13-05-2025
Did India breach international law during Operation Sindoor? Here's what the UN Charter says
Written by N Manoharan and Anusha G Rao
In a press statement, Pakistan accused India's retaliatory actions of being 'a flagrant violation of the UN Charter, international law, and established norms governing interstate relations.' But did India, in fact, violate any of these?
According to Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations: '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.'
Despite being a UN member, Pakistan has consistently violated this very principle. From time to time, it has issued threats and gone on to use force 'against the territorial integrity or political independence' of India, a founding member of the United Nations. The infamous adage, 'We will wage a war for a thousand years,' attributed to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and the phrase 'Bleed India by a thousand cuts,' popularised by Zia ul-Haq, are well known. Since Independence, India has faced both conventional and sub-conventional use of force by Pakistan.
The UN Charter permits a response in self-defence under Article 51: '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.'
This provision, though not present in the initial draft of the Charter, was included in the final version in response to legitimate concerns raised by smaller states.
The right to self-defence — whether individual or collective — is recognised as an inherent right. Importantly, it predates the existence of the United Nations and is rooted in customary international law. It draws on the Caroline incident of 1837, a dispute between the United States and the British Government regarding US support to Canadian rebels. The right to self-defence has since been interpreted to include anticipatory self-defence or pre-emption, which requires that the threat be 'instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation' — a standard known in international law as the Caroline test. India has consistently observed this principle, ensuring its actions in self-defence are limited strictly by necessity.
All collective security arrangements — NATO, for instance — are based on the principle of collective self-defence as outlined in Article 51. However, in the present context, India has exercised its inherent right to individual self-defence. In 1971, New Delhi signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation with the then-Soviet Union to secure a collective self-defence mechanism in anticipation of possible great-power involvement in the impending war with Pakistan. This mechanism proved effective in deterring the United States from intervening.
Since the UN Charter refers primarily to state actors, a critical question arises: What if non-state actors are involved in the 'armed attack'? In the Nicaragua case (1986), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that: 'The support given by the United States to the military and paramilitary activities of the Contras in Nicaragua — by financial support, training, supply of weapons, intelligence and logistical support — constituted a clear breach of the principle of non-intervention.'
This judgment reiterated the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States (1970), which stated: 'No State shall organise, assist, foment, finance, incite or tolerate subversive, terrorist or armed activities directed towards the violent overthrow of the regime of another State, or interfere in civil strife in another State.'
This principle was further strengthened by UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX), which defines aggression to include: 'Sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to acts of aggression.'
The link between state and non-state actors is therefore well established in international law.
Specifically in the context of Pakistan, one senior Pakistan army officer once remarked during the Khalistan movement in the 1980s that keeping India's Punjab 'destabilised was equivalent to the Pakistan army having an extra division at no cost'. This rationale applies more broadly to the destabilisation of India in general, and Jammu and Kashmir in particular.
What, then, about compensation for the damage caused by armed attacks? Interestingly, in the Nicaragua case, the ICJ did order reparations, ruling: 'The United States has an obligation to pay Nicaragua, in its own right and as parens patriae for the citizens of Nicaragua, reparations for damages to persons, property and the Nicaraguan economy caused by the foregoing violations of international law, in a sum to be determined by the Court. Nicaragua reserves the right to introduce to the Court a precise evaluation of the damages caused by the United States.'
India not only adhered diligently to international law in the present standoff, but also refrained from pressing for reparations for the immense damage to life and property caused by Pakistan's actions over the years. It is perhaps time India considers approaching the ICJ for reparations.
Manoharan is professor and director, Centre for East Asian Studies, Christ University, Bengaluru. Rao is an advocate based in Bengaluru
