Latest news with #MarkoMilanovic
Indian Express
10 hours ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Are Israel's airstrikes on Iran within legal bounds?
Is Israel's latest attack on Iran's military and nuclear facilities legal under international law? And would it be legal for the United States to intervene on Israel's behalf? The answer to those questions gets to the heart of the most basic principles of international law, which draw on hundreds of years of precedents to lay out when countries can justifiably use force against each other. Some experts say that if Israel is launching airstrikes on Iran solely to prevent a possible future attack, it would probably be illegal — and so would an effort by the United States to come to Israel's aid, as President Donald Trump considers whether to attack Iran's buried Fordo nuclear site. Other experts argue that the current military operation is part of a continuing conflict that began when Iran's proxies attacked Israel in 2023. That could strengthen Israel's argument that its actions are part of the defensive measures that followed those prior attacks, and thus legal. That same argument would apply to the United States if it attacks Iran at Israel's request. Jus ad Bellum and the Caroline Test The rules governing when states can use military force are known as the law of jus ad bellum, or 'right to war.' Jus ad bellum centers on the simple principle that states are prohibited from using force against each other, except in self-defense or if authorized by the UN Security Council. And even when the self-defense exception applies, the force must be limited to what is necessary and proportional. It is not a carte blanche for military conquest. Although those principles are set forth in the UN Charter, the law behind them is far older. The Caroline test — a rule of customary international law that says states can use force only when absolutely necessary, to address an imminent, overwhelming threat — stems from 1837, when British forces crossed into the United States to destroy the American ship Caroline, to prevent rebels from attacking Canada. (Precedents in international law often involve ships.) The principle still holds today that it is illegal to use military force to prevent a future attack that is not imminent. Israel's current bombing campaign appears to fall afoul of that rule, some experts say. 'There is simply no plausible way of arguing that Iran was about to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, which it doesn't even have,' Marko Milanovic, a law professor at Reading University in England, argued in a recent blog post. In his speech announcing the military operation, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appeared to describe the country's actions as preemptive. He said Israel was acting 'to thwart a danger before it is fully materialized,' and that Iran had enough material to produce nuclear weapons 'within a few months.' Several days later, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council, the Israeli government said the operation 'aimed to neutralize the existential and imminent threat from Iran's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs.' Iranian leaders have called for Israel's destruction in the past, and Israel's small size makes it especially vulnerable to nuclear strikes. However, US intelligence agencies assess that Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear weapon. Proxies and the Nicaragua Test Other legal scholars see it differently, arguing that Israel's military operation in Iran is part of a defensive response to armed attacks by Iran and its proxies, including Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. In that framing, Israel's attacks are not preventive, but rather part of an ongoing, justified self-defense operation. 'We are of the view that if the proxy war and the direct Israeli-Iranian hostilities are intertwined,' Amichai Cohen, a law professor at Ono Academic College in Israel, and Yuval Shany, a law professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, argued in a recent essay for the website Just Security, 'Israel is entitled to take self-defense measures against Iran, since some of its proxies — Hamas and the Houthis — continue to launch rockets against Israel almost on a daily basis with Iran's substantial involvement.' For that to be true, Iran's influence over its proxies would need to meet a legal standard that is sometimes called the 'Nicaragua test,' which arose from a case involving the U.S. backing of the Contra militia in Nicaragua. If a state has 'effective control' over a militia, it can be held legally responsible for the militia's actions. And if it has 'substantial involvement' in a particular attack, it shares in the legal consequences of that attack too. It appears unlikely that the 'effective control' standard would be met in this case, however. The members of Iran's so-called axis of resistance appear to have their own interests and to not be completely controlled by Iran. The New York Times has reported that Hamas failed to convince Iran to back its Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, for example. And while experts have long believed that Iran had considerable involvement in the military operations of Hezbollah, which began firing rockets on Israeli positions on Oct. 8, 2023, that group signed a ceasefire agreement with Israel last year, and for now appears to be staying out of the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran. Iran does not appear to have effective control over the Houthis. However, the United States has accused Iran of being directly involved in the Houthi rebels' attacks on ships in the Red Sea, which began later in October 2023, by providing targeting assistance. And the Houthis' attacks on Israel are still going on. Iran and Israel also traded direct strikes against each other's territory and personnel last year. In April, Iran fired hundreds of missiles at Israel in retaliation for an Israeli strike on an Iranian consular building in Damascus, Syria. Days later, Israel retaliated with strikes of its own against Iranian territory. Then, in October, Iran fired approximately 180 missiles at Israel in retaliation for Israel killing Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah, and Ismail Haniyeh, the leader of Hamas. But those strikes were relatively limited in both scope and time, so it is unlikely that they would be enough, on their own, to constitute an ongoing conflict. And even if there were such a conflict, Israel's escalation would still need to be necessary and proportional to its defensive needs, Shany said. What about the United States? The legality of a possible US intervention in the conflict would most likely turn on the legality of Israel's actions, Shany said. International law does allow collective self-defense, in which states provide assistance to victims of unlawful attacks, as long as the victim state requests it. That was why, for example, it was legal for the United States and other allies to assist Kuwait in repelling the Iraqi invasion in 1990. But if Israel's actions are illegal, then the United States' participation in them would be too, unless there was an independent justification such as a separate need for self-defense against Iran. International tribunals move slowly, so it is unlikely that Israel or the United States will answer for their decisions before a court soon, if ever. But the laws of war still matter. The shared expectations they create are part of the foundations of the international order, helping to preserve peace and stability. The rules have never been perfectly followed, and the international order never perfectly peaceful or stable. But every time the rules are violated, those shared expectations weaken, making the world more uncertain and dangerous.
Al Jazeera
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Are Israel's attacks against Iran legal?
United States President Donald Trump is considering joining Israel in what it claims are its efforts to destroy Iran's nuclear programme, based on its stated belief that Iran is 'very close' to developing a nuclear weapon. Israel argues that it has carried out attacks on Iran's military and nuclear sites over the past week in anticipation of an Iranian nuclear attack. But is this a valid justification? The United Nations Charter, which is the founding document for states' rights since World War II, outlaws aggressive war, allowing military action only as self-defence. Only the UN Security Council is empowered to decide if military action is justified, once countries have tried and failed to resolve their differences peacefully. If a country is attacked while the UNSC deliberates, that country still has the 'inherent right of individual or collective self-defence', however. The question of the legality of Israel's strikes on Iran, therefore, revolves around whether Israel – and any allies coming to its aid – can justify its attacks on Iran as 'anticipatory' self-defence. Many experts say they are not. 'This is not a situation in which Israel is allegedly responding to an Iranian attack occurring now, whether directly or through proxies such as the Houthis,' wrote Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at Reading University who has served on the International Criminal Court (ICC), in the European Journal of International Law, which he edits. Israel cannot make the case that an attack is imminent, argued Milanovic. 'There is little evidence that Iran has irrevocably committed itself to attacking Israel with a nuclear weapon, once it develops this capability,' wrote Milanovic. 'And even if such an intention was assumed – again, it would be for Israel to provide any further evidence of such intention – I don't see how it could plausibly be argued that using force today was the only option available.' 'Even if the broadest possible [legally plausible] understanding of anticipatory self-defence was taken as correct, Israel's use of force against Iran would be illegal,' he concluded. The United Kingdom's chief legal counsel, Richard Hermer, advised Prime Minister Keir Starmer against getting involved in any attack on Iran, 'unless our personnel are targeted', according to Sky News. 'The possibility of acting in self-defence in view of an attack that might be coming is illegal in international law and we're all very, very clear about that,' agreed Maria Gavouneli, a professor of international law at Athens University. She said nuclear weapons have been discussed in international legal circles as a special case. 'There might be a chance for anticipatory self-defence, in other words, an exception to the rule, when we have clear evidence that there is a nuclear weapon being built,' Gavouneli told Al Jazeera. Israel might try to make the case that its 'continued existence was at stake and they had to act', she said. To make this case, Israel would need 'warranties, some kind of evidence offered by the International Atomic Energy Agency', the UN's nuclear IAEA has said that it cannot verify what Iran is doing. But it has not clearly suggested that Iran may be building a bomb. Iran stopped cooperating with the IAEA in February 2021 after Trump annulled a key agreement during his first term that obliged it to do so. That agreement – the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – had been negotiated by Trump's predecessor, Barack Obama, in 2015. On June 9, IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi said Iran's failures to comply with reporting obligations had 'led to a significant reduction in the agency's ability to verify whether Iran's nuclear programme is entirely peaceful'. He said Iran had 'repeatedly either not answered, or not provided technically credible answers to, the agency's questions' regarding the presence of man-made uranium particles at three locations – Varamin, Marivan and Turquzabad – and had 'sought to sanitise the locations'. Grossi also described Iran's 'rapid accumulation of highly-enriched uranium' as a 'serious concern'. He was referring to 60 percent pure uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz, and the IAEA's discovery of 83.7 percent pure uranium particles at Fordow in 2023. Weapons-grade uranium is at least 90 percent pure. Under the JCPOA, Iran was to have uranium at no higher than 5 percent purity. On June 12, just before Israel launched its assault on Iran's military and nuclear sites, the IAEA approved a resolution declaring that Tehran was not complying with its commitment to international nuclear safeguards. However, this week, Grossi emphasised that the IAEA had found no evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons production. 'We did not have any proof of a systematic effort to move into a nuclear weapon,' he said. Iran has responded that it is a signatory of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), under which it has agreed not to develop or acquire nuclear weapons, and the discovery of highly enriched particles at its sites may be the result of sabotage or malicious acts. On Monday, Iran's Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that lawmakers were preparing a bill to withdraw Tehran from the NPT, in light of the Israeli attacks. In 1981, Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq's unfinished Osirak nuclear reactor, which was being built by French commercial interests, invoking anticipatory self-defence. But the UNSC Resolution 487 (PDF) strongly condemned the attack as a violation of the UN Charter and the 'inalienable and sovereign right of Iraq and all other States, especially the developing countries, to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes'. It also noted that Israel is not a signatory to the NPT. Israel is currently believed to possess 90 nuclear bombs. Then-President George W Bush also invoked the argument of preemptive self-defence when justifying the 2003 US war against Iraq. He suggested Iraq might one day 'cooperate with terrorists' to deliver a weapon of mass destruction on US soil, even though UN weapons inspectors said there was no hard evidence Iraq was developing such a weapon. The UNSC refused to endorse Bush's war, but he went ahead anyway with a 'coalition of the willing'. Once in control of Iraq, foreign troops discovered no weapons of mass destruction. In 2018, Israel revealed it had bombed a Syrian reactor 11 years before, apparently only just before it became operational, believing it to be part of a plan of the then-government of Bashar al-Assad to acquire nuclear weapons. Under Operation Outside the Box, it destroyed the North Korean-built plutonium reactor in Deir Az Zor in September 2007. Israel's justification was, again, that it was anticipating a Syrian nuclear attack. Israel killed several top Iranian physicists working on Iran's nuclear programme on June 13. It is suspected of having been involved in several more assassinations of Iranian physicists and engineers since 2010. Milanovic said scientists who were enlisted in the armed forces of Iran could be considered fighters and targeted. However, he said, 'scientists who are civilians – and most probably are – cannot lawfully be made the object of an attack. Simply working on a weapons programme as a researcher does not entail direct participation in hostilities that could remove civilian immunity from an attack'. Both countries have been criticised for carrying out attacks on each other's hospitals. About 70 people were injured when Iranian missiles hit the Soroka Medical Center in Beersheba in southern Israel on Thursday. Israel accused Iran of a 'war crime', but Iran said the hospital was close to a military site, which was the real target. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi claimed the missile attack hit an Israeli military and intelligence centre located near Soroka hospital, causing only 'superficial damage to a small section' of the health facility. Meanwhile, Israel itself has damaged or destroyed the vast majority of hospitals and medical centres in the Gaza Strip since its war on the Palestinian territory began on October 7, 2023. In many cases, it has argued that Hamas was using those sites as cover for its operations. But it is not permitted to strike hospitals and medical facilities under international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross, referring to international humanitarian law, states: 'Under IHL, hospitals and other medical facilities – whether civilian or military – enjoy specific protection that goes beyond the general protection afforded to other civilian objects. This elevated protection ensures that they remain functional when they are needed most. These protections were put in place by the Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims in 1949.' Israel also struck the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB, interrupting a live broadcast on Monday. TV anchor Sahar Emami denounced the 'aggression against the homeland' and the 'truth' as a blast went off and smoke and debris filled the screen. The footage then showed her fleeing the studio as a voice is heard calling, 'God is greatest'. Israel has also targeted and killed more than 200 journalists and media workers in Gaza since October 2023. In 2021, a building housing the offices of Al Jazeera and The Associated Press news agency in Gaza was destroyed in an Israeli strike. Media professionals do not have special protections under the Geneva Conventions, but they are protected under the same clauses that protect all civilians in armed conflict, according to the British Institute of Comparative and International Law.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Hindu
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
Middle East Eye
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Middle East Eye
Israel's attacks on Iran amount to crime of aggression, legal scholars say
Israel's attacks across Iran on Friday, which targeted "dozens" of sites including nuclear facilities, military commanders and scientists, are manifestly illegal, leading scholars of international law have said. Accusing the government in Tehran of beginning to build nuclear warheads, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attack was aimed at "rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival", adding that it would take "many days". "We struck at the heart of Iran's nuclear enrichment programme," Netanyahu said in a recorded televised address. "We targeted Iran's main enrichment facility in Natanz. We targeted Iran's leading nuclear scientists working on the Iranian bomb. We also struck at the heart of Iran's ballistic missile programme." Netanyahu's decision is premised on "preventive self-defence" arguments, which justify the use of force against another state to prevent an anticipated future attack. New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters However, such an argument is inconsistent with the rules governing the use of force under international law, including the limited justifications for the use of force established by the United Nations Charter and the prohibition of the crime of aggression. The use of force is only lawful if it seeks to repel an imminent attack or one that is underway, experts have explained. International law scholar Marko Milanovic said that the stated goals of Israel this time are about preventing a future nuclear attack by Iran. It is not a response to an attack that has started, or one that is imminent. Iran has yet to obtain any nuclear weapons. Therefore, there was no threat of an imminent attack justifying preemptive self-defence. 'It cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack' - Marko Milanovic, legal scholar There are three positions with respect to the right to self-defence under international law, explained Milanovic in an article for Ejil Talk. The first is that states can use preventive self-defence to deflect future anticipated threats, in particular those perceived to be existential. The second is that states can use force with the aim of preempting future attacks that are imminent, and the third is that states can only resort to the use of force when attacks have already occurred. According to Milanovic, the use of force to prevent a future attack, as used by Israel in its Friday operation, is considered 'legally untenable' by the majority of international lawyers. "Israel's use of force against Iran is, on the facts as we know them, almost certainly illegal," he wrote. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". 'No self-defence at all' The only justification for the use of force is outlined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is to respond to an attack that is underway. "Unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack," said Milanovic. "Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter. It is committing aggression." The crime of aggression is one of the four core international crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. It refers to the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression, or use of force in violation of the UN Charter, by a person in a leadership position, such as a head of state or senior military commander. Other scholars on Friday also accused Israel of committing the crime of aggression. Professor Kevin Jon Heller of the University of Copenhagen said: "Few acts are more unequivocally illegal than preventive (non-imminent) self-defence. So Israel's attack is both unlawful and criminal - the crime of aggression." "Israel's attack on Iran is not simply a violation of the UN Charter. It is a manifest violation of it," he wrote on X. Sergey Vasiliev of the Open University of the Netherlands also qualified the attack as falling under the crime of aggression. "This operation is an unlawful use of force," he wrote. "Iran presented no imminent threat to Israel that would justify such an attack. This is an act of aggression." Netanyahu's justification for Friday's attack is similar to arguments made by Russia to justify its invasion of Ukraine, said Milanovic, or those used by the US to justify the use of force against Iraq. "The problem with this approach is that it is so boundless that it completely eviscerates the prohibition on the use of force - a state could act whenever it perceives an existential threat," argued Milanovic. "In short, this 'preventive' form of self-defence is simply not self-defence at all." According to Jon Heller, while the US has taken the same position as Israel only occasionally, "Israel is the only state that has unequivocally endorsed the right of preventive self-defence."
CBC
17-05-2025
- Sport
- CBC
Colby Barnett's early goal lifts AFC Toronto past Halifax Tides 1-0 in NSL
Social Sharing Colby Barnett's sixth-minute goal held up as the winner for AFC Toronto in a 1-0 win over Halifax Tides FC on Saturday in the Northern Super League. An unmarked Barnett calmly slotted a volley past Tides 'keeper Erin McLeod after a high cross from Nikayla Small to give Toronto (2-2-1) the early lead at Wanderers Grounds. WATCH | Colby Barnett's goal in the sixth minute was the game-winner, as Toronto beat Halifax 1-0: Colby Barnett's early goal powers AFC Toronto over Halifax Tides 41 minutes ago Duration 1:05 "Nikki put in the most perfect ball that she could have. In my mind I was just like, `Do not miss this, do not miss this,'" said Barnett, who scored her first NSL goal. "I was really happy to be on the other side and it definitely feels nice. I get why the strikers like it so much." Toronto is now on a three-game unbeaten run and tied with second-place Ottawa Rapid FC and Vancouver Rise FC with seven points. Ottawa has played one less game. Halifax (0-3-1) is last in the NSL standings and still seeking its first victory of the league's inaugural campaign. Toronto held 51 per cent of possession with a 10-7 edge in shot attempts, including 4-2 on target. "We continue to work and get better. We're not too concerned with our record at this point — I said that after losses and I'm saying that after wins, we're just gonna continue to get better," Toronto head coach Marko Milanovic said. "As we put more work in, it looks better and better each week." Next up
