Introduction: A Changing Battlefield

In the 21st century, war is no longer declared — it is preempted, justified, or denied. Whether it’s India’s Operation Sindoor or Israel’s strikes on Iran, modern military actions operate at the edge of law, morality, and state survival. The legal framework governing the use of force, primarily shaped by the UN Charter, is under growing strain from emerging doctrines and asymmetric threats.

The UN Charter and the Legal Bedrock of Self-Defence

The cornerstone of international law on the use of force is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits aggression. The only clear exception is Article 51, which allows a state to use force after an armed attack occurs. The legal response must satisfy:

• Necessity: Is peaceful resolution impossible?
• Proportionality: Does the response exceed the original threat?

This framework worked well for state-on-state wars, but fails to address today’s blurred lines — where terrorists, rogue states, and shadow wars dominate the arena.

Terrorism and Non-State Actors: The Grey Zone of Legal Attribution

The Nicaragua v. U.S. (1986) case ruled that self-defence is justified only when an armed attack is by or on behalf of a state. However, after 9/11, many states — including the US, Israel, and India — challenged this view, arguing that non-state actors operating from foreign territories pose legitimate threats.

India’s Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam attack falls into this category. India attributed the attack to Pakistan-backed terrorists, fulfilling the “state attribution” requirement. Israel, however, could not convincingly link Iran directly to an imminent armed threat, weakening its legal stance.

The ‘Unwilling or Unable’ Doctrine: Legal Innovation or Norm Violation?

This controversial doctrine holds that if a state is unwilling or unable to neutralize threats from within its borders, another state may lawfully strike non-state actors there.

• Used by: US (Osama bin Laden raid), France, Turkey, and now India.
• Criticized by: China, Russia, and many legal scholars for undermining sovereignty.

India carefully adopted this doctrine by outlining conditions at a UNSC Arria Formula meeting:

1. Repeated attacks by non-state actors,
2. Host state’s inaction,
3. Evidence of active support.

Israel, on the other hand, took a bolder stance, invoking preemptive self-defence — a far more controversial approach.

Preemptive Self-Defence and the Caroline Doctrine

The Caroline doctrine (1837) is the classic test for anticipatory self-defence, permitting force only when:

• The threat is immediate and overwhelming,
• No other means are available,
• Delay would be fatal.

Israel claims its strikes were justified due to Iran’s alleged nuclear program, but no attack was imminent. Thus, under strict legal standards, Israel’s action does not qualify as lawful self-defence.

India, by contrast, acted after an actual terror attack, informed the UNSC, and limited its strikes to terrorist targets — thus gaining more legal and moral legitimacy.

Necessity and Proportionality: The Balancing Act

International law doesn’t just ask why force was used — it asks how.

• Necessity means: Was force the last resort?
• Proportionality means: Was the response restrained?

India claimed it struck only terrorist camps, not civilian or military installations — satisfying proportionality. Israel’s broader attacks on Iranian targets have raised questions about escalation and overreach.

 Power Politics vs International Norms

Critics argue that international law is selectively applied — strong states act, weak states obey. Yet, legal frameworks still matter because:

• They shape global opinion,
• Serve as tools for diplomatic pressure,
• Offer a basis for accountability, however rare.

The UN Charter remains the moral compass, even if it’s increasingly defied.

The Duality of Power: Who Gets to Break the Law?

International law is often sold as universal, binding, and neutral. But in reality, its enforcement reflects a world where geopolitical influence decides accountability.

The Case of Israel: Shielded by the West

Israel’s recent strikes on Iran — carried out without proof of an imminent attack — violate the narrow reading of Article 51. And yet:

• No UN sanctions were imposed.
• Western media framed it as “legitimate concern.”
• The United States, Israel’s strongest ally, defended the action and blocked any condemnations in the UN Security Council.

Conclusion: A Fragile Legal Order Under Fire

In an age of proxy wars, cross-border terrorism, and nuclear uncertainty, states face a hard choice: wait and suffer, or strike and risk illegality. International law is struggling to adapt, caught between sovereignty and security, non-state threats and state responsibility.

India’s Operation Sindoor may set a new precedent for responsible force, grounded in necessity and proportionality. Israel’s actions, while perhaps strategically sound, may lack legal defensibility, risking escalation and loss of legitimacy.