A relatively short text written by Major General Raul Luis Cunha, yesterday. At the end of my translation, I also leave a brief note and also the original text. (The photo is mine: it was taken during a visit to Coimbra's cryptoporticus. It has no bearing on the text.) 🔽
*Legality vs legitimacy**

US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu justified the attack on Iran as a “necessary” war of Good against Evil. And, many of the US's allies have used a somewhat similar language in their statements about that war, expressing (with rare, albeit honorable exceptions) their support for the United States. So this idea of legitimacy — in other words, what is “right,” “necessary,” or “just” — is being used in many of the statements regarding war.

However, since the United States and Israel began their war against Iran, most of the international law experts use a different language regarding the legality of the attacks. In fact, even the most diverse legal experts stated that the attacks violated Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against States; and the US and Israel have not presented any proof that Iran posed an imminent threat to either of them. And neither of these two countries took the issue to the UN Security Council. As such, the attack and the ensuing war constituted a clear-cut violation of international law.

But while most scholars agree that the attacks were illegal, the public and political debate has and has had (taken) an entirely different sense (path). Instead of looking upon the legal issues, many politicians, commentators and observers counterbalance illegality with arguments regarding legitimacy. And so, this idea of legitimacy — in other words, what is “right,” “necessary,” or “just” — is being used in almost every debate about this war.

But who decides what is fair?

For the US and some of its allies, it is a binary moral equation: Iran is Bad, we are the Good. But this argument can also be put in Iran's perspective: Israel and the US are perfidious and want to destroy us... so we need lots of missiles and eventually even nuclear weapons to protect ourselves.

Once States are permitted to act according to their own sense of morality and justice, the international system can thenceforth go down an extremely dangerous path. Each state can come to consider itself the “Good” actor in its own history. And if we allow individual morality to override the law, moral chaos ensues.

It is enough to remember that, historically, moral arguments regarding “civilization,” “superiority,” “enlightenment,” or “development” were also employed to justify colonization and slavery. And this situation still persists today in different contexts: a given group assuming that its moral compass is universal, superior and (binding) obligatory for all others. And if the world returns to this iniquitous way of thinking, the strongest states will once again be the arbiters of what can be considered “good.”

Let there be no illusions that, in reality, there are double standards in international law: more powerful states have greater impunity and weaker states face greater scrutiny. Hence, the existence of inequality in international law implies the necessity of not abandoning it entirely.

And why is that important?

The war with Iran is unveiling a dangerous shift in the way States (especially those of the so-called “wider West”) justify their actions: there is thus a growing preference for moral narratives over legal reasoning.

If we accept the narrative of a” Just War " as a replacement for The Rule of Law, there will be little left that can prevent the most powerful states from dominating the weakest. And, the purpose of international law is not to determine who is morally good; it is to maintain order in a world where there are still States that believe they are the ones to fight the "Good" fight.

Brief Note:
Major General Raul Luis Cunha (a Portuguese military man, one of three whom I have followed these past four or so years, in Portuguese, regarding geopolitics & conflict. Sadly, we've lost one (Carlos Matos Gomes, whose texts I've quoted here before) already last year. Thankfully Raul Cunha, and the other (Major General Carlos Branco) are still with us. It's always fun, n'y the way, to see mainstream squirm around them.. It really is, along with some legal scholars (barristers/lawyers, whom I have the great pleasure to know).

(Original Portuguese text, below) and the link https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18RgnDz9b6/
🔽

Para os EUA e alguns dos seus aliados, trata-se de uma equação moral binária: o Irão é mau, nós somos os bons. Mas este argumento também pode ser colocado na perspectiva do Irão: Israel e os EUA são pérfidos e querem destruir-nos… por isso, precisamos de muitos mísseis e, eventualmente, até armas nucleares para nos protegermos.
Uma vez que os Estados forem autorizados a agir de acordo com o seu próprio sentido de moralidade e justiça, o sistema internacional pode vir a seguir um caminho extremamente perigoso. Cada Estado pode passar a considerar-se o actor “bom” na sua própria história. E, se permitirmos que a moral individual se sobreponha à lei, instala-se o caos moral.
Basta lembrarmos que, historicamente, os argumentos morais sobre “civilização”, “superioridade”, “iluminismo” ou “desenvolvimento” também foram utilizados para justificar a colonização e a escravatura. E esta situação ainda continua a verificar-se, hoje em dia, em diferentes contextos: acontece existir um grupo a assumir que a sua bússola moral é universal, superior e obrigatória para todos os outros. E, se o mundo regressar a este modo iníquo de pensar, os estados mais fortes voltarão a ser os árbitros que definem aquilo que pode ser considerado como “bom”.
Não haja ilusões que, na realidade, existem dois pesos e duas medidas no direito internacional: Os Estados mais poderosos têm uma maior impunidade e os Estados mais fracos enfrentam um maior escrutínio. Daí que, a existência de desigualdade no direito internacional, implique a necessidade de não acontecer o abandono total do mesmo.
E, por que razão isso é importante?
A guerra com o Irão está a revelar uma perigosa mudança na forma como os Estados (sobretudo os do dito “ocidente alargado”) justificam as suas ações: verifica-se assim uma crescente preferência pelas narrativas morais em detrimento do raciocínio jurídico.
Se aceitarmos que a narrativa de uma “guerra justa” passe a substituir o Estado de Direito, pouco restará que consiga impedir que os Estados mais poderosos dominem os mais fracos. E, o propósito do direito internacional não é determinar quem é moralmente bom; trata-se de manter a ordem num mundo onde continua a haver Estados que acreditam serem os eleitos para travar o "bom" combate.