مجله حقوقی بین المللی

مجله حقوقی بین المللی

Weapons of Legal Justification: The Pretext of Preemptive Self-Defence in the Israeli Strikes Against Iran

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسنده
PhD. Student, Research and Casual Academic, University of Technology Sydney
10.22066/cilamag.2025.2066512.2767
چکیده
This article critically evaluates the legality of pre-emptive self-defence under contemporary international law, focusing specifically on Israel’s June 2025 airstrikes against Iran. By analyzing the legal framework established by Articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter, the central argument contends that pre-emptive force remains unlawful absent an actual armed attack. However, an incremental accumulation of scholarships and national military manuals, primarily limited to certain western States, has fostered a self-referential cycle. This cycle projects the misleading appearance of an emerging customary norm authorizing pre-emptive or preventive use of force. This doctrinal ‘snowball effect’, whereby successive publications uncritically cite and amplify predecessors, generates an artificial sense of legal evolution. Nevertheless, rigorous analysis drawing on doctrine, International Court of Justice jurisprudence, general practice of States and even the Caroline criteria itself, often invoked by States justifying pre-emptive self-defence, reveals a clear distinction: lawful self-defence is strictly confined by necessity and proportionality, while anticipatory or preventive self-defence falls outside accepted legal boundaries. The article concludes that Israel’s justification, based on non-imminent and speculative threats, fails to meet even the lower threshold of the Caroline doctrine for pre-emptory self-defence – let alone the stricter contemporary jus ad bellum standards under the UN Charter. Recognizing a unilateral right to pre-emption would gravely undermine the jus cogens character of Article 2(4), erode the UN’s collective security system, and incentivize destabilizing unilateral initiatives and resorts to force. Consequently, absent Security Council authorization or a manifest armed attack, pre-emptive self-defence remains fundamentally incompatible with the current international legal order.
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Weapons of Legal Justification: The Pretext of Preemptive Self-Defence in the Israeli Strikes Against Iran

نویسنده English

Naderi Naderi
PhD. Student, Research and Casual Academic, University of Technology Sydney
چکیده English

This article critically evaluates the legality of pre-emptive self-defence under contemporary international law, focusing specifically on Israel’s June 2025 airstrikes against Iran. By analyzing the legal framework established by Articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter, the central argument contends that pre-emptive force remains unlawful absent an actual armed attack. However, an incremental accumulation of scholarships and national military manuals, primarily limited to certain western States, has fostered a self-referential cycle. This cycle projects the misleading appearance of an emerging customary norm authorizing pre-emptive or preventive use of force. This doctrinal ‘snowball effect’, whereby successive publications uncritically cite and amplify predecessors, generates an artificial sense of legal evolution. Nevertheless, rigorous analysis drawing on doctrine, International Court of Justice jurisprudence, general practice of States and even the Caroline criteria itself, often invoked by States justifying pre-emptive self-defence, reveals a clear distinction: lawful self-defence is strictly confined by necessity and proportionality, while anticipatory or preventive self-defence falls outside accepted legal boundaries. The article concludes that Israel’s justification, based on non-imminent and speculative threats, fails to meet even the lower threshold of the Caroline doctrine for pre-emptory self-defence – let alone the stricter contemporary jus ad bellum standards under the UN Charter. Recognizing a unilateral right to pre-emption would gravely undermine the jus cogens character of Article 2(4), erode the UN’s collective security system, and incentivize destabilizing unilateral initiatives and resorts to force. Consequently, absent Security Council authorization or a manifest armed attack, pre-emptive self-defence remains fundamentally incompatible with the current international legal order.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Article 51
Caroline Doctrine
International Law
jus ad bellum
Pre-emptive Self-Defence
Self-Defence
UN Charter
Bibliography
- Books
1.         Aust, Helmut Philipp. “Article 51.” In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 4th ed., edited by Bruno Simma et al., 1769-1820. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024.
2.         Bentwich, Norman, and Andrew Martin. A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations. 1st ed. Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2024.
3.         Bethlehem, Daniel. “Self Defence against Non-State Actors.” In British Contributions to International Law, 1915-2015, vol. I, edited by Jill Barrett and Jean-Pierre Gauci, 2489-2507. Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff, 2020.
4.         Chinkin, Christine, and Mary Kaldor. “Self-Defence as a Justification for War: The Geo-Political and War on Terror Models.” In International Law and New Wars, 129-174. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
5.         Corten, Olivier, and Vaios Koutroulis. “The Jus Cogens Status of the Prohibition on the Use of Force: What Is Its Scope and Why Does It Matter?” In Peremptory Norms of General International Law (Jus Cogens), edited by Dire Tladi, 629-656. Leiden: Brill, 2021.
6.         Crawford, James. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
7.         Henderson, Christian. The Use of Force and International Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023.
8.         Lubell, Noam. “The Problem of Imminence in an Uncertain World.” In The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, edited by Marc Weller, 679-719. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
9.         Ruys, Tom. ‘Armed Attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
10.     Weller, Marc. The Oxford Handbook on the Use of Force in International Law. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.
11.     Wilmshurst, Elizabeth. “The Chatham House Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-Defence.” In British Contributions to International Law, 1915-2015, vol. I, edited by Jill Barrett and Jean-Pierre Gauci, 2433-2456. Leiden: Brill-Nijhoff, 2020.
 
- Articles
1.         Akande, Dapo, and Thomas Lieflaender. “Clarifying Necessity, Imminence, and Proportionality in the Law of Self-Defence.” American Journal of International Law 107, no. 3 (2013).
2.         Allain, Jean. “The True Challenge to the United Nations System of the Use of Force: The Failures of Kosovo and Iraq and the Emergence of the African Union.” Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law 8, no. 1 (2004).
3.         Azubuike, Eustace Chikere. “Probing the Scope of Self Defence in International Law.” Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law 17, no. 1 (2011).
4.         Bellamy, Alex J. “International Law and the War with Iraq.” Melbourne Journal of International Law 4, no. 2 (2004).
5.         Bethlehem, Daniel. “Principles Relevant to the Scope of a State’s Right of Self-Defence Against an Imminent or Actual Armed Attack by Nonstate Actors.” American Journal of International Law 106, no. 4 (2012).
6.         Foster, Caroline E. “The Oil Platforms Case and the Use of Force in International Law.” Singapore Journal of International & Comparative Law 7, no. 2 (2003).
7.         Haque, Adil Ahmad, and Paul H. Robinson. “Advantaging Aggressors: Justice & Deterrence in International Law.” Harvard National Security Journal 3, no. 1 (2011).
8.         Houston, James W. “Caroline Revisited: An Imagined Exchange between John Kerry and Mohammad Javad Zarif.” Penn State Journal of Law & International Affairs 2, no. 2 (2013).
9.         Kaplan, Neil J. “The Attack on Osirak: Delimitation of Self-Defence.” NYLS Journal of International and Comparative Law 4, no. 1 (1982).
10.     Kretzmer, David. “The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum.” European Journal of International Law 24, no. 1 (2013).
11.     Maogoto, Jackson Nyamuya. “Rushing to Break the Law? The ‘Bush Doctrine’ of Pre-Emptive Strikes and the UN Charter on the Use of Force.” University of Western Sydney Law Review 7, no. 1 (2003).
12.     Mastrolembo, Renee. “Imminence and States’ Right to Anticipatory Self-Defence: Responding to Contemporary Security Threats and Divergence in Legal Diplomacy.” Canberra Law Review 16, no. 1 (2019).
13.     Mousavi, Seyed Fazlolah and Mehdi Hatami. “Anticipatory Self-Defense in International Law.” Law & Political Science 72, no. 1 (2006).
14.     Murphy, Sean D. “The Doctrine of Preemptive Self-Defence.” Villanova Law Review 50, no. 3 (2005).
15.     O’Meara, Chris. “Reconceptualising the Right of Self-Defence Against ‘Imminent’ Armed Attacks.” Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 9, no. 2 (2022).
16.     Occelli, Maria Benvenuta. “Sinking the Caroline: Why the Caroline Doctrine’s Restrictions on Self-Defence Should Not Be Regarded as Customary International Law.” San Diego International Law Journal 4, no. 1 (2003).
17.     Pierson, Charles. “Preemptive Self-Defence in an Age of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 33, no. 1 (2004).
 
18.     Powell, Russell. “The Law and Philosophy of Preventive War: An Institution-Based Approach to Collective Self-Defence.” Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 32, no. 1 (2007).
19.     Reisman, Michael, and Andrea C. Armstrong. “The Past and Future of the Claim of Preemptive Self-Defence.” American Journal of International Law 100, no. 3 (2006).
20.     Rothwell, Donald. “Anticipatory Self‑Defence in the Age of International Terrorism.” University of Queensland Law Journal 24 (2005).
21.     Schmitt, Michael N. “21st Century Conflict: Can the Law Survive?” Melbourne Journal of International Law 8, no. 2 (2007).
22.     Sharifi Tarazkoohi, Hossein and Victor Barin Chaharbakhsh. “Appraisal of Anticipatory Self-Defence in the 21st Century.” Public Law Research 15, no. 40 (2013).
23.     Trapp, Kimberley N. “Back to Basics: Necessity, Proportionality, and the Right of Self-Defence Against Non-State Terrorist Actors.” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 56, no. 1 (2008).
24.     Vitkowsky, Vincent J. “Remarks on Customary International Law and the Use of Force Against Terrorists and Rogue State Collaborators.” ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 13, no. 2 (2007).
25.     Waxman, Matthew C. “Regulating Resort to Force: Form and Substance of the UN Charter Regime.” European Journal of International Law 24, no. 1 (2013).
26.     Wilmshurst, Elizabeth, and Michael Wood. “Self-Defence Against Nonstate Actors: Reflections on the Bethlehem Principles.” American Journal of International Law 107, no. 2 (2017).
27.     Zarif, Javad and Mohammad Ahani Amineh. “Premptive Self-Defense: The Legitimacy of the Use of Force in International Relations or a Repeated Violation of the United Nations Charter.” Political and International Studies 4, no. 12 (2012).
 
- Cases
1.         Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 2005.
2.         Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004.
3.         Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986.
4.         Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Written Proceedings, Counter-Memorial and Counter-Claim, I.C.J. Reports 1997.
 
 
- Documents
1.         Charter of the United Nations (adopted June 26, 1945; entered into force October 24, 1945), 1 UNTS XVI. https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/ ctc/uncharter.pdf
2.         International Law Association, Committee on the Use of Force. Final Report on Aggression and the Use of Force. Sydney: ILA, 2018. https://repository.essex.ac.uk/24215/1/ILA%20Use%20of%20Force%202018.pdf
3.         Chatham House, Report No, ILP WP 05/01, 2005, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Principles of International Law on the Use of Force by States in Self-Defence” https://www.chathamhouse.org/2005/10/principles-international- law-use-force-states-self-defence
4.         UK Government. “Attorney General Discusses the Modern Law of Self- defence.” Speech, International Institute for Strategic Studies, January 11, 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/attorney-generals-speech-at-the-international-institute-for-strategic-studies
5.         UK House of Commons. The Report of the Iraq Inquiry, vol. V. London: Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors, 2016. https://www.gov.uk/ government/publications/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry
6.         UK Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs. “Written Evidence Submitted by Daniel Bethlehem QC, Director of Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge.” London: UK Parliament, 2004, para. 35. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm 200304/cmselect/cmfaff/441/4060808.htm
7.         UN General Assembly. “2005 World Summit Outcome.” October 24, 2005, A/RES/60/1. https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/ migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_60_1.pdf
8.        UN General Assembly. “Armed Israeli Aggression Against the Iraqi Nuclear Installations and Its Grave Consequences,” A/RES/36/27, November 25, 1981. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/27621?ln=en& v=pdf
9.         UN Security Council. “Resolution 487 (1981),” June 19, 1981. S/RES/487. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/22225?ln=en&v=pdf
10.     UN Security Council. “Resolution 678 (1990),” November 1990. S/RES/ 678. https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf
11.     UN Security Council. “Resolution 687 (1991),” April 8, 1991. S/RES/687. https://www.un.org/depts/unmovic/documents/687.pdf
12.     UN Security Council. Threats to International Peace and Security, 9936th meeting, June 13, 2025, New York. UN Doc. S/PV.9936. https://docs.un.org/ en/S/PV.9936?_gl=1*1jhhu7t*_ga*MTMyMzMyNjcyMC4xNzYwMjY3NDY4*_ga_TK9BQL5X7Z*czE3NzExNTY5NTAkbzEwJGcxJHQxNzcxMTU2OTg5JGoyMSRsMCRoMA.
 
13.     United Nations. “Letter dated June 16, 2025, from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council.” S/2025/387. https://docs.un.org/en/S/2025/387
14.     United Nations. A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility: Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. New York: United Nations, 2004. https://www.un.org/peacebuilding/sites/www.un. org.peacebuilding/files/documents/hlp_more_secure_world.pdf
15.     United Nations. In Larger Freedom: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All. New York: United Nations, 2005. https://digitallibrary. un.org/record/550204?ln=en&v=pdf#files
16.     United States. National Security Strategy 2002. Washington: The White House, 2002. https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/ 63562.pdf
 
- Dissertation and Thesis
1.         Leishman, Lily. “A Compelling Idea: Jus Cogens and the Power of the United Nations Security Council.” PhD Dissertation, University of Otago, 2019.
2.         Nilsson, Charlotta. The Legality of Anticipatory Self-Defence in International Law. Master’s Thesis, University of Lund, 2008.
3.         O’Meara, Christopher. Necessity and Proportionality and the Right of Self-Defence in International Law. PhD Dissertation., University College London, 2018.
 
- Online Sources
1.         Amanpour, Christiane. Interview with International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi. CNN, June 17, 2025. https://transcripts. cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2025-06-17/segment/01.
U.S. Department of Defence. Challenges to Military Operations in Support of U.S. Interests, vol. II. Washington: US Secretary of Defence, 2008. https://dsb.cto.mil/wp-content/uploads/reports/2000s/ADA491393.pdf

  • تاریخ دریافت 10 مرداد 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 20 مهر 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 20 مهر 1404