Author: Payoshni Patil, Vasantrao Pawar Law College, Baramati, Pune
Linkedin Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/payoshni-patil-29b9572b8?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app
To the Point
The May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan began after a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, killed 26 civilians. India responded by initiating Operation Sindhoor, aimed at dismantling terrorist camps located in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Citing Article 51 of the UN Charter, India justified the operation as a rightful act of self-defence in reaction to cross-border terrorism. The strikes were designed to avoid civilian and military infrastructure, signalling a limited but firm response. This event raised critical issues under international law, including state sovereignty, responsibility for non-state actors, and the legal boundaries of military retaliation. This development reflected a recalibration of India’s strategic posture, influencing the broader regional security architecture.
Abstract
The May 2025 confrontation between India and Pakistan, triggered by a fatal terrorist incident in Pahalgam, marks a pivotal point in the geopolitical landscape of South Asia. India’s military response—Operation Sindhoor—targeted terror infrastructure across the Line of Control and was presented as an act of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This operation, while limited in scope, raised significant legal questions concerning sovereignty, state accountability, and the lawful use of force. The conflict also marked a strategic shift in India’s counterterrorism policy, emphasizing precision and restraint. This article explores the legal justification for India’s actions, examines the conflict through the lens of international law and humanitarian norms, and assesses the broader regional implications. By referencing credible reports and legal frameworks, it aims to provide a clear analysis of how this conflict redefined military engagement protocols and international legal interpretations in a volatile nuclear-armed region.
Use of Legal Jargon
The May 2025 conflict between India and Pakistan invoked several foundational principles of international law. India justified its military response under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits a state to act in self-defence if subjected to an armed attack. This justification relied on the assertion that non-state actors involved in the Pahalgam terror attack operated from foreign territory with tacit support. The concept of state responsibility was critical in attributing accountability, as India argued that Pakistan had failed to prevent cross-border terrorism originating from its soil. The legality of the strike was also concerned with the principles of jus ad bellum, which govern the conditions under which states are allowed to employ force. Moreover, India emphasized adherence to international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the principles of distinction—targeting only combatants—and proportionality, ensuring minimal civilian harm. Pakistan, in contrast, raised objections grounded in sovereignty, arguing that its territorial integrity had been breached. These legal jargons frame the conflict as a case study in the evolving application of international law to counterterrorism operations.
The Proof
The factual basis of India’s response in May 2025 rests on a sequence of events that established both motive and legal ground. The initial trigger was the terror attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, where 26 civilians, including tourists, were killed in a targeted explosion. Intelligence agencies traced the origin of the attack to militant groups operating from across the border, allegedly supported or tolerated by Pakistan. In the days following the incident, India’s armed forces gathered actionable intelligence on the training camps and launch pads used by these groups.
On May 7, India executed Operation Sindhoor, a series of coordinated air and drone strikes that reportedly neutralized multiple terror bases in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The Indian government clarified that the operation was limited to non-state targets and deliberately avoided Pakistani civilian and military installations, reinforcing its claim of proportionality and restraint. Satellite imagery and post-strike surveillance confirmed the targeted nature of the strikes.
Pakistan retaliated with artillery fire and drone operations across the border areas, focusing especially on Jammu, Punjab, and Rajasthan. While the Pakistani government denied Pakistan responded with artillery shelling and drone activity along the border regions, particularly in Jammu, Punjab, and Rajasthan. While the Pakistani government denied involvement in the Pahalgam attack, its military response to India’s operation was interpreted as a defence of sovereign airspace rather than a direct retaliation on behalf of the non-state actors.
Diplomatic communications from India emphasized that the strike was not an act of aggression, but a necessary and proportionate measure consistent with international law. The swift conclusion of hostilities within a few days, followed by a bilateral ceasefire agreement, indicated that both nations sought to limit escalation. These facts collectively support the legal and strategic rationale behind India’s actions and showcase a new standard in calibrated cross-border counterterrorism.
Case Law Analysis
1. Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ, 1986): This case established that a state can be held responsible if it supports or controls non-state actors conducting armed attacks. The ruling introduced the “effective control” standard for attribution. In the context of May 2025, India could argue that Pakistan’s failure to prevent or suppress terror groups operating from its territory constitutes indirect aggression, thus justifying India’s self-defence.
2. Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall (ICJ, 2004): Though focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this opinion clarified that the right to self-defence under Article 51 is available in response to attacks by non-state actors, provided the host state is unwilling or unable to prevent them. This supports India’s position that its action was lawful due to Pakistan’s inaction.
3. Military Operations in the Region of the Congo (DRC v. Uganda, ICJ, 2005): This judgment ruled that Uganda’s intervention in the DRC, though based on security threats, violated sovereignty and lacked sufficient justification under international law. The ruling emphasizes that proportionality and necessity are critical. India’s claim that it conducted restrained and targeted strikes aligns with these criteria and aims to distinguish its action from unlawful intervention.
—
Geopolitical Impact
The May 2025 India–Pakistan conflict triggered immediate and far-reaching geopolitical consequences, both regionally and globally. In South Asia, the confrontation intensified long-standing hostilities over Kashmir, pushing both nations to a near-war footing and reigniting debates around cross-border terrorism and sovereignty. India’s swift airstrikes, justified as pre-emptive self-defence, drew mixed international responses. While the United States expressed support for India’s anti-terror operations, it simultaneously urged restraint, revealing a delicate strategic balancing act.
China, traditionally an ally of Pakistan, released a statement that was neutral yet cautious, indirectly endorsing Islamabad while refraining from openly condemning India—highlighting its wider strategic interest in preserving regional stability amidst ongoing economic initiatives such as CPEC. Russia, maintaining its neutral diplomatic posture, offered to mediate—reflecting its growing interest in reasserting influence in South Asia.
Meanwhile, Gulf nations like the UAE and Saudi Arabia played significant diplomatic roles in brokering a ceasefire, marking a shift in regional influence. At the institutional level, the United Nations faced renewed criticism for its limited role and procedural delays, while bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) were pushed to re-evaluate Pakistan’s accountability concerning terror financing. The conflict also highlighted the evolving nature of warfare—India’s precision drone strikes and Pakistan’s retaliatory cyber operations marked a significant turn toward hybrid warfare tactics. Additionally, airspace closures, trade disruptions, and the freezing of Indus Waters Treaty talks created ripple effects in civil aviation and regional commerce. In the broader diplomatic landscape, the episode dealt another blow to the revival of SAARC, deepening the divide between South Asian neighbours and shifting the focus toward bilateral, rather than multilateral, regional solutions.
Conclusion
The May 2025 India–Pakistan conflict underscores the fragile equilibrium in South Asia, a region historically marred by unresolved territorial disputes, particularly over Kashmir, and recurrent incidents of cross-border militancy. The occurrences that preceded and succeeded the Pahalgam attack highlighted the susceptibility of regional peace to acts of non-state violence and revealed the inadequacies of current deterrence strategies. From a legal standpoint, the conflict brought renewed international scrutiny to the interpretation and application of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for self-defence in response to an “armed attack.” India’s invocation of this principle, aimed at justifying its targeted counter-terrorism strikes under jus ad bellum, presents a compelling case for the evolving understanding of lawful force in asymmetric warfare contexts. However, legal justification alone does not close the debate. Questions regarding proportionality, necessity, and target discrimination remain subject to international legal review, especially under the framework of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Any military response must be measured against the principles of distinction and proportionality to ensure compliance with the Geneva Conventions. While India claimed to have conducted its operations with restraint—focusing solely on non-state terror infrastructure—the risk of civilian harm and unintended escalation remains a critical concern in such high-stakes scenarios.
Geopolitically, the conflict not only exposed South Asia’s enduring strategic volatility but also signalled a reconfiguration of global alignments. The muted or cautious responses of major powers like the United States, Russia, and China reflected competing strategic interests and the complexities of balancing diplomatic relations with both nations. Notably, the active mediatory role of Gulf states such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia highlighted a new regional diplomacy, where economic and strategic interdependence is reshaping crisis management patterns. The limited and procedural response from the United Nations and other multilateral forums further accentuated concerns regarding their effectiveness in swiftly addressing regional conflicts, especially those involving nuclear-armed states. Another defining feature of this conflict was the prominence of hybrid warfare—the convergence of conventional military actions with drone strikes, cyber operations, psychological warfare, and information manipulation. These emerging tools of modern conflict complicate attribution, response strategy, and legal accountability, underscoring the urgent need to update existing international legal frameworks. Traditional rules governing warfare, conceived in an era of state-on-state combat, may no longer be adequate in addressing the layered complexities posed by technologically advanced, non-linear confrontations. In conclusion, the May 2025 conflict serves not merely as a bilateral flashpoint but as a critical case study in the intersection of international law, state sovereignty, counterterrorism, and hybrid warfare. Moving forward, both regional and global actors must work toward crafting mechanisms that ensure rapid diplomatic engagement, legal clarity in the attribution of non-state violence, and strong enforcement of humanitarian protections. Lasting peace in South Asia cannot be achieved through reactive force alone; it demands a sustained commitment to dialogue, legal reform, multilateral cooperation, and the strengthening of norms that maintain peace, justice, and accountability in a world that is becoming increasingly complex.
FAQS
1. Was India’s airstrike on Pakistan in May 2025 legal under international law?
India invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, asserting an inherent right to self-defence in the aftermath of a cross-border terrorist attack. As per customary international law and rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), self-defence is justified when there is an “armed attack” and the response is deemed necessary and proportionate. While India’s justification aligns with these principles, critics argue that retaliatory strikes—especially against another state’s territory—require strong evidence and restraint.
2. Can a country use force against another state for non-state actor violence?
Yes, but only under strict legal conditions. If a non-state actor conducts attacks from a state’s territory, and that state is unable or unwilling to prevent them, the victim state may use force in self-defence. Attribution and effective control are key factors in determining legality.
3. What role did the United Nations play in this conflict?
The UN urged de-escalation but took no concrete action through the Security Council. Its limited response revealed the institutional limitations in managing bilateral conflicts between nuclear-armed states.
4. Were there any violations of international humanitarian law (IHL)?
There were concerns about civilian casualties and damage to infrastructure. If verified, such actions may constitute breaches of the Geneva Conventions, which require proportionality and the distinction between combatants and civilians.
5. How did this conflict affect regional and global geopolitics?
It transformed regional alliances, underscored the role of Gulf mediators, and accentuated the emergence of hybrid warfare. It also demonstrated the need for better legal and diplomatic mechanisms to manage future conflicts.
