International law is seen as a strict code that governs state behavior, but in practice, it is not so much a code as it is a language in which state behavior is negotiated and justified, and in which state behavior is contested in terms of the use of force. This is certainly not more evident than in the ongoing debates about military actions across South Asia.

The latest manifestation of this came in response to New Delhi’s criticism of Islamabad’s recent airstrikes in Afghanistan, with New Delhi arguing that such actions were in clear contravention of international laws and Afghanistan’s sovereignty and that its territorial integrity had to remain a foundational aspect of regional behavior.

Initially, such statements may appear consistent with the traditional normative framework of the UN Charter, which limits the permissible use of force beyond national borders. Yet, a closer examination of strategic practices in the region reveals a more complex picture.

Sovereignty in Theory and Practice

The foundation of modern international law is that states must not engage in force against the territorial integrity of another state. However, over time, the actual practice of international politics has led to the development of a series of exceptions, reinterpretations, and strategies that have challenged this basic principle.

In the last two decades, the global security environment has witnessed an increasing trend toward the conduct of cross-border counterterrorism operations. The underlying rationale for such actions is based on the notion that states have a right to engage in such actions when armed groups are located outside their control.

This line of reasoning has been repeatedly reflected in the strategic thinking of a number of major powers. The United States has conducted drone strikes in various countries. Turkey has conducted such strikes in northern Syria and Iraq. Similar reasoning has been used by Israel in their regional security strategy. South Asia has not remained untouched by this phenomenon.

The Gradual Emergence of a Regional Doctrine

India itself has, on various occasions, demonstrate its willingness to exert limited force across its borders against militant groups operating in neighboring territories.

In 2015, Indian Special Forces entered Myanmar to target militant camps after an attack on Indian forces near the border. Again, the recent airstrike near Balakot can be seen as one of the most prominent examples of India asserting its force across its borders in reaction to a militant attack.

In each of these examples, the situation has been justified on grounds of self-defense against non-state actors, which brings us to the larger international debate on whether states can take actions against militant groups operating on the territories of other nations, where the government itself has shown unwillingness or inability to take action against the militant groups operating on its territories. This emerging form of strategic practice points us toward one very interesting reality: the meaning of sovereignty has, over time, emerged as an elastic concept in international security debates.

The Politics of Legal Narratives

The current controversy over Pakistan's actions in Afghanistan, therefore, also poses an underlying analytical question. If the practice of cross-border counter-terror operations has increasingly become part of the strategic discourse in several countries, including those in the region, then the issue cannot be seen in terms of legality or illegality. What we see is, in fact, an underlying contest between those who have the authority to interpret international law.

In fact, international law, in many ways, can be seen as both a legal and political tool in diplomatic discourse. States use it to enhance their legitimacy. Within this context, criticism of cross-border operations often reflects not only legal arguments but also the broader politics of regional rivalry and strategic communication.

A Region in Normative Transition

The tension between the principles of sovereignty and the perceived need for counterterrorism operations may indicate that the region is undergoing a “normative transition,” a process that has been identified by various scholars.

On one hand, the traditional Westphalian model continues to assert the importance of territorial integrity. On the other hand, the advent of transnational militant networks has prompted various countries to test the boundaries of the traditional right of self-defense. As a result, many countries in the region are asserting the importance of sovereignty while at the same time reserving the right to breach it in some circumstances.

The tension between sovereignty and counterterrorism operations is not unique to the region. Instead, it reflects a broader change in the global legal order, in which the traditional distinction between war, counterterrorism, and law enforcement has become increasingly ambiguous.

Toward a More Consistent Regional Dialogue

In this case, the key question is not whether or not a particular cross-border strike is legal or illegal. Rather, it is whether or not states can offer clear guidelines on such cross-border strikes.

If the principle of sovereignty remains absolute, then cross-border strikes in counter-terrorism have to be viewed as absolutely illegal. Otherwise, the discussion should center on what constitutes legality in such strikes. Otherwise, the discussion will not be about law but about who offers the best narrative.

In this respect, the ongoing debate sparked by the Pakistan-Afghanistan crisis provides an opportunity for South Asian policymakers and analysts to have a more serious discussion about the emerging norms in the use of force. After all, the legitimacy of international law is not just determined by how forcefully it is advocated but also by how consistently it can be advocated.