The United States and Israel began major military operations against Iran on Feb. 28, in manifest violation of the United Nations Charter. The Charter prohibits the use of force against another State (art. 2(4)) unless that use of force is authorized by the UN Security Council (art. 42) or is a necessary and proportionate act of individual or collective self-defense in response to an armed attack (art. 51). The Council did not authorize the use of force against Iran, the United States did not request such authorization, and it is unlikely that the Council would have granted such a request. Iran was not attacking the United States or Israel, Iran was not about to attack them, and Iran was not planning to attack them. Iran was apparently actively negotiating the parameters of its nuclear program hours before the attacks began. U.S.-Israeli attacks have so far killed over one hundred civilians, many of them children in their school, in apparent violation of international humanitarian law. Such attacks are illegal twice over.
Iran responded by launching missiles and drones at Israel and at U.S. military bases in Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. Iran’s strikes have killed, injured, and endangered many civilians, often impacting in civilian areas far from any military objectives, in apparent violation of international humanitarian law.
Iran’s strikes inside the Gulf States also appear to violate the UN Charter. The Gulf States have not attacked Iran, and they insist that no attacks against Iran have originated from U.S. bases on their territory. Under international law, a State commits aggression when it allows its territory to be used by another State to perpetrate an act of aggression against a third State, and such allowance might justify the use of defensive force on its territory. But it appears that the Gulf States had not allowed their territory to be used in this way, so Iran cannot use defensive force on their territory.
Iran also exceeded the limits of proportionate self-defense by targeting U.S. bases that appear to have no role in unlawful armed attacks against Iran. As Iran itself told the International Court of Justice in 1993,
whilst a counter-attack against the invading military force might be legitimate because it would be directly related to the protection of the State’s territorial integrity against the military forces actually violating that integrity, an attack on the aggressor’s military bases in a quite different part of the world would be illegitimate because directed at the wrong target.
Together, these two points are decisive. The Gulf States have done nothing to forfeit their right that Iran refrain from the use of force on their territory, and their right is not overridden by Iran’s right of proportionate self-defense.
In its letter to the UN Security Council on Saturday, Iran announced that “all bases, facilities, and assets of the hostile forces in the region shall be regarded as legitimate military objectives within the framework of Iran’s lawful exercise of self-defense.” Iran might argue that the right of self-defense permits a State to target any of an aggressor’s military units, even those uninvolved in unlawful attacks, either to impose costs that might compel the aggressor to stop, or to ensure that military units not currently involved in the fighting do not join the fight later. Whatever the merits of this argument in other circumstances, such remote and speculative benefits cannot override the legal rights of uninvolved third States. This is confirmed by the near-universal condemnation of Iran’s attacks, including by the African Union and the Arab League.
On March 1, the United Kingdom announced that it would take certain actions to “defend[] itself and its position in the region” and “in the collective self-defence of regional allies who have requested support.” In a public summary of its legal position, the United Kingdom stated its intent to use “military assets flying in the region to intercept drones or missiles targeting countries not previously involved in the conflict.” Such measures would appear lawful. Under article 51 of the UN Charter, the Gulf States may request other States to use force in collective self-defense against unlawful armed attacks launched against them by Iran.
The United Kingdom also agreed to allow the United States to use British bases for “specific and limited defensive action against missile facilities in Iran which were involved in launching strikes at regional allies.” This arrangement would appear to be unlawful. The United States is committing an unlawful act of aggression, and the United Kingdom cannot aid or assist in its commission. Airstrikes against missile facilities in Iran have been, and will continue to be, an important component of the composite act of aggression. It is not possible to facilitate such airstrikes without facilitating the act of aggression of which they are a part. Nor is it possible to aid or assist an unlawful act and avoid responsibility by selectively intending only its desirable consequences.
While the United Kingdom may act in collective self-defense of the Gulf States, the United States may not. Self-defense permits the use of force only when necessary, that is, when nonforcible means have failed or have no reasonable prospect of success. The United States can end Iran’s unlawful attacks against the Gulf States by ending its own unlawful attacks against Iran. Since the United States may not use force against Iran in collective self-defense of the Gulf States, the United Kingdom may not assist the United States in using force against Iran under any circumstances.
The U.K. Prime Minister said that “the only way to stop the threat is to destroy the missiles at source – in their storage depots or the launchers which used to fire the missiles.” Even if true, this aim would not have to be pursued by aiding an aggressor. In any case, this is not true. Another way to stop the threat is to stop the war. The United Kingdom should encourage the United States to cease its ongoing aggression against Iran, while working with other partners to collectively defend the Gulf States from Iran.
Many of Iran’s strikes within Israel appear to be directed at the civilian population, or so indiscriminate as to be directed at both civilian objects and military objectives without distinction. Such strikes would both violate international humanitarian law and fall outside the internal limits of the right of self-defense, which permits the use of force only against the source of an armed attack. Does it follow that Israel and the United States may invoke the right of self-defense in response to Iran’s unlawful response to their unlawful attack? No. The right of self-defense permits the use of force only in cases of necessity. Israel and the United States can end Iran’s unlawful response simply by ending their own unlawful attack. That is what they must do.
The United States, Israel, and Iran, have each violated international law. The United Kingdom appears poised to join them. Hundreds of civilians have paid the price. Before more children are burned alive or buried under rubble, this lawless war must end.
– Adil Ahmad Haque, Published courtesy of Just Security.
