Operation Sindoor reflects India’s assertive stance against cross-border terrorism. Beyond military responses, India must employ “lawfare” (law+warfare)—using international law strategically—to hold Pakistan accountable for sponsoring terrorism and to strengthen its diplomatic and global narrative.

Leverage Terrorism Conventions

• India’s lawfare strategy targets Pakistan’s support for cross-border terrorism using global legal forums. It leads efforts on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) and both nations are party to key anti-terrorism conventions.
• SAARC Regional Convention on Suppression of Terrorism:
  • International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT)
  • International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (Terrorist Bombing Convention)
• These conventions obligate signatories to:
  • Criminalise terrorism
  • Prosecute perpetrators
  • Refrain from financing terrorism
• For Example:
  • Article 2(1) of ICSFT: Declares terror financing a crime
  • Article 6 of SAARC Protocol: Requires efforts to suppress and eradicate terror financing

Building a Legal Case Against Pakistan

• Demonstration: India has consistently demonstrated Pakistan’s involvement in terror attacks, including:
  • 2008 Mumbai attacks
  • 2024 Pahalgam attack (April 22)
• India should:
  • Publicise evidence of Pakistan’s complicity
  • Use international forums to build a legal case
  • Identify violations of:
    • UN Security Council Resolutions
    • International terrorism conventions
    • Customary international law
• India’s deployment of all-party parliamentary delegations abroad under Operation Sindoor is a timely platform to advance this strategy.

Using the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

• Clause Concern: Many terrorism conventions have compromissory clauses that grant jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice (ICJ):
  • Article 20(1) of the Terrorist Bombing Convention
  • Article 24(1) of ICSFT
  • These allow disputes to be brought before the ICJ without needing new consent — if no reservations exist.
• Example: Ukraine vs Russia — Ukraine sued Russia under the ICSFT by invoking this clause.
• Need: India can build a similar case against Pakistan, as it did in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case.

Hurdles to Legal Action

• Pakistan’s Reservation:  Pakistan has not accepted ICJ jurisdiction under the ICSFT.
  • India can still file a case to bring global attention.
  • Let ICJ address jurisdictional issues.
• India’s Own Reservation: India has made a reservation to ICJ jurisdiction under the Terrorist Bombing Convention, unlike Pakistan.
  • India should withdraw this reservation to initiate proceedings.
  • The ICJ may interpret treaty provisions narrowly (as in Ukraine vs Russia), so India must:
    • Present foolproof evidence
    • Develop a robust legal strategy
    • Consider dissenting opinions (e.g., Judge Hilary Charlesworth) to support its case

Conclusion

India must integrate international law into its foreign policy to counter Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Even if legal outcomes are uncertain, leveraging global legal platforms can shape opinion, highlight violations, and promote India’s national security and strategic interests.