以色列發起對伊朗的攻擊，到底符不符合國際法？一方觀點認為，以色列肆無忌憚越境空襲伊朗當然違反了國際法，這堪稱流氓國家行徑。另一方觀點則認為，以色列多年來一直受到伊朗的威脅，後者甚至即將有能力製造核武器，因此對以色列構成了生死存亡的威脅。
國際法對武力自衛行動有著非常明確、具體的規定。比如《聯合國憲章》的第二條以及第五十一條就明確禁止會員國「以任何不符合聯合國宗旨的方式使用武力或威脅使用武力，除非是為了自衛。「」受武力攻擊時……有行使單獨或集體自衛之自然權利。」
伊朗威脅並非迫在眉睫
德國威斯巴登歐洲商學院(EBS)的國際法專家戈德曼(Matthias Goldmann)在接受德國之聲採訪時說：「我覺得大部分法學分析人士都將以色列的攻擊視作『被禁止的自衛行動』。因為自衛情形的限定非常嚴格，要求遭受迫在眉睫(imminent)的攻擊、且無法以任何其他方式阻擋。如果比照這樣的限定，那麼結論就是來自伊朗的攻擊並非迫在眉睫。」
戈德曼等國際法學者認為，僅憑時間先後就能做出上述判斷：6月12日，國際原子能機構（IAEA）發表聲明，稱伊朗沒有與其充分合作；以色列方面則沒有提供任何證據來佐證來自伊朗的核威脅「迫在眉睫」。美國情報部門則暗示伊朗可能在三年內能擁有核武器。
伊朗和以色列之間互相喊話威脅由來已久，但是各方普遍認為伊朗在本月就發射核武器的可能性微乎其微。
戈德曼進一步指出，冷戰時期的對峙雙方都擁有核武器，「並且都遵循了相互保證摧毀的策略。所以你不會使用核武器，因為你知道對方的反擊會是致命的。這就是為什麼僅僅擁有核武器並不能被視作攻擊迫在眉睫。」
以色列本身被外界認為已經擁有數量不詳的核武器，但該國從未簽署聯合國《不擴散核武器條約》，也不接受國際核查。
另一方的觀點
來自以色列的法學教授科恩(Amichai Cohen)和沙尼(Yuval Shany)則認為，對伊朗的空襲應當被視作「更大衝突的一部分」，「這改變了法律論點，因為（以色列遭受的）襲擊將發生在不同定義的背景下。」美國公法教授史米特(Michael Schmitt)本周在西點軍校網站上刊文認為，伊朗核威脅的嚴重性意味著自衛概念可以得到更寬泛的解讀。
不過史米特也承認，以色列空襲伊朗的行動是一個「棘手的案例」，因為除了武力之外還有其他選擇。根據《聯合國憲章》，自衛行動的另一個前提條件就是必須用盡其他手段，但是此次襲擊前，美國和伊朗之間的談判正在進行中。
司法途徑有限
英國雷丁大學國際法教授米拉諾維奇(Marko Milanovic)對德國之聲表示，大多數法律專家認為以色列的襲擊是非法的，也正是出於這個原因。「這是為了最大限度地減少訴諸武力的必要性，而不是為任何喜歡轟炸別國的國家製造漏洞。」
波士頓塔夫茨大學的國際法教授丹南鮑姆(Tom Dannenbaum)則對德國之聲進一步指出，有一個經過精心設計的框架平等適用於各方：不得以平民或者民用設施為目標。「只有當這些人員或設施的性質、目的、位置或用途對軍事行動做出有效貢獻時，才可以成為軍事目標。」
在此輪交戰中，以色列精確打擊了伊朗的多名核科學家。但是許多法律學者都指出，僅僅參與武器研發並不意味著科學家就成為了參戰人員。同時，伊朗的反擊也造成了以色列境內的平民傷亡。丹南鮑姆強調，「即使針對軍事目標，各方也必須採取一切可行的預防措施，將平民傷亡降至最低。如果預期的平民傷亡相對於預期的軍事優勢而言過大，則不得發動攻擊。」
德國之聲採訪的三位國際法專家都認為，相關案件最終有可能在國際法院或歐洲人權法院審理。但是米拉諾維奇也指出，大多數此類案件最終都不會訴諸法庭。「它們會以其他方式得到解決。它們要麼太政治化，要麼太大。」米拉諾維奇認為，最有可能的還是訴諸外交途徑。
擔心國際法被消解
國際法學者非常擔心另一個問題：許多國家似乎都在暗暗支持以色列極有可能違法的「自衛行動」。比如德國政府的聲明就包含了「以色列有權自衛」的意涵。米拉諾維奇強調：「以色列當然有權自衛——但這項權利受到國際法的限制。」他和戈德曼都指出，國際法之所以對自衛行動做出明確嚴格限制是有原因的，「如果你開始擴大其定義——例如，聲稱你有權攻擊另一個國家，因為他們幾年前攻擊過你，或者幾年後可能會攻擊你——這些規則就會被侵蝕，整個國際法體系也會隨之瓦解。」
米拉諾維奇說：「俄羅斯（入侵烏克蘭）提出的法律論據實際上也與以色列的論點非常相似。如果你讀過普丁在2022年入侵前夕的講話，你會發現他基本上是在說：未來某個時候烏克蘭和北約會攻擊我們，這就是我們這樣做的原因。但這實際上與自衛無關。這就好比，你不喜歡某個人，你認為他們構成威脅，因此你認為你有權與他們開戰。但這顯然不符合國際法的規定。」
轉載自《德國之聲》
Israel’s Iran attack sparks legal debate
Author:Cathrin Schaer
Israel says it struck Iran in self-defense, fearing a nuclear threat. But international law covering self-defense by states is very strict — fueling heated debate about the legality of Israel’s initial attack.
When it comes to discussing whether Israel’s initial attack on Iran was justified or not, the arguments on both sides are strident and emotional.
Israel broke international law by attacking another country, one side says. It’s a rogue state, bombing across borders with impunity, they claim.
But Israel has been threatened by Iran for years and Iran was on the verge of making a nuclear bomb, the other side argues. That poses an existential threat, they insist.
But which side does international law — unswayed by emotion — come down on?
How do analysts view legality of Israeli strikes?
Senior Israeli politicians described their country’s attack on Iran on June 13 as a “preemptive, precise” attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, arguing it was self-defense because they feared a future nuclear attack by Iran.
Under international law, there are very specific rules about self-defense, for example Articles 2 and 51 of the United Nations Charter, and it’s more likely this was what’s known as a “preventive” attack.
‘Preemptive’ or ‘preventive’ attack?
| Preemptive attacks | Preventive attacks |
|---|---|
| In advance of obvious, imminent military threat | Taken well in advance of a potential threat, speculative |
| Generally acceptable under international law | Not in response to a specific crisis or direct threat |
| Examples: Israeli in the 1967 war; China in 1950 Korean war | Usually unacceptable under international law |
| Examples: Germany 1941; Japan in 1941 (Pearl Harbor); Israeli strikes Iraq nuclear reactor 1981; US invasion of Iraq 2003 |
Source: Oxford Companion to International Relations, Hoover Institution, Brown university
“My impression is that the majority of legal analysts see [Israel’s attack] as a case of ‘prohibited self-defense’,” Matthias Goldmann, a law professor and international law expert at EBS University Wiesbaden, told DW. “Because the requirements for self-defense are rather strict. They require an imminent attack that cannot be fended off in any other way. If you apply that requirement, you come to the conclusion that there was no attack imminent from Iran.”
The timing alone makes that clear, Goldmann and others argue. On June 12, the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, issued a statement saying that Iran was not fully cooperating with it. But Israel has not presented any evidence as to why they believed a nuclear threat from Iran was so close and US intelligence suggests Iran was possibly three years away from a bomb.
There have been years of threatening rhetoric between Iran and Israel but it’s deemed highly unlikely that Iran would fire a nuclear weapon at Israel later this month.
“Look back at the Cold War,” Goldmann suggested. “Both sides had nuclear weapons and relied on the principle of mutually assured destruction — where you don’t use your nuclear weapon because you know the counterstrike would be fatal. That’s why the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons in itself cannot be considered an imminent attack.”
Israel itself already has an unspecified number of nuclear weapons but never signed the UN’s Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and does not allow international inspections.
In defense of Israel
In a text for the website Just Security, Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany agree an attack in self-defense would have been illegal. But, they say, the attack on Iran should actually be seen as part of the larger conflict. “That changes the legal arguments because the attack would have happened in a differently defined context,” they say.
In another opinion published this week on the US military academy West Point’s website, Articles of War, Michael Schmitt, an American professor of public law, argues that the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat means the concept of self-defense could be interpreted more liberally.
But Schmitt admits this is a “tough case” because there were still other options than force. Another of the preconditions to attacking in self-defense is that a country must have exhausted all other options — and Schmitt notes nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran were ongoing at the time of the attack.
There’s another reason why most legal experts believe Israel’s attack was illegal, says Marko Milanovic, a professor of international law at the UK’s University of Reading. Ultimately the law on this is built to be restrictive, he says. “It’s about minimizing the need to resort to force. It’s not about creating loopholes that any state that likes to bomb others can exploit,” he told DW.
Laws of combat
“All is not fair in war, once the fighting starts,” says Tom Dannenbaum, a professor of international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Boston’s Tufts University. “There is a carefully calibrated legal framework which applies equally to both sides.”
Parties cannot target civilians or civilian objects, Dannenbaum told DW. “Objects only become military objectives when, by their nature, purpose, location, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action.”
For example, this relates to Israeli targeting of Iranian nuclear scientists in their homes: Many lawyers explained that simply working on a weapons program doesn’t make you a combatant.
Meanwhile, Iran’s bombing has also killed civilians in Tel Aviv. “Even when targeting military objectives, parties must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm,” Dannenbaum explains, “and must not attack if expected civilian harm would be excessive in relation to anticipated military advantage.”
It’s hard to say if cases like this will ever be argued in court though. Goldmann, Dannenbaum and Milanovic say there’s potential for related cases to eventually be heard at the International Court of Justice or perhaps at the European Court of Human Rights.
“But most of these types of issues on use of force don’t end up in court,” Milanovic said. “They get resolved in other ways. They’re too political, or too large.” Usually international diplomacy ends up resolving the issue, he noted.
Degrading international law
For many legal experts, one of the most worrying aspects is what appears to be implicit state support for Israel’s most-likely-illegal definition of self-defense.
For example, while not referring specifically to the June 13 attack on Iran, statements by Germany’s government have all contained some form of the phrase, “Israel has the right to defend itself.”
“Of course, Israel does have a right to defend itself — but that right is limited by international law,” Milanovic argues.
The rules on self-defense are strict for a reason, he and Goldmann explain. If you start expanding their definition — for instance, saying you have the right to attack another state because they attacked you several years ago, or might attack you a few years from now — the rules are eroded, along with the whole system of international law.
In the past, the international community has spoken out, for example, amid the controversy surrounding the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 based on claims that it possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” Goldmann noted.
“The legal argument Russia made [for invading Ukraine] is also actually very similar to this Israeli argument,” Milanovic pointed out. “If you read [Vladimir] Putin’s speech on the eve of the 2022 invasion, it basically said that at some point in the future Ukraine and NATO are going to attack us and that’s why we’re doing this. But that’s really not about self-defense,” he concludes. “That’s about, say, you don’t like somebody, you think they’re a threat and therefore you think you have the right to go to war with them. Which is simply not what international law says.”
Original source: dw.com/en/israel-iran-attack-legality-international-law/a-72952324
