مجله حقوقی بین المللی

مجله حقوقی بین المللی

Legitimacy Assessment of the June 2025 Attacks by the United States and Israel Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities in Light of International Law

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
Mahdi Firoozabadian 1
Faramarz Yadegarian 2
1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, ToH. C., Islamic Azad University, Torbate Heydarieh, Iran.
2 M.A. in International Law, Department of International Law, SR. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22066/cilamag.2026.2069703.2791
چکیده
In June 2025, the U.S and Israel took extensive military action against Iran which resulted in inflicting severe damage on country’s infrastructure. The primary question of the research is, from the standpoint of international law, whether the actions of Israel and United States of America were legitimate, and what legal response does Iran have. The hypothesis of the research is based on the premise that the aforementioned attacks are illegal and constitute multiple violations of international law, neither falling within the framework of legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter nor within the framework of anticipatory self-defense. According to the Caroline doctrine, Iran was not planning to attack at any level whether at initial stages or other levels therefore the imminence of self-defense would lose its function and there was no practical and immediate threat against Israel. Therefore, Israel's attack in the form of preventive self-defense also lacked legal legitimacy and constituted military aggression. This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library document review. The findings indicate the attacks constitute a clear violation of Article 56 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions 1977, which prohibits attacks on installations containing dangerous materials, Articles 35 and 55 regarding prohibition of environmental destruction, Article 85(3)(c) which considers such attacks as war crimes, violation of the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets by attacking targets such as the Evin Prison and numerous hospitals, Article 8(2)(b)(4) of the Rome Statute, and Article 2 of the UN Charter regarding peaceful settlement of disputes, while Iran was engaged in negotiations. The article's findings prove that Iran can file complaints based on violations of established principles of international law if the U.S and Israel accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and can also pursue justice through Declaration under Article 12(3) of the ICC and other legal remedies, as the practice of the ICC shows that its judicial policy regarding issuing arrest warrants for heads of state has undergone significant developments
کلیدواژه‌ها
Article 51 Self-defense
International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court
Preventive Self-defense
Caroline Doctrine
International Humanitarian Law
War Crimes
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Legitimacy Assessment of the June 2025 Attacks by the United States and Israel Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities in Light of International Law

نویسندگان English

Mahdi Firoozabadian 1
Faramarz Yadegarian 2
1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, ToH. C., Islamic Azad University, Torbate Heydarieh, Iran.
2 M.A. in International Law, Department of International Law, SR. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

In June 2025, the U.S and Israel took extensive military action against Iran which resulted in inflicting severe damage on country’s infrastructure. The primary question of the research is, from the standpoint of international law, whether the actions of Israel and United States of America were legitimate, and what legal response does Iran have. The hypothesis of the research is based on the premise that the aforementioned attacks are illegal and constitute multiple violations of international law, neither falling within the framework of legitimate self-defense under Article 51 of the Charter nor within the framework of anticipatory self-defense. According to the Caroline doctrine, Iran was not planning to attack at any level whether at initial stages or other levels therefore the imminence of self-defense would lose its function and there was no practical and immediate threat against Israel. Therefore, Israel's attack in the form of preventive self-defense also lacked legal legitimacy and constituted military aggression. This research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library document review. The findings indicate the attacks constitute a clear violation of Article 56 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions 1977, which prohibits attacks on installations containing dangerous materials, Articles 35 and 55 regarding prohibition of environmental destruction, Article 85(3)(c) which considers such attacks as war crimes, violation of the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets by attacking targets such as the Evin Prison and numerous hospitals, Article 8(2)(b)(4) of the Rome Statute, and Article 2 of the UN Charter regarding peaceful settlement of disputes, while Iran was engaged in negotiations. The article's findings prove that Iran can file complaints based on violations of established principles of international law if the U.S and Israel accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, and can also pursue justice through Declaration under Article 12(3) of the ICC and other legal remedies, as the practice of the ICC shows that its judicial policy regarding issuing arrest warrants for heads of state has undergone significant developments

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Article 51 Self-defense
International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court
Preventive Self-defense
Caroline Doctrine
International Humanitarian Law
War Crimes
References
- Books
1.         Alexandrov, Stanimir. Self-Defense Against the Use of Force in International Law. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996.
2.         Benbaji, Yitzhak, and Daniel Statman. "Introduction: The Moral Standing of the War Agreement." In War by Agreement: A Contractarian Ethics of War, Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/ 9780199577194.003.0009.
3.         Bowett, Derek W. Self-Defence in International Law, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958.
4.         Brownlie, Ian. International Law and the Use of Force by States. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.
5.         Corten, Olivier. "The Prohibition of the Use of Force." In The UN Friendly Relations Declaration at 50: An Assessment of the Fundamental Principles of International Law, edited by Jorge E. Viñuales, 51-71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.
6.         Dinstein, Yoram. War, Aggression and Self-Defence. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
7.         Kirsch, Nico. Selbstverteidigungund kollektive Sicherheit: Beiträge zum ausländischen öffentlichen Recht und Völkerrecht. Heidelberg: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften ed.V., 2001.
8.         Randelzhofer, Albrecht. "Article 51." In The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed., vol. 2, edited by Bruno Simma et al., 788-804. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
 
- Articles
1.         Arend, Anthony Clark, "International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force." The Washington Quarterly 26, no. 2 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1162/01636600360569711.
2.         Bedjaoui, Mohammad, "L'humanité en quête de paix et de développement. Cours général." Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International 325 (2006).
3.         Buchan, Russell, "Non-Forcible Measures and The Law of Self-Defence." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 72, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000471.
4.         Castelli, Ludovica, and Olamide Samuel, "Justifying Attacks on Nuclear Facilities." The Nonproliferation Review 30, no. 1–3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2024.2301883.
5.         Eenmaa, Helen, "The Concept of Anticipatory Self-Defense in International Law After the Bush Doctrine." Acta Societatis Martensis 1 (2005). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1874985.
 
6.         Firoozabadian, Mahdi, and Faramarz Yadegarian, "The Conflict between State Immunity and Human Rights: Towards an International Compensation Mechanism." The Journal of Human Rights 20, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.22096/hr.2024.2040625.1686
7.         Firoozabadian, Mahdi, and Faramarz Yadegarian, "The (Il)legality of U.S. Sanctions on Iran Post-JCPOA Withdrawal, Focusing on the ICJ's Provisional Measures Order." Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies 8, no. 2 (2024). https://doi.org/10.22059/wsps.2024.367463.1390
8.         Löfmann, Georg. "The Bush Doctrine redux: changes and continuities in American grand strategy since '9/11'." International Politics 61 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-023-00461-9.
9.         O'Meara, Chris. "Reconceptualizing the Right of Self-Defence against 'Imminent' Armed Attacks." Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 9, no. 2 (2022). doi:10.1080/20531702.2022.2097618.
10.     Yadegarian, Faramarz, "Iran's Countermeasures to US Withdrawal from JCPOA and the Trigger Mechanism." Iranian Review for UN Studies 2, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.22034/iruns.2019.121932
11.     Yadegarian, Faramarz, "The International Court of Justice and its role in the legal relations between Iran and the United States." Iranian Review of Foreign Affairs 13, no. 35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.22034/irfa.2021.187215
12.     Yadegarian, Faramarz, and Mahdi Firoozabadian, "Iran's Response to U.S. Non-Compliance with International Court of Justice Decisions." Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies 7, no. 3 (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.22059/wsps.2024.367662.1389
13.     Yadegarian, Faramarz, and Mohamad Razavi. "Breaking the Cycle of Impunity: A Call for ICC Investigation into War Crimes and Genocide in the Israel-Hamas Conflict Post-October 7, 2023." Iranian Review for UN Studies 6, no. 1 (2025). https://doi.org/10.22034/iruns.2025. 498595.1164.
14.      Yadegarian, Faramarz, and Mohammad Razavi. "The evolution of the international criminal court's judicial policy on issuing arrest warrants: from Uganda to Palestine." Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 12, no. 1-2 (2025): 255-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 20531702.2025.2540751
15.     Yadegarian, Faramarz, Mohsen Mohebi, and Amir Hossein Molkizadeh. "Substantive Jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in the Case of Violation of Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (1955)." International Studies Journal (ISJ) 21, no. 1 (2024). https://doi.org/ 10.22034/isj.2024.398132.2012
 
- Cases
1.         Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986.
2.         Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003.
3.         Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, Queen's Bench Division, [1884] 14 QBD 273.
 
- Instruments
1.         Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.
2.         Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978) 1125 UNTS 3.
3.         Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90.
4.         Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (adopted 1968, entered into force 1970) 729 UNTS 161.
 
- Documents
1.         O'Connell, Mary Ellen. "The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense." The American Society of International Law Task Force Papers. Washington: ASIL, 2002.
2.       The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: The White House, September 2002. Accessed December 28, 2025. https://2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/ 63562.pdf.
3.       The White House. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. Washington, DC: The White House, March 2006. Accessed December 28, 2025. https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/ nss/nss2006.pdf
4.      UN Security Council Resolution 667 (16 September 1990) UN Doc S/RES/667.
5.      UN Security Council Resolution 670 (25 September 1990) UN Doc S/RES/670.
6.      UN Security Council Resolution 674 (29 October 1990) UN Doc S/RES/674.
 
- Online Source
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). "Iran: UN Fact-Finding Mission, Special Rapporteur Call for Civilian Protection and Respect for Human Rights as Israeli Attacks Cause Extensive Suffering." Press release, 23 June 2025. Accessed December 28, 2025. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/iran-un-fact-finding-mission-special-rapporteur-call-civilian-protection-and

  • تاریخ دریافت 01 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 08 دی 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 08 بهمن 1404