Content

1. Just war, power balance and modern conflict
2. Elusive peace

---

Just war, power balance and modern conflict

---

Why in News?

• The ongoing tensions involving the United States, Israel and Iran have revived debate over Just War Theory, anticipatory self-defence and the legality of unilateral military action under the United Nations Charter.
• The controversy centres on whether states can lawfully use force before an actual armed attack occurs, and whether the post-1945 international legal order can still prevent escalation and preserve a stable balance of power.

Relevance

• GS Paper II: United Nations, international law, collective security, multilateralism and reform of global institutions.
• GS Paper III: Energy security, Strait of Hormuz, geopolitical instability and its impact on oil prices and inflation.

Practice Question

• “The growing use of anticipatory self-defence reflects both the ambiguity of international law and the weakening of multilateral institutions.” Critically examine in the context of contemporary conflicts in West Asia.(250 Words)

Static Background

Just War Theory

• Just War Theory, articulated by Hugo Grotius, attempts to define when war is morally and legally justified by applying principles of necessity, proportionality and legitimate authority.

Balance of Power

• Balance of Power refers to a strategic equilibrium in which no single state becomes dominant enough to impose its will, thereby discouraging aggression and helping preserve international stability.

Collective Security

• Collective Security is the principle that aggression against one state is treated as aggression against all, forming the normative basis of the United Nations system.

Historical Evolution of Restrictions on War

Hague Convention III, 1907

• The Hague Convention III (1907) required states to issue a formal declaration of war or ultimatum before commencing hostilities, marking an early attempt to regulate interstate warfare.

League of Nations Covenant

• Article 12 of the League Covenant introduced arbitration and a three-month cooling-off period, reflecting the belief that structured diplomacy could prevent armed conflict.

Kellogg–Briand Pact, 1928

• The Kellogg–Briand Pact (1928) condemned war as an instrument of national policy and encouraged states to settle disputes by peaceful means.

UN Charter, 1945

• The adoption of the UN Charter in 1945 established a near-complete legal prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council authorization.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

• Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, making non-aggression a foundational principle of modern international law.

Article 51: Right of Self-Defence

• Article 51 recognizes the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs, subject to the principles of necessity, proportionality and reporting to the Security Council.

Anticipatory Self-Defence

Concept

• Anticipatory Self-Defence permits the use of force when an attack is imminent, even if it has not yet occurred, provided the threat is immediate and unavoidable.

Legal Debate

• Supporters cite customary international law, while critics argue that the wording of Article 51 requires an actual armed attack before force can be lawfully used.

Caroline Principle (1837)

• In the Caroline Incident (1837), Daniel Webster stated that self-defence is lawful only when necessity is “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”

NATO and Collective Self-Defence

• North Atlantic Treaty Organization Article 5 provides that an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all, institutionalizing collective defence under the UN framework.

Strategic Importance of the Strait of Hormuz

Strait of Hormuz

• The Strait of Hormuz carries nearly 20% of global oil trade, making it one of the world’s most strategic maritime chokepoints and a major determinant of global energy security.
• Any disruption can trigger spikes in crude oil prices, inflationary pressures and balance-of-payments stress for import-dependent countries such as India.

Legal and Strategic Issues in West Asia

Use of Preventive Force

• Military strikes justified on suspected future threats raise fundamental questions about the distinction between lawful self-defence and unlawful preventive war.

Proportionality

• Even where self-defence is invoked, international law requires responses to be strictly proportionate to the threat faced.

Sovereignty

• Unilateral intervention without Security Council approval can undermine the principle of sovereign equality and territorial integrity.

Crisis of Multilateral Institutions

United Nations

• Geopolitical rivalries and veto politics have weakened the ability of the UN Security Council to act decisively in major international crises.

Wider Institutional Decline

• Strains in trade, climate and security institutions indicate broader erosion of the rules-based international order established after World War II.

India’s Perspective

Strategic Interests

• India imports over 80% of its crude oil requirements, making stability in West Asia critical for energy and economic security.

Diaspora Concerns

• More than 9 million Indians live and work in the Gulf region, making regional stability vital for remittances and citizen safety.

Diplomatic Position

• India consistently advocates dialogue, de-escalation, respect for sovereignty and adherence to international law.

Ethical and Humanitarian Dimension

• Large-scale military conflicts cause civilian casualties, displacement and destruction of essential infrastructure, raising serious concerns under international humanitarian law.
• The selective invocation of democracy and human rights to justify intervention can weaken the credibility of universal norms.

Challenges in International Law

Ambiguity

• Terms such as armed attack, imminence and necessity remain open to competing interpretations by states and scholars.

Selective Application

• Powerful states may invoke legal doctrines inconsistently, reducing confidence in the impartiality of international law.

Weak Enforcement

• International law depends largely on voluntary compliance because there is no centralized global enforcement authority.

Critical Overview

• The prohibition on force remains one of the strongest norms in international law, but its effectiveness depends on political restraint and institutional legitimacy.
• Over-expansion of anticipatory self-defence risks normalizing preventive war and weakening the foundational principles of sovereign equality and peaceful dispute settlement.
• Sustainable peace requires both a functioning legal order and a stable balance of power among major states.

Way Forward

• Revitalize the United Nations Security Council and strengthen respect for decisions of the International Court of Justice.
• Develop clearer international standards on anticipatory self-defence, necessity and proportionality.
• Promote inclusive multilateral diplomacy involving all affected regional stakeholders.
• Diversify energy sources and expand strategic petroleum reserves to reduce vulnerability.
• Reinforce global commitment to peaceful settlement of disputes and humanitarian law.

Data and Facts

• 1945: Adoption of the UN Charter.
• 1907: Hague Convention III regulated procedures before war.
• 1928: Kellogg–Briand Pact renounced war as an instrument of national policy.
• 1837: Caroline Incident established the customary necessity test.
• ~20%: Share of global oil trade passing through the Strait of Hormuz.
• >80%: India’s dependence on imported crude oil.
• ~9 million: Size of the Indian diaspora in Gulf countries.

Prelims Pointers

• Article 2(4) prohibits threat or use of force.
• Article 51 recognizes self-defence after an armed attack.
• Caroline Principle sets the necessity test for anticipatory self-defence.
• Kellogg–Briand Pact (1928) condemned war as national policy.
• The Strait of Hormuz lies between Iran and Oman.

---

Elusive peace

---

Why in News?

• On May 9, 2026, Vladimir Putin stated that the war in Ukraine was “coming to a close” and indicated willingness to meet Volodymyr Zelenskyy to discuss a long-term peace agreement.
• The statement signals growing recognition that after more than 4 years of war, neither side has secured decisive victory and that a durable settlement will require negotiated compromises.

Relevance

• GS Paper II: Russia–Ukraine conflict, European security, NATO expansion and global diplomacy.
• GS Paper III: Energy security, food security, inflation and global supply-chain disruptions.

Practice Question

• “The Russia–Ukraine war demonstrates the limits of military solutions and the necessity of negotiated diplomacy.” Discuss the strategic, economic and geopolitical implications of a prolonged conflict for Europe and the wider world.(250 Words)

Static Background

Beginning of the Conflict

• Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, describing it as a “special military operation” aimed at addressing security concerns and preventing Ukraine’s closer integration with NATO.

Historical Context

• The roots of the conflict lie in the 2014 annexation of Crimea, the Donbas insurgency and persistent tensions over NATO’s eastward expansion.

Minsk Agreements

• The Minsk I (2014) and Minsk II (2015) agreements attempted to halt hostilities in eastern Ukraine but failed due to deep mistrust and implementation deficits.

Current Situation

Territorial Control

• Russia currently controls more than 20% of Ukrainian territory, including Crimea and substantial parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.

Battlefield Stalemate

• Despite localized advances, the frontline has remained largely static in 2026, while both sides continue long-range drone and missile strikes.

Human Cost

• The war has caused hundreds of thousands of casualties, millions of refugees and widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure.

Russia’s Position

• Russia seeks a comprehensive settlement under which Ukraine remains neutral, territorial realities are recognized, sanctions are lifted and a revised European security architecture is negotiated.
• Moscow argues that NATO’s expansion toward its borders created legitimate security concerns, though these do not justify violations of sovereignty under international law.

Ukraine’s Position

• Ukraine insists on preserving its sovereignty, territorial integrity and independent foreign policy choices, including closer integration with Europe.
• Kyiv maintains that any peace agreement must include credible security guarantees to deter future aggression.

NATO and European Security

• North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion has been a central source of Russian insecurity, while Eastern European states view NATO as essential for deterrence.
• The conflict has strengthened NATO cohesion and prompted increased defence spending across Europe.

Why There Is No Military Solution ?

Russian Constraints

• Russia has suffered significant military, economic and diplomatic costs, while battlefield gains have slowed considerably.

Ukrainian Constraints

• Ukraine has demonstrated resilience but lacks a realistic pathway to fully expel Russian forces through military means alone.

Strategic Deadlock

• Continued fighting is likely to produce additional casualties and destruction without fundamentally altering the balance of power.

Economic Consequences for Europe

• The war has triggered energy disruptions, higher defence expenditure and industrial uncertainty, weakening Europe’s economic competitiveness.
• Europe has become more dependent on the United States for security even as Washington’s long-term commitment appears increasingly uncertain.

Global Impact

Energy Security

• The conflict disrupted oil and gas markets, contributing to inflation and fiscal stress across energy-importing countries.

Food Security

• Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of wheat, sunflower oil and fertilizers; disruptions affected vulnerable developing countries.

Geopolitical Realignment

• The war accelerated strategic cooperation among Russia, China and other non-Western actors.

International Law Dimension

• Russia’s invasion violated the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity under the United Nations Charter.
• At the same time, the conflict has highlighted the limitations of international institutions in preventing major-power wars.

Europe’s Strategic Responsibility

• Europe has the greatest stake in ending the war because it bears the immediate economic, humanitarian and security consequences of prolonged conflict.
• European states must move from primarily military support to active diplomatic leadership aimed at securing a negotiated settlement.

Possible Elements of a Peace Settlement

• A verified ceasefire along current lines followed by phased negotiations on territory, reconstruction and sanctions.
• Security guarantees for Ukraine and confidence-building measures between Russia and NATO.
• International monitoring under UN or multilateral auspices.
• Gradual sanctions relief linked to compliance.

Challenges to Peace

Maximalist Demands

• Both sides maintain positions that are politically difficult to reconcile, particularly regarding territory and security guarantees.

Domestic Politics

• Nationalist pressures in Russia and Ukraine constrain leadership flexibility.

Trust Deficit

• Repeated violations and failed agreements have eroded confidence between the parties.

External Interests

• The strategic objectives of the United States, Europe and Russia do not always align.

Implications for India

Strategic Autonomy

• India has maintained a balanced approach, emphasizing dialogue, diplomacy and respect for sovereignty.

Economic Interests

• The conflict affected crude prices, fertilizer supplies and global inflation, directly influencing India’s economy.

Diplomatic Role

• India’s credibility with both Russia and Western countries positions it as a constructive voice for negotiated peace.

Overview

• The conflict illustrates that even large-scale military operations may fail to deliver decisive political outcomes.
• A prolonged stalemate imposes unsustainable costs on all parties and risks broader regional escalation.
• Durable peace will require compromise, credible guarantees and sustained multilateral engagement.

Way Forward

• Europe should lead a structured diplomatic initiative involving Russia, Ukraine, the United States and relevant multilateral institutions.
• Immediate priority should be a monitored ceasefire and humanitarian measures.
• Negotiations should address security guarantees, sanctions and reconstruction in phased stages.
• International institutions should support verification and compliance mechanisms.

Data and Facts 

• 24 February 2022: Beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion.
• >20%: Share of Ukrainian territory currently under Russian control.
• 4+ years: Duration of the war by 2026.
• Millions: Number of refugees displaced across Europe.

Prelims Pointers

• Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014.
• Minsk II Agreement was signed in 2015.
• NATO is a collective defence alliance founded in 1949.
• The conflict has major implications for energy and food security.