Latest news with #DefinitionofAggression
New Straits Times
01-07-2025
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Iran's legal battle at the UN: Can justice prevail?
LETTERS: On June 29, 2025, Iran submitted an official letter to the UN Secretary-General, urging the Security Council to recognise Israel and the United States as the instigators of a recent 12-day aggressive war. The United Nations Charter is unambiguous. Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The General Assembly's Definition of Aggression (1974) further declares that any unprovoked armed attack by one state against another constitutes aggression — a grave breach of international peace. Aggression is also recognised as a crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which empowers the ICC to try individuals, including political leaders, who plan or carry out aggressive wars. Still, can the United Nations take action? The Security Council holds primary responsibility for addressing aggression under the UN Charter. The United States—being both a party to the conflict and a veto-holding power — can block any effort to formally assign blame to itself or its allies. This deadlock is nothing new. The Council has been paralysed in past conflicts where permanent members were involved. Yet, Iran has other avenues. The General Assembly may step in under the 'Uniting for Peace' resolution, allowing it to make recommendations when the Council fails to act. Alternatively, Iran could bring a case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has in previous rulings — such as Nicaragua v United States and DRC v Uganda — found states responsible for unlawful uses of force and awarded reparations. The office of the UN Secretary-General also holds quiet power. While lacking enforcement authority, the Secretary-General can appoint independent inquiries, raise the issue in the Council, or facilitate mediation. Though limited, these tools can bring international attention and pressure to bear. In the end, Iran's legal case is sound, but enforcement remains at the mercy of political realities. The tension between international law and the power dynamics of the Security Council remains one of the great challenges of our time. Yet, history shows that legal persistence — paired with diplomatic and public advocacy — can gradually tilt the balance toward justice.
Time of India
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Pahalgam attack: 'Definition of Aggression' can nail Pakistan in UN General Assembly
New Delhi: Pakistan could be held accountable in the UN General Assembly for the Pahalgam attack under a resolution adopted in 1974 on aggressors that promote mercenaries and armed bands, although as a current non-permanent member of the UNSC it may try to block any resolution to this effect over the next two years, said people familiar with the matter. #Pahalgam Terrorist Attack India stares at a 'water bomb' threat as it freezes Indus Treaty India readies short, mid & long-term Indus River plans Shehbaz Sharif calls India's stand "worn-out narrative" The UNGA resolution 3314, adopted on December 14, 1974, defines 'aggression' and provides a non-binding recommendation to the UNSC on the definition it should use for the crime of aggression. The resolution, known as the 'Definition of Aggression', lists various acts that qualify as acts of aggression, including invasion, bombing and the use of armed force against another state's sovereignty. Article 3 (g) of the resolution says, "The sending by or on behalf of a state of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another state of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein." The resolution is not legally binding but serves as guidance for the UNSC. The people cited earlier said the Indian government needs to gather every evidence of Pakistan's role in the attack and present it to the UNGA to build a watertight case. The external affairs ministry has shared technical and other evidence related to the role of Pakistan's institutions in the Pahalgam attack with envoys of a number of countries at a special briefing. Pakistan, as a non-permanent member of the UNSC till 2026, may use China to veto any resolution that the UNSC may bring against its implicating role in the attack, said experts. On Friday, the UNSC condemned the attack in the strongest terms, without naming Pakistan, and asserted that those responsible must be held accountable.
