WHEN a suicide bomber struck a mosque in Islamabad in February and militants stormed Bajaur days later, Pakistan confronted a question many states have faced before it: what does international law permit when those who kill your citizens plan, train and shelter across an international border? Kabul has condemned Pakistan’s strikes in Nangarhar, Paktika and beyond as violations of Afghan sovereignty. The law, however, is neither silent nor one-sided. It sets demanding conditions and a state that meets them stands on firm legal ground. The starting point is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against any state’s territorial integrity. Article 51 gives the exception, preserving the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs”. The word “inherent” is deliberate. The Charter did not create the right; it recognized one that already existed in customary international law.

The harder question is whether that right extends to attacks by non-state actors operating from another state’s territory. In its 2004 Wall advisory opinion and in DRC v Uganda in 2005, the International Court of Justice took a restrictive view, tying self-defence to attacks attributable to a state. State practice, however, has moved decisively since 2001. Security Council Resolutions 1368 and 1373 affirmed the right of self-defence in the context of terrorist attacks and Resolution 1373 binds........

© Pakistan Observer