DURING a conversation some years ago, a Supreme Court judge observed that as a sovereign independent state with an independent judiciary, we should not care about international pressures or obligations that are imposed on us. I politely dissented, explaining that our sovereignty was not an abstract absolute. Instead, it was subject to treaty commitments that we as a state had made over the years.
This question of a foreign state or entity impinging on our sovereignty is raised often. Take the EU’s GSP Plus status for Pakistan, which enables a concessionary regime for Pakistani exporters. For that status to continue beyond 2027, Pakistan, as a federation, must implement 27 international treaties and conventions in all four provinces and all territories that it exercises sovereign control over, such as Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir.
The cumulative effect of these 27 conventions is that, besides the more obvious issues, the federal government across Pakistani territory has to take care of even the less noticed vegetation, grass, trees, bushes, birds, animals, watercourses, mountains, etc. For instance, the federation must ensure that there is no over-hunting that could drive a species to extinction. At another level, it is obligated to take care of its own people, and ensure they will not be discriminated against, nor deprived of life and liberty, nor face unreasonable restrictions in expressing themselves, and that they will be given dignity, with any state action against them having the law’s sanction. The rights and welfare of women and children will be protected. Labourers in factories, industries, shops, hotels, in fact all businesses, will not work in subhuman conditions and the federation will protect their well-being. Further, the federal government has to eliminate narcotics and prosecute those buying or selling narcotic substances. Corruption is also to be controlled and prevented; campaigns have to convince people to refrain from corrupt, illegal practices. So, is the EU, through the GSP Plus conditionality, asking us to do what we have not already agreed to? The answer is in the negative. Pakistani governments have ratified all 27 conventions as a sovereign choice over the years.
In practice, international treaties have had actually a more profound effect within Pakistan as they have reshaped governance and compelled reforms across diverse sectors. International law, contrary to popular perception, is no longer an extraneous variable that can be ignored during domestic planning or while making new laws.
If one were to count the number of treaties that Pakistan has ratified and entered into, they are way more than the domestic statutes enacted by the federal and provincial governments. Ratification of any treaty is not symbolic; it binds Pakistan to implement provisions even when national legislation is weak or inconsistent. Thus the treaties gradually begin to supersede the domestic legislation.
Compliance with international law instruments by Pakistan has been worth it.
Take the example of the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. Pakistan’s domestic laws on human smuggling were historically under-enforced, but UNTOC requires effective measures against traffickers. Compliance has forced Pakistan to strengthen its investigative mechanisms, enhance border controls, and criminalise practices that previously escaped scrutiny. In another instance, open-ended concessions once granted to Gulf royal families for hunting the houbara bustard had to be curtailed considerably due to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Labour laws in Pakistan were often ineffective, particularly in manufacturing hubs such as Faisalabad, Gujranwala and Sialkot. The ratification of ILO conventions has compelled the labour ministry to introduce minimum labour standards, workplace safety regulations, and collective bargaining rights.
The provincial neglect of historic sites such as Taxila or Harappa has been countered by legal obligations under Unesco and cultural property conventions. Pakistan is obliged to preserve and maintain cultural landmarks including the Wazir Khan mosque, the Lahore Fort, Shalimar Gardens and several sites in Sindh, Balochistan and KP. Hence we notice the provincial government setting up bodies to more systematically maintain and preserve culturally rich sites that the federation inherited.
The Financial Action Task Force has provided another example of external legal compulsion, forcing the federal government’s hand. Provincial governments were required to adopt financial discipline and anti-money laundering measures to avoid being blacklisted. Compliance was essential for Pakistan’s integration into the global financial system. The entire law-enforcement system had to be revamped to help build an understanding of intricate mutual legal assistance laws within police, the FIA and other institutions. Regulators had to become more vigilant. The federation had to increase their budgets.
In my view, compliance with international law instruments by Pakistan has been worth it. Executive efforts for enforcement of ratified conventions and treaties has elevated Pakistan’s reputation as a responsible state. No wonder its role in global affairs is expanding. Its representatives interact with top world leaders and participate in background negotiations, such as those leading to the UN resolution on Gaza. Pakistan now maintains close ties with the US, China, and Iran simultaneously, reflecting a nuanced diplomatic posture that is not at variance with international law. All this contrasts with India’s increasing violations of international law, such as holding in abeyance the Indus Waters Treaty and cultivating assassination networks in foreign states. By consolidating its reputation as a responsible state, Pakistan positions itself for regional leadership. Compliance with international law becomes not only a legal necessity but also a strategic advantage.
Following the 18th Amendment, many subjects of international conventions were devolved to the provinces. To ensure compliance, I recall having notified treaty implementation cells in all provinces and in the federal government during my brief tenure as caretaker federal law minister in 2013. These cells made reporting to the EU and UN bodies easier, and enabled Pakistan to demonstrate compliance at the city, provincial and federal levels.
Despite progress, challenges remain. Domestic resistance to reform, bureaucratic inertia, and political expediency often hinder implementation. Pakistan cannot afford complacency. International obligations are binding, and failure to comply risks sanctions and reputational damage. Conversely, effective efforts towards implementation offer opportunities: enhanced trade access, improved diplomatic standing, and leadership in regional and international affairs.
The writer is a former caretaker federal law minister.
Published in Dawn, December 20th, 2025
