The Israel projects as a reason for his recent raids against Iran The *”legal defense” *, pointing out the many years of danger that, in its position, comes from Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. The reality, however, with regard to international law, is not so simple. Experts point out that self -defense can not be legally respected, which has caused a strong international legal and political debate over whether Tel Aviv has violated international rules.

Legal framework and self -defense

To international lawthe terms for the exercise of the right of self -defense are explicitly defined by Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter. According to legal analysts, Israeli actions appear to be included in what is characterized as *”deterrent attack” *and not as *immediate self -defense *. Professor of International Law Matthias Goldman explains to DW that “the majority of legal observers consider this Israeli action as a case *” forbidden self -defense ” *”. As he points out, to justify self -defense, an imminent and inevitable attack is required, a condition that does not appear to be fulfilled in the present case, as there were no evidence of immediate threat by Iran.

In addition, Israel has not disclosed evidence to substantiate the immediacy of the Iranian threat, while US estimates say Iran is still three years from the construction of a nuclear bomb.

The legal approach of analysts

Michael Smith, a professor of public law, acknowledges that the “seriousness of Iranian nuclear threat” * may allow a more expansive interpretation of the right to self -defense. However, he clarifies that in order to comply with the legal framework, a country must have exhausted all available alternatives before resorting to military power. And, as he notes, negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing during the Israeli attack, which further questioning the legal basis of Israeli energy.

Professor Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading stresses to DW that international laws for the use of violence are strict and were created to limit, not to broaden, the margins of recourse to military power. Therefore, it considers the so -called “windows” invalid * citing societies or states for military interventions.

The law of war and the restrictions

Even in armed conflicts, international war law dictates strict rules: the targeting of civilians is prohibited, and attacks on military targets must be made by measures to minimize losses on the civilian population. Particular debate is being caused by Israeli attacks on Iranian nuclear scientists, with several lawyers pointing out that employment on a nuclear program does not automatically constitute a legitimate military target.

At the same time, the Iranian bombings that caused victims among the civilians in Tel Aviv emphasize the importance of humanitarian law in protecting non -involved.

Political Dimension and international degradation of rules

Many lawmakers are concerned about the tendency of some countries to * indirectly support * the broader interpretation of the right of self -defense of Israel. For example, Germany states that *”Israel has the right to self -defense” *, but does not specify that this right is subject to specific international restrictions.

The elastic interpretation of the rules for the use of violence undermines, according to experts, both international law and international stability itself, as was the case in 2003 with the US invasion of Iraq or more recently with Russia’s legal arguments for the invasion of Ukraine.

As Milanovic observes, *”This is not really self -defense. This is just that you say you don’t like someone, you think this is a threat and therefore you think you have the right to wage war. But international law says nothing like that. “

Curated by: George Passas