There are those who might argue that there is no armed conflict at present in the first place, let alone an international armed conflict, since neither side has declared war, and there has been no large-scale confrontation.

However, according to the commentary on Geneva Convention III, “any difference arising between two states and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict”.

An International Committee of the Red Cross opinion paper argues that an international armed conflict occurs when armed force is used by one State against another, “regardless of the reasons or the intensity of this confrontation.” A formal declaration of war is not relevant either.

Since the “aerial engagement” took place between the air forces of India and Pakistan, after strikes on Indian territory by Pakistan, it is difficult to see how this would not qualify as an armed conflict, especially since India claims that military installations were targeted by the Pakistan Air Force.

The commentary on Geneva Convention III supports this proposition, noting that it “makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, how much slaughter takes place, or how numerous are the participating forces; it suffices for the armed forces of one Power to have captured adversaries falling within the scope of Article 4.”

As a result, Pakistan is obliged to ensure that they treat any captured IAF pilots in accordance with Geneva Convention III.