THE IRAN–ISRAEL/US CONFLICT AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: EXAMINING THE JUS AD BELLUM, JUS IN BELLO, AND STATE RESPONSIBILITY FRAMEWORKS

Abstract

The escalating military confrontation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States presents some of the most complex and contested questions in contemporary public international law. This article examines the conflict through three principal legal lenses: the jus ad bellum framework governing the resort to force under the United Nations Charter; the jus in bello rules of international humanitarian law applicable to the conduct of hostilities; and the law of state responsibility as it pertains to proxy actors, attributable conduct, and countermeasures. The article critically evaluates competing claims of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, the legality of targeted killings and drone strikes, the legal status of proxy forces such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, the applicability of humanitarian law to the Gaza conflict, and the role or paralysis of the UN Security Council. Drawing on treaty law, customary international law, ICJ jurisprudence, and leading academic scholarship, this article argues that all principal parties bear potential legal responsibility under international law.