After the United States bombed Iran’s three nuclear facilities on Sunday, US President Donald Trump said its objective was a “stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror”.
US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth echoed this justification, saying: “The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interest posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel.”
Is this a legitimate justification for a state to launch an attack on another?
I believe, looking at the evidence, it is not.
Was it self-defence?Under the UN Charter, there are two ways in which a state can lawfully use force against another state:
the UN Security Council authorises force in exceptional circumstances to restore or maintain international peace and security under Chapter 7
the right of self defence when a state is attacked by another, as outlined in Article 51.
On the first point, there was no UN Security Council authorisation for either Israel or the US to launch an attack on Iran to maintain international peace and security. The security council has long been concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and adopted a series of resolutions related to it. However, none of those resolutions authorised the use of military force.
With regard to self defence, this right...
Read more
-
Once A Woman Does This One Thing For A Guy, It’s Over, According To Judge Judy
-
Your Love Horoscope For June 24, 2025
-
World’s second most beautiful island set to receive 4.4 million visitors in January-June
-
Court filings reveal OpenAI and io’s early work on an AI device
-
Who Needs CMMC Compliance And Why?
