1108hrs:
Day 157 and the intensity of the past 3 days has effectively evaporated.
Is it possible for the world (and the powers-that-be that reside in it) concede that peace cannot be delivered by our neighbours or the wider world?
Peace emerges from within, it cannot be injected or contrived from without.
We are ready to deliver peace to our own territory viz. AJK and in due course throughout the erstwhile princely State of Jammu & Kashmir viz. JKA.
This is a scheme & strategy that the United Kingdom needs to familiarise itself with first & foremost. In due course, the remaining permanent five (P5) members of the security council viz. France, USA, Russia & China need also to understand this.
The 4 non-negotiables are our guiding light. They cannot be delivered from the outside. They have been developed from the inside of this State.
....
A daily 2 minute Instagram video broadcast addressing peace in this region with the world, commenced today:
....
Google AI was asked the following question (in the context of what we're going through in AJK with the blessings of the Pakistani State)
Can there be legal aggression?
Google AI Overview
Yes, aggressive actions can be legal depending on the context, specific legal framework, and whether they are authorized or justified by law.
International Law (State Aggression vs. Lawful Force)
In international law, a general act of aggression (such as an unprovoked military invasion) is prohibited as a supreme international crime under the UN Charter and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. However, the use of force is legal in specific, recognized circumstances:
Self-Defense: Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state has an inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.
The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law
Security Council Authorization: The UN Security Council can legally authorize the use of armed force to maintain or restore international peace and security under Article 42.
• Jus in Bello (Laws of War): Once a war starts—even if it began through an illegal act of aggression—combatants on both sides are governed by international humanitarian law. Killing enemy combatants or causing lawful collateral damage in accordance with the rules of war is treated as legal within that framework, separate from the overarching crime of starting the war.
Domestic and Criminal Law (Force, Provocation, and Defense)
In domestic criminal and civil law, behavior that looks or acts aggressive (such as physical force or confrontation) can be legally permitted or justified:
• Self-Defense and Defense of Others: Using physical force to protect yourself or another person from imminent harm is legal, provided the force used is reasonable and proportional.
• Law Enforcement and State Authority: Police officers and state authorities are legally permitted to use physical force, coercion, or detention when executing lawful duties, arrests, or maintaining public order.
• Provocation Defenses: In some legal systems, a sudden and proportionate physical response to severe provocation or insult can mitigate or justify a charge like assault, though words alone rarely make full physical violence legal.
End of Google AI answer..
It did prompt me if I wanted a more refined answer in the context of internal law.
I put the follow-up question thus:
Yes, I would like to explore this from an international law perspective (like war and state sovereignty).
Google AI answer:
In international law, the concept of aggression is fundamentally tied to the destruction of state sovereignty. It is governed by jus ad bellum (the laws regulating when a state can legally go to war).
Because state sovereignty is the foundational pillar of the global legal order, the law treats an "act of aggression" as an illegal assault on that sovereignty. However, international law makes a critical legal distinction between the actions of a State and the criminal liability of an Individual.
1. The State Level: "Acts of Aggression"
Under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), an act of aggression is officially defined as the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence of another State.
The UN explicitly outlines exactly what behaviors constitute state aggression, regardless of whether a formal war is declared:
• Invasion & Occupation: Military invasion, temporary military occupation, or the forced annexation of another country's territory.
• Bombardment: Launching missiles, drop-bombing, or using any weapons against another state's land.
• Blockades: Graphing naval or military blockades around the ports or coasts of another nation.
• Proxy Aggression: Allowing your own territory to be used by a third-party state to attack a neighbor, or sending armed mercenaries and irregular bands to carry out violent raids.
The Sovereignty Rule: Under Article 2 of Resolution 3314, the first use of armed force by a state is prima facie (at first sight) evidence of an act of aggression. No political, economic, or military justification can validate it.
2. The Individual Level: The "Crime of Aggression"
While a state commits the act, international courts prosecute the individual human beings who pulled the strings. At the Nuremberg Trials following WWII, the tribunal famously declared that initiating a war of aggression is not just an international crime; "it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Today, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction over the Crime of Aggression under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute.
• The Leadership Requirement: This is strictly a "leadership crime." An ordinary infantry soldier cannot be charged with aggression. It applies exclusively to high-ranking political or military leaders who have the power to effectively control or direct a state’s actions.
• The "Manifest" Threshold: To be prosecuted as an international crime, the act of force must be a "manifest violation" of the UN Charter—meaning it must be severe in its character, gravity, and scale.
3. The Only Two Legal Uses of Force
Because aggression is illegal, international law dictates that a state's sovereignty can only be breached by military force in two highly restrictive, legal scenarios under the UN Charter:
1. Lawful Self-Defense (Article 51): If a state is the victim of an armed attack, it possesses an inherent right to use force to defend its sovereignty until the UN Security Council steps in.
2. UN Security Council Authorization (Chapter VII): Under Article 42, the Security Council can collectively authorize military action to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Any military cross-border action that does not fit into these two exceptions is considered legal aggression.
4. The Modern Paradox: Law vs. Geopolitics
While the law is clear on paper, the reality of state sovereignty creates severe enforcement challenges:
• The Veto Power Gap: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (US, UK, France, Russia, China) hold absolute veto power. If one of these nations—or their close allies—commits an act of aggression, they can block the UN from authorizing legal counter-measures or launching referrals.
• ICC Jurisdictional Hurdles: Unlike war crimes or genocide, the ICC faces heavily restricted jurisdiction over aggression. Under the 2010 Kampala Amendments, the ICC cannot investigate or prosecute the crime of aggression if the invading country is not a state party to the ICC Rome Statute, unless explicitly directed by the UN Security Council. This structural loophole has historically left the court hamstrung during major modern conflicts
End of Google AI answer..
....
