Liron Libman
Following the killing of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh on July 31 by an explosion in his Tehran guesthouse, Iran’s supreme leader and other senior regime officials have repeatedly threatened to strike Israel, believing them responsible for the attack. Alarmed by the possibility of further escalation, world leaders from the United States to Russia have urged Iran to moderate its response—with little success.
The danger of an increase in hostilities has raised questions about the role of international law in restraining, or permitting, such an attack. While Iran claims self-defense, precedent—and the UN Charter itself—casts significant doubt on the validity of such a justification.
The Fundamental Rule and Its Exception
Arguably the central rule of the UN Charter, Article 2(4) prohibits a state from threatening or using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. Notably, a state need not carry out the attack for it to be in violation of the charter—the threat itself could constitute a breach.
The significant exception to this provision is found in Article 51 of the UN Charter, which states that “nothing in the Charter shall impair the inherent right” of a state to self-defense if an armed attack occurs against it. Iran has invoked Article 51 to justify its threats following the death of Haniyeh: Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Amir Saeed Sirvani, claimed that “[t]he Islamic Republic of Iran will not hesitate to exercise its inherent right to self-defense, as enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter to respond decisively and promptly.”
No comments:
Post a Comment