 |
| Shahariar Islam Sovon |
The United States (US)
is striking Iranian targets in a disturbing reversion to unilateralism and
militarized foreign policy. The Pentagon has defended the operations as
tit-for-tat responses to recent rocket attacks on US installations in Iraq and
Syria that were coordinated by Iranian-backed militias. But such
rationalizations fare poorly under legal examination, in that they appear to
circumvent well-established international law, infringe state sovereignty, and
intensify regional crises.
US President Donald
Trump’s administration has said, Iranian-backed groups carried out rocket
attacks in which US forces were wounded in Syria and Iraq. In response, US
forces attacked what were supposedly IRGC-related facilities with airstrikes.
But these militias, while ideologically tied to Iran, are not a formal Iranian
military.
The wider strategic
justification for US activities can usually be linked to the unquestioning
loyalty shown to Israel. For decades, the US has almost reflexively stood along
with Israeli security interests, providing billions of dollars of aid in the US
military to the Jewish state and using its clout in the UN Security Council.
Under the UN Charter, nothing
contained in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the
United Nations. That means a self-defense action has to be of an actual armed
attack, not as a preemptive threat, and not as a punishment. Under Art 2 (4) of
the UN Charter there is a blanket ban on the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The only two
exceptions are, in response to an armed attack (Article 51), under Chapter VII
of the UN Charter the authorization of the Security Council.
Most importantly, there was
no Security Council resolution permitting the strikes. Indeed, Iran did not engage
in an armed attack against US soil that would be sufficient basis for a lawful
invocation of Article 51. Thus, the strikes are a classic example of
unauthorized and unilateral use of force that the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) condemned in Nicaragua v. United States of America (1986)
as contrary to customary international law and the principle of
non-intervention.
It is not the first
time the US has sidestepped international legal norms. The assassination by
drone strike of General Qassem in Iraq in 2020 was widely condemned as illegal
by the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions
Agnes Callamard for being in breach of international human rights and UN
Charter rules. As a nation-state, Iran has the right to maintain the integrity
of its territorial borders. Not even if the bases, or US personnel elsewhere,
were attacked by Iranian-supported groups operating inside third countries
(Syria and Iraq), does that constitute justification for striking Iran or
Iranian bases and infrastructure, unless Tehran itself can be directly
implicated in the use of force? Otherwise, such acts amount to a violation of
state sovereignty within customary international law as was reiterated by the
ICJ in Congo v. Uganda (2005).
The larger logic of US
policy is often rooted in its uncritical support for Israel. Over the years,
Washington has remained a steadfast ally of Israeli security needs, providing
billions of dollars in military aid and wielding its UN Security Council veto
power to prevent international rebuke. In today’s climate, the Iran-Israel
rivalry and particularly Iran’s backing for Hezbollah, Palestinian factions,
and anti-Israeli forces in Syria and Lebanon has emerged as one of the key axes
of the U.S. Middle East policy.
Iran’s increasing reach
in the region is framed as an existential danger to Israel’s military dominance
and safety. So the US employs military strikes not only to safeguard its own
interests but to discourage Iran from growing its reach, including through
proxy forces that threaten Israeli positioning in Lebanon and Syria.
While politically
understandable, this policy convergence does not legitimize preventative or
retaliatory use of force that violates international law. Unquestionably held security
interests remain subservient to legal duties derived from the UN Charter.
Unrestrained U.S. force
de-legitimizes the entire post-WWII global legal edifice. It sends a very
worrying message to the world: powerful states can ignore international law,
whereas less powerful states must comply or face the consequences.
The UN Charter aimed to
abolish this double standard when it was adopted in 1945. The Charter is not a
pick-and-mix job; it is for all states, large and small, weak and strong.
Absent accountability for violations, the international community risks
devolving into a primal struggle where brute power prevails over law and law is
powerless.
More importantly, the door
is now wide open for other powers, Russia, China, or even regional actors, to
reciprocate such violations under the pretext of self-defense. The undermining
of legal standards undermine global peace and security and reinforces
militaristic, rather than diplomatic approaches.
The United States can
say it is protecting its personnel or countering Iranian influence, but that
doesn’t change the fact that here it violates international law. Jazeera's
attacks on Iranian targets, without getting the approval of the Security
Council or any type of armed assault, are unequivocally in conflict with
international law.