Preventive strikes and International Law

From the night of June 12th to the 13th, the State of Israel has initiated a series of military offensives against the Islamic Republic of Iran.  According to Israeli officials, the attack was a response to Iran’s advancement in its nuclear program, which was perceived as a threat to the existence of the Hebrew state.  The objective of this paper is not to reiterate the genesis of the conflict between the two states or to contribute to the extensive body of literature on historical Middle Eastern conflicts. Rather, it is to examine the legality of this action in light of international law, with a particular focus on the law of war and jus ad bellum. It is imperative to acknowledge the significance of comprehending the historical context, particularly the prior apprehension, to gain a comprehensive understanding of the contemporary influence of the United Nations in the realm of international armed conflict.

The Israeli government asserts that the strike was a “preventive” measure intended to address an imminent and inevitable threat posed by Iran’s efforts to develop a nuclear weapon . According to the Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (2001, as amended 2002), a preventive is defined as “an armed conflict initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.”  According to the aforementioned definition, the actions taken by the government led by Netanyahu can be justified in light of the historical and ongoing conflict in the region. This conflict has been characterized by the historical animosity expressed by successive Iranian governments, who have consistently denied the existence of the State of Israel and have sought its destruction, referring to it as the “Zionist regime.” Former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad once made the following statement in his recollection of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran’s Islamic revolution: As the imam articulated, the eradication of Israel is a fundamental tenet of their ideology. However, although the previously mentioned occurrence could be used to argue for the security of one’s border, citizens, infrastructure, and even existence, it does align with the concept of Jus and Belum.

The utilization of legitimate force is explicitly delineated in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which is entitled “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression.” The initial twelve articles of the United Nations Charter underscored the Security Council’s pivotal role in determining the conduct of warfare among United Nations members, a matter of particular relevance to Israel and Iran. Article 51 of the Charter is the sole article that deviates from the Security Council’s omnipotence; it pertains to the use of legitimate defense. The article states that “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. As stated in Chapter VII, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the objective is not to refute or justify a nation’s intelligence and ability to defend itself. Rather, the aim is to elucidate the various circumstances under which this scenario could arise.

In this particular instance, Israel instigated the initial physical aggression. Consequently, its actions cannot be classified as legitimate defense under the prevailing circumstances. The actions taken were not a response to actual threats, and therefore, do not fall under the category of justifiable acts under international law. In his seminal work, The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes expounds on the concept of the “State of Nature,” which is defined as the condition of human beings existing in a state of nature, prior to the establishment of civilization. According to the aforementioned source, the absence of an entity capable of regulating relations between the state (referred to as “the Leviathan”) will result in perpetual conflict. According to the constructivism theory of international relations, the common interests and policies of nations have the potential to influence the development of shared attitudes among them. The United Nations is the empirical evidence for this theory, what is clear is that constructivism gives us unique tools to detect, and to understand, this process as one that plays out internationally – with the United Nations as the center stage. The United States charter presents a set of guidelines and provisions designed to assist nations in the process of moving away from a state of anarchy.

In the context of the escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, the notion of law and order within the global order is subject to considerable debate. According to the theoretical framework of Realism in International Relations, states are considered the primary actors responsible for their own security. This stands in stark contrast to the prevailing regulations within the international community, which are formally overseen by the United Nations. Two inquiries can be posited to conclude this discussion. Firstly, has the UN become impotent in its dealings with certain countries or issues? Secondly, or alternatively, does the organization apply its own rules in a variable geometrical way?

Work Cited

Goldberg, Ori. The Real Reasons Israel Attacked Iran. Al-Jazeera. June 15, 2025.

McGlinchey, Stephen., Gold, Dana. Constructivism and the United Nations. November 23, 2023.