Zimpapers Logo

Gibson Nyikadzino-Herald Reporter

Violence has traditionally been used by states as a political tool to settle disputes. From all civilisations, it is also generally agreed that the use of violence always has limits and in order to prevent conflicts or wars from turning into barbarity.

As such, there are rules that protect non-participants, especially with the idea that in war situations, attacking civilians constitutes a war crime. Besides, extra judicial killings, targeting civilian infrastructure, women and children are among the many atrocities that contravene the law of armed conflict.  

However, since the turn of the millennium, the sanctity of state sovereignty and the principles that underpin global order as guided by international law have faced serious assaults that have also had consequences on the very foundations of diplomatic relations.

International law, also known as the law of nations, is the body of customary and conventional rules that are considered legally binding by civilised states in their intercourse with each other. Therefore, each protocol, convention, law and policy is binding among nation-states.

Of late, this body of laws and conventions has been violated with impunity. States such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Zimbabwe and Iran are examples of nations who have been victims of the arm-twisting of international law by having their sovereign rights to exist being infringed either through coercive military or economic force. 

But at the centre of those that breach international law is the collective West and its sub-regional allies that is inventing phenomena they call the “international rules-based order” which is being pushed to replace international law.

International legal theory holds that powerful states tend to use international law as an instrument to stabilise their dominance, along the way they can even infringe on the rights of other states. The collective West has done so.

In December 2020, the US imposed sanctions on then International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, and another senior prosecution official, Phakiso Mochochoko. According to the ICC, US military officials had allegedly committed war crimes in Afghanistan that warranted their trial.

Firstly, international law prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, which includes extrajudicial killing. This norm is codified in every major human rights treaty and has attained jus cogens status as a non-derogable norm in international law.

Secondly, since 2018 as part of the ICC’s transformation of the international law system, it included to its statues a crime of aggression. This crime involves the use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty, integrity or independence of another State.

In this regard, what is key to note is the July 31 disregard of international law by Israel when it violated Iranian sovereignty and integrity through the assassination of Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. As a result, Israeli leaders committed crimes of aggression against Iran. Additionally, this has also contravened provisions of the Vienna Convention on Diplomacy, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

As it stands, there are legitimate reasons for Iran to consider retaliatory attacks against Israel for committing a crime of aggression in its territory.

Haniyeh was a guest in Iran, who had been invited by that country’s Speaker of Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, to attend the inauguration of President Masoud Pezeshkian. Haniyeh was a holder of a diplomatic passport.

To address its grievances against the breaches of international law by Israel, Iran last week lodged its complaints at the United Nations Security Council, where council members called for de-escalation in the region. That is the same route it did in April before launching a retaliatory attack against Israel code-named True Promise.

In April Israel attacked the Iranian Consulate in Damascus, Syria which under international law and diplomatic conventions is Iranian territory. It responded with firing some 300 rockets and missiles inside Israel, hitting military targets.

Because Israel knows it violated international law, it is now concerned about how Iran will this time respond to its acts of aggression and breaking international law with impunity.

Iran has various options it can use. Its April missiles and drones were calibrated to demonstrate capabilities and not really inflict major damage and therefore not provoke a war. 

However, this time Iran can strike targets inside or outside Israel; or can respond through its various non-state allies in the region. Iran will respond and on the other hand trying to avoid that this escalates into a full-fledged war in the region. 

Israel continues disregarding international law through its genocidal atrocities, extra judicial killings and its series of assassinations mainly as a means to an end to stop any kind of ceasefire negotiations from taking place.

That the Israeli government, with the support of the West, continues with impunity to get away with breaking international law sends a message that will be difficult to forget.