Israel–Iran: When War Defies the Law

Rémy RUGIRA

Text by Maître Innocent TWAGIRAMUNGU , Attorney at Law, Specialist in Public International Law, Brussels , June 21, 2025

As military tensions between Israel and Iran escalate, Israel has launched a series of airstrikes, including attacks against civilian infrastructure such as the headquarters of Iran’s state television (IRIB). Simultaneously, the Israeli authorities have imposed a strict media blackout, banning both journalists and civilians from filming or disseminating images of the Iranian missile impacts on Israeli territory.

Me Innocent Twagiramungu

Beyond their immediate military implications, these actions raise fundamental legal concerns: has international law become irrelevant in the face of state power?

1. Preventive Strikes: A Legal Fiction

Israel claims to be acting in preventive self-defence. However, under international law, there is no such thing.

According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the right of self-defence may only be invoked if an armed attack occurs. This strict interpretation has been repeatedly confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), notably in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (2005) case.

A strike conducted in anticipation of a possible, future threat is not self-defence. It is a unilateral use of force, and thus a violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force in international relations.

In law, a “preventive” strike is not defensive—it is aggression.

2. Attacks on Civilian Objects: Crossing the Red Line

The bombing of Iran’s state broadcaster raises another key issue: the targeting of civilian property.

Under Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects. This rule also forms part of customary international humanitarian law.

Unless Israel can demonstrate that the IRIB headquarters was directly contributing to military operations — which requires specific, direct, and immediate involvement — the strike constitutes an unlawful attack.

Such targeting, if intentional, may qualify as a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

A media outlet that broadcasts hostile rhetoric does not become a lawful military target. Propaganda is not participation in hostilities.

3. Censorship and the Right to Information

In the name of national security, Israel has imposed a media blackout, forbidding the publication of images of Iranian missile impacts. While military censorship may be permissible in wartime under exceptional circumstances, it must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.

Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), ratified by Israel, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, including the right to seek and receive information. Blanket restrictions that lack specificity or judicial oversight exceed what is permissible under international law.

Silencing war’s images does not erase its consequences — it only hides them from public scrutiny.

4. Legal Responsibility and Accountability

The actions described above — illegal use of force, deliberate targeting of civilian infrastructure, and disproportionate censorship — engage Israel’s international responsibility.

Under the International Law Commission’s Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), a state that commits internationally wrongful acts is obliged to cease the conduct and make full reparation.

On the individual level, if war crimes are substantiated, personal criminal responsibility may also arise before the International Criminal Court (ICC), provided jurisdictional requirements are met.

Conclusion: Law as a Line Not to Be Crossed

In times of war, international law is not a luxury — it is a safeguard against arbitrariness.

The right of self-defence cannot become a carte blanche for unilateral aggression. Civilian infrastructure cannot be destroyed under vague pretexts. Freedom of the press cannot be suppressed wholesale.

International law is not about rhetoric. It is a commitment — to contain power through rules, and to resist inhumanity through law.

Further Reading:

• UN Charter (1945)

• Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols (1949, 1977)

• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)

• Customary IHL Database (ICRC)