Kashmir through the Lens of International Law: Self-Determination or Sovereignty

Abstract

This article conducts a critical legal analysis of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute through the competing frameworks of self-determination and state sovereignty in international law. It argues that the conflict embodies a profound, unresolved contradiction within the international legal order, where the peremptory norm (jus cogens) of self-determination, as initially invoked in United Nations Security Council resolutions promising a plebiscite, collides directly with India’s sustained claim of territorial sovereignty based on constitutional integration, the bilateral Simla Agreement, and the principle of uti possidetis juris. The article traces this legal antinomy from its historical origins in the contested Instrument of Accession (1947) through the shifting paradigms of UN intervention and bilateralism, to the contemporary impasse solidified by India’s abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. It further examines how widespread human rights violations intersect with the contentious doctrine of remedial secession and how geopolitical realities effectively neutralize international legal mechanisms. The conclusion posits that Kashmir exposes the structural limits of international law, which provides the normative vocabulary for the dispute but lacks the adjudicative power to resolve it, as strategic interests and the primacy of state sovereignty consistently override the enforcement of erga omnes obligations, leaving the core issue in a state of permanent legal suspension.

Keywords: Kashmir, International Law, Self-Determination, Sovereignty, Article 370, Human Rights