Authored By: Sanan Khan Jadoon
Bahria University Islamabad
Abstract
This article discusses that how the International Law plays its role during the armed conflicts through the practical example of the recent armed conflict between India and Pakistan in May 2025. Different events related to this armed conflict were seen under the laws and principles put forward by the international conventions and treaties and jurisprudence developed through the international case. Furthermore, the actions taken during the conflict by both nations were analyzed through the lens of International Humanitarian Law. It concludes that the nations must avoid the armed conflict and if it becomes inevitable, they must respect the principles, norms and values which should be followed during the armed conflict and must respect the rights of the civilians.
Key words: International Law, International Humanitarian Law, UN Charter, Pahalgam Attack, Armed Conflict.
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND INDO-PAK ARMED CONFLICT MAY 2025
INTRODUCTION
International Law may be defined as the body of rules and principles of action which are binding upon civilized states in their relations with one another.1 India and Pakistan being parties to the major international conventions and treaties protecting and promoting peace, human rights and vow to sustainable development, are obliged to respect the principles put forward by these international instruments. We will discuss in this article that how international law comes into play before and during armed conflict specifically in relation with the recent Indo-Pak armed conflict of May 2025.
The events related to the above-mentioned conflict would be seen under UN Charter of 1945, Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977, Hague Convention (IV) on war on land and its annexed regulations, 1907, United Nations Resolution on Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, 1968, Institute of International Law Resolution on Military Objectives, 1969, jurisprudence developed through Tadic Judgment, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969 and Indus Waters Treaty of 1960.
ANALYSIS
On 22nd April 2025, a group of five terrorists unleashed a terrible attack on the tourists in Pahalgam region of Baisaran valley in Indian Administered Kashmir leaving 26 dead and a lot injured. According to some accounts the responsibility of the attack was claimed by The Resistance Front (TRF), considered as the proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba.2 This deplorable attack was condemned by almost the whole world including Pakistan, but India did not take much time right after the attack to accuse Pakistan of being part of this deadly attack through facilitating and supporting the terrorist entities. Pakistan denied the allegations and demanded the evidence of Pakistan’s involvement in the attack which could not be produced till date, yet India relied on the argument of the “pattern” related to similar attacks throughout history in India and Indian Administered Kashmir by the terrorists belong to the terrorist organizations committed to armed struggle for the freedom of Kashmir. Similar attitude was adopted after the Palwama attack of February 2019.
Suspension of Indus Waters Treaty
After accusing Pakistan of being part of the perpetration, Indian Government “Held in Abeyance” the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960 which even survived three lethal armed conflicts of 1965, 1971, and 1999 between the two rivals. Ironically, this term is unfamiliar to the treaty and a party to the treaty cannot unilaterally suspend or terminate the treaty. According to Article XII (4) of the treaty3, “The provisions of this Treaty, or the provisions of this Treaty as modified under the provisions of Paragraph (3), shall continue in force until terminated by a duly ratified treaty concluded for that purpose between the two Governments.”
And Article 54 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)4 the termination of a treaty or the withdrawal of a party may take place, (a) in conformity with the provisions of the treaty; or (b) at any time by consent of all the parties after consultation with the other contracting States. Thus, the action of the Indian government is the violation of the treaty and the international law. After this act of India, Pakistan government gave the statement that the blockage of water would be considered as an act of war.
Indian Attack on Pakistan (May 7 2025)
After the Pahalgam incident, the hawks in India started demanding the attack on Pakistan. Having the belligerent mindset and following the same course as was adopted after the Palwama attack, India launched the air strikes on Pakistan at early hours of May 7. The operation which is called the Operation Sindoor, was said to be launched against terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan Administered Jammu and Kashmir. The attack was any way the breach of the sovereignty of a sovereign nation and the violation of the UN Charter of 1945. According to the Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter 19455,“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
The attacks were launched against 9 sites according to the press release by the Indian ministry of defense, hitting mosques and madrassas which killed civilians including children. The locations which were targeted are Ahmedpur Sharqia, near Bahawalpur, Muridke city, A village near Sialkot, Shakargarh, Muzaffarabad and Kotli.6
Retaliation by Pakistan (May 9 2025)
After the Indian missiles strikes on 7th may and continued drone attacks afterwards which also targeted the air bases in Pakistan, the later retaliated on 9th May launching attacks on military installations in India. Pakistan exercised its right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter7, which says,“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security……” During the air strikes and continued firing across the LoC, civilians on both sides are claimed to have lost their lives which is the matter of serious concern for not only the two nations but for the whole world which after the second world war aspired for the protracted peace and safety of the humanity. Both the nations need deliberation over the matters which lead to the deadly consequences on both the sides.
International Humanitarian Law and the Indo-Pak Armed Conflict International humanitarian law (IHL) is a set of rules that seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not, or are no longer, directly or actively participating in hostilities, and imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare. IHL is also known as “the law of war” or “the law of armed conflict”. IHL is part of public international law, which is made up primarily of treaties, customary international law and general principles of law.8
After the first missile fired by India on May 7, armed conflict between the nations started and International Humanitarian Law began to apply. Both Pakistan and India are parities to the major conventions and treaties classified as international humanitarian law. Regarding the definition of armed conflict, it is observed in the Tadic Judgment9,“an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.”
Now the question arises that what kind of armed conflict it was where India claimed that they attacked the terrorist infrastructure, but also at the same time they breached the sovereignty of a nation and attacked across the international border. Should it be considered as the International Armed Conflict or Non-International Armed Conflict?
Double Classification Under IHL
The initial air strikes by India targeted different mosques and madrassas mostly, which they claim to be the terrorist infrastructure, were used by the general public for worship and religious education. If the claims of India are assumed correct, the armed conflict is then of dual nature in which both the characteristics of International Armed Conflict and Non
International Armed Conflict exist, where the breach of international border amounts to the International Armed Conflict and the conflict with the terrorists amounts to Non-International Armed Conflict. Ironically, in Indian initial attacks, only civilians including children were killed and injured.
Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are the major international codified laws dealing with the armed conflicts. These laws reduce the effects of armed conflict and protect the rights of civilians, wounded or sick and protected places etc. Article 2 common to all Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognizes International Armed Conflict and Article 3 common to all Geneva Conventions of 1949 recognizes Non-International Armed Conflict.
Civilians and Civilian Objects
As a result of the attacks from India and also due to retaliation by Pakistan, a lot of civilians are reported to have lost their lives. During any armed conflict, the civilians and civilian objects have the immunity and these rights must be respected. The Geneva Convention (IV) of 1949 specifically deals with the protection of civilians in time of war. Article 51 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 197710 says that the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. During the armed conflict, distinction must be made between civilians and the persons participating in hostilities. According to United Nations Resolution on Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, 1968,11 parties to the conflict are prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian populations and distinction must be made. Likewise, according to Institute of International Law Resolution on Military Objectives, 1969,12 the authorities are obliged to respect the distinction between military objectives and non-military objects as well as between persons participating in the hostilities and members of the civilian population.
The air strikes launched by India caused unnecessary damage and killed a lot of civilians. The methods and means used in warfare must not be indiscriminate. Regarding the methods and means of warfare, and indiscriminate or unnecessary suffering Article 23 of Hague Convention (IV) on war on land and its annexed regulations, 1907,13 says that it is forbidden to employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering.
The civilian objects are also protected during the armed conflict. According to Article 52 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 197714 Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in the same article as military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. The places which were targeted by India are the civilian objects as they are the mosques and madrassas which are used by the general public and there is no evidence provided by India regarding them being used for the military purposes. Also, there was no terrorist hiding in these places. According to the clause 3 of the same Article15,“In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”
The places targeted by India were the places of worship. Regarding the cultural objects and places of worship, Article 5316 of the same Protocol says that it is prohibited to commit any act of hostility against the places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.
The children enjoy the special protection during the armed conflict, but sadly the innocent children also lost their lives in that conflict. According to Article 7717 of the same Protocol children shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected against any form of indecent assault. Insult to injury is that the member of Indian Lok Sabha and the famous orator Dr. Shashi Tharoor in an interview to Al Arabiya English while addressing the question regarding deaths of children said, “If there were sadly any civilians staying there, they were families of terrorist leaders or those training to be terrorists.”18
Conclusion
After the World War II which claimed millions of human lives and left that much maimed, the human beings learnt the lesson and vowed to make the world a peaceful place to live. United Nations was formed, Universal Declaration on Human Rights was adopted, and many other conventions and treaties were adopted to make sure that the world does not see the bloodshed anymore. But still the human beings continued the streak and indulged into wars and destruction where nations on the larger scale and the extremist fundamentalists in their capacity, left no stone unturned to prove that the human beings are the brutal and destructive living creatures who never restrain themselves from wreaking havoc in the society where they live. Need of the hour is that, we must keep the politics aside and work with utmost dedication for the real peace in the world if we want to live and cherish the positivity of this beautiful green globe. The nations must avoid the armed conflict and if it becomes inevitable, they must respect the principles, norms and values which should be followed during the armed conflict and must respect the rights of the civilians.
Reference(S):
- UN Charter 1945.
- Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969).
- The Indus Waters Treaty 1960.
- Geneva Conventions of 1949.
- Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977.
- Hague Convention (IV) on war on land and its annexed regulations, 1907. 7. Institute of International Law Resolution on Military Objectives, 1969. 8. United Nations Resolution on Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, 1968. 9. Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić (Decision on the Defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction) IT-94-1-AR72 (2 October 1995) [70].
- J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations (fourth edition 1949) p. 1.
- ICRC | International Committee of the Red Cross, What is International Humanitarian Law? <https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-international-humanitarian-law > accessed July 7, 2025.
- Al Jazeera, Where did India hit Pakistan? Mapping Operation Sindoor and border strikes, <https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/7/where-did-india-hit-pakistan mapping-operation-sindoor-and-border-strikes> accessed July 6, 2025.
- Al Arabiya English, Pakistan ‘A Master of Denial,’ India Merely Responding To Terror Attack: Dr. Shashi Tharoor, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvHFDoD JwY&t=182s> accessed 8 Jul. 25.
1 J. L. Brierly, The Law of Nations (fourth edition 1949) p. 1.
2 Al Jazeera, Where did India hit Pakistan? Mapping Operation Sindoor and border strikes, < https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/7/where-did-india-hit-pakistan-mapping-operation-sindoor-and-border strikes> accessed July 6, 2025.
3 The Indus Waters Treaty 1960, Article XII (4).
4 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 54.
5 UN Charter 1945, Article 2 (4).
6Al Jazeera, Where did India hit Pakistan? Mapping Operation Sindoor and border strikes, < https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/7/where-did-india-hit-pakistan-mapping-operation-sindoor-and-border strikes> accessed 6 July 6, 2025.
7 UN Charter 1945, Article 51.
8ICRC | International Committee of the Red Cross, What is International Humanitarian Law? <https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-international-humanitarian-law > accessed July 7, 2025.
9 Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić (Decision on the Defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction) IT-94-1- AR72 (2 October 1995) [70].
10 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977, Article 51.
11 Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts. Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, 19 December 1968.
12The Distinction between Military Objectives and Non-Military Objectives in General and Particularly the Problems Associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction. Institute of International Law, Edinburgh, 9 September 1969.
13 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 23.
14 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977, Article 52.
15 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977, Article 52 (3).
16 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977, Article 53.
17 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions 1977, Article 77.
18 Al Arabiya English, Pakistan ‘A Master of Denial,’ India Merely Responding To Terror Attack: Dr. Shashi Tharoor, < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvHFDoD-JwY&t=182s> accessed 8 Jul. 25.
