Provocation is not an innocent act

Provocation can amount to a tort or even a crime. In the UK the Public Order Act prohibits “abusive or threatening words or behaviour”, specifically “to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence”. Provocation means conduct that induces another to a violent response – out of fear, anger or outrage. Whereas in international law there is an absolute prohibition of the use of force enshrined in article 2(4) of the UN Charter, some powerful countries concoct exceptions, e.g. by postulating a non-existent right of “pre-emptive” self-defence or the so-called doctrine of “responsibility to protect”, both scams intended to circumvent Art. 2(4). Recent armed conflicts in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine document a tendency to water down the prohibition of the use of force. This is facilitated by a compliant media that manages the facts and the narrative in an attempt to “legitimize” the use of force, e.g. by the US in Iraq, or to absolve the provocateur, e.g. by downplaying NATO’s egregious provocations. It is surrealistic to claim that the use of force in Iraq was legitimate: It was naked aggression and a crime against humanity. Equally extravagant is to pretend that the invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked”. Admittedly, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine entailed a grave breach of the UN Charter. The provocation too violated article 2(4), which prohibits not only the use of force but also the threat thereof.  As Professors John Mearsheimer, Richard Falk, Jeffrey Sachs and others have pointed out, NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a hostile attempt at encirclement, hence an existential threat. Every attempt by Russia to defuse this menace by peaceful negotiation as required by article 2(3) UN Charter was rebuffed by the US and NATO. NATO’s on-going provocations in Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere amounted to geopolitical harassment in contravention of the letter and spirit of the UN Charter. It can be argued that provoking someone is more offensive that reacting aggressively to the provocation, because the provocation is deliberate, not accidental; the reaction thereof is ad hoc, lacking malice aforethought. Provoking means intentionally making someone angry,  throwing down the gauntlet, challenging to a fight. Of course, retaliation should be proportional to the provocation. But we humans have an awesome tendency to overreact. Bottom line: Both provocation and retaliation are reprehensible. But the one who provokes bears greater moral responsibility.