Israel-US military actions against Iran challenge international law, exposing the conflict between legal norms and great power interests.
Israel-US Military Actions Against Iran: Legal Implications
In recent days, the military actions initiated by Israel and the United States against Iran, along with their attempts to frame these actions as 'preemptive self-defense,' have once again opened up discussions on the fundamental principles of international law. As moves on the geopolitical chessboard intensify, the efforts of states to legalize the use of military force reveal the gap between universal legal norms and the strategic interests of great powers.
The Claim of 'Preemptive Self-Defense' and Jus Cogens Norms
In international law, the use of force by states in the resolution of disputes or in any form is strictly prohibited, and this 'Prohibition of the Use of Force' is one of the imperative 'Jus Cogens' norms that cannot be deviated from in any way. The only two legitimate exceptions to the use of force, explicitly prohibited in Article 2, Paragraph 4 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, are a decision by the UN Security Council and the right of self-defense.
The right of self-defense regulated in Article 51 of the UN Charter, while being a natural right, is subject to two very strict conditions: 'necessity' and 'proportionality.' The necessity condition requires that the use of force be essential to repel an attack, while the proportionality condition mandates that the force used be equivalent to the nature of the attack faced.
The concept of 'preemptive self-defense' that Israel and the US attempt to base their actions on is actually a reflection of the 'Bush Doctrine' that emerged after September 11. This doctrine anticipates becoming the 'first attacker' when a threat to national security is believed to exist and launching preemptive wars against rogue states. Even states that violate international law seek to legitimize their actions by trying to align them with legal grounds; indeed, the US has previously attempted to legitimize its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq under the Bush Doctrine. However, the rationale of being the 'first striker' against a hypothetical or future threat clearly contradicts the strict principles of 'necessity' and 'proportionality' sought by international law. This approach is an expression of the concept of faustrecht, which Karl Marx referred to as the 'Law of the Strong,' rather than universal legal rules.
The Geopolitical and Legal Dimension of the Hormuz Strait Crisis
One of the most dangerous potential consequences of this military escalation is undoubtedly the situation in the Hormuz Strait. A significant portion of the crude oil exported from the Middle East, the heart of global energy supply, follows the route through the Persian Gulf and the Hormuz Strait. The effective control of the Hormuz Strait is maintained by the Iranian navy.
It is highly likely that Iran will find a pretext to blockade this strait, which would cut off approximately 90% of the world's crude oil transportation, as reports suggest that this is already happening. International maritime law aims to ensure the uninterrupted continuation of global maritime trade by securing the right of 'transit passage' through straits. However, in times of war, the national security reflexes of coastal states can effectively suspend this legal regime. Considering that even minor turbulence in energy-producing regions can lead to significant fluctuations in oil prices, the closure of Hormuz would be a scenario that could deeply shake the global economy.
Insurance and Energy Security Under the 'War Risk' Squeeze
The conflict environment in the region has a structure that directly locks maritime trade and insurance markets beyond being a legal issue. For consumers, energy security means the uninterrupted supply of energy at reasonable prices; however, excessive price increases and volatility pose a significant threat to all global economies.
Increased military activity is causing 'War Risk' premiums in the maritime sector to reach astronomical levels. Capital markets and the insurance sector are becoming increasingly reluctant to finance projects and insure maritime trade in such high geopolitical risk environments. The hesitation of insurance companies to provide coverage for commercial vessels entering the Persian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean or their demands for exorbitant premiums effectively renders the principle of freedom of navigation under international law inoperative.
The 'preemptive self-defense' doctrine of the US and Israel is seriously eroding international law by stretching the prohibition of the use of force, which has a Jus Cogens character under the UN Charter. The regional chaos created by such actions holds the energy security of the entire world hostage through the closure of critical maritime routes like the Hormuz Strait and skyrocketing insurance costs. The real test for the international community is how to protect the rules-based system (ius gentium) against the 'law of the strong' (faustrecht).
Source: SeaNews Türkiye
