While Pakistan adhered to the principles of international law in its response and target selection, India, on the other hand, violated numerous provisions of international law in its acts of aggression and target selection. This amounts to war crimes and demand accountability, regardless of the recent ceasefire.
India’s military incursion into Pakistan not only undermines the fundamental principles of the UN Charter-principles that emphasize national sovereignty and promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts-but its choice of targets also constitutes a violation of international humanitarian law, potentially amounting to a war crime.
In simple terms , the Indian attack constitutes a blatant act of illegal aggression, and the choice of targets amounts to significant war crimes. Indian target strikes can be categorized into three distinct groups: civilians, mosques, and critical water infrastructure, such as the Neelam Jhelum Hydro Project. Let us explore the perspective of international law regarding this situation.
None of the targets mentioned above qualify as legitimate under international law. The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 states that the only legitimate objective for states during wartime is to weaken the military forces of the enemy.
The Geneva Conventions, particularly Article 51 of Additional Protocol 1 , establish a comprehensive legal framework aimed at protecting civilian populations during armed conflicts. This article unequivocally asserts that the civilian population, along with individual civilians, must receive general protection against the dangers that arise from military operations.
Sub clause 2 of this article specifically prohibits directing attacks against civilian populations and individual civilians, reaffirming the principle that acts or threats of violence against civilians are strictly forbidden.
The conventional understanding of warfare emphasizes that, indiscriminate attacks-which are defined as offensive actions not directed at specific military objectives-are prohibited under international law.
In simple terms, the Indian attack constitutes a blatant act of illegal aggression.
Consequently, any military operation that fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants is classified as an indiscriminate attack, thereby violating the fundamental tenets of humanitarian law.
Chapter 4 of the Fourth Geneva Convention addresses precautionary measures to protect civilians, emphasizing that efforts must be made to ensure that civilians are not killed or injured during hostilities. This obligation reflects the principles of necessity and proportionality, foundational concepts in international humanitarian law.
Furthermore, Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articulates that every individual possesses an inherent right to life, an assertion that resonates deeply with international humanitarian principles. Such rights cannot be overridden or negated under any circumstances, reinforcing the absolute nature of this protection.
The protection of civilians is not merely a legal obligation but is considered a customary norm of international law. This implies that all states are bound to respect and uphold these principles, regardless of their individual consent to specific treaties.
It is well-established in customary international law that any deliberate attack on civilians constitutes a grave violation and may be classified as a war crime. Therefore, any state engaging in acts that harm civilians or target civilian infrastructure, intentionally or otherwise, risks committing war crimes.
Indian attacks must be scrutinized through the lens of international humanitarian law, where violations of customary rules may invoke accountability on the global stage.
International humanitarian law powerfully safeguards houses of worship and sacred sites from destruction during a war. Such acts are not only violations of this law but also qualify as war crimes.
Attacking the Neelum Jhelum project represents a clear breach of international law. Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), two crucial prohibitions exist that are designed to protect vital water resources: the ban on “attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects that are essential for the survival of civilian populations” and the restriction on targeting installations that house hazardous forces, such as dams and levees.
Pakistan ought to bring this issue before the international community and relevant legal forums to hold India accountable for its war crimes.
The writer is a lawyer and author based in Islamabad. He tweets @m_asifmahmood.