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. Drawing upon the universal principles of international law, this series seeks to examine and elucidate the various human rights dimensions of the 2026 armed conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran. This international project, through in-depth conversations with leading academics, legal scholars, practitioners, and research-oriented professionals, aims to move beyond purely descriptive analyses and engage with the normative, interpretative, and structural layers of this conflict within the framework of the contemporary international legal order.
Within this framework, each interview focuses on a distinct and fundamental conceptual and legal nexus. These include the rules governing the use of force under customary international law and the Charter of the United Nations, as well as the scope and limits of the concept of self-defense, including its possible extension to anticipatory or preventive action and its relationship with state practice and contemporary doctrinal debates. Furthermore, the series addresses the international responsibility of states for wrongful acts, the criteria for attribution of conduct, and the consequences of violations of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens). In parallel, a significant portion of the series is devoted to international humanitarian law, particularly the foundational principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in attack, and their application in the context of contemporary complex and multilayered armed conflicts.
In this regard, the present interview with Ms. Bernadette Zaydan, an Australian lawyer and human rights specialist, specifically explores the legal dimensions of the use of force as well as the concept and constitutive elements of “genocide.” The discussion situates these concepts within the evolving realities of recent armed conflicts and their legal implications in related regional cases, particularly in Lebanon. The interview is structured around the following key themes:
First, a legal analysis of the use of force under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and the scope of its exceptions under Article 51, alongside an assessment of claims relating to self-defense and the ongoing controversies surrounding its expansive interpretation in contemporary practice; second, an examination of the concept of genocide and the legal standards for its determination under international criminal law, as well as its relationship to situations of ongoing armed conflict; third, a clarification of the role of international humanitarian law in protecting civilians and critical infrastructure, and an evaluation of the legality of attacks in light of the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution; and finally, an exploration of both state responsibility and individual criminal responsibility, together with the role of emerging forms of evidence, digital documentation, and academic and civil society institutions in processes of accountability and the pursuit of legal redress for violations.
Interview Details
- Interviewer: Mahdi Baeidi Nejad, PhD Student in International Relations, University of Isfahan
- Interviewee: Bernadette Zaydan, Australian lawyer and human rights specialist
- Date of Interview: Wednesday, April 22, 2026
- Main Topics:
- Legal Assessment of the Use of Force Against Iran and Lebanon
- Expansion of the Doctrine of Self-Defense
- Protection of Civilian Infrastructure and Threats of Attack
- The “Dual-Use” Doctrine and Legal Interpretation
- State Responsibility and Accountability
- Proportionality and Conduct of Hostilities
- Documentation of Violations and Evidentiary Challenges
- Role of Human Rights Institutions
- Credibility of International Humanitarian Law in the Future
- Prospects for Institutional Cooperation
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 Assessment of the Use of Force Against Iran and Lebanon
From a legal perspective, how should the use of force by the United States and Israel against Iran and Lebanon be assessed under international law, particularly in light of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter?
The legality of the use of force in international law is primarily governed by Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which establishes a near-complete prohibition on the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This rule is foundational to the contemporary international legal order.
There are only two narrowly defined exceptions to this prohibition. The first is the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51, which applies only in response to an armed attack. The second is collective security authorization by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the Charter.
In the situations under discussion, neither of these legal thresholds appears to have been satisfied. There is no publicly verified evidence of an armed attack by Iran against either the United States or Israel that would justify unilateral self-defense. Similarly, no Security Council authorization was issued to legitimize the use of force.
The invocation of “preemptive self-defense” has been advanced in political discourse; however, under positive international law, preemptive military action is not recognized as lawful unless an armed attack is imminent in the strict legal sense established by customary international law and jurisprudence. Mere allegations of potential future threats, including references to missile capabilities or nuclear development, do not meet this threshold.
Accordingly, from a strictly legal perspective, the justification of the use of force in these cases remains highly questionable and appears inconsistent with the core prohibitions established under the United Nations Charter.
- Question 2: Expansion of the Doctrine of Self-Defense
Do recent military actions in Iran and Lebanon indicate an expansion of the doctrine of self-defense beyond its traditional legal limits?
There is an observable political tendency among certain states to broaden the interpretation of self-defense to include anticipatory or preventive military action. This includes arguments based on hypothetical future threats, such as the possibility of nuclear weapon development or alleged support for non-state armed groups.
However, under international law, the doctrine of self-defense cannot be expanded unilaterally through political interpretation. The legal framework remains anchored in the requirement of an actual or imminent armed attack.
Preventive military action based on speculative future risks does not satisfy the legal conditions required under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Allowing such an expansion would effectively undermine the prohibition on the use of force and erode the stability of the international legal order.
Furthermore, reliance on non-state armed groups as a legal justification is also problematic. Even where such groups operate in a region, their conduct cannot automatically be attributed to a state unless the strict criteria of state responsibility under international law are met.
In this context, actions justified under expanded interpretations of self-defense risk falling outside the scope of lawful conduct and may engage state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts, including potential war crimes depending on the factual circumstances.
- Question 3: Protection of Civilian Infrastructure and Threats of Attack
Do public threats by political leaders to target civilian infrastructure, such as power plants, bridges, or water systems, raise legal concerns under international humanitarian law even before any attack is carried out?
Yes, such threats raise serious legal concerns under international humanitarian law (IHL). The legal framework governing armed conflict, particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, provides extensive protection for civilian infrastructure.
Under Articles 48 and 51 of Additional Protocol I, parties to an armed conflict are required to distinguish at all times between civilian objects and military objectives. Civilian infrastructure—including water systems, electricity networks, hospitals, schools, and places of worship—is presumptively protected.
Importantly, international humanitarian law does not only regulate the execution of attacks; it also prohibits threats of violence directed at civilian objects where such threats are intended to spread terror among civilian populations. The issuance of such threats may itself constitute a violation of international humanitarian law.
Moreover, the strategic targeting of infrastructure essential to civilian survival—such as food supply systems, agricultural land, and water resources—may amount to conduct prohibited under the laws of war, particularly where it results in forced displacement or widespread humanitarian harm.
Accordingly, even before any physical attack occurs, the public articulation of intent to target civilian infrastructure may engage legal responsibility under international law.
- Question 4: The “Dual-Use” Doctrine and Legal Interpretation
How should legal professionals assess claims that civilian infrastructure constitutes a “dual-use” military target?
The concept of “dual-use” objects refers to infrastructure that may serve both civilian and military purposes. However, its application is strictly regulated under international humanitarian law and cannot be used as a blanket justification for targeting civilian infrastructure.
Legal assessment requires a fact-specific inquiry into the actual, present function of the object at the time of attack. Speculative or potential future military use is not sufficient to reclassify a civilian object as a lawful military target.
Even where dual-use characteristics exist, the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution remain fully applicable. Any anticipated military advantage must be weighed against foreseeable civilian harm. Where civilian harm is excessive in relation to the anticipated military gain, the attack is unlawful.
Patterns of justification based on alleged dual-use status—particularly in relation to hospitals, schools, and residential infrastructure—have been repeatedly contested in legal discourse. Such claims must be rigorously scrutinized, as their misuse can lead to the unlawful targeting of protected civilian objects.
Ultimately, legal evaluation must be grounded in evidence of actual use, not hypothetical assumptions, and must always prioritize the protection of civilian life and infrastructure.
- Question 5: State Responsibility and Accountability
How should responsibility be framed under international law when humanitarian consequences of military operations are foreseeable and widespread?
International law establishes both individual criminal responsibility and state responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.
Individuals, including political and military leaders, may be held criminally responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and potentially genocide, depending on the factual and contextual evidence. Arrest warrants issued by international judicial bodies reflect the principle that individual accountability extends to those who plan, order, or execute unlawful acts.
At the state level, responsibility arises when conduct attributable to a state constitutes a breach of its international obligations. This includes violations of the prohibition on the use of force, as well as breaches of international humanitarian law.
However, enforcement mechanisms remain structurally limited. Political dynamics, including veto powers within the United Nations system, often hinder the effective implementation of accountability measures. This creates a persistent gap between legal norms and enforcement realities.
The growing scale of humanitarian consequences in contemporary conflicts underscores the urgent need for stronger accountability mechanisms capable of responding in real time rather than post facto.
- Question 6: Proportionality and Conduct of Hostilities
How is the principle of proportionality applied in modern conflicts where military operations result in sustained and cumulative humanitarian harm?
The principle of proportionality is a core rule of international humanitarian law, requiring that incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.
In practice, however, contemporary conflicts involving advanced military technologies, including drones and precision-guided weapons, have raised serious concerns regarding the application of this principle.
Where military operations result in repeated and sustained civilian harm, proportionality cannot be assessed as an isolated or single-event calculation. Instead, cumulative effects must be considered, particularly where repeated strikes result in systemic destruction of civilian infrastructure and prolonged humanitarian crises.
Furthermore, proportionality must be assessed ex ante, based on information reasonably available at the time of the attack. Patterns of conduct suggesting disregard for civilian harm may indicate a failure to comply with the principle altogether.
The intentional targeting of civilian areas, or attacks conducted with knowledge of likely civilian presence, may also constitute violations of the principle of proportionality and, in certain circumstances, war crimes.
- Question 7: Documentation of Violations and Evidentiary Challenges
What mechanisms are available for documenting violations of international humanitarian law in contexts where access is restricted and information is contested?
The documentation of violations in conflict zones relies increasingly on a combination of digital evidence, eyewitness testimony, and professional reporting by medical and humanitarian personnel.
Open-source evidence, including verified video recordings and social media documentation, has become a significant evidentiary tool in international legal proceedings. Such materials, when properly authenticated, can provide real-time records of alleged violations.
Medical personnel and humanitarian workers also play a critical role in documenting civilian harm. Their professional assessments and witness statements are often highly credible in judicial contexts, particularly regarding the nature of injuries, the type of weapons used, and the conditions affecting civilian populations.
Journalistic reporting remains another essential source of documentation, though journalists themselves are often exposed to significant risks in conflict environments.
Together, these forms of evidence contribute to the establishment of factual records that may later be used in judicial proceedings before domestic or international courts.
- Question 8: Role of Human Rights Institutions
What role can human rights organizations and non-governmental institutions play in responding to humanitarian crises in conflict settings?
Human rights organizations and non-governmental institutions play a crucial role in monitoring, documenting, and advocating accountability in conflict situations.
They may contribute through several mechanisms, including legal action before domestic courts or international tribunals, submission of evidence to prosecutorial bodies, and participation in investigative processes.
Such organizations also play an important role in amplifying the voices of affected populations and ensuring that violations are recorded and preserved for future accountability processes.
Additionally, they can exert pressure on institutional actors, including states and international organizations, to uphold legal obligations and strengthen enforcement mechanisms.
In some cases, strategic litigation has been used effectively to challenge unlawful conduct and seek reparations for victims. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms depends significantly on political will and institutional responsiveness.
- Question 9: Credibility of International Humanitarian Law in the Future
What are the implications of repeated violations of international humanitarian law for its future credibility and authority?
Repeated and systematic violations of international humanitarian law pose a significant challenge to the credibility of the international legal system. When violations occur without effective accountability, the normative authority of the law is weakened.
International law is premised not only on the existence of rules but also on their enforceability. When enforcement mechanisms fail or are perceived as selective, the legitimacy of the system is undermined.
This dynamic risks normalizing unlawful conduct and encouraging similar behavior by other actors, thereby eroding the deterrent effect of international law.
To preserve its credibility, international law requires strengthened enforcement mechanisms, reduced politicization of judicial processes, and enhanced institutional independence. Without such reforms, the gap between legal norms and practical outcomes is likely to widen further.
- Question 10: Prospects for Institutional Cooperation
What potential exists for collaboration between human rights institutions in different regions, particularly in the context of academic and media cooperation?
International collaboration between human rights institutions is both possible and desirable, particularly in areas such as research cooperation, documentation of violations, and academic exchange.
However, such cooperation is often shaped by political contexts and foreign policy alignments, which can create structural constraints. In certain jurisdictions, legal and political sensitivities surrounding foreign policy positions may limit institutional engagement.
Despite these challenges, independent academic institutions, civil society organizations, and media actors often continue to operate across borders and contribute to human rights discourse.
These actors can serve as important bridges for cooperation, particularly in documenting human rights conditions, producing joint research, and facilitating public dialogue on international legal issues.
Conclusion
This interview reveals not merely a tension, but a deep structural disjunction between the normative coherence of international humanitarian law and the fragmented reality of its enforcement in contemporary armed conflicts, including recent hostilities involving the United States, Israel, and Iran, as well as broader regional dynamics extending to Lebanon. Although the legal regimes governing the use of force, civilian protection, and proportionality remain doctrinally stable and normatively robust, their operational application is increasingly mediated through contested interpretations, political selectivity, and evidentiary asymmetries across interconnected theatres of conflict.
A central implication emerging from this discussion is the transformation of accountability in contemporary international law. Legal responsibility is no longer exclusively constituted through post-conflict adjudication or institutional determination, but is increasingly shaped by real-time documentation practices, digital verification infrastructures, and the rapid circulation of evidentiary materials across transnational informational networks. This transformation is particularly evident in contemporary conflict settings involving the United States–Israel–Iran nexus and Lebanon, where open-source intelligence, satellite imagery, and civil society documentation have become essential instruments in constructing legal narratives and attributing responsibility amid ongoing hostilities.
Against this background, the credibility of international humanitarian law ultimately depends on its capacity to bridge the widening gap between normative authority and enforcement reality in such complex and multi-layered configurations of armed conflict. In the absence of strengthened institutional independence and a meaningful reduction in the political instrumentalization of legal standards, the system risks not only weakened compliance in relation to armed attacks and military operations against Iran and Lebanon, but also the gradual normalization of interpretive elasticity in the application of the law governing the use of force and the protection of civilians within the broader international legal order.
Ultimately, the stability of international humanitarian law depends less on the formal clarity of its rules than on the consistency, neutrality, and integrity of their enforcement in the face of political power.
