Global Accountability Needs After Repeated Contraventions of International Law by India
Operation Sindoor: A Preemptive Strike or a Breach of Sovereignty?
This article aims to analyze the legality of India’s preemptive strike, recently named Operation Sindoor, which was an all-out military attack involving missiles and drone strikes on nine targets in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir on 7 May 2025. Sindoor mutilated at least 31 people’s lives, the majority being innocent civilians, and injured dozens. India maintained they were “retaliating” for a militant attack and labeled their targets as “terrorist infrastructure” purported to be allied to Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed. But with each fresh report of civilian casualties and property annihilation, the international community must ask itself, whether is India even close to achieving the moral high ground in international law?
In contrast to what international relations scholars would have hoped for, India has openly transgressed the entirety of international relations handbooks time after time now. In adopting such a stance, I refer to acts like LoC transgressions or airstrikes within and beyond national boundaries (most famously Balakot in 2019) have militarily engaged beyond borders and without reservation from the UN or any lawful authority under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Legal Framework: What India Violated
Legal Framework: What India Violated
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits the use of force. Self-defense against an armed attack or authorization by the Security Council provides limited exceptions, neither of which India possessed. Self-defense must meet a level of necessity, which unilateral preemptive strikes India labeled as counter-terrorism would not achieve; India cannot lawfully self-defend against another state’s territorial sovereignty.
The Simla Agreement and Violations of Peaceful Principles
Within The Simla Agreement (1972), debate over the LoC is actively commited by both India and Pakistan. India’s actions of missile strikes and subsequent Over the LoC (OtL) artillery firebreak this treaty, which non-aggressive resolve and peaceful conflict principles.
Undermining precision attacks that would constitute war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court would shallow the threshold of civilian casualties. Under International Humanitarian Law, precision attacking civilians and civilian infrastructure, especially during armed conflict, is permitted under the Geneva Conventions.
Pakistan’s Lawful Right to Defend Itself
Observing such blatant violations of sovereignty, Pakistan took the recourse, in the exercise of self-defense, intercepting the hostile aggression. Reportedly, Pakistani defense forces shot down five Indian jets trespassing its airspace. This act of defense falls squarely under Article 51 of the UN Charter which permits states to repel ongoing or imminent armed attack.
Pakistan’s government also permitted counteroffensive measures but with a stated policy of restraint regarding escalation and targeting only military objectives. Pakistan’s approach, unlike India’s preemptive strike, is based on the principle of necessity and proportionality which is a linchpin of lawful self-defense in international law.
What Legal Recourse Does Pakistan Have?
Pakistan has several routes internationally to pursue considering India’s continuous transgressions:
- United Nations Security Council (UNSC): Pakistan has the capability to invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter and lodge a complaint, seeking condemnation of India’s efforts at aggression and international mediation, unsolicited sanctions, or peacekeeping intervention.
- International Court of Justice (ICJ): Although both countries have been reluctant to bring matters regarding conflict over Kashmir to the ICJ, they can argue that Pakistan can commence action for violation of international treaties like the Simla Agreement or Geneva Conventions if some jurisdictional prerequisites are met.
- International Criminal Court (ICC): Pakistan has the option to solicit a referral from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to the ICC for an inquiry into war crimes inflicted by Indian forces such as attacks against civilians and the use of prohibited weaponry, even though neither country is a signatory to the Rome Statute.
- Pakistan has the capacity to spearhead a coalition formed by both affected and allied states to bring the matter before the international community, particularly the UN Human Rights Council and OIC, with the intent of applying diplomatic pressure against India’s transgressions towards other countries.
India’s Pattern of War Crimes and Impunity
The 7th of May will forever be etched in my mind due to the peculiar events that transpired on that date. These actions have been supported by reliable testimony from diverse sources such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and over the years have become synonymous to Indian:
- Extrajudicial executions in India controlled Kashmir.
- Systematic bombarding of civilians along The Line of Control (LoC).
- Usage of internationally prohibited cluster bombs.
If validated, these acts are serious violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) so long as supporting evidence corroborates these claims. This threshold enables more advanced crimes to be committed without incuring consequences.
The strikes on May 7 by India is a violation of world peace. Pakistan has shown remarkable restaint both regarding the issue diplomatically and militarily, but it cannot be expected to sit idly while being provoked time and again. The world cannot keep ignoring the South Asian unrest as simply an issue between two states, because it untimately poses a danger to world peace. If the claim of international law being impartial is true, it has to apply to every nation, including those who consistently breach it in the name of national security.
