THE Indian claim that its recent strikes inside Pakistan represented retaliation for the attack in Pahalgam would have carried some semblance of legality had it been backed by some evidence of Pakistan`s involvement. In the absence of evidence, India cannothidebehindthefaçade of self-defence. Its action was, and is, blatantly illegal.

The legal standard for self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter is clear: force may be used only in response to an actual or imminent armed attack.

Retaliation for a past event, especially one still under dispute, does not meet that threshold.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has affirmed this in multiple cases, including Nicaragua versus United States, and Democratic Republic of the Congo versus Uganda. In both these cases, the ICJ emphasised that the right to use force requires clear evidence of an armed attack attributable to a state.

India not only failed to provide such proof, but it also bypassed international mechanisms entirely, refusing to approach the UN Security Council or request an impartial investigation.

Targeting civilian structures further deepens Indian violations. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols prohibit attacks on civilians and places of worship unless they are being used for military purposes.

No such justification has been presented.

The notion that these sites were `terrorist infrastructure` collapses under scrutiny when the dead include children and unarmed civilians. Striking mosques and homes without verifying their military use is not collateral damage; it is a war crime.

India`s narrative of Pakistan`s support to terrorists has been repeated for years, but repetition is not evidence. Under international law, a state cannot be held responsible for the actions of non-state actors without clear proof of direction orcontrol. The presence of militants on a country`s soil is not enough. States must exercise due diligence in preventing cross-border attacks, but that obligation does not justify unilateral military action.

The law demands facts, not accusations.

As for Pakistan`s response, it was swift and calculated. Unlike India, Pakistan did not target civilian areas. Under Article 51, a state subjected to an armed attack has the right to respond in self-defence, provided the response is proportionate and directed at legitimate military objectives.

Pakistan`s actions fell well within that legal framework.

The broader danger lies in the precedent India is attempting to set: using vague claims of terrorism to justify crossborder aggression. If this is allowed to stand, the core prohibition on the use of force under the UN Charter is eroded.

This is not just about India and Pakistan; it is about the integrity of the international legal order.

This erosion oflegalrestraintisnot occurring in a vacuum. It is the consequence ofdangerousprecedents setby global powers themselves. It is no coincidence that states emboldened by global double standards now believe they, too, can strike across borders, kill civilians, and invoke `terrorism` or `self-defence` as a shield.

The Indian attack is actually a test of the global will. If the world allows India to move on without consequences, then it signals that the law has given way to impunity. This cannot, and should not, be allowed to become the new normal. No way.

Ayesha Youssuf Abbasi Islamabad