Leiden experts: attack on Iran violates international law
In the media image: Tingey Injury on Unsplash
Four members of the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies, Larissa van den Herik, Carsten Stahn, Anna Marhold professor emeritus Nico Schrijver, claim in various news outlets that the recent strikes on Iran violate international law.
They say that it has not been demonstrated that there was reason for self-defence, no UN mandate was requested, and selective compliance with rules undermines the credibility of the system.
No justification for the attack
Larissa van den Herik, Professor of International Law, argues in news outlets Nieuwsuur, Radio1 and the NOS that international law is not a ‘light switch’ that can be selectively turned on or off. She says the United States and Israel have provided no evidence that there was an imminent attack or immediate threat from Iran, making the actions of the US and Israel a violation of core principles of international law. The notion of a Responsibility to Protect provides no independent basis for military intervention. 'Also from the thought that violence does not improve the fate of the civilian population.'
Political interests above the law
Nico Schrijver, professor emeritus of international law, emphasises on NPO Radio1, that every attack must comply with the UN Charter: only self-defence in the event of an attack or permission from the Security Council legitimises violence. In the case of Iran, there was no question of self-defence and there is no UN mandate. Schrijver: 'the US and Israel have climbed to the highest rung on the escalation ladder.'
Europe's credibility at stake
Anna Marhold, Assistant Professor of International Law and a member of the Dutch parliament's Advisory Council on International Affairs, warns in the same broadcast on NPO Radio1, that selective compliance with international law 'undermines Europe's credibility. While the EU is committed to human rights, it remains remarkably reluctant to attack Iran, which reinforces the idea of double standards.'
Turning point in the international legal order
Carsten Stahn, Professor of International Criminal Law and Global Justice, calls the attack in regional newspaper Leidsch Dagblad a 'turning point in the international legal order'. Violating the prohibition of force without a legal basis, while negotiations were still ongoing, constitutes a gross violation of the right to self-defence. He warns that ‘pragmatism by Western states can be very harmful to international law in the long run.’
Conclusions
European countries remain cautious and refrain from speaking with one voice about the attack on Iran. Some countries show support, while others advocate diplomatic solutions and respect for international law. All experts agree that the attack on Iran violates international law. Without no direct threat or UN mandate, and with the selective application of rules, the international legal order is undermined, with the risk of future conflicts and loss of credibility.
More information?
All in Dutch
- Listen to the broadcast on Radio1 (from 36 min Van den Herik)
- Watch the Nieuwsuur item (from 21 min Van den Herik)
- Read the NOS article (Van den Herik)
- Listen to the broadcast on Radio1 (from 7 min Schrijver and from 19 min Marhold)
- Read the article in Leidsch-Dagblad (€) (Carsten Stahn)