Who Owns Gilgit-Baltistan’s Wealth?
Challenging the Legal Basis of Pakistan’s Mining Activities
By Sharukh Razzaq
Gilgit-Baltistan, strategically positioned at the nexus of Central and South Asia, continues to be at the center of Pakistan-India disputes over territory. Though controlled by Pakistan, Gilgit-Baltistan continues to have no permanent status within Pakistan’s constitution. Rather, it continues to be ruled by executive orders, the latest being the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018. Pakistan-led and private sector mining activities carried out by those operating under authority from Pakistan within Gilgit-Baltistan are legally questionable. These proceedings violate the fundamental rights of the people, contravene the right to self-determination, and are inconsistent with international legal norms for the administration of the conflict zone and its natural resources.
Traditionally, Gilgit-Baltistan belonged to the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir, the status of which remains pending since British India was partitioned in 1947. The United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan (UNCIP) Resolutions of 1948 and 1949 resolutely declared that the status of Jammu and Kashmir, which includes Gilgit-Baltistan, shall be ultimately settled by a free and impartial plebiscite held under the supervision of the United Nations. Notwithstanding these resolutions, Pakistan continues to exert administrative control upon Gilgit-Baltistan without granting it full confidence equal to that of its provinces. Significantly, Pakistan has not declared Gilgit-Baltistan a province so that its stand on the Kashmir conflict would not be weakened internationally. Accordingly, Gilgit-Baltistan continues to be internationally recognized as a territory claimed by both sides and its future to be settled through a legal and democratic process involving its people.
The right to self-determination is an integral principle of international law, ratified by the United Nations Charter (Article 1(2)) and further made more specific by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The principle ensures that all peoples are entitled to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. For the case of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan or private company mining operations without the free, prior, and informed consent of the local people are a violation of this right. By extracting natural resources without first ensuring the will and participation of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan violates their internationally recognized right to control and reap the benefits from their natural wealth.
Adding to this violation is the right of permanent sovereignty over natural resources, provided for by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1803 (XVII). This resolution ensures that natural resources belong to the people of the area and must be developed for their use. It is accepted under international law that the management of natural resources within a disputed or occupied territory must be done exclusively for the people of that territory. Pakistan’s mining agreements in Gilgit-Baltistan—specifically those made with aforeign company or signed without equitable benefitsharing agreements—are against this principle. By giving more importance to federal earnings or foreign investment than to the rights and well-being of the indigenous people, these mining operations are not only politically unjust but also legally unacceptable. Additionally, the absence of public consultation and benefit-sharing measures strengthens the case for these operations being illegal.
The 2018 Order framework of governance of Gilgit-Baltistan is constitutionally illegitimate and lacks democratic safeguards enjoyed by Pakistan’s provinces. Unlike the provinces, no mention is made of Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan’s Constitution, and no one to represent its people is present in the National Assembly or Senate. While the 2018 Order ensures a local Assembly and Chief Minister, fundamental powers such as the management of foreign affairs, defense, natural resources, and large-scale economic policy are kept firmly within Islamabad’s control. The Prime Minister of Pakistan has overriding authority to legislate for such important issues, and the local Assembly is heavily circumscribed. Where the effective political power for such major decisions resides outside the region, the democratic will of the people of Gilgit-Baltistan for decisions such as granting mining rights cannot be said to be being expressed. Consequently, mining licenses granted under such an administrative order—without a constitutionally valid and democratic system of accountability—are flawed at their very core and are devoid of substantive legal and moral authority.
Environmental issues also vitiate the case for conducting mining activities within Gilgit-Baltistan. Mining activity tends to result in grave environmental degradation, such as deforestation, water pollution, erosion of land, and harm to biodiversity. In a region like Gilgit-Baltistan, which is renowned for its vulnerable mountainous and glacial systems, free-flowing mining poses not only a risk to the environment but also to the very livelihood of those who are from the region. This destruction of the environment breaches both domestic law and international obligations, including the right to life and dignity within the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, and international obligations such as those arising out of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Without environmental impact assessments, free, prior, and informed consent, and local livelihood safeguards, mining activities contravene human rights and environmental law, further compromising their legal and moral validity.
According to customary international law, an administering authority of a territory that is a subject of a dispute is a temporary custodian and not an owner. It is obligated to administer the territory without an intent to make permanent alterations or use resources for purposes that would adversely affect the final status of the territory. The pertinent legal norms are the duty not to make permanent economic, political, or demographic alterations and the responsibility to use resources solely for the benefits of the local people. Under Pakistan’s agreements with mining companies, particularly those granting prolonged concessions or extensive extraction rights, the economic and demographic composition of the area risks being altered. The actions would be seen as an attempt to acquire “facts on the ground,” breaching the non-alteration principle of international law that applies to territories that are the subject of a dispute.
Extractive activities within Gilgit-Baltistan, by the Pakistani authorities or companies functioning under their agreements, are without solid legal support. They contravene the norms of self-determination, deny the people of Gilgit-Baltistan their permanent sovereignty over natural resources, violate democratic participation, and endanger irreparable harm to the environment. Until the permanent political status of Gilgit-Baltistan is decided by a free and fair process, its large-scale exploitation of natural resources needs to be suspended. It is the international and moral responsibility of Pakistan to end illegal mining operations forthwith, initiate a system of free, prior, and informed consent for all activities related to resources, secure the environment and sustainable means of livelihood, and uphold the people of Gilgit-Baltistan’s right to shape their future and resources themselves. Failing these actions, mining operations would continue to be legally questionable, politically illegitimate, and ethically indefensible according to contemporary international law.
Sharukh Razzaq is a student of Bachelor of Science in Government and Public Policy at the National Defence University, Islamabad. A resident of Gilgit-Baltistan, his academic and personal interests focus on governance, regional development, and the protection of political and environmental rights in disputed territories.
