Answer

Introduction

The recent military strikes on Iran by the United States and Israel mark a sharp escalation in West Asian tensions. Such unilateral use of force, bypassing multilateral mechanisms, raises serious concerns about the erosion of international law and the credibility of the rules-based global order.

Body

How unilateral military actions challenge the rules-based international order

• Undermining UN Charter Principles: The UN Charter permits force only in self-defence or with Security Council approval.
  Eg: Lack of evidence of an imminent Iranian attack.
• Erosion of Diplomatic Processes: Military action replaced ongoing negotiations, weakening faith in peaceful dispute resolution.
  Eg: Oman-mediated talks were reportedly close to a deal before the February strikes.
• Disregard for International Legal Norms: Targeted killing of a head of state challenges sovereignty and non-intervention principles.
  Eg: The killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, represents a direct assault on sovereign leadership.
• Destabilisation of Global Commons: Escalation risks disruption of critical trade routes, affecting global economic stability.
  Eg: Iran’s announcement to close the Strait of Hormuz threatens oil supplies to major importers like India.
• Weakening Multilateral Institutions: Repeated unilateral actions reduce the authority of global institutions meant to regulate conflict.
  Eg: The 2018 U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) had already weakened collective security mechanisms.

Rationale Favouring Unilateral Military Actions

• Right to Self-Defence (Article 51): States may argue anticipatory self-defence against perceived threats.
  Eg: Israel has described the action as “pre-emptive” to prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
• Failure of Multilateral Mechanisms: When UN bodies are paralysed by veto politics, states may act independently.
  Eg: Security Council divisions have often stalled decisive action in West Asia.
• Deterrence Strategy: Unilateral force may be seen as deterring hostile regimes and preventing long-term instability.
• Protection of Strategic Interests: Major powers justify actions to protect allies and secure geopolitical balance.
• Preventing Nuclear Proliferation: Strikes may be projected as efforts to prevent nuclear weaponisation.
  Eg: Concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme have historically shaped the U.S.–Israel policy positions.

Way Forward

• Revitalising Multilateral Diplomacy: Reinstate structured negotiations under neutral mediation.
  Eg: Revival of Oman- or UN-facilitated talks on nuclear safeguards.
• Strengthening UN Mechanisms: Reform Security Council procedures to reduce paralysis in conflict situations.
• Reaffirming International Law: Major powers must recommit to UN Charter principles and proportionality norms.
• Regional Security Dialogue: Promote West Asian security architecture involving Gulf states, Iran, and global stakeholders.
• Protecting Global Economic Stability: Ensure freedom of navigation in strategic waterways like the Strait of Hormuz through multilateral naval coordination.

Conclusion

The Iran strikes illustrate the fragile state of the contemporary global order. If powerful states bypass multilateral norms, the credibility of international law erodes further. Rebuilding trust through diplomacy, legal restraint, and institutional reform is essential to prevent a slide toward unrestrained power politics.

DOWNLOAD PDF