The Right to Defend
The Right to Defend
A foreign fighter jet enters your airspace. It conducts a combat mission over your territory. Your country responds and damages that aircraft.
Who is the aggressor?
The answer should be obvious. But too often, it is not. Recent reporting about a U.S. fighter jet damaged after a combat mission over Iran highlights a deeper problem in how war is discussed and understood. When a military aircraft enters another country’s airspace to carry out operations, that country has the right to respond. That is not escalation. It is defense.
This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of international law.
Under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, every state has the inherent right to self-defense if an armed attack occurs. That principle does not depend on whether a government is popular, democratic, or aligned with global powers. It applies equally, or it does not apply at all.
And yet, in practice, it is applied selectively.
When powerful countries conduct military operations abroad, their actions are often framed in terms of strategy, security, or necessity. When smaller or less politically aligned countries respond, their actions are frequently described as aggression, escalation, or provocation. The same act, depending on who commits it, is given a different meaning.
That double standard distorts reality.
It also reinforces a dangerous precedent. If the act of defending one’s own territory can be reframed as aggression, then the concept of self-defense becomes conditional. It becomes something granted or denied based on politics rather than law.
This dynamic has played out repeatedly in modern conflicts.
The United States has conducted military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is ongoing, following earlier conflicts in Georgia and Chechnya. Israel has carried out military actions in Gaza and Lebanon. China continues to assert military pressure in disputed regions. North Korea remains a persistent point of tension on the Korean Peninsula.
In many of these situations, the countries on the receiving end of military force are forced into a defensive posture. Yet their responses are often scrutinized more harshly than the actions that triggered them.
That imbalance is not just inconsistent. It is consequential.
When global narratives excuse or soften the language around invasion while condemning defensive responses, they do more than shape public opinion. They signal to powerful nations that military action can be justified, reframed, or overlooked. Over time, that signal lowers the cost of intervention.
International law was not designed to operate this way.
The International Court of Justice has repeatedly affirmed that the use of force against another state violates fundamental legal principles, except in narrow circumstances such as self-defense. Sovereignty, including control over national airspace, is a core component of that framework. Under international aviation law, states have complete and exclusive authority over the airspace above their territory.
These are not abstract concepts. They are the foundation of how states are expected to interact without constant conflict. None of this means that governments should be immune from criticism. Many of the countries involved in modern conflicts have committed serious violations, both domestically and internationally. Those actions deserve scrutiny and accountability. But criticism of a government does not erase a country’s right to defend its territory. If that right is contingent on political approval, then it is no longer a right. It is a privilege granted by those with power.
That is not how law works. And it is not how it was intended to work. The language used to describe conflict matters. Terms like “retaliation,” “escalation,” and “aggression” are not neutral. They frame events in ways that influence how the public understands them. When those terms are applied unevenly, they create a distorted picture of cause and effect.
Journalism carries the responsibility of clarity. Describing an act of defense as aggression, while minimizing the initiating action, is not neutrality. It is a misrepresentation of reality.
If there is any hope of reducing conflict, the starting point must be consistency. The principles that govern international law must be applied equally, regardless of who is involved. Because when they are not, the consequences extend beyond any single incident. They shape a world in which power determines legitimacy, and the rules meant to restrain conflict become tools that justify it.
If international law means anything, it must apply equally. Otherwise, it is not law. It is permission.
---
Sources
United Nations. Charter of the United Nations, Article 51 (Self-Defense).
International Court of Justice. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), 1986.
International Court of Justice. Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), 2003.
International Civil Aviation Organization. Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), 1944.
International Committee of the Red Cross. Customary International Humanitarian Law Database.