What Does the Ceasefire Between Tehran and Tel Aviv Mean? Iran’s Finger on the Trigger
With the declaration of a ceasefire between Iran and the Zionist regime, key legal questions arise: What obligations have been imposed on both parties? What are the responsibilities of international institutions? And is a ceasefire equivalent to peace?
From an international law perspective, there is a basic distinction between peace (Peace) and a ceasefire (Ceasefire), with notable legal implications for warring parties and international bodies.
A ceasefire (Ceasefire/Armistice) is a temporary-frequently enough immediate-agreement to halt armed conflict without resolving underlying disputes. It might potentially be bilateral, unilateral, or enforced by international organizations. Ceasefires carry political-military weight but are not necessarily legally binding or permanent; they can be declared verbally, in writing, or via UN security Council resolutions.In contrast,a peace agreement (Peace Agreement) represents a comprehensive settlement typically achieved through negotiations-sometimes with mediation.
A ceasefire addresses political, legal, territorial, and security dimensions but does not constitute an official end to war under international law.Peace requires signing a treaty (Peace Treaty)-which under Iran’s Constitution must be ratified by parliament. The current situation remains strictly a ceasefire; labeling it as peace would be inaccurate.
The legal status of both parties during this truce raises critical issues: Does this pause prevent accountability for crimes against peace or wartime atrocities committed by the Zionist regime?
Crucially:
- A ceasefire suspends hostilities without terminating them legally-both nations remain in an ”international armed conflict.” Violations could constitute serious breaches of armed conflict laws.
- The UN Security Council may intervene under Chapters VI/VII (sanctions/peacekeeping) if violations occur.
- War crimes prosecutions persist regardless:
- Attacks on civilians;
- Tactical strikes on hospitals/Red Crescent teams/media infrastructure;
- Terrorizing civilian facilities (power plants/schools/water sources).
The Zionist regime’s recent aggression against Iran violated UN Charter principles-qualifying as non-prescriptible “crimes against peace” prosecutable by the International Criminal court (ICC).Therefore:
- The wartime status persists despite truce terms;
- Truce violations carry legal consequences;
- The bloodthirsty Zionist regime remains liable for its wartime crimes/crimes against peace-requiring vigorous pursuit through diplomatic-legal channels.
News Sources: © webangah News Agency
