07/07/2025
The Legal and Humanitarian Implications of Military Action in Tigray:
Abiy Ahmed's potential decision to engage in military action against the Tigray region raises significant concerns under both international and national legal frameworks. The Pretoria Agreement, signed in November 2022, aimed to establish a ceasefire and promote peace in the Tigray region following a brutal conflict that had devastating humanitarian consequences. Any resumption of hostilities would not only violate this agreement but also undermine the principles of international law that govern state behaviour during conflicts.
At the international level, the United Nations Charter emphasises the importance of resolving disputes through peaceful means and prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Article 2(4) of the Charter explicitly forbids member states from using force against one another, except in cases of self-defence or with the authorisation of the UN Security Council. Should Abiy Ahmed initiate military action against Tigray, it would contravene these principles, potentially leading to international condemnation and isolation.
Moreover, the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols provide a framework for the protection of civilians and the conduct of hostilities. Any military action that results in civilian casualties or destruction of civilian infrastructure would likely constitute a violation of international humanitarian law. The conflict in Tigray has already resulted in widespread human rights abuses, and further military engagement could exacerbate the humanitarian crisis, leading to increased suffering for the civilian population and potential accountability for war crimes.
On the national level, Ethiopia's Constitution recognises the right of self-determination for its regional states, including Tigray. Article 39 grants the right to secession, reflecting the historical context of ethnic federalism in Ethiopia. Any military action against Tigray could be interpreted as a violation of this constitutional right, leading to further internal dissent and instability. The Ethiopian government has a responsibility to uphold its constitutional commitments and engage in dialogue with Tigrayan leaders rather than resorting to military solutions.
Additionally, the potential consequences of renewed conflict extend beyond legal implications. A resurgence of violence could lead to significant economic repercussions for Ethiopia, already grappling with challenges such as inflation, food insecurity, and a strained economy due to the previous conflict. The international community, including donor nations and organisations, may respond to renewed hostilities with sanctions or reduced aid, further destabilising the country.
Furthermore, Abiy Ahmed's regime could face internal backlash from various ethnic groups within Ethiopia who may view military action as an overreach of power. The Tigray conflict has already heightened ethnic tensions, and a renewed military campaign could ignite further unrest, undermining the government's legitimacy and stability.
In conclusion, Abiy Ahmed's potential decision to resume military action against Tigray would not only violate the internationally recognised Pretoria Agreement but also contravene established international and national legal frameworks. The consequences of such actions could be dire, leading to humanitarian crises, economic instability, and increased internal dissent. It is imperative for the Ethiopian government to prioritise dialogue and reconciliation over military engagement to ensure lasting peace and stability in the region. The path to peace lies in addressing the underlying grievances and fostering a climate of trust and cooperation among Ethiopia's diverse communities. Only through inclusive dialogue can the nation hope to heal from the wounds of conflict and build a brighter future for all its citizens.
Addis-Alem Belay (PhD)
