SELF-DEFENCE OR AGGRESSION: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE UNITED STATES AND ISRAEL MILITARY STRIKES ON IRAN

Abstract

The prohibition of the use of force is a fundamental principle of modern international law under the United Nations Charter, which prohibits states from using force against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other states. Most recently, the United States and Israel carry out military strikes against Iran which have generated intense legal and political controversy regarding the legality or otherwise of their action in line with international law. The attackers justified their action as measures aimed at preventing Iran’s nuclear capability and protecting regional security interests. However, many international law scholars and observers question whether such actions satisfy the requirements of lawful self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, particularly in the absence of clear evidence of an imminent armed attack. The article adopts a doctrinal research method  by  examining  relevant  provisions  of  the  United  Nations  Charter,  decisions  of  the International Court of Justice, and scholarly opinions on the legality ofpre-emptive military action. This article examines the legality of the United States and Israel’s military strikes on Iran through the framework of international law governing the use of force. It analyses the competing legal arguments surrounding the doctrine of anticipatory self-defence, the principles of necessity and proportionality, and the role of the United Nations Security Council in authorizing military action. The study further evaluates whether the strikes can be justified as lawful self-defence or whether they constitute an act of aggression under international law.  The article finds that the military strikes by the United States and Israel lack Security Council’s formal authorisation as required under the international legal regime. The article finds further that there is lack of credible evidence of an imminent armed attack(s) by Iranians which seriously casts doubt on the legality of the military strikes by the United States and Israel.The article recommends that there is need for  strict  adherence  to  international  legal  principles  to  preserve  global  peace,  protect  state sovereignty and maintain the authority of the international legal order.