Operation Sindoor: A Brazen Breach of International Law

The prohibition of force under international law is unambiguous. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter commands that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” This rule stands as a fundamental safeguard against unilateral military aggression and is integral to preserving peace and security in the international order.

Despite this clear legal framework, India’s May 2025 military incursion into Pakistan—dubbed “Operation Sindoor”, represents a stark and troubling violation of these norms. Citing the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Indian-administered Kashmir, India launched airstrikes inside Pakistani territory, targeting “alleged” militant infrastructure. However, these actions were neither supported by conclusive evidence nor authorized by any international body. In bypassing established legal channels, India undermined the foundational principles of the UN Charter and disregarded its obligations under international law.

Violating the Rules of Self-Defense

India attempted to justify Operation Sindoor as an act of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows force only “if an armed attack occurs.” Yet the Charter, as well as customary international law, places strict conditions on this right. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in multiple judgments, most notably the Nicaragua Case, has clarified that any such response must meet rigorous standards: the attack must be significant, attributable to a state, and the response must be both necessary and proportionate.

India, however, failed to meet these criteria. No credible or verifiable evidence was presented to prove that the Pahalgam attack was conducted by groups acting under the authority or direction of the Pakistani state. While India accused Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed of orchestrating the attack, it did not submit proof to the UN Security Council, the General Assembly, or any international investigative mechanism. This absence of transparency significantly undermines India’s claim to self-defense.

Moreover, the strikes were described by Indian officials not as a response to an ongoing attack, but as “preemptive” action aimed at thwarting “impending” threats. Under current international law, such preemptive or anticipatory self-defense is not generally accepted as lawful. It stretches Article 51 beyond its original intent and sets a dangerous precedent where speculative threats could be used to justify military aggression.

India Circumvented International Institutions

India did not seek authorization from the UN Security Council before carrying out Operation Sindoor. This omission is critical. While Article 51 allows for unilateral self-defense in the immediate aftermath of an armed attack, it requires that any such measures be reported to the Security Council immediately. India not only failed to do so, but also sidestepped any attempt to seek international endorsement or oversight.

In fact, discussions at the Security Council following the incident revolved around de-escalation and calls for restraint. No resolution was passed validating India’s military response. The General Assembly, which holds no binding authority in matters of force, was similarly uninvolved. Despite the gravity of India’s actions, the operation was launched and executed without any legal mandate from the global institutions established to regulate peace and security.

This is not merely a procedural misstep—it is a direct affront to the multilateral framework that governs the use of force. By acting unilaterally and outside established legal mechanisms, India signaled a willingness to place its strategic objectives above its international obligations.

Pakistan’s Response and Legal Counterclaim

Pakistan condemned the strikes as a “flagrant violation of the UN Charter” and a “naked act of aggression.” It rejected India’s claim of self-defense, stating unequivocally that no armed attack attributable to the Pakistani state had occurred that would justify India’s actions under Article 51. Citing the 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, Pakistan argued that India’s actions amounted to “aggression”—a crime under international law.

Pakistan responded militarily, targeting Indian aircraft and installations. It characterized these actions as a calibrated exercise of its sovereign right to self-defense, asserting that its response met the requirements of necessity and proportionality. Pakistan also accused India of staging a “false flag operation” to create a pretext for cross-border aggression—a claim that has not been independently investigated due to the absence of an impartial international inquiry.

The Questionable Nature of India’s Evidence

India claimed to have declassified video and satellite imagery showing the destruction of terrorist infrastructure. Yet these claims were never substantiated before any international forum. Pakistan countered that the sites hit were civilian in nature and that no militant infrastructure was destroyed. Without third-party verification or oversight, India’s narrative remains uncorroborated and open to challenge.

Furthermore, India’s claim that the strike was necessary to prevent future attacks rests on speculative assumptions rather than hard intelligence. In the absence of clear, imminent threats—and with no evidence made available to the global community—India’s rationale collapses under the weight of international legal standards.

SAT Commentary

SAT Commentaries, a collection of insightful social media threads on current events and social issues, featuring diverse perspectives from various authors.