One of the greatest emerging threats to international peace and security is the growing gap between international legal commitments and their actual enforcement in territorial conflicts. International law was created to limit violence, protect civilian populations, and provide peaceful pathways for resolving disputes between states. However, when these legal frameworks are repeatedly invoked but not enforced, they lose their authority and credibility. Over time, this failure allows conflicts to become deep-rooted and increases the likelihood of escalation, particularly when disputes involve powerful states with advanced military capabilities.
The conflict in Kashmir offers a clear example of how the erosion of international law poses a broader threat to global security. Following the partition of British India in 1947, Kashmir became the subject of competing claims by India and Pakistan, leading to widespread violence and displacement. In response, the United Nations intervened in 1948 to prevent further violence and to establish a political process for resolving the dispute. Central to this effort was a proposed plebiscite that would allow the people of Kashmir to determine their political future.1 This proposal was grounded in the principle of self-determination, which remains a core pillar of international law.2
Despite repeated references to this principle in international forums, no meaningful action has been taken toward its implementation. The political deadlock between India and Pakistan, combined with shifting global priorities, has hindered any serious effort to revisit the plebiscite or explore alternative political solutions centered on Kashmiri self-determination. Over time, the conflict has come to be treated primarily as a bilateral or regional security issue, rather than a question of political rights and civilian protection. This shift has narrowed the scope of international engagement and reduced pressure for accountability.
The consequences of this enforcement gap are most visible in the everyday experiences of civilians. International humanitarian law prohibits the targeting of civilians and requires accountability for abuses committed during conflict.3 In Kashmir, however, these protections have been inconsistently applied. Emergency legal regimes and security laws, including the Armed Forces (Jammu and Kashmir) Special Powers Act (AFSPA) and the Public Safety Act, have granted broad powers to state forces, contributing to patterns of enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention, and the use of excessive force against civilian populations.4 While international human rights organizations have thoroughly documented these violations, enforcement mechanisms have remained weak.5 Additionally, responses from the international community have largely been limited to expressions of concern.
This pattern is not unique to Kashmir. Across many prolonged territorial conflicts, international law exists largely on paper, while enforcement is constrained by geopolitical interests and power asymmetries. When powerful states are able to violate legal norms without consequences, it weakens the international legal system as a whole. Other states may follow, because compliance is viewed as optional rather than obligatory. Over time, this undermines trust in international institutions and reduces the effectiveness of law as a tool for conflict prevention.
The failure to enforce international law in territorial disputes also increases the risk of escalation. Unresolved conflicts marked by civilian harm and political exclusion create conditions in which resentment and instability persist. In regions where rival states possess significant military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, the costs of miscalculation are particularly high. Allowing such conflicts to remain frozen while civilian suffering continues does not promote stability. Instead, it postpones resolution while increasing long-term risks.
Addressing this threat requires renewed commitment to enforcement and accountability. First, international institutions must strengthen mechanisms for monitoring and documenting violations, particularly in conflicts that have faded from sustained global attention. Independent investigations and support for local civil society organizations are essential for preserving evidence and maintaining visibility. Second, international legal principles such as self-determination and civilian protection must be applied consistently, regardless of the strategic importance of the states involved. Selective enforcement weakens the credibility of international law and reinforces perceptions of double standards. Finally, conflict resolution efforts must move beyond state-centered approaches and meaningfully engage affected populations. In the case of Kashmir, this means recognizing that lasting peace cannot be achieved without addressing the political rights and aspirations of the Kashmiri people themselves.
Notes
- United Nations Security Council, Resolution 47 (1948), S/RES/47, April 21, 1948, https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/111955.
- Charter of the United Nations, art. 1(2), June 26, 1945; International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 1, December 16, 1966.
- Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the International Committee of the Red Cross, 2005), Rules 1 and 158.
- Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Kashmir: Developments in the Indian State of Jammu and Kashmir from June 2016 to April 2018, and General Human Rights Concerns in Azad Jammu and Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, June 14, 2018, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/IN/DevelopmentsInKashmirJune2016ToApril2018.pdf.
- OHCHR, Update of the Situation of Human Rights in Indian-Administered Kashmir and Pakistan-Administered Kashmir from May 2018 to April 2019, July 8, 2019; see also Human Rights Watch, “Kashmir: UN Reports Serious Abuses,” July 10, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/07/10/kashmir-un-reports-serious-abuses.