Threats and counter-threats in violation of international law Commentary
Threats and counter-threats in violation of international law
Edited by: JURIST Commentator

Ali Khan [Washburn University]: "One great accomplishment of the 1945 UN Charter has been its prescription against the threats of use of armed force. Article 2(4) states: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." Note that the Charter prohibits both "use" and "threat" of force. Furthermore, it does not require that the threatened state be a UN member. Any threat of force against any state is prohibited.

Despite this unambiguous and comprehensive statement of law, Israel and Iran continue to violate Article 2(4). Returning from Moscow Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned that Iran would have "a price to pay" if it continues to pursue its nuclear program. He did not specifically mention any military strike against Iran's nuclear infrastructure but warned that the Iranians "have to be afraid" of the consequences of their stubbornness. It was unclear whether Olmert's threat referred to possible UN sanctions or unilateral Israeli military action. Contextually, in view of Israel's destruction of Iraq's nuclear plant 25 years ago, the threat against Iran carries the elements of military action. The threat addresses the people of Iran and not merely its government. It is framed to cause fear among the people of Iran that they could face death and destruction. Since Israel has no basis to speak on behalf of the UN Security Council or the region, its threats are blatant violations of the UN Charter.

In responding to Olmert's threats, Iran has issued its own counterthreats. Speaking to a rally to mark Iran's "Jerusalem Day", Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad questioned the very existence of the state of Israel. Israel would soon disappear, said the President, since the people of the Middle East have reached "a boiling point." One could argue that the extinction of the state of Israel does not necessarily imply death and destruction. After all, the Soviet Union disappeared without bloodshed. Still, the Iranian threats of "wiping out Israel" are not received in a benign manner since the possible use of force appears to be a strong component of the threat. These threats cause fear among the people of Israel who already know that they are not welcome in the region.

Threats of the use of force are prohibited under the UN Charter since verbal threats often pave the way for a war. Fiery language can bare the mouths of guns."

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.