What Was Shimla Agreement Name Its Signatories
This agreement is ratified by both countries in accordance with their respective constitutional procedures and enters into force from the date of exchange of ratification instruments.  Although the terms “right to self-determination” are absent from the agreement, they are subject to Section 1 of the agreement, which states that “the principles and objectives of the UN Charter govern relations between the two countries.” The consultation of the Charter of the United Nations indicates that Articles 1 and 2 set out the objectives and principles. Article 1 of the UN Charter is “equal rights and self-determination of peoples” and Article 2 of the UN Charter deals with “the prohibition of the threat or use of force in international relations.” In this way, this subsection has a strong influence on the Kashmir issue, particularly with regard to the points of Kashmir`s right to self-determination and the territorial integrity of Kashmir. The agreement was negotiated by Soviet Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin, who had invited the parties to Tashkent. The parties agreed to remove all armed forces from positions that were occupied before August 5, 1965; Renewing diplomatic relations; and to discuss economic, refugee and other issues. The agreement was criticized in India because it contained no war pact or renouncement of guerrilla aggression in Kashmir. The Delhi Agreement on the Return of War and Civilian Internees is a tripartite agreement between these states, signed on 28 August 1973. The agreement was signed by Kamal Hossain, the Foreign Minister of the Government of Bangladesh, Sardar Swaran Singh, the Indian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Aziz Ahmed, Minister of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs of the Pakistani government.   The Shimla Agreement was signed on 2 July 1972 by Indira Gandhi, then Prime Minister of India, and Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, after the 1971 war between India and Pakistan, which liberated eastern Pakistan and led to the founding of Bangladesh. At this point, two points can be considered important. First, if the objective part of the agreement states that the two signatory governments are committed to “ending the conflict and confrontation that have so far affected their relations”, this does not mean the negition of the Kachmiris` right to self-determination. Second, this does not mean that they do so at the expense of the Kachmiris` right to self-determination, when the objective part of the agreement states that the two signatory countries “work to promote a friendly and harmonious relationship to bring peace to the subcontinent”.