The recent cross-border strikes by India inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir have unleashed a wave of controversy, sparking intense debate on international law, state sovereignty, and the limits of self-defense. Touted by New Delhi as a justified response to the deadly attack in Pahalgam on April 22, 2025, these strikes, conducted under the banner of “Operation Sindoor”, raise critical questions: Were these military actions legally justified under international law? Did they respect the sovereign rights of Pakistan? And what precedent does this set for the fragile peace and legal order governing state conduct worldwide?
Follow Cssprepforum WhatsApp Channel: Pakistan’s Largest CSS, PMS Prep Community updated
Led by Sir Syed Kazim Ali, Cssprepforum helps 70,000+ aspirants monthly with top-tier CSS/PMS content. Follow our WhatsApp Channel for solved past papers, expert articles, and free study resources shared by qualifiers and high scorers.
The stakes are high. India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed neighbors with a long history of mistrust, conflict, and territorial dispute, notably over Kashmir. Any breach of sovereignty risks escalating tensions into open warfare. Thus, a sober analysis is essential to understand whether India’s actions conform to or contravene the established norms of international law, especially the United Nations Charter, customary law on the use of force, and principles governing state responsibility and sovereignty.
At the core of this debate lies the foundational principle enshrined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This provision enshrines the respect for sovereignty, a bedrock of the international legal order. The Charter, however, carves out a narrow exception under Article 51, which recognizes the inherent right of states to self-defense “if an armed attack occurs.”
In practice, the use of force across international borders is lawful only when responding to an actual or imminent armed attack attributable to another state. Retaliation for past incidents, particularly those under dispute or lacking clear attribution, is not sanctioned under this regime. This legal threshold is further reinforced by judgments from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), such as in the Nicaragua v. United States and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda cases, where the Court emphasized the requirement for clear evidence of armed attack and state responsibility before resorting to force.
India claims that its strikes in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and mainland Pakistan constitute legitimate self-defense in response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which killed 25 Indian tourists and one Nepali national. However, the legitimacy of this claim hinges critically on two legal criteria: proof of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack, and whether the attack itself qualifies as an “armed attack” under international law.
To date, India has not presented verifiable evidence to the international community that Pakistan’s government or military directly orchestrated or supported the Pahalgam assault. The Indian government has accused Pakistan-based militant groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba of carrying out the attack, but these accusations remain unsubstantiated by independent investigations. Pakistan has categorically denied involvement, and no credible third-party inquiry has validated India’s allegations.
Without clear attribution, India’s justification under Article 51 becomes legally tenuous. The right of self-defense presupposes an armed attack attributable to a state actor. The mere presence of non-state militants or insurgents operating from within Pakistan’s borders does not automatically translate to state responsibility. International law requires proof that Pakistan had effective control over the perpetrators or failed to exercise due diligence in preventing cross-border attacks — a threshold that India’s narrative has yet to meet publicly.
Moreover, retaliation in the form of airstrikes days or weeks after the attack does not fit the concept of an immediate or imminent armed attack. The self-defense right is temporally limited to responding promptly to attacks or clear and imminent threats, not past incidents subject to ongoing investigation. By bypassing diplomatic channels and the UN Security Council, India has further sidelined mechanisms designed to peacefully resolve disputes and verify facts before the use of force.
Sovereignty remains a cardinal principle of international relations. A state’s territorial integrity is inviolable, and any foreign military incursion without consent or UN authorization is prima facie a breach of sovereignty and international law. The principle protects all states equally, regardless of political or security considerations.
India’s airstrikes violated Pakistan’s sovereignty by crossing internationally recognized borders and targeting locations inside Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Punjab. Even if India contends that the targeted sites were “terrorist infrastructure,” international humanitarian law and the laws of armed conflict strictly prohibit attacks on civilian structures, including homes and places of worship, unless they are being used for military purposes, and such claims must be substantiated.
Reports indicate that many of the sites hit included civilian areas, resulting in significant casualties, including children and unarmed civilians. Such acts potentially amount to war crimes, raising serious legal and moral questions about proportionality, distinction, and the protection of non-combatants.
Pakistan’s military response, by contrast, has reportedly focused on legitimate military targets and has emphasized proportionality. This contrast highlights the importance of adhering to legal norms even amidst heightened tensions, reinforcing that violations undermine not only bilateral relations but the credibility of international law itself.
The most alarming aspect of India’s strikes is the precedent they set in international relations. By launching unilateral military operations on another state’s territory based on unproven accusations and without international oversight, India risks normalizing the erosion of the prohibition on the use of force.
This trend is not isolated. The international system is already grappling with the challenge posed by states citing vaguely defined terrorism threats or self-defense claims to justify cross-border military actions , often with devastating civilian consequences. The world has witnessed similar justifications employed by powerful nations, creating a dangerous cycle of impunity and escalating violence.
If India’s actions are tacitly accepted without accountability, it signals a weakening of the international legal order and encourages other states to pursue aggressive policies under the guise of counterterrorism or preemptive self-defense. Such erosion threatens global peace and the very framework that prevents the outbreak of widespread conflict.
Given the gravity of the situation, the international community must insist on impartial, transparent investigations into the Pahalgam attack. Accountability requires facts, verifiable and independently confirmed, to ensure justice and prevent manipulation of events for political gain.
The United Nations and regional organizations should facilitate dialogue between India and Pakistan to de-escalate tensions and return to negotiations based on mutual respect for sovereignty and international law.
Calls by UN Secretary-General António Guterres and other world leaders for restraint and dialogue are commendable. However, they must be coupled with firm legal principles demanding that both countries abide by their obligations under the UN Charter and international humanitarian law.
India’s recent strikes inside Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir raise profound legal questions about the justification of the use of force under international law and the respect for state sovereignty. Without credible evidence linking Pakistan to the Pahalgam attack, India’s claim of self-defense under Article 51 remains legally unsupported. The strikes violated Pakistan’s territorial integrity and caused civilian casualties, contravening humanitarian law and risking serious war crimes allegations.
Join 3-Day Free Orientation for CSS/PMS English Essay & Precis Course
Learn to Qualify for CSS 2026/27 & PMS with Sir Syed Kazim Ali’s free 3-day online orientation. Learn essay & precis writing. Limited seats available; register via WhatsApp by June 29!
More broadly, India’s actions threaten to undermine the international legal order by normalizing unilateral military retaliation based on unproven claims. The world faces a choice: uphold the rule of law and demand accountability, or allow impunity to erode the foundations of peace and security.
Only through impartial investigations, adherence to international legal norms, and renewed diplomatic engagement can the cycle of violence and mistrust between these nuclear neighbors be broken. Sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force are not mere formalities; they are essential pillars holding the international system together. It is incumbent upon India, Pakistan, and the global community to respect and defend these principles, for the sake of regional stability and global peace.
