Israel attacks Iran and calls its strikes preventive. Tehran responds with missile counterattacks on Israeli cities. What does international law say about all this?
Israel receives support from the German government: Christian Democratic Union (CDU) foreign policy expert Norbert Röttgen defended Israel's attacks on strategic targets in Iran. He told ARD: "If Iran - a terrorist regime both domestically and internationally - were to become a nuclear power, this would have devastating consequences for the security and existence of Israel, for the entire Middle East region, and for the entire world, including Europe". German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also believes that Israel has the right to defend its existence and the security of its citizens.
From the point of view of international law, however, the situation is not so clear-cut, the German publication notes.
Prohibition of the use of force
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force under international law. It states: "In their international relations, all Members shall refrain 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."
This means that no UN member state may attack another member state of the organization. However, there is one exception to this rule.
The right of self-defense as a justification
Israel is now referring to it - the right of self-defense, regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter: "Nothing in this Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of armed aggression against a Member of the United Nations".
That is, a state can use military means if it finds itself facing an attack. In this case, defensive actions can also be carried out on the territory of the attacking state. A current example of this is Ukraine's strikes on military targets in Russia - since Russia provoked this situation of self-defense with its aggressive war against Ukraine, ARD explains.
"Preventive self-defense" is possible
However, a state does not have to wait to be attacked - it has the right to defend itself against an imminent attack if it has no other means. International law experts call this "preemptive self-defense", explains lawyer Pierre Tilborger. "However, "preemptive self-defense" against a possible future attack is inadmissible if it is not imminent," explains the international law expert.
This is precisely the essence of the current conflict: whether the Iranian attack on Israel was imminent and how specific the threat was. This depends on the actual stage of Tehran's nuclear program and the intentions of the Iranian leadership, the German public media outlet points out.
The Iranian nuclear program as an argument
One thing is clear: Iran had not yet attacked Israel when the first Israeli missiles flew towards the Islamic State last Friday. Israel argues that its existence is threatened by the Iranian nuclear program.
Indeed, the regime in Tehran has significantly increased its nuclear capacity in recent years. This is shown by a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), according to which the government in Tehran has uranium enriched to 60 percent, compared to the 90 percent needed for nuclear weapons. According to experts, this level can be reached very quickly, adds ARD.
Iran's political leadership has repeatedly stated that it does not want bombs, but only to use its nuclear resources for civilian purposes. At the same time, however, it does not recognize Israel as a state. Iran has repeatedly threatened that it wants to eliminate the "Zionist regime".
Therefore, the Israeli leadership believes that it had the right to strike in order to prevent an impending attack in its infancy. It speaks of "a point of no return" and which must be prevented. In view of the right to self-defense, last week's preemptive strike is justified, says another conclusion in the publication.
What the experts say
However, many legal experts in Germany are critical of this. International law professor Kai Ambos told the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung": "If the threshold for self-defense is pushed further and further, the prohibition on the use of force - a fundamental norm of international law - will become practically meaningless".
Pierre Tilborger shares a similar view: "Israel's attacks are still in the realm of preventive self-defense, which international law does not recognize as a justification for circumventing the prohibition on the use of force between states".
Matthias Herdegen, an international law expert at the University of Bonn, writes in Platform X that "Israel's preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities is in a deep gray area from the point of view of international law, even if the Iranian regime wants to wipe Israel off the map of the world".
Nuclear facilities as a target
The fact that Israel is also attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is also a cause for concern. In principle, nuclear power plants are particularly protected from attack: according to the Geneva Conventions, nuclear power plants cannot be attacked even if they are a military objective, as this poses serious risks to the civilian population.
An exception to this prohibition is only possible under very strict conditions - if the nuclear power plant in question "provides electricity in direct support of hostilities and if the attack is the only means of terminating that support".
According to international law expert Tilborger, these conditions are absent in this case. "Therefore, attacks against such targets, where there is a fear that dangerous forces will be released, are illegal. "From everything we know, this is how the current case of Israel's attacks should be assessed," ARD quoted him as saying.
The killings of scientists
In addition to senior members of Iran's military leadership, Israel has also targeted Iranian nuclear scientists. "This is a particularly worrying act, since scientists are generally not part of Iran's armed forces," Tilborger commented. As civilians, they are also protected by international humanitarian law and can only be attacked if they are directly involved in hostilities, he added to ARD.
Iran is probably also violating international law
In its counterattacks, Iran has fired missiles at cities in Israel. Officially, the target is Israeli military centers and air bases, but the Israeli army headquarters, for example, is located in the center of Tel Aviv. These Iranian strikes have already resulted in many civilian casualties.
Iran, in turn, refers to international law, but it sets certain limits - it must always be guaranteed that the civilian population and civilian objects will be protected. Therefore, the target of Iranian counterstrikes should only be military objects, says international law expert Tilborger. "Iran's attacks appear to be indiscriminate, i.e. they are directed at both civilians and military targets. If so, they violate international humanitarian law," he is categorical.