The international legal order is indeed decreasing, and the West which has compensated the system for a long time is divided. However, it is also true that part of international law transcends the existing field of international law and exceeds it; This part is called international humanitarian law (IHL), better known by its previous name “the law of war”.
The IHL deploys a very unique domain of law which deals with juice in Bello (right at war) which seems oxymoronic. The IHL is deeply rooted in customary international law and is supported by the major religions of the world which find its principles of civil protection, protection of women and children, necessity, distinction and proportionality as universal and shared values. Around the world, professional soldiers are trained in this law of law thanks to the good offices of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which has the international mandate to disseminate it.
Professional soldiers imbued the principles of DIH in their training and operations. To date, the customary international law of the DIH has been largely codified by the law of treaties, causing conventions of The Hague and the Geneva conventions and their protocols.
More specifically, DIH violations are called war crimes and crimes against humanity. The list of violations was extended through the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC status) in 1998 and included aggression and genocide offenses. The complementary part of the DIH is the juice ad be bellum (law of war), which is largely political and administered in the parameters of the Charter of the United Nations and by the UNO.
India used Pahalgam incident like casus belli (cause of war) to initiate an international armed conflict (IAC) against Pakistan. The categorization of IAC has attracted the application of DIH to the acts of India; Consequently, its illegal, illegal and unilateral acts can be declared as international harm and war crimes.
India has not gone to the ICC and cannot be prosecuted for these crimes; However, the aim of the addition is to note the war crimes committed by India and to declare that the criminal responsibility of the management of India is not abandoned or attenuated for lack of a prosecution mechanism.
The main war crimes committed by India are: firstly, India used water as a means and method of war. He unilaterally, illegally and without reason or rhyme, withdrew from the Water Treaty of the Indus (IWT) by putting it in “ Abeyance ”, a sentence foreign to the Vienna Treaty and Convention on the Treaty Act (VCLT).
In addition to not taking into account the World Bank supported by the IWT, India violated article 54 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (AP-I) which prohibited the “famine of civilians as a method of war”.
This ban was not simply declaratory, but was criminalized as a war crime (article 8 (2) (b) (xxv) of the status of the ICC). It can be noted that criminal responsibility is personal and that the officers / people involved in committing war crime of the civilian population will be personally responsible for the war crimes committed.
Second, India violated article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which forced him to respect the principle of sovereign equality and to refrain from using the force or the threat of force against the territorial integrity of Pakistan. Article 2, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter, India specifically forced India to settle the dispute by peaceful means. On May 7, 2025, he attacked nine places of worship and killed 26 innocent civilians, including women and children, violating the Charter of the United Nations and using force in such “character, gravity and scale …” that it was equivalent to “aggression” in terms of resolution 3314 of the United Nations General Assembly (XXIX).
The “bombing” of India was a violation of articles 48, 49, 50 and 51 of the additional protocol to the Geneva conventions, 1977 (AP-I). The violation of attackers was criminalized by the status of the ICC in its article 8 as a war crime. Most of the “places” / places attacked are mosques / places of worship. This clearly violates article 53 of the AP-I which prohibits attacking places of worship. The act of attacking religious buildings has been listed as a war crime under the status of the ICC. Therefore, India can and should be held responsible for committing this blatant war crime.
Third, the law of war clearly prohibits armed attacks against works and installations containing dangerous forces such as water dams / reservoirs in article 56 of the AP-I. India’s attack on the Neelum-Jhelum hydroelectric project was a clear violation of this important provision which specifically prohibited the attack on critical infrastructure which could endanger civilian populations.
Fourth, up to 29 drones were killed in one day in various urban areas in Pakistan – and 77 in two days. Drones without pilot hitting civilian populations, including in a Rawalpindi cricket stadium, exposed illegality in the use of drones by India because they were not addressed to military targets and apparently did not use the principle of distinction.
No precautionary stage as provided for in articles 36 and 57 of the AP-I was taken. Article 36 of the AP-I required that the AP-I Party (India signed and ratified the DIH instruments), during the use of new weapons (like a drone in this case), should have ensured that no protection under the laws of the DIH was raped.
Finally, India offered all kinds of ugly justifications for its inability to respond to the universally accepted DIH principles during its military actions on May 7. During the murder of women and children, India tried to hide behind the collateral damage ”, without showing what were the “ direct or real damage that he intended to undergo.
Using its right to self -defense, as provided for in article 51 of the United Nations Charter, Pakistan responded to military targets in India in accordance with the principles of DIH. Pakistan reserves the right to request repairs for the damage caused by India in its last aggression against Pakistan.
We can however note that the impunity with which India violates international law is not unprecedented because it is a copier of Israel and the United States in many respects; However, it should be remembered that illegality generates illegality and that the impunity rules can certainly be copied by all when the push comes to push.
The writer is a police officer on service, working as technical purchases in Dig for the Punjab police, Lahore.
Warning: The points of view expressed in this play are the own writers and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of PK Press Club.tv
Originally published in the news
