While Pakistan has a legally valid right to defend Balochistan as its own territory, international law also has its limitations, and these limitations apply to all parties to the conflict.
Balochistan is the epicentre of one of the most challenging political and human rights issues in Pakistan. The province has been plagued for years by a separatist movement characterised by armed attacks, strong political grievances, and continued allegations of state abuses. Over the years, the violence has become increasingly apparent, impacting security forces, infrastructure, the civilian population, and foreign nationals.
Several of the most severe attacks have been attributed to the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), a banned separatist group that was responsible for the March 2025 hijacking of the Jaffar Express. The incident received extensive international media coverage and brought to light the scale of the security challenge Pakistan is facing. Since then, the violence has shown no sign of abating. Days earlier, in August 2026, a security operation elsewhere in Balochistan resulted in 10 militants being killed, while security forces in the province claimed in August to have killed 37 militants.
The larger question, not often stated outright but raised by these headlines, is: how far can a state go in asserting its right to defend itself against armed groups within its own borders? There is only one word that begins to answer that question: sovereignty.
Sovereignty is not merely a political slogan used to legitimise government actions. It is a fundamental concept of international law. The sovereign equality of all states is provided for in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter. Their territorial integrity and political independence are safeguarded by Article 2(4). Article 2(7) states that, if a matter genuinely falls within a state's domestic jurisdiction, it is for that state to decide. Reading these provisions together makes it clear that Balochistan is Pakistani territory and that Pakistan has the legal right to govern it, maintain order, and defend its territorial integrity, including against those who take up arms against it. Even if an armed group's grievances are legitimate, international law does not give it the right to change the political situation by force, seize territory, or establish a parallel administration.
There has always been a proviso attached to sovereignty: it is not unlimited power. As far as Pakistan is concerned, it has the right to counter armed groups threatening its territorial integrity, but the question is how. Once a certain threshold of violence is reached, IHL, the body of law that regulates how armed conflicts must be fought, comes into consideration and sets strict limits on the use of force by all sides. When the violence between the Pakistani armed forces and an organised armed group is sufficiently intense and organised, it can legally be considered a conflict “between the forces of a State and organised armed groups within its own territory,” or a non-international armed conflict, as international humanitarian law defines it. At that point, the Geneva Conventions, Common Article 3, and customary IHL become applicable, and if the conditions of Additional Protocol II are met, it may also apply.
None of this takes away the right of Pakistan to defend itself. IHL does not say that a state is prohibited from engaging an armed group; rather, it tells the state and the armed group—how that engagement should be conducted. Distinction, proportionality, and precaution are three principles at the heart of this body of law.
In Balochistan, neither sovereignty nor civilian protection can be sacrificed for the other. The legitimacy of the state ultimately depends on protecting the people whom that sovereignty is meant to serve.
The essence of distinction is that civilians are never legitimate targets simply because they are in an area where fighting is taking place. Combatants must distinguish themselves, in their targeting and conduct, from those who are not directly engaged in hostilities. Proportionality requires any harm likely to be caused to civilians by an attack on a legitimate military target to be carefully weighed. If the civilian harm expected from a particular attack would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, the attack cannot proceed. Precaution requires all parties to take “feasible steps” before and during an attack to minimise civilian harm.
But most important of all, these obligations are reciprocal. They bind separatist fighters in the same way that they bind the state. An attack against civilians, such as hostage-taking carried out for political reasons, is not permitted under IHL. There is no exception when people are intentionally targeted in pursuit of independence, self-determination, or political grievances.
The same, however, applies to the state. While Pakistan's security forces have a legitimate role in protecting the country's territorial integrity and its citizens from threats, allegations concerning the killing of large numbers of people, enforced disappearances, and missing persons cannot simply be brushed aside on the basis of sovereignty. Sovereignty is the source of a state's authority. It does not relieve that authority of the restrictions imposed by international law on the exercise of that authority.
As such, Balochistan is not only a security issue but a legal issue as well. However necessary counterinsurgency operations may be, they cannot amount to unlimited warfare. Sovereignty and the protection of civilians are not mutually exclusive, and neither should be sacrificed in the pursuit of the other.
In fact, Pakistan's legal position on the territorial issue is quite unique and strong in the sense that it has every right to defend Balochistan, whose status as Pakistani territory is well established under international law. The same reasoning applies to the armed groups challenging the state. They cannot claim that their political aims place them outside the scope of the law. Under IHL, once a group becomes a party to an armed conflict, it is subject to the applicable rules of IHL regardless of the cause for which it is fighting.
The point that the Balochistan conflict brings out is that every state has to strike a balance between the power of the state and the rights of the people under its authority. Pakistan has the right to defend its territorial integrity and respond to armed insurgency, but that right comes with responsibility. While military force might be required in the face of a genuine security threat, it cannot be the only tool employed. Meaningful political dialogue addressing the province's grievances, accountability, and lawful governance must also be integral to the process of creating lasting stability.
Sovereignty is what guarantees the territorial integrity of a state. Once conflict arises, those who live within that territory are also entitled to the protection of international humanitarian law. In Balochistan, neither principle can be compromised for the other. Pakistan's challenge is to maintain its sovereignty without forgetting the purpose for which that sovereignty exists. There are indeed many people whom sovereignty is meant to serve. But in Balochistan, they are not an adjunct to that principle. They are the reason it exists.