The question of international responsibility arising from acts of aggression, the threat or use of force, unilateral coercive measures, and other destabilizing actions against a United Nations member state—particularly the actions of the United States and Israel against Iran, especially during the recent 12-day war of 2025—represents one of the most complex and pressing challenges in contemporary international law. Such actions raise fundamental questions regarding state obligations under the UN Charter, the protection of territorial integrity, the respect for sovereignty, and the right of peoples to self-determination. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been subjected to a wide range of measures by the United States and Israel, including explicit military threats, covert operations, unilateral economic sanctions, and targeted killings of government officials and scientific personnel. Each of these measures carries distinct legal and humanitarian implications. Military threats and covert operations challenge the norms prohibiting the use of force, while unilateral sanctions and economic coercion raise questions regarding their consistency with international legal obligations and their impact on civilian populations. Targeted killings of officials and scientists further exacerbate concerns regarding violations of both international humanitarian law and human rights law.



International judicial bodies, notably the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Criminal Court (ICC), and various arbitral tribunals, have played a pivotal role in interpreting these legal obligations. These institutions have addressed, inter alia, the legality of the use of force, the legitimacy of countermeasures, and the normative parameters governing the imposition of sanctions. The ICJ, in particular, has emphasized the binding prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and has provided interpretative guidance on lawful countermeasures. The ICC has contributed by examining individual criminal responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression and violations of human rights, while arbitral tribunals offer additional perspectives on the application of international law in specific disputes. Collectively, these bodies highlight both the potential and the limitations of judicial intervention in ensuring compliance, particularly when political realities constrain the enforceability of court decisions.



This article examines judicial practice with particular attention to individual judges’ opinions, which offer nuanced insights into the interpretation and application of legal principles. The separate opinion of the late Brazilian judge Antônio Augusto Trindade in Iran v. United States (2019) addressed the humanitarian consequences of unilateral sanctions and emphasized the importance of minimizing harm to civilian populations. Similarly, the dissenting opinion of the late Egyptian judge Abdel Hamid Bouh Pasha in the Corfu Channel case (1949) underscored the inviolability of state sovereignty and condemned unauthorized military intrusions. The separate opinion of the German judge Bruno Simma in Oil Platforms (2003) addressed restrictive interpretations of defensive measures, highlighting the careful differentiation required between lawful self-defense and acts exceeding permissible boundaries. These individual judicial opinions collectively demonstrate the capacity of international courts to clarify norms, provide interpretive guidance, and contribute to the gradual evolution of customary international law. By systematically analyzing these opinions, this article illustrates how they can guide both legal scholarship and practical state conduct in complex situations.



The analysis demonstrates that actions undertaken by the United States and Israel against Iran contravene both the prohibition on the use of force under the UN Charter and the broader prohibition against coercive economic measures. While the legal framework is clear, the enforceability of judicial decisions is frequently constrained by prevailing geopolitical conditions, highlighting the challenges of translating judicial reasoning into practical accountability. Nonetheless, strategic reliance on existing judicial mechanisms—including careful study and application of individual judges’ opinions—offers a pathway for documenting state responsibility, deterring future violations, and shaping the development of new norms of international law. Individual judges’ opinions are particularly important, as they provide detailed reasoning that can inform future adjudication, diplomatic negotiations, and scholarly analysis.



Moreover, this study emphasizes the significance of integrating judicial reasoning into broader legal and policy discourse. By analyzing judicial responses to unilateral coercive measures, military threats, and targeted operations, the article demonstrates that international courts serve not only as forums for accountability but also as catalysts for normative development. Judicial opinions help delineate the boundaries of permissible conduct, clarify the consequences of violations, and provide authoritative references for states and international actors seeking to ensure compliance with established norms. Although enforcement mechanisms may be limited, reasoned judicial analysis strengthens the potential for legal instruments to influence state behavior, reinforce the rule of law at the international level, and support the progressive codification of customary norms.



Ultimately, this article concludes that judicious reliance on existing judicial instruments, combined with careful engagement with individual judges’ opinions and case law, can play a critical role in documenting violations, preventing recurrence, and fostering the development of international legal norms. Such an approach enhances the capacity of the international legal system to respond to destabilizing actions, ensuring that states remain accountable for conduct that threatens peace, security, and fundamental principles of international law. In sum, strategic engagement with judicial mechanisms, informed by detailed analysis of both majority and separate opinions, represents a practical and necessary approach for promoting compliance, advancing international legal standards, and mitigating the adverse effects of unilateral coercive measures and other destabilizing acts.