THE CITIZEN ON MARS

BY THIS MOMENT, a fair number of Israeli troops are already striding into Lebanon’s territory, with aim of ridding the menace of Hezbollah entirely. With this kind of aim, it would be fairly reasonable to expect that there’d be more Israeli foot soldiers to be sent beyond the borders up north. With this new development, finally the conflict arising thereat had finally become full-blown or “open” (as Hezbollah had threatened it to be).

One wonder why the Israeli government had not resorted to this method of attack at the initial part of its retaliatory move against Hezbollah and reneged on targeting civilian facilities like the Beirut airport, power plants and residential buildings. This way, it could rid itself of the Hezbollah menace in the southern part of Lebanon without hurting innocent civilians and jeopardizing the fledging democracy appertaining in that country at present. Let us not forget here that Lebanon itself is not the one at war with Israel, but with the guerilla units of Hezbolla, where the Lebanese army is keeping a safe distance from the ensuing conflict, even now that some Lebanese soldiers have already been killed by Israeli air raids. Selective attacks would have minimized the damage brought about by this surging military conflict.

It is clear by now that as a sovereign state, Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself and in the principle of “Hot Pursuit”, a country’s military or police can be justified to break into another country’s territory in order to pursue the attackers that had committed a grievous act in its own territory and had consequently fled towards another. In International Law, this principle is one rare exception where territorial integrity of a state can be set-aside without prior permission from the country intruded into by another country’s military or police force. In general, it could also help justify the breaking-in into enclosed premises without warrants of arrest in aim of cordoning a fleeing felon (Minnesota v. Olson 495 U.S. 91). I remember one instance where Malaysian boat patrols have pursued Filipino bank robbers all the way towards Philippine territory after the bank heist was committed in the eastern Malaysian city of Labuan. There is a strict requirement though for this doctrine of “Hot Pursuit” where this sort of chase should be done immediately after the commission of the crime and not a day after. It should be determined whether the chase is done instantaneously and continuously. This is similar to that mode of determination as to whether or not the crime of murder was committed. If the killing was done just some moments after a scuffle, it would most probably be homicide (a lesser charge than murder) but if already a day had passed after such and such scuffle—in retaliation of such—then it would already be murder since premeditation has already pervaded, where the assailant(s) already had ample time to be aware of the nature of his or her act. Did you know that when a man caught his wife while in the act of carnality, he could exert the fullest violent act—like killing his wife and the paramour— and escape any criminal responsibility for it, upon the justification that a man put in that situation would surely lose his head and suffer temporary insanity? (Where insanity becomes an exempting circumstance.) But if the man had killed already a day after witnessing the carnal act of his wife and the paramour, or even just hours after that, he won’t be justified anymore if he eventually killed any or both of them; for there would already be “ample time” for him to calm down and realize the nature of the act of killing. And that way, he couldn’t escape criminal liability anymore and should be charged with homicide or even murder.

In “Hot Pursuit”, the pursuit should be done immediately after the crime or malefaction and if a day had already passed, the intrusion of a country’s police or military into another country’s territory— in order to arrest the criminals who had committed a crime in their own country and had eventually fled towards another by crossing an immediate border—would be now tantamount to violation of that other country’s territorial integrity.

It is clear that Israel’s present intrusion into Lebanon’s southern territory could not be fully justified by the International Law doctrine of “Hot Pursuit” since the initial air raids launched by Israel were not really aimed at or targeted on pursuing the kidnappers of the two Israeli soldiers; where the attacks had happened already some days after the actual kidnappings were committed. Although generally, it would be in consonance with this principle.

See some resources on the doctrine of Hot Pursuit:

The Right Of Hot Pursuit In International Law

Searches With Exigent Circumstances

US Asserts Right To ‘Hot Pursuit’