The USA/Isreal attack against Iran is not in self-defense. It’s an invasion of once sovereign rights systematically, violating an international law, under the failure of an international community.
The absence of consultation with the United Nations Security Council, combined with the lack of an initial attack by Iran against the United States or Israel, raises important legal and diplomatic concerns. Such actions may indicate a changing strategic posture in the Middle East during the administration of Donald Trump. It is essential for the international community to respond in a fair, balanced, and principled manner, upholding the UN Charter and reinforcing the rules-based international order in both the Middle East and Latin America.
Interesting! The treaty was largely dormant as political relations collapsed after 1979, and Trump terminated it in 2018, so didn't think to mention it. But a relevant part of the broader historical backdrop indeed! :)
Mr. Roy, bilateral agreements are indeed a sovereign choice between states. However, military attacks on Iran without authorization from the United Nations Security Council raise serious legal concerns.
Under the UN Charter, the use of force is only lawful in cases of self-defence against an armed attack or with UNSC approval. Here, many legal experts argue that neither condition was met, making the raids by the US and Israel a violation of international law and against Iran’s sovereignty.
At its fundamental, this is not just about geopolitics—it is about respecting international law, state sovereignty, and preventing further human suffering.
And you call yourself an assistant professor of law , well i would not trust you one bit because you fail to see that the NPT allowing a few countries to have nucler weapons whilst prohibiting the rest of the countries in the world from doing so is inherently unfair and has no legal standing worldwide whatsoever , yes of course usa russia china france and uk agree with the NPT as do their allies and those who are afraid of being attacked if they do not say they agree but in a sensible world with a legal framework that everyone could agree with every country in the world would be prohibited from having nuclear wepons.Nuclear weapons give you the power to bully other countries remember Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction lies ? weapons of mass destruction was and still is a term used to dewcibe nucler weapons .
Hi Terence, thanks for your comment. I actually agree with you that the NPT system is unfair. That's why I pointed out that the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was an attempt to correct the NPT by banning nuclear weapons for every country (not very successful so far). Have a nice day :)
Do you ever get disillusioned by all that's happening? Cause at times it feels like the world is teetering on the edge of disaster and there's absolutely nothing that international law can do to get us out of this nightmare
Of course, disillusionment is natural! But my view is that international law moves in cycles: it sometimes falters in crises but history shows we always return to it because order is essential. Even after disasters, we rebuild, and often stronger than before 🙏🏽
The USA/Isreal attack against Iran is not in self-defense. It’s an invasion of once sovereign rights systematically, violating an international law, under the failure of an international community.
The absence of consultation with the United Nations Security Council, combined with the lack of an initial attack by Iran against the United States or Israel, raises important legal and diplomatic concerns. Such actions may indicate a changing strategic posture in the Middle East during the administration of Donald Trump. It is essential for the international community to respond in a fair, balanced, and principled manner, upholding the UN Charter and reinforcing the rules-based international order in both the Middle East and Latin America.
Love this!
You could have mentioned that most of Iran's dispute with US arises under the Treaty on Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the two.
Interesting! The treaty was largely dormant as political relations collapsed after 1979, and Trump terminated it in 2018, so didn't think to mention it. But a relevant part of the broader historical backdrop indeed! :)
May be you can write a short summary on the Iran-US Claims tribunal
It got a quick mention 😅☺️
Mr. Roy, bilateral agreements are indeed a sovereign choice between states. However, military attacks on Iran without authorization from the United Nations Security Council raise serious legal concerns.
Under the UN Charter, the use of force is only lawful in cases of self-defence against an armed attack or with UNSC approval. Here, many legal experts argue that neither condition was met, making the raids by the US and Israel a violation of international law and against Iran’s sovereignty.
At its fundamental, this is not just about geopolitics—it is about respecting international law, state sovereignty, and preventing further human suffering.
I entirely agree with you.
Prohibition on agression is also a norm of jus Cogens whose natural corollary is the peaceful settlement of disputes
And you call yourself an assistant professor of law , well i would not trust you one bit because you fail to see that the NPT allowing a few countries to have nucler weapons whilst prohibiting the rest of the countries in the world from doing so is inherently unfair and has no legal standing worldwide whatsoever , yes of course usa russia china france and uk agree with the NPT as do their allies and those who are afraid of being attacked if they do not say they agree but in a sensible world with a legal framework that everyone could agree with every country in the world would be prohibited from having nuclear wepons.Nuclear weapons give you the power to bully other countries remember Iraq and the weapons of mass destruction lies ? weapons of mass destruction was and still is a term used to dewcibe nucler weapons .
Hi Terence, thanks for your comment. I actually agree with you that the NPT system is unfair. That's why I pointed out that the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which was an attempt to correct the NPT by banning nuclear weapons for every country (not very successful so far). Have a nice day :)
Thats not the message you give in the post i replied to
Do you ever get disillusioned by all that's happening? Cause at times it feels like the world is teetering on the edge of disaster and there's absolutely nothing that international law can do to get us out of this nightmare
Of course, disillusionment is natural! But my view is that international law moves in cycles: it sometimes falters in crises but history shows we always return to it because order is essential. Even after disasters, we rebuild, and often stronger than before 🙏🏽