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.