Context:
The U.S. and Israel conducted coordinated military strikes on Iran on February 28, triggering a major debate on the legality of the use of force under international law, especially after a missile struck a girls’ primary school in Minab, causing heavy civilian casualties.
Key Highlights:
Military Operation and Civilian Casualties
• The joint U.S.–Israel strikes targeted locations across Iran.
• A missile strike hit a girls’ primary school in Minab, leading to around 150 deaths, mostly schoolchildren, and nearly 100 injuries.
• The incident sparked global outrage and international scrutiny of the legality of the strikes.
International Reaction
• UNESCO condemned the attack, calling it a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• Several international observers raised concerns about civilian protection during armed conflicts.
Legal Debate under the UN Charter
• The UN Charter generally prohibits the use of force against another state.
• The only major exception is the right of self-defense under Article 51 when an armed attack occurs.
• The strikes were justified by the attackers as “pre-emptive action” against an imminent threat.
Issues with the Self-Defense Argument
• Critics argue the self-defense justification is weak because Iran had not launched a recent attack on either country.
• International law does not widely recognize anticipatory self-defense against hypothetical threats.
Violation of International Humanitarian Law Principles
• The strike violated the Principle of Distinction, which requires separation between military targets and civilians.
• If the school was hit unintentionally, the legality depends on whether civilian harm was excessive relative to the military advantage.
Stakeholders
• United States and Israel (military actors)
• Iran (targeted state)
• United Nations and international organizations
• Civilian population and humanitarian agencies
Relevant Prelims Points:
- International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
- Also known as the Law of Armed Conflict.
- Seeks to limit the humanitarian impact of war.
- Applies during armed conflict (jus in bello) regardless of who started the war.
- Core instruments include the Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols (1977).
- Key Principles of IHL
- Distinction: Parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians and between military objectives and civilian objects.
- Proportionality: Civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage.
- Military Necessity: Force must be necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives.
- Precaution: Parties must take precautions to minimize civilian harm.
- UN Charter Provisions on Use of Force
- Article 2(4): Prohibits the threat or use of force against territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
- Article 51: Recognizes the inherent right of self-defense if an armed attack occurs.
- The UN Security Council can authorize force for maintaining international peace and security.
- Anticipatory / Pre-emptive Self-Defense
- A controversial doctrine allowing force before an actual attack occurs.
- Not explicitly recognized in the UN Charter, though sometimes argued under customary international law.
- Jus ad Bellum vs Jus in Bello
- Jus ad bellum: Legal justification for going to war.
- Jus in bello: Rules governing conduct during war.
Relevant Mains Points:
- Legal Framework Governing Use of Force
- The UN Charter establishes a general prohibition on interstate use of force, except in self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council.
- Unilateral military strikes raise serious legal concerns regarding sovereignty and international order.
- Challenges in Interpreting Self-Defense
- Some states argue pre-emptive strikes are necessary against emerging threats, especially in modern warfare involving missiles and nuclear weapons.
- However, broad interpretations risk weakening the prohibition on the use of force.
- Humanitarian Concerns in Armed Conflict
- Civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals are protected objects under IHL.
- Violations undermine global norms protecting non-combatants.
- Accountability and Enforcement Challenges
- International law relies largely on state consent and political pressure for enforcement.
- Bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC) can prosecute war crimes, but jurisdiction is often contested.
- Implications for Global Governance
- Repeated violations of international law risk erosion of the rules-based international order.
- Weak enforcement may encourage unilateral military interventions by powerful states.
Way Forward
• Strengthen international mechanisms for accountability and investigation of civilian casualties.
• Promote strict adherence to International Humanitarian Law during armed conflicts.
• Encourage diplomatic dialogue and multilateral conflict resolution mechanisms.
• Reinforce the authority of the United Nations and international legal institutions.
• Improve global monitoring systems to prevent attacks on protected civilian infrastructure.
UPSC Relevance:
• GS Paper 2: International Relations – global governance, international law, use of force
• GS Paper 2: Polity – UN Charter provisions and international legal principles
• Prelims: UN Charter, International Humanitarian Law, Geneva Conventions, Article 51