India's continuing challenge with Pakistan shows why international law still matters
In an era defined by shifting power balances, evolving security threats, and deepening global interdependence, international law is no longer a matter confined to academic seminars or the courtrooms of The Hague and Geneva. For India, a rising democracy navigating a complex regional and international landscape, the strategic value of international law has never been greater. It is time we move beyond viewing it as a mere defensive shield and begin treating it as an essential instrument of statecraft.
Beyond paper commitments: What is international law?
At its core, international law is a framework of rules and principles governing the conduct of states and international actors. It includes treaties, conventions, and customary norms that regulate diverse issues ranging from armed conflict and human rights to environmental sustainability and economic cooperation. Far from being abstract or idealistic, international law directly impacts India's national security, foreign policy, and development priorities.
Recent events underscore this relevance. The tragic attack in Kashmir last month, which claimed several lives, was a stark reminder of the persistent threat of terrorism. India has long voiced concerns about cross-border terrorism and the lack of meaningful accountability. International law offers avenues for redress, not just through rhetorical condemnation, but via coordinated diplomatic and legal measures aimed at accountability and deterrence.
Strategic legal engagement in the region
To the west, challenges with Pakistan have once again intensified. India's recent decision to suspend certain provisions of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), a rare example of a durable bilateral agreement, raises significant legal questions. For decades, India has upheld its obligations under the IWT, even amid provocations. But a consistent pattern of breaches and lack of reciprocity now compels reconsideration. International law recognises that treaties may be suspended or terminated in exceptional circumstances, particularly in cases of material breach or fundamental change of circumstances. India's actions must remain principled, carefully articulated, and consistent with its image as a responsible international actor.
To the east, tensions with China, whether over border claims or infrastructure on shared rivers, highlight the need for India to reinforce its diplomatic stance with a sound legal position. While military and diplomatic measures are necessary, India should also frame its positions through legal arguments grounded in sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the law of international watercourses and environmental protection.
A global legal order in flux
These regional pressures are compounded by a broader shift in global legal leadership. The United States, once a central architect of the post-war legal order, has in recent years stepped back from multilateral commitments, exited key treaties, and expressed skepticism toward international institutions. This retreat has created a vacuum in global norm-setting, one that countries like India must step forward to fill.
Rather than lament this retreat, India should see it as an opportunity. By taking principled positions on counter-terrorism, climate justice, and inclusive development, India can help shape a more equitable global legal order that reflects our values and priorities.
Building legal capacity for Indian diplomacy
International law is not self-executing; it requires sustained investment and engagement. Yet India's institutional capacity in public international law remains underdeveloped. Unlike some other countries that systematically train diplomats, fund legal research, and embed legal advisers in missions abroad, India has not yet built a strong foundation in this space.
That must change. We need: Core legal training for diplomats; placement of legal advisers in key embassies and international postings; investment in think tanks and academic centres focused on international legal strategy; proactive participation in treaty negotiations and international adjudication; and stronger alliances with like-minded states to uphold and reinforce global legal standards.
A legal strategy for a global India
India's ambition to be a leading global power must be backed by legal strategy and capability. The world is no longer shaped solely by military might or economic clout. Increasingly, the terrain of influence is legal, fought in courtrooms, arbitral proceedings, treaty negotiations, and multilateral platforms. As some states undermine legal norms or withdraw from them, India must stand firm in their defence.
The example of China in the South China Sea offers both a caution and a model. Despite the 2016 arbitral ruling rejecting its maritime claims under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China has consistently used legal rhetoric, diplomatic notes, and international submissions to support its narratives, and consolidate its position. This shows that international law can be used not only in litigation but also as a tool of geopolitical messaging and strategic entrenchment. India must similarly integrate international law into its broader statecraft. This includes publicly asserting legal positions, filing formal protests or memoranda, and using legal frameworks to contest violations, whether in the Himalayas or the Indian Ocean.
This is not merely about prestige. It is about advancing our national interests, protecting our territorial integrity, ensuring accountability for cross-border threats, and amplifying India's voice on the world stage. In a contested and fast-evolving world, international law remains one of our most potent tools. We must begin to wield it not just defensively, but decisively.
The writer is a lawyer who practices and teaches in the field of international law
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
10 minutes ago
- Hans India
Terrorists, their hosts will be treated alike
New Delhi: In a clear and stern warning to Pakistan from the ramparts of Red Fort, Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Friday said terrorists and those providing them safe haven will be treated alike and that Indian armed forces will deliver a "crushing" response to the enemy in case of any future misadventure. Delivering his address on the country's 79th Independence Day, Modi, referring to Operation Sindoor, said the Indian military punished the enemies beyond their imagination and that India will no longer tolerate Islamabad's "nuclear blackmail" and will respond appropriately. The remarks came days after Pakistan Army Chief Field Marshal Asim Munir's threat of using nuclear weapons. The prime minister also justified New Delhi's decision to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) following the Pahalgam terror attack as he described the over six-decade-old pact as "unjust and one-sided", asserting that "blood and water" will not flow together. Explaining the impact of Operation Sindoor, Modi said Pakistan is still "sleepless" and that the devastation in that country has been so huge that every day brings new revelations and fresh information. India responded to the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22 with several punitive diplomatic and economic measures, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty. On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor to target terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan, triggering four days of hostilities that ended with an understanding between the two sides on May 10. "Our nation has endured terrorism for many decades. The heart of the country has been pierced time and again. Now, we have established a new normal: those who nurture and harbour terrorism, and those who empower terrorists, will no longer be seen as separate," he said during his 103-minute address. "They are all equal enemies of humanity, with no distinction between them." Highlighting India's "new normal" in dealing with cross-border terrorism, Modi said the armed forces accomplished something that had not happened in decades as they reduced terrorist headquarters to dust and turned terror infrastructure into ruins in response to the Pahalgam attack. "I feel great pride that today I have the opportunity to salute the brave warriors of Operation Sindoor from the ramparts of the Red Fort. Our courageous soldiers punished the enemies beyond anything they could have imagined." "On April 22, terrorists crossed the border and committed a massacre in Pahalgam, killing people after asking their religion, shooting husbands in front of their wives, and executing fathers in front of their children. The entire nation was filled with outrage, and the whole world was shocked by such a massacre." Twenty-six people, mostly tourists, were killed in the attack. Modi said Operation Sindoor was the expression of that outrage, adding the government gave the military complete freedom to decide on the strategy, targets, and timing of India's response to the Pahalgam attack. "And our military accomplished something that had not happened in decades. Penetrating hundreds of kilometres into enemy territory, they reduced terrorist headquarters to dust and turned terrorist headquarters into ruins." The prime minister said India has now decided that it will no longer tolerate nuclear threats. "The nuclear blackmail that has gone on for so long will no longer be endured. If our enemies continue this attempt in the future, our army will decide on its own terms, at the time of its choosing, in the manner it deems fit, and target the objectives it selects and we will act accordingly.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Indus Waters Treaty unjust, blood & water can't flow together: Modi
PM Modi NEW DELHI: PM Modi rejected Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) with Pakistan as 'unjust and one-sided', reiterating India's position that "blood and water cannot flow together" and asserting that India will "no longer tolerate nuclear blackmail". In his I-Day speech Friday, the PM lauded Operation Sindoor and the role played by armed forces, while outlining India's "new normal" that, he said, will "not differentiate between terrorism and those who nurture terrorism". Modi declared from Red Fort that IWT is not acceptable to India as the country's farmers suffered unimaginable losses because of the treaty, backed by World Bank. "The waters that belong to India will be used by India, for our farmers alone. We would no longer tolerate an arrangement that deprived its farmers. India has endured this for decades. We will not endure it any further. In the interest of our farmers and the nation, this agreement is unacceptable to us," PM said. He said Operation Sindoor, which saw India bombing terrorist headquarters in Pakistan and POK, reflected the anger and frustration that people felt after Pahalgam terror attack. "Terror headquarters hundreds of kilometres inside enemy territory were destroyed. Terrorist infrastructure was turned to rubble. Pakistan is still having sleepless nights. There was so much destruction there that even now there are new revelations coming out,'' said Modi, alluding to the disclosure by IAF last week that six Pakistani aircraft were brought down in the military conflict in May. "For a long time, nuclear blackmail had been going on but this will not be tolerated anymore,'' the PM said. Modi stressed that India will continue to give a befitting reply to enemies of the nation. PM said the country saw the wonders of 'Made in India' in Op Sindoor. "The enemy was shocked at the kind of ammunition that was destroying them within seconds." "In past 10 years, we set our target to become self-reliant in defence sector, and today we are seeing the results," Modi said.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Pakistan's Ayub Khan sought US help to annexe Kashmir after Indus Treaty in 1960
A new book reveals Ayub Khan's attempt to gain US support for capturing Kashmir after the Indus Waters Treaty. Khan linked water rights to territorial claims. He warned that US aid to India would be wasted without resolving the Kashmir issue. Kennedy offered a compromise, but Khan insisted on securing water resources. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Following the signing of the Indus Waters Treaty in 1960, the then Pakistani President Ayub Khan sought US President John F Kennedy 's support to capture Kashmir from India, a new book on the treaty has 'Trial by Water: Indus Basin and India-Pakistan Relations ', author Uttam Sinha, an expert on international water issues and IDSA senior fellow, recounts how, in July 1961-months after signing the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT)-Khan arrived in Washington, already bristling over America's generous aid to a reception in his honour at Mount Vernon, tastefully arranged by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, Ayub's displeasure was clear. In protest, he had suspended CIA's covert flights from airbases in East Pakistan, which supported Tibetan rebels, as well as U-2 flights over China from West Pakistan.A private garden walk with Kennedy thawed the frost. Ayub agreed to reopen the airbases; Kennedy, in turn, promised that the US will not supply any military equipment to India, according to the later in the Oval Office, Ayub, like a campaign general, spread out maps to press Pakistan's security concerns. The first showed Indian troop deployment-of the 1.5 million soldiers, only 15% faced China, while 85% were positioned against Pakistan. The second detailed 80,000-90,000 Afghan troops on the western border, armed with Soviet-supplied equipment. The third mapped Pakistan's thin defences against both neighbours. Throughout, Ayub insisted that without Kashmir, "Pakistan would be up the gum tree" if attacked from India or Afghanistan, Sinha pointed out in his and his advisers doubted the alarmism but recognised Kashmir as the litmus test of Indo-Pak peace. Kennedy proposed a compromise that the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might accept. Ayub's answer was calculated. India could keep Jammu, but Pakistan needed "some miles" across the Chenab to secure water resources . His logic was simple-if the Indus Treaty gave Pakistan rights to the western rivers, and those rivers flowed from Kashmir, adjoining territories should belong to suggested Nehru, politically spent and out of touch with Kashmiris, was now ready for settlement. Without resolving Kashmir, he warned, US aid to India was wasted. Kennedy countered that US assistance was aimed at keeping India free from communist influence, not to buy loyalty, Sinha pointed out in his the meeting closed, Ayub made one final ask-if Kennedy's effort to sway Nehru during the latter's planned November 1961 Washington visit failed, and Pakistan returned to the UN over Kashmir, would the US back it?"Yes," Kennedy replied - an episode that, as the book makes clear, showed how deeply water and territory were entwined during the Cold War era's South Asian book also recalls how Nehru faced internal criticism over the IWT. He was described as an umpire in a cricket match-was how one MP described the PM during a fiery Lok Sabha debate on the treaty in November and December 1960. The charge, recorded in the book, captured the frustration of parliamentarians who believed India was giving away too much, too the treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, and debated in the House on November 30, the mood was anything but celebratory. Criticism came from across the political spectrum, including even the Congress benches. Ashok Mehta of the Praja Socialist Party famously called it a "second partition."
