On October 1, 2024, Israel entered Lebanese territory militarily. Between Israel’s right to self-defense and Lebanon’s right to sovereignty, which principle prevails? “Legality depends on how you look at the situation», Explains to the New York Times Hugh Lovatt, expert in international law and armed conflicts at the European Council on International Relations.
The determination of the legality of the Israeli invasion is in fact not written in black and white. According to experts, the different laws and regulations invoked offer a wide range of interpretations.
When legal texts do not allow a situation to be resolved, the United Nations Security Council is expected to resolve it. However, it is rare for the courts or the Security Council to look into this type of question. If they did, it is also unlikely that the process would lead to a quick conclusion… or even a conclusion at all. The New York Times looked at on the question.
Self-defense, sovereignty and protection of civilians
To begin with, Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter “prohibits the threat or use of force and calls on all members to respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of other States“. Lebanon 1-0.
But this is without taking into account Article 51 of the charter which specifies that member states have the right to defend themselves against armed attacks. This is where the situation gets complicated: Lebanon is certainly a sovereign state, but Israel claims that it is fighting against Hezbollah, which is both a militant group (considered a terrorist organization by Israel and the United States). United) and an influential actor within the Lebanese government.
If Lebanon allows Hezbollah to use its territory to strike Israel with rockets, “Israel has a legitimate and legal right to take self-defense measures against Hezbollah, and probably also against the Lebanese state“, say Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany, two Israeli law professors, in an essay written for the Lieber Institute for Law and Warfare of the United States Military Academy. Interviewed by the New York Times, Yuval Shany claims that the United States and its allies used similar reasoning to “operating in Syria against Daesh and in a number of other countries where Al-Qaeda was present”. Israel 1-1.
To this is then added the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates that the right to self-defense is only valid “until the Security Council has taken the necessary measures to maintain international peace and security.. However, since Israel’s last land invasion of Lebanon in 2006, the Security Council has tried – in vain – to obtain a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. She nevertheless issued a Security Council resolution which prohibits foreign forces from entering Lebanon without the consent of the government. In light of this resolution, some UN officials therefore assert that the current land invasion constitutes a “violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon”making the invasion “the latest violation of international law by Israel”. Lebanon 2-1?
Not quite. Because this 2006 resolution also ordered Hezbollah to leave the buffer zone in southern Lebanon, the same one where the United Nations deployed peacekeeping forces. Hezbollah has not left the area. Israel 2-2.
Beyond questions relating to the legality of the Israeli invasion, another question of international law arises in this conflict: that of the protection of civilians. Hezbollah may place military targets in civilian buildings, but every country has a legal obligation to protect non-combatants. According to the United Nations, more than 1,500 people have been killed in Lebanon by the Israeli army over the past two weeks.
«Although it is difficult to legally assess individual attacks carried out remotely”avance Janina Dill, codirectrice de l’Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, “the use of heavy explosives in densely populated areas of Lebanon and attacks on residential buildings where Hezbollah militants are suspected of hiding, which left hundreds of victims, including large numbers of women and civilian children, raise very serious concerns regarding compliance with these international rules».
Humanitarian laws of war, such as the Geneva Convention, further require military forces to provide ample warning to civilians to allow them to flee before an attack. Israel did issue evacuation alerts in southern Lebanon, but in some cases people were only given two hours to leave their homes before the strikes.
Israel is also required to verify that displaced people can be relocated in complete safety. This is not the case: the United Nations indicates that more than 250,000 people have fled Lebanon to take refuge in Syria, a country still ravaged by the civil war which began in 2011.
Faced with these questions, and legal violations, who is to arbitrate and enforce the law? “If the International Court of Justice were seized of a case concerning Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, Israel could refuse to comply”explains Kai Ambos. In this case, the legal dispute could then be taken to the Security Council. “The UN General Assembly could also be invited to seek a resolution”says Professor Hathaway. “But it is not authorized to take measures against Israel, only to question it.”
Would international law therefore have no value? “Without these laws, our situation would be worse», assured both of us. ,The law is there, it at least allows the State to justify its actions.»
Source: www.slate.fr
