The legality of Israeli actions under international law
While many nations may demur from taking a clear position on the legality of Israel's unparalleled military strikes against Iran for a multitude of reasons, an inescapable question confronting the global community is whether these strikes are legal under international law. It is axiomatic to state that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the use of force in international relations, allowing narrow exceptions such as self-defence under Article 51, which permits a state to use force 'if an armed attack occurs', adhering to necessity and proportionality. According to international lawyer Marko Milanovic, the legality of a country's use of force hinges on the legal conception of self-defence. If self-defence is limited to repelling armed attacks, Israel's current use of force is illegal, as there was no armed attack from Iran or non-state actors whose actions were attributable to Iran. Consequently, as per this interpretation, Israel's use of force is illegal and would amount to aggression, which is a war crime under international law.
Pre-emptive self-defence
What about the contention that Israel's military actions against Israel can be justified under pre-emptive self-defence, i.e., the right of the states to use force against an 'armed attack' that is yet to occur? The argument is that Iran is close to acquiring the capability to develop nuclear weapons, and once it receives the said capability, it will destroy Israel, as its leaders have vowed. Indeed, Israel justifies its war against Iran by claiming that its actions are pre-emptive self-defence against Iran's nuclear programme.
Pre-emptive self-defence in international law is contentious because arguing for the use of force against an anticipated armed attack contradicts Article 51. On the other hand, international lawyers such as Rosalyn Higgins argue that requiring a state to wait for an armed attack to occur before it can defend itself would be impractical.
Notwithstanding the disputable nature of pre-emptive self-defence, for the sake of argument, let us assume that such a right exists. The question, then, is how to define it, keeping in mind that an overtly broad articulation of such a right would violate not only the letter but also the spirit of the UN Charter. Arguably, a country has a right to pre-emptive self-defence if an armed attack has not occurred but is imminent. A better phrase for this is anticipatory self-defence. Support for this proposition is often drawn from the famous Caroline incident of 1837. This incident involved a pre-emptive strike by British forces in Canada against the American ship, Caroline. This ship was used by Americans who empathised with the rebels fighting British rule in Canada to ferry arms to the rebels. Over the years, this incident led to the emergence of what is known as the Caroline doctrine for the use of force. As in this doctrine, a state claiming pre-emptive self-defence would have to show that the necessity of self-defence was 'instant', 'overwhelming', 'leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation'. Further, the force used should be proportionate. In simpler terms, a valid use of force as part of pre-emptive (or anticipatory) self-defence would require an armed attack that is imminent.
Meaning of imminence
However, there is no consensus on the meaning of 'imminent'. As Milanovic argues, the first meaning of 'imminent' is a restrictive one that has a temporal dimension. In other words, an 'imminent' attack means one that is temporally proximate, i.e., about to happen. The second meaning is expansive, where an attack may occur at some point in the future. Allowing a state to use pre-emptive self-defence, relying on the expansive meaning of imminent, would imply giving a licence to powerful states to act unilaterally merely based on conjecture. It would be an open invitation to armed aggression, which would surely defeat the very objective of forbidding the use of force under the UN Charter. Moreover, this broad meaning would also not be consistent with the Caroline doctrine, which amply limits the use of pre-emptive self-defence through qualifiers such as 'instant', 'overwhelming', and 'leaving no room for deliberation'. In short, there is abundant support for a narrower interpretation of 'imminent'.
Applying this legal understanding to Israel's use of force, it is clear that for Israel to make a credible case for pre-emptive self-defence, it must demonstrate that an attack from Iran was imminent, meaning an attack was about to occur. The argument that Israel acted in pre-emptive self-defence because Iran is closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, which could pose an existential threat to Israel, relies on a broader interpretation of 'imminent', which is not supported by international law.
It is the primary framework
Cynics might argue that this debate is futile in a world where there is scant respect for international law. After all, international law has failed abjectly to stop wars despite the adoption of the UN Charter eight decades ago. However, international law remains the primary framework for determining the legitimacy of state conduct. It is the only means by which state power can be held accountable internationally. Thus, it is essential to invoke and marshal international law in the teeth of its gravest violations by regimes that believe they can act with impunity.
Prabhash Ranjan is Professor and Vice Dean (Research) at the Jindal Global Law School. The views expressed are personal
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
26 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Israel claims it killed veteran Iran commander Saeed Izadi as both sides attack
Israel said on Saturday it had killed a veteran Iranian commander as the countries traded attacks, a day after Tehran said it would not negotiate over its nuclear programme while under threat and Europe tried to keep peace talks alive. Earlier a prayer ceremony was conducted for Amin Karami, a member of Iranian Revolutionary Guard, who was killed during Israeli strikes.(AP) Saeed Izadi, who led the Palestine Corps of the Quds Force, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' overseas arm, was killed in a strike in an apartment in the Iranian city of Qom, said Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz. Calling his killing a "major achievement for Israeli intelligence and the Air Force", Katz said in a statement that Izadi had financed and armed the Palestinian militant group Hamas ahead of its October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, which triggered the war in Gaza. The Revolutionary Guards said five of its members had been killed in attacks on Khorramabad, according to Iranian media reports that did not mention Izadi, who was on U.S. and British sanctions lists. Iranian media had said earlier on Saturday that Israel had attacked a building in Qom, with initial reports of a 16-year-old killed and two people injured. Iran's Fars news agency said Israel had targeted the Isfahan nuclear facility, one of the nation's biggest, but there was no leakage of hazardous materials. The Israeli military said it had launched a wave of attacks against missile storage and launch infrastructure sites in Iran. Follow for live update on Israel-Iran conflict Ali Shamkhani, a close ally of Iran's supreme leader, said he had survived an Israeli attack. "It was my fate to stay with a wounded body, so I stay to continue to be the reason for the enemy's hostility," he said in a message carried by state media. Early on Saturday, the Israeli military warned of an incoming missile barrage from Iran, triggering air raid sirens across parts of central Israel, including Tel Aviv, as well as in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Interceptions were visible in the sky over Tel Aviv, with explosions echoing across the metropolitan area as Israel's air defence systems responded. There were no reports of casualties. Iran's nuclear programme Israel began attacking Iran on June 13, saying its longtime enemy was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Iran, which says its nuclear programme is only for peaceful purposes, retaliated with missile and drone strikes on Israel. Israel is widely assumed to possess nuclear weapons. It neither confirms nor denies this. Its air attacks have killed 639 people in Iran, according to the Human Rights Activists News Agency, a U.S.-based human rights organisation that tracks Iran. The dead include the military's top echelon and nuclear scientists. Iran's health minister, Mohammadreza Zafarqandi, said on Saturday that Israel has attacked three hospitals during the conflict, killing two health workers and a child, and has targeted six ambulances, according to Fars. The Israeli military did not immediately respond to a request for comment. An Iranian missile hit a hospital in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba on Thursday. Iran's NOURNEWS on Saturday named 15 air defence officers and soldiers it said had been killed in the conflict with Israel. In Israel, 24 civilians have been killed in Iranian missile attacks, according to Israeli authorities. U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he thought Iran would be able to have a nuclear weapon "within a matter of weeks, or certainly within a matter of months". He told reporters at the airport in Morristown, New Jersey: 'We can't let that happen.' He said his director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there was no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon. Scan progress in Geneva Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi said there was no room for negotiations with the U.S. "until Israeli aggression stops". But he arrived in Geneva on Friday for talks with European foreign ministers at which Europe hopes to establish a path back to diplomacy. Trump reiterated that he would take up to two weeks to decide whether the United States should enter the conflict on Israel's side, enough time "to see whether or not people come to their senses", he said. Trump said he was unlikely to press Israel to scale back its airstrikes to allow negotiations to continue. "I think it's very hard to make that request right now. If somebody is winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody is losing, but we're ready, willing and able, and we've been speaking to Iran, and we'll see what happens," he said. The Geneva talks produced little signs of progress, and Trump said he doubted negotiators would be able to secure a ceasefire. "Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one," Trump said. Hundreds of U.S. citizens have fled Iran since the air war began, according to a U.S. State Department cable seen by Reuters. Israel's envoy to the United Nations, Danny Danon, told the Security Council on Friday his country would not stop its attacks "until Iran's nuclear threat is dismantled". Iran's U.N. envoy Amir Saeid Iravani called for Security Council action and said Tehran was alarmed by reports that the U.S. might join the war. A senior Iranian official told Reuters that Iran was ready to discuss limitations on uranium enrichment but that it would reject any proposal that barred it from enriching uranium completely, "especially now under Israel's strikes".
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Omar Abdullah reacts to Asim Munir-Donald Trump meeting: ‘We used to think US is our special friend, but…'
Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah said on Friday that the United States only acts in its own interest and doesn't care about other countries. His comment came after US President Donald Trump hosted Pakistan army chief General Asif Munir for lunch at the White House. Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah reacted to Pakistan's Asim Munir's meeting with US President Donald Trump in White House. (ANI) 'The US President (Donald Trump) is a master of his own will. Can we tell him whom he should invite for meals and whom not?' Omar Abdullah asked while talking to reporters at Srinagar railway station. He added, 'It is a separate issue that we used to think the US President was our very special friend, and he would respect our friendship. But obviously, America does what benefits it. They do not care for any other country.' Abdullah's remarks were in response to Trump hosting Asim Munir for a Wednesday lunch meeting at the White House. The meeting, held without any senior civilian officials, marked the first direct engagement of its kind between a US President and Pakistan's military leadership. Also Read | 'Honoured to meet him': Donald Trump after hosting Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir at the White House On the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, he said, 'This bombing should not have started,' and urged both sides to seek a peaceful solution through talks. "Before this, when the American intelligence in-charge was asked if Iran had the nuclear bomb, he had said he did not think Iran could make a bomb for a long time. But Israel attacked Iran within a few months. This attack should stop, and the issues should be resolved through talks,' he said. The chief minister was referring to Israel's latest narrative that Iran is nearing the development of nuclear weapons — a justification Tel Aviv has cited for launching its offensive on June 13, targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, military sites, top generals, and scientists. Follow Iran Israel war live updates. Omar Abdullah on Indians stranded in war-torn Iran Abdullah further added that efforts are being made to safely bring back Indian students, especially those from Jammu and Kashmir, who are stuck in Iran. 'We cannot bring them back overnight, as airports and ports are closed. We are bringing them via road first to those cities where there is no bombing, then they are being brought back through Armenia.' A special evacuation flight carrying 290 Indian students stranded in conflict-affected Iran arrived safely at Delhi's Indira Gandhi International Airport late Friday night, marking the beginning of India's Operation Sindhu. Officials said two more chartered flights are scheduled to land on Saturday — one from Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, expected around 4:30 PM, and another later in the night at 11:30 PM. Both flights will arrive at Delhi airport's Terminal 3. Despite the ongoing regional tensions, Iran allowed its airspace to be used for the evacuation in a special gesture towards India.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Who Is Sajid Tarar, Pakistani-American Businessman Who Brokered Trump–Asim Munir White House Lunch?
Last Updated: A vocal supporter of Donald Trump since 2016, Tarar founded The American Muslims for Trump, and is known for advocating conservative values within the Muslim-American community A rare private lunch between US President Donald Trump and Pakistan's Chief of Army Staff, General Asim Munir, in the prestigious White House Cabinet Room dominated global headlines this week. According to Firstpost, this was only the second time in over two decades that a Pakistani military chief was hosted at such a level in Washington—the first being General Pervez Musharraf after the 9/11 attacks. As Trump discussed regional politics, the Isarel-Iran conflict and defence technology with Munir, there was buzz over who had been able to broker the high-level luncheon. Reports now suggest that it was Sajid Tarar, a Pakistani-American businessman, who orchestrated Munir's invitation during the latter's five-day US visit to strengthen bilateral ties. WHO IS SAJID TARAR? The businessman is a lawyer, activist, and Republican political figure based in Baltimore. Born in Mandi Bahauddin, Punjab, Pakistan, Tarar immigrated to the US in the 1980s–90s, studied law at the University of Baltimore, and became a US citizen. He runs multiple business interests and serves as President of Maximus Investment Group, dealing in finance and real estate. He's also the CEO of the Center for Social Change, a Baltimore-based non-profit focused on community programmes and social services. A vocal supporter of Donald Trump since 2016, he founded The American Muslims for Trump, and has spoken at Republican National Conventions and is known for advocating conservative values within the Muslim American community. He served as an advisor to Trump on Muslim‑American engagement and frequently appeared in conservative media defending the administration's policies. According to Times of India and Firstpost, Tarar's influence in Republican circles extends beyond political rhetoric. His son reportedly worked at the US State Department during Trump's first term, further signaling his integration into Washington's conservative establishment. He also advocates for improved India–Pakistan relations and has, in the past, praised PM Narendra Modi and encouraged regional peace initiatives. While the meeting made headlines for its setting, it also stirred controversy in Pakistan. As Moneycontrol and Economic Times point out, there was no official representation from Pakistan's civilian government. This raises concerns about the military conducting parallel diplomacy—a long-standing criticism in Pakistan's power structure. The fact that a private individual like Tarar could facilitate such a high-level engagement without the Foreign Office being involved has unsettled parts of Islamabad's civilian leadership. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MEETING? According to top diplomatic sources in Washington, Trump laid out a series of sweeping demands and bold offers aimed at reshaping the regional power balance during the lunch meeting. Trump has reportedly asked Pakistan for unconditional military and strategic support, including access to air bases, ground logistics, and potentially sea routes—making Pakistan a critical player in any upcoming military theatre. In return, Trump has promised Pakistan unprecedented access to American defence technology—including 5th-generation stealth jets and advanced missile systems—along with significant financial aid. Trump reportedly urged Munir to 'distance Pakistan from Eastern blocs," including BRICS, and instead re-join the US-led security framework. The Trump–Munir meeting comes amid shifting global alliances, ongoing unrest in West Asia, and a changing power dynamic in South Asia. As reported by Moneycontrol, this private diplomacy could signal a future alignment where military figures bypass diplomats. With his increasing involvement in geopolitical dialogues, Sajid Tarar may be shaping a new model of diaspora-driven diplomacy—one that sidesteps traditional gatekeepers in both Washington and Islamabad. First Published:
