Aurel Sari

Please do share if you get a copy, I'd be interested in your thoughts.

The United Kingdom’s Use of Force Against Iran: Walking a Legal Tightrope? An assessment of the United Kingdom's ability to maintain a legal line between defensive versus offensive operations against Iran.

Compelling analysis. Prof Weller seems to assume that Gulf countries have not provided operational support to the US, but I think that assumption is questionable, adding another layer of complexity, as discussed www.justsecurity.org/133231/unite...

Let’s hope someone has checked in with the Cypriot authorities to see how they feel about the duties of neutral States…

My thoughts on the legal basis and justification for the UK’s military operations against Iran. It’s complicated…

Why are the States concerned not involved in an armed conflict?

spot on by Profs @mikeschmitt.bsky.social and Marko Milanovic

application of the rules governing the use of force to Iran raises some genuinely difficult and partly unsettled doctrinal questions. It's with that in mind that I made my initial comment, not to score points or to offend. I apologized because I meant it, otherwise I would not have.

I do regret having made my comment now, as I did not intend to cause any offence. I apologised twice for any misunderstanding on my part and I'll do so a third time: I'm sorry if I misread your post. I thought it made some very good points about the state of the international legal order. The

can do is to offer my apologies again for any misunderstanding on my part.

civilian infrastructure is a legitimate military target for Iran from a jus ad bellum point of view. The aggression/self-defence questions revolve not just around "those" States that are totally unconcerned with the US-Israeli attacks, but also those that facilitate those attacks. Anyway, all I

What led to the misunderstanding is that you wrote "those not concerned with the American and Israeli attacks". Kuwait, for example, is "concerned" with the US attack in the sense that it allows its territory to be used by the US for attacks against Iran. But that does not mean that Kuwaiti

I read that paragraph to count Iranian attacks on US bases in the region among the “reckless” ones - apologies if I misunderstood.

not retaliation, but covered by self-defence.

Good post on some of the perennial questions of the rule of law in an anarchical international system. One comment on Iran’s targeting: much of it is aimed at US installations and assets in the region which are almost certainly making an operational contribution to the US attack. These strikes are

Are there any analyses you'd recommend for China's response to this? Would assume China has a major interest in keeping Iran in the fight.

Have you seen any legal argument for the targeting of the Iranian political leadership?

Though deciding on the combined title would have been tough. The Law of the Religious Use of Military Force? The Use of Religious Military Force? Or perhaps the Law of the Military Use of Religious Force?

“…outside an armed conflict”?

I think the advice does recognise implicitly that Iran has a right of self-defence by limiting the UK’s response to what it calls unlawful attacks by Iran against certain regional allies.

destroy Iranian missiles “at source” is a response limited strictly to Iranian uses of force that exceed the boundaries of lawful self-defence.

opens it up to a lawful forcible response. That is legally correct, but an almost impossible line to walk in practice. E.g. Iran’s right of self-defence covers attacks against the air base at Al-Udeid, despite being located in Qatar. It is difficult to see how allowing the US to use UK bases to

Lord Wolfson’s analysis starts strong in point 1, but breaks down by point 2. More importantly, the UK’s position appears to be based on the implicit recognition that Iran has a right of self-defence, but that Iran also uses force that exceeds the limits of lawful self-defence, which in turn

“Law” is the other clue.

Most likely, partly also because of the 2003 “second resolution” precedent. That said, the UK cannot support unlawful attacks on Iran consistently with its own obligations nor oppose Iran’s lawful self-defence. Not sure what room that leaves for US use of UK bases.

or as uses of force exceeding the bounds of lawful self-defence?

seem, prima facie, that the necessity and proportionality requirements are met. Other strikes appear to be aimed at non-military targets. Assuming these were intentional (rather than targeting mistakes), would you characterize them as unlawful reprisals running in parallel with lawful self-defence

Given that Iran is the victim of an ongoing armed attack, it has the right of self-defence, subject to necessity, proportionality etc. Many of the Iranian missile strikes have been aimed at US military bases in the region. Where these are involved in the attack on Iran, such as Al Udeid, it would

Correct, but the service personnel themselves are military objectives. Assuming the apartments are not, targeting those combatants is still permissible, subject to precautions, including proportionality.

Syria action – UK government legal position

Angenommen, dass die humanitäre Intervention überhaupt im Völkerrecht existiert, sind ihre Voraussetzungen genauso wenig erfüllt wie die der Selbstverteidigung. Relevanter als der Bethlehem‑Aufsatz ist die offizielle Stellungnahme der britischen Regierung: www.gov.uk/government/p....

Hostilities in the 2003 invasion of Iraq opened with an attempted decapitation strike against Saddam Hussein.