ISLAMABAD: United Nations (UN) experts have expressed concerns that India’s “unlawful use of force“ on Pakistan’s territory in response to the April 22 Pahalgam attack in occupied Kashmir appears to have “violated the rights to life and security of person”, it emerged on Friday.
This observation by UN special rapporteurs was made in a report dated October 16, which was made public on December 15. The report outlined India‘s military response to the Pahalgam attack, as well as New Delhi’s decision to hold the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in “abeyance” following the incident.
The five UN experts who compiled the report also observed that New Delhi’s actions that “may be taken to disrupt the flow of water to Pakistan under the Indus Waters Treaty” appeared to risk violating the rights to work and livelihood, an adequate standard of living — including the rights to water and food — a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and development.
The attack on tourists in occupied Kashmir’s Pahalgam on April 22 resulted in the death of 26 people. While New Delhi blamed Islamabad for the attack without evidence, Pakistan denied involvement, with the foreign ministry questioning the credibility of India’s account of the events and saying it was “replete with fabrications”.
A day after the attack, India decided to immediately hold the IWT in “abeyance”. For its part, Pakistan termed any attempt to suspend its water share under the treaty an “act of war”, noting the treaty had no provision for unilateral suspension.
Under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, three rivers that flow westwards — Indus, Chenab and Jhelum — were awarded to Pakistan, with India getting three eastern-flowing rivers of the Indus Basin.
Roughly two weeks after the Pahalgam incident, India launched a series of strikes in the early hours of May 7 across Pakistan, an act which led to the worst between the old foes in decades. Both sides used fighter jets, missiles, artillery and drones during the four-day conflict, killing dozens of people, before agreeing to a ceasefire.
UN Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Right to a Clean, Healthy and Sustainable Environment Astrid Puentes Riano, UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Morris Tidball-Binz and UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights to Safe Drinking Water and Sanitation Pedro Arrojo-Agudo, as well as an independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order George Katrougalos discussed these events in detail in their October report.
‘Unlawful use of force’
The UN experts noted that while India maintained it had exercised its “right to respond and preempt, as well as deter … cross-border attacks” by lauching strikes in Pakistan, New Delhi “did not notify the UN Security Council that its operation was in the exercise to of the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, under the procedures required by that article“.
They emphasised that Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and customary international law “prohibits India from the threat or use of armed force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Pakistan, whether such force is targeting state or non-state actors”.
“We note further that under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and customary international law, India may only exercise the right of self-defence in foreign territory where it is necessary and proportionate in response to an armed attack committed by a foreign state, whether directly by state forces or where a state ‘sends’ non-state forces to attack,” they added.
The experts further highlighted that Article 51 required “the victim state“ to report the armed attack to the Security Council.
“There is no separate right to unilaterally use military force in foreign territory in order to counter terrorism.”
The experts also said, “We are concerned that India has not disclosed credible evidence that the militants who committed the Pahalgam attack were sent to attack India by the Government of Pakistan.”
Reiterating that India had not notified the Security Council of any claim of self-defence in carrying out strikes in Pakistan, they experts observed: “It appears that India has violated the prohibition on the use of force under article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and may itself have committed an armed attack on Pakistan, entitling Pakistan to exercise self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, risking escalation that could pose grave danger to life in both states.”
“The unlawful use of force would consequently constitute a violation of the right to life under Article 6 of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights),“ the experts said.
They further noted that “the illegal use of force on foreign territory would also constitute a violation of the foreign state’s sovereignty and the duty of non-intervention in a foreign state”.
‘Abeyance’ of IWT
Discussing the “abeyance” of IWT by India in a unilateral action, the UN experts highlighted its significance for Pakistan.
They noted that rivers irrigate 18 million hectares of farmland in the country (about 80 percent of Pakistan’s arable land), particularly in the food bowl provinces of Punjab and Sindh, contributing 24 per cent of Pakistan’s gross domestic product.
“The rivers are thus vital in providing food security and livelihoods within Pakistan’s population of 240 million people. Limited water storage in Pakistan means that it relies on the unimpeded flow of river water.
“Any disruption of the flow of water under the Indus Waters Treaty (such as by filling large pondage pools and reservoirs, opening dam gates to flood downstream, or the mass release of sediment) could have serious impacts onistan, human rights in Pak including the right to work and livelihood, the right to an adequate standard of living (including the right to water and the right to food), the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment and the right to development,” they said.
The experts further stated that Pakistan was “already a water-stressed country and is one of the ten countries most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including water scarcity”.
They said they were “deeply concerned” that any disruption of the flow of water to Pakistan a a consequence of India holding the IWT in “abeyance” could “severely affect the human rights of millions of people […] who rely on the river for agriculture, industry, drinking water and sanitation and healthy ecosystems”.
They emphasised that the “obligation to respect rights requires states to refrain from directly or indirectly interfering in the enjoyment of the right, including where state conduct has foreseeable transboundary effects”
In this connection, they also cited the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which says: “States parties have to respect the enjoyment of the right [to water] in other countries. International cooperation requires states parties to refrain from actions that interfere, directly or indirectly, with the enjoyment of the right to water in other countries.
“Any activities undertaken within the state party’s jurisdiction should not deprive another country of the ability to realise the right to water for persons in its jurisdiction”. States must not prevent the cross-border supply of water and water should never be used as an instrument of political and economic pressure”.
The experts further said that the duty to respect the right to water required refraining from any activity that denied or limited equal access to adequate water, and maintaining access to existing water supplies.
“We note further that there is a strong presumption against retrogressive measures and that if any such measures are taken, the state must prove that they were introduced after the most careful consideration of all alternatives and that they are duly justified by reference to the totality of ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) rights in the context of the full use of the state party’s maximum available resources,” they added.
Moreover, the UN experts highlighted that the International Court of Justice had “consistently affirmed states’ obligation to prevent significant transboundary environmental harm, most recently in its 2025 advisory opinion on climate change”.
“The court emphasised that this duty forms part of customary international law and constitutes an erga omnes obligation (obligation towards all), owed to the international community as a whole.
“In this regard, the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is indispensable for the enjoyment of all human rights and is foundational for states to fulfil their broader human rights obligations,” they stressed.
The UN experts also expressed the concern that the suspension or termination of the IWT could violate the “right of self-determination of peoples and the right to development in Pakistan in relation to their common water resources”.
They further said that there did not appear to be “any valid international legal grounds for holding the IWT in abeyance so as to justify the “potential interferences in human rights in Pakistan of disrupting the flow of water assured under the treaty”.
“We are concerned that the unilateral suspension of the treaty would not appear to constitute a valid countermeasure precluding the wrongfulness of the act under the law of treaties,” the experts said.
They said that India had not disclosed “credible evidence” that Pakistan had committed an internationally wrongful act by carrying out, or diligently failing to prevent, the Pahalgam attack, and that such threats continue, thereby justifying countermeasures to prevent the continuing violation.
“Even if Pakistan were responsible, we are concerned that the suspension of the treaty would not be proportionate to the injury suffered, given the severe adverse impacts on the human rights of Pakistanis from the disruption of the flow of water. We further emphasise that countermeasures must not in any case affect obligations for the protection of fundamental rights, which are engaged by the effects of suspending the treaty,” the experts said.
They also noted that the procedural preconditions of countermeasures, namely giving notice and offering to negotiate, did not appear to be fulfilled.
On concerns over cross-border terrorism, water-sharing
The UN experts further expressed concern that disputes over cross-border terrorism and water-sharing may persist as long as the “underlying dispute” about the status of occupied Kashmir was not “peacefully settled in accordance with international law.
In this regard, the UN experts posed six questions to the Indian government.
They called on the Indian government to provide comments on the aforementioned allegations and to indicate whether it would provide “reparation and apology for violations of the right to life resulting from the unlawful use of force in Pakistan”.
They also asked for an explanation for whether India would fulfil its obligations under the IWT “in good faith” and refrain from taking measures that interfere with Pakistan’s legal rights under the treaty and consequently the human rights of those in Pakistan dependent on the flow of water.
They also sought clarification on the measures India was taking or planned to take to prevent “harming human rights” as a result of disrupting the IWT.
They further asked whether India would peacefully settle any disputes with Pakistan over the IWT and only seek to modify it in accordance with its provisions on modification.
The UN experts also sought an explanation on the steps which will be taken to pursue a peaceful settlement of the occupied Kashmir issue, in accordance with international law and the right of self-determination.
“While awaiting a reply, we urge that all necessary interim measures be taken to halt the alleged violations and prevent their re-occurrence and in the event that the investigations support or suggest the allegations to be correct, to ensure the accountability of any person(s) responsible for the alleged violations,” they said.
President welcomes report
Meanwhile, President Asif Ali Zardari welcomed the UN report, according to a press release by the president’s media wing. The statement quoted the president as saying that the report “raises serious concerns over India’s military actions against Pakistan in May this year and its wider conduct affecting global and peace and stability”.
The president said the report reinforced Pakistan’s long-standing position that the unilateral use of force across international borders constituted a violation of the UN Charter and a grave breach of Pakistan’s sovereignty.
President Zardari also said that the findings relating to civilian deaths, damage to populated areas and religious sites of Pakistan in May, and the heightened risk of escalation caused by India were “deeply disturbing”.
He appreciated the report’s observations on India’s unilateral declaration of “holding in abeyance” its obligations under the IWT, its aggressive posture and statements and the serious civilian losses resulting from Indian aggression, it added.
According to the statement, he said that the IWT remained a “binding international agreement and a cornerstone of regional stability”, stressing that bypassing agreed dispute-resolution mechanisms and actions affecting water flows “violated Pakistan’s rights and risked creating serious human rights consequences”.
President Zardari also said the report also reflected growing international concerns over India’s conduct as a “rogue state that increasingly acts as a global bully, relying on coercion, intimidation and the normalisation of force and violence rather than law and dialogue,” the statement said.
He noted that serious reports of transnational violence and targeted killings attributed to India, raised in multiple countries, point to a “dangerous pattern that extends beyond the region and undermines global norms”.
The president expressed concern that the report “clearly manifests the irresponsible state behaviour of India”.
“India has long stonewalled its minorities and ignored its commitments to international forums such as the UN, but this pattern of rogue behaviour cannot continue indefinitely,” he said, and underscored that such behaviour cannot be allowed to persist, according to the press release.
The president also noted the report’s clear conclusion that international law did not recognise any separate right to unilateral military action under the pretext of counter-terrorism.
He said the affirmation of Pakistan’s inherent right to self-defence under international law highlighted the “seriousness of the violations identified,” the statement added.
Zardari welcomed the UN experts’ scrutiny of India’s regional conduct, “including concerns relating to support for terror outfits and the use of an illegitimate Afghan government to advance hostile objectives”, and called for transparency and accountability in this regard.
The president also welcomed the call by UN special rapporteurs for credible evidence, compensation for civilian losses, adherence to treaty obligations and a commitment to peaceful dialogue, including on occupied Kashmir, the statement added.
He reaffirmed Pakistan’s commitment to peace, restraint and respect for international law, and said that Pakistan would “continue to pursue diplomatic and legal avenues to safeguard its sovereignty, protect the rights of its people and promote stability in the region”.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar also mentioned the findings of the report with regard to the IWT when addressing the diplomatic corps in Islamabad on Friday.
