Interpreting the right of nations to self-defence

President Donald Trump has claimed credit for facilitating a tentative cease-fire in West Asia. However, the US's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities earlier had exacerbated a volatile situation in West Asia, stemming from the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran.

- Prabhash Ranjan

While the political and strategic repercussions of these strikes will be analysed, a critical question arises: Does the American attack violate international law? Let's explore this question on three levels.

First, as per Article 51 of the UN Charter, States can use force in international relations as part of their inherent right to self-defence "if an armed attack occurs". Consequently, the use of force not aimed at repelling an ongoing armed attack is inexplicable under the right to self-defence. Since there has been no armed attack by Iran on the US, as per this interpretation, the actions of the US do not meet the criteria of Article 51 and are, therefore, illegal.

Second, some scholars and States argue that interpreting the right to self-defence solely as a means to repel an ongoing armed attack is too restrictive. They believe this perspective fails to address the threats posed by terrorism and nuclear dangers that pervade the contemporary world. Hence, it is contended that countries should also be able to invoke the right to self-defence against armed attacks that have not yet occurred. However, this broader interpretation could be perilous, as it may allow States to justify the use of force against other countries under the pretext of self-defence for geopolitical motives or other reasons, potentially constituting acts of aggression.