According to the experts of international law Jochen von Bernstorff, the American military impact against Iranian nuclear facilities clearly violates international law. “I see little room for justification for international law,” said the professor in constitutional law, international law, constitutional theory and human rights at the University of Tübingen.
Von Bernstorff explains the German news agency with the fact that the United States has not been attacked at the moment. So there is no case of individual self -defense. The expert also sees an appeal to collective self -defense in favor of Israel as not justified, because the argument of self -defense does not even apply in the case of Israel.
“This does not give the Americans the right to support the military support of the Israeli attacks,” said Von Bernstorff.
Iran would be right for proportional response
If Iran responded to the attack, this must adhere to humanitarian international law and the war law, the expert, who was already working in the Federal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at the Max Planck Institute for Foreign Law and International Law in Heidelberg. Civil objects may not be attacked.
In short, Iran has the right to self -defense as long as the attack exists or immediately afterwards. “Supporting the armed attack is allowed. But it must be relative to the American aggression law,” Von Bernstorff emphasized. The goals must have a military function so that the attack was justified.
International law makes no difference between the forms of government
Political considerations played no role in the assessment of international law, the specialist made clear. “The law of international law makes no difference between a Mullah regime and a democracy when they are forbidden for violence.” The consideration that the Islamic Republic may not have nuclear weapons is also irrelevant for the issue of international law on whether violence against another state is used.
Preventive self -defense law is not recognized
A preventive right of self -defense against dangers that can realize in the future does not recognize international law, von Bernstorff explained. This does not apply, even if they are future threats to the possession of mass destruction weapons.
No NATO -alliance case in the case of proceedings in violation of international law
The professor sees the risk that NATO countries can be pulled into conflict so low. Because the American attack was contrary to international law, no NATO alliance would apply in the case of an Iranian counter attack. “Then there is no obligation to help,” said Von Bernstorff.
Participation in an armed attack can even be classified as a subsidy. “There is no alliance as long as the US of the United States is not in accordance with international law,” the expert concluded.
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
