In the early hours of May 7, 2025, a grave escalation occurred as the Indian armed forces launched a series of coordinated missile and drone attacks on five Pakistani cities: Kotli, Bahawalpur, Muzaffarabad, Bagh, and Muridke.
India alleged that these strikes were aimed at terrorist training camps.
However, evidence suggests that civilian areas, mosques, and critical infrastructure, including the Nauseri Dam, were deliberately targeted.
The use of drones and guided munitions hit residential zones and religious buildings, prompting an immediate military response from Pakistan.
In retaliation, Pakistan reportedly downed five Indian aircraft, including three French-made Rafales, a Su-30 and a Mig-29 and engaged Indian border posts until Indian forces raised a white flag.
Without conclusive evidence, New Delhi accused Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies of orchestrating the attack.
This led India to suspend the Indus Waters Treaty unilaterally and downgrade diplomatic ties, violating multiple bilateral and international norms.
India’s recent actions significantly deviate from acceptable state behaviour under international law.
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state unless it is acting in self-defence, as outlined in Article 51.
India’s claim of self-defence lacks credibility, as there is no evidence of an imminent armed attack by Pakistan’s state apparatus.
Furthermore, India did not approach the United Nations Security Council before resorting to armed force, breaching Article 2(3), which obliges states to settle disputes peacefully.
Under International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, India’s missile and drone strikes violated key principles.
The Principle of Distinction (Articles 48 and 51) mandates a clear separation between civilians and combatants, which India failed to uphold by targeting mosques, homes and residential zones.
This also breaches the Prohibition of Indiscriminate Attacks (Article 51(4)).
The deliberate nature of these strikes raises serious concerns under Article 8(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Rome Statute, indicating potential war crimes.
The attack on the Nauseri Dam, part of the Neelum-Jhelum Hydropower Project, marks a dangerous escalation.
Article 56 of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacks on dams due to the threat of releasing dangerous forces affecting civilians.
India’s actions further violate Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute, which criminalizes disproportionate harm to civilians relative to military gain.
Environmental damage and civilian casualties also raise red flags under the ENMOD Convention (1976) and Article 35(3) of Additional Protocol I.
Targeting religious sites violates the 1954 Hague Convention, making deliberate attacks on mosques and public spaces potential war crimes against cultural heritage.
India also conducted drone strikes at multiple civil areas of Pakistan on 8th May 25.
The use of drones against civilian targets without prior warning violates Rules 20 and 21 of Customary International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and raises concerns about potential war crimes.
Pakistan’s National Security Committee (NSC), chaired by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, has described these Indian actions as an “act of war.
” In response, Pakistan invoked the doctrine of self-defence by Article 51 of the UN Charter, a right triggered by an armed attack.
The country summoned India’s Chargé d’Affaires, launched diplomatic protests and authorized its armed forces to respond “at a time, place and manner of its choosing.”
The international community has reacted with concern.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres urged restraint, while the US, UK, EU, Germany and Japan called for de-escalation.
President Trump labelled the attacks as “a shame,” and the EU reiterated the need for a peaceful and negotiated resolution.
However, at this point, international mediation has been limited to statements rather than direct intervention.
Although the situation qualifies as an International Armed Conflict (IAC), it has not yet escalated into full-scale war.
Such a conflict would require prolonged combat, mass mobilization and sustained military operations beyond initial engagements.
However, with the present pace of escalation and civilian casualties, the situation remains highly volatile.
Pakistan now has several legal and strategic options to consider
1.Initiate proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for breaches of the Geneva Conventions and environmental law due to attacks on the dam.
The ICJ can adjudicate cases involving treaty violations and state responsibility for cross-border aggression.
2.Refer to the International Criminal Court (ICC)under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute.
This allows a non-member state like Pakistan to accept jurisdiction for a specific situation and request an investigation into war crimes.
While enforcement against non-signatories may be limited, the global pressure and symbolic significance of such a move are considerable.
3.Call for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council, utilizing Chapter VII of the UN Charter to seek condemnation, sanctions, or resolutions for a ceasefire.
4.Present detailed legal dossiers to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the European Union (EU), and allied nations to shape global opinion and prepare for potential economic or legal actions.
A phased strategic roadmap is advisable.
In Phase I, Pakistan should engage in high-level diplomacy through multilateral forums and legal channels.
In Phase II, it must fortify its defence posture to deter future strikes while avoiding overreaction that may spiral into uncontrollable conflict.
In Phase III, Pakistan must seek international investigations into India’s conduct and lobby for accountability through the media and human rights watchdogs.
In conclusion, the May 6–8 attacks represent a grave escalation that risks plunging South Asia into catastrophic conflict.
India’s actions violate multiple international treaties and conventions.
Pakistan must balance measured retaliation with legal, strategic, and diplomatic responses.
While it has the right to act under international law, including proportional self-defence, it also reserves, as a sovereign nation, the authority to respond decisively if India disregards legal norms.
The international community must intervene—not only to prevent war between two nuclear-armed states, but to uphold and reaffirm the foundational principles of international law and ensure accountability for violations.
—The writer is a International Law expert with a rich experience in negotiation, mediation and Alternate Dispute Resolution. ([email protected])
