Collective self-defence

ON Sept 9, 2025, the world was shocked when a close ally of the US in the Gulf, namely Qatar, was struck by 15 Israeli Defence Force jets.

This amounted to a blatant disregard for the sovereignty of Qatar, which is a member of the UN. The targets of the attack were several Hamas figures, who were present in Doha for the purpose of ceasefire negotiations related to the ongoing Gaza war.

Almost all countries condemned the attack, saying it went against the provisions of the UN Charter, and was illegal and highly irresponsible. Even the US appeared to express disapproval of Israel’s uncalled-for foray. However, it is common knowledge that Israeli influence has affected the neutrality of the US, which is a P5 member. Because of Washington’s exercise of veto powers, the Security Council has been unable to authorise appropriate measures in matters where Tel Aviv’s interests are seen to be at stake.

Israel, which has attacked Iran and Qatar apart from other states in the region, is reinforcing a new norm in the Middle East. Earlier, before deploying force, cover — however controversial — was taken under some resolution passed pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter. That is how it was done in the case of Iraq and initially Libya. In the Syrian episode, even the semblance of legal cover was missing.

The global consensus is that the armed attack inside Qatar completely lacked legitimacy under international law. Israel failed to cite any provision of international law to justify its attack on Qatar. It did try to justify its actions by referring to the killing of Osama bin Laden inside Pakistani territory, but failed to mention that Islamabad had strongly protested and that a commission had been formed that declared the incident in utter violation of international law.

Further, the Security Council, realising the inherent illegality of America’s intervention to take out OBL, did not convene to pass any resolution to endorse it — in order to ensure that such an intervention was not seen as a legal starting point for a potentially customary norm.

More recently, Pakistan’s strong military response to India in May, when New Delhi struck at what it referred to as hideouts of non-state actors, who, arguably, had long given up militancy, was again to drive home the point that taking out non-state actors in breach of territorial integrity of any country could not be allowed to become a norm under international law. The armed reply was a vehement expression of both protest (that is necessary under customary law) and preventive self-defence.

What kind of actions should bring Middle Eastern countries together when threatened by Israel?

Under international law laid down by the UN, the way to get hold of a non-state actor is not a ‘war approach’ but a ‘law-enforcement approach’; meaning availing frameworks already provided under UNSC 1373 for cooperation, exchange of information, extradition, Interpol, etc. Israel did not approach Qatar through these available channels, nor did India make use of them vis-à-vis Pakistan before launching attacks.

Now Israel has decided to extend its operations and military actions way outside its own controversial frontiers. This is Israel’s own personalised practice — denounced by all, but it is pressing on with it. It attacked Iran openly and does not hesitate to conduct covert operations against neighbouring countries. This is a dangerous trend, which is not slowing down.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz recently said that Turkiye could be the next Israeli target after Qatar. Moreover, Israel is open, and unapologetic, about its dream of realising a ‘Greater Israel’. Its present actions, therefore, are foreshadowing its future conduct. This is being taken very seriously by all the Middle Eastern states that are likely to be affected.

What should these Middle Eastern countries do under international law? Apart from a bilateral arrangement, like the recent one, between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, what kind of actions or measures should bring all of them together in self-defence when faced with a threat from Israel — measures, which also have legitimacy under international law?

Collective security implies a permanent institutional arrangement and collective self-defence is a sort of joint response — but on an ad hoc basis. The starting point for the legal advisers of Middle Eastern states should be the examination of models of ad hoc or permanent arrangements that guarantee them backup and mutual support — and what in international law is termed as permissible or perfectly legitimate, ie, a collective regional security arrangement.

All states facing armed threats from Israel are also members of the UN. Being signatories to the UN Charter, they are called upon to abide by the principles and purposes of the UN. Article 52 of the Charter encourages the establishment of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action, provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the purposes and principles of the UN.

Article 52 follows Article 51, which recognises the right of ‘inherent self-defence’ of all member states. This provision constitutes an exception to the provisions of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which proscribes the use or threat of force in international relations by member states. It is further provided that the Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilise such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcing action under its authority.

As has been experienced in the past, the UN can no longer be relied upon to take timely and effective action in cases of breach of peace or violation of sovereignty. By creating a regional arrangement for their collective security, the member countries of the UN, particularly the ones in the Middle East, not only would be acting in collective self-defence but the action taken would also be in conformity with Article 52 of the UN Charter.

The writer is an advocate of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. He was formerly caretaker federal law minister of law, justice and parliamentary affairs.

Published in Brackly News, September 20th, 2025