And again I want to ask you the question. What better way was there to send message to Pakistan then to attack Hafiz Saeed living few KM away from border then attacking unknown mountains? Please elaborate.
@wazz @The Eagle for your kind review of involving and defaming religion thank you.
It's violation of international law to do any attack inside other country territory.
The essence of UNSC provision is that the use of force between states is prohibited. However, this prohibition has two exceptions that allow states to employ force. The first exception is the use of force with authorization from the UN Security Council (UNSC) under Chapter VII of the charter.
The other exception is the use of force to exercise the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the charter. Another possibility is also that a state can use force against the territory of another state by the latter’s invitation. However, besides these, using force on any other grounds amounts to a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter.
Some have argued the India can justify its surgical strikes as preemptive or preventive self-defence. However, the Indian government’s justifications don’t seem to fit within the framework of the UN charter or international law. While India has not provided any definitive proof to show that an armed attack actually took place,
because Pakistan insisted that it never happened. Additionally, India does not seem to have reported the matter to the UNSC because nobody asked for it.
Any such actions technically should only be undertaken in consultation with Pakistan. The important implication here is that any use of force under international law effectively amounts to armed conflict or war between two states in a legal sense.
This imposes responsibility on India to justify its actions in accordance with the UN Charter. Such a justification would involve several legal challenges such as the ones explained above.
If India failed to give a concrete explanation to justify it's action, UN Charter can force India to pay for the damages & a hefty compensation for its actions. But Pakistan denied & why would India foolishly pursue the matter in the UN if Pakistan say it didn't happen.
India consciously choose the words to emphasize that the
“operations aimed at neutralizing the terrorists have since ceased” and that Indian forces “do not have any plans for continuation of further operations” just to be safe with its actions. So it doesn't appear as an aggression.
There are some key aspects to this attack.
- Most countries acknowledged the URI attack & stood with India
- India took into confidence the G7 nations & had the support & go ahead mainly from the US
- The statements made by the DGMO was carefully drafted to show it was not an aggression to invoke war
- The open claim & announcement of a covert operation was to make the Pak army look weak to its people
- India expected the people to go mad over it's army & come out on streets rioting, so the Army is involved in controlling the civil unrest than push it into a full scale war
- India had other plans if a civil unrest arose in the country to further inflict chaos, but surprisingly Pakistan denied any surgical strikes
If Pakistan took the matter to the UN, then India was prepared to defend itself stating
The actions was only in the disputed area which is not recognized as Pakistan territory. So it technically is not a violation of the law, because the Indian commandos didn't not cross the international border. Also it's a defense action to safeguard our interests.
Hafeez Sayeed is living inside Pakistan, which will cause serious legal implications, if we had done that as it would be direct violation because we would have crossed international border in that case. If Indian forces ever does that, it will never be openly announced or claimed.
President Obama & all top US officials knew in advance about this strike. John Kerry & Susan Rice called INDIA, before INDIA's STRIKES & have had long & lengthy discussions on this matter.
Pakistan denying that there was no Surgical strike made things easy for India & especially for America & UN who knew the actions, but are tight lipped to this day due to Pakistan's denial.
After few years you will hear even the west & Americans who will confess this incident, mostly when these diplomats retire from service.
