By: Saira Uttamchandani
Recently, the United States and Israel engaged in “Operation Epic Fury,” also known as “Operation Roaring Lion.” This was a coordinated set of attacks from Israel and the United States against Iran, with the goals of destroying Iran’s navy, its missile production, and other weapons-related objectives.
This attack is a clear violation of international law.
The operation has generally received positive responses from Western international leaders, with some also acknowledging that the attack violated international law, which seems contradictory. For example, the foreign minister of Belgium said the operation was “justified for global security,” while simultaneously stating that “the way in which this operation was conducted does not comply with the norms [of international law].”
The foreign minister is correct that no international law norms were disregarded during this operation. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter makes it very clear that Operation Epic Fury is illegal under international law:
Article 2(4) states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”
There are two exceptions to this rule:
Article 51: self-defense (individual or collective)
Chapter VII: Authorization by the Security Council
The United States, Israel (and Iran!) are all members of the UN, meaning that they are legally bound to comply with the charter. However, the attack against Iran is very clearly a violation of Article 2(4), and neither exception applies. The Security Council gave no authorization for Operation Epic Fury, and neither Israel nor the United States was being attacked by Iran when the operation was carried out.
President Trump’s reasoning for the attack is based on the desire to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” President Trump has claimed Iran plans to “develop its nuclear program and plans to develop missiles to reach [the] U.S.” However, Trump has previously stated that the United States “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, raising questions about what exactly the worry surrounding Iran’s nuclear development entails. While there is debate in the international law community about whether the self-defense exception can apply to imminent threats, even if it did, the excuse does not hold up.
The typical standard to determine self-defense in the face of an imminent threat, or preemptive self-defense, is the Caroline test, which has been cited since the mid-nineteenth century. The Caroline test states the following:
The threat is imminent and requires force; therefore, peaceful alternatives to force are not plausible.
The response and threat must be proportional.
Iran does not fit these qualifications.
The United States’ apparent disregard for international law raises significant concerns about global conflict and relations. Before international regulations like the U.N. Charter, war was frequently waged as a form of international interaction and considered acceptable. Since the U.N. Charter was put in place, war has no longer been viewed in as positive a light and as an acceptable form of international relations.
However, with “Operation Epic Fury” signaling the United States’ disregard for post-charter norms and President Trump making dismissive comments such as, “I don’t need international law,” this quell in violence is in danger.
A return to pre-U.N. Charter norms would not serve the international community well, and it is imperative that nations, especially those as influential as the United States, protect the current global legal order. The United States was one of the main members behind the U.N. Charter. If such a critical member, who still holds great sway and influence in the global sphere today, views it as acceptable to disregard international law, it could cause other nations to do the same.
