Can US and Israel strike Iran under international law?

Question

Accepted Answer

US and Israel Cannot Legally Strike Iran Under International Law

US and Israeli strikes against Iran are not justified under international law, as they fail to meet the strict legal thresholds for self-defence and lack authorisation from the UN Security Council. The primary justification cited, that of "imminent threats" posed by Iran, does not align with established legal interpretations of imminence, which require immediate or temporally proximate dangers rather than future possibilities.
The Legal Standard for Imminent Threats

International legal interpretations define "imminence" as synonymous with "immediacy" or "proximity," going beyond mere possibility. The International Court of Justice, in the Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project case, clarified that an "imminent threat" must refer to dangers that are immediate or temporally close. This is distinct from a general security threat to a nation's interests or the potential for a state to acquire certain capabilities in the future, such as nuclear weapons or long-range missiles.
Anticipatory Self-Defence Requirements

The concept of "anticipatory self-defence," often invoked in discussions of pre-emptive strikes, strictly requires an imminent threat of an armed attack by an adversary. Legal experts indicate that the notion of Iran posing a general security threat, or the possibility of it acquiring weapons in the future, does not constitute an imminent threat of attack. Therefore, actions taken based on such premises fall outside the scope of lawful anticipatory self-defence.
The United Nations Charter Framework

The United Nations Charter mandates that member states refrain from the use of force or the threat of force against other states. Exceptions to this prohibition are limited to situations authorised by the UN Security Council or in response to an actual armed attack. The strikes against Iran, as described, do not appear to have received UN Security Council authorisation, nor are they presented as a direct response to an ongoing armed attack, rendering them unlawful under the Charter.
Specific Missile Capabilities vs. Imminence

While former US President Donald Trump alluded to Iran's missile program, including long-range missiles capable of reaching allies and potentially the US homeland, this assertion is contested. A 2025 assessment by the US Defence Intelligence Agency indicated that Iran did not possess ballistic missiles capable of hitting the United States at that time. Furthermore, even the potential for Iran to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles in the future does not equate to an imminent threat of attack under international legal definitions.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Can US and Israel strike Iran under international law?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends