Israel’s 12-Day Assault on Iran in the Light of International Law: The Erosion of Legal Frameworks on the Use of Force

Extended Abstract

Abstract

This study employs a legal-philosophical analytical approach to examine Israel's 12-day attack on Iran within the framework of international law governing the use of force. Using a text-based interpretive method, the article assesses Israel's claim of self-defence through three interrelated dimensions: normative (compliance with Article 51 of the UN Charter), factual (application of necessity, proportionality, and immediacy), and structural-political (the impact of the securitisation discourse on the delegitimisation of international legal norms). Securitisation of law is defined here as a discursive process through which powerful actors construct existential threats and invoke exceptional necessity to reinterpret legal concepts, thereby freeing themselves from treaty constraints and subordinating peremptory norms to strategic interests

The central hypothesis posits that Israel's actions not only fail to meet the conditions of self-defence and constitute a clear violation of the prohibition on the use of force and Iran's territorial sovereignty but also reflect a broader crisis of legitimacy within the contemporary international legal order. The findings demonstrate that Iran's response was more consistent with the criteria of legitimate self-defence, being a reaction to an actual armed attack with due regard to necessity and immediacy. Conversely, the manifest double standards of the international community in addressing Israel's repeated breaches of international rules further exacerbate the legitimacy crisis of this legal system.





1. Introduction

On 13 June 2025, Israel launched ‘‘Operation Rising Lion’’, a coordinated 12-day military assault against Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, missile bases, military commanders, and civilian infrastructure. The United States provided intelligence, logistical support, and direct military participation. Israel justified the attacks as ‘‘preemptive self-defense’’ against Iran's existential nuclear threat, while Iran and international observers condemned them as a flagrant violation of the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). This conflict, later escalating into ‘‘Operation Ramadan’’ in February 2026, exposed deep crises in international law: the erosion of self-defense norms, institutional paralysis in the Security Council, and the selective application of legal standards by major powers.

The central research question examines whether Israel's actions satisfy Article 51 of the UN Charter and the criteria of necessity, proportionality, and immediacy, or whether they constitute unlawful aggression that undermines the post-World War II legal order. The study investigates this through three analytical dimensions: normative (interpretation of Article 51), operational (application of self-defense criteria), and structural-political (the securitization discourse enabling legal instrumentalization).



2. Literature Review

Scholarly discourse divides between restrictive interpretations of self-defense (requiring an actual armed attack, as affirmed by the ICJ in Nicaragua, the Wall Advisory Opinion, and Armed Activities in the Congo) and expansive approaches permitting anticipatory action against imminent threats under the Caroline test. Some scholars and states advocate a ‘‘last window of opportunity’’ doctrine in the context of WMD threats. Critics, including Milanovic and Saul, warn that such expansions create dangerous precedents, enabling unilateral aggression and undermining the prohibition on force. This study contributes by applying the securitization framework to analyze how powerful actors construct existential threats to reinterpret legal norms instrumentally.



3. Methodology

The research adopts a legal-philosophical analysis employing legal hermeneutics to interpret Article 51, Article 2(4), relevant Security Council resolutions, and ICJ jurisprudence. The tripartite framework-normative, operational, and structural-political-enables a comprehensive assessment that moves beyond formal legal analysis to consider the discursive and power dynamics that enable systematic violations of fundamental norms.



4. Results and Discussion

The findings demonstrate that Israel's assault lacks legal legitimacy across all three dimensions. At the normative level, Israel's claim of self-defense contradicts Article 51, which requires an actual armed attack—not a future or hypothetical threat. The ICJ's consistent jurisprudence establishes that self-defense is available only in response to an armed attack. Israel's preemptive action against an attack that had not occurred violates the fundamental jus cogens norm prohibiting the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4).

At the operational level, none of the essential conditions for self-defense were satisfied. Necessity was absent: Israel failed to provide evidence of an impending Iranian attack; IAEA reports showed no diversion toward weapons production; diplomatic options remained available. Proportionality was violated: the extensive attacks on nuclear sites, military targets, scientists, residential areas, and civilian infrastructure far exceeded any proportionate response to an alleged threat. The attacks also breached the humanitarian principle of distinction. Immediacy was lacking: Israel had long characterized Iran as a threat, but no urgent, imminent danger was established; the "last window" claim rested on speculative assumptions while IAEA monitoring continued and the Security Council had not been engaged.

The United States' participation similarly lacks legal foundation, as neither an armed attack nor an imminent threat from Iran was established. US support renders it a partner in aggression with corresponding international responsibility.

In contrast, Iran's response was consistent with self-defense criteria under Article 51. As the victim of an actual armed attack satisfying the ICJ's severity, attribution, and intent standards, Iran's limited, targeted response against military objectives respected principles of distinction and proportionality, demonstrating urgent necessity to prevent further aggression.

At the structural-political level, Israel's actions and the international community's selective response reveal a deeper legitimacy crisis. The securitization discourse—whereby powerful states construct existential threats to bypass legal constraints—has enabled the instrumentalization of concepts like self-defense and preemption, eroding normative foundations. Institutional failures compound this: the Security Council remains paralyzed by the US veto (over 53 vetoes shielding Israel since 1972), while states like Russia face swift sanctions for comparable violations. Evidentiary obstacles—Israel's obstruction of fact-finding, non-cooperation with the ICC, and non-compliance with ICJ rulings—further impede accountability, entrenching double standards that undermine the rule of law.



5. Conclusion

The three-level analysis confirms the central hypothesis: Israel's actions fail to meet the criteria for lawful self-defense, constitute a flagrant violation of the prohibition on the use of force and Iran's territorial sovereignty, and reflect a crisis of meaning in the international legal system where major powers misuse legal concepts to reproduce structural violence. Iran's defensive response, by contrast, was legally legitimate as a reaction to an actual armed attack.

This conflict is not merely regional but symbolizes a paradigmatic crisis. The current system, where legal concepts serve as tools for major power interests, can no longer balance state sovereignty and human rights. Without meaningful reforms—veto restriction, strengthening the ICC, universal jurisdiction, systematic documentation using new technologies, targeted sanctions, and enhanced civil society oversight—international norms will continue to erode, and structural violence will normalize.

The international community faces a choice: reinforce a rules-based system or accept destabilizing power politics. History demonstrates that silence in the face of fundamental violations weakens multilateralism and enables unilateral militarism. Only by moving beyond the current paradigm and restoring trust in international institutions can we preserve the legal order and establish a new equilibrium where human dignity and the rule of law prevail over the political interests of powerful states.

Keywords: Iran, Israel, self-defense, Article 51 of the UN Charter, preemptive self-defense, territorial sovereignty, prohibition of the use of force, securitization, structural violence.