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

Extended Abstract

Background and Objective

The June 2025 United States-Israel strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are one of the deepest security challenges in the region during the past decades, which presents an existential challenge to established principles of international law. This study provides a comprehensive legal analysis of legitimacy of such strikes under international law and examines current legal remedies for Iran seeking justice through established international mechanisms.

Methodology

This research employs a descriptive-analytical method from library materials, international documents, ICJ judicial practice, ICC judgments, and analyses by distinguished international law scholars. The research evaluates the historical evolution of the prohibition of the use of force, analyzes alternative meanings of legal self-defense, and applies accepted standards of law to the June 2025 attacks.

Legal Framework Analysis

The research demonstrates that Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, prohibiting the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity, has evolved into a jus cogens norm recognized by the ICJ. The study identifies two legitimate exceptions to prohibition of force usage: Article 51 self-defense and Security Council authorization pursuant to Articles 39 and 42. Analysis evinces tensions between evolutionary and continuity paradigms of approaches towards understanding the exceptions, with the evolutionary paradigm gaining greater worldwide adherence as it aligns with the Charter's fundamental objective of containing armed force.

The research identifies four readings of legitimate self-defense: (1) restrictive reading requiring immediate armed attack; (2) flexible but restrictive reading allowing response to inevitable attacks; (3) expansive reading allowing anticipatory self-defense using Caroline doctrine standards; and (4) extremely expansive reading allowing preventive action against hypothetical threats. America and Israel's actions fall into the most extreme fourth reading with no support in international law.

Caroline Doctrine Application

The Caroline case (1837) is discussed in the paper to formulate necessity and proportionality tests for legitimate anticipatory self-defense. Both tests require overwhelming necessity with no other alternative and no time for deliberation. The June 2025 attacks fail on both accounts: there was no immediate Iranian threat and diplomatic negotiations were at full throttle, presenting clear alternatives to war.

Bush Doctrine Criticism

The research verifies that the Bush Doctrine, claiming the right to use force before imminent threats materialize, is aberration from the foundational principles of international law and contravenes established ICJ jurisprudence. By crossing the thresholds of necessity and proportionality, the doctrine places itself outside appropriate legal boundaries and opens up opportunities for abuse by powerful states.

Key Findings

The probe attests that America and Israel have bombed Iran when Iran was actively negotiating with the United States and other powers to resolve nuclear issues. This attests that the attacks lacked necessity (diplomatic options were in place), urgency (no imminent threat), and proportionality. The attacks constitute preventive instead of anticipatory self-defense, which is illegal under international law.

The study mentions a number of violations of international humanitarian law, including of Article 56 of Additional Protocol I (1977), which prohibits attacking installations containing dangerous forces. Deliberate attacks on civilian targets like hospitals and Evin Prison are violations of the principle of distinction, a war crime under the Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(4).

International Responsibility and Legal Remedies

The attacks trigger absolute international responsibility of the United States and Israel under settled principles of state responsibility. The research discovers different avenues for Iran in law: potential ICJ proceedings after jurisdictional barriers are overcome, and ICC jurisdiction under Article 12(3) of the Rome Statute. The precedent in the Nicaragua v. United States case reveals that states must "cease and refrain from all acts constituting breaches of legal obligations" and "make reparation for all injury caused."

Iran may invoke the jurisdiction of the ICC under Article 12(3) despite its non-membership by agreeing to exercise jurisdiction over offenses from June 23, 2025 onwards. Recent ICC judicial policy making on the issuing of arrest warrants against heads of state like Israeli, Hamas, and Russian leaders shows that the Court is determined to prosecute high-ranking officials.

Additional Strategies

The report outlines precise strategies like UN General Assembly resolutions, Human Rights Council reports, multilateral diplomacy, individual complaint procedures, NGO coalitions, and academic collaboration. International public mobilization is one of the main enforcement guarantees and strong deterrents against future attacks.

Conclusions and Implications

June 2025 attacks are illegal use of force and armed aggression and contravene fundamental international law principles. The attacks cannot have any legal justification under any concept of legitimate self-defense and are systematic violations of international humanitarian law. Iran has a range of legal recourse in claiming justice and compensation and advancing general international law development on the prohibition of force as well as safeguarding state sovereignty.

Principled pursuit of the case serves in the proper interests of Iran in asserting sovereignty and claiming compensation, strengthening international rule of law and international legal order in relations between states. Maintenance of international rule of law is a collective responsibility of all members of the international community and common interests in preventing abuse of power by powerful states against weak states.