Author : Naina Kanwar Shekhawat, Army Law College
Tensions between India and Pakistan :
India and Pakistan, ever since gaining independence in 1947, have witnessed tense relations, with the Kashmir conflict being their major point of contention. Several armed battles and ongoing border clashes—particularly along the Line of Control (LoC)—have rendered ceasefire accords an indispensable element of their bilateral relations. Their implications are also to be found in international law, especially on the resolution of armed conflicts, sovereignty, and treaty commitment.
To The Point
India–Pakistan ceasefire arrangements have progressed from UN-brokered arrangements to bilateral political understandings over time. Even though such arrangements are not always conventional treaties, they are imbued with legal and political authority under the principles of international law, particularly the principles of sovereign consent, peaceful settlement of disputes, and non-use of force. The collapse of the 2025 ceasefire emphasizes the need to codify ad hoc security understandings into binding documents and reiterates the legal mandate of peaceful settlement of disputes as embedded in Article 2(3) of the UN Charter.
Abstract
The collapse of the 2025 ceasefire agreement between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a turning point in South Asian security law. legal consequences of the ceasefire breach in terms of bilateral understandings—the Simla Agreement (1972) and the 2003 LoC Ceasefire Understanding—and customary and treaty law principles of public international law, including the United Nations Charter and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). The breakdown of the 2025 ceasefire reiterates the need to formalize informal security commitments into binding agreements and reiterates the legal obligation for peaceful conflict resolution as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the UN Charter. The breakdown of the 2025 ceasefire reiterates the need to formalize informal security commitments into binding agreements and reiterates the legal obligation for peaceful conflict resolution as enshrined in Article 2(3) of the UN Charter.
Use Of Legal Jargon
In jus ad bellum, both India and Pakistan continue to be bound by Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which forbids the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Frequent ceasefire violations (CFVs) on the LoC raise complicated issues of state responsibility, proportionality, and necessity, especially where such actions could be considered as retorsion or reprisals contrary to the principle of non-aggression.
In addition, from an international humanitarian law (IHL) point of view, any resort to force in disputed border areas implicates the Geneva Conventions (1949), in particular, the protection of civilians, distinction principle, and ban against indiscriminate attacks. While the LoC is not an internationally agreed boundary, its de facto status as a militarized dividing line subjects both parties to certain customary IHL obligations.
The Proof
The ceasefire agreements between the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, and more so the 2003 Line of Control (LoC) ceasefire understanding, are a type of executive-level politico-military agreement without the formal trappings of a treaty under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. Although non-ratified instruments in themselves, such agreements can still be characterized as politically binding agreements subject to rules of good faith (pacta sunt servanda) in customary international law. Further, both States are subject to the Simla Agreement of 1972, which is a bilateral treaty under which the parties are obliged to settle disputes by peaceful means and adhere to the sanctity of the Line of Control. The ceasefire also commits obligations under Article 2(4) and Article 33(1) of the United Nations Charter, which forbid the threat or use of force and peaceful settlement of disputes, respectively. Even though the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) was initially mandated to observe ceasefire violations after 1949, its mandate is still disputed after Simla. However, continued reaffirmations of the ceasefire—a case in point being the February 2021 joint statement—signal state practice and opinio juris that strengthen its normative significance in international law. Violations of ceasefire, particularly the targeting of civilian populations, could engage further provisions of international humanitarian law, specifically Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions on non-international armed conflict and the protection of civilians.
Case Laws
1. Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ, 1986)
Full name: Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)
Court: International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Key Legal Points:
The ICJ ruled that the U.S. had breached international customary law in its support of Contra rebels and mining Nicaraguan ports.
The case set that unauthorised use of force, even through proxies, contravenes Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
The ruling reaffirmed that ceasefire breaches by indirect means (e.g., financing armed groups) are still breaches of sovereign rights and norms of non-intervention.
2. Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (ICJ, 2005)
Full case name: Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda)
Court: International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Legal Points of Importance:
Uganda was found to have violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC through military intervention without consent.Ceasefire obligations under the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement (1999) were central to the court’s examination.The ICJ reaffirmed that violations of ceasefire agreements and failure to withdraw troops constituted acts of aggression and unlawful use of law.
3. Georgia v. Russia (ECHR, 2021)
Full name: Georgia v. Russia (II)
Court: European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Key Legal Points
In connection to the 2008 Russo-Georgian War. Russia was held to account for the human rights abuses committed during the post-ceasefire occupation of Georgian land. Although the ECHR emphasizes human rights, the case implicitly endorsed the rule that breaches of agreed ceasefires, particularly where civilians are injured, can give rise to international legal responsibility.
Conclusion
India–Pakistan ceasefire agreements have become progressively more developed over time from UN-brokered settlements to bilateral political arrangements. Even though they are not necessarily formal treaties, they have legal and political implications under international law principles of sovereign consent, pacific settlement of disputes, and non-aggression. Though not treaty status, these ceasefire agreements are read to create legitimate expectations under the law of estoppel and state practice, which finds expression in the creation of customary international law where consistently practiced. Violation of such arrangements, lack of acceptance, or non-compliance with such agreements, especially when leading to cross-border kinetic action, could raise likely breaches of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting the application of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state. Despite the fact that there is no compulsory jurisdiction regime between India and Pakistan under the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the two states are not parties to binding arbitration of these disputes, international bodies such as the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) are residual monitoring organizations with restricted but symbolic mandate.
The ceasefire regime, thus, finds itself under a hybrid legal order fusing political pledges, customary norms, and humanitarian norms, enforceability being dependent on bilateral state cooperation, diplomatic efforts, and geopolitical realities.
FAQS
1.What is the legal status of the India–Pakistan ceasefire agreement?
Answer: The ceasefire arrangements (e.g., 2003 understanding, reaffirmed in 2021) are political understandings, not binding treaties. They are not deposited with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), but they have moral and diplomatic significance, and their regular practice may be part of customary international law.
2.Can a ceasefire violation constitute an act of aggression under international law?
Answer: Yes, if the breach is by the use of force in contravention of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, it could be an act of aggression. But context, intensity, and intent are important factors to be considered in determining if the action constitutes such an act.
3.Can either India or Pakistan be held legally liable in an international tribunal for ceasefire breaches?
Answer: Not readily. Neither nation subjects itself to the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction regarding such disputes, and no binding third-party arbitration is possible unless both agree. Legal accountability normally depends on diplomatic pressure or UN Security Council action.
4.Is the Simla Agreement legally more important than UN resolutions?
Answer: India argues the Simla Agreement (1972), a bilateral agreement, prevails over previous UN Security Council resolutions by requiring bilateral settlement of disputes. Pakistan acknowledges both the Simla Agreement and UN-provided mediation mechanisms, resulting in legal and diplomatic divergence.
5.What legal remedies exist for victims of ceasefire violations?
Answer: In reality, remedies are limited. Civilians affected by such acts may get compensation at home, but there is no international legal forum for redress unless such human rights violations can be established before international tribunals, something that happens infrequently in such situations.
6. Can violations of ceasefires be referred to the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
Answer: In theory, yes—if war crimes or crimes against humanity have been committed. But India and Pakistan are not signatories to the Rome Statute (the ICC’s founding treaty), so the court has no jurisdiction other than when referred by the UN Security Council.
