4

On 26th February 2019, Indian government declared that they conducted an air strike on alleged JeM terrorist camp in Pakistan.

India stressed that fact that they didn't target either any military or civilian installations.

Although the nature and outcome of the strike are heavily doubted, one thing is sure that Indian jets violated LoC and Pakistani airspace.

Did India break any international law or UN charter by violating LoC and Pakistan's airspace?

Improve this question
1
  • 2
    One could ask the same question about Israeli strikes in Syria, US drone strikes in a lot of places, etc. The basic answer is: depends who you ask. Since such events almost never come before a court...
    – Fizz
    Mar 28, 2019 at 16:37

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

Difficult to say. International law is to a large degree customary law, and international laws and norms have shifted over the centuries.

  • International law has the principle of self-defense. Not every act of war is against international law.
  • The concept of hot pursuit usually requires either pursuit into international waters or bilateral agreements. So it would not really apply.
  • One could argue that the Pakistani government is not exercising sovereign control over large parts of their territory. Or that they are constituted as a federal state with local control in tribal areas. Then they are fully responsible for the actions coming from these areas.
Improve this answer
4
  • Edited: Did India break any UN charter?
    – user25524
    Mar 13, 2019 at 5:05
  • @user366312, the UN also allows the use of military force in self-defense. I do not believe that there is a specific charter to spell out if Pakistani actions constitute acts of war.
    – o.m.
    Mar 13, 2019 at 5:25
  • 3
    I'd argue that it's subjective. Whenever it's militarily strong countries (Be it India or Pakistan), who happen to be strategic allies of basically everyone (Except each other in their case) doing something they're not supposed to do, you can rest assured that no third country would chastise either one over "territorial sovereignty violation". Allies of both sides would argue that their mate was defending herself, while the countries who happen to be friends with both would simply restrict themselves to calling for restraint.
    – NSNoob
    Mar 13, 2019 at 12:43
  • @NSNoob, that's a good point.
    – user25524
    Mar 13, 2019 at 12:44

You must log in to answer this question.