LEILA FADEL, BYLINE: Is there legal justification for the U.S. and Israel's war against Iran under international law? U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told the Security Council that U.S. and Israeli airstrikes broke international law. He also condemned the retaliation from Iran for violating the sovereignty of several nations in the region. So we wanted to get a deeper understanding of the legal ramifications of this war, so we reached out to Wayne Jordash. He's an international human rights lawyer and president of international law foundation Global Rights Compliance. Wayne, welcome to the program.
WAYNE JORDASH: Thank you very much for having me.
FADEL: So as a lawyer with an expertise in international law, is there legal justification for the U.S. and Israel's war against Iran here?
JORDASH: The answer to that is, I think, unequivocally no. Under the U.N. Charter, the rule is very clear. States must not attack another state except on two bases. One is when it's authorized by the Security Council, and two is when it's done in self-defense in response to an armed attack or an imminent one. When you hear the U.S. administration explain in various ways that they were overthrowing a brutal dictatorship, that their attacks were needed to destroy Iran's nuclear capability or its military capability, these are not justifications under the U.N. Charter.
FADEL: We've seen Iran respond with attacks on countries throughout the region. Are they also violating international law?
JORDASH: If they are trying to strike U.S. bases and attacking in a way which, again, is pursuant to the self-defense doctrine, that would not, on the face of it, be unlawful. If they are, as what also appears to be the case, striking civilian targets and perhaps intentionally so...
FADEL: Right. Hotels, oil fields.
JORDASH: Exactly. This could not be lawful under the bases that I've just outlined. I mean, Iran is entitled, of course, now to attack the U.S. and attack Israel as long as it does so in the face of an imminent attack or an actual attack, which it's obviously suffering. But what it can't do is simply just lash out and bomb different targets, and especially civilian targets.
FADEL: Now, we're seeing this kind of unrestrained U.S. and Israel and a kind of unrestrained Iran. With them both, based on what you said, kind of ignoring the rules of war here under international law, what does that mean for not just the region, but the world?
JORDASH: The rules which I've just outlined - the use of force - were rules designed after World War II to prevent another world war and, in particular, to protect small countries from the excesses of more powerful ones. To a large extent, it's operated pretty well since then. But as Mark Carney, the Canadian prime minister, made clear at the World Economic Forum a few weeks ago, that rules-based order was already only partly functioning. However, it did hold together some kind of restraint on the use of violence against sovereignty and territorial integrity. However, I think since 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine...
FADEL: Right.
JORDASH: We opened up a new chapter, I fear, of powerful states invading smaller ones, with perhaps underwhelming responses from the world in relation to that violation of the U.N. Charter. And what we now see with the U.S. is more of the same. I mean, whether it's Venezuela, whether it's Iran, whether it's bombing alleged drug dealers in the Caribbean, these are all acts which violate the U.N. Charter on the face of it.
FADEL: Wayne Jordash is an international human rights lawyer and president of Global Rights Compliance. Thank you for joining us.
JORDASH: Thank you for having me.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
