The legality of war – Behind the Headlines
This February, Israel and the United States launched joint airstrikes on Iran. Military and nuclear facilities were affected with military leaders, nuclear scientists, civilians and the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei being killed.
Dr Caleb Wheeler, an internationally known expert in international criminal justice, asks, is the war initiated by the United States and Israel against Iran legal?
The international legal order is organised around the bedrock principle that countries are prohibited from using force, or threatening to use force, against other countries. The on-going bombing of Iran by the United States and Israel, and the retaliatory attacks launched by Iran, are unlawful uses of force that violate that principle.
The legal prohibition on the use of force is found in the United Nations Charter and customary international law. Two things must be shown to demonstrate that the force used by a country violates the law. There must have been a use force, which is met in this instance. Direct physical armed attacks, like bombings or missile strikes, are uses of force under international law.
Second, the use force must be directed against either the territorial integrity or political independence of another country. A country’s territorial integrity consists of the geographical area over which that country has the right to govern. U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iranian territory, and Iranian attacks on various neighbouring countries, all constitute infringements of territorial integrity as they were directed against countries that the attacking country had no right to be present in. Further, the U.S. and Israeli attacks also violated Iran’s political independence to the extent that they intended to precipitate regime change within Iran.
There are two recognised exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force; when the force has been authorised by the UN Security Council or when a country is acting in self-defence. The first of these has clearly not been met because the Security Council has not authorised any of the states involved to use force. It is also unlikely that any of the attacks constitute self-defence.
Self-defence permits a state to defend itself when it is under attack or an imminent threat of attack. U.S. and Israel assertions of self-defence fail as there is no evidence to suggest that an Iranian attack was imminent or could be anticipated.
Iranian assertions of self-defence would also likely fail. Although they did attack military targets from which new attacks might be launched against Iranian territory, actions that could support claims of self-defence, they also targeted civilian installations including energy infrastructure, hotels, and airports. Had Iran limited its offensive to military targets, its assertions of self-defence might be plausible, but the inclusion of civilian targets undercut those claims.
From a legal perspective, the world finds itself in an illegal war that is expanding by the day, with no clear end in sight.