Syeda Tahreem Bukhari*
The April 22, 2025, terror attack in Pahalgam, which killed 26 civilians, once again pushed South Asia to the edge of a wider conflict. What followed was a rapid and multi-layered escalation. India moved first on the diplomatic and economic front, suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, closing the Wagah–Attari border, expelling diplomatic staff, and imposing fresh visa restrictions. Within weeks, the crisis took a far more dangerous turn.
On May 7, India launched what it termed “Operation Sindoor”, carrying out missile and air strikes inside Pakistan. This marked the first extensive Indian military action against Pakistan during an officially declared peacetime. Given the nuclear capabilities of both states, the escalation immediately raised concerns not only about regional stability but also about the erosion of long-standing restraints in South Asia’s conflict dynamics.
United Nations special rapporteurs and independent experts have since examined these developments in detail. Their assessment is unambiguous. The missile strikes, they argue, violated international law, particularly the prohibition on the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity and political independence. Equally significant is their conclusion that unilateral suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty lacks legal basis and runs counter to both treaty obligations and broader human rights norms.
At the heart of the legal critique lies the UN Charter. Article 2(4) establishes a near-absolute ban on the use of force between states. Article 51 permits self-defence only in response to an armed attack, and even then under strict conditions: necessity, proportionality, and immediate reporting to the UN Security Council. This omission, they argue, weakens any claim to lawful self-defence.
The experts also rejected India’s argument that the strikes were justified as counter-terrorism measures. International law, they stressed, does not allow states to unilaterally use military force in another country’s territory under the pretext of combating terrorism, particularly in the absence of clear attribution and imminent threat.
Beyond questions of sovereignty and legality, the UN report underscores the humanitarian costs of the escalation. The experts warned that continued military confrontation threatens not only those living near the Line of Control (LoC) but millions across South Asia, a region already grappling with economic fragility, climate stress, and deep social inequalities.
The report is especially critical of the use of water as a coercive tool. The Indus Waters Treaty, brokered in 1960, has long been regarded as one of the most resilient water-sharing agreements in the world. It survived the wars of 1965 and 1971 and decades of political hostility.
The experts emphasise that the treaty does not permit unilateral suspension or alteration. Article XII clearly bars such actions, and recent decisions by international arbitral bodies have reaffirmed that the treaty cannot be put in abeyance by one party alone. Any significant disruption to water flows, they warn, would have severe consequences for fundamental human rights, including the rights to water, food, health, and development, all protected under international human rights law.
The right to an adequate standard of living includes access to water and food, while both major human rights covenants recognise the right of peoples to freely dispose of their natural resources.
Crucially, the report warns against normalising unilateral force and resource coercion. In a region where crises have repeatedly escalated from isolated incidents, lowering the legal and moral threshold for military action or treaty suspension sets a dangerous precedent. It risks transforming exceptional measures into routine tools of statecraft, with unpredictable consequences.
Both countries need to return to the table and address their issues in accordance with international law. Otherwise, South Asia will remain vulnerable to cycles of blame, retaliation, and brinkmanship.
For two nuclear-armed neighbours with a history of near-misses, the stakes could not be higher. The UN experts’ findings are not merely a legal critique but a warning. Sustainable peace in South Asia requires restraint, accountability, and a recommitment to lawful means of dispute resolution. Anything less risks pushing the region towards a catastrophe from which there may be no easy return.
(*Syeda Tahreem Bukhari is Associate Director at the Centre for International Strategic Studies in Muzaffaraabad, with a background in peace and conflict studies.)
UN Rappoteurs Report can be downloaded:
Have you liked the news article?