The Guardian reports of the current disputes about the legality of UK’s participation in the war against Iran, on the sides of Israel and possibly of the US.
The Guardian reminds: “The prime minister (Starmer) was an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war when he was a human rights lawyer in 2003 and will be well aware of the thorny legal issues around engagement in strikes against Iran.” Richard Hermer, the UK Attorney General has warned Starmer that UK’s involvement could be illegal.
The UK base Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean is an airfiled which is mainly used by the US. It is under lease from Mauritius and can be used by US long range bombers such as the B-2. The UK’s base in Cyprus is situated closer to Iran and can have a strategic and fast reaction role in any attack on Iran.
Legal disputes have emerged if Israel has the right to unilaterally attack Iran, as happened last week. The same disputes exists about a legal justification for the US to get involved. Further it seems to be highly disputed if the UK has the right to participate or even to provide support to the US in form of its military bases.
The basis for these disputes is the International Law, precisely the UN Charta.
While the UN Charta forbids the use of force, in particular, the military attack by one country on another, one specific exception is available: self defence. Under strict circumstances, the self defence clause allows even a preemptive strike.
As with all things about law, it is a matter of discussions, and where are two lawyers, there are three legal opinions.
Of course, Israel claims the right of self defence for its recent attacks on Iran, on Iranian nuclear sites, on the chiefs of the Iranian army, on nuclear scientists. Israel claims that it needs to destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities to stopp the Iranian nuclear bomb which would threaten the existence of Israel and millions of lives.
Therefore, Israel has the right to hit and destroy those industrial facilities, to kill army commanders and nuclear scientists – and in retaliation to Iranian counter-attacks, Israel may destroy media and energy infrastructure. Israel also considers legitimate to kill Iran’s leader.
With regard to the US, The Guardian mentions: “The US has taken a broad view of “imminence” in cases of threats of terrorism or weapons of mass destruction in the past but it could prove difficult to argue that a US attack against Iran’s nuclear programme or leadership would constitute an act of self-defence against an imminent armed attack on the US. The White House would probably argue that it was acting in collective defence of Israel. The strength of this argument would rest on whether Israel has acted in accordance with international law in attacking Iran in the first place and then whether the US use of force was limited to protecting Israeli civilians and US interests from an Iranian attack.”
The Guardian’s legal analysis makes it quiet difficult for the US to attack Iran on the side of Israel. Notably, the US is not in a position of self defence unless directly threatened. But the US could help Israel with its self defence. International Law allows for a very narrow possibility to supported one party in its self defence, i.e. to help to protect Israeli lives. But it is hard to justify that the help for self defence can be an overwhelming attack with the aim to destroy the country’s army, regime and specific industries, such as the civil nuclear industry.
The Guardian reminds about the UK’s standpoint during the earlier Iraq War: “The UK’s position on pre-emptive strikes is well known. In the lead-up to the Iraq war, the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, argued that international law permitted force only in self-defence where there was an actual or imminent attack and that “the development of [weapons of mass destruction] was not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence”.
Notably, the UK might not justify a self- defensive preemptive attack even if one country develops a nuclear bomb. The UK may not be allowed to support such preemptive attack even with the provision of its air bases.
There are considerable different positions to discuss these matters from the point of view of International Law. It must also be observed that the International Law is evolving. The US has, in the past, claimed self defence, or the self defence of other nations as the main justification to attack: Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria … The US also claimed the right to extensively support with weapons, intelligence and money parties in conflicts: Ukraine, Israel. The limits of self defence and the right to a preemptive attack have been arguably overstretched as many countries and even internal US critics have claimed.
President Putin of Russia has recently qualified Israel’s attack on Iran as contrary to International Law, considering that Iran denies building a nuclear bomb and that there is no imminent attack to be feared, as furthermore Iran and Israel, as well as the US were negotiating. There is, so the Russian President, no right to a preemptive strike.
In return, Ukraine claims the same for itself, i.e. that Russia invaded without provocation and contrary to International Law Ukraine’s sovereign territory. It is an interesting playing field for lawyers to work out those differences and similarities, in particular, regarding Russia’s justification to invade Ukraine as a preemptive action which was claimed by Russia to be a justified self defence preemptive action and an aid to self defence of Russian minorities under constant attacks by Ukraine’s army since 2014 – in the eastern, dominantly Russian inhabited parts of Ukraine.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
