Israel’s Strikes on Iran: A Legal Assessment under International Law

Context:

Israel's recent military strikes on Iran have raised serious legal concerns. The central question is whether such use of force is permissible under international law, especially under the framework of the United Nations Charter. This issue involves interpreting Article 2(4) (prohibition of force) and Article 51 (self-defence), as well as evolving doctrines of anticipatory self-defence.

Legal Framework Governing the Use of Force

1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force in international relations.

2. Article 51 allows an exception—self-defence in response to an armed attack, provided it meets the criteria of necessity and proportionality.

3. According to international law expert Marko Milanovic, the right to self-defence is triggered only when an actual armed attack occurs.

4. As there has been no direct armed attack by Iran or its proxies attributable to Iran, Israel’s strikes lack clear legal justification.

Pre-emptive and Anticipatory Self-Defence

1. Israel claims the right to pre-emptive self-defence, citing Iran’s nuclear advancement as a potential existential threat.

2. This form of self-defence is not supported under Article 51, which requires an ongoing or imminent attack.

3. The Caroline Doctrine (1837) provides the legal benchmark for anticipatory self-defence:

   • The necessity must be instant and overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.

   • The response must be proportionate to the threat.

Interpreting 'Imminent' in International Law

1. Two main interpretations exist:

   • Narrow view: Imminence means an attack is about to occur, with clear and present danger.

   • Broad view: Includes potential or future threats, even if not immediate.

2. The narrow interpretation is legally preferred to prevent abuse by powerful states acting on assumptions.

3. The Caroline standard supports the narrow definition of imminence, emphasizing urgency and absence of alternatives.

Application to Israel’s Strikes

1. Israel’s justification is based on a broad interpretation of threat, linked to Iran’s nuclear programme.

2. There is no concrete evidence of an imminent Iranian attack.

3. Therefore, Israel’s actions do not meet the conditions for lawful anticipatory self-defence under international law.

Importance of Upholding International Legal Norms

1. International law, despite enforcement challenges, remains the primary framework for evaluating state actions.

2. Violations weaken global accountability and encourage unilateral use of force.

3. Legal norms are essential for maintaining the credibility of the international system and deterring violations.

4. Continuous legal engagement ensures states remain accountable, and impunity is prevented.

Conclusion

Israel’s strikes on Iran, in the absence of evidence of an imminent armed attack, fail to meet the strict conditions required under international law for self-defence.
Such actions risk being interpreted as acts of aggression, undermining the principles of the UN Charter.
Upholding established legal standards is crucial to maintaining global order and preventing the erosion of international norms.