Law on self-defence is caveat pre-emptor

In the absence of a compelling case for intervention under Article 51 and citing Iraq’s capacity to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, the US asserted a right of pre-emptive self-defence. The US intervened without authorisation from the Security Council, and was widely condemned by the international legal community for breaching the prohibition on the use of force. The International Court of Justice itself has also repeatedly rejected any right of pre-emptive self-defence.

The Security Council has passed three resolutions which oblige Iran to suspend its enrichment activities and impose economic sanctions aimed at its proliferation activities. Iran has largely ignored these resolutions. Despite this, the member states of the Security Council must act with unprecedented co-operation to adopt a resolution that mandates the shutting down of Iran’s nuclear program. The international community should also demand a more interventionist approach by the IAEA to allow effective scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.

It is important to note that the Security Council has not authorised force to be used against Iran. There is also no threat of an imminent nuclear attack by Iran at this stage. Even the earliest estimations indicate that Iran is more than three to eight years away from developing a nuclear weapon.

A pre-emptive strike by the US in purported self-defence would contravene international law. It would also set a dangerous precedent that would enable other countries to defend themselves pre-emptively if threatened by another country. Countries such as Pakistan, India, Taiwan, China, North Korea, and indeed Iran, would be given the green light to advance similar claims. The potential misuse of this strategy is too great to make it an acceptable approach to maintaining global security.