Pakistan’ın Keşmir’de Hukuki Mücadele İçin Tarihi Fırsatı

Pakistan’s Kashmir lawfare moment

AS someone who has practised international law for years, I have come to appreciate how infrequently genuine diplomatic openings appear. Countries often wait decades for such moments, and even fewer manage to convert them into an opportunity. Pakistan is now standing at one of those rare junctures. For decades, Islamabad has been at the receiving end of international opprobrium and has complained that its opinion carries little weight. Recently, Pakistan’s role in helping defuse tensions between the US and Iran has changed perceptions in global capitals. As a result, Pakistan’s diplomatic stature has risen significantly. The more important question is what comes next. Diplomatic goodwill has a short shelf life. The time has arrived to think differently about Kashmir. Pakistan has not pursued a sustained lawfare strategy through international institutions with sufficient seriousness. Put simply, lawfare is the deliberate use of legal institutions to achieve political objectives. For example, legal proceedings pursued as part of a lawfare strategy can shape international opinion, affect international talks, and provide states with opportunities to strengthen their political position. In some cases, lawfare enables smaller states to exert influence beyond their material power. A sustained lawfare strategy must be pursued through international institutions with sufficient seriousness. International law provides useful examples. In the Chagos Archipelago case, Mauritius lacked the political influence to persuade the British government to change its position. Instead, it built support from other countries over time. This eventually led the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to request an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in 2019. Although the opinion was not legally binding (note that ICJ advisory opinions are non-binding), it shifted the discussion and exerted significant international pressure on Britain to defend its position. Another example is the ICJ’s 2004 advisory opinion concerning the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Much to Israel’s chagrin, it haunts it to this day. Kashmir now needs to be viewed through the same lens. For too long, Pakistan has operated within a framework largely imposed by India. On Aug 5, 2019, India revoked the special status of Indian-occupied Jammu and Kashmir, catching Pakistan’s strategic community off-guard. Pakistan still lacks a consistent international legal strategy capable of changing the contours of the debate. What is needed is a carefully planned lawfare initiative that refocuses attention on Kashmir’s unresolved status and the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination. This option is provided for in Article 96 of the UN Charter. This article of the Charter allows the UNGA to request an advisory opinion from the ICJ. Unlike other UN procedures, it does not req­uire Security Council approval, and no veto can block it. As a result, it affords a practical legal ave­nue that has received relatively little attention. Thus, Pakistan’s first objective should be securing a UNGA resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ. All it needs is a simple maj­ority of countries present and voting. This is fundamentally a diplomatic challenge before a legal one. Success will depend on Islamabad’s ability to assemble a broad coalition capable of persuading the UNGA that the legal questions surrounding Kashmir warrant clarification by the world’s highest judicial body. The OIC countries can play an important role, but the Global South’s role will be decisive. Pakistan should engage them well before any resolution reaches the UNGA floor. How the questions are framed will be especially important. Rather than asking the ICJ to rule on sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan should focus on the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and the legal consequences of its continued denial. The UNGA would debate whether the people of Kashmir possess an internationally recognised right to self-determination, what legal consequences arise from the continued failure to implement that right, and what legal consequences follow from measures altering the demographic or constitutional character of a disputed territory. Although India will no doubt vehemently oppose such an initiative, arguing that Kashmir is still a bilateral matter, Pakistan has clear UN Security Council resolutions on Kashmir that strongly support its stand. Will an ICJ advisory opinion solve Kashmir overnight? No. The purpose of such a strategy would be to alter the diplomatic environment and legal terrain in which the dispute is discussed and to introduce pressure on India, where little presently exists. In my view, a favourable ICJ advisory opinion would internationalise Kashmir in a manner that would be difficult for India to reverse. Other governments would be compelled to revisit long-held positions and increase scrutiny of India. Above all, the opinion would provide authoritative legal language that negotiators and decision-makers could invoke while imposing high reputational costs on India. For years, New Delhi has successfully narrowed the space for international discussion on Jammu and Kashmir. An advisory opinion would reopen that space, forcing India to repeatedly defend its position. The burden of explanation would begin to tilt towards India, and that should be the purpose of this proposed lawfare exercise. Due to Pakistan’s recent role in the rapprochement between the US and Iran, it has accumulated substantial goodwill and diplomatic capital and regained a stature previously absent. Pakistan has ICJ precedents on its side and a pathway that bypasses the Security Council veto. Pakistan’s first real battle lies in New York, where it must persuade a majority of states that Kashmir’s unresolved status warrants intervention. All roads can then lead to The Hague. I must admit that the possibility that this effort may fall short cannot be ruled out. But diplomatic opportunities rarely arrive under perfect conditions. Countries must combine legal strategy with sound political judgement. The time has come for Pakistan to decide whether it wants to convert its current diplomatic advantage into a sustained Kashmir lawfare campaign. Diplomatic opportunities are like perishable commodities. And if this strategy is not tested, the price of inaction may prove to be higher than the cost of trying. The writer is an international law practitioner and a graduate of Harvard Law School. veritas@post.harvard.edu Published in Dawn, July 10th, 2026