From the ELDH European Association of Lawyers for Democracy & World Human Rights
EJDM Europäische Vereinigung von Juristinnen & Juristen für Demokratie und Menschenrechte in der Welt
EJDH Asociacion Europea de los Juristas por la Democracia y los Derechos Humanos en el Mundo
EJDH Association Européenne des Juristes pour la Démocratie & les Droits de l’Homme
EGDU Associazione Europea delle Giuriste e dei Giuristi per la Democrazia e i diritti dell’Uomo nel Mondo

STATEMENT ON THE UNLAWFUL USE OF FORCE AGAINST IRAN
AND ON THE DEFENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER

The European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights in the World (ELDH)
unequivocally condemns the recent air strikes carried out by the United States and Israel against
the territory of Iran. In the current context of escalating regional tensions and repeated unilateral
uses of force, these actions constitute a new grave breach of international law and further
accelerate the erosion of the multilateral legal order established under the Charter of the United
Nations.

1.The Absolute Prohibition of the Use of Force

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter enshrines the prohibition of the threat or use of force as a
foundational norm of the international legal system. This rule is widely recognized as possessing
peremptory (jus cogens) character and admits of only narrow exceptions.

Absent authorization by the Security Council, the sole exception is the inherent right of self-defence
under Article 51, triggered only “if an armed attack occurs.” The jurisprudence of the International
Court of Justice has consistently interpreted this exception restrictively, requiring the existence of
an actual armed attack or, at most, an attack that is imminent in a strict and demonstrable sense,
subject to the conditions of necessity and proportionality. No such threshold appears to have been
met.

2.Uranium Enrichment and the Illegality of “Preventive” Force

References to Iran’s alleged uranium enrichment programme—even if assumed to raise compliance
concerns under non-proliferation regimes—do not constitute an armed attack, nor do they
automatically amount to an imminent armed attack within the meaning of Article 51.

Disputes regarding nuclear activities are governed by specific treaty regimes, including the
framework of the International Atomic Energy Agency, inspection mechanisms, and diplomatic
processes. Alleged non-compliance with nuclear obligations, however serious, does not create an
open-ended legal entitlement to unilateral military force.

The doctrine of “preventive self-defence,” premised on neutralizing potential future capabilities,
has no clear basis in positive international law. To accept that the mere development or possession
of technological capacity—without the occurrence of an armed attack—justifies bombing sovereign
territory would radically dilute Article 2(4) and transform the exception of self-defence into a
discretionary instrument of power.

The invocation of an “existential threat” cannot displace legal standards with political rhetoric.
International law does not recognize subjective threat perception as a substitute for the objective
criteria of armed attack, necessity, and proportionality.

3.A Dangerous Pattern in the Conduct of Aggressive Military States

These strikes cannot be viewed in isolation. They reflect a broader and deeply troubling pattern in
which aggressive military states increasingly rely on expansive interpretations of self-defence,
unilateral threat assessments, and force-first approaches that bypass or marginalize multilateral
institutions.

In the present context, the conduct of the United States and Israel illustrates a continued
willingness to resort to unilateral military action in circumstances where the legal threshold for selfdefence has not been demonstrably met. Such practices aim to destroy the collective security
architecture established in 1945.

If powerful states assert the authority to determine unilaterally when preventive force is lawful, the
prohibition of the use of force becomes contingent rather than binding. The result is not enhanced
security, but systemic instability and the weakening of the rule of law at the international level.

International law cannot survive as a selective instrument invoked when convenient and
disregarded when constraining.

4.A Call to the International Legal Community

In these grave circumstances, silence is not a neutral position. The integrity of the international
legal order depends not only on formal institutions but on the principled engagement of jurists,
scholars, judges, practitioners, and civil society.

We call upon the international legal community to:

• Reaffirm unequivocally the binding nature of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter;
• Reject the legal validity of preventive or pre-emptive uses of force absent an armed attack in the
  strict sense required by international law;
• Defend the authority of multilateral mechanisms for dispute settlement and non-proliferation
  compliance;
• Insist on accountability consistent with the law of State responsibility.
  

These are difficult and dangerous times. Precisely for that reason, fidelity to international law is
imperative. The erosion of foundational norms through silence or acquiescence would carry
consequences far beyond any single crisis. The defence of the Charter system is not optional; it is a
collective legal responsibility.

https://eldh.eu/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Legal_Statement_Iran_Strikes.pdf