The Story So Far
On May 10, India and Pakistan agreed to stop all military action after tensions escalated.
India had carried out 24 precision strikes on May 7, targeting terrorist camps in Pakistan and PoK.
This was a response to the Pahalgam terror attack which killed 26 people.
India called the strikes “measured”; Pakistan called them an “act of war” and claimed civilian casualties.
What Does the Right to Self-Defence Entail?
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, countries can use force in self-defence after an armed attack.
However, they must immediately inform the UN Security Council.
Though India didn’t mention Article 51 directly, its actions seem based on this principle.
Can It Be Exercised Against Non-State Actors?
Article 51 mainly applies to attacks by states, not non-state actors (NSAs).
The ICJ says NSAs must act “on behalf of a state” for self-defence to apply.
India linked the Pahalgam attack to Pakistan-backed terrorists, suggesting state responsibility.
What is the ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Doctrine?
This allows a country to strike NSAs in another country if that country won’t stop them.
The U.S. used this logic in operations in Pakistan (bin Laden) and Syria (ISIS).
India implied Pakistan is “unwilling” to act, thus indirectly invoking this doctrine.
But this doctrine is controversial and not fully accepted in international law.
Is Proportionality Essential?
Any self-defence action must be necessary and proportional.
It must not go beyond what’s needed to stop or prevent attacks.
India’s strikes targeted only terrorist sites, not Pakistan’s military or civilians—likely meeting these legal limits.
What Lies Ahead?
If the ceasefire fails, the UN Security Council could step in with resolutions or peacekeeping efforts.
However, action depends on the interests and veto powers of permanent Council members like the U.S., China, and Russia.
COMMENTS