Transcription
[Music] I, and certainly you too, have been hearing since childhood that after any sentence, there is a lot of noise that the violation of international law has been done. The violation of international laws has been done. We keep hearing a lot of names like the United Nations, the UN Security Council, and so on. But in recent events, we have seen that different states, with the immunity with which, for example, India attacked Pakistan in an unprovoked attack. After that, recently, we have seen that Israel launched an unprovoked attack on Iran. So after all this, a question naturally arises in our minds: what is the role of international law or the United Nations, the institutions that came into existence in the form of international law, and where are they? We will talk about this today. Kamran Adil Sahab is present with me. So welcome to the show.
Sir, I simply want to know first whether any international law exists. Is there any international law that caters to these events?
Yes, there is a lot of debate, sir, about the current events that have happened in the last two months, in which India attacked Pakistan, and similarly, Israel now attacked Iran. So a common discussion is, "Is this the end of international law?" This point is always made, and it is also true that our international legal order, or whatever global order there is, international law is a tool for the weaker. Only the weaker speaks of it. The strong do not need to talk about these things. But along with this, I want to say that the language of diplomacy is international law. When you will speak, you will still need international law to tell what has gone wrong. Okay? Because of this, it should be seen. I have no expectations from it that this will put things right, but it will put them in perspective. You will be able to see the difference between black and white, as you talk about moral authority, you compare militaries. Similarly, it is very important to see it with a legal lens. Okay?
Good. As you mentioned diplomatic language, I will later talk about which important countries, Russia, China, condemned it in which words. Now a word is coming again and again that Israel attacked Iran. So whether attacking can be justified or not, we will discuss that. But is it really an attack? That's the point. As you used the word "attack," I will never use the word "attack." I will use the word "aggression." Okay? This is aggression. When you use the word aggression, it has a special meaning. You would have seen yesterday, seven days have passed since this war. Yesterday, they gave news in the media that a hospital was hit in Israel. However, the hospital was not hit. A military objective near the hospital was hit, and its destruction occurred in the hospital, which they showed to the world by making pictures. And they are trying to claim victimhood out of this. Aggressors cannot claim victimhood. Okay? That is the effect of the word aggression. If you use the word aggression, this difference will come. If you use the word attack, then he attacked him, he attacked him. The discussion will not be clear. It will not be clear. The law, it is an aggressor. When you say aggressor, there is a resolution of the UN General Assembly. It was passed in 1974 as 3314, in which aggressive acts were listed. Which acts are aggressive? After that, in 1998, when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was being written, four offenses were brought in it. The name of one offense is aggression itself. Okay? It is true that America and Israel have not acceded to the ICC. Okay? But even then, for the sake of legal arguments, all these things qualify the entire law of aggression, and they are deemed as aggressors. As there is Israeli occupation of Gaza, it is called the occupying power, it is called the occupied territory. This word is used so that the rights of Israel on the territory can never be established. So the use of these words is very important. It is necessary in our articulation that we use these words so that there is clarity about who is the aggressor and who is the victim. In this case, the aggression was carried out by Israel against Iran on the 13th. Now, what are the objectives of aggression? That's another debate. Okay? Okay? This act of aggression is complete. What are its objectives? Sometimes they say that they have nuclear bombs. Sometimes they say that it is necessary to change their regime. Sometimes they say that they lead the network of access to evil. So these are all different objectives, but the act of aggression is there. Okay? So it is necessary to use legally correct words in the language. Instead of the word attack, the word aggressor should be used. The word aggression should be used. And the media will never use it. The Western media uses these words. If this were the other way around, then they would play it differently. If Iran had attacked first, then even today, no Western outlet has ever said that Iran has not signed the NPT, nor has it ever opened itself to the IAEA. Okay? They have never opened themselves to the International Atomic Energy Agency. So they don't tell these things, but they tell that Iran itself took it out. They never give the full picture, so we need to give the full picture so that there is clarity and truth so that the legal discussion can happen.
Good. Because there is a lot of debate and discussion on this, what options does Iran have? What options does Israel have? But all these things are happening in the political sphere. So in the legal sphere, I would like to ask you what options Iran has? Can it go to the International Criminal Court against this aggression, and if it goes, will it benefit it?
Yes, it's a far fetch. Even now, there was aggression by Pakistan and India, what India did to Pakistan, there is Article 13-2 under which the jurisdiction of the United Nations Security Council can be activated for the International Criminal Court, even if they are not parties, but that's a very far-fetched thing. Apart from that, Iran has never been part of that active, but they had come a little closer. In 2015, along with the UN, they had prepared a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action against nuclear power with the European Union and America. But that was again thrown out by the US, and they did not accept it, due to which we are seeing today's situation and all these circumstances. So legally, as far as I understand, the option, if it is formed, will not be formed, and I do not think they will go. The reason for this is that power prevails. If they even get something, even if they get a substantive order, where will they get it implemented?
Good. As far as I see the laws as a law student, the basic structure of all laws is somehow the same. Things are built on top of it according to their own events and circumstances. Now, even in our criminal law, if someone commits a crime, he has a better, someone commits his crimes, someone is a partner, then there are some legal implications for him as well. If Israel is the aggressor here, then the countries that are supporting Israel, in that way, they may also... This is a very good question. Very little has been talked about this internationally. On the one hand, America had distanced itself on the first day itself, that it is a unilateral act of Israel, meaning it is a unilateral aggression by Israel. Yes. Until now, if they formally join it later, illegality will not become legal by America joining. You already know that it is providing military support, the UK is doing it, Germany has also announced that they are with... Now they have diplomatically announced, now they have to give military support, so the US is already standing with them diplomatically, but when it becomes militarily together, then they will be partners in crime. Yes, yes, okay. It won't become legal by that. By the way, it's a very strange thing that Germany is part of the negotiations that are going to happen this week with Iran's foreign minister, and on one side, they have shown their allegiance with one party, but let's hope that somewhere... In this... a lot of things... On the 13th, on the day the attack took place, at that time, the IAEA, Oman, Iran, and America were also negotiating. Rather, I have written an article on this topic, in which I have written about perfidious acts. Perfidy is in the international humanitarian law, which is the law of war, in its Article 37, in Protocol One, perfidy means you take someone's trust and then betray that trust. For example, I called you for negotiation, and then during the negotiation, I incited you, and then I gave that incitement to someone for military action. So this is a perfidious act, and this is totally prohibited. So I also come to perfidy here, that once they were negotiating together, you were doing this work. Obviously, information sharing may have also taken place in that negotiation. That's why I come to June 13th. On June 13th, Israel attacks Iran. That attack has many components. They had many targets that they achieved militarily that night. Among them were top military leadership, among them were their scientists, among them were their civilians. So whenever any criminal crime is committed in someone's house, we say that we break it down, that first this track passed, then this happened, then this happened, and then this happened. They commit different crimes. If we break down the night of June 13th, when Israel did this, first of all, Article 2, sub-article 4 of the UN Charter, which was breached by committing aggression. Two things are present in it. Yes, in Article 2, sub-article 4. One is territorial integrity, no state will violate another state's territorial integrity. And the second is that it will not interfere with political sovereignty. You have heard a lot of talk about regime change. So this is again a violation of Article 2, sub-article 4. When you interfere with political sovereignty, again, you will be in breach of Article 2, sub-article 4. In response to this, there is a weak position of Israel, which is standing on Article 51 of... It is very imaginary, and it has not received support from any international legal mind. Otherwise, you must have seen that its different weak justifications are being presented. Its period is extended to October 7, 2023, and brought here. I have seen its discussion. They were asked questions because they talked about self-defense. So they said, "Self-defense, now I will also take your opinion on this." You have also written about this. They said that the view that came from the Israeli side, they said that you should not look at the night of June 13th, look at the overall conflict, and go back so far in the overall conflict. That is quite ridiculous. You know that such things don't work anywhere. It is very far-fetched. It is wrong. I don't think any legal mind will agree with this. Article 51, anyway, they disregarded the UN, all. So either they go and take the resolution of Chapter Seven of the UN Security Council, and on that, they do their individual collective right. Totally disregarded that Article 2, sub-article 4 of the UN Charter. You mentioned that the question arises in the minds of many people whether Iran is a signatory or a member of it, then maybe it will benefit, but I think this clause covers everyone because it is the word independence of other states, states which are... The word of the UN Charter... I told the children in a class a few days ago that this is a treaty. Okay, the international treaty is called a charter. It has many names. The international treaty has many names. Charter, convention, protocol. So similarly, this is a charter. So America, Israel, and Iran, all of them have subscribed to Article 2-4. So there has been a clear violation of this. Good. The first violation was their territorial sovereignty, integrity, an act of aggression. The act of aggression violated their sovereignty. After that, you see that they targeted the military command. Yes, the military command, secondly, at their houses. Yes. They were in their flats or places. So international humanitarian law says that you should not only target civilians, you should not target persons of dignity, those who are not in combat form. Yes, okay. If a general or a brigadier somewhere has gone to a city, somewhere, and someone targets him and targets this saying that this was a military objective, then this is not right. If they are not in active combat mode, then it will not come on them. They targeted their homes and hit them in their flats. So they were not actually in combat mode. So this clearly, it is more, I have also written it. It is more on the side of terrorism. And there is an international convention, the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings 1997, which both Israel and America have signed. They are bound by it. So its better framing is that it was an act of terrorism. And this has been a series of terrorism. You have seen that between 2010 and 2021, five or six Iranian scientists... They were... About scientists, there are no two views. They are clearly civilians. In military command, as you said, hypothetically, if there were negotiations between these countries during this time, and if their military commands met, then if Israel justifies it, then maybe it would also justify killing during negotiations. That's why maybe there is a concept of combatant in international humanitarian law, that they are actively participating in the war at that time. There is a definition of combatants there, those who are carrying weapons. Yes, combatants, and in this... Good. Now this definition becomes complex, that here maybe some people find it a gray area. But as you elaborated, they were not actively participating at that time and were present in their homes. The third violation that took place on the night of the 13th was that a scientist was also killed, five or six in number, some nuclear scientists. So under what law? Yes, absolutely. Scientists who are... Yes, clearly, those scientists who were nuclear scientists, they martyred six or seven that night, all of them were clearly civilians. Under Article 50 of the First Additional Protocol One of the Geneva Convention, they are treated as civilians. You know that in America, many scientists there are also in the private sector, people related to defense. So if such precedents are set and it is said that this is justified, then many scientific communities working in the world, even in the private sector, with defense, are they also military objectives? So that is to be seen, that will bring in a very host of new issues. And then the impact will be on many ongoing conflicts. You mentioned Article 50 of the Additional Protocol One to the Geneva Convention. Then they further referred to Article... and Article 43, that apart from those who fall under it, the rest are all civilians. And in that, the definition I saw was of armed forces and those people when they are actually in combat, that just being a brigadier or a colonel will not qualify him to be... I have also seen this in international news, in which some neutral international law experts are also saying that scientists do not fall into this definition of combatants in any way, and in this... and in military objectives, they also said that you have to see what objective you are achieving, and the combatants, and I... Good. After that, what happened next? They attacked the scientists. Then we are seeing a lot of debate. Western forces are being invited that there are some nuclear facilities that may not be targeted. But Israel has already attacked some nuclear facilities. So there are very high chances of casualties from an attack on nuclear facilities and a long-term problem. So this should also be somewhere in some law. Yes, the law is very clear. First of all, let's look at its morality or legality. Iran signed the 1968 NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan has not, India has not, Israel has not. So they had done it, and they were willing to submit to international inspections under the IAEA, and the IAEA works under international treaties as well. So they had done everything, and they wanted to do all this. Now, when you attack nuclear facilities, and nowadays you know that bunker busters are being talked about, that's why they want to bring America in between, that they have bunker busters and use them, then the radioactive effects will read and where they will go, I don't consider that collateral damage. I consider it real damage, how much real damage will there be? Where will its environmental impact go? How much human loss will there be? How much property loss will there be? It needs to be seen. They attacked there anyway, and there are three big facilities. One is Fordow's, which is currently being debated, which is underground. So they want to hit it, and it will have to be seen on nuclear facilities how much genuine claim is there. You would have seen that Tulsi Gabbard's statement came in March that they do not exist. Yesterday they were not called to the meeting. Yesterday the US President called a meeting, she was not called, she was not made a part of it. Although she is their intelligence chief. So this shows that this is all cooked up, this is all manufactured. And if you attack the manufactured, then where will you take it? How long will you justify it? And then you are setting even worse precedents for other countries. Legally, there was also a discussion on this, that in defense, because they say we have done preemptive strikes in our defense. Because in their opinion, or they say, Israel says that within two or three months, Iran may succeed in making a nuclear bomb. While the news coming from US intelligence is saying that it is at least three years away. If three years away, three years away, and some old clips of Benjamin Netanyahu, decades-old clips were also played in which he was saying that Iran will make it in just a few months. But I... that keeps coming in the news. Yes, yes, that has been for a long time... If you see Netanyahu's background, he is a graduate of Harvard, MIT, then he was also the permanent representative of the UN for five or one year. He knows the system inside out. He understands the global system, that's why he also knows their status, and that's why maybe he was also disregarded, and that's why this legal discussion of defense also took place that imminent danger is used somewhere in the law, that if there is imminent danger, then can it be based on imminent danger presumption or not, Israel was legally criticized...
It is going on to the extent that legal experts can. But when Israel attacked Iran, Iran retaliated against Israel. Now Iran claims that it is acting in self-defense and invokes Article 51. So what do you think, is Iran covered by Article 51, its right to self-defense, and retaliation?
I think their self-defense is categorically covered under Article 51 because this is an actual act of aggression. In such a case, you are not as bound by the UN's threshold as you should be for preemption. So I think all their acts are fully justified, and it is very unfortunate that this day has come. But I think Israel had called for it. You see, in Gaza, they martyred more than 55,000 children, women, and civilians. Then, amidst all this, they claim they are playing the victim role. They invoke Article 51, and when someone calls them aggressors, they argue back, "No, we are defending ourselves; we are the victims." This is called thick-skinned behavior. But I think our educated people, while staying in their fields, should definitely use this jargon, this language of international law, and definitely talk about it; call an aggressor an aggressor, not an attacker. I am a little surprised by this. I would like to have your last comment on this as well.
When Russia attacked Ukraine, Russia took the defense that if NATO sits at their doorstep, if Ukraine becomes a member, then NATO will attack them in the future, so under Article 51, they have protection; they are carrying out this attack in self-defense. The West rejected this, saying that this is based on presumption and thinking about a future event. But when this same Article 51 and UN Charter comes up for discussion here, they say that they have a preemptive right. This is why the international legal order is at a standstill. It is being talked about all over the world that this is the end of international law, the end of the existing international law in its present form is in sight, and this will happen when you disregard it. If you have observed, a few days ago, there was a conference on the Law of the Sea, about the oceans. And a new treaty on the Law of the Sea is coming, but its ratification is not being completed because those states are losing their trust in the international system, on the multilateral system. So this happens in the same way, as you do things, accordingly it happens. Rather, yesterday I saw a statement by China. China used the words international law, saying, "This is all against international law." So things are completely reversed. Reversed. Thank you, sir.
As Kamran Adil Saheb explained, international law exists in its place. It is important to study and discuss it so that you can at least know the difference between right and wrong. Even if its legal implications may not be anything for any party. A crumbling international order is a big problem for the whole world. But that’s the current situation. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Please give your feedback. [Music]