Non-Military Pre-emptive Strike

Subject – Defence and Security

Context–India has failed to fully appreciate the usage of international law as a means to advance its national security interests.

Concept –

In the wake of the February 14 Pulwama attack, the Indian Air Force conducted a cross-border counterterrorism operation that was hailed as a new paradigm in India’s sub-conventional warfare tactics and overall security strategy.
- The strike was carried out by a fleet of 12 Mirage 2000 jets to target a suspected Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp in Pakistan.
- Vijay Gokhale, India’s foreign secretary described it as “non-military pre-emptive action”.
Indisputably, “non-military” means the target was a non-state actor, not the Pakistani state or its armed forces.
The doctrine is an American creation and not a part of customary international law. It should not be confused with the right of anticipatory self-defence.
A non-military pre-emptive strike means that a military target has not been hit by the Indian Air Force that carried out the strikes. Hitting a military target would be construed as an act of war.
India, therefore, clarified that it was a non-military strike. By calling it a pre-emptive action, it has taken the diplomatic pressure off itself that it acted to take revenge or for retribution. It has instead made it an act of self-defence.
International law gives countries the right of self-defence but there is less clarity about pre-emptive self-defence. Countries like the United States and Israel have invoked this right. This is the first time India has formally used the right of self defence doctrine.