Latest news with #test
Indian Express
a day 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.
The Independent
2 days ago
- Science
- The Independent
Moment Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket erupts into huge fireball
A SpaceX Starship rocket exploded during a routine static fire test on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at the company's Starbase launch site in Texas. The incident occurred as the rocket was undergoing preparations for its tenth flight test. Footage captured the 36-rocket blowing up, leading to an enormous fireball. SpaceX described the event as a "major anomaly" but confirmed that all personnel were safe and accounted for, with no hazards to nearby communities. Watch the video in full above.
Top Gear
10-06-2025
- Automotive
- Top Gear
Watch: the best van you can buy today... based on extreme testing
Advertisement Video We test the UK's best-selling vans and put them to the test. A difficult test... 21 minutes 46 seconds The UK is built by the van, but which is best? To find out, we took three of the best-selling, medium-sized ones and set them a series of vaguely relevant challenges to find out… Advertisement - Page continues below You might like Advertisement - Page continues below Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter. Look out for your regular round-up of news, reviews and offers in your inbox. Get all the latest news, reviews and exclusives, direct to your inbox.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Men are using bizarre tactics to determine if a date is a gold digger: ‘He just wanted to test me'
Men are finding sneaky ways to determine if a date is a gold digger — and women are learning this the hard way. One single woman shared her recent experience with this in the r/AITA subreddit on Reddit — which has since been deleted. The 29-year-old went on a date set up by a mutual friend that she thought went well overall. At the end of the date, when the $100 check came — her date decided to test her to see if she was a golddigger, unbeknownst to her. Explaining that she had every intention to split the bill with him, you could imagine how taken aback she was when he handed her the check and asked if she could pay for it. The woman obliged, and as soon as business was taken care of, the OP explained his reaction: 'Right after I paid, he got this huge grin on his face and said, 'Congratulations, you passed the test! You're not a gold digger,'' she wrote in her post. Everyone comes with baggage from past relationships. This couple wasn't any different, as the guy explained that he dated someone in the past who expected him to pay for everything. The OP wrote how she handled this news: 'I told him that I'm not his ex and he has no right to treat me like I'm guilty until proven innocent. I also said he's not some prize that I need to pass tests for.' Kudos to her for standing up for herself. Of course, the commenters went off on this guy, many agreeing that this 'test' was a wild thing to do. '…it absolutely WAS a test- to see how far he could disrespect you. His behavior could only get worse from there,' wrote one commenter. 'While it's certainly possible that his ex was only into him for the money, he's not actually offering much else. At least, not a pleasant character,' another user wrote. And this isn't the first scenario where a guy tested the waters to see what type of woman he was dealing with. In another Reddit thread — in the same subreddit — a woman shared her bizarre experience with a date she met on a dating app who claimed to be a carpenter, to see if she only wanted to date guys for their money. 'He ended up admitting that he is not a carpenter, he just wanted to test me,' the OP wrote. The woman said her date mentioned a 'low-paying job' to see how she reacted to it. Reddit users had a field day with this story, too. ''I'd like to start this potential relationship by lying to you.' I think that's shitty as f–k and you can go f–k,' a comment read. 'This dude has baggage you probably don't need to be dealing with,' another person pointed out. 'His 'test' gave away his character flaw. He showed you that he's a snob. The job he chose to 'slum it' is pretty lucrative if you're good and especially if you build your company up. He is a jerk,' quipped someone else.
Daily Mail
20-05-2025
- General
- Daily Mail
Faking It (2025 series): Trailer, certificate and where to watch
A new generation of fakers are put to the test, given four weeks to learn a new skill and a new identity 2025
