In response to the rising threat of cross-border terrorism and the recent Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor was launched by India as a military retaliation against terrorist infrastructure allegedly based in Pakistan-occupied territories. While the operation has garnered wide public support domestically, it also raises crucial questions in international law, particularly regarding the principles of necessity, proportionality, and civilian protection under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) or International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This article explores the legal dimensions of the operation through a nuanced lens.
Operation Sindoor represents a critical juncture where the rigid boundaries of traditional international legal norms intersect with the evolving demands of national security in the face of modern asymmetric threats. On one hand, it challenges the conventional principles of state sovereignty and the prohibition on the unilateral use of force—tenets long upheld by legal conservatism under the UN Charter.
On the other hand, it reflects a growing recognition that strategic necessity, especially in responding to persistent cross-border terrorism, may warrant recalibrating these norms to safeguard civilian lives and national integrity.
This operation, therefore, is not just a military manoeuvre but a legal and diplomatic assertion that the international legal order must adapt to contemporary security realities.
Understanding Operation Sindoor in Context
What Happened?
Following the brutal killing of Indian soldiers and civilians in Kashmir’s Pahalgam region in April 2025, India initiated Operation Sindoor, targeting terrorist launchpads across the Line of Control (LoC). Reports suggest the use of drones, precision-guided munitions, and special forces incursions.
Objective
India’s official stance maintains that the operation was:
- Targeted solely at terrorist infrastructure.
- Designed to avoid civilian harm.
- Executed under the doctrine of self-defence.
International Legal Framework Governing Armed Conflict
UN Charter – Article 51: Self-Defence
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state has the inherent right to self-defence if an armed attack occurs. However, the legality of pre-emptive or retaliatory strikes, especially in non-international armed conflicts involving non-state actors, remains a contested issue.
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence…” — Article 51, UN Charter
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols
India is a signatory to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which regulate the conduct of hostilities, especially the protection of civilians and combatants no longer participating in the conflict.
Relevant principles include:
- Distinction (between combatants and civilians)
- Proportionality (excessive force relative to military advantage is prohibited)
- Necessity (use of force must be necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives)
- Precaution (measures to avoid or minimise civilian harm)
Operation Sindoor and the Principle of Necessity
Legal Justification for Use of Force
Under customary international law, necessity justifies the use of force only when:
- Peaceful alternatives have been exhausted.
- The threat is immediate and overwhelming.
In India’s case:
There is a consistent record of terrorists crossing borders with backing and logistical support from across the boundary. Diplomatic efforts have failed to produce any meaningful restraint on such activities. The Pahalgam incident could be interpreted as an “armed attack” under international law, carried out by non-state actors, potentially with the indirect or direct involvement of a foreign state.
Attribution to State Responsibility
Per the ICJ’s ruling in Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and the Bosnian Genocide case (2007), a state may be held responsible if:
- It exercises “effective control” over the non-state actors.
Whether Pakistan meets this threshold is debatable, but India’s claim relies on intelligence inputs indicating training, shelter, and arms supply from across the border.
Principle of Proportionality in Operation Sindoor
Defining Proportionality
Proportionality requires that the military advantage gained must outweigh the anticipated harm to civilians or civilian objects.
ICRC Rule 14: The harm must not be “excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”
Application to Operation Sindoor
As per official Indian statements:
- Only non-civilian targets (e.g., terrorist camps, weapon depots) were attacked.
- Use of precision drones aimed to minimize collateral damage.
- No verified reports of civilian casualties have surfaced so far.
If these claims hold, the operation may be seen as proportionate under LOAC.
Civilian Safety and the Principle of Distinction
Core Principle of Distinction
Under Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention:
“Parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants.”
Civilian populations must not be made the object of attack, and every feasible precaution must be taken to avoid or minimise civilian loss.
Measures to Ensure Civilian Safety Amid Rising Tensions
- Maximum Airport Security: All Indian airports are on high alert to safeguard civilian travellers amid escalating tensions with Pakistan.
- Enhanced Passenger Screening: Secondary pre-boarding checks are mandated for all flights to detect any potential threats.
- Restricted Terminal Access: Visitor entry banned at airport terminals to minimise crowding and enhance security oversight.
- Air Marshals on Duty: Deployment of air marshals on select flights to ensure in-flight passenger safety.
Operation Sindoor Executed:
Date & Time: Conducted between 1:05 am and 1:30 am.
Forces Involved: A coordinated response by Army, Navy, and Air Force.
Purpose: Targeted strike aimed at eliminating terror threats and ensuring national and civilian protection.
All Measures Effective Till May 18: Temporary yet crucial steps prioritising the safety and security of Indian citizens.
Precedent Supporting India’s Legal Position
Israel’s 1981 Strike on Osirak Reactor
On June 7, 1981, Israel launched a surprise airstrike—Operation Opera—destroying Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor using U.S.-supplied fighter jets. Citing self-defence, Israel claimed Iraq was on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons, though the reactor was under IAEA safeguards and intended for peaceful use. While the attack drew global condemnation, including from the UN and IAEA, and temporarily strained U.S.-Israel relations, it had few lasting consequences for Israel. Experts remain divided: some view the strike as a setback to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions, while others argue it provoked Saddam Hussein to pursue weapons more aggressively and underground.
Similarly, India’s Operation Sindoor—launched in response to a deadly terror attack—was justified as a targeted act of self-defence aimed at dismantling cross-border terror infrastructure where state accountability had failed..
Global Support Pours in for India’s Operation Sindoor Against Terrorism
India’s targeted counter-terror strike—Operation Sindoor—has drawn widespread international support following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack. The United States, UK, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar have backed India’s right to defend itself against terrorism. The European Union and all 27 member states issued a unified condemnation of terrorism.
US President Donald Trump supported India’s sovereign right to act while encouraging restraint. UK Foreign Minister David Lammy and ex-PM Rishi Sunak emphasised India’s justified outrage over cross-border terror. Russia expressed concern over escalation but reiterated its condemnation of terrorism.
Israel stood firmly with India, with its envoy affirming there’s no safe haven for terrorists. India clarified that Operation Sindoor was defensive, not retaliatory, carefully avoiding Pakistani military targets and focusing solely on terror camps. Global leaders have acknowledged India’s measured response and affirmed that peace is only possible through security.
Post-9/11 Counter-Terrorism Norms: UNSC Resolution 1373
In response to the 9/11 attacks, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1373 (2001), compelling all member states to criminalise terrorist financing, freeze assets of suspected terrorists, deny them safe haven, and enhance international cooperation. This marked a watershed moment in global counter-terrorism law by binding nations under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to take proactive anti-terror measures.
India’s targeted action under Operation Sindoor aligns with this global mandate, aimed at neutralizing cross-border terror threats while upholding international legal commitments.
Conclusion
Operation Sindoor, though politically and emotionally charged, deserves an objective legal analysis. Based on the available information and assuming minimal civilian harm, India’s actions appear to comply with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and distinction under the Law of Armed Conflict. However, the absence of neutral verification mechanisms, the lack of transparency from Pakistan, and the ambiguity around state responsibility in harbouring terrorists continue to cloud the legal landscape.
What Operation Sindoor brings into focus is the urgent need for international legal clarity on counter-terror operations, especially in asymmetric warfare scenarios. Until then, such operations will continue to challenge the boundaries between state sovereignty, collective security, and the right to self-defence
