Opinion | Attack on Iran normalises global descent into the ‘law of the jungle’
By waging war under the logic of pre-emptive defence, the US and Israel are hollowing out the foundations of international law
We are witnessing the systematic dismantling of the post-1945 legal order, replaced by the unvarnished “law of the jungle” where strategic interests supersede legality, and the UN Charter is treated as a relic of a more optimistic age.
The foundational architecture of modern international law rests upon Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which strictly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The exceptions are intentionally narrow: authorisation by the UN Security Council or a clear case of self-defence under Article 51.
In the current strikes against Iran, neither criterion has been met. There was no Security Council resolution authorising “Operation Epic Fury”. Furthermore, the claim of self-defence fails the most basic legal scrutiny. Under the long-standing “Caroline test”, the necessity of self-defence must be “instant, overwhelming [and] leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation”.
Iran had not launched an armed attack against the US or Israel. Instead, Washington and Tel Aviv have relied on a doctrine of “pre-emptive war” – striking a sovereign state to eliminate a perceived potential future capability. By stretching the definition of imminent threats to include hypothetical ones, the US has normalised aggression. If the mere pursuit of a technology or a shift in regional power becomes a justifiable trigger for bombardment, then the prohibition on force has been hollowed out from within.
05:40
Trump says US-Israeli strikes on Iran is beginning of ‘major combat operation’