The Use of force between Israel and Iran: assessing compliance with international law

Abstract

This thesis analyses the legality of using force in the context of Israeli-Iranian military interactions, with an emphasis on the framework set by international law. The study's goal is to determine if such activities are consistent with the prohibition on the use of force in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and whether they may be justified under Article 51's exception for self-defence. The study fills a significant gap in modern legal literature by examining the applicability of classic use-of-force standards to complicated, indirect, and developing state disputes. It focuses on the issues of classification, attribution, and legal justification in the Israel-Iran situation. A qualitative doctrinal legal methodology is used, which includes an examination of original sources such as the UN Charter and International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisprudence, as well as relevant academic literature and expert perspectives. To blend precise legal interpretation with practical state behaviour, the study follows a theoretical framework that combines legal positivism and realism. The findings show that, while nations commonly use self-defence to justify military acts, many of these claims fail to meet the legal requirements of necessity, proportionality, and immediacy. As a result, several of the activities investigated appear to violate the established legal framework controlling the use of force. This thesis indicates that existing legal norms face substantial obstacles when applied to modern conflicts, emphasiing the need for clearer standards and stronger enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with international law.