The India-Pakistan border is a tinderbox again. Missiles are flying. Accusations of war crimes are being lobbed across the Line of Control. In May 2025, India’s strikes into Pakistan, followed by Pakistan’s claim of self-defense, reignited a decades-old feud. Add India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) into the mix, and you’ve got a legal and moral quagmire. Who’s in the wrong? Let’s cut through the noise, unpack the international law at play, and weigh who holds the high ground.

India’s Strikes: An Act of War?

On May 7, 2025, India launched missiles at what it called “terrorist infrastructure” in Pakistan. India cited retaliation for an April attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir. Pakistan called it an “act of war.” Under international law, the UN Charter’s Article 2(3) urges peaceful dispute resolution. Meanwhile, Article 2(4) bans the use of force against another state’s territorial integrity. India’s cross-border strikes, without UN Security Council approval, arguably violate these principles. Business Today notes that such actions could be seen as aggression unless justified under strict conditions, like self-defense.

India claims self-defense under Article 51, which allows force in response to an “armed attack.” The April tourist attack, which India blames on Pakistan-backed militants, is their justification. But here’s the rub: Article 51 requires the attack to be imminent. It also needs to be attributable to the state, not just non-state actors. Pakistan denies involvement, and no conclusive evidence has surfaced linking Islamabad directly. Reuters reports Pakistan’s intent to pursue international legal action, suggesting they see India’s strikes as disproportionate or unfounded. My take? India’s legal footing is uncertain. They need to prove Pakistan’s direct complicity. This is a tall order given the murky world of militant groups.

Pakistan’s Counter: Self-Defense or Escalation?

Pakistan didn’t sit idly by. Their military vowed a “resolute response,” claiming the right to self-defense under Article 51. Legally, if India’s strikes were an unlawful act of aggression, Pakistan’s retaliation could be justified. The UN Charter allows a state to respond proportionally to an armed attack. Posts on X from April 30 show Pakistan escalating tensions. They fired across the International Border, not just the Line of Control. This action signals a broader counteroffensive.

But Pakistan’s moral high ground isn’t spotless. Al Jazeera reports their forces violated a US-brokered ceasefire. This happened just hours after agreeing to it on May 10. Drones were spotted over Indian territory. This undermines their claim of “responsibility and restraint.” If Pakistan’s response exceeds what’s necessary, it risks a major international conflict. For instance, targeting civilian areas or infrastructure would violate the same Article 2(4) they accuse India of breaching. Both sides are playing a dangerous game, and the legal line between defense and aggression is razor-thin.

The IWT Suspension: India’s Legal Misstep?

India’s suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty last month, following the Kashmir attack, is a flashpoint. The IWT, brokered by the World Bank in 1960, allocates water from six rivers between the two nations. India’s move, described as unilateral by Reuters, threatens 80% of Pakistan’s agricultural water supply. The Indian Express raises legal red flags. They note that the treaty has no exit clause. It has held through past conflicts. Suspending it without mutual consent or third-party arbitration could breach customary international law, which demands good-faith treaty compliance.

Pakistan’s outrage is understandable—water is lifeblood. They threaten legal action at the International Court of Justice. This suggests they view this as a violation of bilateral obligations. India argues the suspension is a diplomatic countermeasure, not a legal breach, tied to national security. But without clear evidence tying Pakistan to the attack, this looks like collective punishment, which international law frowns upon. My view? India’s IWT gambit is a strategic overreach, risking long-term diplomatic fallout for short-term leverage.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Both nations are locked in a cycle of tit-for-tat, each claiming legal and moral superiority. India’s strikes and IWT suspension push the boundaries of international law, but Pakistan’s escalatory responses muddy their victim narrative. The UN Charter’s principles—peaceful resolution, restraint from force—are being trampled by both. The ceasefire, brokered by the US, is fragile, with violations reported by Reuters and The Guardian within hours.

The real-world stakes are grim: civilian lives, economic stability, and regional security hang in the balance. The G7’s call for de-escalation reflects global unease. Without neutral mediation, trust is a pipe dream. A UN investigation into the April attack is needed. Neither side seems ready to back down, and the specter of nuclear arsenals looms large.

So, who’s violating international law? Both, in different ways—India with its aggressive strikes and treaty suspension, Pakistan with its disproportionate counterattacks. The moral high ground? Nobody’s standing on it. What’s the one move that could break this deadlock—a UN probe, a water-sharing compromise, or something bolder?