13.08.25
Editorial Note
In March, IAM reported that “Pro-Palestinians Take Over German Academic Blog of International Law.” IAM noted that the German blog Völkerrechtsblog, an academic blog on international public law and international legal thought, is run by anti-Israel activists. Its managing editor, Khaled El Mahmoud, is a Palestinian-Tunisian who works as a law clerk at the Higher Regional Court of Berlin and is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Potsdam.
However, now it seems that the Völkerrechtsblog has also moved to promote the Iranian regime’s interests. In one of its latest posts, titled “Striking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: International Law Scholars Warn of Precedent-Setting Violations,” a group of international legal scholars published a petition endorsed by several Iranian scholars, listed below.
The group begins their petition by invoking the 120 Member States of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which “categorically condemn and denounce in the strongest terms the wanton, unprovoked, and premeditated heinous attack by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran” on June 13, 2025, and the “deliberate targeting of peaceful nuclear facilities by Israel.” The petition also invokes the Joint Statement of the 57 Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which states that Israel’s “reprehensible attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the fundamental principles of international law, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of States, while grossly violating fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and the right to health.”
The petition argues, “We, the undersigned international law scholars, submit this petition to call attention to the illegality of the June 2025 Israeli aggression against Iran, as well as of the subsequent United States’ strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. We are gravely concerned by the erosion of fundamental norms governing the use of force and the protection of civilians. Drawing on authoritative sources of international law, we demonstrate that Israel’s aggression, through invocation of ‘preventive self-defense’ has no legal foundation under the United Nations Charter and customary international law, that the attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear installation contravened international nuclear and environmental law, and that it violated core principles of international humanitarian law. We caution that the practice of using force to impose agreements upon States contravenes the rules-based international legal order. Such acts produce void and nullified effects that no State may recognize as lawful. We further address the broader implications of these violations for the rule of law and global arms-control and disarmament regimes.”
They ended their petition by urging “States and international institutions to reaffirm these norms. We call on relevant bodies – the United Nations, the IAEA, and the international community at large – to condemn these grave breaches of the law. Upholding the rule of law is essential to preventing the very conflicts that such illegal attacks only exacerbate. Let this petition serve as a scholarly affirmation that neither might nor fear of future threats can override the clear limits of international law. For the sake of future peace and stability, all States must heed the Charter’s mandate and the laws of armed conflicts.”
The signatories, Pouria Askary, Associate Professor of International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University of Tehran, Iran, and former legal advisor at the International Committee of the Red Cross in Tehran; Salah F. Al Jabery, Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair for Genocide Prevention studies in the Islamic world at University of Baghdad, Iraq; Said Mahmoudi, Professor emeritus of international law, Stockholm University, Sweden; Mohsen Mohebbi, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran; Ali Asghar Soltanieh, former Iran Representative to the IAEA (1982-87; 2006-13), President of the Vienna International Institute for Middle East Studies, which focuses on attacking Israel. In 2014, Soltanieh participated in the second New Horizon conference held in Tehran, a gathering of prominent Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists, and BDS supporters from around the world. The conference was backed and supported by the Iranian regime.
Others also signed the petition:
Olivier Corten, Professor of international law, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, Senior Lecturer in international law, Institut Catholique de Vendée, France; Yoshiko Kurita, Professor, Chiba University, Japan. John Laughland, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of political science and history, Institut Catholique de Vendée, France; Rafaëlle Maison, Professor of international law, Université Paris Saclay, France; Chantal Meloni, Associate Professor of international criminal law, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Italy; Keiko Sakai, Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Politics and Economics, Chiba University, Japan; Axel Schönberger, University of Bremen, Germany; Katariina Simonen, Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland, and Pugwash Council/Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs; Alfred M. de Zayas, Professor, Geneva School of Diplomacy, Switzerland.
The initiator and author of the petition is Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, the director of the Public International Law Advisory Group, a consultant in public international law and dispute resolution, and a Senior Lecturer in International Arbitration at the Free Faculty of Law and Economics of Paris. Dupond, in 2014, endorsed the “Joint Declaration by International Law Experts on Israel’s Gaza Offensive,” initiated by Prof. Richard Falk, stating that “The International Community Must End Israel’s Collective Punishment of the Civilian Population in the Gaza Strip.” Falk, who was an expert on international law at Yale University, has a long history of anti-Israel activism. In 2013, Dupond authored the article “The ECJ and (Mis)interpretation of Security Council Resolutions: The Case of Sanctions Against Iran.”
Worth noting that the day before Israel’s preemptive strike against Iran, on June 12, 2025, the Board of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN agency that enforces compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, announced that Iran was in significant breach of its non-proliferation obligation. The 35-country member Board and Rafael Grossi, the head of the IAEA, explained that these obligations were included in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the related UNSC Resolution 2231 that Iran broke by manufacturing missiles. Grossi warned that Iran’s violations may trigger “snapback sanctions,” that is, reinstating the entire range of sanctions that existed before the JCPOA.
Interestingly, some of the signatories also appear in a petition published in July by the Tehran Times, owned by the Iranian regime, which states, “A group of esteemed Iranian lawmakers have issued a statement, underlining the illegal nature of Israel’s June war against Iran, and calling on their fellow academics in the world to condemn the outrageous act.” Tehran Times also claimed the Iranian lawyers emphasized the “necessity of International bodies to hold Israel accountable and prevent international law from becoming irrelevant in the face of the regime’s unchecked violence plaguing the region.”
The moral blindness of the petitioners is staggering. Iranian leaders have occasionally implied that a nuclear bomb could be used to wipe out Israel from the face of the earth – their eschatologically mandated step before the disappeared Twelfth Imam can return. According to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the State of Israel will be destroyed in the year 2040. A digital clock erected in Palestine Square in Tehran in 2017 has been counting down the time for the alleged event.
Moral blindness aside, the Völkerrechtsblog exemplifies how the anti-Israel campaign that began in Middle Eastern studies departments at Western universities has now spread to international law faculties across both the United States and Western Europe. It is particularly egregious for the petition’s signatories to voice support for Iran—a state widely recognized as a principal sponsor of terrorism through proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas, a perpetrator of systematic repression against its own citizens, and a regime advancing toward nuclear weapons capability.
Germany must closely monitor this troubling development and respond decisively to counter the spread of such narratives within influential academic and legal circles.
REFERENCES
Striking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities: International Law Scholars Warn of Precedent-Setting Violations
09.07.2025
The following text is published in the category of “Open Letters and Statements“.
Noting that the 120 Member States of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) ‘categorically condemn and denounce in the strongest terms the wanton, unprovoked, and premeditated heinous attack by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran on 13 June 2025’,[1] and that they ‘strongly condemn the deliberate targeting of peaceful nuclear facilities by Israel’,[2] while expressing ‘serious concerns that such attacks and the resulting damage pose formidable risks of radioactive material release, representing severe threats to civilian populations and the environment’;[3]
Recalling the Joint Statement of the 57 Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), spanning four continents, which states that the ‘reprehensible attack constitutes a flagrant violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the fundamental principles of international law, including sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the prohibition of the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of States, while grossly violating fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and the right to health’;[4]
Recalling also the statement of the Member States of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which expresses serious concern and ‘condemns the military strikes carried out by Israel’ as ‘aggressive actions against civilian targets, including energy and transport infrastructure, which have resulted in civilian casualties,’ and characterizes them as a ‘gross violation of international law and the United Nations Charter’;[5]
Considering the assessments of UN Experts that the timing of the strikes – coinciding with diplomatic efforts by Iran and the United States in Muscat to revive the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal – ‘raises serious concerns about the deliberate undermining of peace initiatives’; and that they ‘unequivocally condemn recent Israeli military attacks against Iran, which have targeted nuclear facilities, energy and military infrastructure, as well as residential and media buildings across multiple locations’, which represent ‘a flagrant violation of fundamental principles of international law, a blatant act of aggression, and a violation of jus cogens norms – peremptory rules of international law from which no derogation is permitted’;[6]
We, the undersigned international law scholars, submit this petition to call attention to the illegality of the June 2025 Israeli aggression against Iran, as well as of the subsequent United States’ strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. We are gravely concerned by the erosion of fundamental norms governing the use of force and the protection of civilians. Drawing on authoritative sources of international law, we demonstrate that Israel’s aggression, through invocation of ‘preventive self-defense’ has no legal foundation under the United Nations Charter and customary international law, that the attacks on Iran’s safeguarded nuclear installation contravened international nuclear and environmental law, and that it violated core principles of international humanitarian law. We caution that the practice of using force to impose agreements upon States contravenes the rules-based international legal order. Such acts produce void and nullified effects that no State may recognize as lawful. We further address the broader implications of these violations for the rule of law and global arms-control and disarmament regimes. The findings of this petition rely on treaties, UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, IAEA resolutions, and academic commentary. The gravity of the issues involved calls for clear-headed legal analysis by the international community.
I. The Prohibition on the Use of Force under International Law
a. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter enshrines the obligation of all Members to refrain from the ‘threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.’[7] The International Court of Justice considers the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter to constitute both an obligation under customary international law[8] and what it has characterized as ‘a cornerstone of the United Nations Charter’.[9] This prohibition is widely recognized in State practice and by the overwhelming majority of international law scholars as possessing a jus cogens or peremptory character from which no derogation is permitted.[10] Further, to highlight the importance of such an obligation it is beneficial to recall that, under the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court, this act is defined as an ‘act of aggression’ which means the ‘use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.’[11]
As articulated by the UN International Law Commission in its Draft Articles on State Responsibility, all States are obligated to cooperate in bringing to an end a serious breach by any State of an obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law.[12] Also, States shall not to recognize as lawful any situation created by the use of force.[13] The duty of non-recognition was affirmed by the ICJ in its Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall, where the Court held that – as a corollary to the prohibition of the use of force – any measures resulting from the threat or use of force are illegal and must not be recognized as lawful by other States.[14]
The articulation by the U.S. President Donald Trump that ‘Iran should have listened to me […] I gave them a 60-day warning and today is day 61 […] They should now come to the table to make a deal before it’s too late,’[15] exemplifies an impermissible policy of coercive diplomacy. Such rhetoric amounts to ‘a blatant and direct threat of force, used to compel another state to […] make substantial political concessions (not required by law), would have to be seen as illegal under article 2(4) [of the UN Charter].’[16]
This kind of policy – predicated on unilateral threat and use of force – constitutes a null and void act under international law. It produces no legal effect and cannot legitimize the subjugation of another State’s sovereign will. More broadly, such actions pose a serious threat to the rule of law in international relations, fostering instability, impunity, and a return to the law of force over the force of law. If left unchecked, this approach risks hollowing out the normative framework of the UN Charter and emboldening other actors to similarly disregard international legal obligations, thereby precipitating a regression in global peace and security.
b. Absence of a Legitimate Self-Defense Justification:
In the Security Council meeting held on 13 June 2025 concerning the ‘Israeli Air Strikes on Iran’, the representative of Israel purported to justify the attacks as acts of ‘self-defense’ and claimed that Iran had ‘enriched uranium to a level with no civilian justification; obstructed inspectors and destroyed monitoring equipment; developed trigger mechanisms, detonation systems and warhead plans; actively recruited more nuclear scientists; and made false concessions during extended negotiations.’[17]
Bearing in mind that the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Grossi, acknowledged on 17 June 2025 – just days after the Israeli military campaign and before the United States strikes on Iranian nuclear sites – that the Agency ‘did not have any proof of a systematic effort [by Iran] to move into a nuclear weapon,’[18] it must be noted that, legally speaking, all the justifications raised by Israel’s representative fail to meet the threshold required under international law to lawfully invoke the right of self-defense.
As codified in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the use of force in self-defense is permissible only in response to an actual armed attack.[19] International law does not recognize a right to preventive or pre-emptive self-defense based merely on speculative or potential future threats. In one of the earliest commentaries on the UN Charter, it was observed that:
“Abuses of the right of self-defence were in the past facilitated by the theory that self-defence was justified in the face not only of actual, but also of threatened, aggression. The Charter does not admit self-defence against a threat. There must be an actual armed attack.”[20]
More recently, H.P. Aust expressed in his commentary on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter that:
“The interpretation of Art. 51 as being an exclusive regulation of the right of self-defence, has been confirmed by State practice and by the ICJ. In its Nicaragua judgment the ICJ proceeded from the assumption that the existence of an armed attack is a conditio sine qua non for the exercise of the right to individual and collective self-defence.”[21]
The International Court of Justice has repeatedly reaffirmed that Article 51’s exception to Article 2(4) applies only where an armed attack has occurred. In its 1986 judgment in the Nicaragua v. United States of America case, for example, the ICJ emphasized that self-defense lies outside the Charter’s prohibition of use of force solely to meet a genuine, present armed aggression, not hypothetical future threats:
“In the case of individual self-defence, the exercise of this right is subject to the State concerned having been the victim of an armed attack.”[22]
Thus, there is no right of self-defence unless the State has first been the victim of an actual armed attack. However, even if the so-called preventive, anticipatory, or pre-emptive self-defence were to have a basis in international law, the circumstances preceding Israel’s initiation of its military campaign were still insufficient to justify recourse to the use of force.
Those who argue in favour of such pre-emptive self-defence often rely on nineteenth-century State practice, particularly the obsolete Caroline test, according to which a truly imminent threat might justify an anticipatory strike – but still only under exceptional and exigent circumstances, where there exists ‘a necessity of self-defence, instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.’[23]
Israel and United States’ strikes bore none of those hallmarks; no Iranian attack had occurred, nor was one demonstrably imminent. Leading scholars and States reject a broad doctrine of preventive or pre-emptive use of force; to the contrary, UN resolutions have repeatedly condemned any unilateral aggression under the guise of self-defense.[24] Therefore, Israel’s strike cannot be justified as self-defense and thus contravened the UN Charter’s jus ad bellum regime.
II. Potential Breaches of International Humanitarian Law
a. Attacks on Nuclear Facilities:
Nuclear reactors, installations, and enrichment plants contain radioactive materials, making attacks on these sites extraordinarily dangerous. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977) on laws applicable in international armed conflicts, specifically prohibits targeting facilities like dams and nuclear power stations when an attack would release ‘dangerous forces’ and cause civilian harm. According to the article 56 of the Additional Protocol:
“Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely … nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among the civilian population.”[25]
The IAEA Director-General has warned that assaults on nuclear installations ‘could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked.’[26] He rightly cautioned that such attacks risk serious harm to ‘both people and the environment … as well as regional and international peace and security.’[27] In this regard, it is relevant to recall the numerous IAEA General Conference resolutions on the topic of military attacks against nuclear facilities, in particular, GC(XXIX)/RES/444 and GC(XXXIV)/RES/533, which provide, inter alia, that ‘any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.’[28]
Israel’s repeated practice to attack nuclear facilities of other sovereign States in the region represents a flagrant violation of international law and a direct assault on the foundations of global non-proliferation efforts. Of particular relevance is Resolution 487 (1981), adopted on 19 June 1981, in which the Security Council:
- ‘Strongly condemn[ed]’ Israel’s aerial strike on Iraqi nuclear installations (7 June 1981);
- Found the attack to be a ‘clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct’;
- Characterized it as ‘a danger to international peace and security’, warning that it could ‘explode the situation in the region, with grave consequences for the vital interests of all States’; and
- Further determined that the strike ‘constitutes a serious threat to the entire safeguards regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.’[29]
From another point of view, military strikes on nuclear installations represent a clear violation of international humanitarian law due to their catastrophic and indiscriminate environmental consequences. The customary and treaty international law explicitly safeguards the natural environment and ‘installations containing dangerous forces’ – prohibiting attacks that risk causing ‘widespread, long-term and severe damage.’[30]
Beyond the legal implications, such actions recklessly endanger civilian populations and the environment, with catastrophic consequences: A deliberate attack on nuclear infrastructure risks widespread radioactive contamination, exposing civilian populations to acute and long-term health hazards, including elevated cancer incidence, genetic mutations, and severe birth defects. The resulting public health emergency could persist for generations, necessitating prolonged medical interventions and mass displacement. Nuclear fallout could precipitate ecosystem collapse, with irreversible damage to agricultural lands, freshwater supplies, and biodiversity. Contaminated zones may remain uninhabitable for decades, exacerbating food insecurity and economic destabilization in the region. Radiation dispersion does not adhere to political boundaries; neighboring States could face secondary contamination, implicating broader regional stability and triggering cross-border humanitarian and legal disputes.
Given these ramifications, such military actions not only breach cardinal principles of UN Charter and international humanitarian law but also directly contravene the core tenets of international environmental law.
b. Protection of Civilians
A core principle of international humanitarian law requires parties to an armed conflict to protect ‘the civilian population and civilian objects and establishes the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets.’[31] Civilians shall ‘enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations’[32] and parties must ‘distinguish at all times between the civilian population and combatants.’[33] Israel’s strike reportedly targeted Iranian military or nuclear personnel and simultaneously struck civilian and residential, according to credible reports. Such conduct violates the distinction rule: civilian family members and nearby homes or facilities are not military objects and must not be made the object of attack. Article 51(2) of Protocol I expressly forbids ‘acts or threats of violence’ of any kind against civilians.[34]
The deliberate or reckless killing of civilians and destruction of civilian infrastructure is a grave breach under the Fourth Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime under customary international law.[35] In this case, striking at least partly civilian areas and family dwellings is inconsistent with any notion of lawful targeting. It echoes the prohibition against collective punishment and terrorizing the civilian population. Such actions undermine the very purpose of international humanitarian law, which is to limit suffering in conflict.[36]
III. Broader Implications for the International Legal Order
Whatever military objective the Israelis claimed, co-locating such an attack in civilian spaces and striking non-combatants with lethal force breaches this core prohibition. The June 2025 attacks on Iran transcend a bilateral dispute; these strike at the bedrock of international law:
First, the invocation of anticipatory or pre-emptive self-defense as justification for cross-border armed aggression erodes the Charter’s prohibition on force. If allowed, it would empower States to act as judge, jury and executioner based on perceived future threats, undermining collective security.
Secondly, the IAEA and UN have long sought to contain nuclear competition through diplomacy and law. Noting furthermore that Israel has not adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the joint Israel-United States strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities constituted both a treaty violation and a blow to the credibility of international non-proliferation regimes. Such behaviour sends a catastrophic signal that nuclear accords can be overturned by force, incentivizing other States to flout arms-control commitments under threat.
Thirdly, these incidents undermine the norm of peaceful dispute resolution. Rather than exhausting lawful avenues (such as complaints to the UN Security Council or IAEA fact-finding), Israel resorted to military action. This contravenes Article 2(3) of the UN Charter, which obligates States to settle disputes by peaceful means.
Fourthly, the strikes have enormous implications for humanitarian and environmental norms. Attacks on nuclear facilities revive fears of radioactive pollution and long-term ecological catastrophe. In an era of growing environmental consciousness, such actions flout the developing principle that warfare must not cause ‘widespread, long-term and severe’ environmental damage.
Finally, the attacks set a perilous precedent for civilian protection. If a State can lawfully attack or kill civilians in another State claiming security interests, the entire corpus of international humanitarian law is trivialized. It invites retaliatory measures and escalates conflicts, as the victims may conclude that only reciprocal force can protect their rights. Worse, it encourages a slide toward open conflict in regions with unresolved tensions, eroding confidence in the UN system.
Conclusion and Appeal
For the reasons above, it is our firm conclusion that Israel’s June 2025 aggression against Iran and United States’ strikes on Iranian nuclear sites violated fundamental rules of international law. The preventive self-defense justification is legally invalid, the attacks contravened treaty obligations and IAEA safeguards, and these breached the IHL rules on distinction, proportionality, and civilian protection.
We do not express opinions on the merits of Iran’s policies; rather, we simply apply relevant principles and rules of international law. Under the UN Charter and customary international law, States must refrain from unlawful use of force, protect civilian populations, and respect nuclear safety and arms-control regimes. These principles exist for the sake of international peace, predictability, and humanity.
We, the undersigned legal scholars, respectfully urge States and international institutions to reaffirm these norms. We call on relevant bodies – the United Nations, the IAEA, and the international community at large – to condemn these grave breaches of the law. Upholding the rule of law is essential to preventing the very conflicts that such illegal attacks only exacerbate. Let this petition serve as a scholarly affirmation that neither might nor fear of future threats can override the clear limits of international law. For the sake of future peace and stability, all States must heed the Charter’s mandate and the laws of armed conflicts.
Signatories (in individual capacity) as of 1 July 2025:
Pouria Askary, Associate Professor of International Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University of Tehran, Iran
Olivier Corten, Professor of international law, Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium
Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, Senior Lecturer in international law, Institut Catholique de Vendée, France
Salah F. Al Jabery, Chairholder of the UNESCO Chair for Genocide Prevention studies in the Islamic world at University of Baghdad, Iraq
Yoshiko Kurita, Professor, Chiba University, Japan
John Laughland, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of political science and history, Institut Catholique de Vendée, France
Said Mahmoudi, Professor emeritus of international law, Stockholms University, Sweden
Rafaëlle Maison, Professor of international law, Université Paris Saclay, France
Chantal Meloni, Associate Professor of international criminal law, Universitá degli Studi di Milano, Italy
Mohsen Mohebbi, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Iran
Keiko Sakai, Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Politics and Economics, Chiba University, Japan
Axel Schönberger, University of Bremen, Germany
Katariina Simonen, Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland, and Pugwash Council/Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
Ali Asghar Soltanieh, former Iran Representative to the IAEA (1982-87; 2006-13), President of the Vienna International Institute for Middle East Studies
Alfred M. de Zayas, Professor, Geneva School of Diplomacy, Switzerland
Persons wishing to sign the statement can send an email to its initiator and author, Pierre-Emmanuel Dupont, at petitioniran2025@gmail.com.
End Notes
[1] Chair of the Coordinating Bureau of the Non-Aligned Movement, The Communiqué of the Non-Aligned Movement on the Recent Heinous Attack of Israel Against the Islamic Republic of Iran (13 June 2025) [1].
[2] Ibid [2].
[3] Ibid.
[4] Permanent Observer Mission of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to the United Nations, ‘The Joint Statement of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on the Recent Heinous Attack of Israel Against the Islamic Republic of Iran, UN Doc OIC/NY/25/P/61 (16 June 2025) [3].
[5] Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Statement of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Regarding Military Strikes on the Territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran (14 June 2025).
[6] United Nations Human Rights, ‘UN Experts Condemn Israeli Attack on Iran and Urge End to Hostilities’ (20 June 2025).
[7] Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2(4).
[8] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Judgments) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 146 [292].
[9] Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) (Judgment) [2005] ICJ Rep 168, 223 [148].
[10] Oliver Dörr and Albrecht Randelzhofer, ‘Article 2(4)’ in Bruno Simma et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2024) 229-30.
[11] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002) art 8 bis (2).
[12] Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, GA Res 56/83, UN Doc A/RES/56/83 (28 January 2002, adopted 12 December 2001) art 40(1).
[13] Ibid art 41(2)
[14] Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Advisory Opinion) [2004] ICJ Rep 136, 171 [87], 196 [146].
[15] Betsy Klein et al, ‘Trump warns Iran to agree to a deal before there is nothing left’ (13 June 2025) CNN. available at: https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/12/politics/trump-israel-iran-strike
[16] Oscar Schachter, ‘The Right of States to Use Armed Force’ (1984) 82(5) Michigan Law Review 1620, 1625.
[17] UN SC, 9936th Meeting, UN Doc S/PV.9936 (13 June 2025). available at: https://press.un.org/en/2025/sc16087.doc.htm
[18] Christiane Amanpour, ‘Interview with International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi’ (17 June 2025) CNN. available at: https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/ampr/date/2025-06-17/segment/01
[19] Charter of the United Nations, Art. 51.
[20] Norman Bentwich and Andrew Martin, A Commentary on the Charter of the United Nations (Routledge, 1st edition, 1950) 107.
[21] Helmut Philipp Aust, ‘Article 51’ in Bruno Simma et al. (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (Oxford University Press, 4th edition, 2024) 1769-1820.
[22] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 103 [195].
[23] Hunter Miller, ‘British-American Diplomacy: The Caroline Case’ (Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, 2025).
[24] Territorial integrity of Ukraine, GA Res 68/262, UN Doc A/68/L.39 and Add.1 (1 April 2014, adopted 27 March 2014).
[25] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), opened for signature 8 June 1977 (entered into force 7 December 1978), Art. 56(1).
[26] IAEA, ‘Statement on the Situation in Iran’ (13 June 2025). available at: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/statement-on-the-situation-in-iran-13-june-2025
[27] Ibid.
[28] Protection of Nuclear Installations Devoted to Peaceful Purposes Against Armed Attacks, GC 34, IAEA Doc GC(XXXIV)/RES/533 (October 1990, adopted 21 September 1990) 1 [a]; see also: Protection of Nuclear Installations Devoted to Peaceful Purposes Against Armed Attacks, GC 29, IAEA Doc GC(XXIX)/RES/444 (27 September 1985) 1 [2].
[29] Resolution 487 on the Israeli Military Attack on Iraqi Nuclear Facilities, Sc Res 487, UN Doc S/RES/487 (19 June 1981).
[30] Additional Protocol I, supra note 25, arts. 55-58; ICRC, ‘Rules of Customary International Law’, Rule 42. available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule42
[31] Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226, 257 [78].
[32] Additional Protocol I, supra note 25, art. 51 (1).
[33] Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Appeals Chamber, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, 17 December 2004) [54].
[34] Additional Protocol I, supra note 25, art. 51 (2).
[35] Kordic and Cerkez, supra note 33, para. 76.
[36] Prosecutor v. Brdjanind (Judgment) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 1 September 2004) [591].
==============================================================
Iranian law professors call on intl. academic community to condemn Israel’s illegal aggression
July 5, 2025 – 7:33
TEHRAN – A group of esteemed Iranian lawmakers have issued a statement, underlining the illegal nature of Israel’s June war against Iran, and calling on their fellow academics in the world to condemn the outrageous act.
The group also emphazied the necessity of International bodies to hold Israel accountable and prevent international law from becoming irrelevant in the face of the regime’s unchecked violence plaguing the region.
Below is the full text of the statement:
Our fellow members of the academic community,
Given the military aggression by the Israeli regime against our beloved country Iran and the ensuing war in the volatile West Asian region, we, professors of law at Iranian universities, would like to draw your attention to the following points and request your assistance in effectively disseminating the information contained in this letter:
1. In accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, any threat or use of force in relations between states is prohibited. Despite this provision, Israel has for years threatened the government and people of Iran in various ways, and in the past two years, it has resorted to illegal use of force against our country on several occasions, the latest example being the blatant aggression on Iranian territory on Friday, June 13, 2025. Considering that the prohibition of aggression is recognised as a peremptory norm (jus cogens) in international law, and what has occurred is a grave violation of this fundamental rule of international law, it is imperative that, pursuant to customary rules of international law, all states cooperate in ending the violation of this peremptory norm and provide no assistance in its continuation. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the claim of preemptive self-defense, raised in statements by Israeli officials to legitimise this action, even if such a rule were to exist in positive international law—which it does not—is conditional on the existence of an imminent threat. It is absolutely clear that no such threat emanated from Iran towards Israel, and this aggression occurred precisely when the Iranian government was negotiating for a peaceful resolution of the issue related to its nuclear program.
2. Following this aggression, an international armed conflict has begun between Iran and Israel, which necessitates the application of positive and customary rules of international humanitarian law. From this perspective, it is essential that persons and objects protected by this international normative system be respected, and in accordance with Common Article 1 of the four Geneva Conventions, all states are obliged to ensure respect of these vital principles. These considerations, especially given what we have witnessed over the past days, include the following:
• Civilians are immune from attack. It is evident that the concept of “civilian” also includes scientists and university professors who, unfortunately, have lost their lives in targeted attacks in recent days, while they were asleep at midnight in residential buildings belonging to university faculty. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) explicitly states that civilians lose their immunity only when they directly participate in hostilities, and it is clear that academic activity does not fall within this definition. Furthermore, adherence to the fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality requires, firstly, avoiding direct attacks on civilians, and secondly, considering incidental civilian casualties in any attack. This is in stark contrast to the continuous attacks by the Israeli army on Iranian cities and residential areas, and the military and political officials of Israel have even ordered to evacuate Tehran several times! The result of these actions has been the killing and injuring of a large number of Iranian people in various cities and locations, and the bitter trend continues unabated.
• Aid centres and humanitarian aid personnel are immune from attack. These centres and individuals specifically include hospitals and staff of medical and aid organisations, including the property and aid workers of the Iranian Red Crescent Society, who, despite operating with identifying signs (the Red Crescent emblem), have been repeatedly attacked in recent days.
• Sites containing dangerous forces are immune from attack. Evidently, among the most prominent places containing dangerous forces are nuclear sites, any damage to which could pose severe, widespread, and long-term dangers to the civilian population and the environment. Unfortunately, over the past few days, Iranian nuclear sites have been attacked repeatedly also by the US forces on June ۲۲, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has also confirmed the occurrence of these attacks, and there is a constant concern that the leakage of radioactive materials could expose the lives of millions of people in the region to irreparable dangers. Furthermore, in recent days, Iranian oil depots and reserves have been subjected to repeated attacks.
• Media and journalists are immune from attack. These persons and properties, in addition to benefiting from general protections for civilians and civilian objects, are specifically protected by the provisions of international humanitarian law. Therefore, what occurred in the direct attack on the premises of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) is a grave violation of these regulations.
• Cyber-attacks on civilian targets are prohibited. Although humanitarian law regulations do not explicitly refer to cyber-attacks, it is clear that civilian data, including data from banks and public service providers, must be protected. Unfortunately, in recent days, the Iranian banking system and exchange offices have been subjected to cyber-attacks, resulting in serious difficulties for people accessing their money and assets. It should be emphasized that the ICRC in interpreting the principle of proportionality has stated that collateral and indirect damage must also be taken into account in calculations related to adhering to this principle. Therefore, in any cyber operation, all definite and probable damages and harms to the civilian population must be considered.
3. The barbaric actions of the Israeli regime, some of which have been mentioned in this correspondence, are considered war crimes. Due to their commission in Gaza since October of 2023, the criminal leaders of this regime, including Benjamin Netanyahu, are being prosecuted by the International Criminal Court.
This is a summary of the numerous violations of the fundamental principles and rules of international humanitarian law and the law on the use of force, which the mainstream media narrative may not accurately cover or may normalise and simplify the transgression of fundamental regulations governing the international community.
Therefore, we invite each of you to disseminate these issues and prevent the international legal system, and especially the law of armed conflicts, from being undermined. This will enable us, on the one hand, to call upon international organisations, particularly the United Nations Security Council, the General Assembly, and the IAEA to condemn these atrocities, and on the other hand, to unite in demanding an end to the violent and alarming trend that could jeopardise international peace and security more than ever before.
Sincerely yours,
The Signatories:
Abbas Mohammadkhani, Faculty Member, Ilam University Abbas Salmanpour, Faculty Member, University of Guilan Abbas Sheikholeslami, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad Abbas Tadayyon, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch Ahmad Yousefi Sadeghloo, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Science & Research Branch, Tehran Ali Abbas Hayati, Razi University, Kermanshah Ali Eslamipanah, Faculty Member, University of Tehran Ali Khaleghi, Faculty Member, University of Tehran Ali Najafi Tavana, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University Ali Nasehi, Faculty Member, Payam-e Noor University Ali Rezaei, Faculty Member, Shiraz University Amir Maghami, Faculty Member, University of Isfahan Badie Fathi, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Bagher Shamloo, Faculty Member, Shahid Beheshti University Bahram Taghipour, Faculty Member, Kharazmi University Behshid Arfa’nia, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University Behzad Razavifard, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Bizhan Abbasi, Faculty Member, University of Tehran Elaheh Marandi, Faculty Member, Alzahra university Fatemeh Ebrahimi, Faculty Member, Alzahra university Fatemeh Ghannad, Faculty Member, University of Science and Culture Feizollah Jafari, Faculty Member, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan Fereidoun Jafari, Faculty Member, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan Gholam Nabi Fayzi Chakab, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Habibollah Rahimi, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Hadi Mahmoudi, Faculty Member, Shahid Beheshti University Hadi Salehi, Faculty Member, Shiraz University Hamid Abhari, Faculty Member, University of Mazandaran Hamidreza Oloumi Yazdi, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Hassan Savari, Faculty Member, Tarbiat Modares University Hassan Vakilian, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Hassanali Doroudian, Faculty Member, University of Tehran Homayoun Habibi, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Hossein Aghaei Jannatmakan, Faculty Member, Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz Hossein Askarirad, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University Hossein Fakhr, Faculty Member, University of Tabriz Hossein Gholami Doon, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Hossein Sharifi Tarazkouhi, Faculty Member, Imam Hossein University (AS) Hossein Soleimani, Faculty Member, Mofid University Jamshid Gholamloo, Faculty Member, University of Tehran Jamshid Yahyapour, Faculty Member, Shomal University, Amol Javad Kashani, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Latifeh Hosseini, Faculty Member, Alzahra university Mahdi Hadavand, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mahdi Mokhtari, Faculty Member, Kish Campus, University of Tehran Mahin Sobhani, Faculty Member, University of Guilan Maryam Jalali, Faculty Member, University of Isfahan Masoud Kharashadizadeh, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University of Mashhad Mehrzad Abdali, Faculty Member, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin Mohammad Ali Babaei, Faculty Member, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin Mohammad Ali Solhchi, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohammad Bagher Parsapour, Faculty Member, Tarbiat Modares University Mohammad Ebrahim Shams Natari, Faculty Member, University of Tehran Mohammad Ghasem Tangestani, Faculty Member, Kharazmi University Mohammad Hadi Javaherkalam, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohammad Isayi Tafreshi, Faculty Member, Tarbiat Modares University Mohammad Jafar Habibzadeh, Faculty Member, Tarbiat Modares University Mohammad Jafar Sa’ed, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch Mohammad Mahdi Hajian, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohammad Mohammadi Gorgani, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohammad Reza Pasban, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohammad Reza Vizheh, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohammad Reza Ziaei Bigdeli, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Mohsen Abdollahi, Faculty Member, Shahid Beheshti University Mehrzad Eini, Faculty Member, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin Mohsen Mohebbi, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch Mohsen Sharifi, Faculty Member, Shiraz University Mojgan Raminnia, Faculty Member, Payam-e Noor University Morteza Shahbazinia, Faculty Member, Tarbiat Modares University Mostafa Fazaeli, Faculty Member, University of Qom Pezhman Mohammadi, Faculty Member, Tarbiat Modares University Pouria Askari, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Reza Daryaei, Faculty Member, University of Guilan Sattar Azizi, Faculty Member, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan Seyed Alireza Mirkamali, Faculty Member, Shahid Beheshti University Seyed Elhameddin Sharifi, Faculty Member, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin Seyed Ghasem Zamani, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Seyed Mohammad Hadi Saei, Faculty Member, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin Seyed Reza Al-e-Mohammad, Faculty Member, Islamic Azad University, Fars Shahram Zarneshan, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Tahmoures Bashiriyeh, Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University Tavakkol Habibzadeh, Faculty Member, Imam Sadiq University.
israel-academia-monitor.com 
One thought on “German Academic Blog of International Law Promotes Iranian Regime’s Interests”