1

In a recent interview, Indian FM Jaishankar said that India informed Pakistan before launching cross-border strikes on Pakistani territory on 7th May 2025. These sites were termed "terrorist infrastructure" by India, and as "civilian" areas by Pakistan.

As per the UN Charter, does advance notification to another country before a cross-border military strike affect the legal classification of such an action?

Improve this question
9
  • 2
    Will you say what you're really asking, please? How could 'informing…' the target country matter? Most famously, and in one of the most significant events not just in military or political but every branch of history, Japan failed to 'inform…' US America about the attack on Pearl Harbour Has anyone ever complained that Japan 'failed to inform…' the US, rather than failing to declare war… which would have removed any need for 'informing…' anyone? Who thinks Russia 'informing…' Ukraine mattered? Who thinks Israel 'informing…' Gazans matters? Commented May 18 at 20:37
  • 6
    In the case mentioned, it's a courtesy of being a good neighbour. First India asks Pakistan to arrest and deal with their terrorists themselves. Since they failed to act on that, India had to deal with it themselves, but they give a warning first. By analogy, police officers also don't just randomly shoot criminals without warning and only escalate as much as needed. Commented May 19 at 5:33
  • 1
    Why the downvotes? This is a great question! Commented May 19 at 21:12
  • 5
    @JonathanReez this is a loaded/biased question - it exists to push that somehow India is the aggressor state in this situation, when in fact it is a victim of state sponsored cross-border terrorism Commented May 20 at 2:38
  • 1
    @whoisit: Somewhat related politics.stackexchange.com/a/78928/18373 Commented May 20 at 4:14

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
17

No

International law consists of treaties which bind signatories only and norms which are so widely accepted (jus cogens) that the international community applies them to all nations, signatories and non-signatories alike. During the last century, the prohibition of wars of aggression has become widely accepted. But not every act of war is a war of aggression.

Communicating an attack in advance can serve three purposes.

  • If two nations are in a tit-for-tat confrontation, announcing the goals of a limited strike might avoid misunderstandings which lead to inadvertent general war. This is the concept of a hotline even between warring states.
  • If there are civilians near a legitimate military target, the other side gets the opportunity to evacuate the civilians. The attacker can then argue that collateral damage was not their fault.
  • If the communication is linked to an ultimatum, when that is later revealed the attacker can argue that it gave the other side one last chance to back down. The legitimacy of the ultimatum depends on the legitimacy of the strike, which is allowed in a defensive war but not in a war of aggression.
Improve this answer
3
  • 4
    The first reason seems most important. Presumably India didn't want to elicit a panicked nuclear response. Commented May 18 at 16:32
  • Usually it is the military target that gets evacuated on warning, not civilians around. Unlike civilian facilities military ones are designed to be mobile. Commented May 19 at 11:43
  • In addition, under the traditional laws of war, a surprise attack is a crime unless a state of declared war already exists. Commented May 30 at 8:13
13

Typically, when one country informs another before launching an attack on it, it's called a declaration of war. Obviously, a declaration of war does not make the declaring party a non-aggressor.

However, India's claim is that no Pakistani military sites were targeted, rather that it was launching an attack on terrorist infrastructure that happens to be located in Pakistan, much like the US air campaign against ISIS in Syria, for example (sources: 1 2). In addition to practical benefits noted by the other answer, notifying Pakistan serves a propaganda purpose: it permits India to present the attacks as coordinating an anti-terrorist operation on Pakistani territory, rather than as an attack on Pakistan itself. Therefore, if or when Pakistan retaliates, India can accuse it of being the aggressor (for example), or of supporting terrorists.

Note that the sources I cited are clearly not impartial and I make no claim about the validity of their statements, only that this is how India is trying to present the attacks, and notifying Pakistan supports that aim.

Improve this answer
2
  • Where is the proof or dossier? Commented May 19 at 7:42
  • 3
    @user366312 "Note that the sources I cited are clearly not impartial and I make no claim about the validity of their statements" Commented May 19 at 7:44
5

According to the Indian press, India is effectively invoking the US doctrine of "unable or unwilling", except India isn't explicitly calling it that.

Dr. Ranjan noted that the Foreign Secretary’s remarks that Pakistan had taken “no demonstrable step” to act against terrorist infrastructure in the fortnight following the Pahalgam attack and that the country has long served as a “haven for terrorists” indicate a reliance on the “unwilling or unable” doctrine.

The legality of this doctrine in int'l law has been much debated vis-a-vis of the UN charter. There are quite a few questions here about it, so I won't delve into that here.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.