Author: Dr. Heibatullah Nezhandimanesh (Faculty Member, Allameh Tabataba’i University)
A portion of the aggressive “Ramadan War” conducted by the United States was launched from the territories of third-party states, specifically certain neighboring countries. The question arises: How does international law evaluate the actions of these states? It is important to note that examining the actions of these states under international law does not diminish the international and criminal responsibility of the United States, Israel, or their respective officials.
A: The Obligation to Refrain from Aggression and Harming Other States
1. The UN Charter Under the United Nations Charter, all member states are obligated to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state. This obligation is not limited solely to the parties in conflict; Iran’s neighboring states are required to refrain from any aid, assistance, or participation in the use of force against Iran. A fundamental objective of the Charter is to take collective action to “suppress acts of aggression.”
2. The Trail Smelter Principle According to a well-recognized legal principle, “No state should allow its territory to be used by another state or entity to cause injury to another state.” The use of armed force by the U.S. and Israel without UN Security Council authorization is a clear example of an “Act of Aggression.” Neighboring states, by providing their bases, become complicit in this wrongful act.
3. Resolution on the Definition of Aggression (3314) According to Article 3 of General Assembly Resolution 3314 (1974), one of the acts constituting aggression is: “The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State.” Therefore, the actions of Iran’s neighboring states themselves constitute an “Act of Aggression.”
4. The Peremptory Norm (Jus Cogens) Prohibiting Military Aggression The prohibition of military aggression is a peremptory norm (Jus Cogens) and creates an obligation owed to the international community as a whole (Erga Omnes). Neighboring states were even obligated to prevent U.S. military aircraft from traversing their territory to transport equipment or conduct strikes. The absence of official opposition is interpreted as facilitating the commission of an internationally wrongful act.
B: Iran’s Right to Self-Defense Against Third-Party States
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran possesses an inherent right to self-defense. Given that a portion of the attacks originated from the territory of neighboring states, it is Iran’s legal right to continue defending itself until the danger is repelled and the non-recurrence of attacks is ensured. Neighboring states should claim damages from the U.S. and formally apologize to Iran.
C: War Crimes within the Context of Aggression
Military aggression provides the environment for war crimes and genocide. The deliberate attack on the Shajareh Tayyibah Primary School in Minab, which was directed from the territory of neighboring countries, is a blatant war crime. Not only U.S. officials but also the political and military officials of the neighboring states from whose territory the attack originated bear criminal responsibility.
D: International Responsibility and Legal Consequences
The international responsibility of these states requires that they:
Immediately terminate this wrongful act and notify the U.S. that they will no longer permit the use of their territory.
Compensate the Government of Iran for the damages incurred.
Legal Recourse: Iran, or any other state, can file a claim at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) provided jurisdictional conditions are met. Furthermore, if the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is accepted, cases involving the crime of aggression and war crimes by the officials of these countries can be referred to the Prosecutor of the Court.
