In recent months the eyes of the world have
become very much fixated on the Middle East and in particular the tense
situation between Israel and Iran. Israel has long viewed Iran as an
existential threat to the Jewish State’ survival and in the eyes of Benjamin
Netanyahu, a nuclear Iran would effectively spell Armageddon. So to this effect
he has publicly warned of a possible imminent strike on Iranian Nuclear
Facilities, either with or without US support, but would this be legal in
International Law?
Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter sets out the UN
Security Council's powers to maintain peace in the International Community and
allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace,
breach of the peace, or act of aggression" and to take military and
nonmilitary action to "restore international peace and security".
Now, Israel is a member of the United Nations, as is Iran yet it has not
managed to acquire a seat on the UN Security Council, these belong to China,
France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States who are
the five permanent members. They have all warned against “catastrophic”
military action by Israel on Iran over fears that it could herald a new “Cold
War” and set the most volatile region in the world “on fire”. So it is clear,
nobody (except the US as a final option) is condoning military action---yet and
it is clear that a UNSC Resolution authorising an attack is unlikely to be
drawn up and agreed on. In terms of the legality of a Unilateral Israeli attack
on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, especially Fordow, it would be complicated but
not impossible for Israel to say “We are acting legally”. Article 51 of the UN
Charter provides for the right of countries to engage in self-defence,
including collective self-defence, against an armed attack. This wording is of
particular importance, note the phrase “against an armed attack”, Iran has not
attacked Israel in any way (unless you count attacks on Israeli Diplomats
recently) and this raises the question could Israel act in self-defence against
a possible nuclear strike by Iran? Interestingly the Charter has been cited by
the US during the Vietnam War when they said "although South Vietnam is
not an independent sovereign State or a member of the United Nations, it
nevertheless enjoys the right of self-defense, and the United States is
entitled to participate in its collective defense" and to this effect
Israel also enjoys the right of self-defence and it is therefore implied that
an attack against Iran, although it would most certainly mean possible regional
or global reprisals, would be legal, especially if the US supports it in some
way. To further complicate the issue President Obama has recently declared he
‘has Israel’s back’ and has warned of a military strike on the Islamic Republic
should sanctions fail to stop Iran’s globally disputed Nuclear Program. Both
Obama and Netanyahu will ‘never allow a nuclear armed Iran’ due to it
sponsoring terrorism and the risks that this provides. In conclusion, a
pre-emptive attack by Israel would be legitimate for two reasons. The first
being that Iran is conducting armed attacks under the plain meaning of Article
51 through terrorist groups Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Second,
even if one questions whether armed attacks have occurred (by dismissing Iran’s
use of Hamas and Hezbollah), Iran’s possible development of weapons of mass
destruction constitutes an imminent, existential threat to Israel in the eyes of
Benjamin Netanyahu. On a final note, none of us, whether we are Israeli,
American or British should become complacent as to the threat that a nuclear
armed Iran would pose not only to Israel but to the entire Western world. I
have no doubt that in the coming months countries around the world will be
deciding whether they would act with Israel, defend Iran or simply stay on the
side-lines in any conflict between these two lasting enemies.
No comments:
Post a Comment