Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsCan't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsThere was no instant or overwhelming necessity for self-defense to justify Israel's attack on Iran.
uring a House of Representatives hearing, Foreign Minister Sugiono emphasized that Israel has attempted to use its security interests as an excuse for attacking Iran. This action, he added, has shattered trust in international law and weakened international peace and security.
Although the conflict has somewhat de-escalated amid a fragile ceasefire, the current situation has sparked deep controversy over the legitimacy of Israel's unprovoked attacks on Iran. The central question in the debate is whether self-defense justifies the strikes, and under what circumstances can such strikes be considered legitimate.
Such debates are a common feature of international conflicts, where lawfare has become an integral part of diplomatic toolkit.
Under the banner of Operation Rising Lion, the strikes were purportedly launched to preempt a potential Iranian nuclear strike against Israel in the future. Furthermore, Israel insists that Iran had embarked on its nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles programs with the ultimate aim of eliminating Israel. Hence, Israel contends that their actions were not a violation of the prohibition of the use of force, but rather an exercise of legitimate self-defense.
However, in reality, the operation is a grave breach of the prohibition on use of force set out in Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, which is why Indonesia condemned the strikes. Under this article, all states are obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any other state.
This prohibition is nearly absolute, with a narrowly-defined exception as provided in Article 51 of the UN Charter. This Article provides that the UN Charter does not “impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense […]”. This exception recognizes that every state has the inherent right to defend itself if an armed attack occurs against that state. In other words, the UN Charter endorses the restrictive legality of war in self-defense, while constraining states from waging aggressive war.
These provisions represent the cardinal principles and foundational framework of the contemporary legal regime on war. They serve as the primary formal criteria for determining whether the use of force is lawful or unlawful.
Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.
Quickly share this news with your network—keep everyone informed with just a single click!
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Get the best experience—faster access, exclusive features, and a seamless way to stay updated.