Mahsa Dini, M.A. in International Relations, Allameh Tabataba’i University

Forouzan Marzbani, PhD Student in Political sociology, Razi University

Introduction

At dawn on June 13, 2025, Israel launched a military operation against targets inside Iranian territory, adding a new dimension to the long-standing geopolitical rivalry in the Middle East. The attack, immediately justified by Tel Aviv as an act of “preemptive self-defense” in response to an alleged imminent threat, was interpreted by numerous observers, jurists, and governments as a flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of international law. This incident was not merely a limited military confrontation, but rather a test for the legal order governing international relations and for core concepts such as “self-defense,” “imminent threat,” and “deterrence policy.”

In a world where the distinction between aggression and legitimate defense has become increasingly blurred, the examination of this attack within the framework of international law and political ethics becomes doubly essential. If every state were allowed to use force against another merely based on subjective prediction or verbal threats, what future would await the international order?

This paper seeks to explore the legal, normative, and moral dimensions of Israel’s attack on Iran, focusing on the legitimacy of the doctrine of preemptive self-defense and the challenges that such actions pose to peace, security, and the rule of law at the global level.

The Legal Framework of the Prohibition of the Use of Force under International Law

In the contemporary system of international law, the principle of the prohibition of the use of force is considered one of the foundational and peremptory norms (jus cogens). This principle is clearly enshrined in Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations, which stipulates:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

This principle possesses not only a legal prohibition but also carries profound moral and normative significance, such that its violation constitutes a breach of global peace and the fundamental principles of international coexistence. The only explicit and recognized exception to this rule is Article 51 of the UN Charter, which refers to the inherent right of states to self-defense in the event of an armed attack.

However, Israel’s action against Iran in June 2025 was not in response to any actual armed attack, but rather based on the allegation of a potential threat and the invocation of preemptive self-defense. This justification, especially in the absence of clear evidence of an imminent Iranian military assault, is highly controversial and disputed under international law (Cohen, 2025).

Self-Defense: Conditions and Limitations

According to traditional doctrines of international law and the interpretations of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), for self-defense to be lawful, three essential conditions must be met:

The occurrence of an actual armed attack against the state concerned;
A proportionate response to that attack;
The immediate and unavoidable necessity of defense, leaving no alternative but the use of force.

In the case of Israel’s attack on Iran, numerous legal experts — including Nicholas Tsagourias (Tsagourias, 2025) in his assessment at the Lieber Institute — have emphasized that none of these conditions were met. No attack had been initiated by Iran, nor did Israel provide convincing evidence of any imminent military threat.

Preemptive Self-Defense or an Overt Violation of International Law

In recent decades, some states have attempted to institutionalize the concept of preemptive self-defense within international law. This notion rests on the idea that if the threat of attack is imminent and unavoidable, states may resort to military action before the attack occurs. However, this concept has never been recognized as a general legal rule in contemporary international law.

As highlighted in a report by the Lieber Institute, Israel’s claim of legitimacy for its strike as a preventive measure relies on an expansive and dangerous interpretation of Article 51, one that contradicts both the spirit of the UN Charter and the strong legal tradition that has developed over decades. None of the international legal bodies — including the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice — have affirmed the legality of such an action.

The Role of Customary Law and Expansive Interpretations

Some proponents of the doctrine of preemptive self-defense argue that customary international law may complement the UN Charter. However, as noted by Tsagourias (2025), the existing customary legal framework concerning preemptive self-defense remains highly contested, and there is no global consensus on its legitimacy. More importantly, invoking custom to circumvent the explicit provisions of international treaties — particularly the UN Charter — opens a dangerous gateway to subjective and arbitrary justifications for military aggression.

Israel’s Attack as a Violation of a Peremptory Norm (Jus Cogens)

Independent UN experts have characterized Israel’s action as a “manifest act of aggression,” underscoring its significance both legally and morally. The prohibition of the use of force constitutes a jus cogens norm, meaning that even under exceptional circumstances, states cannot disregard it on the grounds of national security. The invasion of another state’s territory without a clear and lawful justification — regardless of intent or geopolitical considerations — amounts to a serious breach of international law and a disruption of global peace.

Legal Critique of Israel’s Justification Based on “Collateral Damage”

One of Israel’s key justifications for its attack on Iran was the claim that “collateral damage” occurred during strikes against alleged military targets. However, according to Article 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), such damage is only justifiable if the target is lawful and the military advantage is concrete, direct, and immediate. In practice, many of Israel’s attacks failed to meet these essential conditions and, in several instances, deliberately targeted civilians, vital infrastructure, and non-military sites.

According to Rule 6 of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), mere engagement in scientific work in strategic areas such as nuclear energy does not justify killing an individual unless direct and active participation in hostilities is proven. Therefore, the assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists in private homes or educational institutions — such as university dormitories — without proof of such participation, constitutes not only an extrajudicial killing but may also qualify as a war crime under Article 8 of the Rome Statute.

During the June 13 attacks, Israel targeted water, electricity, and hospital facilities, academic centers, and nuclear sites under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Such targets, under Article 56 of Additional Protocol I, are classified as “installations containing dangerous forces” that must remain immune from attack even during armed conflict.

The IAEA, emphasizing the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, assessed the strikes on Natanz and similar facilities as violations of the UN Charter and principles of nuclear safety. Rafael Grossi, Director General of the IAEA, warned that these actions could severely undermine regional and global nuclear security (Baqaei, 2025).

Statistical data also demonstrate a lack of proportionality: over 90 percent of the 1,060 fatalities were civilians — including women and children. In one case, a missile strike on a residential building in Tehran resulted in 60 civilian deaths. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed deep concern, describing Israel’s conduct toward civilians as “horrific,” and warned of clear intent by certain officials to target non-combatants.

Furthermore, Israel’s lack of transparency regarding the timing, location, and criteria for selecting its targets makes any legal assessment of the strikes’ legitimacy impossible. The burden of proof for demonstrating immediate military advantage lies with the attacker; yet Israel relied solely on speculative future threats and classified intelligence, both lacking solid legal grounding.

The ICJ, in its Oil Platforms Case (2003), explicitly held that self-defense must be in response to an actual and ongoing attack, not a hypothetical or anticipated one.

These acts must also be viewed within Israel’s historical pattern of violating international law — from the 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor (condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 487) to cases currently before the ICJ concerning genocide in Gaza. The international legal regime, as repeatedly emphasized, is rooted not only in the rule of law but also in accountability. In the absence of an effective response, the international community risks perpetuating structural impunity.

Consequences of Legitimizing the Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defense for the International Legal Order

The invocation of preemptive self-defense in the absence of an imminent threat or credible evidence is not only legally contentious but also entails grave consequences for the international legal and political order. The acceptance of such reasoning—particularly by militarily or nuclear-armed powers—would open the door to permanent instability, delegitimize international institutions, and undermine the normative equilibrium that sustains relations among states.

Erosion of the Prohibition of the Use of Force as the Backbone of International Law

As noted earlier, the prohibition of the use of force constitutes one of the few peremptory norms (jus cogens) in international law. A broad or permissive interpretation of this rule—especially by powerful states such as the United States—inflicts profound damage on the very foundations of the international legal system. Various experts have warned that embracing the doctrine of preemptive self-defense would render the UN Charter effectively meaningless and strip multilateral institutions of their credibility. In such a scenario, international law would be downgraded from a binding normative framework to a discretionary tool of political convenience (Tsagourias, 2025).

Delegitimization of the Security Council and the Collective Security System

Under the legal order of the UN Charter, the Security Council serves as the primary body responsible for maintaining international peace and security and is the only institution empowered to authorize military action against a state beyond the scope of traditional self-defense. Circumventing the Security Council and justifying unilateral military operations under the banner of preemptive defense effectively nullifies the collective security system.

In the case of Israel’s attack on Iran, no resolution or consensus existed within the Security Council, and the unilateral action taken under the guise of specific security concerns set a precedent that could embolden other states to pursue similar paths.

Promotion of Dangerous Practices and Reproduction of Global Instability

Legitimizing preemptive strikes—especially by nuclear-armed or technologically advanced states—creates a contagion effect, encouraging repetition of such practices across the globe. Should the preemptive doctrine gain acceptance as a legitimate model, it would accelerate arms races, uncoordinated unilateral attacks, and a generalized sense of insecurity within the international system.

In such an environment, states might resort to military action based on even minimal suspicions of threat, thereby gravely endangering collective security and the principle of non-resort to war (Terrill, 2008).

Legalizing Interventionism under the Guise of Legitimacy

One of the gravest dangers of institutionalizing preemptive self-defense lies in the creation of legal cover for unilateral military interventions driven by geopolitical motives. The experiences of Iraq (2003) and Syria demonstrated that states could, under the pretext of unverified intelligence, invade or bomb other nations. Preemptive defense thus becomes a facade for aggression.

In the recent Israeli attack on Iran, analysts and human rights bodies have voiced deep concern that this action represents a normalization of military aggression under security pretexts. In the absence of a firm global condemnation, such conduct risks reinforcing impunity and systematically eroding international norms.

A Threat to the Global South and the Principle of Sovereign Equality

Accepting actions such as Israel’s strike on Iran highlights the double standards applied within international law. Smaller or developing countries, lacking significant deterrent capabilities, would become easy targets for so-called preemptive attacks once the prohibition of force is weakened.

This reality undermines the sovereign equality of states and reproduces structural inequalities within the global order. As stated by UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteurs, such trends constitute a “serious threat to territorial integrity, political independence, and the right to self-determination” of states lacking deterrence mechanisms.

Violation of Accountability and State Responsibility

Finally, if the international community fails to respond legally and politically to such attacks, the principle of state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts will be gravely weakened. According to the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on State Responsibility, any violation of peremptory norms must entail prosecution, reparation, and accountability.

In Israel’s attack on Iran, if the global community remains silent—or worse, complicit—Israel will not only escape responsibility but will also establish a precedent encouraging other states to emulate its behavior (Admin, 2025).

International Reactions and the Post-Attack Legal Situation

The United Nations Security Council: Silence or Paralysis?

Despite its primary mandate to maintain international peace and security, the United Nations Security Council failed to adopt any resolution or even an official statement concerning Israel’s attack on Iran. This inaction carries several implications:

First, it demonstrates the institutional paralysis of collective security mechanisms. The lack of consensus among the Council’s permanent members, and the use or threat of veto power by certain states (particularly the United States), prevented even the most basic reaction—such as an expression of concern.

Second, the Council’s inaction establishes a dangerous precedent whereby hostile states may undertake explicit violations of the UN Charter without facing any accountability.

Commentators such as Richard Gowan have described this silence as “the institutional translation of impunity in the post–Cold War order,” revealing the erosion of the Council’s authority and the political capture of its legal mandate.

The UN Secretary-General’s Response and Political-Legal Constraints

António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, responded cautiously, merely calling for restraint by both parties and expressing concern over rising regional tensions. However, his statement contained no reference to the UN Charter or the prohibition on the use of force.

This restrained reaction was driven more by political considerations than legal imperatives, as the Secretary-General lacks binding enforcement powers against acts of aggression. His role remains largely advisory and coordinative, rather than executive. Consequently, while symbolically important, the statement carried little weight in the realm of legal accountability.

The UN Human Rights Council: The Only Decisive Institutional Response

In contrast to the Security Council, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) offered a more explicit and critical reaction. A group of UN Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights issued a joint statement declaring:

“Israel’s military action against installations inside Iranian territory constitutes a flagrant violation of international law, an act of aggression against the sovereignty of an independent state, and a grave threat to the human rights of the Iranian people and the broader region.”

The statement further emphasized that Israel’s conduct does not fall under any recognized exception to Article 51 of the UN Charter, and urged that the matter be examined within the framework of international criminal law as well.

The Role of Specialized Oversight Institutions: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also expressed concern regarding Israel’s strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. Rafael Grossi, the IAEA Director General, described the attacks on sites associated with peaceful nuclear activities as “highly dangerous and detrimental to international cooperation.”

Although the IAEA is not a judicial body capable of adjudicating the legality of military actions, its role in highlighting the long-term implications of such strikes for technical collaboration and safeguards is crucial.

The destruction of several IAEA-monitored sites may jeopardize future cooperation between Iran and the Agency. Indeed, the Iranian Parliament and government responded by announcing the suspension of collaboration with the IAEA—a move that constitutes the first direct political consequence of the Israeli attack.

Reactions from Civil Society, Academia, and Human Rights Organizations

Dozens of human rights, academic, and non-governmental organizations issued statements condemning Israel’s attack and urging the international community to pursue accountability mechanisms. Among them were:

Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
MENA Rights Group (Middle East and North Africa Rights Foundation)

These organizations, citing established international jurisprudence—including the ICJ’s judgment in Nicaragua v. United States—argued that the doctrine of preemptive self-defense lacks any legal validity and contributes to gross human rights violations in the targeted states.

International Legal Mechanisms for Pursuing Accountability

Despite widespread criticism, effective legal mechanisms for holding Israel accountable remain highly limited, particularly due to jurisdictional and political barriers:

International Criminal Court (ICC): Since Israel is not a party to the Rome Statute, prosecution before the ICC is difficult unless the UN Security Council refers the case—a scenario deemed unlikely given the United States’ influence and veto power.
International Court of Justice (ICJ): Legal action before the ICJ would require Iran to file a complaint and for both parties to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. Even then, the process would be lengthy and contingent on mutual cooperation, making it largely symbolic.
Non-Judicial Remedies: Mechanisms such as sanctions, arms embargoes, or the establishment of a fact-finding commission depend on political consensus within bodies like the Security Council or the Human Rights Council, and thus face serious implementation obstacles.

Legal and Humanitarian Implications of the Attacks

Erosion of the Principle of Non-Use of Force: As noted by several international law experts, accepting preemptive self-defense outside the framework of the United Nations Security Council may, in practice, become a tool for legitimizing military aggression.
Weakening of International Monitoring Structures: The attacks on IAEA-supervised facilities not only disrupted technical cooperation but, in the long term, may lead to mutual distrust and the collapse of non-proliferation regimes. Such actions threaten to dismantle decades of effort in building international nuclear oversight and safety frameworks (Türk, 2025).
Neglect of the Principles of Proportionality and Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict: The use of long-range missiles and drone operations in densely populated or urban-adjacent areas—even if a legitimate military objective exists—violates international humanitarian law when the principles of proportionality and necessity are not upheld. Such conduct may amount to war crimes under the Rome Statute.

Legal and Political Recommendations

Given this critical landscape, several policy and legal recommendations can be advanced:

Filing an International Legal Case against Israel: The Islamic Republic of Iran should utilize available mechanisms to submit a formal complaint to the UN Secretary-General and the Security Council, and pursue proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In parallel, Iran should cooperate with non-governmental international legal organizations to conduct rigorous documentation of the aggression, ensuring that the collected evidence is admissible before international tribunals.
Strengthening Human Rights Diplomacy through Regional Institutions: Alongside formal channels, Iran must engage with member states of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), and other global coalitions to promote collective condemnation of the attack within non-governmental and regional forums. This approach materialized, for instance, during the BRICS Summit in Brazil, where participating states called for accountability and respect for sovereignty.
Establishing a National Truth-Finding Committee: A domestic commission comprising international law experts, military and security specialists, and civil society representatives should be established to investigate the legal, humanitarian, environmental, and security aspects of the attack. The findings should be published in comprehensive reports intended for submission to relevant international bodies.
Leveraging Media and Academic Platforms for Legal Awareness: It is essential to utilize academic institutions, legal forums, and media platforms to generate public and scholarly discourse countering interventionist narratives. Activities such as translation projects, academic articles, and collaboration with foreign researchers will foster a moral and intellectual consensus against acts of aggression.

In the contemporary world, the role of international law extends beyond regulating interstate relations—it embodies the preservation of human dignity and the promotion of sustainable peace and security. Israel’s attack on Iranian facilities was not only a gross violation of international law but also a historical test of the efficacy and independence of international institutions.

The responsibility of the global community, particularly of states claiming to uphold the rule of law, is thus immense. Conversely, Iran’s responsibility lies in documenting, pursuing, and invoking all legitimate international instruments to safeguard its sovereignty and the rights of its people.

Conclusion

The analysis of Israel’s attack on military facilities in Iran through the lens of international law clearly indicates that the operation constitutes an act of aggression and a violation of the fundamental principle of the non-use of force enshrined in the UN Charter.

In the absence of credible evidence proving an imminent Iranian attack, Israel’s invocation of preemptive self-defense is legally untenable and profoundly dangerous, as the expansive and unbounded interpretation of self-defense risks precipitating a crisis of legitimacy in international law.

Meanwhile, the limited and politically restrained response of international institutions—especially the UN Security Council—reflects the structural weaknesses of contemporary international law and the widening gap between legal norms and political will.

Although the Human Rights Council and various NGOs adopted more explicit stances, they lack the enforcement capacity necessary to hold perpetrators accountable. Consequently, what emerges once again is the reproduction of “structural impunity”—a concept increasingly central to recent human rights scholarship.

From a geopolitical and humanitarian perspective, the recurrence of such attacks threatens the right to life and security of civilian populations, pushing the regional order toward greater fragmentation and instability. Amid ongoing military rivalries, nuclear threats, and the erosion of the Charter-based legal system, the resulting situation is profoundly fragile and perilous.

References