The article wades into the contested issue of the legality of India’s surgical strikes in Pakistan in the last decade. While legal scholars have deliberated on the legality of India’s actions, international relations (IR) have remained silent, thereby underlining the chasm between IR and international law when it comes to international issues. This article evaluates the competing claims made by legal scholars by engaging with developments in international law pertaining to the use of force as an ‘outsider’ approaching the issue from a fresh vantage point. It finds the argument regarding the weakness of India’s legal position to be more convincing. However,it does not fully subscribe to the reasons attributed for the weakness. Drawing on insights from IR, it highlights the salience of political considerations and incentive structures. The article argues that a comprehensive view that includes legal and political dimensions needs to be taken to appreciate India’s stand regarding the surgical strikes.
BanerjeeA. (2017). Indian surgical strikes: Accelerating the emergence of nascent norms of use of force against non-state actors. Cambridge International Law Journal. http://cilj.co.uk/2017/09/06/indian-surgical-strikes-accelerating-the-emergence-of-nascent-norms-of-use-of-force-against-non-state-actors/
4.
BaruS. (2015). The economic imperatives shaping Indian foreign policy. In MaloneD. C., MohanC. R., & RaghavanS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Indian foreign policy (pp. 326–338). Oxford University Press.
5.
BeehnerL. (2007). Can states invoke ‘hot pursuit’ to hunt rebels?Council on Foreign Relations. https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/can-states-invoke-hot-pursuit-hunt-rebels
6.
BeehnerL. (2018). A means of first resort: Explaining ‘hot pursuit’ in international relations. Security Studies, 27(3), 379–409.
7.
BegooreY. (2016). An apologia for India’s ‘Surgical strikes’ against terrorist groups: The conflict with Pakistan. Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/33409/apologia-indias-surgical-strikes-pakistan/
BrunnéeJ., & ToopeS. J. (2018). Self-defence against non-state actors: Are powerful states willing but unable to change international law?International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 67(2), 263–286.
10.
BurraS. (2016, October13). How does India’s decision to conduct surgical strikes hold up in international law?The Wire. https://thewire.in/external-affairs/does-indias-decision-to-conduct-surgical-strikes-hold-up-before-international-law
11.
BurraS. (2020). Use of force as self defence against non-state actors and TWAIL considerations: A critical analysis of India’s state practice. In LeeS. & LeeH. E. (Eds.), Asian yearbook of international law, Vol. 24 (pp. 106–126). Brill Nijhoff.
12.
BurraS. (2021, March2). India’s decisive turn on the right of self-defence. Opinio Juris. https://opiniojuris.org/2021/03/22/indias-decisive-turn-on-the-right-of-self-defence/
13.
ChandraY. (2017). International law on the use of force against terrorists since 9/11: The contrasting cases of Israel and India. Journal of Defence Studies, 11(2), 37–60.
14.
ChellaneyB. (2020, 26February). Balakot airstrike ensured no Pakistan-sponsored attack in India a year since. The Print. https://theprint.in/opinion/balakot-airstrike-ensured-no-pakistan-sponsored-attack-in-india-a-year-since/371288/
15.
ChimniB. S. (2021). India. In GeißR. & MelzerN. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the international law of global security (pp. 895–912). Oxford University Press.
16.
ClaudeInis L.Jr. (1963). United Nations use of military force. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 7(2), 117–129.
17.
CortenO. (2016). The ‘unwilling or unable’ test: Has it been, and could it be, accepted?Leiden Journal of International Law, 29(3), 777–799.
18.
CrawfordJ. R. (2012). Brownlie’s principles of public international law. Oxford University Press.
19.
DeeksA. (2016). Taming the doctrine of pre-emption. In WellerM. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law (pp. 661–678). Oxford University Press.
20.
DesaiB. (2017). Surgical strikes by India: Taking international law seriously. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(5), 21–24.
21.
DolzerR., KriebaumU., & SchreuerC. (2022). Principles of international investment law. Oxford University Press.
22.
ElmanC., & JensenM. A. (Eds.). (2014). Realism Reader. New York.
23.
FranckT. M. (1970). Who killed article 2(4)? or: Changing norms governing the use of force by states. The American Journal of International Law, 64(5), 809–837.
24.
GilmoreW. C. (2016). Hot pursuit. In WellerM. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law (pp. 897–924). Oxford University Press.
25.
GokhaleN. (2017, 23September). The inside story of India’s 2016 ‘surgical strikes’. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2017/09/the-inside-story-of-indias-2016-surgical-strikes/
26.
HaidarS., & PeriD. (2019, 27February). IAF plane shot down, pilot taken captive by Pak army. The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/iaf-plane-shot-down-pilot-taken-captive-by-pak-army/article61537897.ece
27.
HaqueA. A. (2021). The use of force against non-state actors: All over the map. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law, 8(2), 278–290.
28.
HegdeV. G. (2016). India and international dispute settlement. Indian Journal of International Law, 56(1), 1–40.
29.
HendersonC. (2019). Tit-for-tat-for-tit: The Indian and Pakistani airstrikes and the Jus ad Bellum. EJIL Talk!https://www.ejiltalk.org/tit-for-tat-for-tit-the-indian-and-pakistani-airstrikes-and-the-jus-ad-bellum/
30.
IkenberryJ. J. (2001). After victory: Institutions, strategic restraint, and the rebuilding of order after major wars. Princeton University Press.
31.
JardoshD. V. (2016, 7December). Diplomatic steps after surgical strike. Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3514. https://www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/27761/QUESTION_NO3514_DIPLOMATIC_STEPS_AFTER_SURGICAL_STRIKE
32.
KapoorS. R. (2016, 6October). Reading the law: The surgical strikes against Pakistan were in line with international principles. Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/818343/the-surgical-strikes-against-pakistan-were-in-line-with-international-legal-principles-heres-how
33.
KhubaB. (2017, 5April). Vacancies in legal and treaties division. Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 5163. https://www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/28320/QUESTION_NO5163_VACANCIES_IN_LEGAL_AND_TREATIES_DIVISION
34.
KrasnerS. (2002, March13–16). Realist views of international law. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), 96, 265–268.
35.
KreßC. (2016). The International Court of Justice and the principle of non-use of force. In WellerM. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law (pp. 561–604). Oxford University Press.
36.
MearsheimerJ. (2020). Symposium debate transcript: The promise of international law: Realism versus legalism. Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11(1), 91–106.
37.
MehtaP. S., & ChatterjeeB. (2015). India in the international trading system. In MaloneD. C., MohanC. R., & RaghavanS. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Indian foreign policy (636–649). Oxford University Press.
38.
Ministry of External Affairs. (2016, 29September). Transcript of joint briefing by MEA and MoD. https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/27446/Transcript_of_Joint_Briefing_by_MEA_and_MoD_September_29_2016
39.
Ministry of External Affairs. (2019, 26February). Statement by foreign secretary on 26 February 2019 on the strike on JeM training camp at Balakot. https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/31089/Statement+by+Foreign+Secretary+on+26+February+2019+on+the+Strike+on+JeM+training+camp+at+Balakot
40.
Ministry of External Affairs. (2023). Indian treaties database. https://www.mea.gov.in/treaty.htm
41.
MisraP. (2022, March25). Nomination of leading academicians of international law. Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3792. https://www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/35065/QUESTION_NO3792_NOMINATION_OF_LEADING_ACADEMICIANS_OF_INTERNATIONAL_LAW
42.
MoirL. (2016). Action against host states of terrorist group. In WellerM. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law (pp. 720–736). Oxford University Press.
43.
MorgenthauH. J. (1948). Politics among nations: The struggle for power and peace. Oxford University Press.
44.
MyreG. (2003, October6). The Mideast turmoil: Airstrike; Israel attacks what it calls a terrorist camp in Syria. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/06/world/mideast-turmoil-airstrike-israel-attacks-what-it-calls-terrorist-camp-syria.html
45.
Pinchis-PaulsenM. (2022). Let’s agree to disagree: A strategy for trade security. Journal of International Economic Law, 25, 527–547.
46.
RanjanP. (2020, 5January). ‘Pre-emptive strikes’ is a problematic term in international law. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/preemptive-strikes-is-a-problematic-term-in-international-law/story-LTNyvsTZrVZppkUwo4GawN.html
47.
RanjanP. (2022a). The impact of investment treaties on the rule of law in India. In CalamitaN. J. & BermanA. (Eds.), Investment treaties and the rule of law promise: An examination of the internalisation of international commitments in Asia (pp. 38–66). Cambridge University Press.
48.
RanjanP. (2022b). The future of India’s investment treaty practice: An important parliamentary intervention. Manchester Journal of International Economic Law, 19(1), 112–125.
49.
Report of the Committee on External Affairs. (2020–2021). (2021, September). India and international law including extradition treaties with foreign countries, asylum issues, international cyber-security and issues of financial crimes, 9th report. https://eparlib.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/811608/1/17_External_Affairs_9.pdf
50.
SahasrabuddheV. (2019, December5). Consultants/advisors with the ministry. Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 1957. https://www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/32161/QUESTION_NO1957_CONSULTANTS__ADVISORS_WITH_THE_MINISTRY
51.
SchmidtB. C. (2002). On the history and historiography of IR. In CarlsnaesW., ThomasR. & SimmonsB. A. (Eds.), Handbook of international relations (pp. 3–28). Sage.
52.
ShawM. (2017). International law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
SinghS. (2019, February27). Explained: Why Balakot is a watershed. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/why-balakot-is-a-watershed-indian-air-force-pulwama-attack-5602269/
55.
SinhaS. (2024). The lie of sovereign rights: India and bilateral investment treaties. Jindal Forum for International and Economic Laws. https://jindalforinteconlaws.in/2024/01/23/the-lie-of-sovereign-rights-india-and-bilateral-investment-treaties/
56.
South Asia Terrorism Portal. Parliament resolution on Jammu and Kashmir. https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/document/papers/parliament_resolution_on_Jammu_and_Kashmir.htm
57.
SteinbergR. H., & ZasloffJ. M. (2006). Power and international law. The American Journal of International Law, 100(1), 64–87.
58.
SukumarA. M. (2018, April2). How India lost its way in the study and use of international law. The Wire. HTTPS://THEWIRE.IN/DIPLOMACY/INDIA-IS-LAGGING-BEHIND-IN-THE-STUDY-AND-USE-OF-INTERNATIONAL-LAW
59.
The Hindu. (2015, June10). Myanmar operation: 70 commandos finish task in 40 minutes. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/myanmar-operation-70-commandos-finish-task-in-40-minutes/article7302348.ece
60.
The Indian Express. (2019, February16). America supports India’s right to self-defence: US NSA to Ajit Doval. https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-pulwama-terror-attack-crpf-kashmir-united-states-nsa-john-bolton-ajit-doval-5586755/
61.
ThomasG. (2016, October24). The right to self-defence: India’s surgical strikes are in keeping with international law and practice. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/surgical-strikes-kashmir-loc-indian-army-jihadist-terrorism-3099392
62.
TzouvalaN. (2015). TWAIL and the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine: Continuities and ruptures. AJIL Unbound, 109, 266–270.
63.
UN Charter, art. 2, para. 4. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-1
64.
UN Charter, art. 51. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7
WaltzK. N. (1979). Theory of international politics. Waveland.
67.
WaxmanM. (2018, August28). The ‘Caroline’ affair in the evolving international law of self-defence. Lawfare. https://www.lawfareblog.com/caroline-affair
