Specialized Interview with Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur: Human Rights on Trial in the War Against Iran (Episode 2: Aggression and the Use of Force Crisis)

The specialized interview series “Human Rights on Trial in the War Against Iran” is an academic initiative undertaken by the Human Rights Institute of the University of Isfahan (HRIUI), dedicated to examining the legal, humanitarian, and institutional dimensions of the 2026 armed conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.

Through in-depth discussions with leading scholars, international lawyers, and human rights experts, the series explores how contemporary conflicts challenge the foundations of international law, international humanitarian law, and the international human rights system.

As part of this initiative, HRIUI conducted an interview with Professor Ben Saul, Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney and United Nations Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

Professor Saul is internationally recognized for his expertise in international law, counterterrorism law, human rights, and the legal regulation of the use of force. His work has focused extensively on the relationship between security policies, human rights obligations, and the limits imposed by international legal frameworks.

The interview examined the legal questions arising from the U.S.–Israeli military actions against Iran, including the prohibition on the use of force under the United Nations Charter, claims of self-defense and preventive security, the role of counterterrorism narratives in interstate conflicts, and the protection of civilians and civilian infrastructure under international humanitarian law.

The discussion further addressed accountability mechanisms, including state responsibility, individual criminal responsibility, evidence preservation, domestic and international judicial pathways, and the role of United Nations human rights mechanisms when political divisions prevent collective action through traditional security institutions.

Through this conversation, Professor Saul provides his legal assessment of one of the most significant contemporary challenges to the post-1945 international legal order: the tension between state power, security claims, and the principle that the use of force must remain subject to international legal restraint.

Interview Details

• Interviewer: Mahdi Baeidi Nejad, PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan
• Interviewee: Professor Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights & Challis Chair of International Law, University of Sydney
• Date of Interview: Tuesday, May 12, 2026
• Main Topics:
  1. Legal Characterization of the U.S.–Israeli Attacks under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter
  2. Testing Claims of Self-Defense, Deterrence, and Preventive Security under International Law
  3. Counterterrorism Narratives and the Legal Framing of Interstate Conflict
  4. Civilian Infrastructure, Dual-Use Claims, and the Limits of IHL Targeting Rules
  5. Accountability Pathways: State Responsibility, Criminal Liability, and Victims’ Rights
  6. UN Human Rights Mechanisms beyond a Blocked Security Council
  7. The Future of International Law, Human Security, and Global South Sovereignty

Note: In order to preserve academic independence and diversity of perspectives, it should be emphasized that the opinions expressed in this interview reflect solely the personal views of the interviewee and do not necessarily imply endorsement or adoption of a position by the Human Rights Institute of the University of Isfahan.

Interview Summary

• Question 1: Legal Characterization of the U.S.–Israeli Attacks under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter

How should the military attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran be legally characterized under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter? Does this case represent a discrete violation of the rules on the use of force, or does it point to a more systemic weakening of the post-1945 legal order?

Professor Saul assessed the Israeli and U.S. military actions against Iran as constituting an unlawful use of force and, in his legal assessment, amounting to aggression under international law. He emphasized that the prohibition on the use of force contained in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter represents one of the central pillars of the post-1945 international legal order.

According to Professor Saul, the attacks could not be legally justified on the basis of self-defense because, in his assessment, Iran had not launched an armed attack against either the United States or Israel, nor had the United Nations Security Council authorized the use of force. Therefore, he considered that the recognized legal foundations for the lawful use of force were absent.

Professor Saul acknowledged that the United States and Israel had advanced security-based arguments, including concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program, alleged support for armed groups such as Hezbollah, and Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities. However, he argued that such concerns do not automatically create a legal right to use military force. Under international law, a state invoking self-defense must demonstrate that the requirements of Article 51 of the Charter are satisfied, including the existence of an armed attack or a genuinely imminent threat of armed attack.

In Professor Saul’s view, the publicly available information did not demonstrate that Iran had launched such an attack or that an imminent attack had been established. He therefore considered that the military action represented a serious challenge to the legal restrictions imposed on the use of force.

Professor Saul further argued that the broader significance of the case extends beyond the specific conflict. In his assessment, allowing states to rely on broad security claims, speculative future threats, or unilateral assessments of danger risks weakening the legal architecture created after 1945.

The post-war international legal system was designed to replace unilateral military action with a framework based on sovereign equality, collective security, and legal restraint. Professor Saul expressed concern that repeated challenges to these principles could gradually transform exceptional arguments into accepted practices, thereby undermining the effectiveness of the prohibition on the use of force.

• Question 2: Testing Claims of Self-Defense, Deterrence, and Preventive Security under International Law

In recent decades, powerful states have increasingly relied on concepts such as anticipatory self-defense, preventive security, and strategic deterrence to justify the use of force. In the case of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran, how should such claims be tested against the legal requirements of necessity, imminence, proportionality, attribution, and the absence of Security Council authorization?

Professor Saul emphasized that the central legal question in any self-defense analysis is whether an armed attack has occurred or whether a truly imminent armed attack exists. In his view, other requirements, including necessity and proportionality, become relevant only after establishing that a state possesses a lawful right to act in self-defense.

He explained that imminence does not depend on a fixed period of time. International law does not require that an attack be expected within a matter of hours or days. However, the requirement does demand credible evidence of a specific, concrete, and near-term threat rather than a general concern about a state’s capabilities or intentions.

According to Professor Saul, the distinction between lawful anticipatory self-defense and unlawful preventive war is essential. A state cannot lawfully use force merely because another state may become more capable of threatening it at some point in the future.

In relation to Iran, Professor Saul stated that the United States and Israel had not publicly demonstrated the existence of an imminent armed attack. In his assessment, arguments based on possible future risks, strategic calculations, or broader security concerns did not satisfy the strict legal threshold required for self-defense.

The interview also considered the broader consequences of expanding self-defense doctrines. Professor Saul warned that if states are permitted to use force based on speculative threats or unilateral security assessments, the prohibition on the use of force risks becoming dependent on the political judgments of powerful states rather than commonly accepted legal standards.

He emphasized that international law recognizes legitimate security concerns, but it requires those concerns to be addressed within the framework of the United Nations Charter and the principles governing the lawful use of force.

• Question 3: Counterterrorism Narratives and the Legal Framing of Interstate Conflict

Based on your experience as United Nations Special Rapporteur on human rights and counterterrorism, how do you assess the use of counterterrorism narratives in interstate conflicts, particularly in the context of the war against Iran? What are the risks of terrorism-related labels being used to justify military action, expand sanctions and surveillance, control information, restrict dissent, and delegitimize alternative legal or humanitarian narratives?

Professor Saul explained that counterterrorism narratives can have both political and legal consequences. In his view, the designation of individuals, organizations, or state-linked actors as “terrorist” does not merely describe a security concern; it can fundamentally reshape the legal and political framework through which an actor is perceived and treated.

According to Professor Saul, terrorism-related labels often perform an important political function. They may be used to delegitimize opponents by presenting them as beyond the boundaries of legitimate political engagement or legal protection. While such designations may be appropriate in relation to individuals or groups responsible for terrorist violence, Professor Saul expressed concern that, in some contexts, counterterrorism frameworks have been extended to actors whose activities consist of political advocacy, humanitarian work, journalism, or human rights documentation.

He referred to examples where civil society organizations, humanitarian actors, and human rights defenders have faced restrictions, accusations, or sanctions through terrorism-related frameworks. In his view, such developments demonstrate the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between genuine counterterrorism measures and the use of security narratives to suppress legitimate criticism or humanitarian activity.

Professor Saul also discussed the designation of state-linked entities as terrorist organizations by certain governments. He noted that such practices raise complex questions under international law, including issues relating to sovereignty, state responsibility, immunities, and the appropriate application of counterterrorism measures in interstate relations.

Beyond its political function, Professor Saul emphasized the legal consequences of terrorist designations. Such classifications may activate extensive legal powers, including criminal prohibitions concerning membership, association, financing, or support; expanded surveillance authorities; asset freezes; travel restrictions; and restrictions on financial transactions.

Professor Saul acknowledged that these tools can serve legitimate security purposes when directed against groups genuinely engaged in terrorism. However, he stressed that their implementation must remain consistent with international human rights obligations, including protections for freedom of expression, freedom of association, privacy, due process, and access to humanitarian assistance.

The interview also examined the relationship between counterterrorism financing regulations and humanitarian operations. Professor Saul highlighted concerns that restrictive financial measures, if insufficiently designed or implemented, may create obstacles for humanitarian organizations seeking to provide assistance in conflict situations.

He situated these developments within the broader post-11 September 2001 counterterrorism environment, in which states and international institutions adopted extensive security measures. According to Professor Saul, one of the continuing challenges has been ensuring that the expansion of counterterrorism powers is accompanied by equally strong safeguards for human rights.

The broader concern raised in the discussion was that counterterrorism frameworks should not become a substitute for ordinary legal analysis of interstate conflicts. Security narratives may be politically powerful, but they cannot remove the obligation of states to comply with international law, including the rules governing the use of force, humanitarian protection, and fundamental human rights guarantees.

• Question 4: Civilian Infrastructure, Dual-Use Claims, and the Limits of IHL Targeting Rules

Reports of attacks affecting residential areas, schools, health-care facilities, energy systems, communication networks, and other essential civilian infrastructure raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law. How should the principles of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions be applied when attacking states invoke dual-use or security-related claims to justify harm to civilian objects?

Professor Saul emphasized that the protection of civilians and civilian objects is one of the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law. Under the rules governing the conduct of hostilities, civilians and civilian objects may not be made the object of attack unless they lose their protected status under the specific conditions recognized by international law.

He explained that objects such as residential buildings, schools, hospitals, energy infrastructure, communication networks, roads, bridges, and ports are generally civilian objects. Their destruction or damage may have consequences extending far beyond immediate physical harm, affecting access to healthcare, education, transportation, communication, and essential services.

According to Professor Saul, an object does not become a lawful military target merely because it may have some connection to security interests or because an attacking party claims that it has a possible military relevance. For an object to qualify as a military objective, there must be a concrete and definite military use or contribution, together with a clear military advantage expected from its destruction, capture, or neutralization.

Professor Saul emphasized that speculative, hypothetical, or future possibilities are insufficient. A state cannot simply assert that a civilian object could potentially support military activities and thereby remove its protection under international humanitarian law.

Even where an object qualifies as a military objective, Professor Saul stressed that the attack remains subject to other fundamental rules, particularly proportionality and precautions in attack.

The principle of proportionality requires an assessment of whether the expected incidental harm to civilians and civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This assessment requires consideration not only of immediate casualties but also of foreseeable consequences for civilian life.

Professor Saul used hospitals as an example. He explained that hospitals benefit from particularly strong protection under international humanitarian law. While that protection is not absolute if a hospital is genuinely being used for military purposes, any attack against such a facility requires an extremely careful legal assessment. The possible consequences for patients, medical personnel, healthcare capacity, and the civilian population must be taken into account.

The same reasoning applies to energy systems, electricity networks, fuel infrastructure, transportation facilities, and communication systems. Although some of these objects may, in certain circumstances, have military relevance, their importance for civilian survival requires heightened caution.

The discussion also addressed reports concerning attacks affecting educational and scientific institutions in Iran, including universities and schools. Professor Saul emphasized that educational institutions remain civilian objects unless they are being used for a concrete military purpose. The mere possibility of dual use, without specific evidence of military use, would not be sufficient to justify an attack.

He concluded that international humanitarian law does not prohibit all attacks involving objects that have some relationship with military activities. However, it imposes strict legal requirements regarding target identification, proportionality assessment, and precautionary measures. The existence of security claims or strategic interests does not remove these legal obligations.

• Question 5: Accountability Pathways: State Responsibility, Criminal Liability, and Victims’ Rights

In the context of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran, what is the practical relationship between state responsibility, individual criminal responsibility, aid or assistance in internationally wrongful acts, domestic jurisdiction, evidence preservation, and victims’ rights to justice and reparation?

Professor Saul explained that international law recognizes several interconnected forms of responsibility that may arise from violations committed during armed conflict.

First, states may incur international responsibility for their own internationally wrongful acts. This may include violations of the prohibition on the use of force, breaches of international humanitarian law, or violations of other international obligations. Where a state commits an internationally wrongful act, the legal consequences may include the obligation to cease the wrongful conduct, provide appropriate guarantees of non-repetition, and offer forms of reparation for the harm caused.

Second, Professor Saul emphasized that responsibility may also arise where one state assists another state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act. Under the relevant rules of state responsibility, a state that knowingly provides assistance or support contributing to another state’s unlawful conduct may itself bear international responsibility, provided that the applicable legal requirements are satisfied.

Such assistance may include weapons transfers, intelligence cooperation, logistical support, or the provision of facilities connected to military operations. However, Professor Saul noted that each situation requires careful legal assessment based on the specific facts and applicable rules.

Third, Professor Saul distinguished state responsibility from individual criminal responsibility. Certain violations of international law may constitute international crimes for which individuals—including political leaders, military commanders, and other officials—may bear personal responsibility.

He explained that international criminal law recognizes individual responsibility for crimes such as aggression, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide where the necessary legal elements are established.

Professor Saul emphasized that these forms of responsibility operate independently. The responsibility of a state does not exclude the possibility of individual accountability, and the prosecution of individuals does not replace the obligation of states to provide remedies and reparations.

He identified enforcement as one of the greatest challenges facing international accountability mechanisms. Regarding the International Criminal Court, Professor Saul noted that the Court’s jurisdiction depends on the legal bases established under the Rome Statute, including territorial jurisdiction, nationality jurisdiction, Security Council referral, or other recognized forms of jurisdictional acceptance.

Where relevant jurisdictional conditions are absent, ICC proceedings may face significant limitations. This is particularly challenging in situations involving states that have not accepted the Court’s jurisdiction and where political obstacles prevent Security Council action.

Nevertheless, Professor Saul emphasized that international accountability is not limited to the ICC. Domestic courts may, in certain circumstances, prosecute international crimes through universal jurisdiction mechanisms. Some national courts have pursued cases involving serious international crimes committed abroad.

However, he acknowledged that universal jurisdiction also faces practical and legal obstacles, including requirements concerning custody of suspects, domestic legislation, evidentiary standards, and questions relating to official immunities.

Professor Saul further emphasized the importance of evidence preservation. Even when immediate judicial accountability is unavailable, international investigative mechanisms, United Nations bodies, and independent documentation initiatives can preserve evidence and establish reliable factual records.

For victims, this process is essential. Documentation can protect future claims to truth, justice, recognition, and reparation, ensuring that the absence of immediate accountability does not result in the disappearance of legal responsibility.

• Question 6: UN Human Rights Mechanisms beyond a Blocked Security Council

If the Security Council remains politically blocked in relation to a war such as the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran, what concrete tools within the United Nations human rights system can still be mobilized? How can Special Rapporteurs, independent experts, urgent debates, commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions, reporting mandates, and evidence-preservation mechanisms contribute to accountability?

Professor Saul explained that the United Nations human rights system provides important mechanisms for addressing serious violations even when the Security Council is unable to take effective action due to political divisions.

He identified the Human Rights Council, Special Procedures, independent experts, commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions, and other investigative mechanisms as important instruments for documenting violations, identifying patterns of conduct, supporting victims, and preserving evidence.

According to Professor Saul, these mechanisms operate through two complementary approaches.

The first involves engagement and dialogue with states. Through communications, legal analysis, recommendations, and diplomatic interaction, United Nations human rights mechanisms may seek to encourage states to modify policies, address violations, and strengthen compliance with international obligations.

The second involves transparency and public scrutiny. Where engagement does not lead to meaningful change, international human rights mechanisms can document violations, publish findings, and increase international awareness of unlawful conduct.

Professor Saul emphasized that such mechanisms do not possess the coercive powers of courts or enforcement bodies. They cannot immediately compel states to alter their behavior. However, their value lies in creating an authoritative record, maintaining international attention, and preserving pathways toward future accountability.

He noted that public documentation can influence diplomatic discussions, contribute to decisions within international organizations, and support political measures aimed at encouraging compliance with international law.

At the same time, Professor Saul stressed that these mechanisms should not be understood merely as instruments of condemnation. They also provide opportunities for dialogue, legal engagement, and support for domestic actors seeking improvements in human rights protection.

In situations of armed conflict, their role becomes particularly significant because evidence may otherwise be lost, narratives may become polarized, and victims may face difficulties in having their experiences recognized.

For this reason, Professor Saul argued that strengthening United Nations human rights mechanisms remains essential for maintaining accountability and protecting international legal standards.

• Question 7: The Future of International Law, Human Security, and Global South Sovereignty

What does the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran reveal about the future of international law, human security, and the rights of people in the Global South? Are we witnessing the emergence of an order governed increasingly by coercion, hierarchy, and selective legality, or is there still meaningful hope for rebuilding a law-based order grounded in sovereign equality, restraint in the use of force, accountability, and human dignity?

Professor Saul argued that contemporary international relations are experiencing significant tensions between state power and legal restraint. In his assessment, recent developments have placed considerable pressure on international legal institutions and the principles underlying the post-1945 international order.

He referred to broader concerns regarding the use of military force, challenges to international institutions, restrictions affecting humanitarian organizations, and political pressures directed against accountability mechanisms.

According to Professor Saul, these developments raise fundamental questions about whether international law is applied consistently across different geopolitical contexts. He suggested that perceptions of selective enforcement can weaken confidence in the legitimacy of international institutions.

However, Professor Saul also expressed cautious optimism regarding the resilience of international law and multilateral institutions. He noted that despite current challenges, the majority of states continue to support the basic principles of the United Nations Charter and the existence of international legal frameworks.

He emphasized that the absence of strong public criticism from some governments should not necessarily be interpreted as acceptance of unlawful conduct. States may remain silent because of political calculations, economic interests, diplomatic pressures, or concerns about retaliation.

Nevertheless, Professor Saul argued that international law survives through continued institutional support and collective commitment. States, international organizations, academic institutions, and civil society actors all have roles in maintaining legal standards and resisting the normalization of unlawful practices.

From the perspective of the Global South, Professor Saul highlighted the importance of addressing structural inequalities in the international system, particularly regarding the enforcement of international norms. He suggested that contemporary conflicts demonstrate the continuing need for universal application of legal principles rather than selective approaches based on political power.

He concluded that the future of international law will depend on whether the international community can preserve the central principles of sovereign equality, restrictions on the use of force, accountability for serious violations, and respect for human dignity.

Conclusion

The interview with Professor Ben Saul examined the legal and institutional implications of the U.S.–Israeli war against Iran through the interconnected perspectives of the prohibition on the use of force, international humanitarian law, accountability mechanisms, and the future of the international legal order.

Regarding the use of force, Professor Saul assessed the military actions against Iran as incompatible with the legal framework governing the resort to force under the United Nations Charter. He emphasized that claims based on preventive security or speculative future threats must be evaluated against the strict requirements established by international law, particularly the requirement of an actual or genuinely imminent armed attack.

The discussion also explored the broader consequences of expansive counterterrorism frameworks. Professor Saul highlighted concerns that terrorism-related classifications, when applied beyond their legitimate security purposes, may affect humanitarian actors, civil society organizations, human rights defenders, and fundamental freedoms protected under international law.

With respect to international humanitarian law, the interview reaffirmed the central importance of civilian protection. The classification of objects as military objectives requires a concrete factual basis, and even lawful military targets remain subject to proportionality and precaution requirements designed to minimize civilian suffering.

The conversation further examined accountability pathways, including state responsibility, individual criminal liability, domestic jurisdiction, international mechanisms, and evidence preservation. Although significant legal and political obstacles remain, documentation and investigative processes can preserve future opportunities for justice and reparation.

Finally, Professor Saul situated the conflict within a wider debate about the future of international law. While identifying serious pressures facing multilateral institutions and legal restraints on power, he also emphasized that international law remains dependent on continued commitment by states, institutions, scholars, and civil society.

The interview therefore highlights a central question for contemporary international law:

whether legal principles governing the use of force, protection of civilians, and accountability can remain effective in an international system marked by unequal power relations and political contestation?