US strikes on Iran set a troubling illegal precedent

After the United States bombed Iran's three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a 'stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number one state sponsor of terror.'
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying:
The president authorised a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel.
Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another?
I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not.
Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state: the UN Security Council authorizes force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7
the right of self-defense when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51.
On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security.
The Security Council has long been concerned about Iran's nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorised the use of military force.
With regard to self-defense, this right is activated if there is an armed attack against a nation. And there's no evidence of any recent Iranian attacks on the US.
There have been incidents involving attacks on US assets by Iranian-backed proxy groups in the region, such as the Houthi rebels in Yemen and Hezbollah. In his address to the nation on Saturday night, Trump made reference to historical incidents the US believes the Iranians were responsible for over the years.
However, none of these actions is directly related to the strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Another possible ground the US can use to mount a case for its bombardments is anticipatory or preemptive self-defense.
Both of these aspects of self-defense are controversial. They have never been clearly endorsed by the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice.
The US has sought to assert a fairly wide-ranging, robust interpretation of the right of self-defense over many years, including both anticipatory self-defense and preemptive self-defense (which is particularly relevant in the Iran strikes).
The major point of distinction between the two is whether a potential attack is imminent. Anticipatory self-defense is in response to an attack on the brink of happening, such as when armed forces are massing on a border. Preemptive self-defense is a step further removed, before a genuine threat materializes.
Famously, in 2002, the administration of President George W Bush adopted what is known as the 'Bush doctrine' following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
This doctrine was framed around the notion of preemptive self-defense justifying a strike on another nation. This was one of the grounds the US used to justify its military intervention of Iraq in 2003 – that Iraq's alleged program of weapons of mass destruction posed an imminent threat to the US.
However, this justification was widely discredited when no evidence of these weapons was found.
With regard to Iran's nuclear program, an imminent threat would require two things: Iran having nuclear weapons capability, and an intent to use them.
On capability, there have been debates about Iran's transparency with respect to its cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
But, importantly, the IAEA is the body that has the authorization and capability to make judgments about a nation's nuclear program. And it said, at this point in time, Iran did not yet have nuclear weapons capability.
As Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA told the BBC:
[…]whereas until the early 2000s there used to be […] a structured and systematic effort in the direction of a nuclear device, that is not the case now.
Trump's statement in which he referred to the US military operation against Iran's 'nuclear enrichment facilities' was particularly striking. There was no reference to weapons. So, even the language coming out of the White House does not make reference to Iran possessing weapons at this point in time. Trump's address to the nation after the Iran strikes.
Further, many states have nuclear weapons capability, but they're not necessarily showing intent to use them.
Iran has a long track record of aggressive rhetoric against Israel and the US. But the critical question here is whether this equates to an intent to strike.
Israel began its military campaign against Iran on June 13, also arguing for the need for anticipatory or preemptive self-defense to counter the threat posed by Iran's nuclear program.
If Israel is exercising its right to self-defense consistently with the UN Charter, as it claims, it can legitimately call on the assistance of its allies to mount what is known as 'collective self-defense' against an attack.
On all the available evidence, there's no doubt the Israelis and Americans coordinated with respect to the US strikes on June 22. At face value, this is a case of collective self-defense.
But, importantly, this right is only valid under international law if the original Israeli right to self-defense is legitimate.
And here, we encounter the same legal difficulties as we do with the US claim of self-defense. Israel's claim of an imminent attack from Iran is very dubious and contentious on the facts.
The overarching concern is these strikes can set a precedent. Other states can use this interpretation of the right of self-defense to launch anticipatory or preemptive strikes against other nations any time they want.
If this practice is allowed to go unchecked and is not subject to widespread condemnation, it can seen by the international community as an endorsement – that this type of conduct is legitimate.
There are many states acquiring conventional weapons that could be seen to pose a potential threat to their neighbors or other states. And there are several states considering the acquisition of nuclear weapons.
One example is Japan, where there has been some debate about nuclear weapons as a deterrence to future possible threats from China.
So, how might Japan's actions be seen by its neighbors – namely China and North Korea? And how might these countries respond in light of the precedent that's been set by the US and Israel?
Australia's Foreign Minister Penny Wong has come out in support for the US action, saying 'we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.' She hasn't, however, addressed the legality of the US strikes.
The Albanese government should be discussing this. There's an expectation, in particular, on the part of Labor governments, given former leader Doc Evatt's role in the creation of the UN Charter, that they show strong support for the rules-based international order.
Labor governments were very critical of the way in which the Howard government engaged in the US-led invasion of Iraq, asserting there was no basis for it under international law.
Accordingly, there is an expectation that Labor governments should hold all states accountable for egregious breaches of international law. And, when viewed through the lens of international law, there's no other way you can characterize the US strikes on Iran.
Donald Rothwell is professor of international law, Australian National University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

RTHK

2 hours ago

• RTHK

Israel targets Tehran and Fordow in latest strikes

Israel targets Tehran and Fordow in latest strikes Iranians protest in Tehran against the US attack on nuclear sites. Photo: West Asia News Agency/Reuters Iran's underground enrichment site at Fordow was hit again on Monday while Iran fired a salvo of missiles and drones at Israel and warned the United States that its military now has a 'free hand' to attack American targets in the wake of the Trump administration's massive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The Fordow facility was one of those hit in Sunday's attack, and it was struck again on Monday, Iranian state television reported. There was no immediate word on damage nor who launched the attack, though Israel said earlier it was conducting airstrikes on Iran. In Vienna, the head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said he expected there to be heavy damage at the Fordow facility already following the Sunday's US airstrike with sophisticated bunker-buster bombs. 'Given the explosive payload utilised... very significant damage... is expected to have occurred,' said Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. With the strikes on Sunday on Iranian nuclear sites, the United States inserted itself into Israel's war, prompting fears of a wider regional conflict. Iran said the United States had crossed 'a very big red line' with its risky gambit to strike the three sites with missiles and 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs . Israel said its defence systems were operating to intercept the latest Iranian threat, which apparently targeted the north and central areas of the country, and told people to head to shelters. Iran described the attack a new wave of its Operation 'True Promise 3,' saying it was targeting the Israeli cities of Haifa and Tel Aviv, according to Iranian state television. Explosions were also heard in Jerusalem. There were no immediate reports of damage. In Iran, witnesses reported Israeli airstrikes hit areas around Iran's capital, Tehran, around midday. They hit a power supply system in the Iranian capital, triggering outages in some areas around the city, Iranian media reported. The power distribution line in northern Tehran "was damaged, causing outages in some areas", Fars news agency reported. (AP)

South China Morning Post

2 hours ago

• South China Morning Post

Have Trump's Iran strikes given China a strategic advantage?

The US' direct engagement in the Israel-Iran conflict over the weekend could intensify its drive to secure critical resources – particularly rare earth minerals – a development that could strengthen China's position in its ongoing geopolitical and economic rivalry with Washington, analysts said. A potential escalatory spiral in the Middle East could push forward trade negotiations between the world's two largest economies, said Xu Weijun, an assistant research fellow at South China University of Technology's Institute of Public Policy. 'An intensifying situation would force the US to allocate more strategic resources there, leaving fewer resources available for competition with China in the Indo-Pacific, thereby easing pressure,' he said. 'On the other hand, one key focus of trade talks is rare earths, which are critical to modern technology and defence industries – and arguably a strategic vulnerability for the United States. As tensions escalate in the Middle East, Washington's urgency to secure these resources is likely to grow, giving Beijing more leverage at the negotiating table.' US President Donald Trump said on Saturday that the United States had conducted a 'very successful attack' on three nuclear sites in Iran. Tehran has pledged retaliation, and threatened to close the vital Strait of Hormuz. The strike has fuelled fears among various countries that tensions in the region will further intensify, and deepened Washington's military entanglements abroad at a time when its trade relationship with China remains stalled. China and the US remain locked in a tense stalemate over tariffs and other trade issues, with the most recent talks in London yielding little tangible progress.

HKFP

3 hours ago

• HKFP

China warns of ‘spillover of war' risk, urges Iran and Israel to de-escalate

China urged Iran and Israel on Monday to de-escalate in order to prevent the 'spillover' of their war, as fighting between the two foes raged for the 11th day. 'The Chinese side urges the parties to the conflict to prevent the situation from escalating repeatedly, resolutely avoid the spillover of war, and return to the path of political resolution,' foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said. Aerial assaults raged between Iran and Israel early Monday while Tehran vowed retaliation over the bunker-buster bombs American warplanes unleashed at the weekend on three nuclear sites. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged China on Sunday to help deter Iran from shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial trade route, following American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Beijing on Monday said the international community must do more to prevent fighting between Iran and Israel from impacting the global economy, noting the 'Persian Gulf and surrounding waters are important international trade routes'. 'Maintaining security and stability in this region is in the common interests of the international community,' the foreign ministry's Guo said. 'China calls on the international community to make greater efforts to promote the de-escalation of the conflict and prevent regional instability from having a greater impact on global economic development,' he added.