The twelve-day war between the United States-Israel alliance and Iran on the other side has warranted global attention. Iran had been weakened by the crises in Gaza, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. It is against this background that Israel launched pre-emptive strikes against Iran. The US also backed Israel by jumping into the conflict, with its B2 aircraft delivering bunker bombers or Massive Ordnance Penetrators in a 37-hour long operation (its longest operation was in Afghanistan in the 2000s for 42 hours) to the underground and well-protected nuclear facilities of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
The NPT was floated in 1968 to prevent the development of nuclear weapons and ensure peaceful use of nuclear energy. Countries like India, Pakistan, the DPRK, have indeed developed nuclear weapons nevertheless even though the P5 countries of the UNSC attempted to prevent them from doing so.
Iran had, under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, agreed to shut down its nuclear weapons program at a time of scrutiny in return for sanctions relief from the US and the UNSC. Trump, during his first term, unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal, piling up sanctions on Iran, leading to concerns over Iran developing nuclear weapons. However, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi and the Director of National Intelligence of the USA herself, Tulsi Gabbard have denied the possibilities of Iran to have developed nuclear weapons. It is only in the aftermath of this conflict that the Iranian parliament has voted to exit from the NPT and the threat of the US and Israel has forced Iran to consider the option of nuclear deterrence.
On the other hand, Israel, not being a party to the NPT, has developed nuclear weapons without accepting inspections by the IAEA, aided by the US. Israel represents a more powerful nuclear threat than Iran itself, which is why we need to look into the legality of Israel’s actions. In the Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons case in the International Court of Justice also affirmed the right of nation-states to use nuclear weapons subject to the principles of the UN Charter, humanitarian and customary international law. Israel, on the other hand, has been a rogue state under the leash of the US and has violated international law on many counts and remains a dangerously militarized state in possession of nuclear weapons.
Israel’s attacks on Iran
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter says, ‘All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.’ Sovereignty and territorial integrity are vested in all 193 member-states of the UN, which can never be undermined by the use of force or an act of aggression that are prohibited under international law. That is clear. The purposes and principles of the UN Charter, to prevent conflict in this world, has strictly enshrined in itself this fundamental concept.
Use of force is permitted only under certain circumstances. Article 51 of the UN Charter says a nation-state may undertake use of force against another nation in self-defence if an armed attack occurs on its territory, by a state or non-state actor. Even this provision is subject to the test of necessity, immediacy and proportionality under customary international law. Otherwise, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the UNSC may determine a threat to peace or an act of aggression and may take measures such as cessation of economic and diplomatic relations under Article 41 or military measures under Article 42. This can only be done on the authorization of the Security Council.
However, clearly, Israel’s attacks on Iran, nor of the US on Iran, do not fall within the ambit of any of these concepts of provisions in international law.
Israel claims that it carried out ‘pre-emptive’ strikes, interpreted to be anticipatory self-defence under Article 51. Despite this contention, it should be noted that the Caroline doctrine does not allow Israeli actions to stand the test of legality. In 1837, British colonial forces attacked an American warship Caroline that aided Canadian rebels in self-defence. This was contended to be pre-emptive. Under the Carolien doctrine, pre-emptive attacks or anticipatory self-defence is allowed but under the condition that a threat is ‘imminent’, ‘inherent’ or ‘overwhelming’ to necessitate the use of force. This conditionality of imminence under the Caroline doctrine also negates the Israeli argument that there was any immediate threat from Iran.
It can only be assumed that the US and Israel have violated the global order of things to attack Iran for their diabolical interests. Iran may be a theocratic state curtailing civil liberties especially those of women but in the international forum, they represent a movement of opposition to hegemony. The Iranian people may want a regime change, but definitely not by a hegemon seeking to install a puppet regime.
No comments:
Post a Comment