Iran's legal case for striking the Gulf collapses under scrutiny

"Iran attacked them anyway. The idea that the Gulf states have a responsibility, a moral one, to protect Iran from the consequences of its actions because of good neighbourliness is now grotesque in context. Iran did not return good neighbourliness. Iran returned ballistic missiles."

"The UN Charter, in Article 51, permits the use of force only in self-defence against an armed attack, and this term is not defined by reference to the state invoking it. The International Court of Justice, in cases such as Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua and Oil Platforms, has interpreted the requirement of an armed attack under Article 51 of the UN Charter restrictively."

"Collectively, they add up to a legal argument that, if accepted, would ensure that the Gulf is permanently destabilised, the basic principles of international law are destroyed, and, in a curious twist, the very security threats that Iran is reacting to are reinforced."

Iran's missile attacks on Gulf states lack legal justification despite claims of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. The Gulf states invested years in diplomatic efforts to broker peace, including nuclear talks and back-channel diplomacy, yet Iran responded with military force. Iran's legal position rests on three flawed propositions: that it acted in lawful self-defence, that host countries relinquished sovereignty by hosting US bases, and that Resolution 3314 justifies attacks on those bases. Each proposition is legally deficient and factually distorted. The International Court of Justice has interpreted Article 51 restrictively, distinguishing between grave armed attacks and lesser uses of force. Accepting Iran's arguments would destabilize the Gulf, undermine international law principles, and paradoxically reinforce the security threats Iran claims to oppose.

Read at www.aljazeera.com