The Kashmir Dispute: History, UN Resolutions, and Legal Perspectives

At the time of the 1947 Partition of British India, the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir—majority Muslim—opted for temporary independence. However, following a tribal invasion from Pakistan, the Maharaja signed an Instrument of Accession to India in exchange for military assistance. This led to the first Indo-Pakistani war and India's referral of the issue to the United Nations Security Council.

By early 1949, a UN-brokered ceasefire left roughly two-thirds of Kashmir under Indian control and one-third under Pakistan. From the outset, the UN framed the conflict as a matter requiring international oversight, pledging that the people of Kashmir would eventually determine their future through a plebiscite

UN Resolutions and India’s International Obligations

The United Nations Security Council, particularly through Resolution 47 (1948), laid out a roadmap: Pakistan was to withdraw its forces and ensure non-interference, while India was to progressively reduce its troops to facilitate a free and impartial plebiscite. A UN-appointed administrator would supervise the vote to determine whether Kashmir would join India or Pakistan.

India accepted these obligations in principle, but mutual distrust and divergent interpretations of the demilitarization process led to deadlock. The plebiscite was never held. While the resolutions were not rescinded, India gradually shifted its stance to treat the matter as a domestic constitutional issue.

The 2019 Revocation of Article 370

In 2019, India revoked Article 370 of its Constitution, which granted Jammu and Kashmir special autonomous status. This move abolished the region’s semi-autonomous governance and divided it into two federally administered territories.

India maintained that this was a domestic constitutional reform. However, from an international law standpoint, critics argue it violated the spirit of the original accession and undermined the right to self-determination envisioned by early UN resolutions. Pakistan and several international observers contended that such unilateral measures altered the status quo of a still-disputed territory.

Pakistan’s Legal Position

Pakistan bases its legal position on the United Nations resolutions and the right to self-determination of the Kashmiri people. It views the 1947 accession to India as conditional and argues that India’s refusal to hold a plebiscite, coupled with its 2019 constitutional changes, constitutes a breach of international obligations.

Furthermore, Pakistan highlights alleged human rights violations in Indian-administered Kashmir. It has presented reports of repression, excessive use of force, and restrictions on civil liberties as evidence that the conditions for a free and fair plebiscite still do not exist. Pakistan has consistently called upon the UN and international community to intervene and uphold the Kashmiri people’s rights.

Possibility of International Court of Justice Involvement

Pakistan has, at times, proposed taking the Kashmir issue to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, this path is fraught with legal and procedural challenges.

For the ICJ to hear a contentious case, both parties must consent to the Court’s jurisdiction. India has not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction in matters relating to Kashmir, and longstanding bilateral agreements between India and Pakistan discourage third-party adjudication.

Alternatively, Pakistan could advocate for a request for an advisory opinion via the UN General Assembly. While advisory opinions carry political weight, they are not legally binding. Securing enough international support to pass such a resolution in the General Assembly would also be politically difficult, especially without India's cooperation.

Conclusion

The Kashmir dispute lies at the complex intersection of international law, constitutional law, and geopolitical strategy. While UN resolutions laid out a clear framework for resolving the conflict through demilitarization and plebiscite, these plans were never fully implemented.

India regards Kashmir as an integral part of its territory and considers the matter settled. Pakistan views Kashmir as a disputed territory whose people have yet to exercise their right to self-determination. Meanwhile, international legal avenues such as the ICJ remain mostly symbolic unless both parties agree to participate.

Ultimately, legal arguments continue to play a role in shaping international perceptions, but without political will and mutual agreement, a purely legal solution remains out of reach. Until then, Kashmir will likely remain one of the world’s most intractable unresolved territorial conflicts.