"Israel's attack on Iran has been described as a 'preemptive, precise' strike, invoking self-defense due to fears of an imminent nuclear threat, though legality remains contested."
"Legal experts argue that Israel's actions may constitute 'prohibited self-defense,' as the requirements are strict, necessitating an imminent threat that was not evident at the time."
The debate surrounding Israel's June 13 attack on Iran centers on its justification under international law. Proponents argue it was a necessary self-defense measure against an impending nuclear threat, while critics claim it was a rogue act violating international regulations. Legal experts, particularly Matthias Goldmann, suggest that Israel's actions may not qualify as legitimate self-defense since the strict criteria for such actions were not met. The timing, alongside statements from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), indicates that an imminent threat from Iran was not present, complicating Israel's legal justification.
Read at www.dw.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]