Nothing under international law may justify these armed attacks and the deliberate targeting of protected civilians.
Saïd Benarbia, ICJ Middle East and North Africa Programme Director
I do not agree that the terms or intent of Article 51 eliminate the right of self-defence under customary international law…
Judge Schwebel, dissenting, ICJ Nicaragua case (1986)
Prolegomena
Israel’s June 2025 unilateral attack on Iran’s nuclear program tests the boundaries of self-defence in a world the UN Charter wasn’t built to govern. For decades, Israeli policy has emphasized that it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. The strikes fulfilled that doctrine. It followed years of diplomacy, sabotage, and shadow war. And it came after repeated warnings that Iran had crossed enrichment thresholds and could reach nuclear breakout within months. That moment, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu argued, demanded immediate action.
Under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. The only explicit exception is found in Article 51: the “inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs.”
Israel has not claimed that Iran launched a missile or invaded its territory. Instead, it argues that a nuclear Iran would present an irreversible threat—one that could not be deterred, reversed, or neutralized once operational.
This raises a foundational question: What kind of threat justifies the use of force in self-defence before an actual armed attack? Or more sharply: Can international law afford to wait for the flash of a nuclear detonation before permitting a state to act? Continue reading “THE ISRAELI STRIKE ON IRAN: When Law Collides with Survival — Part I: Anticipatory Self-Defence in the Nuclear Age”
Wow did I get an earful after my
Bending another state or institution (such as the International Criminal Court (ICC)) to the will of a more powerful sanctioning state may be distasteful, distressing, disadvantageous (depending on the side of the cause for the sanctions one is aligned with) but the harsh reality is that the use of sanctions is a sovereign prerogative. The sooner this reality is accepted and embraced, the sooner the sanctioned state or institution, along with their cast of supporting states, international and regional organizations, civil society, concerned global citizens can accept the need to explore realizable off-ramps or condition themselves to endure the consequences of the sanctions.
The last couple of weeks have been particularly disquieting for the International Criminal Court (ICC). Prime Minister of Hungary, Victor Orbán, not only