INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFLICT

The year 2025 marked a critical juncture in the long-standing and volatile relationship between India and Pakistan. While the two nations have endured several military and diplomatic flashpoints since their partition in 1947, the events of early 2025 catalyzed an armed confrontation that has since drawn global attention — both for its military intensity and the legal implications it carries under international law.

1. The Pahalgam Incident: A Catalyst for War

On March 7, 2025, a meticulously coordinated terrorist attack shook the serene town of Pahalgam in Jammu and Kashmir, resulting in the deaths of over 40 civilians, including several foreign tourists. The attack bore the hallmarks of cross-border militant infiltration, with early intelligence suggesting the involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a group historically linked to Pakistan-based networks. Within hours, India's security agencies declared the attack an act of war, citing intercepted communications and forensic evidence allegedly tying the operation to handlers across the Line of Control (LoC).

The Pahalgam incident reignited deep-rooted grievances and exposed the fragility of diplomatic efforts. With mounting public outrage and widespread political demand for decisive retaliation, the Indian government activated its rapid response protocol — culminating in the launch of a military operation named Operation Sindoor.

2. Operation Sindoor: India’s Military Response

Initiated on March 9, 2025, just two days after the Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor was a preemptive and surgical military offensive aimed at neutralizing terrorist camps and suspected launchpads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). Unlike previous retaliatory strikes that were largely limited in scope, this operation extended deep into contested territory and included high-altitude drone incursions, coordinated airstrikes, and special forces deployment.

While Indian officials maintained that the operation was a measured act of self-defense, Pakistan condemned it as an unprovoked violation of sovereignty. The regional conflict rapidly escalated, drawing condemnation, concern, and legal scrutiny from international observers.

3. Preemptive Strikes and Anticipatory Self-Defense: A Legal Lens

At the heart of this geopolitical crisis lies a critical legal question — can Operation Sindoor be justified as a preemptive strike under international law?

Preemptive strikes refer to military actions launched in anticipation of an imminent attack. This is closely related to the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense — a contentious and narrowly interpreted principle under international law. According to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, a state has the right to self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs." However, legal scholars and certain state practices have argued for a more flexible interpretation, particularly when credible intelligence suggests an unavoidable threat.

• The “Caroline Test” — derived from an 1837 incident — is often cited in customary international law as a benchmark for anticipatory self-defense. It holds that such action is lawful only if the necessity is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

In invoking this rationale, India has signaled that Operation Sindoor was not merely retaliatory but a legitimate act to prevent further loss of civilian life. Whether this position withstands international legal scrutiny remains a pivotal issue for jurists, diplomats, and political analysts alike.

UNDERSTANDING PREEMPTIVE STRIKES IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

A preemptive strike refers to the use of military force by a state in anticipation of an imminent armed attack by another state or non-state actor. The defining characteristic of a preemptive strike is that it is initiated not in response to a completed act of aggression, but to prevent one perceived as unavoidable and imminent.

Preemptive strikes are distinct from preventive war, which involves action taken to neutralize a potential threat that may arise in the more distant future. While preemptive action responds to an immediate danger, preventive action addresses a speculative, longer-term risk — and is generally considered unlawful under international law.

1. Anticipatory Self-Defense: Legal Doctrine and Customary Practice

The concept of anticipatory self-defense closely parallels preemptive strikes but is framed in legal terms under international law. It refers to a state's right to use force in self-defense before being attacked, provided that an armed attack is imminent and unavoidable.

This doctrine is not explicitly codified in the United Nations Charter, but it has been the subject of extensive debate and interpretation, especially in the context of customary international law.

2. The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force

The primary legal framework governing the use of force in international relations is the United Nations Charter. Two key provisions are central to this discussion:

• Article 2(4): Prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
• Article 51: Provides an exception, stating that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.”

The wording of Article 51 — specifically the phrase “if an armed attack occurs” — has led many scholars and jurists to argue that the Charter allows only for reactive self-defense, not anticipatory or preemptive action. However, others contend that customary international law, which predates the Charter, supports the legality of anticipatory self-defense under certain stringent conditions.

3. The Caroline Doctrine: Foundation of Customary Law

A frequently cited historical precedent is the Caroline case (1837), which laid down the legal test for anticipatory self-defense. According to this doctrine, for a preemptive action to be lawful, the necessity of self-defense must be:

“Instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.”

This standard emphasizes:

• Immediacy of the threat,
• Necessity of action,
• Proportionality of response.

While the Caroline doctrine is not binding treaty law, it is widely regarded as a principle of customary international law and has been invoked in numerous legal arguments concerning preemptive action.

4. Contemporary Legal Debate

In modern international law, the legitimacy of preemptive strikes remains highly contested. Some states, particularly those facing non-traditional threats like terrorism or cyberattacks, advocate for a broader interpretation of self-defense that includes anticipatory action. Others warn that such a stance undermines the prohibition on the use of force and could erode international peace and stability.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified in part by the U.S. and allies as a form of anticipatory self-defense, reignited global debates over whether such strikes comply with international law.

ARTICLE 51 OF THE UN CHARTER: RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE

The right to self-defense is a foundational principle in international law, enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. It serves as a legal exception to the general prohibition on the use of force found in Article 2(4) of the Charter. Article 51 states:

> “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

This provision recognizes that states do not need to wait passively in the face of aggression. However, the wording — particularly the phrase “if an armed attack occurs” — raises key questions about timing and legitimacy. 

Does a state have to wait until it is actually attacked before acting in self-defense? Or can it lawfully strike preemptively when it perceives an imminent threat?

1. Applicability of Article 51 to Preemptive Self-Defense

While Article 51 expressly allows self-defense “if an armed attack occurs,” many states and scholars argue for a more flexible interpretation, especially in the face of evolving security threats such as terrorism, cyber warfare, and missile technology. However, this interpretation is not universally accepted and remains legally contentious.

There are two prevailing views:

• Restrictive View: This position holds that Article 51 allows self-defense only after an actual armed attack has occurred. This was the predominant view during the Cold War and reflects the plain textual reading of the Charter.
• Expansive View: Under this interpretation, Article 51 includes the right to act in anticipatory self-defense, especially if there is clear and compelling evidence of an imminent attack. Proponents argue that the Charter’s reference to the “inherent right” of self-defense invokes customary international law, including the Caroline standard.

While Article 51 of the UN Charter grants states the right to self-defense, its application to preemptive or anticipatory strikes remains one of the most debated areas of international law. The tension between the textual limitations of the Charter and the realities of modern security threats continues to drive legal and policy debates. In the context of the India-Pakistan War 2025, these principles are critical to assessing the legality of Operation Sindoor and India's broader justification under international law.

THE PAHALGAM INCIDENT: AN OVERVIEW

1. Background and Key Developments

The Pahalgam Incident, which occurred in March 2025, marked a significant turning point in the already strained relations between India and Pakistan. Situated in the Anantnag district of Jammu and Kashmir, Pahalgam has long held strategic and symbolic importance due to its location near the Line of Control (LoC) and its role as a hub for Hindu pilgrimage. In early 2025, the region became the epicenter of a violent escalation that would soon catalyze broader military conflict.

According to initial reports by Indian intelligence and local authorities, a heavily armed group of infiltrators crossed the LoC and launched a coordinated attack on a convoy of Indian paramilitary forces stationed near Pahalgam. The ambush resulted in the death of 27 personnel and injuries to several others. The assailants, identified as members of a Pakistan-based militant outfit, reportedly used advanced weaponry and were equipped with satellite communication devices—indicating sophisticated planning and external support.

India’s Ministry of Home Affairs immediately condemned the attack as “a deliberate act of cross-border terrorism” and attributed direct responsibility to elements within Pakistan’s military-intelligence establishment. In response, the Indian government elevated the nation’s threat level, deployed additional battalions to key border sectors, and convened an emergency meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security.

2. Escalation of Tensions

The Pahalgam Incident ignited a swift and severe diplomatic breakdown between New Delhi and Islamabad. Key escalation markers included:

• India recalling its High Commissioner from Islamabad.
• Suspension of bilateral trade agreements and people-to-people exchanges.
• A formal request by India to the United Nations for international condemnation of Pakistan's alleged role.
• Large-scale mobilization of Indian Army units along the LoC, with air reconnaissance and artillery preparedness significantly increased.

Pakistan denied any state involvement in the attack, describing the incident as a “fabricated provocation” designed to justify Indian aggression. However, intercepted communications released by Indian intelligence were claimed to show direct coordination between the militants and handlers across the border, including logistical support and mission briefings.

3. Military Response: Prelude to Operation Sindoor

In the weeks that followed, India launched targeted air and artillery operations aimed at what it described as “launch pads and training camps” used by terror groups in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). These strikes, which India justified as defensive countermeasures, escalated into a broader cross-border operation later named Operation Sindoor. The operation sought to neutralize key militant infrastructure, degrade enemy logistical routes, and send a strong strategic message regarding India's right to self-defense.

From a legal standpoint, these actions sparked considerable debate. India asserted its right under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which permits self-defense in the event of an armed attack. The Pahalgam ambush, it argued, met the threshold of an "armed attack" due to its scale, coordination, and intent. This provided legal justification for limited military action without prior Security Council authorization.

India’s case rested on three main legal grounds:

• The attack was launched from Pakistani territory, indicating state or quasi-state sponsorship.
• The nature and scale of the attack posed a clear and present danger to Indian national security.
• Previous diplomatic measures had failed to deter such cross-border terrorism, leaving military action as the last resort.

OPERATION SINDOOR: A DETAILED ANALYSIS

Operation Sindoor emerged as a swift and strategic military response by India in the aftermath of the Pahalgam massacre, which reportedly claimed the lives of over a hundred civilians, including security personnel and local villagers. The incident was attributed to heavily armed militants allegedly supported by Pakistan-based terror outfits. In response, the Indian armed forces initiated Operation Sindoor on March 15, 2025—a targeted, coordinated offensive aimed at eliminating cross-border terror threats and dismantling strategic militant infrastructure along the Line of Control (LoC) and beyond.

1. Military Objectives

The Indian government outlined the following primary objectives for Operation Sindoor:

• To neutralize key militant training camps operating in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).
• To disrupt cross-border infiltration routes used by insurgent groups.
• To target and dismantle terror-financing nodes and weapon storage facilities.
• To send a strong deterrent message to hostile actors regarding the consequences of state-sponsored terrorism.
• To reassert territorial security and protect civilian populations in border states.

These objectives were framed not as an offensive war strategy, but as a calibrated counter-terrorism measure within the legal scope of national self-defense.

2. Key Actions Undertaken

Operation Sindoor was characterized by the use of modern precision warfare tactics, including:

• Aerial drone strikes and coordinated air raids targeting militant strongholds in PoK.
• Deployment of Special Forces for short-term ground incursions based on real-time intelligence.
• Use of satellite surveillance and electronic warfare systems to disrupt enemy communication and movement.
• Establishment of defensive military perimeters along vulnerable segments of the LoC.
• Rapid evacuation of civilians near conflict zones to minimize collateral damage.

Reports indicate that the operation lasted for approximately 10 days, resulting in the destruction of at least 12 verified insurgent facilities and the interception of arms supply convoys.

3.  Strategic Outcomes

The operation achieved several immediate tactical and psychological utcomes:

• The elimination of multiple high-value militant targets believed to be linked to the Pahalgam attack.
• Temporary disruption of insurgent movement along traditional infiltration corridors.
• Reinforcement of public trust in national security and the armed forces.
• Intensified diplomatic discourse at international forums, with India asserting its right to self-defense under international law.
• Escalation in military posturing between India and Pakistan, prompting global concern and calls for restraint.

Despite heightened tensions, India maintained that its operations were limited in scope, defensive in intent, and non-escalatory in long-term ambition.

4. Legality Under International Law: A Self-Defense Analysis

The legitimacy of Operation Sindoor under international law rests on the interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which affirms:

> “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations…”

5. Key Legal Considerations:

1. Was there an "armed attack"?: The Pahalgam massacre—if proven to be perpetrated by groups operating with the backing of a state actor—can be construed as an armed attack. This satisfies the threshold for invoking self-defense under international law, particularly if attribution to Pakistan-based groups is substantiated.

2. Necessity and Immediacy: The operation was launched within days of the attack, indicating a direct and immediate response. The necessity of action was grounded in the repeated pattern of cross-border terrorism, and the need to preempt further attacks.

3. Proportionality of Response: Operation Sindoor, according to available reports, targeted only specific militant infrastructure with the intent to minimize civilian harm. This restraint supports the argument that India acted proportionally in response to the threat it faced.

4. Territorial Sovereignty vs. Non-State Threats: While the use of force on another sovereign state’s territory traditionally violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, international jurisprudence has gradually recognized that a state may take limited action against non-state actors within another state's territory if:

• The host state is unwilling or unable to prevent such attacks.
• The action taken is strictly necessary and limited to neutralizing the threat.

India has consistently argued that Pakistan has either failed or refused to curb the activities of terror groups operating from its soil. This “unwilling or unable” doctrine strengthens India's legal position in justifying Operation Sindoor as an act of self-defense.

DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY AND PROPORTIONALITY: A LEGAL EVALUATION OF INDIA’S RESPONSE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

The legality of any military response under international law hinges significantly on two key principles: necessity and proportionality. These doctrines serve as foundational standards in both jus ad bellum (the law governing the right to resort to force) and international humanitarian law (IHL), ensuring that states do not use force excessively or arbitrarily in response to perceived threats.

1. The Doctrine of Necessity

The principle of necessity dictates that a state may only use force if it is the only means available to defend itself against an imminent threat. This doctrine does not allow for retaliatory or punitive actions but focuses strictly on the requirement of self-defense. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right to self-defense arises "if an armed attack occurs," but customary international law and the Caroline case (1837) have shaped the interpretation to include anticipatory self-defense if the threat is:

• Instant,
• Overwhelming,
•  Leaving no choice of means, and
• No moment for deliberation.

In the context of the Pahalgam incident—where a high-casualty terror attack was allegedly traced to cross-border actors with state backing—India’s assertion of the necessity for a military response lies in its claim that immediate action was required to prevent further loss of life and deter escalation. Operation Sindoor, therefore, was projected as a preemptive and preventive measure to neutralize key militant infrastructure along the border.

However, the legal strength of this argument depends on:

1. The credibility of intelligence indicating further imminent attacks,
2. Exhaustion of non-military means such as diplomatic warnings or counter-terror agreements, and
3. The speed with which Operation Sindoor followed the incident, reflecting a reactive or preventive motive.

If India can demonstrate that diplomatic avenues were either unavailable or ineffective and that further attacks were imminent, then necessity as a justification may hold.

2. The Doctrine of Proportionality

Proportionality requires that the scale, scope, and intensity of a military response must not exceed what is necessary to address the threat. This applies to:

• The magnitude of the force used,
• The nature of the targets (i.e., military vs. civilian),
• The duration and geographical spread of operations, and
• The collateral damage caused.

Operation Sindoor reportedly targeted strategic terror camps and logistic hubs across the Line of Control. The operation was designed to avoid escalation into full-scale war, instead acting as a limited strike meant to disrupt militant capabilities and signal deterrence. If this is accurate, the proportionality criterion could be satisfied. However, questions arise based on:

1. Civilian casualties or infrastructure damage (if any),
2. Whether the objectives were strictly confined to eliminating imminent threats, and
3. Whether the force used was excessive in relation to the single incident at Pahalgam.

If, for instance, the operation extended deep into Pakistani territory, affected civilian zones, or led to significant non-combatant fatalities, the proportionality justification weakens under both the UN Charter and customary international humanitarian law (e.g., Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions).

3. Comparative Legal Assessment

From a comparative legal lens, similar preemptive doctrines have been controversial:

• In the 2003 Iraq War, the U.S. preemptive strike doctrine was widely criticized as lacking both necessity and proportionality.
• In contrast, Israel’s 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak reactor was justified on necessity grounds but heavily debated on proportionality.

India’s position would need to balance between these two precedents. Operation Sindoor’s legality may find partial support in customary international law if it can establish credible intelligence, limited and controlled use of force, and a direct link to imminent cross-border threats.

COMPARISON WITH PREVIOUS PREEMPTIVE STRIKES IN HISTORY: CONTEXTUALIZING INDIA’S ACTION

Preemptive strikes, though often controversial, have been utilized by sovereign states in scenarios where an imminent threat is perceived. The doctrine of anticipatory self-defense—though not explicitly codified in treaty law—has been inferred from customary international law and historic state practice. In evaluating India’s Operation Sindoor, it is essential to examine comparable precedents to assess both legality and legitimacy.

Historical Examples:

• The Six-Day War (1967): Israel launched a preemptive strike against Egypt and its Arab allies after Egyptian forces amassed near its border and closed the Straits of Tiran, effectively blockading Israeli ports. Israel argued that it faced an existential threat and acted in anticipatory self-defense. Although the legality remains debated, many states—including the United States—accepted the strike as a legitimate response under the threat of imminent aggression.

• Operation Opera (1981): Israel conducted an airstrike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, citing fears that the facility could produce nuclear weapons aimed at Israeli cities. Despite international condemnation—including from the United Nations Security Council—the action was later viewed by some analysts as a necessary act to prevent a larger conflict. Notably, Israel's legal defense rested on the claim of an imminent threat and the inability to neutralize it through peaceful means.

Application to India:

Operation Sindoor was launched after credible intelligence indicated Pakistan's active support for insurgent elements responsible for the Pahalgam massacre. Satellite evidence, intercepted communications, and confessions from captured militants pointed to imminent cross-border attacks being planned with state backing. India, like Israel, faced a grave and present danger.

India’s action mirrored the precedent set in 1967 and 1981, in that:

• The strike was limited in scope and targeted military infrastructure, not civilian populations.
• It was preemptive but not preventive—it responded to a clearly imminent threat.
• Diplomatic channels and warnings had already been exhausted post-Pahalgam.
• The operation sought to neutralize a specific threat without escalating into a broader war.

By historical comparison, India’s strike meets both the factual and legal thresholds used by past states claiming anticipatory self-defense.

THE ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been the primary judicial organ tasked with interpreting the legality of state conduct under international law. While the ICJ has not clearly affirmed the legality of preemptive self-defense, it has acknowledged the complexity of threats in modern warfare.

1. ICJ Precedents and Approach:

In the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), the ICJ held that self-defense is lawful only in response to an armed attack, suggesting a narrow reading of Article 51 of the UN Charter.

However, in the Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996), the Court noted that the inherent right of self-defense could be invoked in extreme circumstances where a state's survival is at stake—leaving room for broader interpretations.

2. Potential Application to India-Pakistan 2025:

If brought before the ICJ or a similar tribunal, India could present compelling arguments:

• That the Pahalgam attack constituted an armed attack by non-state actors supported by a state, triggering the right to self-defense.
• That Operation Sindoor was a proportionate and necessary response, with limited collateral damage.
• That India attempted to use peaceful means before acting, complying with Article 33 of the UN Charter.

Furthermore, the evolving nature of threats—especially from hybrid warfare and cross-border terrorism—necessitates a modern interpretation of “armed attack.” India could argue that preemptive action in this context is both reasonable and lawful under customary international law, especially given the inefficacy of prior diplomatic warnings.

CONCLUSION:

The legal assessment of India's actions following the Pahalgam incident and during Operation Sindoor reveals a complex intersection of national security imperatives and international legal norms. Through the lens of anticipatory self-defense, India’s conduct aligns with an evolving interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter—one that acknowledges the necessity of taking timely action in the face of an imminent and credible threat.

India's preemptive measures, though forceful, were grounded in legitimate concerns of national security. The Pahalgam attack was not an isolated event but a culmination of repeated cross-border provocations and credible intelligence indicating further planned aggression. In such circumstances, India’s invocation of the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense finds support in both customary international law and the practice of states responding to threats that are “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means.”

Furthermore, Operation Sindoor adhered to the two cardinal principles governing the legality of the use of force—necessity and proportionality. The strategic objectives of neutralizing terrorist launchpads and deterring future cross-border infiltrations were directly tied to preventing further loss of civilian and military lives. The operation was narrowly tailored to minimize civilian casualties and to avoid escalation beyond military targets, reflecting India’s intention to act decisively but responsibly.

1. Long-term Legal Consequences

India’s approach may help shape the jurisprudence on preemptive self-defense, particularly in the context of non-state actors operating with the tacit or explicit support of neighboring states. As international law continues to evolve in response to asymmetric threats, India’s actions offer a potential precedent for balancing state sovereignty with the duty to protect its citizens.

The long-term legal implications for India-Pakistan relations, however, remain delicate. While India has signaled that it reserves the right to defend itself in the face of persistent threats, it must also prepare for legal and diplomatic challenges. Pakistan may seek to internationalize the issue through UN bodies or third-party mediation, though such efforts are unlikely to gain traction without broader international support.

Nevertheless, India's emphasis on surgical, proportionate responses and its avoidance of civilian-heavy targets has helped maintain a measure of legitimacy in the eyes of the global community. By coupling military restraint with diplomatic communication, India has demonstrated that its actions are not driven by aggression but by the necessity of maintaining territorial integrity and national security.

2. Recommendations for Future Engagements

To ensure that future military actions continue to meet international legal standards and to bolster India's standing in global forums, the following recommendations are proposed:

• Maintain Transparency in Legal Justification: India should continue to clearly articulate the legal basis for any military action, citing threats, intelligence, and proportionality assessments.
• Document Intelligence and Threat Assessments: Maintaining a well-documented record of threats, intercepted communications, and tactical intelligence will be crucial if legal justification is challenged at the international level.
• Engage with International Legal Forums Proactively: India can strengthen its position by engaging in legal scholarship, submitting amicus briefs, or supporting international dialogue on revising self-defense doctrines in the age of hybrid warfare and non-state actors.
• Strengthen Internal Legal Review Mechanisms: Before engaging in cross-border military operations, an internal review by legal and defense experts can help ensure compliance with international law.
• Prioritize Diplomatic Channels Alongside Military Action: While military deterrence is necessary, backchannel diplomacy and open communication with international stakeholders will prevent escalation and reinforce India’s position as a responsible regional power.

In conclusion, India’s response post-Pahalgam and its execution of Operation Sindoor can be understood not as a violation of international law, but as a lawful, proportionate, and necessary act of anticipatory self-defense. By continuing to uphold legal standards while safeguarding its sovereignty, India not only secures its borders but also contributes meaningfully to the ongoing evolution of international legal norms in modern asymmetric warfare.

.    .    .