Last week, United States President Donald Trump issued a stark warning to Iran via social media, boasting that “a whole civilization [would] die tonight, never to be brought back again” if Tehran failed to meet his deadline. Shortly after, a two-week ceasefire was announced alongside Iran’s reopening of the Strait of Hormuz—a chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of global oil and gas trade, fertilizers, and other products en route to Asia. As of this writing, the ceasefire remains at risk due to the alleged violations thereof by the US and Israel in striking Lebanon and by Iran in refusing to reopen Hormuz.
UNITED NATIONS SPOKESPERSON Stephane Dujarric expressed alarm at Trump’s rhetoric, noting that threats to target civilian infrastructure, if acted upon, could risk violating international humanitarian law.
Specifically, the UN Charter, in its Article 2(4), commands all member states—including the US, Israel, Iran, and others—to “refrain … from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
As a founding member of the UN and a permanent member of its Security Council, the US did not merely sign this document; its leaders wrote it. That pledge carries weight beyond politics. It represents a commitment, forged from the ashes of two world wars, to replace the law of the jungle with the rule of law.
CLEARLY, THE JOINT US-ISRAELI STRIKES ON IRAN and the killing of its leaders were conducted without full congressional approval, without UN Security Council authorization, and without evidence of an imminent armed attack to justify the inherent right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Even if the US were to claim legitimate self-defense, the methods of warfare must still comply with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their protocols. Threatening to leave “every power plant and bridge in Iran burning, exploding, and never to be used again” is not battlefield bluster—it is a direct challenge to the principle of distinction under the laws of war, differentiating at all times between military targets and civilian infrastructure.
The consequences were swift and destabilizing. Retaliatory risks escalated. The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz sent shock waves through global markets. US allies withheld support, with many refusing to endorse what they characterized as an illegitimate use of force.
HISTORY OFFERS A SOBERING LESSON for those who mistake military audacity for strategic wisdom. Japan’s surprise attack on Pearl Harbor was designed as a decisive blow, but it merely served to ignite American patriotism to change the then-US policy of neutrality to militant unity to defend the motherland. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has devolved into a grinding war of attrition marked by casualties, isolation, and economic sanctions.
UN Secretary General António Guterres, echoing the sentiment in the UN General Assembly, has condemned the surprise attack on Iran as a violation of the UN Charter. I doubt, however, whether the UN Security Council—in which the US, as a permanent member, has veto power—can use its coercive authority to stop the attack and to get the warring parties to the status quo ante.
Sad indeed is the situation when a major power is the violator of the UN Charter and the laws of war. The UN’s peace mandates cannot be enforced. And while still holding the presidency, Trump—being constitutionally immune, like any incumbent Philippine president—cannot be tried and convicted in US courts. Waiting till his term expires or till he is impeached may be too late. Not even the International Criminal Court can enforce its arrest orders, if any are issued, on Trump, in the same way it could not do so on Russia’s Vladimir Putin.
Verily, enforcement of UN majorities against a major power like the US remains a pipe dream. The International Court of Justice, the judicial organ of the UN, faces limits in disputes involving the permanent Security Council members. Enforcement of the Geneva Conventions on the laws of war cannot also be observed.
However, accountability is not only judicial. It is political, historical, diplomatic, and democratic.
Recent polls have showed a measurable decline in Trump’s domestic approval ratings, revealing deepening divisions over both the human costs and strategic direction of his policies. The reluctance of key allies of the US, especially the European countries, to lend their support constitutes a broader international verdict.
Violating the UN Charter while expecting other nations to absorb the consequences is not leadership; it is unilateralism that corrodes the very architecture of collective security. The world cannot afford another precedent where might makes right, where powerful states selectively honor the rules they helped create.
The international community has arrived at a crossroads. One path leads toward a rules-based order, however imperfect. The other leads toward a world where power alone defines legitimacy, and where no nation, however strong today, is safe tomorrow. The rule of law is not merely a preference. It remains the ultimate arbiter.
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
