By Arslan Raza Awan, Tanzeel Asif & Rijja Gul
Students at Punjab University Law College
Abstract
The India-Pakistan conflict, reignited by the April 2025 terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, has escalated tensions between two nuclear-armed neighbors, raising critical questions about the role of legal systems in managing and mitigating war scenarios. The role of legal systems and their applications in the current affairs of the South Asia the possible war scenarios between India and Pakistan in decades was sparked by a civilian attack in Kashmir last month. Here what we know that India group has accused Pakistan of continuing the support to lashkar-e-taiba and jaish-e-mohammed Pakistan has rejected it and asked for full fledge investigation. This gesture from Pakistan shows its wisdom and mediating skills to solve an issue on table through law and its treaties between them irrespective of war and its consequences be faced. This article examines the application of international humanitarian law (IHL), bilateral agreements, and domestic legal frameworks during the ongoing crisis. It explores how legal mechanisms can normalize volatile situations and proposes preventive strategies to avert future escalations. Drawing on recent developments, the article underscores the importance of diplomacy, adherence to treaties, and international mediation to foster peace in South Asia.
Introduction
The India-Pakistan rivalry, rooted in the 1947 Partition and fueled by the Kashmir dispute, has once again reached a boiling point following the April 22, 2025, terrorist attack in Pahalgam, which claimed 26 lives, mostly civilians. India’s retaliatory measures, including the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty and diplomatic expulsions, have been met with Pakistan’s threats to abandon the Simla Agreement, pushing both nations toward a potential military confrontation. As a law student,we are compelled to explore how legal systems— international, bilateral, and domestic—can address such crises, prevent escalation, and pave the way for normalization. This article analyzes the legal frameworks governing the conflict, their effectiveness, and proposes legally grounded strategies to de-escalate and prevent future crises.
The Cycle of Escalation: From Pahalgam to the Precipice
Every India-Pakistan conflict follows a distressingly familiar trajectory: a violent flashpoint followed by diplomatic breakdown and retaliatory rhetoric.From Kargil in 1999 to Pulwama in 2019, violent flashpoints have repeatedly derailed diplomatic efforts. In each case, the absence or breakdown of legal mechanisms has left both countries vulnerable to emotional reactions rather than rational resolutions. The April 2025 Pahalgam attack fits into this troubling pattern, revealing the systemic failure of both countries to establish legal safeguards that could prevent such escalations.Each time, legal mechanisms intended to manage relations are sidelined. Emotional narratives—often fueled by political interests—overshadow objective inquiry, reducing the space for law to operate as a de-escalatory force.
International Legal Systems: Treaties and Their Tenuous Hold:
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols form the bedrock of international humanitarian law, aiming to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting civilians and non-combatants. Both India and Pakistan are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, making them legally bound to respect civilian immunity during military engagements.
If the conflict escalates, actions such as targeting civilian populations or infrastructure—especially water resources and hospitals—would constitute grave breaches of IHL and potential war crimes under Articles 51 and 52 of Additional Protocol I. The International Criminal Court (ICC), though not accepted by either country, could still exercise jurisdiction under certain conditions if referred by the UN Security Council.
The 2025 crisis, while not yet crossing the threshold of armed conflict under Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions, treads dangerously close. Legal analysis of India’s post-attack measures—mass detentions, demolition drives in Kashmir, and targeted military operations—raises concerns of collective punishment and disproportionate use of force, potentially violating customary IHL.
- Bilateral Treaties Under Siege: Simla and Indus as Legal Pillars
The Simla Agreement (1972), signed after the 1971 war, is a bilateral treaty that requires both countries to resolve disputes peacefully and refrain from the threat or use of force. The agreement places emphasis on the Line of Control (LoC) and mutual respect for territorial sovereignty. Pakistan’s warning to revoke the agreement, if acted upon, could dismantle one of the last standing diplomatic frameworks for structured dialogue.
The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT), brokered by the World Bank in 1960, is widely regarded as one of the most successful water-sharing treaties in the world. By allocating the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) to India and the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) to Pakistan, the treaty has withstood multiple wars and political crises. However, India’s 2025 decision to suspend the treaty as a punitive measure challenges its reputation as a conflict-resilient agreement and raises serious legal questions regarding its binding nature under international treaty law, particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 62.
Suspension of such treaties can trigger environmental consequences, displacement of communities, and legal escalation in forums like the International Court of Arbitration. The legal durability of these agreements depends on mutual trust, which is currently eroding.
- Domestic Legal Frameworks: National Security vs. Civil Liberties
India’s constitutional structure provides extensive powers under Article 355 and the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) to act in disturbed areas like Kashmir. However, these powers are often criticized for enabling human rights
abuses and bypassing judicial scrutiny. Following the Pahalgam attack, the state invoked preventive detention laws such as the Public Safety Act (PSA), leading to the arrest of hundreds of Kashmiri youth, often without trial—a potential violation of Article 9 of the ICCPR.
In Pakistan, legal responses have largely focused on reaffirming anti-terrorism laws under the Anti-Terrorism Act 1997 and granting additional powers to the military for border defense and internal security. Critics argue that both nations are drifting away from the rule of law and enabling militarization at the expense of democratic checks and balances.
III. Impact of Legal Systems During the Current Crisis
- Escalation Through Legal Posturing
The current crisis illustrates how legal posturing can exacerbate tensions. India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, while not explicitly a military action, leverages a legal instrument to exert pressure, signaling a shift from diplomatic to coercive measures. Pakistan’s retaliatory suspension of the Simla Agreement undermines the legal basis for bilateral dialogue, normalizing a war-like scenario. These actions demonstrate how the absence of
robust legal enforcement mechanisms can allow states to weaponize treaties, escalating conflicts rather than resolving them.
- Role of International Law in Restraint
Despite escalatory rhetoric, international law has played a restraining role. The United Nations’ call for “maximum restraint” and the United States’ diplomatic interventions,including calls from Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth,
reflect the international community’s reliance on IHL and customary law to prevent full-scale war. The 1988 India-Pakistan Non-Attack Agreement, which prohibits attacks on nuclear facilities, remains a critical safeguard, illustrating how targeted legal agreements can mitigate catastrophic outcomes even amid hostility.
- Challenges in Enforcement
Enforcing legal obligations during the India-Pakistan crisis faces significant hurdles. TheInternational Court of Justice (ICJ) lacks jurisdiction over bilateral disputes without mutual consent, and the World Bank’s role in the Indus Waters Treaty is limited to mediation. The absence of a binding enforcement mechanism leaves compliance to political will, which is often overshadowed by domestic pressures and nationalist sentiments. For instance, Indian
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s need to project strength post-Pahalgam and Pakistan’s economic vulnerabilities constrain both nations’ ability to prioritize legal obligations over immediate strategic interests.
- Normalizing War Scenarios: Legal Strategies
- Reinforcing Bilateral Agreements
To de-escalate the current crisis, both nations must recommit to the Simla Agreement and the Indus Waters Treaty. A joint statement reaffirming these agreements, facilitated by neutral mediators like the United States or China, could restore trust. Establishing a permanent bilateral commission to monitor treaty
compliance would provide a legal mechanism to address violations promptly, reducing the risk of escalation.
- Leveraging International Mediation
International mediation, as seen in past crises like the 2019 Pulwama incident, has proven effective in de-escalation. The United States, with its strategic ties to both nations, can facilitate back-channel talks to negotiate a ceasefire and reinstate diplomatic channels. The World Bank could mediate discussions on the Indus Waters Treaty, ensuring water-sharing disputes are resolved through legal rather than military means.
- Strengthening Domestic Accountability
Both nations must ensure domestic legal systems uphold international obligations. India should review its Kashmir security measures to align with constitutional and IHL standards, while Pakistan should ensure its military responses comply with civilian oversight and human rights laws. Judicial oversight mechanisms, such as India’s Supreme Court or Pakistan’s High Courts, can play a pivotal role in holding governments accountable, fostering public
confidence in legal processes over military solutions.
- Preventing Future Crises: A Legal Roadmap
- Institutionalizing Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs)
The 1988 Non-Attack Agreement demonstrates the potential of CBMs to reduce nuclear risks. Expanding CBMs to include regular military-to-military dialogues, joint border patrols,and transparency in missile testing could prevent miscalculations. Legally binding CBMs, endorsed by the UN or regional bodies like SAARC, would enhance their credibility and enforcement.
- Regional Legal Frameworks
A South Asian regional security framework, modeled on the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Cooperation, could provide a legal platform for India and Pakistan to address disputes. Such a framework would include dispute resolution mechanisms, mutual non-aggression pledges, and economic cooperation incentives, reducing the reliance on bilateral agreements prone to unilateral suspension.
- Public International Law Advocacy
Lawyers and civil society in both nations can advocate for greater adherence to public international law. Legal education campaigns, bar association resolutions, and amicus briefs in domestic courts can pressure governments to prioritize legal solutions. International law firms and NGOs, such as the International Crisis Group, can support these efforts by providing expertise and mediation resources.
- Conclusion
The India-Pakistan crisis of 2025 underscores the dual role of legal systems as both tools of escalation and instruments of peace. While the suspension of key treaties has heightened tensions, international humanitarian law and diplomatic interventions offer pathways to restraint. By reinforcing bilateral agreements, leveraging mediation, and institutionalizing preventive measures, both nations can normalize the current war scenario and avert future conflicts. As legal scholars and practitioners, we have a duty to champion these solutions, ensuring that the rule of law prevails over the specter of war in South Asia.