Amir Mushtaq
The Kashmir dispute represents a continuing tension between international law and realpolitik. While international law is grounded in principles such as self-determination, the peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for fundamental rights, international politics often operates according to strategic interests and power calculations. Kashmir demonstrates how this gap can prevent legal principles from producing political outcomes.
The central issue is the right of the Kashmiri people to determine their political future. The dispute therefore cannot be understood only as a territorial disagreement between India and Pakistan. It is also a question of political agency, international commitments and the credibility of the rules-based international order.
The Kashmir question has repeatedly been connected with the idea that the political future of the territory should reflect the wishes of its people. This creates an important legal and normative question: if self-determination is recognized as a fundamental principle, why has its meaningful application remained unresolved in Kashmir?
The issue is not simply whether international law contains relevant principles. The deeper problem is the implementation gap between international norms and political action. International law can establish obligations and principles, but its effectiveness often depends on the willingness of states and international institutions to act. The continuing impasse can partly be explained through realist international politics. States generally prioritize national interest, strategic partnerships and security considerations. Legal principles become more difficult to enforce when they conflict with the interests of powerful actors.
India’s growing economic and strategic importance has increased the complexity of international responses to Kashmir. Major powers often seek stable relations with New Delhi because of wider interests in trade, defence, technology and Indo-Pacific strategy. Consequently, governments may prefer diplomatic restraint rather than taking positions that could create friction with India. This illustrates the influence of realpolitik over normative commitments. It does not mean that international law has become irrelevant. Rather, it shows that the application of international law can be shaped by the distribution of political power.
For Pakistan, this selective approach raises concerns about the consistency of the rules-based order. International norms lose credibility when their implementation appears to depend on the strategic importance of the parties involved.
The Kashmir dispute is therefore larger than the immediate interests of India and Pakistan. It represents a test of whether international institutions can address prolonged disputes through established legal and diplomatic mechanisms. A rules-based international order requires more than the existence of treaties, resolutions and legal principles. It requires political consistency. If international law is strongly invoked in some conflicts but treated cautiously in others because of geopolitical interests, smaller states may question the fairness of the system.
Pakistan’s emphasis on peaceful dispute resolution and international engagement is important in this context. Islamabad’s position is that the Kashmir issue should be addressed through peaceful means and in a manner that recognizes the political aspirations of the Kashmiri people. Such an approach also serves regional stability. India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed states, and prolonged tensions between them carry consequences beyond Kashmir itself. A credible political process could therefore contribute to wider South Asian security and strategic stability.
A major weakness in many discussions of Kashmir is that the people of Kashmir can disappear behind the language of territory and strategic competition. A sustainable solution requires placing their rights, aspirations and political participation at the centre of the discussion. The dispute cannot be reduced to a contest over sovereignty between two states while ignoring the population whose future is ultimately being debated.
For Pakistan, emphasizing this human and political dimension strengthens its diplomatic narrative. The Kashmir issue should be presented not merely as a bilateral rivalry but as a question involving self-determination, human security and political legitimacy. This approach also connects Kashmir with contemporary international debates about human rights and civilian protection.
Pakistan can also frame Kashmir within the broader agenda of regional peace. Resolution of the dispute would reduce one of South Asia’s most persistent security tensions and could create space for greater regional economic cooperation and connectivity. The objective should therefore remain peaceful and politically legitimate resolution rather than indefinite confrontation.
Kashmir exposes a fundamental contradiction in international politics: law promises equality, while power often produces hierarchy. The continuing gap between international legal principles and political outcomes has left the Kashmir question unresolved. For Pakistan, the issue remains closely connected with self-determination and the political rights of the Kashmiri people. The passage of time cannot, by itself, replace the need for a legitimate political solution.
Ultimately, Kashmir is a test of whether the international community is prepared to apply its principles consistently. If international law is to retain credibility, legal commitments cannot become conditional upon geopolitical convenience. The unfulfilled promise of 1947 therefore remains relevant not simply because of its historical origins, but because it continues to challenge the international system to place justice, consent and political legitimacy above the temporary calculations of power.
The author is a researcher at the Kashmir Institute of International Relations Islamabad. He can be reached at amirmushtaq9300@gmail.com
