Self-defence under the law _Author – Ahmer Bilal Soofi

In light of recent hostilities with India, Pakistan once again found itself caught between a rock and a hard place, where the instinct for self-preservation clashed with the haunting threat of nuclear escalation. The Pahalgam incident, followed by India’s aggressive gestures—air strikes, missile deployments, and suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty—pushed Pakistan to invoke Article 51 of the UN Charter, acting in self-defence. This calculated move was not one driven by impulse but by obligation to national sovereignty and survival. The international community, especially the US president, had to step in to prevent a descent into nuclear brinkmanship. This raises a chilling question—under what extreme circumstances could Pakistan justify a nuclear threat, especially when legal precedents like the ICJ’s 1996 opinion leave a faint door ajar for nuclear use in dire self-defence scenarios?

Diving into the deep waters of international law, the article sheds light on Pakistan’s right to retaliate in anticipation of an imminent threat, a stance backed by evolving interpretations of Article 51. India’s suspension of the IWT, an act with no exit clause, was not merely a bureaucratic gesture—it was a hostile move signaling war without firing a bullet. Through historical examples, including the Dalmia Cement case, the article argues that even in the absence of full-scale war, such provocations can form the legal ground for military response. Pakistan’s recourse to the UN Security Council, although met with silence, further legitimized its defence actions. However, a real thaw in tensions would require the IWT’s revival, just like the return of Indian pilot Abhinandan in 2019 served as a peace gesture. The heart of the matter remains—when deterrence hangs by a thread, diplomacy mustn’t miss a beat.

Overview:

The article critically examines Pakistan’s legal right to act in self-defence under international law in the face of Indian aggression post-Pahalgam incident. It discusses the suspension of the IWT, airstrikes, and missile threats, arguing that Pakistan’s actions were within the bounds of Article 51 of the UN Charter. The ICJ’s 1996 opinion on nuclear weapons is referenced to reflect how extreme situations can blur legal prohibitions. The author calls for a deeper understanding of self-defence law and highlights the importance of resuming treaties as peace signals.

NOTES:

This article demonstrates how Pakistan can defend its actions within the framework of UN law, particularly Article 51. For aspirants, understanding how treaties like the IWT hold legal and strategic weight is essential. The legal references—ICJ advisory opinions, UNGA resolutions, and Geneva Conventions. This piece is a masterclass in applying international law to real-time geopolitics.

Relevant CSS Syllabus Topics or Subjects:

• International Relations: Legal and strategic framework of self-defence, nuclear deterrence
• Pakistan Affairs: Indo-Pak relations, IWT, strategic diplomacy
• Current Affairs: UN interventions, global nuclear debates
• International Law (Optional): Article 51 of UN Charter, ICJ opinion on nuclear weapons, Geneva Conventions

Notes for beginners:

This article revolves around Pakistan’s legal right to defend itself under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows a country to act if under attack or even when a threat is imminent. For example, when India suspended the Indus Waters Treaty—an act akin to cutting off Pakistan’s water supply—it was seen as a war signal. Pakistan’s military response and approach to the UN were lawful. The article also discusses how nuclear weapons, though horrific, can be seen as a last-resort option under extreme threat, as hinted in a 1996 international court opinion. Facts like the return of Abhinandan in 2019 and US intervention in 2025 are used to show how diplomacy can defuse tension.

Facts and Figures:

• 70+ Indian aircraft participated in the offensive
• IWT was suspended by India on April 23, 2025
• ICJ opinion in 1996 allowed a legal grey area on nuclear use in self-defence
• Ceasefire was announced on May 10, 2025
• The 1965 Dalmia Cement arbitration distinguished between war and armed conflict

To sum up, This article draws a fine line between legality and strategy, proving that in today’s volatile world, war is not just fought with guns but with words, treaties, and precedents. It is a compelling reminder that while nuclear weapons remain a dreadful option, international law acknowledges their possible justification under extreme circumstances. The real battle lies in diplomacy—where restoring trust, like the revival of the IWT, can speak louder than firepower. For readers, especially CSS aspirants, this is not just legal theory—it’s contemporary history in the making.

Difficult Words and Meanings:

• Abeyance: temporary suspension (Syn: suspension, dormancy; Ant: continuation)
• Abhorrent: inspiring disgust or loathing (Syn: repugnant, revolting; Ant: admirable)
• Precedent: a previous case influencing future decisions (Syn: example, standard; Ant: anomaly)
• Legitimacy: lawfulness or validity (Syn: authority, legality; Ant: illegitimacy)
• Riparian: relating to riverbanks (Syn: fluvial, streamside; Ant: inland)
• Escalation: increase in intensity (Syn: intensification, amplification; Ant: de-escalation)
• Neutralise: to make ineffective (Syn: counteract, offset; Ant: empower)