On 13 May 1998, the Ethiopian Federal Parliament and the Council of Ministers condemned the aggression committed by the armed forces of Eritrea against Ethiopia, declared that it reserved the right of legitimate self-defense while indicating that legal and peaceful means to undo the aggression remained valid.

   The resolution by the highest political institutions on the unprovoked aggression invoked three international law principles which govern modern-day inter-states relations. These are: the inviolability of state sovereignty, the natural and inherent right of states to take action in self-defense and the obligation of states to exhaust all peaceful and legal means to resolve conflicts.

   Third-party facilitators, including the Governments of Rwanda and the United States, the Organization of African Unity and the United Nations' Security Council, have indicated in varying degrees their disapproval of the use of force to settle disputes. However, the emphasis has been on the need to refrain from the use of force to resolve the crisis and on the need to resort to legal and peaceful means of solving the problem, to which Ethiopia has given a positive response.

   The only reason why the peaceful option has not borne fruit lies in the refusal by the Eritrean side to recognize that its aggression has violated international law principles and that Asmara is duty-bound to return to respect the rule of law. In response to peace initiatives, the Eritrean authorities have stuck to their gun: that their aggression which is a crime against international peace is nobody's business, that their action, although it is illegal, should hold and that it should be rewarded.

   The principle of customary international law dictates that states are under mutual obligation to respect one another's sovereignty and they are bound by law not to violate the sovereignty of other states. This principle has been formally established as binding on all states in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter which dictates that:

   "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

   The provision on the inviolability of state sovereignty was elaborated in the Declaration on the Principles of International Law adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970, which in particular defines aggression as follows:

   "The first use of armed forces by a state in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression..."

   An act of aggression is:

"The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a state of the territory of another state, or any other military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another state or part thereof."

   On 12 May 1998, columns of the Eritrean army, backed by tanks, moved into Badme town and its environs, overwhelmed the local police and militia, and invaded Ethiopian territory. This constitutes aggression as defined by the 1970 Declaration of the UN General Assembly and a violation of the inviolability of state sovereignty in contravention of customary international law principles which have evolved over time as the rules of inter-states relations and have been refined and formally established by article 2(4) of the UN charter. Therefore, aggression has taken place which should be condemned as a breach of international law and must be undone on the basis of the relevant provisions of the UN Charter.

   To be seen as yet is condemnation by the international community in the way that the Security Council of the United Nations did with regard to aggressions elsewhere, for the example the occupation in 1982 of the Falkland Islands by Argentina. Argentina invaded the Islands which had been under British administration. The United Kingdom acted based on the principle that it was not obliged to remain passive and evicted the invaders a few weeks after they had occupied the Islands. Regardless of the legality of British administration of the territory, the Security Council condemned the occupation and demanded the withdrawal of Argentine forces. Even though the international community has condemned the use of force to achieve policy objectives with reference to the crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea, both the aggressor and the victim are treated in the same way.

   However, the Eritrean aggressors and the international community are aware of the provisions under customary international law and the UN Charter of the action that the victim is entitled to take.

   No state is obliged by customary international law to remain passive when another state takes actions inimical to its legally protected interests. Article 51 of the UN Charter expressly authorizes action in self-defense with the provision that "Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member State"of the United Nations.

   The Charter, therefore, recognizes the natural and inherent right of victims of direct armed attack and invasion to act in the exercise of legitimate self-defense. The competence of states to repel an armed attack and invasion is indisputable.

   Since a war of aggression is a crime against international peace and, therefore, gives rise to international responsibility, the international community is duty-bound to mount an appropriate response. In particular, today's community of interdependent nations is under obligation imposed by the Charter to make sure that no territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression is recognized as acceptable on any pretext whatsoever. Ethiopia has never anticipated, nor does it require, a collective response of the type which was mounted to undo the invasion of Kuwait in 1990/91, although the threat to international peace inherent in the case of Kuwait and the invasion of Ethiopian territory by Eritrea is the same. Nevertheless, the signals of the attitude publicly demonstrated so far have tended to encourage the aggressor to persist in refusing to submit to the law.

   While the law is clear on the criminality of Eritrea's aggression and its ramifications in particular on the legally-sanctioned right to remove the threat to international peace, the fact remains that the crime has yet to be condemned even as a matter of formal requirement of the law. The exercise of legitimate self-defense does not, however, require prior sanctions by the Security Council of the UN in line with its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. The point being made here is that a clear warning to the aggressor from the International is in order.

   In sending its regular armed forces across an international frontier which had existed years after Eritrean independence, the Government of Eritrea has flouted the collective decision of Africa which is binding on all members of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the effect that boundaries which existed at the time of independence should be respected. Therefore, any attempt to alter the boundaries by force of arms, as the Eritrean regime has done regarding its border with Ethiopia, is a breach of the OAU statutes. The OAU has yet to make its position clear on the implications of the breach of one of the pillars of the rules that govern interstate relations in Africa to maintain peace and stability.

   By law, Ethiopia's right to act in the exercise of legitimate self-defense has the support of the international community, including the OAU, because no state is obliged to remain passive to aggression against its sovereignty and territorial integrity.

   In concise terms, Ethiopia is a victim of aggression as defined by the UN General Assembly in its declaration on what constitutes a breach of the law on the inviolability of state sovereignty as enunciated in article 2(4) of the UN Charter.

   If the aggressor does not comply with the provisions of international law and withdraw from the occupied Ethiopian territory, and if the aggressor continues with the refusal to conform to norms and principles of inter-state relations, the Ethiopian Government is left with no alternative but to fulfill its constitutional obligations. When all peaceful options are exhausted, Ethiopia has a right under all provisions of international law to force the aggressor out of its territory in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter.