PREEMPTIVE ATTACK: RETHINKING THE APPLICATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW TO THE ISREAL-IRAN WAR OF 2025

Abstract

The attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities first by Israel and later by the United States of America creates a sharp divide among scholars of international law and the public. The supporters of Israel and the United States justify the attack and argued that it is consistent with the rights of self-defence against the apparent Iranian threat to the State of Israel and the interest of the United States in the Middle East while those oppose to the military action argued that the military strike does not conform with the criteria for the legitimate exercise of the right of self-defence under international law and described the action as violation of the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This article examined the concept of sovereignty alongside the treaty and customary principles of self-defence under international law and find that the military action by the armed forces of Israel and the United States does not fall within the criteria and conditions set down for the legitimate exercise of the rights of self-defence and preemptive attack. The article recommended reformation of the United Nations system to make States more accountable for their action under international law.