State Responsibility And Proxy Warfare: Re- Evaluating The Effective Control Test In The Iran–Israel Conflict
- IJLLR Journal
- 2 hours ago
- 1 min read
Pronita Mittal, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University
ABSTRACT
The paper examines the challenges faces in attributing state responsibility in modern armed conflict, especially ones with proxy warfare by using the Israel- Iran conflict as a case study. Recent developments in the conflict, including direct and indirect use of force such as aerial strikes, missile and drone attacks involving state and more importantly, non-state actors have blurred the traditional concepts of proxy warfare and state conflict. This is exactly what this paper unravels: when can a state be held responsible for actions carried out by groups it supports but doesn’t officially control and the effects thereof.
While, as a general rule, international law poses a liability on states only when a high threshold of effective control is proved attributing the conduct i.e. connecting the state directly to the actions of the non-state actor, modern warfare challenges this standard holding it rigid and unyielding. The paper, using pieces of jurisprudence like Nicaragua v. state of United states and Bosnian Genocide case, that made this very standard, analyses whether these doctrines remain adequate in light of the contemporary conflict in the middle east.
Additionally, this paper analyses these rules alongside the prohibition of use of force and humanitarian law under the UN charter to argue that the current body of legislation cannot address the realities of modern conflict in its entirety. The Iran–Israel situation shows how states can move between indirect and direct use of force without clear accountability.
