The legality of U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran, Pg12

Key Highlights:

• U.S. and Israel launched coordinated strikes across Iran on February 28, resulting in a missile hitting a girls’ primary school in Minab.
• Approximately 150 people, mainly schoolchildren, were killed, and nearly 100 were injured in the attack.
• UNESCO condemned the attack as a grave violation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
• The legality of the strikes is questioned under the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against another state except in self-defense.

Detailed Insights:

• The strikes were framed as a ‘pre-emptive’ response to an imminent threat, but the argument for self-defense is weak as Iran had not recently attacked either state.
• International law does not recognize a right to use force in self-defense against an attack that has not yet occurred, weakening the “anticipatory” self-defense argument.
• The attack on the school violated the principle of distinction under IHL, which requires clear separation between combatants/military targets and civilians/civilian objects.
• Even if the school was damaged as collateral harm, the operation's legality depends on whether the expected harm was excessive in relation to the military advantage.
• IHL governs how wars are fought (jus in bello) and ensures humane conduct, based on the principles of ‘distinction’, ‘proportionality’, ‘military necessity’, and ‘precaution’.
• The significance of international law lies in its ability to demand justification and hold states accountable for their actions, even if compliance is imperfect.

Key Concepts Involved:

• International Humanitarian Law (IHL): A set of rules that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons.
• UN Charter: The founding document of the United Nations, outlining the purposes, principles, and structure of the organization.
• Principle of Distinction: A core principle of IHL that requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians.