19 Jun 2025 : The legality of Israeli actions under international law

Editorial 1: ​The legality of Israeli actions under international law 

Context

Grave violations by regimes must be condemned, as international law remains the key standard for judging state actions.

Introduction

Many countries hesitate to take a clear stand on whether Israel’s military strikes on Iran are legal, but the key question before the international community is whether these actions comply with international law. The UN Charter, particularly Article 2(4), bans the use of force in international relations, except in specific cases like self-defence under Article 51. However, this exception is tightly defined.

• Article 51 permits self-defence only if an armed attack occurs, and the response must meet necessity and proportionality.
• According to international lawyer Marko Milanovic, the legality of using force depends on how self-defence is interpreted.
• If self-defence applies only to actual armed attacks, Israel’s strike is unlawful, as no direct armed attack from Iran or its legally attributable actors took place.
• Under this view, Israel’s use of force amounts to aggression.
• Aggression is defined as a war crime under international law.

Pre-emptive self-defence

• Israel claims its military action against Iran is pre-emptive self-defence, targeting Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.
• The argument: Iran is close to developing nuclear weapons and has threatened Israel, thus justifying an anticipatory strike.
• This raises a legal question: Can a country use force before an actual armed attack?
• Article 51 of the UN Charter only allows self-defence after an armed attack has occurred — pre-emptive action contradicts this.
• However, legal scholars like Rosalyn Higgins argue that waiting for an actual attack may be impractical in modern warfare.
• Assuming pre-emptive self-defence is allowed, its scope must be narrowly defined to prevent abuse.
• A more acceptable term is anticipatory self-defence, supported by the Caroline Incident (1837).
• According to the Caroline doctrine, force may be used only when:
  • The threat is instant and overwhelming
  • There is no alternative and no time for deliberation
  • The response is proportionate

Legal Concepts Related to Self-Defence

• Pre-emptive self-defence remains legally and morally contested.
• If permitted, its application must meet strict criteria: immediacy, necessity, and proportionality.
• Overbroad use would undermine the UN Charter and risk legalising aggression.

Interpretations of ‘Imminent’

Key Legal Objections to Expansive Meaning

• Violates UN Charter principles on the prohibition of use of force.
• Undermines international peace and security by allowing conjecture-based action.
• Contradicts the Caroline doctrine, which sets stringent conditions for self-defence:
  • Must be instant
  • Overwhelming
  • Leave no room for deliberation
• Widespread support for a narrower, restrictive interpretation of ‘imminent’.
• Ensures restraint, and upholds sovereignty and legal safeguards.

Application to Israel-Iran Context

Conclusion

Skeptics may contend that discussing such issues is pointless in a world where international law is frequently disregarded. They often highlight the fact that, despite the adoption of the UN Charter nearly eight decades ago, international law has consistently failed to prevent the outbreak of wars. Nevertheless, international law continues to be the central framework for evaluating the legitimacy of state behavior. It remains the sole avenue for holding states accountable on the global stage. Therefore, even—indeed especially—when faced with its most egregious violations by regimes acting with impunity, it becomes imperative to invoke, defend, and apply international legal norms to uphold the rule-based global order.