The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will on Monday evening take up the instance of Kulbhushan Jadhav whose hanging it remained a week ago after India challenged a Pakistan military court order declaring the Indian national guilty of spying.

It will be following 18 years that an India-Pakistan debate will play out on the world court. India has avoided the ICJ and it is just the second time after 1971 that New Delhi has looked for the mediation of the legal arm of the United Nations against Pakistan.

What's in store on Monday

The Netherlands-based ICJ will probably take up Jadhav's case at around 1 pm India time in the Great Hall of Justice housed in the Peace Palace in the city of The Hague.

Both sides will get an hour and a half each to make their contentions, with India getting the first say.

The court is relied upon to make some temporary strides till the case is at last chosen.

The 15-judge ICJ is not in session. Court president judge Ronny Abraham of France is relied upon to meet the operators or lawful agents of the two nations and choose the procedural issues, for example, the time span of the case. Senior lawyer Harish Salve is speaking to India.

India says Jadhav, a previous maritime officer, is pure. He was captured and encircled by Pakistan in absolute carelessness of global laws.

The 46-year-old is a spy required in psychological oppression and merits the death penalty, says Pakistan.

Why India moved ICJ following 46 years

The up and coming threat to the life of Jadhav, who was given capital punishment by a Pakistani military court on April 10, is India's explanation behind moving the ICJ.

India says Pakistan encouraged the circumstance by overlooking 16 demands for consular access to Jadhav. His trial in the military court was a sham and didn't take after global standards despite the fact that Jadhav is a remote national.

India blamed Pakistan for "offensive infringement" of New Delhi's rights under the Vienna tradition on consular relations (VCCR) when it looked for ICJ's mediation on May 8.

The tradition enables political delegates to visit their nationals held detainee by the host nation. India likewise contended that Pakistan had overlooked a reciprocal arrangement on consular get to. India has looked for abrogation of capital punishment. For the length of the trial, it needs Pakistan to guarantee that Jadhav is not executed.

Why India is cagey about ICJ

There is a motivation behind why India hasn't moved the ICJ in every one of these years. In September 1974, India spelt out the matters over which it would acknowledge the locale of the ICJ, supplanting a comparable revelation made in 1959.

Among the no-go matters are "debate with the administration of any state which is or has been an individual from the Commonwealth of Nations".

Pakistan, similar to India, is an individual from the Commonwealth, a gathering of 53 nations a large portion of which are previous British provinces.

Additionally, moving the ICJ adds up to bringing debate with Pakistan to a multilateral gathering, which New Delhi has a tendency to keep away from.

Specialists see the most recent move as an indication of India's developing trust in getting itself heard on universal gatherings.

What has happened up until now

After India continued against Pakistan, the court president, practicing his forces under the Rules of the Court, asked the Nawaz Sharif government not to make any move that would "preference the capacity of the court to honor help advance", which has been deciphered as a stay on the execution.

It is trusted that capital punishment won't be completed till the ICJ gives its last decision.

Will Pakistan acknowledge ICJ's jurisdiction for this situation?

New Delhi supposes it will.

Both India and Pakistan are signatories to the discretionary convention to the VCCR concerning the obligatory settlement of the question. Pakistan consented to the convention in 1976 and India a year later.

As per this convention, ICJ is the question settlement component. Basically, the court has a mandatory locale in debate emerging out of the elucidation or appropriateness of the convention.

Regardless of the possibility that Pakistan addresses the court's purview, it won't have a direction looking into it since India moved the ICJ under Article 36(1) of the court's statute. This arrangement is free of the necessary locale standard and depends on bargains in which both nations acknowledge the court's  jurisdiction. Jadhav's case falls under the discretionary convention to the VCCR.

Quarreling over consular get to

Pakistan says the reciprocal agreement on consular get to is not pertinent in matters of national security, for example, Jadhav's case. Be that as it may, Indian position is that since the agreement is not enrolled with the UN, it can't be brought before the ICJ, which is the legal arm of the world body. Article 102 of the UN Charter says a bargain that has not been enlisted with the UN secretariat by a marking party can't be conjured before any "organ of the United Nations".

Can Pakistan wreck Monday's listening ability?

"Pakistan could unquestionably challenge the court's locale yet the reason for a jurisdictional test would give off an impression of being fairly constrained for this situation," says Shashank Kumar, a Geneva-based attorney who filled in as a law representative at the ICJ. To think of temporary measures, which is the thing that will occur on Monday, the court does not have to give an ultimate choice on jurisdiction, he says .

"Rather, the court can give temporary measures the length of the arrangements summoned by India (the VCCR discretionary convention) show up, at first sight, to bear the cost of a premise on which the locale of the court may be established," he says.

The court could audit the issue of jurisdiction even subsequent to allowing temporary measures.

Pakistan's conceivable safeguard

an) It can contend that a universal arrangement is just powerful at home after it is classified as a local law through an empowering enactment. Consular get to is not a privilege expressly ensured under Pakistan's conciliatory and consular benefits act, 1972.

b) It can likewise refer to the standard of correspondence - that is, Pakistan can likewise practice a similar admonition that India utilized as to the necessary purview. India says the court will have no say on moves made in self-preservation or in imperviousness to animosity. India effectively battled off a Pakistan challenge on these grounds in 1999.

c) Pakistan can even contend that its infringement of VCCR can't moderate the earnestness of charges against Jadhav.