Context:
- The article argues that India must complement kinetic military responses (such as Operation Sindoor) with a robust lawfare strategy to counter Pakistan-backed cross-border terrorism.
- Instead of relying solely on force or diplomacy, India should invoke international legal mechanisms to establish Pakistan’s state responsibility for sponsoring terrorism.
- Such an approach would shift the global discourse from geopolitical contestation to rule-based accountability.
Key Highlights:
What is Lawfare?
- Lawfare refers to the strategic use of international law to:
- Advance national interests
- Shape global narratives
- Hold states accountable for unlawful conduct
- As a non-kinetic tool, lawfare can:
- Legitimise India’s counter-terror actions
- Isolate Pakistan diplomatically
- Build international consensus against state-sponsored terrorism
International Legal Instruments Available to India:
- International & Regional Terrorism Conventions:
India and Pakistan are parties to several binding treaties, including:
- 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
Key Obligations under these Conventions:
- Criminalise terrorist acts and financing
- Prosecute or extradite offenders
- Prevent financial, logistical, and material support to terrorist groups
- Cooperate internationally in investigation and prosecution
Example:
- Article 2(1) of ICSFT explicitly criminalises financing of terrorism, including indirect support.
- International Court of Justice (ICJ):
- Several terrorism conventions include compromissory clauses, enabling disputes to be referred to the ICJ.
- India can initiate proceedings against Pakistan by invoking:
- Article 20(1) of the Terrorist Bombing Convention
- Article 24(1) of the ICSFT
- India can present documented evidence of terror financing, training, and safe havens provided by Pakistan.
Relevant Prelims Points:
- Issue: Using international law to counter state-sponsored terrorism.
- Key Concepts:
- Lawfare: Legal tools as instruments of strategic diplomacy.
- Compromissory Clause: Treaty provision allowing disputes to be taken to ICJ.
- Jurisdictional Reservation: Opting out of ICJ jurisdiction under specific treaties.
- Treaties Involved:
- ICSFT
- Terrorist Bombing Convention
- SAARC Terrorism Convention
- Institutional Body:
- International Court of Justice (ICJ) – principal judicial organ of the UN.
- Impact:
- Strengthens India’s rules-based global posture
- Reinforces global norms against terror financing
Relevant Mains Points:
- Strategic and Legal Challenges:
- Pakistan has placed reservations on ICJ jurisdiction under some treaties (e.g., ICSFT).
- However, such reservations can be legally challenged, as seen in Ukraine’s case against Russia at the ICJ.
- Governance & Diplomatic Dimensions:
- Lawfare requires:
- Strong inter-ministerial coordination
- Specialised international legal expertise
- Systematic evidence collection and documentation
- Diplomatic efforts, including parliamentary delegations and multilateral advocacy, are essential to reinforce legal claims.
- Lawfare requires:
- Strategic Significance:
- Establishes a fact-based narrative of Pakistan’s culpability.
- Sustains long-term international pressure, beyond episodic military actions.
- Enhances India’s credibility as a responsible power committed to international law.
- Way Forward:
- Create a dedicated lawfare and international litigation unit within the government.
- Actively use UN mechanisms, treaty bodies, and ICJ proceedings.
- Coordinate legal action with diplomacy, intelligence inputs, and strategic communication.
- Develop precedents for using international law against non-state threats enabled by states.