Legal experts say U.S. military action against Iran violates international law

Xinhua News Agency, Beijing, March 7 - On February 28, the United States and Israel jointly launched a "preemptive" military strike against Iran. The White House claimed that this move was to curb the "direct threat" from Iran, but some legal experts stated that, according to international law, the dangers cited by the U.S. government do not justify military action.

According to a report by AFP on the 6th, White House Press Secretary Levitt said on the 4th that the decision to launch this military action was "based on the cumulative effect of various direct threats posed by Iran to the United States, as well as the President's factual determination that Iran indeed poses an urgent and direct threat." She cited Iran's support for "terrorism," its ballistic missile program, and its alleged attempts to "develop nuclear weapons and atomic bombs."

However, Mary Ellen O'Connell, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, believes that, according to international law, the U.S. military action against Iran "has no legitimacy." "The law clearly states that international disputes should be resolved by peaceful means, including negotiation, mediation, and intervention by international organizations."

She also stated that the Trump administration only "vaguely mentioned an imminent attack by Iran and the need to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," while the "United Nations Charter" requires "at least evidence that Iran is launching a significant attack."

U.S. Secretary of State Rubio earlier provided another reason for the U.S. military action. On the 2nd, he claimed that the U.S. launched military strikes against Iran because Israel would attack Iran, and the U.S. would also become a target of Iran's retaliation, thus deciding to "act preemptively." However, Trump refuted the claim that Israel was dragging the U.S. into conflict the next day, stating that the U.S. decision was based on the judgment that "Iran was about to launch an attack."

Brian Finucane, a senior advisor for the U.S. program at the Belgian think tank International Crisis Group and a former legal advisor at the U.S. State Department, said that the reasons provided by Rubio and the Trump administration for military action have many issues. "The influence brought by key military support from the U.S. could have potentially prevented any Israeli attack on Iran." (Liu Xi)