Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy: THE HINDU

Context:

Recent Israel-Iran conflict has seen both nations engage in direct military strikes, this raised a debate on the legality of the use of force.

International Law and the Use of Force

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter => Prohibits the use of force against another country's "territorial integrity or political independence." This means countries cannot attack others unless specific exceptions apply.

Exceptions to the Prohibition => The UN Charter provides two primary exceptions:

• Self-defense under Article 51, which allows a country to use force if it is the victim of an "armed attack."
• UN Security Council Authorization, which can authorize collective military action to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Key Principles of Self-Defense => Any use of force in self-defense must adhere to two fundamental principles:

• Necessity: The use of force must be the only viable option to repel the attack.
• Proportionality: The defensive response must be commensurate with the scale of the initial attack.

Current Hostilities

Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran on June 12, 2025, dubbed "Operation Rising Lion," targeting military and nuclear facilities.

In response, Iran has launched ballistic missile attacks against Israeli cities. This marks a new phase of direct, open conflict between the two nations.

Legal Arguments and Debates

Argument 1: Israel's Initial Strikes are Illegal

Several international law experts argue that Israel's June 12 strikes were a violation of international law.

No Prior "Armed Attack" => According to this view, on June 12, 2025, Israel had not suffered an "armed attack" from Iran that would justify a response under Article 51. 

• Proponents of this argument state that previous actions by Iranian-backed proxies or even earlier missile attacks by Iran in 2024 were not part of an ongoing armed attack that would legally justify the scale of "Operation Rising Lion."

Lack of Imminence for Anticipatory Self-Defense => The argument that Israel acted to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is seen by many as not meeting the high threshold of an "imminent" threat as required by the Caroline Doctrine. 

• Critics argue that a potential future threat does not satisfy the "instant and overwhelming" necessity for pre-emptive action. 
• The UN Security Council condemned Israel's similar 1981 strike on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor as a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations."

Argument 2: Israel's Strikes are Justified

Ongoing Armed Conflict => Israel and Iran were already in a state of armed conflict prior to June 2025, quoting Iran's direct missile attacks in April and October 2024 and its ongoing support for proxies like Hezbollah. From this viewpoint, the principle of self-defense does not require a state to wait for the "next attack" to be imminent when a state of war already exists.

Violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Separate from the legality of initiating the conflict, the conduct of hostilities is governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL), primarily the Geneva Conventions. There are serious concerns that both sides are violating IHL:

• Civilian Harm => Reports indicate that strikes from both sides have resulted in civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including residential buildings and a hospital in Israel.
• Targeting of Civilian Infrastructure => Under IHL, attacks on medical facilities are prohibited. Iran's missile strike that hit Soroka Hospital in Beersheba, and Israel's targeting of areas near civilian infrastructure in Iran, have drawn condemnation.  

International Reactions

The United States is considering its involvement, while the United Kingdom's Attorney-General has cautioned against joining any attack unless UK personnel are targeted.

The UN Security Council has held emergency meetings, but there is no consensus on a unified response, with some members declaring Israel's initial strikes illegal and others calling for de-escalation.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has stated that while it cannot verify that Iran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful, it has not found proof of a systematic effort to build a nuclear weapon.  

Must Read Articles: 

Israel-Iran Strike Regional Tension 

Source: 

THE HINDU