Context: India’s recent military action against Pakistan-based terrorist targets have revived debates on the right of self-defence under international law, especially under Article 51 of the United Nations (UN) Charter.
Relevance of the topic:
Prelims: Key facts related to provisions of self defence under the UN Charter especially Article 51 and Article 2(4) of UN Charter.
Mains: Role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security.
India justified its military action against Pakistan-based terrorist targets under the “unwilling or unable doctrine” and traditional principles of necessity and proportionality.
Article 51 of the UN Charter
- Article 51 of the UN Charter permits the use of force in self-defence only if an armed attack occurs. It is an exception to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- Military Action under Article 51 must satisfy two critical principles:
- Necessity (Force must be the only option left)
- Proportionality (the response should not exceed the scale of the attack).
- Article 51 imposes a procedural obligation on member states to immediately report to the UNSC any military measures taken in self-defence. UNSC then assumes the authority to undertake action to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Can it be exercised against Non-State Actors?
- Traditionally, the UN Charter governs conduct between sovereign states. However, post- 9/11, several countries, especially the US, have argued that Article 51 extends to non-state actors (NSAs) such as terrorist organisations, even when they operate from another country’s territory.
- However, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has maintained a more restrictive stance. It held that self-defence can be invoked only when an armed attack is carried out by or on behalf of a state. Thus, state attribution is a necessary condition.
What is the ‘unwilling or unable’ doctrine?
- Emerging doctrine in international law permits the use of force in self-defence against non-state actors (NSAs) operating from the territory of another state, when that state is “unwilling or unable” to neutralise the threat.
- The US invoked it to justify the 2011 military operation that killed al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and the 2014 airstrikes against the IS in Syria.
- However, states such as China, Mexico, and Russia have condemned such military operations for undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the host state.
Is proportionality essential?
- Military operations under Article 51 must comply with the principles of necessity and proportionality. It is generally accepted that a host state’s unwillingness or inability to neutralise NSAs may fulfil the necessity requirement.
- However, the Leiden Policy Recommendations on Counter-Terrorism and International Law (2010) emphasise that military operations against the host state’s armed forces or facilities are permissible only in “exceptional circumstances”, such as when the state actively supports the terrorists.
This ensures that self-defence does not become a blanket justification for disproportionate or aggressive military campaigns, especially in cases involving non-state actors.
What lies ahead?
- If the ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan fails to hold, the UNSC could adopt a resolution calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities.
- It may also vote on a subsequent resolution to address any further violations, including the imposition of sanctions or the deployment of its own peacekeeping or military forces.
However, UNSC action depends heavily on the geopolitical interests of the five permanent members (P5), each with veto power. This makes any strong resolution on India-Pakistan issues difficult to pass.
