Following a significant military event, the United States bombed three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, prompting immediate reactions from the US government.
US President Donald Trump justified the airstrikes as a means to halt what he described as a “nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.”
In alignment with this sentiment, US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth stated that the strikes were part of a precision operation authorized by the president to neutralize perceived threats to American national interests, particularly concerning Iran’s nuclear program and the protection of US personnel and its ally Israel.
However, many legal analysts question whether such military actions can be justified under international law.
Under the United Nations Charter, there are two primary frameworks through which a state may lawfully engage in military action against another state.
The first stipulates that the UN Security Council can authorize military force in exceptional circumstances aimed at restoring or maintaining international peace and security, as outlined in Chapter 7.
To date, the UN Security Council has not provided authorization for either the US or Israel to attack Iran, despite ongoing concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions and several related resolutions that have been adopted over the years.
The second framework involves the right of self-defense, specifically dictated by Article 51 of the UN Charter, which allows for military action if a state has been subjected to an armed attack.
In this instance, evidence supporting claims of recent Iranian aggression towards the US is lacking.
While attacks involving Iranian-backed proxy groups have occurred, such as incidents linked to Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels, they do not provide sufficient legal backing for the strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Questions surrounding the concept of anticipatory or preemptive self-defense may also arise in this context.
This notion is contentious and has yet to be fully endorsed by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice.
Historically, the US has sought to adopt a broad interpretation of self-defense, which encompasses both anticipatory and preemptive self-defense, as notably illustrated by the Bush doctrine articulated in 2002.
This doctrine emerged in the wake of the September 11 attacks and was used to justify military intervention in Iraq, predicated on claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction that posed an immediate threat, a justification that was later discredited following the failure to find such weapons.
In evaluating whether Iran’s nuclear program constituted an imminent threat, two critical components must be assessed: the country’s nuclear capabilities and its intent to utilize such weapons.
Debate continues around Iran’s transparency regarding its nuclear dealings with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Importantly, the IAEA, which holds the authority and capability to assess nuclear programs, has publicly stated that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons capability at this juncture.
Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, emphasized that there has not been a systematic effort by Iran towards developing a nuclear device in recent times.
In President Trump’s statements, there was notable absence of any reference to Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons, further complicating the justification for military action.
While Iran has historically engaged in aggressive rhetoric against both Israel and the US, establishing intent to strike remains a precarious proposition.
Amid these developments, Israel has also taken military action against Iran, commencing a campaign on June 13.
Israeli officials argue they are exercising their right to self-defense against Iranian threats, informed by a belief that Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose a direct and imminent risk.
If Israel can substantiate its claim to legitimate self-defense, it subsequently has the right to seek collective defense assistance from its allies, including the US.
Evidence indicates that there was strategic coordination between Israel and the US leading up to the bombings on June 22.
Yet the international legal framework stipulates that collective self-defense rights hinge upon the legitimacy of the original nation’s self-defense claim.
Thus, the validity of Israel’s claims regarding an imminent threat from Iran is subject to intense scrutiny and is deemed contentious.
The broader implications of these strikes raise serious concerns about setting potentially dangerous precedents in international relations.
If states are allowed to interpret self-defense laws broadly, this could lead to a situation where nations initiate anticipatory or preemptive strikes against perceived threats without substantial justification.
Such a shift in interpretative standards could embolden other countries with military capabilities to undertake preemptive actions against neighbors or rivals based solely on conjecture regarding threats.
This could create additional instability, particularly in regions where nations are already contemplating developing their arsenals, as seen in considerations by Japan regarding nuclear deterrence in response to Chinese military expansion.
The responses of regional powers, such as China and North Korea, to Japan’s actions must also be factored into the equation, given the potential for escalation.
In light of the complexities surrounding the legality of the US strikes on Iran, Australia’s position remains a topic of discussion.
Foreign Minister Penny Wong has expressed support for the US actions, asserting that a world where Iran possesses nuclear weapons is untenable.
Importantly, however, Wong has not addressed the legality of the strikes under international law, an oversight that has drawn criticism.
The Albanese government is urged to engage in this crucial debate, especially given Australia’s historical commitment to uphold the rules-based international order, a principle that was significantly championed by former Labour leader Doc Evatt during the UN Charter’s creation.
The Labor government’s previous criticisms of the Howard administration’s actions during the Iraq War, which were deemed illegitimate under international law, heightens the expectation that current leaders will similarly advocate for accountability regarding breaches of international law.
Ultimately, the US strikes against Iran require careful examination through the lens of international law, and the consensus is that they violate established statutes governing the use of force.
image source from：theconversation
