Latest news with #ComprehensiveConventiononInternationalTerrorism
Hindustan Times
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Pak-based groups linked to terror attacks: India at UN meeting
India raised the links of proscribed Pakistan-based terror groups Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) and their proxies to terror attacks ranging from the 2008 Mumbai attacks to the Pahalgam massacre at a United Nations meeting in Vienna and called for the early adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. While delivering India's statement at the session of the UN Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ), Niraj Kumar Bansod, a joint secretary of the Union home ministry, emphasised that terrorism is an existential danger to global peace and security. Raising the role of Pakistan-based terror groups, he said: 'UN-proscribed terrorist groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and their proxies have orchestrated attacks on Indian soil, leading to tragic loss of innocent lives.' 'Incidents such as the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the attacks in Uri and Pathankot in 2016, the 2019 Pulwama suicide bombing, and most recently, the heinous terror attack in Pahalgam where 26 tourists were shot dead, remain deeply etched in our national consciousness,' he said. India reiterated its resolve to eliminate all forms of terrorism and said it has been at the forefront of global efforts to combat the menace. 'We are signatory to 13 sectoral conventions on terrorism adopted by the United Nations, and we strongly advocate for the early adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism,' Bansod said. New Delhi first proposed the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism at the UN General Assembly in 1996, when it was dealing with Pakistan-backed terror in Jammu and Kashmir, and negotiations on the proposed treaty have been held up primarily because UN member states have not been able to agree on the definition of terrorism. The four-day meeting of the CCPCJ from May 19 was attended by more than 1,300 participants representing 134 member states, 64 non-governmental organisations, 15 intergovernmental organisations and 15 UN entities such as Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and Interpol. The Indian side has stepped up efforts to expose Pakistan's continuing support for terrorism targeting India at such global meetings and mechanisms in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terrorist attack of April 22. India's statement at the CCPCJ meeting said all forms of terrorism, 'irrespective of the motives behind terrorist act, can never be justified, and the perpetrators and supporters of such acts should be brought to justice'. This was in line with a statement issued by the UN Security Council calling for the perpetrators of the Pahalgam attack to be held accountable. Bansod also said that India has been an 'active participant in the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and other international platforms dedicated to countering the financing of terrorism'. The statement further highlighted that India has continuously strengthened its legal and enforcement mechanisms to counter the challenges posed by terrorism, illicit drug trafficking, cybercrime, corruption, and other transnational criminal activities. 'These issues are no longer confined by borders; they demand unified and decisive international cooperation,' Bansod said. Currently, seven teams of political leaders, parliamentarians and former diplomats are travelling across the world to inform key interlocutors of India's new approach to combating cross-border terrorism following the Pahalgam terror attack. India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting terrorist infrastructure on Pakistani soil. This triggered four days of intense clashes that ended when India and Pakistan reached an understanding on stopping military actions on May 10. Indian officials have also hinted that New Delhi will push for placing Pakistan in the 'grey list' of the FATF at the financial watchdog's plenary meet in June by furnishing evidence that Islamabad failed to enforce anti-money laundering and counter-terror reforms and made no headway in prosecuting UN-designated terrorists. At the meeting in Vienna, India also pointed to the growing threat posed by cybercrime and said the government has adopted an integrated approach to this evolving challenge. 'We have established a robust legal and institutional framework to prosecute cyber offences effectively. The creation of the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (I4C) has enabled seamless information sharing among law enforcement agencies and relevant stakeholders,' Bansod said.
The Hindu
22-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Use international law to take on Pakistan-backed terror
Operation Sindoor has powerfully demonstrated India's intent to use kinetic measures to tackle terrorism emanating from Pakistan. In addition to executing 'hot pursuits', India possesses other potent non-kinetic strategies, going beyond regular diplomacy, to ensure that Pakistan is held accountable for its continued support of terrorism directed against India. An impactful approach that India has not effectively employed so far is the strategy of 'lawfare', or leveraging international law to confront adversaries to accomplish strategic and diplomatic objectives. Leverage terrorism conventions A key element of a lawfare strategy against Pakistan should be to deploy international law to highlight Pakistan's sponsorship of cross-border terrorism. This is especially important as India has led the process of adopting a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at the global level. India and Pakistan are parties to numerous terrorism conventions at the regional and international levels. The primary regional treaty is the SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism, while key international treaties include the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (Terrorist Bombing Convention). These conventions obligate that states not only criminalise acts of terrorism under their domestic laws and prosecute the perpetrators but also refrain from financing such activities. For instance, Article 2(1) of the ICSFT explicitly classifies terror financing as a crime. Similarly, Article 6 of the Additional Protocol to the SAARC terrorism convention requires states to take measures to prevent, suppress, and eradicate the financing of terrorism. Pakistan has a long history of sponsoring, abetting, and funding terrorism against India. Following the terror attacks in Mumbai in 2008, India meticulously gathered evidence to demonstrate Pakistan's active involvement in those attacks, which Islamabad later acknowledged, albeit reluctantly. India needs to consistently publicise proof of Pakistan's role, which includes the Pahalgam terror attack on April 22. Further, India should utilise all international forums to build a solid legal case against Pakistan for its violations of international law regarding terrorism suppression. India's move to have all-party parliamentary delegations travelling abroad to present India's case on Operation Sindoor is an ideal opportunity to do this. India should identify specific provisions in terrorism conventions, along with various United Nations Security Council Resolutions that sanction terrorism, and customary international law that Pakistan is violating, and highlight these publicly. Rather than mere diplomatic hyperbole, a clear and compelling narrative entrenched in international law, grounded in indisputable facts and supported by irrefutable evidence will significantly benefit New Delhi's fight against cross-border terrorism. Use the ICJ A critical aspect of many terrorism conventions is that they grant jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to enforce the treaties. For example, Articles 20(1) and 24(1) of the Terrorist Bombing Convention and the ICSFT, respectively, empower a country to refer disputes to the ICJ. These provisions, known as compromissory clauses, help circumvent jurisdictional obstacles in international law, which is based on consent. Thus, countries that are signatories to these treaties are bound by ICJ jurisdiction unless they make specific reservations. Ukraine, for instance, invoked such a clause when it sued Russia before the ICJ for violating the ICSFT. Given that Pakistan has been sponsoring and abetting terrorism against India and has not taken any action against terror groups operating from its territory, New Delhi has a compelling case against Islamabad under these terrorism conventions, which it can present to the ICJ — just as it did in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case. Hurdles to overcome However, there are two significant hurdles. First, Pakistan has not accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction under the ICSFT due to a reservation, which could hinder efforts to hold Pakistan accountable. Nevertheless, India can still file a case with the ICJ to draw global attention to the issue. India should put the ball in the ICJ's court to address Pakistan's jurisdictional argument. Second, and perplexingly, India has adopted a reservation about the ICJ's jurisdiction under the Terrorist Bombing Convention, while Pakistan has accepted the ICJ's jurisdiction for this convention. This obstacle can be overcome if India withdraws its reservation, allowing it to initiate proceedings against Pakistan at the ICJ for terrorism. The ICJ may likely interpret the provisions of the ICSFT and the Terrorist Bombing Convention narrowly, similar to its approach in the Ukraine vs Russia case decided last year. Therefore, India should have fool-proof evidence and devise its legal strategy accordingly. The dissenting opinion of judges such as Hilary Charlesworth in Ukraine vs Russia can come in handy for India. In any case, India should not be overly concerned about the outcome of the legal dispute. Instead, it should utilise the legal proceedings to assiduously promote a global narrative against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, aligning it with its national objectives. In sum, international law and courtrooms can also be used to combat terrorism. To accomplish this, India must build state capacity and mainstream international law in statecraft. Prabhash Ranjan is Professor and Vice Dean (Research), Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University. The views expressed are personal
The Hindu
28-04-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Not strong enough: on Pahalgam and UNSC statement
The UN Security Council's statement on Friday, condemning 'in the strongest terms' the terrorist attack in Pahalgam, was necessary, but inadequate. According to the statement, which expressed condolences to India, and to Nepal which lost one citizen, the members of the Security Council, that include Pakistan as an elected, non-permanent member this year, 'reaffirmed that terrorism in all its forms and manifestations constitutes one of the most serious threats to international peace and security'. The statement also spoke of the need to bring the perpetrators and their sponsors to justice. However, the UNSC did not name The Resistance Front (TRF) that initially claimed responsibility for the attack, and did not refer to the group's linkages to a UNSC-designated terror outfit, the LeT. Nor did it expressly speak of cooperation with the Government of India, as it had in the past. Finally, the statement made no mention of the terrorists' intent to target non-Muslims — an abhorrent act aimed at instigating communal tensions. A comparison with previous such statements would make it clear that the language was 'watered down' given that Pakistan is a member of the Council (2025-26), and had China's support. China has in the past sought to veto statements critical of Pakistan. It is also disappointing that the statement, which was negotiated by France's envoy, the current UNSC President, did not bring stronger inputs from others on the Council including the U.S., Russia and the U.K. As the government and security forces discuss counter-terror operations within Jammu and Kashmir to apprehend the terrorists and possible military options across the border, India's next option may be to bring a more strongly worded statement to the UN General Assembly, as various countries have done in the Ukraine and Gaza conflicts. The government would no doubt be preparing to have those terrorists it has identified from the attack and the TRF itself, designated by the UNSC, much the same way as it was able to bring the designation of Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar as a terrorist after the Pulwama attack. In addition, India could build its case at the Financial Action Task Force, which put Pakistan on a 'greylist' from 2012-15 and 2018-22, and revive its plans to pass a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism at the United Nations. On the bilateral front, expecting assistance from Pakistan has been a dead-end in the past, despite its promises after Mumbai (2008), Pathankot (2016), and Pulwama(2019). Given the state of bilateral relations and the lack of diplomatic engagement, this is even less likely. Only a multi-pronged effort on the global stage, and the patience it showed with the extradition of Tahawwur Rana from the U.S., will ensure that India is able to follow all the threads in bringing those responsible for this brutal attack to justice and establish a durable peace.
