In a region long defined by its volatility, the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan has once again become the focus of international attention, but this time for two sharply contrasting reasons: a humanitarian corridor opened for United Nations relief supplies, and an escalating series of cross-border airstrikes that have drawn sharp scrutiny under international law.
On December 4, 2025, Pakistan’s Ministry of Commerce announced the opening of the Torkham and Chaman crossings to allow urgent United Nations relief convoys into Afghanistan. This decision, reported by Daily Times, followed a direct humanitarian appeal from the United Nations and was intended to address acute shortages of food, medicine, and other essentials in Afghanistan. According to Pakistani officials, the plan was carefully coordinated with the Foreign Ministry and swiftly implemented by Customs authorities, the Federal Board of Revenue, and the Directorate General of Transit. Customs teams at Torkham immediately began preparations for cargo entry under what officials described as a “strict and well-managed schedule.”
The relief operation was meticulously phased: first, containers carrying food from UN agencies would be cleared, followed by medicines and medical equipment—critical for Afghanistan’s fragile health system—and finally, school kits and other essential supplies. The initial convoy was substantial, including 74 containers from UNICEF, 67 from the World Food Programme (WFP), and 2 from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Details of further shipments were promised in the coming days. The Ministry of Commerce emphasized that the operation was “based purely on humanitarian needs” and insisted that the phased entry of supplies would “maintain order and ensure timely delivery inside Afghanistan.”
This gesture of goodwill, however, stands in stark contrast to the region’s recent history of military escalation and mutual suspicion. Just weeks earlier, on October 9, 2025, Pakistani fighter jets crossed into Afghan airspace and carried out airstrikes on a civilian market in the Margha area of Paktika province. As Fair Observer reported, explosions were also heard in parts of Kabul that day, with Afghanistan’s Defense Ministry quickly accusing Pakistan of responsibility. The following day, Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defense confirmed the airstrikes and asserted that the country “has the right to defend its sovereignty against such violations.”
The situation deteriorated further when, on October 12, Afghan forces launched retaliatory strikes against Pakistani military targets. Pakistan responded by claiming it had undertaken cross-border counterstrikes within Afghan territory, targeting both Afghan military installations and militant bases allegedly used to launch attacks on Pakistan. The violence did not abate: on October 15 and 17, Pakistan conducted additional airstrikes in Kandahar, Kabul, and Paktika provinces, reportedly striking civilian homes and marketplaces and resulting in hundreds of civilian casualties.
Initially, Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) remained silent following the October 9 airstrikes. However, after Afghanistan’s retaliatory operations, MoFA issued a statement asserting that Pakistan had “exercised its right of self-defense against both the Afghan government and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP).” This mirrored earlier justifications: in December 2024, after a separate series of airstrikes, Pakistan maintained that its operations targeted the Hafiz Gul Bahadur Group—a nonstate actor, along with the TTP, accused of orchestrating terrorist attacks inside Pakistan. Pakistani officials argued that Afghan authorities were either unwilling or unable to address the threat posed by these groups, thus requiring Pakistan to act in the interest of its national security.
These developments have raised profound questions about legality and regional stability. Under international law, as outlined in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, states are broadly prohibited from using force in international relations, with only three exceptions: self-defense under Article 51, action with the consent of another state, or authorization by the UN Security Council. Pakistan’s justification for its airstrikes relies on the right of self-defense, invoking Article 51. However, as Fair Observer notes, this right applies only in response to an “armed attack” by another state, and must be reported to the UN Security Council. The International Court of Justice has clarified that Article 51 does not generally extend to attacks by nonstate actors unless their actions can be legally attributed to a state.
Pakistan, however, has invoked the so-called “unable or unwilling” standard—a controversial doctrine suggesting that if a state cannot or will not prevent nonstate actors from launching attacks from its territory, the victim state may take unilateral self-defense measures. This standard has been used by the United States and its allies to justify interventions against ISIS in Syria, but, as Fair Observer points out, it lacks formal legal status under the UN Charter or customary international law. Critics argue that this doctrine represents a unilateral reinterpretation of Article 51, allowing powerful states to bypass the Charter’s explicit prohibition on the use of force.
Pakistan’s recent actions thus mark a significant escalation in regional tensions and set a precedent that could undermine its own long-standing objections to similar actions by neighbors—most notably India. As the Fair Observer analysis highlights, “Pakistan’s recent actions mirror the very justifications it has historically rejected, thereby weakening its credibility and normative commitment to international law.” The risk, experts warn, is that by normalizing unilateral cross-border strikes against nonstate actors, Pakistan may inadvertently legitimize similar interventions by other states within its own borders.
Amid these tensions, the humanitarian opening of the Torkham and Chaman borders offers a rare glimmer of hope. Pakistani officials have repeatedly stressed that the relief operation is “based purely on humanitarian needs” and is intended to alleviate the suffering of ordinary Afghans. The phased, well-organized entry of UN convoys is designed to ensure that desperately needed food, medicine, and educational supplies reach those most in need, without exacerbating security concerns or border chaos.
Yet, the juxtaposition of humanitarian aid and military escalation at the same border crossings is a stark reminder of the region’s complex realities. While relief convoys roll across the frontier under the watchful eyes of Customs and UN officials, the shadow of recent airstrikes and retaliatory violence lingers. For many Afghans and Pakistanis—especially those living in border communities—the line between war and peace remains perilously thin.
As winter deepens and humanitarian needs grow, the ability of both countries to manage their differences while addressing urgent crises will be tested. The world, meanwhile, is watching closely, aware that the choices made at the Torkham and Chaman crossings may shape not only the fate of millions in Afghanistan, but also the norms governing state behavior across the globe.
