India as a rouge state violates intentional law
INDIA adheres to the true definition of a ‘rogue state’ for carrying out terrorist activities in Pakistan and violating international laws, which hinders peace in the region.
The current situation offers several options for Pakistan to invoke the jurisdiction of platforms such as the United Nations General Assembly and the UN Security Council to challenge India’s violations of international norms and laws.
Pakistan may invoke Articles 1, 35, 37 & 40 through UNSC and UNGA in accordance with the Articles of the International Law Commission on the Responsibilities of States for International Offences (ARSIWA).
It may also invoke Article II (1) in accordance with the 1953 Convention on the Right of International Correction.
What constitutes a ‘rogue state’? And what does this say about the nature of the international society of states? These two questions will be central to this chapter which will investigate the phenomenon of ‘rogue states’ from a philosophical point of view.
I will argue that what is finally at stake in the notion of ‘rogue states’ is the international order as an order of sovereign states.
While sovereign states are presumed to be equal to each other (not so much factually but at least from the viewpoint of public international law), ‘rogue states’ have considerably fewer rights than ‘decent’ states.
It is interesting to note that, in the final analysis, the reason for this lies in the internal organization and practice of a ‘rogue state’.
This means that the external sovereignty of ‘rogue states’ is questioned by the way in which their internal sovereignty is exercised.
In November, 2020, Pakistan handed over to the UN Secretary General the dossier-indicting India of committing terrorism activities in Pakistan.
We expect the international community to play its role for peace and stability in the region by compelling India to immediately halt its state sponsorship of terrorism in Pakistan and to [deal with] all those involved in financing and supporting terrorism in Pakistan according to relevant domestic and international laws,” Qureshi said.
“Let me be clear: India is a state sponsor of terrorism that is consistently exhibiting rogue behaviour.
If the world does not take action against the Indian agenda to destabilise and undermine Pakistan, peace and stability in nuclear-armed South Asia does not seem to be their priority.
“Recalling the sacrifices of the law enforcement and security agencies in “winning the war against terrorism”, Qureshi said Pakistan knew how to defend itself.
As per US Treasury Department’s study, India is one of the largest countries to move money secretly through Hawala worldwide. India is categorized by the U.S. State Department as “Jurisdiction of Primary Concern” in respect of money-laundering and financial crimes.
The U.S. State Department’s 2020 report states that for the Indian government, the money-laundering and terror financing are lower priorities while appreciating the current Pakistan government to have taken measures to address the gaps.
As per essential measures of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), India has failed to identify the risks and develop policies and domestic coordination to counter money-laundering.
Under FATF recommendations, India is obligated to provide the “widest possible range of mutual legal assistance” to Pakistan in relation to money-laundering, associated predicate offences, and terrorist financing investigations, prosecutions, and related proceedings.
Recently, suspicious activity reports were filed by US banks with US Watchdog, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network against 44 Indian banks, both state and privately owned.
India has been pursuing a long-standing strategy to deliberately attack educational institutions in Pakistan.
The terrorist attacks on APS Peshawar, Agriculture University, Peshawar, and Bacha Khan University, Charsadda are a few examples of Indian subversive activities.
The UN Secretary-General has enumerated attacking schools as “one of the six grave violations against children and armed conflict”.
Legal experts believe that by attacking educational institutions, India becomes a violator under Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); Article 28 of UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court (ICC) for attacks on educational buildings that are not military objectives in armed conflicts.
India is party to international agreements pertaining to state responsibility. Additionally, India is part of the international community bound by customary international law, so long as such law is not inconsistent with Indian law.
Specifically, Article 51(c) of the Indian Constitution dictates, “The State shall endeavour to foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with another.”
Despite this, India has failed to uphold international standards within customary international law regarding compensation and has taken reservations to crucial articles of relevant treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). India signed the CAT on 14 October 1997, but the country has yet to ratify to the treaty.
In clear violation of international humanitarian law, the occupation of educational institutions by Indian security forces in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) since 1990 continues.
Also, the border areas of Azad Jammu and Kashmir schools remain closed due to heavy shelling by the Indian Army. India pretends it has extended special status to occupied Kashmir under Article 370.
The Article stands eroded. “Ninety four of the 97 entries in the Union List, and 26 of the 27 entries in the Concurrent List have been extended to Jammu and Kashmir” (Dileep Padgaonkar, Open the Pandora’s Box at your own peril, Outlook). Article 370 has been further eroded by presidential orders and 260 of the 395 Indian Constitution articles, extended to disputed Kashmir.
Professor Theo van Boven, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to restitution, compensation, and rehabilitation for the victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms had noted, “The issue of State responsibility comes into play when a State is in breach of the obligation to respect internationally recognised human rights.
Such obligation has its legal basis in international agreements, in particular international human rights treaties, or in customary international law.”
—The writer, an independent ‘IR’ researcher-cum-international law analyst based in Pakistan, is member of European Consortium for Political Research Standing Group on IR, Critical Peace & Conflict Studies, also a member of Washington Foreign Law Society and European Society of International Law.
