Foreign Minister Vikram Misri (center) along with col. SOFIYA QURESHI (left) and the commander of the wing of Singh (right) during the print briefing about the “Sindoor” operation “at the National Media Center in Nový Dilli on May 7, 2025. Photo Credit: Hind
ANDNdia and Pakistan on Saturday (May 10, 2025) agreed that after a few days of increased tension between two armed nuclear weapons, “all shooting and military events” stop. The announcement comes as a result of accurate strikes performed by Indian armed forces against the terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan occupied cashmere in response to the Pahalgam massacre, which claimed the lives of 26 civilians.
While the Indian Foreign Minister Vikram Misri described the strikes as “measured and non -warming”, Pakistan condemned them as “obvious war act” and allegedly civilian victims. How will hostility be suspended now, how will the Indian military reaction be assessed under international law?
Can India provoke the right to self -defense?
Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter (UN) carries a close exception to the general prohibition of the use of the force referred to in Article 2 (4), which prohibits Member States to endanger or use the power against territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It allows for force only in the performance of self -defense after an armed attack. While the Charter does not define what is an armed attack, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in Nicaragua v. USA (1986), interpreted it as “the most significant form of use of force”, suggesting that not all attacks meet this threshold. Although the statement of the Foreign Minister has not explicitly provoked Article 51, his description of the missile strikes as a “reaction” to the terrorist attack of Pahalgam is relying on this principle.
However, this right is not unlimited. Article 51 The Member States imposes a procedural obligation “immediately” to the UN Security Council (UN) any military measures taken in self -defense. UNSC then assumes the power to take any steps necessary to “maintain or restore international peace and security”. In the obvious observance of this requirement, 8 May 2025, the Minister of Foreign Affairs informed the envoy of 13 of the 15 Member States of the UN on Indian missile strokes. The Pakistani envoy was not invited and Sierra Leone remained represented because of the absence of an ambassador in Nový Delhi.
Can the right to non -state actors be exercised?
The UN Charter only regulates the behavior of the states and in the expansion of the state -sponsored use of strength. Non -state entities, such as terrorist organizations and insurgents, operate outside this legal framework, which complicates inherently the state design of the Charter. After the attacks of 11 September, the growing role of these actors in the armed conflict caused some states, in particular the United States, to claim that the right of self-defense under Article 51 applies to military action against non-state actors such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS).
However, ICJ accepted a more restrictive interpretation. In cases like Nicaragua, Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda (2005) and its advisory opinion from 2004 on The legal consequences of building a wall on the occupied Palestinian territoryHe decided that an armed attack under Article 51 includes the actions of non -state actors only if they are carried out “or on behalf of the state”. In accordance with this, the assignment of the state remains a necessary condition for inducing the right to self -defense under international law.
“It is clear from the statement of the Foreign Minister that India has not endeled rocket strokes within international law. It was claiming that” Pakistani terrorists of trained “were responsible for the Pahalgam attack and described it as” Pakistani long -term record of strict terrorism “, Indian terrorism.” Profitered, Pakshash Ranjan, Prubshash Ranjan, Prubshash Ranjan, PrubShash Ranjan, Prubshash Ranjan, Prbshash Ranjan, Prubshash, “school, Hindu said.
What is the “unwilling or incapable” doctrine?
The emerging doctrine in international law allows the use of power in self -defense against non -state actors operating from the territory of another state where the state is considered “unwilling or unable” neutralize the threat. The United States was the leading supporter of this doctrine and caused it to justify the military operation in 2011, which killed the leader of Al-Qaeda Osama bin loaded in Pakistan, and the airport in 2014 against IS IS in Syria, where the network organized other terrorist attacks. However, states such as China, Mexico and Russia have condemned such military operations as undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the host state and the UN collective security system.
However, the Indian attitude towards doctrine remains ambiguous. To a Meeting UNSC Arria Formula In February 2021, India confirmed that the right to self -defense applies to attacks of non -state actors and noted that such groups often use the sovereignty of host states as a “smoke screen”. Then he outlined three conditions for inducing such a right: i. Nesty actor repeatedly carried out armed attacks against the state. II. The host state is not willing to deal with the threat represented by a non -state actor. III. The host state actively supports and sponsor an attack by a non -state actor. However, legal scholars have he stressed It is not clear whether these conditions must be met cumulatively or can be used independently. If it seems that it is necessary to read connectively, India seems to require the assignment of the state, which provides its support for doctrine uncertain.
Dr. Ranjan noted that Foreign Minister’s notes that Pakistan had taken “no demonstrable step” to act against terrorist infrastructure fourteen days after the attack of Pahalgam and that the country has long served as a “refuge for terrorists” suggests relying on the “unwilling or incapable” doctrine. “This doctrine does not require a state assignment for attacks by non -state actors, reducing the threshold value to induce self -defense,” he explained. “However, this principle is questioned and lacks consistent state practice and the juris of opinion necessary for crystallization in the rule of usual international law.”
Is the proportionality necessary in military reactions?
Military operations performed in the performance of self -defense must adhere to the usual principles of international law of necessity and proportionality. It is generally acknowledged that the unwillingness or inability of the host state neutralizes non -state actors dealing with cross -border attacks, meets the requirement for necessity. However Leiden Policy Recommendation on Antiterrorist Terrorism and International Law (2010) emphasize that the use of force against the armed forces or the host state is permissible only in “exceptional circumstances”, for example, when the state actively supports terrorists. Regarding proportionality, there are two competitive opinions: narrow interpretations reduce the strength to what is necessary to stop the ongoing attack, while a wider view allows the action to bounce and prevent future attacks under the circumstances.
“As military strikes on May 7, 2025 focused only on terrorist infrastructure without focusing on Pakistani military assets or civilian settlements, they would meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality. Ranjan.
What lies before us?
If the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan could not conclude, the UN could adopt a resolution that requires immediate hostility. It may also vote on the subsequent resolution on the solution of any further violations, including the imposition of sanctions or deploying their own peace or military forces. However, the successful passage of such resolutions is probably formed by the geopolitical interests of the permanent members of the Council, each of whom has a veto power.
Published – May 10, 2025 9:39
