Unwavering Concerns Identified: The Full Story Unfolds - Questions Arising over the Legality of Israel's Military Actions
In a recent development, the Bundestag's expert opinion has cast doubt on the legality of the US and Israel's air strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities that occurred on June 22. The ceasefire came into effect three days later.
Germany, led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz (CDU), has not definitively endorsed the legal justification for these strikes. Thorsten Frei, head of the Chancellery, stated that Germany does not yet have all the necessary information to make a conclusive assessment of the US attack’s legality under international law.
Chancellor Merz has defended the US attacks, linking them to Israel’s right to self-defense and asserting that Iran must not possess nuclear weapons. However, some politicians within the Bundestag have expressed skepticism or opposition to the attacks' legality. The Left Party, for instance, labelled the US-Israeli attack an "illegal war of aggression under international law".
The Bundestag's Scientific Services have also raised doubts about the legality of these attacks. They warn against misusing the right of self-defense to pursue security policy interests and overstraining existing international legal norms. The expert opinion, commissioned by Left Party MP Ulrich Thoden, states that the criteria for self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter are not fulfilled.
Furthermore, the attacks are not covered by the right to collective self-defense, according to the opinion. The military operation, codenamed "Rising Lion", targeted Iranian nuclear facilities, military installations, high-ranking military personnel, and nuclear physicists.
Ulrich Thoden, a left-wing politician, described the federal government's support for the attacks as a "slap in the face" for the grand coalition. As of now, the Federal Government has not taken an official position on whether the attacks by Israel and the USA on Iran violate international law.
The opinion warns against overstraining and overstretching existing international legal norms that justify a violation of the prohibition of the use of force, and thus eroding the prohibition of the use of force. Some fear that these attacks could contribute to the further erosion of international law.
In summary, the Bundestag’s expert and political opinions reflect a lack of clear legal consensus. While some officials defend the attacks as justified by self-defense against Iranian nuclear threats, others see the strikes as violations of international law and illegal aggression. No definitive expert legal opinion from the Bundestag fully legitimizes the US and Israeli attacks on Iran under international law as of now.
- The Bundestag's expert opinion, as well as some political voices within the Bundestag, such as the Left Party, view the US-Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as an "illegal war of aggression under international law."
- The Bundestag's Scientific Services, in their opinion commissioned by Ulrich Thoden, suggest that the criteria for self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter are not met, thereby questioning the legality of the attacks on Iran.
