Other

Israel’s attack on Qatar: Legal consequences

By Brig Raja Shozab Majeed R

Copyright pakobserver

Israel’s attack on Qatar: Legal consequences

THE Israeli airstrike on Doha earlier this month represents a blatant violation of international law and diplomatic norms, shaking the foundations of the global order.

Several Hamas members, present in Qatar for negotiations, were killed alongside Qatari security personnel. The strike occurred while Hamas representatives were reportedly engaged in discussions with Qatari officials over a US-backed ceasefire plan. As Qatar mediated between Israel and Palestine to advance peace and secure the release of hostages, Israel’s actions constituted a grave breach of Qatari sovereignty and raised serious legal and political questions about the rights of neutral and mediating states.

At the heart of the matter lies one of the clearest principles of international law: the prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of a sovereign state. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, reinforced by decades of customary practice, demands that states refrain from such actions. Qatar was not a party to the conflict. On the contrary, it was hosting talks in pursuit of peace. For Israel to conduct a military strike on Qatari soil without consent appears to be a textbook breach of this prohibition.

In this case, evidence that a meeting in Doha constituted an immediate armed threat, which necessitated the strike under Article 51 of the UN Charter, is wrong. The fact that Hamas members were meeting with Qatari mediators to talk about a cease-fire makes Israel’s legal claim more difficult, even if they were there. Striking them during such a session undermines not only Qatar’s sovereignty but the very process of mediation itself.

For a long time, customary international law has recognized the importance of neutral states. The Hague Conventions of 1907 codified that the territory of neutral powers is inviolable. Belligerents are bound to abstain from hostilities on neutral soil. This notion, which has been repeated in other UN resolutions, is not an old idea but a current one. Germany’s invasion of Belgium during World War I and World War II was an example of aggression that was opposed by everyone. The Israeli strike on Doha, carried out without Qatar’s consent, falls into the same category of unlawful disregard for neutrality.

Mediating states deserve even greater protection. Although not always explicitly codified in treaties, the practice of international relations has long shielded intermediaries from attack. A mediator’s impartiality and the safety of negotiations it hosts, are indispensable to peace processes. To attack a state while it is engaged in mediation is to send a chilling message: that no place is safe for dialogue and no state’s neutrality is beyond violation. The harm done is not just legal but also diplomatic, breaking the fragile trust that talks depend on.

History provides sobering parallels. Neutral states bombed or invaded during global conflicts were almost always recognized, after the fact, as victims of unlawful aggression. Diplomatic and mediation premises have also been targeted in modern conflicts, but such acts were denounced as violations of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and customary law. Even when the laws of neutrality were imperfectly enforced, the consensus was clear: such acts were wrongful. Israel is putting all mediation efforts throughout the world at risk by ignoring these rules.

Qatar now has both legal and diplomatic alternatives open to it. Doha can take its case to both the Security Council and the General Assembly at the United Nations, where it can accuse Israel of breaking the Charter and threatening world peace. Geopolitics may make it harder to get a binding Security Council resolution, but even a General Assembly vote of censure would help reaffirm the law. Qatar may also go to the International Court of Justice, stating that Israel is responsible for invading its sovereignty and killing its nationals illegally. Although jurisdictional hurdles are formidable, such a move would keep the legal question alive and documented in the world’s highest court.

In addition to official legal avenues, Qatar can seek support from regional groups, including the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. A unified denunciation and coordinated diplomatic or economic pressure could reinforce the message that mediator states should not be regarded as battlegrounds. At the same time, Qatar must consider how this event will affect its role as a host for sensitive talks. Abandoning mediation altogether would hand victory to violence, yet continuing without additional protections could heighten its vulnerability. One option is to demand international guarantees for the safety of its mediation activities, with backing from states capable of preventing future violations.

If one state can strike another under the pretext of targeting non-state actors, even during negotiations, the system of protections collapses. The cost is borne not only by the victims but also by the very possibility of diplomacy. Qatar thus stands at a crossroads. The outcome will determine whether this violation becomes just another episode in a cycle of conflict or a pivotal moment when a mediator state demands accountability and reaffirms the law. This episode is more than a dispute between two countries; it will reveal whether the world still values the principles of neutrality, sovereignty and mediation. If those principles fall, the prospects for peaceful resolution in any conflict, in the Middle East or beyond, grow dimmer still.

—The writer is a International Law expert with a rich experience in negotiation, mediation and Alternate Dispute Resolution.

(shozab2727@gmail.com)