Israel's Qatar Strike Defies The Definition Of Self-Defense

So, does this mean Israel could claim self-defence against Hamas' leadership in Qatar, if the group did indeed direct the two attacks against its citizens in Jerusalem and Gaza?

The answer is complicated. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly stressed the paramount importance of territorial sovereignty in international law. As such, it has restricted the use of self-defense to armed attacks that can be attributable to a state, not merely to non-state actors operating from a state's territory.

After the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, the United States and other countries claimed they could use force in self-defense against non-state actors (such as terrorist groups) that are sheltering and operating from another state's territory, even if that state was not directly involved.

In response to these developments, Sir Daniel Bethlehem , an expert in international law and foreign policy advisor to the UK government, proposed several principles aimed at curtailing this justification within the intent of Article 51.

The“Bethlehem principles”, which remain contested, argue that Article 51 can cover actual or imminent attacks by terrorist groups, but only if necessity (the use of force in self-defence is truly a last resort) and proportionality are satisfied.

Moreover, as a rule, force on another state's soil requires the consent of that state. The only narrow exceptions are when there's a reasonable, objective belief the host state is colluding with the group or is unable or unwilling to stop it – and no other reasonable option short of force exists.

Israel argues that Hamas's leadership based abroad in countries such as Qatar, Lebanon and Iran remains part of the command structure that orchestrates hostilities against its soldiers in Gaza and citizens in Israel.

That alone, however, is not enough to justify self-defense according to the Bethlehem principles. By Netanyahu's own admission, the objective of the Qatar strike was retaliatory, not to prevent an ongoing or imminent attack.

Questions could also be raised about whether proportionality was observed given the diplomatic context of striking a sovereign state and the potential for disproportionate civilian harm in this part of Doha, which houses many diplomatic residences.

Targeting political leaders meeting in a third state - especially one engaged in mediation - also raises questions about whether force was the only means available to address the threat posed by Hamas in this situation.

Moreover, under these principles, Israel would need to demonstrate that Qatar is either colluding with or is unable or unwilling to stop Hamas – and that there was no other effective or reasonable way to respond to the situation.

Qatar has hosted Hamas' political offices since 2012 and has been one of the group's main financial backers since it came to power in Gaza.

At the same time, Qatar has played an important mediation role since the October 7 attacks.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Final verdict

This makes it difficult to argue Qatar is unwilling or unable to neutralize Hamas' operations from its territory. Its mediation would also suggest there is a reasonably effective alternative to force to counter Hamas' actions.

Without UN Security Council authorization, Israel's strikes on Qatar do appear to be a violation of territorial sovereignty and possibly an act of aggression under the UN Charter.

This is further bolstered by the narrow approach the ICJ has taken on self-defense against non-state actors in third-party states, and its stringent requirements of proportionality and necessity – neither of which appear to have been met here.

Shannon Bosch is associate professor (Law), Edith Cowan University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories Or Sign in to an existing accoun

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.

• Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
• Click to print (Opens in new window) Print