AUTHOR: MEHAK VERMA, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT ROHTAK.
To the Point
The outbreak of hostilities between Iran and Israel in early 2024 marked a sharp escalation in Middle East tensions. The war, rooted in decades of geopolitical hostility, was triggered when Iran launched missile strikes in response to an Israeli airstrike attack on its embassy in Syria. In retaliation, Israel undertook coordinated airstrikes across Iranian military and nuclear sites.
When the conflict between Iran and Israel escalated, both countries justified their military actions by claiming the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. As regional conflict threatens to spiral into a broader war involving proxies like Hezbollah, Houthi rebels, and Israeli allies, India has chosen diplomatic silence over disapproval. This choice of India sheds a light on India’s traditional policy of non-alignment (NAM) and neutrality. However, it also presents a layered legal and moral challenge. Is silence a violation of international responsibility, or a valid act of sovereign discretion?
Legal Jargon
Collective Self-Defence
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, countries may defend themselves and their allies if they face an armed attack.
Anticipatory Self-Defence
Based on the Caroline Doctrine (1837): Pre-emptive use of force is lawful only if an attack is imminent and unavoidable.
Proportionality & Distinction
Core principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) require military forces to avoid harm to civilians and restrict the excessive use of violence.
Abstract
This article explains how India carefully followed international law while staying neutral during the 2024 Iran–Israel war. Based on its long-standing non-alignment policy, India balanced key interests like oil trade with Iran and defence partnerships with Israel while respecting legal principles such as sovereignty, non-interference, and peaceful conflict resolution. By not voting in UN resolutions, urging peace, and holding private talks with both sides, India acted as a responsible neutral country. Even though some criticized its silence, the article shows that neutrality is a lawful and thoughtful choice that helps India stay independent and trusted as a possible peacemaker.
The Proof
India’s neutral stance in the Iran-Israel conflict is guided by its strategic interests and global positioning. It shares deep economic and geopolitical ties with both nations. With Iran, India has long relied on crude oil imports and is developing the Chabahar Port, which gives access to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing Pakistan, critical for trade and regional outreach. At the same time, Israel is one of India’s top defence suppliers, providing cutting-edge military technology, cybersecurity systems, and agricultural innovations. To protect these vital partnerships, India follows a policy of “issue-based alignment,” meaning it works with different countries like the U.S. on Indo-Pacific security, Russia on defence, and Iran on connectivity without entering formal alliances. This balancing act helps India preserve strategic autonomy while maintaining good relations with key global partners for trade.
Legally, India’s position is supported by the UN Charter and international humanitarian law. Articles 2(4), 2(7), and 33 of the UN Charter prohibit force, protect state sovereignty, and encourage peaceful dispute resolution, all of which India upholds. India also aligns with global rules under the Geneva Conventions and ICRC guidelines, which require neutral states to avoid providing military support and to protect civilians. Reflecting these principles, India has consistently called for restraint and dialogue, sentenced civilian deaths without blaming any party, and abstained from UN resolutions that could damage its ties with either country. Like Switzerland’s neutrality in WWII or ASEAN’s quiet stance on the South China Sea, India’s model of modern neutrality is backed by diplomacy, law, and calculated silence. Through back-channel talks with both Tehran and Tel Aviv, and by keeping its military cooperation with Israel separate from conflict narratives, India maintains its core interests while promoting peace.
Case Law
Caroline Case (1837)- Sets a high threshold for anticipatory self-defence: necessity, immediacy, proportionality.
Nicaragua v. United States (ICJ, 1986)- Affirmed that non-intervention is a binding norm; covert support violates sovereignty.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (ICJ, 1996)- Neutral states must refrain from aiding parties in armed conflict, even in extreme scenarios.
Ukraine v. Russia (ICJ, 2022)-Provisional measures emphasized the need to respect international humanitarian law even during active hostilities.
Conclusion
In order to end this, we can see that India’s response to the Iran-Israel conflict is a smart and balanced move rooted in international law and its own national interests. By staying neutral, India keeps the door open to act as a peacemaker in the future, avoids getting caught in religious or regional rivalries, and protects its vital needs like energy, trade, and security. This approach also shows that India respects global legal norms without upsetting important allies. Even if it seems passive to some, I think it’s actually a thoughtful and practical stand in a complex and changing world.
FAQS
Q1. Can a neutral state protest for the abuse of human rights?
Yes. A neutral state can condemn humanitarian violations, urge ceasefires, and support relief efforts, as long as it avoids military or logistical support to either side.
Q2. Is abstention at the UN a breach of responsibility?
No. Abstention is a legitimate tool of neutrality. It allows states to signal concern without aligning with a bloc.
Q3. Can India perform as a mediator in the Iran–Israel conflict?
Yes. Under Article 33 of the UN Charter, peaceful settlement methods like mediation are encouraged.
Q4. Does neutrality mean no opinion at all?
Not necessarily. Neutral states can express opinions on civilian protection, humanitarian norms, and international peace, but cannot take operational sides.
Q5. Has India taken similar positions in other conflicts?
Yes. India adopted similar neutral positions in the Russia–Ukraine conflict, Syrian war, and U.S.–Iraq invasion often prioritizing sovereignty, dialogue, and de-escalation.