Former Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio raised concerns over the growing tendency of states to justify military action under broad interpretations of self-defense and preventive war.
In discussing tensions involving Iran, Israel, and armed proxy groups in the Middle East, Justice Carpio emphasized that international law imposes strict limitations on when force may legally be used. Under the UN Charter, self-defense is generally recognized only in response to an imminent armed attack.
Carpio warned that loosening these standards risks normalizing unilateral military action, where states invoke vague or speculative threats to justify attacks outside established legal frameworks.
He also noted that modern conflicts involving proxy organizations create additional legal and diplomatic complications, especially when states attempt to attribute responsibility indirectly.
Despite frustrations over Security Council paralysis, Justice Carpio maintained that disputes should still be brought before international institutions rather than settled solely through force.
Key points:
- International law recognizes self-defense only against imminent threats
- Imminent threats require visible preparation for attack
- Proxy groups complicate interpretations of armed conflict
- Disputes should still be brought before the UN Security Council
- Weakening legal standards risks normalizing unilateral military action