Bombing Iran: A Clear Breach of International Law and the Erosion of Credibility in the Rules-Based Order
Introduction
As Israel’s military strikes against Iranian targets expand—and with the United States now openly participating—many governments have issued calls for “restraint.” Yet what is conspicuously missing from most Australian political discourse and media commentary is the blunt truth: Israel’s and the United States’ bombing of Iran constitutes a flagrant violation of international law. The response from Australia’s government and media reveals not just a moral failure, but a glaring hypocrisy regarding the so-called “rules-based international order” they so often champion.
The Legal Framework: The UN Charter and the Prohibition on the Use of Force
The foundational document of international law, the United Nations Charter (1945), clearly prohibits the use of force by one state against another, except under specific and narrow circumstances. Article 2(4) of the Charter states:
"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, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."
The only exception is outlined in Article 51:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations."
These provisions mean that the use of force is only lawful when a state is acting in self-defence in response to an actual armed attack. Neither Israel nor the United States has demonstrated that Iran launched such an attack or that one was imminent.
Expert Legal Opinions: No Justification for Self-Defence
As Professor Ben Saul, the Challis Chair of International Law at the University of Sydney, recently stated, "Iran is obviously not attacking Israel with nuclear weapons. It is also not about to attack Israel, given that it has not built a single nuclear weapon, let alone indicated a specific threat to use one.”[1]
Similarly, Professor Marko Milanovic of Reading University has written: “Unless Israel is able to provide substantially more compelling evidence than is currently publicly available, it cannot reasonably be argued that Iran would imminently attack Israel, or that using force was the only option to stop that attack. Israel is therefore using force against Iran unlawfully, in violation of Article 2(4) of the [UN] Charter. It is committing aggression.”[2]
These expert assessments reinforce what international legal doctrine makes plain: the Israeli and U.S. attacks on Iranian territory are acts of aggression.
The Dangerous Myth of "Anticipatory Self-Defence"
To justify such actions, Israel and its allies have revived the legally tenuous notion of "anticipatory self-defence"—a concept broadly rejected in international law since the 19th century. Though used by the United States and the United Kingdom in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq War, the doctrine has never been accepted in international jurisprudence or codified in the UN Charter.
As former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber has argued, anticipatory self-defence provides a dangerous carte blanche: it allows any state to justify war on the basis of speculative threats, real or imagined. This undermines the entire system of collective security established after World War II.
The Hypocrisy of Australia's Rhetoric on International Law
Australian officials—including Defence Minister Richard Marles and Foreign Minister Penny Wong—have repeatedly stressed the importance of the “rules-based international order,” especially in relation to China's actions in the South China Sea. Yet when it comes to Israeli military aggression or American complicity, Australia retreats into platitudes about “restraint” and avoids legal accountability.
This is not merely rhetorical inconsistency—it is complicity by omission. When war crimes are committed by allies, Australia’s failure to condemn them undermines both its credibility and the normative framework of international law.
Civilian Casualties and Unlawful Killings
International humanitarian law (IHL) also forbids attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure. Yet Israel’s strikes in Iran have reportedly included bombings of civilian infrastructure and assassinations of Iranian scientists and government officials—acts that fall squarely within the definition of unlawful targeted killings and collective punishment.
These are not collateral damages in the fog of war; they are deliberate tactics of intimidation and destabilization that violate the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Australia’s Strategic Silence and the AUKUS Calculus
Australia’s strategic silence is partly explained by its growing dependence on the United States, particularly under the AUKUS defence agreement. By aligning uncritically with Washington and Tel Aviv, Canberra places its geopolitical alignment above its legal and moral responsibilities.
This deference also reflects domestic political pressures from pro-Israel lobbying and a political culture that conflates foreign policy realism with moral indifference.
Conclusion: The Cost of Hypocrisy
The term "rules-based order" has become a hollow mantra. If Australia—and indeed the West—wants to preserve the legitimacy of international law, it must apply those rules impartially. That means calling out unlawful aggression regardless of the perpetrator’s identity.
To defend a world order grounded in law, not power, requires moral consistency and legal clarity. Israel’s and America’s bombing of Iran is a breach of both. Australia’s refusal to acknowledge that fact exposes a foreign policy rooted not in principle, but in selective allegiance.
References
Ben Saul, "Australia's claim that Israel has a right to defend itself against Iran is inconsistent with our rules-based order," The Guardian, 16 June 2025.
Marko Milanovic, “Use of Force Against Iran: A Legal Assessment,” EJIL:Talk!, 14 June 2025.
UN Charter (1945), Articles 2(4) and 51.
Craig Mokhiber, Twitter/X post, 13 June 2025.
Geneva Conventions (1949), Additional Protocol I, Article 51.
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), Articles 7–8.
United Nations General Assembly Resolutions 3314 (Definition of Aggression), 1974.
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), "Australia and the Rules-Based Order," 2023.
Human Rights Watch (2025), "Report on Civilian Impact of Israeli Strikes in Iran."
International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996.
Comments
Post a Comment