3 Month (London) 84 (March, 1971)Google Scholar.

13 Far Eastern Economic Rev., March 6, 1971, p. 12; ibid., March 20, 1971, at 5–6; New York Times, March 17, 1971, p. 17, col. 1; March 19, 1971, p. 10, col. 1; ibid., March 24, 1971, p. 11, col. 1; 142 Seminar (New Delhi) 44–50 (June, 1971); Christian Science Monitor, March 26, 1971, p. 1, col. 4; New York Times Magazine, note 4 above, at 91–94. See also, F. Ahmad, East Bengal: Roots of Genocide (1971).

14 New York Times, April 14, 1971, p. 13, col. 3; ibid., April 15, 1971, p. 4, col. 6; Far Eastern Economic Review, April 24, 1971, p. 5. Bangla Desh Missions were reportedly functioning in six countries. Bangla Desh (a weekly news bulletin circulated by the Bangladesh Mission, Washington, D. C) , Sept. 24, 1971, p. 3.

15 See, e.g., Banerjee, , “Bangla Desh: Next Phase of the War,” 6 Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay) 818 (April 17, 1971)Google Scholar. For clashes reported in August between the guerrillas and the government troups, see, e.g., Washington Post, Aug. 23, 1971, p. A 6, col. 5; New York Times, Aug. 5, 1971, p. 13, col. 3; ibid., Aug. 4, 1971, p. 4, col. 4; ibid., Aug. 3, 1971, p. 3, col. 6; ibid., Aug. 1, 1971, §4, p. 5, col. 1; The Economist, Aug. 21, 1971, p. 34; Far Eastern Economic Review, Aug. 21, 1971, p. 7. For later clashes reported in the press, see, e.g., Motherland, Sept. 26, 1971, p. 2, col. 2; p. 4, col. 6; ibid., Oct. 3, 1971, p. 4, col. 6; New York Times, Oct. 6, 1971, p. 10, col. 1; ibid., Oct. 10,1971, §4, p. 2, col. 5.

16 The Times (London), Sept. 14, 1971, p. 6, col. 7, puts the figure of such diplomats at 40.

17 Jana Sangh, a leading opposition party in India, staged demonstrations in New Delhi demanding that the Indian Government recognize Bangla Desh. The Indian Foreign Minister had to assert in the Indian Parliament that the Indo-Soviet Treaty does not bar recognition of Bangla Desh. Statesman Weekly, Aug. 21, 1971, p. 6, col. 1. See also Guha, , “Bangla Desh and Indian Self-interest,” 6 Economic and Political Weekly (Bombay) 983 (May 15, 1971)Google Scholar; 12 Monthly Commentary on Indian Economic Conditions (New Delhi) No. 9, at 7 (April, 1971); Far Eastern Economic Rev., May 1, 1971, p. 7; Statesman Weekly, Sept. 4, 1971, p. 14, col. 1; Organiser, Sept. 25, 1971, p. 1, col. 1.

18 For the call of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee for immediate suspension of U.S. military aid, see New York Times, May 7, p. 15, col. 1. For the House action see ibid., Aug. 4, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; ibid., July 16, 1971, p. 1, col. 3. See also Crisis in East Pakistan, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., May 11 and 25, 1971 (1971). Later, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to end all aid—”military, economic, grants, loans, and sales—” to Pakistan until President Nixon “proves to Congress Pakistan is helping bring peace to the Indian subcontinent and is letting refugees return to their homes.” Associated Press report in Denver Post, Oct. 15, 1971, p. 7, col. 1.

19 See, e.g., for a report on West Germany’s action, Indian & Foreign Rev. (New Delhi), July 15, 1971, p. 25, and ibid., July 1, 1971, p. 25, for a report on England’s banning further development aid to Pakistan. See also Adam, , “Yahya Aggrieved,” Far Eastern Economic Rev., July 24, 1971, p. 14 Google Scholar, for a similar report on Japan’s and Canada’s decision to ban further aid to Pakistan.

20 New York Times, July 13, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; p. 8, col. 1; Far Eastern Economic Rev., July 3, 1971, p. 7; ibid., Aug. 14, 1971, p. 6.

21 See, e.g., New York Times, Aug. 3, 1971, p. 3, col. 5 (U Thant); ibid., March 28, 1971, p. 3, col. 4 (Prime Minister Gandhi); ibid., April 4, 1971, p. 8, col. 1 (the Soviet President); ibid., June 3, 1971, p. 9, col. 1 (Pope’s appeal); ibid., April 8, 1971, p. 3, col. 1 (U.S. official).

22 New York Times, Aug. 10, 1971, p. 1, col. 6; ibid., p. 28, col. 1 (editorial).

23 See, e.g., New York Times, Aug. 10, 1971, p. 1, col. 6; ibid., Aug. 1, 1971, p. 2, col. 5; The Economist, June 12, 1971, at 25–26, 29; Times (London), Aug. 27, 1971, p. 6, col. 8.

24 New York Times, June 8, 1971, p. 3, col. 3; ibid., Aug. 1, 1971, § 1, p. 1, col. 1. See also Thorner, , “East Pakistan: A ‘Final Solution’ in Bengal,” ibid., Aug. 19, 1971, p. 35, col. 3Google Scholar.

25 Statesman Weekly (cited note 3 above), Sept. 4, 1971, p. 13, col. 3.

26 See, e.g., Washington Post, Sept. 12, 1971, p. A 18, col. 2; Simon, “Bengal Rebels Planning October Offensive,” ibid., Sept. 13, 1971, p. A 10, col. 1; ibid., Sept. 14, 1971, p. A 18, col. 1 (editorial); Indian and Foreign Rev., Sept. 1, 1971, p. 25; New York Times, Sept. 10, 1971, p. 7, col. 1; ibid., Sept. 28, 1971, p. 9, col. 1; ibid., Sept. 30, 1971, p. 11, col. 1; ibid., Oct. 6, 1971, p. 10, col. 1; ibid., Oct. 10, 1971, §4, p. 2, col. 5.

27 See, e.g., reports in New York Times, Sept. 30, 1971, p. 11, col. 1; ibid., Oct. 6, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; Denver Post, Oct. 18, 1971, p. 7, col. 1 (an Associated Press Report from New Delhi).

28 See, e.g., New York Times, Dec. 4, 1971, p. 1, col. 4; ibid., Dec. 5, 1971, §1, p. 1, col. 4.

29 On the defeat of the Pakistan Army in East Pakistan and the establishment of Bangladesh, see Organiser, Dec. 11, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; Motherland, Dec. 19, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; New York Times, Dec. 17, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; ibid., Dec. 18, 1971, p. 1, col. 4; Christian Science Monitor, Dec. 17, 1971, p. 1, col. 2; Wall Street Journal, Dec. 17, 1971, p. 1, col. 1. On the takeover by Sheikh Rahman as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, see Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 1972, p. 1, col. 3.

30 New York Times, Jan. 14, 1972, p. 2, col. 3.

31 Washington Post, Jan. 21, 1972, p. A 19, col. 1.

32 Note 30 above; New York Times, Jan. 11, 1972, p. 11, col. 3.

33 One of the U.N. purposes noted in Art. 1(2), is to “develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.. . .”

34 Art. 55 reads in part: “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote. .. .”

35 Art. 1 in both Covenants. The Covenants were adopted by General Assembly Res. 2200 A (XXI), Dec. 16, 1966. The text is contained in 4 U.N. Monthly Chronicle (No. 2) at 41–72 (Feb., 1967).

36 General Assembly Res. 1564, 15 G.A.O.R., Supp. 16, U.N. Doc. A/4684, at 66 (1960). However, the Declaration had stressed respect for the territorial integrity and the national unity of a country by adding that: “any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

37 General Assembly Res. 2625 (XXV), of Oct. 24, 1970.

38 Ibid. See also General Assembly Res. 2787 (XXVI), of Dec. 6, 1971.

39 Moore, , “The Control of Foreign Intervention in Internal Conflict,” 9 Va. J. Int. Law 205, 247 (1971)Google Scholar.

40 Emerson, , “Self-Determination,” 65 A.J.I.L. 459, 465 (1971)Google Scholar.

41 Ijalye, , “Was ‘Biafra’ at Any Time a State in International Law?”, ibid., 551, 553–554 (1971)Google Scholar.

42 See 6 Int. Legal Materials 679 (1967) for a text of the declaration of secession of May 30, 1967. The Biafran surrender was announced on Jan. 12, 1970.

43 Report of the O.A.U. Consultative Mission to Nigeria, cited in Ijalye, note 41 above, at 556.

44 Cited in Van Dyke, note 2 above, at 86–87.

45 See, generally, L. Miller, World Order and Local Disorder 66–116 (1967).

46 7 U.N. Monthly Chronicle 36 (Feb., 1970).

47 Van Dyke, note 2 above, at 87, cites Senegalese, Indonesian and Indian leaders taking this position.

48 See, e.g., “The Wars You Don’t Hear About,” The Economist, Aug. 7, 1971, p. 16. On the Sudanese struggle, see Gray, , “The Southern Sudan,” 6 J. Contemporary History (London) 108 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 E. Luard, Conflict and Peace in the Modern International System 103 (1968), has a table showing principal minority disputes between 1918 and 1966. See, generally, ibid., at 99–104, 109–116. For the Formosan claim, see a well-articulated statement in L. Chen & H. Lasswell, Formosa, China and the United Nations 82–140 (1967). Tibet has been discussed at the U.N. without any tangible outcome. See, generally, on Tibet, Sinha, , “How Chinese was China’s Tibet Region?”, 1 Tibetan Rev. (Calcutta) (No. 4) at 9 (April, 1968)Google Scholar; Talda, “Taiwan and Tibet,” ibid., at 7; “China Still Finds Trouble in Tibet,” New York Times, Sept. 5, 1971, §1, p. 5, col. 1. On the Kurdish claim, see Edmonds, , “The Kurdish National Struggle in Iraq,” 58 Asian Affairs (n.s., Vol. II) Pt. II, at 147 (June, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Kurdish Nationalism,” 6 J. Contemporary History (London) 87 (1971). See also Beckett, “Northern Ireland,” ibid., 121.

50 Van Dyke, note 2 above, at 102.

51 For a perceptive analysis, see Naqvi, , “West Pakistan’s Struggle for Power,” 4 South Asian Rev. (London) 213 (April, 1971)Google Scholar.

52 Gourgey, , “Bangla Desh’s Leader: Shiekh Mujib,” 23 Venture (London) (No. 7) at 13 (July/Aug., 1971)Google Scholar.

53 The text is contained in 142 Seminar (note 13 above) at 39, 40.

54 Barnds, , “Pakistan’s Disintegration,” 27 World Today 319, 320 (Aug., 1971)Google Scholar.

55 Plastrik, , “Behind the Revolt in East Pakistan,” 18 Dissent 321 (Aug., 1971)Google Scholar.

56 Ibid.

57 Sayeed, , “Islam and National Integration in Pakistan,” in South Asian Politics and Religion 407 (Smith, D., ed., 1966)Google Scholar.

58 A. Tayyeb, Pakistan: A Political Geography 180 (1966).

59 See, e.g., Evan, , “The Language Problem in Multi-National States: The Case of India and Pakistan,” 58 Asian Affairs (n.s,, Vol. II) Pt. II, at 180, 184–185 (June, 1971)Google Scholar; Bose, , “Uncertainties of ‘Bangla Desh’,” Thought Weekly (New Delhi), April 3, 1971, at 10, 22 Google Scholar.

60 See, generally, Sayeed, note 57 above, at 412; “Bengali Culture Versus the Urdu-Punjabi,” Illustrated Weekly of India, May 9, 1971, p. 23.

61 See, generally, George, , “The Cross of Bengal,” Far Eastern Economic Rev., April 24, 1971, at 57–63 Google Scholar; “Does Pakistan Exist?,” The Economist, March 6, 1971, at 19–20.

62 Jha, , “Roots of Pakistani Discord,” 32 Indian J. Pol. Sc. 14, 29, notes 95–96 (Jan–March, 1971)Google Scholar, cites National Assembly of Pakistan debates for the years 1962–1965 to make this point.

63 See, generally, Rashiduzzaman, , “The Awami League in the Political Development of Pakistan,” 10 Asian Survey 574, 583 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; K. Kamal, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman— Man and Politician 92–103 (1970).

64 Attributed to Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, quoted in Gourgey, note 52 above, at 13.

65 See, generally, Bangla Desh, supplement to 12 Monthly Commentary on Indian Economic Conditions (New Delhi) 9 (April, 1971); Nag, “Gold from Bangla Desh into West Pakistan,” Illustrated Weekly of India, May 9, 1971, at 15–17; Chowdhury, “Economic Policy and Industrial Growth in Pakistan—A Review,” 10 Pak. Development Rev. 264, 267–268 (1970), and authorities cited there; and note 61 above.

66 Cited in 142 Seminar at 40 (note 13 above).

67 Cited in Gourgey, note 52 above, at 13.

68 Based on a survey by a Pakistani economist, quoted in Ray, , “Web of Bourgeois Politics,” 6 Economic & Political Weekly 1221, 1222 (June 19, 1971)Google Scholar.

69 Ibid.

70 Rahman, , “East Pakistan: The Roots of Estrangement,” 3 South Asian Rev. (London) 235, 236 (1970)Google Scholar.

71 Note 68 above.

72 The summary is based on the sources cited in note 63 above.

73 For the text, see Documents on the Foreign Relations of Pakistan: The Transfer of Power 19 (K. Hasan & Z. Hasan eds., 1966).

74 George, , “Jai Banglar, Jai,” Far Eastern Economic Rev., Jan. 16, 1971, at 20–21 Google Scholar. Cf. President Yahya Khan’s Legal Framework Order of March 30, 1970, under which the elections were held, 142 Seminar at 37–39, note 13 above. See also Khan, Yahya, “Pakistan: The Transfer of Power,” Vital Speeches of the Day, No. 21, Aug. 15, 1971, at 650 Google Scholar.

75 See sources cited in note 13 above.

76 Adam, , “The Final Round,” Far Eastern Economic Rev., March 20, 1971, p. 6 Google Scholar.

77 Ibid. See also New York Times Magazine, note 4 above, at 92–94.

78 New York Times, May 30, 1971, p. 5, col. 1.

79 Chowdhury, , “A Dacca View of the Bitter Struggle in Pakistan,” 15 Commonwealth (London) at 89, 91 (No. 4, August, 1971)Google Scholar.

80 Press release of the International Commission of Jurists, Aug. 16, 1971, at 3–4.

81 New York Times, March 31, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; p. 3, col. 1; ibid., April 3, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; p. 3, col. 1; ibid., April 4, 1971, p. 8, col. 1; ibid., April 7, 1971, p. 7, col. 1; New York Times Magazine, note 4 above, at 94. The New York Times correspondent, Schanberg, had several accounts. See New York Times, April 4, 1971, §4, p. 4, col. 1; ibid., April 14, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; ibid., April 15, 1971, p. 3, col. 1. On reports of the indiscriminate killings of innocent civilians, see, e.g., ibid., March 29, 1971, p. 1, col. 8; ibid., March 30, 1971, p. 1, col. 1; ibid., March 31, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; ibid., June 13, 1971, p. 9, col. 1; Far Eastern Economic Rev., May 15, 1971, at 5–7; Indian and Foreign Rev., April 15, 1971, p. 3; The Economist, June 12, 1971, at 26; notes 82–86 below; New York Times, Jan. 3, 1972, p. 1, col. 6.

82 Quoted in Indian and Foreign Rev., July 1, 1971, p. 23, and in press release, note 80 above, at 4–5.

83 Prentice, , “Both Sides of the Disaster,” New Statesman (London), July 16, 1971, p. 68 Google Scholar.

84 Ibid.

85 Statesman Weekly, Aug. 21, 1971, p. 11, col. 1; New York Times, Aug. 17, 1971, p. 3, col. 1.

86 Washington Post, Aug. 27, 1971, p. A 4, col. 1.

87 For a brief discussion of crimes against humanity in the context of the 1968 Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, see Miller, 65 A.J.I.L. 476, 488–492 (1971). For a report that captured officials of the Pakistani Government might be tried by Bangladesh authorities as war criminals, see New York Times, Dec. 27, 1971, p. 1, col. 6.

88 Bangla Desh, note 65 above, at IV.

89 Ibid, at V–VII; Nag, note 65 above, at 17.

90 Professor Nathaniel Left offers a bold new approach in suggesting that fragmentation leading to the establishment of small states with relatively small expenditures on armaments may even be conducive to world order. See Leff, , “Bengal, Biafra & the Bigness Bias,” 3 Foreign Policy 129 (Summer, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

91 See, generally, sources cited in notes 51–71 above.

92 New York Times, March 28, 1971, p. 3, col. 4. For the latest charges made by India’s Foreign Minister in the U.N. General Assembly that the Pakistani Government had unleashed a “reign of terror” in East Pakistan and that, by its actions in East Pakistan, it had violated the U.N. Charter, see ibid., Sept. 28, 1971, p. 1, col. 5.

93 See ibid., March 28, 1971, p. 3, col. 5; ibid., Sept. 28, 1971, p. 1, col. 5.

94 See Prime Minister Gandhi’s statement in the Indian Parliament on May 24, contained in Indian and Foreign Rev., June 1, 1971, at 4, 5. For a later statement, see Motherland, Oct. 3, 1971, p. 2, col. 2.

95 See New York Times, April 3, 1971, p. 3, col. 1; ibid., April 7, 1971, p. 3, col. 4.

96 See ibid., May 7, 1971, p. 15, col. 1.

97 See ibid., Aug. 4, 1971, p. 1, col. 5.

98 See ibid., June 10, 1971, p. 15, col. 4.

99 See sources cited in note 20 above.

100 The text is contained in Indian and Foreign Rev., Aug. 15, 1971, at 4.

101 For the statement by the President of the Security Council, see New York Times, Aug. 3, 1971, p. 3, col. 6.

102 Excerpts are contained in Indian and Foreign Rev., June 1, 1971, p. 3.

103 U.N. Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/NGO. 46, July 23, 1971.

104 Ibid.

105 Press Release of the International Commission of Jurists, Aug. 16, 1971.

106 Unpublished report by Mr. Salzberg to the Ad Hoc Committee on Human Rights on the Consideration of the Situation in East Pakistan by the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities at Its Twenty-Fourth Session, Sept. 4, 1971. See also Salzberg’s letter to the New York Times on the U.N. inaction, New York Times, Sept. 20, 1971, p. 24, col. 3; Homer, “Repercussions from East Pakistan,” 11 War/Peace Report, at 17 (No. 8, Oct., 1971). But see John Carey’s letter in response to Salzberg’s letter, New York Times, Oct. 6, 1971, p. 44, col. 3.

107 Associated Press News in Denver Post, Sept. 15, 1971, p. 36, col. 2. See also a UPI News release in Rocky Mountain News, Sept. 11, 1971, p. 10, col. 1. The conference, in its “final document,” called upon the International Commission of Jurists, “as a matter of immediate and special urgency, to institute an inquiry into alleged violations of human rights, the humanitarian laws and the Rule of Law in East Pakistan.” Final Document of the Aspen Conference (Sept. 8–12, 1971), “Justice and the Individual: The Rule of Law Under Current Pressures,” at 4 (unpublished doc, 1971).

108 See, e.g., reports in New York Times, Sept. 28, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; ibid., Sept. 30, 1971, p. 11, col. 1; ibid., Oct. 6, 1971, p. 1, col. 7; ibid., Oct. 10, 1971, §4, p. 2, col. 5; Motherland, Oct. 10, 1971, p. 1, col. 1.

109 See, e.g., New York Times, Dec. 5, 1971, §1, p. 1, col. 5; ibid., Dec. 7, 1971, p. 1, col. 8; ibid., Dec. 8, 1971, p. 1, col. 8; ibid., Dec. 9, 1971, p. 1, col. 5; General Assembly Res. 2793 (XXVI), adopted on Dec. 7, 1971; Security Council Res. 307 (1971), adopted on Dec. 21, 1971. See also U.N. Doc. S/10410 and Add. 1, Dec. 3 and 4, 1971, for the U.N. Secretary General’s Report on the situation.

110 Note 29 above.

111 New York Times, March 3, 1972, p. 2, col. 5.