Following the Israeli regime’s airstrikes on the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting civilian facilities and nuclear infrastructure, many international law experts have assessed this action as a clear violation of the fundamental principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. Mohsen Baharvand, a senior Iranian diplomat and international lawyer, has examined the legal dimensions of these attacks in a comprehensive note.
Publish dateTuesday 17 June 2025 - 09:39
Story Code : 319178
Afghan Voice Agency (AVA) - Tehran: According to Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter, the use of force in international relations is prohibited, except in special cases. This principle is one of the main pillars of the international legal order after World War II. Baharvand emphasizes that regardless of the current unstable state of the world system, this rule is still valid and the Zionist Regime’s attack on Iran is a clear aggression and lacks any legal legitimacy.
The use of concepts such as “preemptive attack” or “preventive attack,” especially without a Security Council resolution, has no legal basis and is only a political excuse for violating the sovereignty of states.
Prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities in international law
According to IRNA, another key point of Baharvand’s note is the prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities under humanitarian law and international conventions. Attacks on these facilities pose serious risks to civilian lives and the environment and are subject to prosecution as “war crimes” in international forums.
According to Article 56 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention, attacks on dangerous power generation facilities – such as nuclear reactors – are prohibited. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards agreements, the 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and UN General Assembly resolutions also confirm this prohibition.
The legitimacy of Iran’s right to self-defense
According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, self-defense is one of the few permitted cases for the use of force in international law. Baharvand emphasizes that this article merely recalls the “inherent right” of states, and this right is recognized even in the absence of Article 51.
In response to Israeli attacks, Iran has the right to use all legitimate military means to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, provided that the principle of “proportionality” is observed in the responses. This means that the response must be proportionate to the level of aggression and adhere to human rights and humanitarian principles.
The responsibility of third countries and the duties of the international community
Baharvand believes that the silence or inaction of international institutions, especially the Security Council, in the face of Israeli attacks on Iran is not only a moral and political error but also a violation of their legal duties. The UN Secretary-General, the Security Council, the IAEA, and member states are obliged to condemn this aggression and exert pressure to stop it.
Also, countries that knowingly sell weapons to Israel or use their defense systems to support this regime have entered into a conflict and will have international responsibility. Iran can put a review of relations with such countries on the agenda.
Iran’s future strategic options
In a situation where Iran’s vital interests are at stake, the country can threaten to withdraw from the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by citing Article 10. Baharvand emphasizes that such a move is not recommended at the moment, but raising it as a tool of legal and diplomatic pressure could be on the agenda if the threats persist.
Conclusion: Self-defense, a national and legal duty
Baharvand concludes that Iran’s military response within the framework of self-defense is completely legal, justified, and protected by international law. This defense is not only the responsibility of the armed forces, but also a public duty to protect the territorial integrity and independence of the country. As long as the Zionist regime’s aggression continues, the exercise of this legitimate right is not only permissible, but also necessary.
He also emphasizes the importance of Iran’s continued legal and diplomatic pursuit in the international arena and believes that if international institutions continue to fail to act, Tehran must independently and relying on its legal capacities, comprehensively defend the rights of the Iranian nation.
The use of concepts such as “preemptive attack” or “preventive attack,” especially without a Security Council resolution, has no legal basis and is only a political excuse for violating the sovereignty of states.
Prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities in international law
According to IRNA, another key point of Baharvand’s note is the prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities under humanitarian law and international conventions. Attacks on these facilities pose serious risks to civilian lives and the environment and are subject to prosecution as “war crimes” in international forums.
According to Article 56 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention, attacks on dangerous power generation facilities – such as nuclear reactors – are prohibited. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards agreements, the 1980 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, and UN General Assembly resolutions also confirm this prohibition.
The legitimacy of Iran’s right to self-defense
According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, self-defense is one of the few permitted cases for the use of force in international law. Baharvand emphasizes that this article merely recalls the “inherent right” of states, and this right is recognized even in the absence of Article 51.
In response to Israeli attacks, Iran has the right to use all legitimate military means to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity, provided that the principle of “proportionality” is observed in the responses. This means that the response must be proportionate to the level of aggression and adhere to human rights and humanitarian principles.
The responsibility of third countries and the duties of the international community
Baharvand believes that the silence or inaction of international institutions, especially the Security Council, in the face of Israeli attacks on Iran is not only a moral and political error but also a violation of their legal duties. The UN Secretary-General, the Security Council, the IAEA, and member states are obliged to condemn this aggression and exert pressure to stop it.
Also, countries that knowingly sell weapons to Israel or use their defense systems to support this regime have entered into a conflict and will have international responsibility. Iran can put a review of relations with such countries on the agenda.
Iran’s future strategic options
In a situation where Iran’s vital interests are at stake, the country can threaten to withdraw from the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) by citing Article 10. Baharvand emphasizes that such a move is not recommended at the moment, but raising it as a tool of legal and diplomatic pressure could be on the agenda if the threats persist.
Conclusion: Self-defense, a national and legal duty
Baharvand concludes that Iran’s military response within the framework of self-defense is completely legal, justified, and protected by international law. This defense is not only the responsibility of the armed forces, but also a public duty to protect the territorial integrity and independence of the country. As long as the Zionist regime’s aggression continues, the exercise of this legitimate right is not only permissible, but also necessary.
He also emphasizes the importance of Iran’s continued legal and diplomatic pursuit in the international arena and believes that if international institutions continue to fail to act, Tehran must independently and relying on its legal capacities, comprehensively defend the rights of the Iranian nation.
avapress.net/vdciy3apvt1azz2.ilct.html
Top hits
