Guarding sovereignty against terrorism

2026-02-28 - 20:03

THE recent escalation between Pakistan and Afghanistan resulted in engagement of multiple locations, especially in the Afghan provinces of Nangarhar and Paktika. It has once again brought the precarious security dynamic along the Durand Line into clear focus. The Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) and Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) have been targeted by these strikes, which have been described as “intelligence-based and selective” operations. They were a direct response to a devastating spate of terrorist attacks on Pakistani territory, most notably the suicide bombing at an Islamabad mosque, which claimed forty lives recently. Despite the Afghan Taliban government in Kabul’s vehement condemnation of the action as a violation of its sovereignty and the reported civilian casualties, it is imperative to assess Pakistan’s right to respond to such existential threats in accordance with established international law. If a state’s territorial integrity and citizenry are threatened from across a border, this law establishes a clear framework for the right to self-protection. The United Nations Charter forbids acts of terrorism across international borders (Article 2(4)). Article 51 protects the inherent right of states to self-defence in the event of an armed assault. Pakistan now invokes this provision. In Islamabad, the unyielding campaign of cross-border terrorism conducted by the TTP represents a definitive assault, which compelled Pakistan to take action. Statistics reveal a dire narrative: from 2022 to 2024, the TTP and associated factions executed over 1,200 assaults across the border, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Pakistani soldiers and civilians. The magnitude of the threat is indisputable. When such attacks become so frequent and substantial that they effectively constitute the actions of a non-state actor functioning as a de facto armed force, the victim state’s right to respond in self-defence crystallizes under international law. The notion of state responsibility bolsters Pakistan’s legal justification. Afghanistan has an obligation to prevent any entity from misusing its territory to launch attacks against other nations. When the state itself is unwilling or unable to prohibit such actions, the victim state has the right to take reasonable and proportional measures for self-defence. The plea of necessity in customary international law can provide a legitimate justification for the use of force against a non-state actor within another state’s territory if that state is either powerless or unwilling to prevent the attacks, despite repeated objections. Pakistan has repeatedly and consistently urged the Afghan interim government to act against the TTP, which has found sanctuary in Afghanistan since the Taliban’s return to power in 2021. Afghan investigation reports and other evidence point to safe havens for TTP members in provinces like Ghazni, but the government still denies harbouring the extremists. This shows that Afghanistan is unwilling to meet its international obligations. Consequently, when a sovereign state has no other option to protect its 240 million citizens from daily threats, the international legal framework, including the customary rules of necessity and proportionality, supports its right to take targeted action against those militant havens. Pakistan’s calculated response follows extensive diplomatic efforts and attempts at conciliation. Pakistan-Afghanistan relations have been characterized by efforts to foster harmonious coexistence in recent years. In October 2025, the Doha Agreement between Pakistan and the Afghan Taliban was a significant milestone that was achieved through the efforts of Qatar and Turkiye. An immediate ceasefire was enforced and the Afghan government pledged not to let its territory be used for terrorism in Pakistan. A future enduring peace will require a two-pronged strategy based on the accords painstakingly established, rather than relying solely on military action. To proceed, the Doha Agreement, concluded in October 2025, must be revived and implemented. The security situation in Pakistan has been escalated to a global level with the assistance of guarantors Turkiye and Qatar. This tactic places the onus of duty on these two states. There is a need to dismantle the TTP infrastructures and stop the cross-border terrorism at all costs. As the 22 February strikes demonstrate, a return to the status quo is unacceptable. For Kabul, the choice is stark: it must transition from denial to decisive action, transparently uprooting the militant networks that not only threaten Pakistan but also undermine Afghanistan’s own stability and diplomatic standing, leaving it isolated and worsening its humanitarian crisis. For reconciliation to be established, it must be founded on reciprocal accountability. Pakistan has exhibited a propensity for diplomacy by participating in the Doha process and exercising calm despite significant provocation. The vision encompasses a stable, safe and economically linked region where the common Pashtun cultural connections and economic interdependencies can thrive. Nonetheless, the Pakistani leadership has clearly articulated, “Peace is desirable, but not at the expense of Pakistan’s security.” The international community, particularly Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkiye that have offered mediation, must now apply concerted pressure on the Afghan interim government to honour its pledges. The only viable way forward is for Kabul to recognize that harbouring groups like the TTP is a “time bomb” for the entire region. A durable peace requires Afghanistan to be a security partner, not a sanctuary for those who wish to destabilize its neighbour. Pakistan has the right, under international law and morality, to protect its people. Now, the onus is on Kabul to choose the path of genuine partnership over perpetual peril. —The writer is an international law expert and an internationally accredited arbitrator and mediator. (shozab2727@gmail.com)