There used to be only three legal reasons for a country to go to war.
The oldest and most incontrovertible is self-defence. If one country invades another’s territory, the victim has a fundamental right, enshrined in international law, that allows it to protect and defend itself. Associated with this core entitlement is the right to come to the aid of an ally, as in the NATO Article 5 clause.
The second reason is if the United Nations agrees to a Security Council Resolution, as in the case of the Korean War in 1950 and the Gulf War in 1991.
The third reason, which stems from the tragedies in Bosnia and Rwanda, was agreed at the UN’s 2005 World Summit; to prevent genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity.
Since then, another reason has emerged – Denial. We have seen it with Putin’s so called special military operation to deny Ukraine joining NATO and we have now seen it with Trump’s war in the Gulf to deny Iran from developing its nuclear ambitions. In response, Iran has been denying access through the Strait of Hormuz and this in turn has led to a US blockade to deny Iran’s oil trade with Asia.
Denial has always been a part of the operational framework of war and “fixing the enemy”. By denying them the opportunity to achieve their goals, the aim is to throw adversaries off balance before defeating them on the battlefield. On land, this phase is usually masterminded by the senior sapper with minefields, bridge demolitions and an intricate obstacle plan. But in the modern sense, it is more in the hands of the airmen to attack infrastructure with bombs, missiles and drones.
The problem with this half-way house is that Denial in itself is like Deterrence, it doesn’t defeat the enemy. However, the advantage is that it provides political leaders with an opportunity to deny the country is At War and that the rest of the World is suffering the consequences.
Rupert Wieloch 