Survival of the Fittest: Power Struggles Determine Outcomes
Is the Use of Force by Israel and the USA Against Iran Legally Justified? A Deep Dive
The question of whether the military actions taken by Israel and the USA against Iran align with international law is a complex and contentious issue. On one hand, these actions have significant implications, particularly due to the UN Charter's constitutional ban on the use of force as a means of achieving political, economic, or territorial objectives.
The UN Charter permits only two exceptions to the use of military force: immediate self-defense or prior approval by the UN Security Council. Neither Israel nor the USA have obtained authorization from the UN Security Council, and Israel's argument for a preemptive strike to deter an imminent, potentially nuclear attack lacks credibility. US Senator Lindsey Graham's statement that Iran "deserves it" has no basis in international law.
However, engaging in endless discussions about the legality of such actions under international law may seem futile, given the frequent violations of these principles. It's the feasibility and potential consequences that ultimately prevent states from waging war, not international law.
Our independent, left-leaning, and opinionated daily newspaper has been debating this issue since its inception in 1979. We welcome a wide array of opinions, ranging across the political spectrum.
Compared to other legal systems, international law operates in a highly politicized environment. A pertinent example is the NATO intervention in the Kosovo War in 1999. If the USA and NATO had sought and obtained UN Security Council approval, their actions would have been considered legal. However, they expected a Russian veto, so they did not even propose a resolution. Thus, the intervention was illegal under international law. No court decides - it's a political body, governed by the power dynamics much like the "law of the jungle."
Israel and USA Military Actions Against Iran: The Legal Battleground
Israel argues that its military actions against Iran are legitimate acts of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and customary international law. Israel claims that its intelligence indicated Iran was progressing toward nuclear weapon capability, posing an imminent threat to Israel's existence. Israel frames these actions as vital to defend its existence, and some scholars support viewing these operations within the realm of lawful self-defense or as part of an ongoing armed conflict.
However, many international law experts challenge Israel's justification. They argue that Israel's use of force against Iran violates the UN Charter because it was not authorized by the UN Security Council and did not respond to an actual or imminent armed attack by Iran. Critics highlight that Israel’s operations lack the necessary criteria for necessity and proportionality, given the broad scope of the attacks.
The USA's potential involvement in Israel's military offensive could position it as a party to an unlawful act of aggression under international law, continuing a pattern of controversialuse of force outside clear legal mandates.
The "Law of the Jungle" and the Reality of International Law
Legal assessments reveal a fractured application and respect for international law. Powerful states often act based on their strategic interests rather than consistent adherence to legal norms. This dynamic mirrors the "law of the jungle," where might and geopolitical calculations may outweigh formal international legal principles.
NATO Intervention in Kosovo 1999: A Precedent of Contested Legality
The NATO intervention in Kosovo in 1999 frequently serves as a precedent where international law was sidelined in favor of strategic and humanitarian considerations without explicit UN Security Council authorization. NATO justified its air campaign on humanitarian grounds and to prevent ethnic cleansing, but the intervention lacked clear legal backing under the UN Charter. This case underscores the ability of powerful states or alliances to act unilaterally or collectively, shaping state behavior more by power and interests than by strict legal frameworks.
Conclusion
The legality of Israel and US military actions against Iran remains a debated matter within international law communities. While legal justifications exist, significant opposition argues that these actions violate the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force without Security Council approval or an imminent armed attack. This inconsistency and the propensity of states to act based on security imperatives and geopolitical interests illustrate a reality where international law's authority is occasionally overshadowed by power politics, much like the precedent set by NATO's 1999 Kosovo intervention, suggesting that the "law of the jungle" remains a powerful force shaping state behavior in these contexts.
- The debate over the legality of Israel and the USA's military actions against Iran is rooted in the UN Charter's ban on the use of force for political, economic, or territorial objectives, with the potential exceptions of immediate self-defense or prior approval by the UN Security Council.
- The potential involvement of the USA in Israel's military offensive against Iran could potentially position it as a party to an unlawful act of aggression under international law, given that Israel's actions lack the necessary authorization from the UN Security Council and may not meet the criteria for legality under international law.
