Israel has used the word “preventive” to justify Saturday morning’s attacks on Iran.
According to international law, a state may use military force against another state in self-defense. Most countries agree that this includes situations where an imminent attack is underway.
However, stretching the concept further is not considered acceptable.
This is called preventive self-defense, which refers to a more distant and diffuse threat. This was an argument George W. Bush used in connection with the 2003 Iraq War, says Mark Klamberg, professor of international law at Stockholm University.
There is no support for this in case law or in rulings by international courts.
In the middle of negotiations
Meanwhile, the US and Israel chose to attack in the midst of ongoing negotiations between Washington and Tehran over Iran's nuclear program. As recently as Friday evening, mediators stated that Iran was ready to make significant concessions.
It shows that there was an alternative way to deal with this problem (the concern that Iran is developing nuclear weapons).
US President Donald Trump has also referred to Iran as a threat to the American people. He has also portrayed Washington's attacks as an opportunity for the Iranian people to overthrow a brutal and oppressive regime.
But there is no support in international law for using force under the pretext of saving another population, without approval from the UN Security Council.
There was discussion about changing international law on this point. But that discussion largely died after the Iraq War, when many felt that the US was abusing that reasoning.
Cautious statements
Mark Klamberg emphasizes that he has full sympathy for the Iranian people and that they have the right to democracy. But he questions how helpful this type of military intervention is.
If you look at previous examples where people have tried to introduce democracy by force, it hasn't gone so well.
Norway and Spain have criticized the attacks on Iran. But major Western countries such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom have instead focused on Iran's counterattacks.
If you let the use of preventive self-defense pass, you should remember that other states can use the same reasoning against your own interests, says Mark Klamberg.
