India's Retaliatory Actions and International Law

Pakistan accused India of violating the UN Charter, international law, and norms governing interstate relations with its retaliatory actions. The key question is whether India's actions indeed violated these principles.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

• Mandates all UN members to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
• Pakistan has historically violated this principle by threatening and using force against India.

Right to Self-Defence under Article 51

• Article 51 permits a response in self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a UN member.
• This right predates the UN, rooted in customary international law, and includes anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence.
• India's actions are based on the principle of necessity, ensuring self-defence actions are limited and justified.

Collective Security Arrangements

• India signed the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation with the Soviet Union in 1971 for a collective self-defence mechanism.
• This mechanism was effective in deterring US intervention during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971.

Non-State Actors and Armed Attacks

• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) case, Nicaragua (1986), highlighted the principle of non-intervention concerning non-state actors.
• UN resolutions strengthen the stance against supporting or tolerating subversive activities against other states.
• Established link between state and non-state actors in international law.

Compensation for Armed Attacks

• The ICJ in the Nicaragua case ordered reparations by the US for damages caused by violations of international law.
• India has not sought reparations from Pakistan despite the damage caused over the years.

India, while adhering to international law, might consider approaching the ICJ for reparations for the damages caused by Pakistan's actions.