Legal Diplomacy at the European Margins: India’s Strategic Engagement with Cyprus and Croatia

Image Credits-PIB

Introduction

India’s noteworthy outreach to Croatia and Cyprus on June 18 and June 25, respectively, marked the first such visit by an Indian Prime Minister in 23 years. At first glance, it may appear to be a gesture of goodwill and an effort to expand ties. However, if examined more closely, it is a calculated form of legal diplomacy. This visit is particularly significant in light of the evolving geopolitical dynamics in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey is strengthening ties with Israel and Egypt, which may affect the European nation of Greece. Additionally, the renewed momentum in India-EU trade negotiations highlights the visits.

At this time, India’s bilateral outreach to smaller EU states reflects a sophisticated form of strategic engagement. It is seeking to insert itself into the very forefront of legitimacy. To explain this further, it will be beneficial to refer to Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar's speech at the launch of the book The New World: 21st Century Global Order and India. He articulates India’s rise as a civilisational project with ancient moral values such as Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (World is one family), Rajdharma (ethical statecraft), and Dharma-Yuddha (Just war). He reiterates that India’s global rise, acclaimed by myriad countries, has not been acquired by force or coercion. Rather, it is a result of ethical governance and proactive diplomacy.  Thus, a question may arise: “How is India using legal diplomacy and bilateral engagement with smaller EU states to assert its legitimacy and reshape global norms from the margins?”

This article examines how India’s recent actions exemplify a larger trend in India’s pivotal rise and remaking of international norms. Further, it is crucial to understand the government's stance in May 2025, a month before the visits. India and the European Union jointly committed to concluding a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) by the end of 2025. This formal treaty would reduce trade barriers such as tariffs. Consequently, this makes it easier for businesses to trade goods and services. Additionally, it would provide legal protections for investors across both regions. Globally, countries' interactions and deals have been seen with critical scrutiny. As India embarks on the journey of being a world leader, these interactions highlight the changing dynamics of international geopolitics. Nevertheless, before we proceed, it is crucial to understand what legal diplomacy is and how India has utilised it to its advantage. The article argues that India’s strategic engagement with Cyprus and Croatia through bilateral treaties indicates a deliberate use of legal diplomacy to reshape norms.

Understanding Legal Diplomacy

Legal diplomacy is a relatively new concept, gaining momentum in the 21^st century. It comprises both legal methods to pursue interests (state and non-state actors) and the use of diplomatic means to achieve their goals. It could be called a form of hybrid diplomacy with varied actors, goals, and beneficiaries. In the present scenario, it can be categorised as a practise of embedding legal narratives into discourse to shape rules and influence them. In the words of Monica Hakimi, international legality is further showcased through narrative competition and institutional positioning. This means diplomacy becomes a space where states portray their actions as lawful and contest the legality of others to earn global legitimacy. States and other actors use international institutions like the UNSC to signal or reinforce their ideas. By positioning themselves within certain institutions, states portray their actions as lawful. It could be said to be a strategic use of international bodies and forums to advance your ideas. This also involves the interpretation of international law. The interpretation itself is not a technical exercise but a rhetorical one. International law functions as a ‘culture of argument and interpretation’, as argued by Julia Otten. The meaning is determined through persuasive stories instead of a mechanical demonstration. Narratives frame how treaties and norms that are heard constrain interpretive choices. These narratives are developed through constant telling and re-telling. They can be in courts, in scholarly writings, and in diplomatic recourse. Earlier, legal diplomacy usually involved the use of force and armed attacks. However, with the catastrophic impacts of the world wars and the subsequent Cold War, nations have started to adopt an inconspicuous diplomatic strategy. An instance of this could be the ‘Libya Intervention’. In early 2011, amid the Arab Spring, protests erupted in Libya against the government of Muammar Gaddafi. Nations used legal diplomacy to frame their actions. Western states, led by the United States, the UK, and France, advanced a narrative that the use of force under UN Security Council Resolution was lawful to prevent mass atrocities. On the other hand, countries like India contested this narrative, arguing that the intervention went beyond the mandate of civilian protection.

India has begun to embrace this form of diplomacy actively. As per a report, India has supported the use of international law in climate, maritime, and trade issues while being cautious of binding mechanisms that might challenge its domestic autonomy. However, India has strategically used legal documents to support positions on vaccine equity, sovereignty, and Security Council reforms. An instance of India’s legal diplomacy can be found in its acceptance of the 2014 maritime arbitration. Similarly, the Chabahar Port agreement with Iran showcases another such instance.

India’s diplomatic approach has changed significantly since PM Modi ascended to power as the Prime Minister in 2014. Earlier phases of Indian diplomacy with other leading heads focused on a low profile, neutral engagement with multilateral platforms. This is evident from the NAM (Non-Aligned Movement) established during the Cold War, with India’s PM Jawaharlal Nehru being a major founder. Under Modi, Indian diplomacy has transformed into a more assertive and strategic use of legal tools, and seeks strong publicity. Events such as public endorsements of digital cooperation and BITs highlighted on platforms like Modi’s Mann Ki Baat, illustrate that India now actively broadcasts its normative stance - a mix of spectacle and calculated strategy that helps project India as both a rising power and a responsible actor.

Importantly, legal diplomacy under Modi is not just confined to multilateral forums. It is now deployed through targeted bilateralism, issue-based coalitions, and legal signalling embedded in trade, digital governance, and strategic dialogues, as evident in the recent Pahalgam attack. This marks a shift from a defencive to a proactive posture. The Pahalgam attack on April 22, 2025, led to the death of 26 civilians by TRF, a group linked to terrorism. India responded tactically via “Operation Sindoor”. Although seemingly a military response, it was embedded within a diplomatic legal strategy. India framed its actions under Article 51 of the UN Charter, invoking the right to self-defence against terrorism. During the press briefings of Operation Sindoor, Foreign Secretary Vikram Mishri emphasised that the strikes were ‘focused, measured and selective’. Alongside it imposed a series of non-legal retaliatory measures. This includes the Suspension of the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), closure of the Attari-Wagah border, suspension of all bilateral trades between the two nations, and revoking SAARC visas of Pakistani nationals. Such measures received mixed reactions from the critics. While India garnered support from Washington and London, Pakistan portrayed it as a red flag at the ICJ (International Criminal Court of Justice). Importantly, it referred to the IWT suspension as an ‘act of war’. Pakistan further reciprocated with actions, especially the airspace closure. In this tense environment, it fulfilled the prime objectives. 

• It legitimised military actions on legal grounds.

• It globalised India’s narrative, shifting focus from internal problems to a broader global issue of terrorism, which plagues myriad countries.

• It deployed legal tools, like treaty law, to isolate Pakistan without violating international norms.

To understand India’s actions strategically, it is helpful to examine the concept of norm entrepreneurship. According to Finnermore and Sikkink, norm entrepreneurs are actors (individuals, NGOs, states) who seek to introduce new international norms or reshape the existing ones by redefining what is considered appropriate behaviour. Matthew Hoffmann expands this further, noting that it unfolds across three stages: norm emergence, cascade, and internalisation. Norm entrepreneurs succeed not merely by asserting their views but by embedding their ideas within society. There are several types of norm entrepreneurs:

•  Prescriptive entrepreneurs who advance wholly new standards. A prime instance could of China. In an article by Arthur Waldron, the author examines China’s international norms position. In 2013, the Philippines filed a suit before the UN Arbitral Tribunal at the Hague. After 3 years of trial, the Court decreed that China cannot claim historic rights to the South China Sea and other regions. Despite the formal decision, China continued to occupy the region. From this standpoint, China's conduct is deleterious. It erodes the predictability of international law. Further, it encourages others to ignore rules when convenient. However, these same actions present China as a stark symbol of prescriptive norm entrepreneurship. China is actively attempting to redefine the appropriate behaviour in international law.
  

•  Transformative individuals who reinterpret existing norms to shift their meaning. Brazil strongly signifies this concept. R2P (Right to responsibility) was adopted in the 2005 UN World Summit, to ensure that states have a responsibility to protect their citizens from 4 mass atrocity crimes: Genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. If a state is unable or unwilling to protext its people, the international community has a responsibility to assist. In extreme cases, military intervention is allowed. However, after the Libyan crisis in 2011, Brazil proposed a refined R2P called RWP (Responsibility While Protecting). It was felt that R2P exceeded the proposed guidelines. RWP called for clearer safeguards. There were 3 key features ensuring compliance: 

Firstly, exhaustion of peaceful means first. Secondly, proportionality in the use of force. Thirdly, Accountability and monitoring of actions by the Security Council.

• Reactive entrepreneurs who work to resist or revise emerging norms that challenge national interests. Russia's recent announcement on February 10, 2025, signifies this instance of reactive entrepreneurs. Internationally, there has been growing pressure led by Western forums to adopt laws of transparency, accountability, and cooperation in cyberspace. Russia has historically resisted them to maintain domestic control over cyber operations. The new laws come with harsher penalties, asset confiscation, and extradition frameworks. While cyber laws exist in Russia, there is no strong implementation. This new law indicates inconspicuously that cybercriminals need to pay the government for the blanket protection they enjoy. The selective enforcement further signifies compliance to gain leverage. It’s crucial, considering it could be a bargaining technique with the US over Ukraine.

India, as this article argues, is a hybrid norm entrepreneur, both transformative and reactive. It does not reject global legal norms outright, but it seeks to reshape them in ways that accommodate its strategic objectives.

Image Credits-UNDP

Cyprus: Jurisprudential Mirroring And Strategic Endorsements

India’s outreach to Cyprus showcases another layer of legal diplomacy in the current scenario. Cyprus, albeit a small EU member state, has supported India’s stance on Kashmir, a key disputed region between India and its neighbour, Pakistan. Additionally, it has pushed for reforms in international institutions, such as the UN Security Council, notably India’s plea for a permanent seat. As a result, India’s visit thus poses a two-edged sword. Firstly, it is a tactic to build trust and legal alignment with the EU from within. In turn, India used this visit to publicly reaffirm its support for the Republic of Cyprus’ sovereignty and territorial integrity. For some background, the northern part of Cyprus has been under Turkish occupation since 1974. This visit also served as a measured response to Turkey’s repeated criticism of India’s position on Kashmir. In certain aspects, it is evident that India has not resorted to arms in response to criticising nations. This endorsement aligns with Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of states. It also invokes the doctrine of non-recognition upheld in Loizidou v Turkey. In the present case, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Turkey exercised effective control over Northern Cyprus and was thus responsible for ongoing human rights violations. The principle of non-recognition states that states should not recognise any unlawful situation or entity that has caused a serious breach of universally held principles and norms, such as aggressive use of force. The case arose when a Greek Cypriot woman was unable to access her property in northern Cyprus, occupied since 1974. The Court found that despite the presence of a separate regime, Turkey remains internationally responsible. The observations clarify that an unrecognised entity's actions cannot override the legal obligations of a state. India’s position on Jammu and Kashmir similarly invokes the idea of territorial integrity. While other states challenge India’s actions in Kashmir. Or support Pakistan’s claims, India remains firm in emphasising that Kashmir is an integral part of India. Further, no external force or unlawful means can change Kashmir’s stance. By publicly endorsing Cyprus’ sovereignty during the visit, India effectively draws a parallel.

(i) Cyprus rejects the legitimacy of the Turkish-controlled north

(ii) Similarly, India rejects Pakistan's claims and external narratives undermining its territorial integrity in Kashmir

Additional focus could be laid down on India’s stance in the ICJ’s Namibia Advisory Opinion, where the Court held that member states had a legal obligation to disregard South Africa’s presence in Namibia, following Security Council Resolution 276. Such incidents mirror India’s and Cyprus's historical narratives, where both suffer from illegal occupation in their own terms. These parallels suggest that it can weave international legal narratives to also consolidate India’s stance on Kashmir. Turkey and Cyprus share a common link. Turkey has actively supported Pakistan’s perspective. In May 2025, amid the Pahalgam tensions, Turkey denounced India’s retaliatory move, “Operation Sindoor”. This highlights the ongoing narrative competition as indicated above. The states use legal and diplomatic forums to legitimise their actions and delegitimise others.

The visit also highlights a broader shift in India’s diplomacy, working more closely with smaller EU countries to build legal and political coalitions. With Cyprus set to take over the EU presidency in 2026, the visit appears far from accidental. This could be called jurisprudential mirroring—using another state’s legal argument to validate its own. As highlighted before, India is engaging in norm entrepreneurship, shaping the standards by which state legitimacy and territorial integrity are judged

Croatia: A Gateway To European Legal Norms

Similarly, Croatia presents itself as a key strategic partner. Located in central and southern Europe, Croatia joined the EU much later, in 2013. During the historic visit this time, Prime Minister Narendra Modi identified Croatia as a strategic gateway for trade and security cooperation. He emphasised Croatia’s role in the emerging India–Middle East–Europe Corridor (IMEC), which aims to connect India with Europe through hubs like the Adriatic port of Rijeka. Like Cyprus, Croatia has supported India’s bid for a permanent seat on the UNSC. The visit also included the signing of new Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) focusing on trade, digital infrastructure, tourism, and cultural exchange via legal and institutional frameworks. However, on a broader scale, it opens doors for aligning India’s digital and trade frameworks with EU standards on data privacy (GDPR).

India and Croatia have built a bilateral partnership over the years. The Indian Embassy in Zagreb highlights frequent government-level engagement. India and Croatia first initiated structured diplomatic ties during the COVID-19 virtual meetings in 2020. The first-ever official visit was made in 2021 by External Affairs Minister Jaishankar. In 2023, Croatia witnessed multiple delegations emphasising the “4Ts”: Trade, Technology, Tourism, and Talent. Notably, the India-Croatia startup initiative fosters further legal interoperability in the digital and knowledge sector. In December 2021, India and Croatia launched the India-Croatia Startup Bridge in Zagreb. This is in collaboration with agencies such as Startup India, Invest India, alongside Croatia’s HAMAG-BICRO. This bridge provides:

1. Knowledge sharing frameworks and toolkits for tech transfer 

2. Joint Hosting of ecosystem programmes, such as startup competitions

3. Capacity Building through co-working space partnerships and incubator support.

PM Modi’s visit has further solidified the relations.

At a deeper level, these legal alignments help India quietly address its long-standing concerns about how it is represented on the global stage. As India rises on the global stage, the international community remains concerned about some of its domestic actions, especially after the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, its neutral stance in the Israel-Gaza war, and other reasons. In response, India is using legal diplomacy to signal its voice and expand. By entering into agreements with EU member states, India positions itself as a predictable and responsible partner. It is using this to project a stable global visage.

Bilateralism As a Normative Strategy

While we have analysed the legal diplomacy tactics of India, there is one peculiar detail that cannot be missed: bilateral treaties. India has effectively used bilateralism as a strategy to improve ties. Bilateral treaties allow states to promote legal standards, trade that functions more effectively for countries not yet aligned in multilateral forums. India’s recent overhaul of its Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) illustrates this shift. Post-2016, India introduced a revised model of BIT that emphasises state sovereignty. Before 2016, there lay a broad interpretation of the word “investor”, covering any national or judicial person of a contracting state. This did not even include restrictions such as substantial business activities in the home country. Furthermore, almost every treaty had a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) clause. These MFN provisions allowed investors from one treaty party to claim the same protections or dispute resolution that India had given to other nations. This could be labelled as “treaty shopping”. For instance, if India offered the most favourable arbitration process to Country C, then investors from Country B could claim the same benefits. However, there was no treaty with Country B. This posed significant chances of misuse of Indian’s investment regime. In contrast, the post-2016 Model BIT introduced by India took a narrower approach. It explicitly excluded state-owned enterprises and foreign states from the definition of investor. The clause ‘substantial business activity’ was made mandatory to ensure foreign investors cannot use it. Consequently, it requires investors to exhaust domestic legal remedies before turning to international arbitration. This strategy aligns with European trends and helps mitigate the risk of investor-state disputes. The shift in India’s BIT model began after the landmark judgement in White Industries v. India arbitration in 2011, which highlighted judicial delays as a treaty breach.

While India initially terminated dozens of BITs to restart deals according to the new model, progress has been limited. Treaties with Belarus and Kyrgyzstan are yet to come into force. Moreover, recent FTAs with Australia, UAE, and Mauritius either omit investment protection provisions or defer them to future negotiations. Subsequently, they have attracted criticism, particularly in the 2021 Parliamentary committee report. However, this does not signify retreat. The recalibration is strategic. Engaging with countries enables India to test compatibility with new models and solidify its position in the European Union.  This is evident in the present context. In 2018, the CJEU (Court of the European Union) invalidated intra-EU BIT agreements in the case of Achmea. Consequently, this makes it a strategic partner for testing India’s new BIT model. The 2025 Budget further mentions a newer model of BIT. Key plans include streamlining the arbitration process and further strengthening investor accountability. They will further be aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). 

Bilateral engagements with EU member states, therefore, present opportunities for legally coherent experimentation. It showcases how treaties are being used as a non-coercive force of influence. Even when a state refrains from using force, it still has a wide array of tools. The most important diplomatic and economic Scholars like McDougal and Feliciano note that diplomacy can exert pressure. This can be either through communications that isolate or encircle a target state, while remaining non-violent.  While this may seem unexpected, Europe may offer an avenue for reform. Europe is pushing forward reforms, such as the Investor Protection Agreement (IPA), which could in turn pressure India to reconsider the core elements of the Act. For context, the EU investor protection agreement is a treaty between the European Union and other groups of countries that aims to ensure mutual protection for investors through a myriad of mechanisms. This operates in tandem with economic practices. Historically, it included boycotts or embargoes. However, in modern practices, it involves modern practices such as market access or development cooperation. Professor Olmstead remarks, “the most effective means of influencing policy in developing countries and of advancing our nations’ objective is by offering assistance and legal assurances that foster environments for growth and stability”. Certainly, bilateralism is an effective treaty strategy and influencer. India’s treaty-making reflects this diplomacy by offering access to a vast market and regulatory cooperation

The visits have presented various outcomes. India’s first visit to Cyprus resulted in agreements on maritime security, cybersecurity, and naval cooperation. Further engagement with Cyprus, fastening of ties with India-EU FTA talks, and positioning itself as a hub for Indian exports and services. The visit also showcases cultural relations. The University of Zagreb in Croatia is a longstanding centre for Indology (study of Indian history, literature, philosophy, and culture). Further, PM Modi was awarded Cyprus’s highest civilian honour. Together, they are India’s gateways to the European Union.

Legal Diplomacy from the Margins Inward

India’s engagements with Cyprus and Croatia showcase a form of legal diplomacy that builds from the margins inward. These smaller EU states may not wield economic power comparable to Germany or France, but they often influence the legal agenda. By nurturing these relationships, India positions itself to influence EU legal norms from within, even without formal membership or dominant economic power. This strategy of “norm incubation” allows India to test legal positions on issues such as digital taxation, cross-border data flows, and investor accountability. Norm incubator, while not a formal term, could be derived from the norm entrepreneurship analysed above.  As per Kelsen, norms are regulations that prescribe how persons are supposed to behave. A norm is a “ought proposition, it expresses not what is, or must be, but ought to be, in a certain condition”. The ought here does not refer to moral obligation but simply to normative forms of legal propositions. Similarly, incubators refer to institutions that support entrepreneurs in developing their businesses. By applying this framework, India solidifies its position in the global sphere by garnering worldwide attention. Herein, new ideas are tested, refined, and legitimised in less politically sensitive environments before being scaled up. Cyprus and Croatia, both EU members, would likely influence smaller nations and establish a foothold in trade with other countries.  India, by starting with these smaller or less powerful players, is strategically positioning itself to move from the margins to the core of global governance. This approach aligns with the way the EU itself functions, involving a test and trial method before being applied across Europe.

In the context of the European Union, they have strategically refined themselves as norm incubators, providing a safe space for businesses to grow. The EU has a Better Regulation agenda, where the goal of regulations remains simple: simpler, lighter, and faster. The better regulation guidelines and toolbox provide concrete guidance to the Commission Services involved in preparing new initiatives and proposals. They are further refined by a cycle of commission evaluations and fitness checks of existing polices and legislation. At the same time, various stakeholders' viewpoints are taken into account, ensuring no bias is present. 

This dynamic reflects a broader pattern in international lawmaking. This is not unique to either India’s context or the EU’s processes. On the other hand, it reflects a broader pattern in international lawmaking. In the words of Arindrajit Basu. The author herein describes five varied entrepreneurs. Firstly, intergovernmental organisations like the Asian-African Legal Counsel. Secondly, non non-governmental organisation like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Thirdly, individuals' movements, like activist Greta Thunberg's efforts to protect the environment. Fourthly, private corporations like DuPont, the dominant Chloro-fluoro carbons producers, who was a major participant during the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting substances. Fifthly, Microsoft and cybersecurity. In a similar stance, the European Union has positioned itself as an institutional entrepreneur in the case of international relations. One of the prime instances of the same is the REACH Regulation, the EU’s main law to protect human health and the environment from chemical risks. Via REACH, the EU has created a system where manufacturers and importers must gather and register information on chemical properties. This has evolved through revisions based on scientific advancement and continuous feedback.

As such, India’s foreign legal policy reflects a deliberate effort to shape the rules of international engagement. Through patient coalition-building, legal compatibility testing, and normative alignment, India is demonstrating that middle powers can be architects, not just subjects of the global legal order.

India’s incubator-like processes join other middle powers, such as Brazil and Indonesia. Brazil, for instance, has used its foreign policy to propose alternatives like Responsibility While Protecting. Indonesia promotes the ASEAN Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP) as a regionally rooted framework. Like these nations, India actively seeks to refashion the current global order.

Conclusion

India’s outreach to Cyprus and Croatia signals a perfectly refined diplomatic tactic employed by nations. However, it also represents a shift where bilateralism plays a crucial role in advancing the ideas. By engaging smaller EU member states, India is building influence from the border itself. The deliberate shift from older multilateral platforms to bilateral treaties involving visits and treaties signals India’s evolving strategy. It aims to reshape global standards. However, as India positions itself as a dominant power, it may redefine contemporary geopolitics. What emerges is a middle power that leverages bilateralism as a pragmatic path to reshape diplomatic relations.

---

By Sumedha Pradhan The author is a 3rd year BA.LLB (Hons)student studying at National Law University, Odisha. She has a keen interest in research and writing, with works delving into the intersection of law and social issues.

---