India and Kashmir: Unilateral Claims in the International Legal Order

India and Kashmir: Unilateral Claims in the International Legal Order

India and Kashmir: Unilateral Claims in the International Legal Order Besides​‍​‌‍​‍‌ that, India's annexation of Jammu and Kashmir is also described by many as being in violation of international law, since this area is a contested territory internationally even now. India's reassertion of Jammu and Kashmir as Indian territory was met with criticism, arguing that it goes against the principle of respect for territorial integrity and resort to peaceful settlement of disputes.

Lawsuit of the United Nations, other international judicial bodies, and Pakistan have long characterized Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed territory. Pakistan has opposed India's unilateral steps continuously saying that these violate the principles and obligations contained in the UN Charter, UNSC resolutions, as well as other international norms.

India holds that its Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh are inseparable portions of the nation. Pakistan, on the other hand, considers Jammu and Kashmir a global dispute region, and India's unilateral moves are said by her to be against the UNSC resolutions and international legality. Pakistan has not accepted the map of India that shows the whole area as Indian only territory and still demands that this issue be solved by a referendum approved by the United Nations. Pakistan has also criticized laws of India that took place at home, for instance, the repeal of Article-370 in 2019, which they consider to be steps that India has taken on its way to occupy the region. Pakistan and other international critics say that a national bill cannot override multilateral contracts, whereas India insists that running the area is a matter of its domestic jurisdiction. Pakistan does not accept that point, and still seeks dialogue, as well as compliance, to international standards. The 2019 article-370 revocation is the main India’s unilateral measure that caused high level of tension in the region and led to criticisms of those observers who have expressed concerns regarding human rights, the rule of law, and peaceful settlement of disputes. Pakistan, among others, lays stress on UN Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) and other related resolutions by arguing that these documents call for a free and impartial plebiscite by which the people of Jammu and Kashmir would vote whether they want to link with India or to be included in the territories of Pakistan. Accordingly, Pakistan says that unilateral steps of India have brought about changes in the demographic makeup and political status of the region, and they have urged several times the international community to take up the issue. India and Kashmir: Unilateral Claims in the International Legal Order

A lot of critics, including the Pakistani side, have pointed out the negative effects of India’s foreign-policy, specifically the unilaterally carried-out measures, which may have a destabilizing impact, especially in South Asia, and have called the international body to get involved in the matters to an extent higher than it is today. They cite many facts that support this view. For instance, the dispute over Kashmir is a long-standing one and has been discussed at the level of the United Nations for many years. Besides, the opponents of the Indian unilateral way state that their unilateral approach is not sufficient to decide a territorial issue finally and conclusively. The representations given in the form of maps by India are showing India’s own stance, but when a territory is contested internationally, the emphasis is mostly put on negotiation and peaceful settlement rather than unilateral assertion as the method of solution. Hence, the opponents of India’s unilateral actions classify these measures as political stands rather than as legal determinations which can independently be regarded as changing the status of the territory in the law of international ​‍​‌‍​‍‌affairs.

India,​‍​‌‍​‍‌ too, has been accused of not respecting several key international law principles, especially in its handling of the Kashmir dispute: (1) the principle of self-determination as found in appropriate UN resolutions; (2) fulfillment of the obligation to hold a Plebiscite in Jammu and Kashmir as ordered by the Security Council; (3) the relevance of the Fourth Geneva Convention, especially its clauses which deal with the changes of the status and administration of the occupied areas; and (4) the principle that it is not allowed to acquire the territory through threats and force or one-sided actions, as expressed both in the UN Charter and customary international law. Some countries and international monitors feel that India's actions have put them in a position to question under International Human Rights Law (IHRL) and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)) as to the correctness of those actions in the light that Kashmir issue remains unsolved since 1947. Hence, from that angle, India's unilateral claim to sovereignty over the whole Kashmir area cannot itself conclude the dispute or replace an independent process to resolve its final status. India and Kashmir: Unilateral Claims in the International Legal Order

In view of this explanation of the situation, Pakistan, a country still holding parts of the territory that India is the de facto administering power in, insists that India’s 2026 Delimitation Bill that defines the boundary and its reported appeal to the United Nations about the depiction of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on official maps cannot, on their own, change the territorial situation to undivided sovereignty. The dispute continues to be under the purview of the United Nations with the goal of ensuring peace, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council being highlighted. Thus, the territorial measures that India has taken domestically do not per se determine or change the international legal and diplomatic standing of the territory at hand. The United Nations, in general, does not alter its official maps merely because individual member States pass domestic legislation or make unilateral statements. On the contrary, UN maps can show disputed territories, for example, by means of a dashed border line, foot notes and disclaimers stating that the territory status is still uncertain. The United Nations draws its maps according to existing cartographic practices and guidelines. India and Kashmir: Unilateral Claims in the International Legal Order

Incorporating a disputed area like Jammu and Kashmir in a nation's territory boundaries on UN maps is not possible through only the domestic laws or unilateral declarations by the relevant country. UN cartographic work is guided by an existing internal body of rules, legal provisions, and customs of diplomacy. Countries, especially ones that dominate the world scene internationally, have usually preferred peace dialogue and efforts to manage or solve the India and Pakistan dispute. Unilateral territorial claims are a way for that side of an international dispute to have their wishes expressed but do not in and of themselves get that side to be the winner in terms of international agreement on the issue and therefore, cannot even be used to alter UN cartographic activities and represent them institutional-wise. Over-relying on one way or the other that does not invite the cooperation of the other side might create additional diplomatic complications and legal arguments from others who regard these steps to be contradictory with treaties, resolutions, or precedents established under international ​‍​‌‍​‍‌law.