Author: Krishika Yadav , Avantika University Ujjain (M.P)
To the Point
India’s foreign policy under Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third term reflects a strategic blend of continuity in doctrine and calibrated shifts in execution. While the foundational principles of strategic autonomy and regional primacy remain intact, the government is adapting to new geopolitical realities through legal instruments, multilateral engagements, and assertive diplomacy.
ABSTRACT
Modi 3.0’s foreign policy is an evolutionary continuation of India’s strategic doctrine, marked by legal sophistication and geopolitical pragmatism. The government’s approach is rooted in international law, bilateral treaties, and multilateral diplomacy. While the rhetoric of muscular nationalism persists, the operational strategy reflects a nuanced understanding of sovereignty, treaty obligations, and global power shifts.
Use of Legal Jargon
- Strategic Autonomy: India’s consistent refusal to enter binding military alliances, preserving sovereign discretion in foreign engagements.
- Pacta Sunt Servanda: The principle that treaties must be honored in good faith, guiding India’s adherence to international agreements.
- Non-Refoulement: Though not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, India cautiously applies this principle in handling refugee inflows from Myanmar and Afghanistan.
- Customary International Law: India’s maritime conduct in the Indo-Pacific aligns with global norms under UNCLOS, reinforcing freedom of navigation and exclusive economic zone (EEZ) rights.
The Proof
- Neighborhood First: India’s diplomatic outreach to BIMSTEC nations during the swearing-in ceremony reaffirms regional prioritization. The Maldives episode, where military personnel were replaced with technical staff, reflects a flexible yet firm approach.
- Act East & Indo-Pacific: Enhanced naval cooperation with ASEAN and QUAD nations, including joint exercises like Malabar, signals a deepening maritime strategy.
- Global South Advocacy: India’s G20 presidency and push for African Union inclusion underscore its ambition to lead plurilateral coalitions.
- West Asia Engagement: Legal frameworks such as the Chabahar Port Agreement and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) bolster India’s economic diplomacy.
Case laws
1. Enrica Lexie Case (Italy v. India, PCA 2020)
Summary:
The Enrica Lexie case arose from a 2012 incident in which two Italian marines aboard the Italian oil tanker Enrica Lexie shot and killed two Indian fishermen off the coast of Kerala, mistaking them for pirates. The vessel was operating within India’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), about 20.5 nautical miles from the coast.
Italy claimed exclusive jurisdiction over the marines, citing sovereign immunity and freedom of navigation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). India, on the other hand, asserted criminal jurisdiction based on the location of the incident and the nationality of the victims.
Award by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA):
- The PCA ruled in 2020 that India had jurisdiction to seek compensation but Italy had jurisdiction to try the marines, recognizing their functional immunity as state officials.
- The tribunal held that India violated Italy’s rights under UNCLOS by detaining the marines and the vessel, but also acknowledged that Italy
breached India’s rights by using disproportionate force in Indian waters.
Legal Significance:
- This case clarified the application of sovereign immunity, functional immunity, and jurisdictional limits under UNCLOS, reinforcing the role of international arbitration in maritime disputes.
2. Kulbhushan Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan, ICJ 2019)
📝 Summary:
Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national and former naval officer, was arrested by Pakistan in 2016 and accused of espionage and terrorism. He was sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court. India approached the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), particularly Article 36.
India argued that Pakistan failed to:
- Inform Jadhav of his consular rights.
- Notify India of his arrest without delay.
- Grant consular access despite repeated requests.
Judgment by the ICJ:
- The ICJ ruled that Pakistan violated Article 36 of the VCCR by denying consular access and failing to inform India promptly.
- The Court ordered Pakistan to review and reconsider Jadhav’s conviction and sentence through a process that ensured effective legal representation and due process.
Legal Significance:
- This case reaffirmed the binding nature of consular rights under international law, even in cases involving allegations of espionage. It also emphasized that bilateral agreements cannot override fundamental treaty obligations under the VCCR.
Conclusion
India’s foreign policy under Modi 3.0 is not a departure from the past but a legally informed recalibration. The core principles—strategic autonomy, regional leadership, and multilateral engagement—remain central. However, the government’s increasing reliance on international law, treaty frameworks, and institutional diplomacy marks a shift toward a more structured and assertive global posture.
FAQS
Q1: Has India abandoned non-alignment under Modi 3.0?
No. India has evolved from non-alignment to multi-alignment, engaging with diverse power blocs while preserving sovereign discretion.
Q2: How does India’s foreign policy reflect international law?
India adheres to customary international law, respects treaty obligations, and actively participates in international legal forums like the ICJ and PCA.
Q3: What legal tools does India use in foreign policy?
India employs bilateral treaties, multilateral agreements, and international dispute resolution mechanisms to advance its interests.
Q4: Is there a legal shift in India’s China or Pakistan policy?
India maintains a security-first doctrine with Pakistan and a legally grounded maritime strategy in response to China’s assertiveness.
