How US Strikes on Indian‑Manned Commercial Vessels Raise Complex Questions of State Responsibility, Diplomatic Protection and the Law of Use of Force

Following two separate occasions in which the United States military conducted strikes against vessels flying foreign flags that were carrying Indian seafarers, the Indian government responded by summoning the American diplomatic envoy on two distinct occasions to convey its displeasure. In a further escalation of diplomatic pressure, the External Affairs Minister, Shri S. Jaishankar, engaged in a telephone conversation with his American counterpart, Senator Marco Rubio, reiterating India’s formal protest against the lethal actions that resulted in the deaths of Indian sailors. During the call, the minister emphasized that attacks on commercial shipping, irrespective of the flag the vessel bears, must be justified under applicable legal standards, and expressed that the recent incidents fell short of any permissible justification. Subsequently, the minister used the social media platform X to publish a statement asserting that such lethal actions against commercial shipping are not justified, reiterating the government’s position in a public forum. The combination of diplomatic summons, a high‑level phone conversation, and a public declaration underscores India’s determination to pursue remedial measures under international law to address what it perceives as unlawful use of force resulting in Indian nationals’ deaths. These developments occur against a backdrop of ongoing concerns about the safety of Indian mariners operating on foreign‑registered vessels operating in international waters where hostilities between major powers have intensified.

One question is whether the United States’ striking of foreign‑flagged commercial vessels that were transporting Indian seafarers satisfies the customary international law requirements of necessity and proportionality that govern the lawful use of force in peacetime. The principle of necessity mandates that any use of force must be directed toward a legitimate security objective that cannot be achieved by less intrusive means, meaning the United States would need to demonstrate that the targeted vessels posed an imminent threat justifying lethal action. The proportionality requirement further obliges that the anticipated military advantage from the strike not be outweighed by the loss of civilian lives and the disruption of commercial shipping, raising doubts about whether the death of Indian mariners meets the threshold of an acceptable collateral damage.

A further legal issue concerns whether the United States may be held internationally responsible for the alleged unlawful use of force, which under the doctrine of state responsibility requires attribution of the conduct to the State, a breach of an international obligation, and the existence of a reparable injury. Attribution would likely be straightforward given the involvement of United States armed forces, while the breach would hinge on the determination that the strikes violated obligations arising from the law of the sea and humanitarian law, and the injury is evident in the loss of Indian lives and property. If state responsibility is established, reparations could take the form of restitution, compensation for loss of life and property, and a formal apology, though the precise remedy would depend on diplomatic negotiations and any applicable dispute‑settlement mechanisms recognized by the parties.

Another important question is whether India can invoke the principle of diplomatic protection on behalf of its deceased sailors, a right that allows a State to espouse the claims of its nationals when they suffer injury attributable to another State’s internationally wrongful act. Diplomatic protection would require India to demonstrate that the sailors were its nationals, that the United States breached an international obligation, and that the injury was not already the subject of a settled dispute, thereby providing a legal basis for a claim for compensation or satisfaction. In addition to formal diplomatic protection, India may pursue bilateral negotiations, invoke consular assistance obligations under customary practice, or seek a joint fact‑finding mission, each offering alternative pathways to address the grievances without resorting to adjudication before an international court.

A further question is whether either party might submit the dispute to an international adjudicative forum such as the International Court of Justice, which would require the consent of both states under its jurisdictional statutes and possibly a special agreement for settlement. Given the sensitivity of security‑related military actions, the United States may be reluctant to accept compulsory jurisdiction, while India could argue that the case presents a serious breach of international law warranting judicial clarification, though political considerations often outweigh legal openness in such matters. Consequently, the most plausible route may involve the use of diplomatic channels, the filing of a formal protest, and the pursuit of negotiated settlement, with the legal principles articulated serving as leverage to achieve an equitable resolution.

Finally, the incident raises broader concerns about the adequacy of existing international legal frameworks to protect commercial shipping and seafarers in an era of increasingly contested maritime domains, suggesting a need for clearer rules on the use of force at sea. Strengthening the normative regime could involve revisiting the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provisions, enhancing the applicability of international humanitarian law to maritime security operations, and promoting confidence‑building measures between major powers to reduce the risk of inadvertent harm to civilian vessels. Until such developments occur, the present dispute underscores the importance of vigilant diplomatic engagement, rigorous legal analysis of state actions, and the readiness of affected nations to invoke established principles of state responsibility and diplomatic protection to safeguard the lives of their nationals.