Australia must stand firm in its support for a rules-based order and reject any US requests for military aid
America's bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities has no legitimacy under international law and carries significant implications for Australia. This is especially the case given how an Israeli/American/Iranian conflict could escalate, Australia's longstanding military alliance with the United States and the delicate current state of Australian-US relations under the Trump presidency including anxiety over Aukus.
The United Nations charter recognises the right of all states to self-defence following an armed attack. However, certain conditions need to be met before a state can exercise self-defence which traditionally have been interpreted narrowly. Such an approach is essential if the UN charter prohibition on the use of force is to be maintained, and any legitimate use of military force is to be the absolute exception in the conduct of international relations. Use of force in self-defence is only permissible following an armed attack by one state against another, which has been extended to attacks from non-state actors. In this instance, there is absolutely no evidence that the United States suffered an Iranian armed attack.
There have been ongoing incidents since the commencement of Israel's 2023 military campaign in Gaza of Iranian-backed Houthi rebels attacking international shipping in the Red Sea, including US flagged shipping. Those incidents have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis and military responses have been directed at the Houthi forces. Importantly, there has been no recent attack on American-flagged shipping that could have triggered a US right of self-defence.
The US since 1945 also advanced a right of anticipatory and pre-emptive self-defence. Both concepts – which are framed around notions of the imminence of an armed attack occurring – are controversial in international law, are not directly referred to in the UN charter and have never been endorsed by either the UN security council or the international court of justice.
The Bush administration's 2002 US national security strategy advanced a version of pre-emptive self-defence in direct response to non-state actors possibly acquiring weapons of mass destruction. That doctrine was developed following 9/11 in response to the emergence of the Osama bin Laden and the Islamic State group, and their possible access to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This doctrine was partly relied upon by the Bush administration to support its 2003 military invasion of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein and rid Iraq of WMD. While the US did achieve regime change no WMD were ever found.
The Trump administration could argue it has come to the aid of Israel through an act of collective self-defence which is recognised in Article 51 of the UN charter. There are prominent examples of such conduct such as the 1991 Gulf War when the US-led 'coalition of the willing' came to the defence of Kuwait following Iraq's 1990 invasion. However, any legal argument supporting collective self-defence must be founded on whether Israel had a right of self-defence when it launched its initial 13 June strikes on Iran. This raises similar issues to those noted above and ultimately returns to an argument of Israel seeking to exercise a version of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defence which irrespective of the weak law on the facts is also very dubious.
Legally, politically and diplomatically this places Australia in a very difficult position. Australia came to America's military aid in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The Howard government famously invoked the Anzus treaty and joined in the military intervention in Afghanistan alongside the US. That was legally an example of collective self-defence that had been given implicit United Nations security council endorsement. The 2003 Australian military intervention alongside the US in Iraq was much more controversial and generated intense domestic political and legal debate. The Howard government's legal justification was framed around United Nations security council resolutions permitting Iraqi weapons inspections and the need for Australia to join other UN members in militarily disarming Iraq. There are no such security council resolutions authorising the disarmament of Iran.
In the absence of the US being the subject of an attack on its homeland and requesting Anzus alliance military support akin to 2001, it is unlikely that the Albanese government would confront the type of scenario the Howard government faced. There is a real prospect that if events in the Middle East continue to escalate and Iranian and Houthi attacks are launched against US shipping and US military assets that Australia could be asked to come to America's military aid irrespective of any Anzus obligations. With the Albanese government remaining firm in its support of Anzus, to turn down any US request for Middle East military support could spell the death knell for not only the Anzus military alliance but also Anzus.
Labor governments have a proud history of supporting the UN charter. The Albanese government consistently references its support for international law and international institutions. The US strikes on Iran require a firm Australian response supporting the rules-based international order. Any US requests for military support arising from these incidents should be declined.
Donald Rothwell is professor of international law at the Australian National University
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
8 minutes ago
- Sky News
Israel-Iran live: 'Bullseye!!!' - Trump claims Iran strikes caused 'monumental damage'; says he's open to 'regime change'
Donald Trump has asked why there would not be a "regime change" in Iran following US strikes, calling to "make Iran great again". Meanwhile, Iran's UN envoy says the current situation provides a "historic test" for the body. Watch and follow the latest below.
Sky News
14 minutes ago
- Sky News
Regime change: Is Trump about to 'Make Iran Great Again'?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 The US bombs Iran. Three nuclear sites heavily hit. Cue condemnation from Iran - and promises of retribution. As the Iranian foreign minister heads to Moscow to meet Vladimir Putin and discuss what to do next, we ask: what has happened, why did the Trump administration decide to take action, what's the response domestically and internationally - and what on earth could happen next. If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ Don't forget, you can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
US asks China to stop Iran from closing Strait of Hormuz
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on China to prevent Iran from closing the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important shipping comments came after Iran's state-run Press TV reported that their parliament had approved a plan to close the Strait but added that the final decision lies with the Supreme National Security Council. Any disruption to the supply of oil would have profound consequences for the global economy. China in particular is the world's largest buyer of Iranian oil and has a close relationship with Tehran. Oil prices have surged following the US' attack, with the price of the benchmark Brent crude reaching its highest level in five months. "I encourage the Chinese government in Beijing to call them (Iran) about that, because they heavily depend on the Straits of Hormuz for their oil," said Marco Rubio had said in an interview with Fox News on Sunday. "If they [close the Straits]... it will be economic suicide for them. And we retain options to deal with that, but other countries should be looking at that as well. It would hurt other countries' economies a lot worse than ours."Around 20% of the world's oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz, with major oil and gas producers in the Middle East using the waterway to transport energy from the region. Any attempt to disrupt operations in the Strait could could send global oil prices skyrocketing. They jumped to their highest since January, with the price of Brent crude reaching $78.89 a barrel as of 23:22 GMT Sunday. "The US is now positioned with an overwhelming defence posture in the region to be prepared for any Iran counter attacks. But the risk for oil prices is the situation could escalate severely further," said Saul Kavonic, Head of Energy Research at MST Financial. The cost of crude oil affects everything from how much it costs to fill up your car to the price of food at the in particular buys more oil from Iran than any other nation - with its oil imports from Iran surpassing 1.8 million barrels per day last month, according to data by ship tracking firm analyst Vandana Hari has said Iran has "little to gain and too much to lose" from closing the Strait. "Iran risks turning its oil and gas producing neighbours in the Gulf into enemies and invoking the ire of its key market China by disrupting traffic in the Strait", Hari told BBC News. The US joined the conflict between Iran and Israel over the weekend, with President Donald Trump saying Washington had "obliterated" Tehran's key nuclear sites. However, it's not clear how much damage the strikes inflicted, with the UN's nuclear watchdog saying it was unable to assess the damage at the heavily fortified Fordo underground nuclear site. Iran has said there was only minor damage to Fordo. Trump also warned Iran that they would face "far worse" future attacks if they did not abandon their nuclear Monday, Beijing said the US' attack had damaged Washington's credibility and called for an immediate UN Ambassador Fu Cong said all parties should restrain "the impulse of force... and adding fuel to the fire", according to a state-run CCTV report. In an editorial, Beijing's state newspaper Global Times also said US involvement in Iran "had further complicated and destabilized the Middle East situation" and that it was pushing the conflict to an "uncontrollable state".
