Fragile diplomacy
Diplomatic negotiation has long been regarded as the most civilised method through which disputes between nations are addressed. In international relations, dialogue is expected to replace confrontation, and mediation is intended to prevent conflict from escalating into violence. Institutions such as the United Nations and the International Court of Justice exist precisely to encourage such engagement and to ensure that disagreements between sovereign states are resolved through lawful mechanisms.
Recent geopolitical tensions surrounding negotiations between the United States and Iran have once again brought attention to the delicate nature of diplomacy. Discussions reportedly facilitated through the Sultanate of Oman were intended to revive dialogue on Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme. Oman has historically served as a discreet mediator between adversarial states, allowing dialogue to continue even when direct communication becomes politically difficult.
Mediation of this nature represents an important feature of modern diplomacy. Neutral intermediaries create space for dialogue and prevent disagreements from turning into confrontation. In theory, this process highlights the triumph of diplomacy over coercion.
Yet diplomacy becomes fragile when negotiations occur under the shadow of military pressure. The simultaneous presence of strategic military assets near regions of negotiation often creates the impression that force remains a parallel instrument of persuasion. While such posturing has historically accompanied many diplomatic engagements, it raises an uncomfortable question. Can negotiations truly succeed when the possibility of unilateral action continues to loom in the background?
The question becomes even more significant when diplomatic engagement fails.
Sovereignty principle
International law rests upon a fundamental principle: the sovereignty of states. Every nation is expected to exercise authority within its own territory without external interference. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter expressly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
The deliberate targeting of leaders or officials of another nation therefore raises serious legal questions. Cross border acts of violence are often viewed as violations of sovereignty unless they fall within the narrow exception of self defence recognised under Article 51 of the Charter.
Rule of law
The rule of law remains the defining principle of democratic governance. It requires that power be exercised through established legal processes rather than through arbitrary action. This principle operates not only within domestic constitutional systems but also within the international order.
Philosophers such as John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that organised political authority emerged to restrain instinctive violence and to establish predictable systems of justice. Without the rule of law, disputes would be resolved through force rather than through reasoned adjudication.
Human instinct
A useful illustration may be drawn closer to home in Goa. Imagine a father receiving the news of a devastating road accident involving his own family.
His son is driving a hatchback Swift car while returning home, and his wife is seated beside the son. An oncoming White Bolero Utility Vehicle, crosses into the wrong lane of a narrow two way road and crashes head on into the Swift.
The impact crushes the smaller car. The dashboard collapses inward, and both occupants sustain serious injuries. The wife suffers fractures to her limbs, while the son sustains a hip injury that would require surgery and long recovery.
In such a moment the emotional response of the father is entirely understandable. Anger, grief, and the instinct for retribution naturally arise when harm is inflicted upon loved ones. Criminology has long recognised that the desire for retaliation is among the most basic human reactions to perceived injustice.
And although civilised societies deliberately restrain this instinct. The recent breach of international law through the assassination of the Supreme Leader of Iran at the command of the US President would infact empower the father to retaliate against the offending driver.
The same Criminal Justice system would be left abiding by its tumultuous procedure while the retribution would be swift and would honour the injury suffered by the son and wife of the man who feels let down by the system.
Justice process
Under Indian law, a serious road collision would lead to the registration of a First Information Report. The police investigate the circumstances of the crash, gather evidence, record statements, and eventually submit a charge sheet before a competent court.
The accused driver may apply for bail and the matter proceeds through trial where evidence is examined and responsibility is determined by the judiciary. The process can appear slow and procedural. Lawyers raise arguments, hearings are scheduled, and the emotional urgency of the victims’ family may not align with the pace of the courts.
In such a moment, the emotional reaction of a husband and father is entirely understandable. Anger, grief, and the instinct for retribution naturally arise when harm is inflicted upon loved ones. Criminology has long recognised that the desire for revenge is one of the most basic human responses to perceived injustice.
Dangerous precedent
The relevance of this analogy becomes clear in the international sphere. Just as the father is expected to restrain his instinct for vengeance and allow the courts to determine responsibility, nations are expected to resolve disputes through legal institutions and diplomatic engagement.
When powerful states abandon these mechanisms and rely instead on unilateral acts of force, the authority of international law is weakened. The global order begins to resemble a contest of power rather than a framework governed by shared rules.
In proportional scenarios, why would the father and husband of his injured son and wife not emulate the decisions of the US President in bringing about an ‘equaliser’ which the Criminal Law would otherwise not be able to grant to him in his journey of avenging the hurt caused to his loved ones.
