The military confrontation between the United States and Iran has returned to the forefront of events in recent days, and the region has witnessed deliberate Iranian aggressions targeting Jordanian territory with missiles and drones, posing a direct threat to the safety of citizens and public and private facilities, as well as endangering civil aviation. In light of these developments, legal questions arise regarding the means available under international law for Jordan to confront these brutal aggressions that have affected its territory and people, despite not being a party to the ongoing military conflict.
The starting point for the legal characterization of these aggressions is to affirm that Jordan is an independent state with full sovereignty over its land territory, territorial waters, and airspace. Accordingly, the entry of missiles or drones into Jordanian airspace or their fall within the Kingdom's territory constitutes a clear violation of its sovereignty and contradicts the provisions of Article (2/4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits states from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The International Court of Justice has enshrined this principle in many of its judgments, foremost among them the Corfu Channel case in 1949, in which it ruled that respect for the sovereignty of states and the integrity of their territories is one of the fundamental principles of international law, and that any violation of another state's territory entails international responsibility. The Security Council also affirmed in its Resolution No. (487) of 1981 that the use of force against the territory of a sovereign state constitutes a violation of the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
In the face of these aggressions, Jordan has, first, the right to legitimate self-defense, including intercepting missiles and drones before they reach their targets, and taking all necessary military measures to protect its territory and population, based on the provisions of Article (51) of the United Nations Charter. It also has the right to file a complaint with the Security Council and request a session to consider the aggressions on its territory as a threat to international peace and security. It may also inform the United Nations General Assembly of these violations and mobilize international support condemning the infringement of its sovereignty and demanding a halt to these aggressions and their non-recurrence.
Jordan relies on the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States, issued by United Nations General Assembly Resolution No. (2625) of 1970, which affirmed the commitment of all states to refrain from the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other states, and considered respect for state sovereignty as a basis for the stability of the international system.
Jordan also has the right to demand compensation from the Iranian state for all damages resulting from its internationally wrongful acts, whether in the form of human losses, material damages to property and facilities, or expenses incurred by the state as a result of air defense operations, airspace closure, and disruption of air traffic. This is what the International Court of Justice has settled, particularly in the Nicaragua v. United States case, which ruled that every internationally wrongful act entails the responsibility of the state that committed it, obliging it to cease the act and make full reparation for the injury, whether by financial compensation or other means of reparation recognized in international law.
Jordan can also refer information and evidence related to these aggressions to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, given that deliberately targeting civilians or civilian facilities during an armed conflict constitutes a war crime falling within the jurisdiction of the Court under the Rome Statute. Although the International Criminal Court is competent to prosecute natural persons, not states, this does not prevent the accountability of military commanders or officials whose criminal responsibility for committing or ordering these crimes is proven, in accordance with the provisions of the Rome Statute.
Respect for the sovereignty of states and not turning their territories or airspace into a theater of military operations or for settling regional disputes are established principles upon which the international legal system is based. Therefore, Jordan's recourse to the legal, diplomatic, and judicial means provided by international law aims not only to redress the damages it has suffered but also to affirm its adherence to its sovereignty and its right to protect its national security, and contributes to strengthening the principle of international accountability and maintaining international peace and security, thereby preventing states or individuals from escaping responsibility for their violations of international law.
* Professor of Constitutional Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Jordan
شارك برأيك
Jordan's Rights in the Face of Iranian Aggressions