International Law Review

International Law Review

The 12-Day War and Destabilizing Actions of the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran: Reflection from the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice

Document Type : academic

Authors
Mohsen Mohebi 1
Parisa Abdollahian Fard 2
1 Associate Prof of Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch
2 PhD. Candidate of International Law, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law Theology and Politics, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.
10.22066/cilamag.2025.2069632.2787
Abstract
Abstract
International responsibility arising from aggression, the threat of force, unilateral sanctions, and other destabilizing actions against a UN Member State constitutes one of the most challenging issues in contemporary international law. The actions of the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran—particularly during the recent 12-day war (2025), through military threats, covert operations, unilateral sanctions, and the assassination of officials and scientists—have raised serious questions regarding the conflict of these actions with the principles of the UN Charter, territorial integrity, and the right of nations to self-determination. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and other international judicial bodies, including the International Criminal Court (ICC) and arbitral tribunals, have played a significant role in defining the scope of the prohibition on the use of force, the legitimacy of countermeasures, and the legal criteria for sanctions.
Focusing on judicial practice and individual opinions of judges, this article demonstrates that the actions of the United States and Israel against Iran conflict with the principle of the prohibition of the use of force (Article 2(4) of the Charter) and the prohibition of coercive economic pressure. An examination of recent rulings—including the separate opinion of Brazilian Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade in the Iran v. United States case (2019) regarding the humanitarian consequences of sanctions; the dissenting opinion of Egyptian Judge Abdel Hamid Badawi in the Corfu Channel case (1949) concerning the violation of sovereignty; and the separate opinion of German Judge Bruno Simma in the Oil Platforms case (2003) regarding the restrictive interpretation of defensive measures—reveals the capacities and limitations of these judicial bodies. The article concludes that although judicial enforcement faces significant obstacles under current political conditions, the intelligent utilization of existing mechanisms, particula
rly through the analytical invocation of such individual opinions, can be effective in documenting responsibility, preventing the recurrence of violations, and shaping new customary rules.
Keywords
International Court of Justice
12-Day War
Coercive Sanctions
Aggression
Threat of Force
State Responsibility
Judicial Opinions
Islamic Republic of Iran
Subjects
Bibliography
- Books
1.         Barnett, Michael. Power in International Politics. New York: Routledge, 2014.
2.         Brownlie, Ian. Principles of Public International Law. 8th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
3.         Cassese, Antonio. International Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
4.         Crawford, James. Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law. 9th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
5.         Franck, Thomas M. The Power of Legitimacy among Nations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.
6.         Gray, Christine. International Law and the Use of Force. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
7.         Hart, H. L. A. The Concept of Law. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.
8.         Higgins, Rosalyn. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
9.        Koskenniemi, Martti. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
10.     McDonald, Caroline. The Role of Judges in International Law Development. New York: Columbia University Press, 2017.
11.     Mousavian, Seyed Hossein. Iran and the International Community. New York: Routledge, 2018.
12.     Sands, Philippe. East West Street: On the Origins of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2016.
13.     Sands, Philippe. Principles of International Environmental Law. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
14.     Schmitt, Michael N., and Liis Vihul. International Law and the Use of Force: Cases and Materials. 3rd ed. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2020.
15.     Shaw, Malcolm. International Law. 8th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017.
 
- Articles
1.         Alston, Philip. “Justice and Human Rights in the Era of Globalization.” Human Rights Quarterly 27, no. 4 (2005).
2.         Boisson de Chazournes, Laurence. “The Iran–United States Dispute at the ICJ: The Treaty of Amity and Beyond.” American Journal of International Law 113, no. 2 (2019).
3.         Byman, Daniel. “Cyber Warfare and Israel’s Covert Campaign Against Iran.” Foreign Affairs, 2018.
4.         Crawford, James. “The Corfu Channel Case and Contemporary International Law.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly 48, no. 4 (1999).
5.         D’Amato, Anthony. “Enforcement Problems in International Law.” American Journal of International Law 73, no. 1 (1979).
6.         Gazit, Shlomo. “Israel’s Targeted Killings and International Law: Justification and Legal Challenges.” Journal of International Criminal Justice 19, no. 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqab029.
7.         Ghasemi, Payam. “Legal Development of the Concept of ‘Crimes against Humanity’ and ‘War Crimes’ in Light of the Gaza War and Legal Pursuit of Israel.” Daneshname-ye Feghh va Hoquq-e Tatbighi 2, no. 1 (2024): [In Persian].
8.         Ghorbanipour, Mostoureh, Leila Raeisi, and Hossein Rostamzad. “Legitimacy of ICJ’s Function in Developing International Law Rules.” Faslname-ye Motale’at-e Hoquq-e Omoumi-ye Daneshgah-e Tehran 53, no. 3 (2023) [In Persian].
9.         Glennon, Michael. “The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense.” European Journal of International Law 20, no. 3 (2009).
10.     Habibi, Homayoun, and Sudeh Shamloo. “The Role of the International Court of Justice in Developing International Law.” Pajouhesh-e Hoquq-e Omoumi, no. 41 (2013) [In Persian].
11.     Jonathan, Moses, and Bruno Simma, “Iran v. United States: The Oil Platforms Case and the Use of Force under International Law,” European Journal of International Law 20, no. 2 (2009).
12.     Kanstantsin, Kanstantsin D. “The Principle of Consent in the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.” Journal of International Dispute Settlement 8, no. 2 (2017).
13.     Mary Ellen O’Connell. “Silent Invasions: Economic Sanctions as Acts of War.” Journal of Human Rights 15, no. 2 (2016).
14.     MirMohammadi, Seyed Mostafa, and Mehran Khamisizadeh. “Comparative Study on the Role and Function of Individual Opinions (Separate, Dissenting, and Declarations) in the ICJ and Investor-State Arbitration System.” Motale’at-e Hoquq-e Tatbighi 11, no. 1 (2020). [In Persian]
15.     Mousavi, Seyed Fazlollah. 2025. “Legal Analysis of Aggressive Attack by the Zionist Regime on the Islamic Republic of Iran.”, Iranian Association for UN Studies. [In Persian].
16.     Robinson, Peter. “Definitions of Force in International Law.” International Law Journal 25, no. 1 (2018).
17.     Meiklejohn, Sarah. “Data Science and International Law: Applications and Challenges.” Journal of International Legal Studies 37, no. 2 (2023).
18.     Schmitt, Michael N. “International Law and Cyber Operations: Challenges and Responses.” Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 2021.
19.     Yadgarian, Faramarz, Mohsen Mohibi, and Amirhossein Malekizadeh. “Establishing the ICJ’s Jurisdiction in the Case of Breach of the 1955 Treaty of Amity.” Journal of International Studies 21, no. 1 (Summer 1403/2024). Accessed November 9, 2025 [In Persian].
20.     Yoo, John. “Economic Sanctions and Cyber Operations as Instruments of War.” Journal of Conflict Studies 12, no. 3 (2016).
 
- Media
1.         Rezadoost, Vahid. Nazem-e Nazm-e Parishan: The Role of the ICJ in Restoring Broken International Relations. Audio session, Iranian Association for United Nations Studies (IAUNS) in collaboration with the Institute for Humanities Thinkers, May 13, 1404/2025. Accessed via Telegram: https://t.me/iraniananhht [In Persian].
 
- Instruments
1.         Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.
2.         Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 90.
3.         Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran (signed 15 August 1955, entered into force 16 June 1957) 284 UNTS 93.
 
- Cases
1.         Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 October 2018, Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, I.C.J. Reports 2018.
2.         Case concerning United States Sanctions (Iran v. United States), 2019.
3.         Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. People’s Republic of Albania), Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 4.
4.         Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2003, p. 161.
5.         ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18, Decision on Israel’s Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court Pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute, 21 November 2024.
6.         ICC, Situation in the State of Palestine, ICC-01/18, Decision on Israel’s Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court Pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Rome Statute, 21 November 2024.
 
- Documents
1.       Amnesty International. Sanctions and their Impact on Human Rights. March 2021. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2021/03/sanctions- impact-human-rights .
2.       Amnesty International. The Impact of Sanctions on Human Rights. 2021. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2021/06/the-impact-of- sanctions-on-human-right .
3.       Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 8: The relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/1997/8, 12 June 2007.
4.       Douhan, Elena I. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. UN Human Rights Council, A/HRC/45/7, 24 June 2020. https://www.ohchr.org/ en/documents/thematic-reports/ahrc457-report-negative-impact-unilateral- coercive-measures-priorities
5.       Human Rights Watch. Sanctions and Human Rights: A Humanitarian Perspective. July 2022. https://www.hrw.org/report/2022/07/sanctions-and-human-rights-humanitarian-perspective.
1.6.   Human Rights Watch. The Impact of Sanctions on Medical Supplies in Iran and Syria. 2018. https://www.hrw.org/report/2018/medical-sanctions- iran-syria.
7.       Human Rights Watch. Unilateral Sanctions and Human Rights. 2019. https://www.hrw.org/topic/unilateral-sanctions.
8.       Human Rights Watch. Accountability and Documentation of International Law Violations. 2021. https://www.hrw.org/report/2021/06/23/accountability
9.       ICJ. Enhancing the Effectiveness of International Human Rights Mechanisms. 2022. https://www.icj.org/enhancing-effectiveness-mechanisms
10.   IUSCT, Annual Report 2020. https://www.iusct.net.
11.   OHCHR. Human Rights and International Solidarity. 2024.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/international-solidarity
12.   United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 36, CRC/C/GC/36, 3 September 2020. https://www.refworld.org/ docid/ 5f5f4e1f4.htm
13.   Douhan, Elena I., Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, UN Doc. A/HRC/45/7, 24 June 2020.
14.   “Strengthening the Independence and Effectiveness of the International Judiciary”, UNGA Res 68/125, UN Doc. A/RES/68/125, 18 December 2013.
15.   United Nations Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the ICCPR, CCPR/C/GC/36, September 2018.
16.   United Nations CESCR, General Comment No. 8, E/C.12/1997/8 (1997). https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr
17.   United Nations Human Rights Council. “Strong Push Back Against U.S. Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,” joint statement by ICJ, IBAHRI, HRW, delivered at the 59th session (July 11, 2025).
18.   World Bank, ICSID Convention, Regulations and Rules, accessed August 2025, https://icsid.worldbank.org/resources/rules.
19.   Permanent Court of Arbitration, Constitution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessed August 2025, https://pca-cpa.org/en/about/pca-constitution-and-rules.
 
 

  • Receive Date 22 August 2025
  • Revise Date 15 November 2025
  • Accept Date 29 November 2025