Where it listed, under Chapter VII, the sovereign obligations of members - obligations that Pakistan demonstrably doesn't fulfill:
...Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
2. Decides also that all States shall:
...(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist
acts, or provide safe havens;
(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from
using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their
citizens;
Certainly Pakistan violated this when it both enabled 26/11 and sheltered its perpetrators afterward. Doubtless there's more. The exact level of Pakistani (non)compliance is classified by the SC but this is sufficient justification for it. A state that fails to comply with a Chapter VII Resolution has no recognized sovereignty with regards to it - which is why Pakistani complaints aren't even acknowledged by other states.
Whether Pakistan 'demonstrably fulfills its obligations' is for the UNSC, or a body/panel tasked by the UNSC with such responsibility, to determine. When was a determination WRT Pakistan fulfilling its obligations, or not, made and when and where is the subsequent authorization for the unilateral use of military force by other nations, specifically the US, against alleged entities on Pakistani territory?
I already have, but I'll entertain your disingenuous and biased ranting a little more and provide it again:
1. Article 51 is a an article of the UN Charter and therefore by definition any UN Resolutions are governed by the charter, and not vice versa.
2. Article 51 has clear language calling for,
"Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Iraq I and II, Libya, Afghanistan, Somalia ... all these instances provide a clear precedence of the UNSC overtly and openly debating, and, if necessary, authorizing the use of force (though that was not the case in Iraq II). So without establishing any US 'declaration of the need to resort to military strikes on Pakistani soil for self defence', US claims are nothing by hogwash and US actions are demonstrably a violation of international law and the UN Charter.
The permanent SC states don't hold to the principle you espouse, which is that U.S. must always be guilty as charged until it proves itself innocent. Do your own homework to back up your charges, AM.
Wrong - in this case the US is arguing that Pakistan is 'guilty as charged' and subsequently, unilaterally, conducting military strikes on Pakistani territory. The burden of proof therefore falls on the US, to independently establish, in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, that Pakistan has offered no alternatives to the US carrying out unilateral military operations on Pakistani soil.
I have done my homework you are the one grasping for straws in the absence of any language in international law, the UN charter or UN resolutions supporting illegal unilateral US military operations on Pakistani soil.
None of the alternatives proposed are workable. Just because alternatives are proposed does not necessarily make them implementable, even though you might think they are.
The alternatives are completely workable - any rogue Nation can claim that the options it was given were not 'workable' as a pretext to initiate war against another nation, which is precisely what the US has done.
I did say that it is advantageous to negotiate from a position of strength, did I not? Pakistan needs to develop its negotiating position to a level of robustness before it can get a compromise out of the US. That is how negotiations work.
Which is an absolutist position i.e. 'might is right' - the strongest party should be able to impose its position on the weaker party or parties.
When Pakistan presents a workable alternative, then a compromise will be forthcoming too.
1. Pakistan has offered several workable alternatives on unilateral US drone strikes, as already pointed out, and you have been unable to offer any rational reason to reject those alternatives.
2. The demand for an apology from the US for the massacre of two dozen Pakistani soldiers, an incident for which the US is clearly at fault according to even her own investigation into the incident, cannot have any more of a 'workable alternative'.