Redefining the Legitimacy of Military Interventions in Contemporary Conflicts: The Role of the ICJ and Global Institutions in the June 2025 Israel’s Attack on Iran(Original Research) مقالة

حقوقی بین المللی بهار 1405 - شماره 81 التصنيف: ب/ISC (‎19 صفحة - من 259 إلی 277 )

الکلمات المفتاحية: Legitimacy use of force ICJ ICJ UN Charter UN Charter anticipatory defense anticipatory defense Self-defense Param> s Armed Aggression against Iran s Armed Aggression against Iran U. S. intervention U. S. intervention Article 2 (4) Article 2 (4) Global Legal Order Global Legal Order Global Legal Order <

en en

خلاصة:

This study reconsiders the normative boundaries of legitimate military intervention through the lens of the recent twelve-day international armed conflict between Iran and Israel and the controversial involvement of the United States Or in a more legal sense, the twelve-day armed aggression of Israel and United States of America against Islamic Republic of Iran. The central research questions ask: The central idea of the present research is to find an appropriate answer to the question of whether existing international legal frameworks, including the UN Charter, customary international law, and ICJ jurisprudence, can sustain their regulatory authority over state conduct in asymmetric conflicts. Moreover, can interventions that are justified as anticipatory or collective self-defense be reconciled with the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter? The hypothesis posits that existing legal instruments inadequately address the realities of contemporary conflicts, where political expediency often eclipses legal restraints. Adopting a doctrinal and case-based methodology, the present article examines relevant ICJ cases, UN records, and state practice. It finds a growing divergence between legality and legitimacy, revealing an urgent need to redefine intervention standards through enforceable norms and coherent adjudication.

خلاصة:

This study reconsiders the normative boundaries of legitimate military intervention through the lens of the recent twelve-day international armed conflict between Iran and Israel and the controversial involvement of the United States Or in a more legal sense, the twelve-day armed aggression of Israel and United States of America against Islamic Republic of Iran. The central research questions ask: The central idea of the present research is to find an appropriate answer to the question of whether existing international legal frameworks, including the UN Charter, customary international law, and ICJ jurisprudence, can sustain their regulatory authority over state conduct in asymmetric conflicts. Moreover, can interventions that are justified as anticipatory or collective self-defense be reconciled with the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter?The hypothesis posits that existing legal instruments inadequately address the realities of contemporary conflicts, where political expediency often eclipses legal restraints. Adopting a doctrinal and case-based methodology, the present article examines relevant ICJ cases, UN records, and state practice. It finds a growing divergence between legality and legitimacy, revealing an urgent need to redefine intervention standards through enforceable norms and coherent adjudication.

استلام ملف الإرجاع :
(پژوهیار, , , )

دخول / الاشتراک

تحتاج الدخول لعرض محتوى المقالة. إذا لم تكن عضوًا ، فتابع من الجزء الاشتراک.

دخول