4

On 26th February 2019, Indian government demanded 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?

  • 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 at 16:37
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.
  • Edited: Did India break any UN charter? – user366312 Mar 13 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 at 5:25
  • 1
    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 at 12:43
  • @NSNoob, that's a good point. – user366312 Mar 13 at 12:44

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.