The massive unilateral attack launched last Friday by Israel against Iran has launched a New devastating war In the region, with the potential to affect the world economy and transcend its borders, due to the powerful allies that each side has. The Jewish State has presented its offensive as a “Preventive Attack” to prevent the Islamic Republic can develop Atomic weapons And unleash “A nuclear holocaust” About Israel. Both the European Commissionhow USA, Germany, France or the G7 They have not taken to defend the “Right to legitimate defense” of his ally, but everything indicates that once again they have been very interested in interested international law. According to several jurists consulted, the Israel’s attack “it’s a clear act of aggression “a “Illegal war” that undermines the basic norms of International Order with unpredictable consequences for the world.
In international law, the Use of the Armed Forces It is strictly prohibited, except in two cases: when the UN Security Council considering that there is a threat to world peace or when it occurs In legitimate defenseas Israel and their allies have argued. “For an act in legitimate defense to be legal, international law requires that a real, current or imminent attack”, Explains Carmen Márquez, Professor of Public International Law and International Relations of the University of Seville.” In this case, there has been no Iranian armed attack against Israel, nor has the existence of an imminent threat to the strict terms required by international law that requires international law. Therefore, it is a Attack contrary to law and a illegal use of force”, Adds Márquez.
In similar terms, Ana Manero, also Professor of Public International Law and International Relations, in his case of Carlos III University. “It’s a clearly illegal attack, and act of prohibited aggression For international law, while it does not arrive in response to a previous armed attack nor is there evidence of a possible imminent nuclear attack by Iran, ”he assured this newspaper. A military aggression, therefore, as of Russia in Ukraine or that of the United States in Irak In 2003, when he manufactured the pretext of nuclear weapons that did not exist to justify the invasion of the Arab country.
No imminent threat
Nor the thesis of “Preventive Attack” o to “Legitimate Preventive Defense” It is held in the eyes of experts. “I could only justify to prevent an imminent attack, when the enemy is really mobilizing its troops and armed media, and is about to launch an attack. But what we are talking about here is an assumption Uranium enrichment On the part of Iran to produce atomic weapons, ”says Jaume Saura, a doctor of Law from the University of Barcelona, specialized in the laws of war and the prohibition of the use of force. At no time, the International Organization for Atomic Energy, That Iranian nuclear facilities regularly inspect, it has concluded that Iran has developed atomic weapons, even though it has a fistible material at levels near those I would need to do so.
The own Binyamine Netanyahu He made it clear in the early hours of the attack. “If they had not acted, Iran could have produced a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be A year or a few months”Said Israeli Prime Minister. US Intelligence It has been even more blunt. In March he concluded that Tehran Does not actively seek nuclear weapons And, although I would change their minds, I would need at least three years to produce and assemble them, according to intelligence sources cited by CNN.
Experts point out that international law does not recognize the right to preventive defense against non -imminent future threats. “This type of doctrine, promoted by the US National Security Strategy in 2002 [poco antes de la invasión de Irak]was widely rejected by the international community and considered Incompatible with article 51 of the UN Charter “Márquez says from the University of Seville.
War crimes
A Second line of analysis among international juristscloser to the Israeli posture, it feeds that its attack must be understood in the context of the armed conflict that both countries fight at least since October 2023, with specific cross attacks, to which Israel adds those of proirani militias as Hizbulá O off Hutis rebels of Yemen. “Under this perspective, it would not be necessary to justify each individual use of force according to article 51 of the UN Charter, but to analyze the operation in terms of need and proportionality”, Explains Márquez.
But even under that premise, he adds, both interpretations lead to a common point. “International law demands that any use of force be necessary and proportional to the objectives pursued, and there are more than questionable the magnitude and objectives of the Israeli attack.” An idea in which manero abounds from Carlos III University. “Israel has bombarded civil objectives, as densely populated areas, nuclear plants or Energy centralsas well as the public television Iranian. Those attacks against civil objectives constitute war crimes “.
Mohamed el Baradeiwho was head of the OIEA between 1997 and 2009, reminded him of German Foreign Minister, after he expressed his apparent complacency about the “Selective attacks against nuclear facilities”. “Did you know that the ‘selective attacks against nuclear facilities” are prohibited under article 56 of the additional protocol of the Geneva conventionsof which Germany is signatory? ”In fact, when Israel attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor of Osirak In 1981, the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution by strongly condemning the attack as a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and the norms of international law.
But that was then, as has been seen now with passivity in front of the alleged War crimes in Gaza, From the use of hunger as a weapon of war to collective punishment. Today there are many Western leaders who invoke international law in some contexts and twelve in a orwellian way in others. The clearest example is that of Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission. After the Israeli aggression, he blamed Iran of what happened and affirmed the “right to defend” Israel.
“It seems unpresentable,” says Saura about it. “Only Iran has in this case the right to the legitimate defense, given the armed aggression he has suffered.” Manero is more diplomatic. “The statements of Von der Leyen and other leaders lack normative basis in international law. Israel is violating its Imperative standards And these violations generate obligations for other states of the international community, including the EU. Among them, non -recognition or help for maintaining this situation. ”Just the opposite of what they are doing.
Subscribe to continue reading
