USA commits [another] war crime

Disclaimer

I'm no fan of Iran. As somebody who believes in human rights, it should be obvious. Unfortunately, we live in an age where obvious statements and disclaimers are necessary. In that spirit, I also declare that I'm not a fan of Hamas, the current Israeli government, the current US government AND the current UK government. According to the law of common sense, I'm actually prohibited from discussing my opinion of Keir Starmer.

UN Charter, use of force and right to self-defence

Article 2.4 of the UN Charter states:

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

...

1. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

Article 51 goes on to state:

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Essentially, the use of force is illegal unless Article 51 applies.

My Opinion

Another disclaimer, international law is not black letter law. It is not black and white. It is very much about geopolitics, history, and the Security Council. So that in mind, here's my intial view on today's events.

In my opinion, insufficient evidence exists to show Iran posed a real and credible threat to Israel - the only nuclear state in the region. There is absolutely no evidence that Iran posed an existential threat to the US, a nuclear superpower. Something so blatantly obvious that even Tucker Carlson knows it. Although, hindsight, it should be noted how easily Iran has been overwhelmed by Israel warplanes over the last eight days.

It is my view a number of European states were [establishing a defence against complicity in genocide, and ] finally showing an interest in criticising the ongoing Israeli genocide against the Palestinians. I have signed a number of letters regarding the genocide in Palestine, and I stand by those statements. Against that background, the US-Israeli coalition opted to distract and unite with allegations that Iran was "weeks away" from having nuclear weapons. Israel, followed by the USA, launched attacks against Iran. The question has to be are these preemptive attacks lawful under international law? This is a complex area of law and my opinion is weightless in the world of international law.

Like most of our recent problems, I believe they can be traced back to the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. Around the same time, Kofi Annan, the then Secretary-General of the UN, gave a speech. It is worth considering this speech as he predicted the future of international law:

..Since this Organization was founded, States have generally sought to deal with threats to the peace through containment and deterrence, by a system based on collective security and the United Nations Charter.

Article 51 of the Charter prescribes that all States, if attacked,retain the inherent right of self-defence. But until now it has been understood that when States go beyond that, and decide to use force to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, they need the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations.

Now, some say this understanding is no longer tenable, since an “armed attack” with weapons of mass destruction could be launched at any time, without warning, or by a clandestine group.

Rather than wait for that to happen, they argue, States have the right and obligation to use force pre-emptively, even on the territory of other States, and even while weapons systems that might be used to attack them are still being developed.

According to this argument, States are not obliged to wait until there is agreement in the Security Council. Instead, they reserve the right to act unilaterally, or in ad hoc coalitions.

This logic represents a fundamental challenge to the principles on which, however imperfectly, world peace and stability have rested for the last 58 years.

My concern is that, if it were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification.

But it is not enough to denounce unilateralism, unless we also face up squarely to the concerns that make some States feel uniquely vulnerable, since it is those concerns that drive them to take unilateral action. We must show that those concerns can, and will, be addressed effectively through collective action.

Excellencies, we have come to a fork in the road. This may be a moment no less decisive than 1945 itself, when the United Nations was founded.

At that time, a group of far-sighted leaders, led and inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, were determined to make the second half of the twentieth century different from the first half. They saw that the human race had only one world to live in, and that unless it managed its affairs prudently, all human beings may perish...

I flag his concern "that, if [the preemptive attack doctrine] were to be adopted, it could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without justification." Today's events are an example of his justifiable concern.

Since the start of the genocide, we have witnessed another stage of the rules based world order's slow death. We are witnessing a race towards a "might makes right" approach to international affairs. If I was the leader of a regime like Iran, I would rush to obtain nuclear weapons like North Korea and Pakistan. This attack has made the world a more dangerous place. This is something we should all be deeply concerned about given the history of humans, and the fact we are in the middle of a climate emergency.

All that said, according to the current rules based system, Iran has the right to self-defence against the Israeli government and the US government under Article 51. Just because they have the right to self-defence, don't mean that they should exercise it. I urge the Iranian regime to show restraint.