India has not abandoned its role as a responsible nation in the aftermath of the Pulwama terror attack and the subsequent air strikes.
 |
| Photo (https://unsplash.com/photos/bGJ15W7Zseo) |
On 26 February 2019, the Indian Foreign Secretary described India's air strike at Balakot as a "non-military pre-emptive strike". The airstrikes were carried out against the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) militant group responsible for the Pulwama attack. He explained in his statement that "preventive action" was necessary, citing "credible information" that Jaish-e-Mohammed was planning a second attack and that Pakistan had failed to destroy terrorist camps on its own soil.
A brief reading of this statement makes it clear that this statement not only clarifies the cause of the Indian air strike but also seeks to justify New Delhi's action within the framework of international law. The statement of Lieutenant General Ranbir Singh after the 2016 'surgical strike' bears some resemblance to Vijay Gokhale's statement, which was also a response to "reliable and clear information" of a suspected terrorist attack against the country. If we look at the official statements in international law, it is clear that India wants others to look at it as a responsible power, which is ready to play the game according to the rules.
Each country has the right to defend itself in the event of an "armed attack" by outside forces [Article 51, United Nations Charter]. It is difficult to implement this provision in the current situation as the Pulwama attack was carried out by Jaish-e-Mohammed, a non-political organization. Although Article 51 does not specify who the attacker should be, it is generally assumed that the state is responsible for the attack. Article 51 was given such a logical meaning, because it was a charter of the United Nations when there was a constant war between nations.
In the 1986 Nicaraguan case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the first time declared the right to defend itself against non-political elements. However, this right was limited by the condition that the non-political component must have been sent by or from the state in which the right to 'self-defense' is exercised. In the 2000s, nations faced a new category of non-political elements, such as terrorism. The right to self-defense can then be exercised against states as well as against non-political elements, even if that right has not yet been clearly established legally. UN Security Council Resolution no. Recognizes the right to defend oneself against terrorism in the context of the terrorist attacks of 1368 and 1373, 9/11.
The need for India to carry out a "pre-deterrent attack" was also explained, as the action was taken to avert a pre-emptive strike or to reduce the strength of the enemy. The first requirement was "inevitability", which implies that "the process of self-defense needed to take place urgently, vigorously and without any additional discussion."
Jaish-e-Mohammed is planning to carry out suicide attacks in different parts of the country, prompting Indian officials to take credible information.
The second condition was "justice" which was also fulfilled in the Balkot operation as the target camps were located in the dense forest on the hill and the desire to "avoid loss of life of the citizens" was also being fulfilled.
Therefore, New Delhi has made careful efforts to ensure that its actions are in line with existing rules of international law. India's efforts to support these efforts are reflected in the use of existing mechanisms. For example, the 1267 United Nations Committee on the Prevention of Terrorism, the Committee on Terrorism, made great efforts to persuade India to declare Azhar a global terrorist; It also affected the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to blacklist Pakistan for failing to curb financial aid to terrorists. It is understood that India's efforts to reach an agreement at the Comprehensive Conference on Terrorism (CCIT) are aimed at finding a legal basis for prosecuting and deporting terrorists.
In the last few years, the official statement made by India to secure the "international system based on rules" has gained more importance. Especially in countries where the principles of international law are rejected. Notable examples include India's criticism of China's aggression in the South China Sea, as well as Pakistan's criticism of the Indian Air Force's pilot Abhinandan Wartman for violating the Geneva Council's rules on "prisoners of war". India's decision to bring Kulbhushan Jadhav's case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) demonstrates India's faith in the international legal system and the United Nations primary justice body.
Against this backdrop, it would be wise for New Delhi to understand the importance of complying with obligations under international legal obligations such as the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) and not seek to abrogate the treaty by taking unilateral decisions as retaliation or punishment. According to the 1960 water sharing agreement, India gets 20% of the Indus water system. There are some supporters and some critics of this agreement. Proponents argue that the agreement is fair and a significant diplomatic achievement for India. Critics say India's share of the water is too small and that India cannot use its full share of the water. However, India should use the 'dispute resolution mechanism' of the Indus Water Treaty to resolve any dispute over water allocation. Moreover, the agreement does not provide for the termination of the agreement by taking a unilateral decision as part of the counter-argument,
The Indus Water Treaty (IWT) is seen as a successful example of reducing conflict between two hostile neighbors. This agreement has lasted for many years and any change in this agreement must be brought about legally.
India has always supported international law. As New Delhi's dominance in world politics grows, India needs to be more aware of its global legal obligations, as India has so far portrayed Pakistan as a 'fraudulent country'. As a result, India will not only gain the respect of other nations but also be able to fulfill its desire to become a responsible global power.
Post a Comment