Operation Sindoor: Defending Borders, Upholding International Law

India’s recent military operation, Operation Sindoor, aimed at dismantling cross-border insurgent infrastructure, has generated intense debate both domestically and internationally. Predictably, critics have raised concerns over its legality and implications for regional peace. However, when examined through the lens of international law — including the UN Charter, customary principles of state responsibility, and the evolving doctrine of self-defence — India’s actions emerge not as violations but as lawful and necessary measures of statecraft.

At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: can a state take military action on foreign soil without the host nation’s consent if it is persistently threatened by non-state actors operating from that territory? International law does not provide a monolithic answer, but it does offer a framework within which such actions can be justified under certain conditions.

I. Self-Defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter

Article 51 of the UN Charter preserves the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.” For decades, international jurists interpreted this narrowly — allowing use of force only after a significant, state-led armed attack. But post-9/11 jurisprudence, especially the unanimous adoption of UN Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373, expanded this interpretation to include non-state actors.

India, like any sovereign nation, retains the right to protect its citizens from armed attacks, including those originating from terrorist groups operating across the border. Operation Sindoor was not a preventive strike in the abstract. It was a responsive act of self-defence against specific, repeated acts of terrorism planned and executed from across the border, with credible intelligence to suggest imminent future attacks.

II. The “Unable or Unwilling” Doctrine

Over the past two decades, states like the United States (in Syria), Israel (in Lebanon and Iran), and Turkey (in Iraq and Syria) have invoked what is now referred to as the “unable or unwilling” doctrine — asserting the right to use force in another country’s territory if that country is unable or unwilling to suppress the threat posed by non-state actors.

India has repeatedly provided dossiers and evidence to its western neighbour about the safe havens, financial channels, and arms supplies enjoyed by these terrorist groups. Yet, actionable cooperation or enforcement by the Pakistani authorities has been conspicuously absent.

Under the “unable or unwilling” doctrine, Operation Sindoor is consistent with evolving customary international law. It targets only those areas where the host state has failed to exercise effective control or has tacitly supported unlawful non-state actors.

III. Proportionality and Necessity

Even in self-defence, the use of force must conform to the principles of necessity and proportionality. India’s operation was not directed at civilian infrastructure, nor did it seek regime change or punitive measures. It was narrowly focused on eliminating specific camps used for cross-border terrorism.

By keeping civilian casualties minimal and ensuring rapid withdrawal of troops, India adhered to the cardinal principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. In fact, such precision operations serve to minimize wider conflict escalation — a preference also reflected in India’s past surgical strikes.

IV. State Responsibility of Harbouring Terrorists

Under the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), a state can be held responsible if it aids or assists a wrongful act or fails to prevent its territory from being used as a base for attacks on another state. International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisprudence — notably the Nicaragua v. United States and Bosnian Genocide cases — has consistently underlined that the harbouring or sponsoring of armed non-state actors incurs state responsibility.

In Pakistan’s case, there is both historical and ongoing evidence — from Kargil to Uri and Pulwama — that terrorist groups enjoy a degree of freedom and impunity not possible without state complicity or, at the very least, wilful blindness. That makes India’s claim of lawful counterforce robust under international norms.

V. Precedents in Global State Practice

India is not an outlier. A number of states have resorted to limited force to neutralize non-state actors in foreign territories. The U.S. operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad was undertaken without Pakistani consent. Israel has repeatedly struck targets in Syria and Lebanon when it felt existentially threatened by Hezbollah or Iranian-backed militias. These acts, while controversial, have not been definitively condemned as unlawful by the UN Security Council or the ICJ — reflecting a realist shift in the interpretation of sovereignty and self-defence.

VI. Regional and Global Implications

International law must evolve to meet the realities of modern warfare, where the biggest threats are no longer traditional armies but mobile, stateless terror outfits exploiting failed or complicit regimes. To insist that a state must endlessly absorb terrorist attacks or plead for action from an indifferent neighbour is to erode the very concept of sovereignty.

Operation Sindoor does not violate international law — it invokes it responsibly. In doing so, it also signals India’s preference for accountability, proportionality, and precision over bombast and escalation.

Conclusion: A Lawful Defence, Not a War Cry

The international legal system is not static. It evolves in response to global threats and normative shifts. India’s Operation Sindoor stands as an example of lawful self-defence adapted to the challenges of transnational terrorism. Rather than being condemned, it should spark a serious discussion on how international law can enable democracies to defend themselves while avoiding full-scale war.

India’s approach — calibrated, legally justifiable, and strategically restrained — is not just in its national interest. It strengthens the rule of law by ensuring that justice and deterrence do not become casualties in the age of asymmetric warfare.

Author: Dr. Vishal Sharma

Assistant Prof. at Bennett University, Greater Noida, UP.