Civilian Protection in the Afghanistan-Pakistan Conflict: Security Imperatives, International Law, Political Credibility, and Geopolitical Constraints

Civilian Protection in the Afghanistan-Pakistan Conflict: Security Imperatives, International Law, Political Credibility, and Geopolitical Constraints

By Dr. Ubaidullah Burhani

Introduction: Between National Security and Civilian Protection

The latest Pakistani airstrikes inside Afghanistan have once again exposed the complex intersection of national security, cross-border militancy, civilian protection, sovereignty, international law, and regional geopolitics.

On October 1, 2026, Pakistan conducted airstrikes in Afghanistan’s Kunar and Helmand provinces. Pakistan stated that the operations targeted militant hideouts and that initial reports indicated 22 militants had been killed. Afghan authorities reported civilian casualties. The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) subsequently confirmed that at least 10 civilians were killed, most of them children, and nine others were injured. The competing casualty and targeting claims have not all been independently verified.

The European Union expressed concern over the civilian deaths, called for restraint and dialogue, and stressed that all parties must respect international law, including international humanitarian law, protect civilians and civilian infrastructure, and take all feasible precautions to prevent civilian harm. At the same time, it called on the Afghan de facto authorities to take effective action against terrorist groups operating in or from Afghanistan.

The issue therefore cannot be reduced to a simple question of whether Pakistan has security concerns or whether Afghan civilians have suffered. Both questions are relevant, but they belong to different analytical and legal categories.

The central challenge is to determine how legitimate security concerns can be addressed without undermining the principles of sovereignty, civilian protection, proportionality, and accountability.

⸻

I. The Immediate Context and Competing Narratives

The first difficulty is factual.

Pakistan maintains that its strikes were directed against militant infrastructure and were based on credible intelligence. Its Ministry of Information stated that the targets were terrorist hideouts and that weapons and ammunition were destroyed. Pakistan also said that maximum precautions were taken to prevent civilian casualties.

Afghan authorities, by contrast, stated that the strikes hit civilian homes and caused civilian deaths and injuries. UNAMA independently confirmed at least 10 civilian deaths, most of them children, and nine injuries.

This divergence illustrates a recurring problem in the Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict: the same military operation can generate fundamentally different official narratives.

For an evidence-based assessment, neither narrative should automatically be accepted in full. The critical questions include:

* What were the intended military targets?
* What intelligence supported the identification of those targets?
* What information was available to commanders at the time?
* What civilian presence was anticipated?
* What precautions were taken before and during the strikes?
* What military advantage was expected?
* What caused the civilian casualties that were subsequently documented?

These questions require independent investigation rather than political assumption.

⸻

II. The Legal Framework

1. Sovereignty and the Use of Force

The first legal issue concerns the use of military force across an internationally recognized border.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter establishes the general prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. Article 51, however, recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a UN member state.

Consequently, any assessment of Pakistani military action inside Afghanistan requires consideration of the legal basis invoked by Pakistan and the circumstances surrounding each operation.

Two questions should therefore be kept analytically separate:

1. Was the resort to force across the border legally justified?
2. Was the particular military operation conducted in accordance with international humanitarian law?

These are related but distinct questions. A claim of self-defence does not remove the obligation to comply with international humanitarian law during the conduct of hostilities.

2. International Humanitarian Law and Civilian Protection

The International Committee of the Red Cross identifies distinction, proportionality, and precautions as fundamental principles governing the conduct of hostilities. Parties must distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.

The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

The principle of precaution requires parties to take feasible measures to verify targets, minimize civilian harm, assess the expected consequences of an attack, and cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that it would violate the rules of distinction or proportionality.

Therefore, the existence of an alleged militant target does not automatically make every person or object in the vicinity a lawful target.

At the same time, the mere fact that civilians were killed does not by itself establish that an attack constituted a violation of international humanitarian law. Such a determination requires examination of the information reasonably available to those planning and conducting the attack and the circumstances existing at the time.

This distinction is important because legal analysis should not be replaced by political rhetoric.

3. The Importance of Independent Investigation

Where the parties provide contradictory accounts, independent investigation becomes particularly important.

An investigation should establish the identity of those killed, the nature and location of the alleged military targets, the intelligence used to identify them, the weapons employed, the expected civilian presence, and the precautions taken.

Such an investigation serves both sides.

For Afghanistan, it provides a mechanism for documenting civilian harm.

For Pakistan, it provides an opportunity to substantiate its claims concerning the military nature of the targets and the precautions allegedly taken to avoid civilian casualties.

Accountability should therefore be understood not merely as punishment. It is also a mechanism for establishing facts and strengthening the credibility of security policy.

⸻

III. Pakistan’s Security Argument

Pakistan’s central argument is that militant groups operating from Afghan territory pose a direct security threat to Pakistan.

Islamabad has repeatedly accused the Afghan de facto authorities of allowing Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and other militant organizations to operate from Afghanistan. Kabul rejects these accusations and maintains that militancy inside Pakistan is fundamentally Pakistan’s own security problem.

Pakistan’s security concerns cannot simply be dismissed.

The country has experienced serious militant violence, and the TTP remains a major component of Pakistan’s security concerns. The dispute, however, concerns how those threats should be addressed and what legal and political limits apply to cross-border military operations.

The existence of a genuine security threat does not automatically determine the legality or effectiveness of a particular military response.

A sustainable counterterrorism strategy requires more than the ability to strike suspected targets. It also requires reliable intelligence, accurate target identification, cooperation with neighboring states, border management, and mechanisms capable of preventing repeated cycles of retaliation.

⸻

IV. The Question of Consistency in Pakistan’s Security Policy

An additional political question concerns the consistency of Pakistan’s counterterrorism policy.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman, leader of Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (F), has publicly criticized Islamabad’s approach toward Afghanistan and argued that disputes with Afghanistan cannot be resolved through force alone and should instead be addressed through dialogue and diplomacy.

More recent political and security debates have also raised broader questions about militant activity inside Pakistan and the credibility of Islamabad’s claims regarding militant networks operating from Afghanistan.

These criticisms should not automatically be interpreted as proof that Pakistan’s military intelligence assessments are false. They do, however, raise a legitimate policy question: Are Pakistan’s counterterrorism standards being applied consistently to armed groups regardless of where they operate or which political circumstances surround them?

That question is particularly relevant because Pakistan has recently presented allegations concerning meetings among several militant organizations in Kandahar. Pakistani military officials alleged that representatives of the Baloch Liberation Army, al-Qaida in the Indian Subcontinent, and the Hafiz Gul Bahadur group met in Kandahar to discuss attacks inside Pakistan. Afghan authorities denied the allegation, and Pakistani officials did not publicly provide evidence sufficient to independently verify the claim.

The appropriate response to such competing claims is verification rather than assumption.

⸻

V. The Political and Diplomatic Dimension

Military force cannot by itself resolve the underlying political dispute between Kabul and Islamabad.

The central disagreement involves several interconnected issues:

* Pakistan’s allegations concerning militant sanctuaries in Afghanistan;
* Afghanistan’s rejection of those allegations;
* cross-border military operations;
* the status of the Durand Line and border management;
* refugee and migration pressures;
* the absence of sustained political trust;
* and the lack of a stable bilateral mechanism for managing security disputes.

The repeated resort to military force risks narrowing the space for diplomacy.

This does not mean that security concerns should be ignored. Rather, security concerns require political mechanisms capable of addressing them before they escalate into military confrontation.

A functioning bilateral security mechanism could include intelligence-sharing arrangements, direct military communication, border incident mechanisms, joint or third-party verification of disputed incidents, and regular diplomatic consultations.

The objective would not necessarily be to resolve every political disagreement. It would be to prevent disagreement from repeatedly becoming armed confrontation.

⸻

VI. The International Response

The international response to the October 1 strikes has not been completely absent, although it has been cautious.

UNAMA confirmed civilian casualties and called for de-escalation, dialogue, respect for international law, and prevention of further civilian harm.

The European Union similarly condemned the civilian deaths while simultaneously calling on the Afghan de facto authorities to address terrorist groups operating in or from Afghanistan.

This formulation is analytically significant because it does not reduce the conflict to a single issue. It recognizes both the security concerns expressed by Pakistan and the obligation of all parties to protect civilians.

The broader question concerns consistency.

When international actors respond to civilian casualties in different conflicts, perceptions of unequal application of international standards can emerge. Such perceptions can weaken confidence in international institutions even where the underlying legal situations are not identical.

It is therefore important to distinguish between a documented legal principle and a political perception of double standards.

The latter should be examined through evidence rather than simply asserted as fact.

⸻

VII. Geopolitical Constraints

The international response must also be understood within a broader geopolitical environment.

Pakistan remains an important actor in South Asian security, counterterrorism, regional diplomacy, and relations involving major international and Gulf powers.

Afghanistan, meanwhile, remains at the intersection of terrorism concerns, humanitarian needs, regional competition, and the unresolved international question of engagement with its de facto authorities.

These factors may encourage some governments to prioritize de-escalation and strategic stability over stronger public confrontation.

Such caution may have practical diplomatic logic, but it also creates a potential credibility problem if civilian protection appears to receive inconsistent attention.

The issue is therefore not whether geopolitical interests exist. They clearly form part of the broader international environment. The analytical question is how those interests interact with international legal obligations and humanitarian concerns.

A credible international system must be able to address security threats while maintaining consistent standards for civilian protection.

⸻

VIII. The Regional Consequences

The Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict should not be viewed solely as a bilateral dispute.

Cross-border violence has consequences for neighboring states, regional security, humanitarian conditions, migration, trade, and international counterterrorism efforts.

UNAMA has documented substantial civilian casualties resulting from cross-border armed violence during 2026. Its earlier reporting documented more than 750 civilian deaths and injuries in Afghanistan during the first quarter of 2026 from cross-border violence, while later UN reporting placed the cumulative number above 1,100 for the year.

These figures illustrate that the consequences extend beyond individual military incidents.

The risk is the development of a repetitive cycle:

militant attack → military retaliation → civilian casualties → political pressure → further escalation.

Breaking this cycle requires mechanisms that address both the security threat and the humanitarian consequences.

Military action may form part of a state’s security response, but it cannot substitute indefinitely for intelligence cooperation, border coordination, political dialogue, and regional diplomacy.

⸻

IX. From Military Retaliation to a Sustainable Security Framework

A more sustainable framework could rest on several principles.

1. Independent verification

Disputed military incidents should be subject to credible independent investigation whenever possible.

2. Intelligence cooperation

Pakistan and Afghanistan need mechanisms through which credible information about militant threats can be communicated without automatically converting every intelligence dispute into military escalation.

3. Border coordination

A functioning border-security mechanism could reduce misunderstandings, improve incident reporting, and provide channels for immediate communication during crises.

4. Consistent counterterrorism standards

Armed groups should be assessed according to their conduct and threat rather than solely according to their political affiliation or geographical location.

5. Civilian protection

Civilian protection should remain a central operational consideration in every military action.

6. Political dialogue

Security disputes that cannot be resolved militarily require sustained political channels.

These mechanisms would not eliminate the underlying disagreement between Kabul and Islamabad. They could, however, reduce the probability that every disagreement develops into another cycle of military escalation.

⸻

X. From Condemnation to Accountability

The international response should move beyond statements of concern toward evidence-based accountability.

That does not mean presuming guilt before an investigation.

It means establishing facts.

If an investigation determines that civilian protection obligations were violated, appropriate accountability mechanisms should follow.

If allegations are not substantiated, that conclusion should also be clearly communicated.

The same principle should apply to allegations concerning militant activity.

Claims that armed groups are operating from Afghan territory should be independently examined where possible. Claims concerning militant activity inside Pakistan should likewise be examined.

A credible regional counterterrorism framework cannot depend on selective verification.

⸻

Conclusion: Security, Law, and Political Credibility

The latest Pakistani airstrikes demonstrate the complexity of the Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict.

Pakistan faces genuine security concerns arising from militant violence. At the same time, Afghan civilians continue to bear the consequences of cross-border military escalation.

Neither reality should be ignored.

The legal question is whether the use of force across the border has a valid legal basis and whether individual military operations comply with international humanitarian law.

The political question is whether Kabul and Islamabad possess sufficient mechanisms to address their security disagreements without repeatedly resorting to military escalation.

The strategic question is whether the current cycle of retaliation can produce sustainable security or whether it will continue generating new grievances and instability.

And the international question is whether external actors can simultaneously address legitimate counterterrorism concerns and maintain consistent standards of civilian protection.

The credibility of Pakistan’s security policy will depend partly on the quality and transparency of the intelligence supporting its military actions and on whether counterterrorism standards are applied consistently to armed groups.

The credibility of the international system will likewise depend on whether civilian protection and international law remain relevant even when their consistent application creates geopolitical difficulties.

Ultimately, Afghanistan and Pakistan require more than competing narratives and repeated military responses. They require a framework in which security concerns, sovereignty, international law, civilian protection, intelligence verification, and political dialogue can operate together.

The question is therefore not simply who is right in the latest exchange of accusations. The deeper question is whether the region can move from a cycle of allegation and retaliation toward a system of verification, accountability, dialogue, and sustainable security.

Dr. Ubaidullah Burhani

Selected Sources and References

* United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA): Documentation of civilian casualties resulting from the October 1, 2026 airstrikes and its call for de-escalation, dialogue, respect for international law, and prevention of further civilian harm. UNAMA statement on civilian casualties⁠
* European External Action Service (EEAS): EU statement on the Kunar and Helmand airstrikes, including its call for restraint, dialogue, respect for international humanitarian law, and civilian protection. European Union statement⁠
* Reuters: Reporting on the competing Pakistani and Afghan accounts of the October 1 strikes and the UN-confirmed civilian casualties. Reuters report⁠
* Associated Press: Reporting on the October 1 airstrikes, Pakistan’s stated military objectives, Afghan civilian casualty claims, and UNAMA’s confirmation. Associated Press report on the airstrikes⁠
* Associated Press: Reporting on Pakistan’s allegations concerning a meeting of militant groups in Kandahar and the Afghan authorities’ denial. Associated Press report on the alleged Kandahar meeting⁠
* United Nations: UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4) concerning the prohibition on the use of force and Article 51 concerning the inherent right of self-defence. United Nations Charter⁠
* International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC): Principles governing the conduct of hostilities, including distinction, proportionality, and precautions. ICRC: Conduct of hostilities and protection of civilians⁠
* Council on Foreign Relations: Background analysis of the escalation in Afghanistan-Pakistan relations and the dispute concerning TTP activity and cross-border security. Council on Foreign Relations analysis⁠
* TOLOnews: Reporting on Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s public call for dialogue and diplomacy rather than relying exclusively on force in Pakistan’s Afghanistan policy. TOLOnews report⁠

 

Strategic Value, Risk Exposure, and the Changing Economics of Partnership