Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
In the evolving landscape of transnational terrorism, states increasingly resort to proactive measures to neutralize threats beyond their borders. Two such measures frequently discussed are ‘Hot Pursuit’ and ‘Surgical Strikes’. ‘Hot Pursuit’, a long-standing principle in international law, allows immediate cross-border pursuit of offenders. ‘Surgical Strikes’, a more recent term, denote limited military operations aimed at specific targets. Both are employed in response to terrorist attacks, but their strategic impacts differ significantly, influencing regional stability, international relations, and the legitimacy of state action. The Balakot airstrike of 2019 exemplifies the complexities surrounding surgical strikes, while instances of cross-border operations against insurgent groups in the Northeast illustrate hot pursuit.
Understanding the Concepts
Hot Pursuit: Defined under Article 111 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and customary international law, hot pursuit allows a warship or aircraft to chase a fleeing vessel or aircraft that has violated its laws, into the territorial waters or airspace of another state. It’s limited to cases of recent violations and requires continuous pursuit from the initial violation. Its application in counter-terrorism is often debated, extending beyond maritime contexts to land borders.
Surgical Strikes: This term lacks a formal legal definition. It generally refers to a targeted military operation, usually involving air strikes or special forces, aimed at eliminating a specific terrorist threat or infrastructure. The intent is to minimize collateral damage and avoid escalation to a full-scale conflict. However, the very nature of military action makes complete avoidance of collateral damage challenging.
Strategic Impacts of Hot Pursuit
- Limited Escalation Risk: Hot pursuit, when conducted within the bounds of international law, generally carries a lower risk of escalation compared to surgical strikes. It’s often seen as a reactive measure to a direct threat.
- Strengthened Border Security: Frequent hot pursuit operations can enhance border security and deter future transgressions by terrorist groups.
- Diplomatic Tensions: Even within legal frameworks, hot pursuit can strain relations with neighboring countries, particularly if perceived as excessive or violating sovereignty.
- Operational Challenges: Effective hot pursuit requires excellent intelligence gathering, rapid response capabilities, and coordination with border security forces.
Example: India’s operations against insurgents in Myanmar (2015) and Bangladesh, involving cross-border raids to neutralize militant groups, exemplify hot pursuit. These operations were largely successful in disrupting insurgent activities but also led to diplomatic protests.
Strategic Impacts of Surgical Strikes
- Demonstration of Resolve: Surgical strikes send a strong signal of a nation’s resolve to combat terrorism and protect its citizens.
- Deterrence Effect: They can deter future terrorist attacks by raising the cost of such actions.
- High Risk of Escalation: Surgical strikes carry a significant risk of escalation, potentially leading to a wider conflict. Retaliation is a major concern.
- Domestic Political Gains: Successful surgical strikes can boost the government’s popularity and demonstrate strong leadership.
- International Scrutiny: Surgical strikes are subject to intense international scrutiny, particularly regarding proportionality, collateral damage, and adherence to international humanitarian law.
Example: The Indian Air Force’s airstrike on Balakot, Pakistan, in February 2019, following the Pulwama attack, is a prime example of a surgical strike. While it aimed to target a Jaish-e-Mohammed training camp, it sparked a military standoff and heightened tensions between India and Pakistan. The effectiveness of the strike in eliminating the intended target remains debated.
Comparative Analysis
| Feature | Hot Pursuit | Surgical Strikes |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Established under International Law (UNCLOS, Customary Law) | Lacks formal legal definition; relies on the principle of self-defense |
| Escalation Risk | Lower | Higher |
| Target Scope | Immediate offenders fleeing a violation | Specific terrorist targets or infrastructure |
| Diplomatic Impact | Moderate; potential for tensions | Significant; potential for severe strain |
| Public Perception | Often less publicized | High visibility; significant public and media attention |
Challenges and Future Considerations
Both hot pursuit and surgical strikes face challenges in the context of evolving terrorist tactics. The use of proxy warfare, the blurring of lines between state and non-state actors, and the rise of cyberterrorism necessitate a more nuanced approach. Strengthening international cooperation, improving intelligence sharing, and developing clear legal frameworks for cross-border counter-terrorism operations are crucial. Furthermore, a focus on addressing the root causes of terrorism, such as poverty, political grievances, and social exclusion, is essential for long-term success.
Conclusion
Both ‘Hot Pursuit’ and ‘Surgical Strikes’ represent tools in the counter-terrorism arsenal, each with distinct strategic impacts. While hot pursuit offers a relatively low-risk, reactive approach, surgical strikes provide a more assertive, yet potentially escalatory, response. The effectiveness of both depends on careful planning, precise execution, adherence to international law, and a clear understanding of the potential consequences. A balanced strategy, combining proactive intelligence gathering, robust border security, and diplomatic engagement, remains the most effective approach to combating terrorism in the long run.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.