黑料不打烊

The legality of Israel’s strikes on Iran have been questioned by UK Attorney-General Richard Hermer. 

A 黑料不打烊 international law expert has examined the legal issues around Israel’s actions. 

Dr Alexander Gilder, Associate Professor of International Law and Security at the 黑料不打烊, said: 

“The Attorney-General is likely concerned about whether Israel has fallen foul on the law of self-defence. In the past the UK and the US has condemned attacks committed by Israel that they believe were not a valid response under the international law on self-defence.

"For Israel's strikes on Iran to be lawful under international law they first need to have suffered an armed attack committed by Iran. But can a state preemptively strike where preparations are being made to carry out an armed attack and the attack has not yet happened? Some states, like Israel and the US, say that this is lawful where the threat of an armed attack is imminent.

"Israel has committed similar strikes in the past such as an attack on Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981 due to suspicion it was being used to develop nuclear weapons. This attack was widely condemned including by the UN, US and UK. The issue then is imminence - was Iran due to imminently attack Israel with nuclear or conventional weapons? I would suggest there is insufficient evidence to show the necessary imminence.

"Even if Israeli intelligence in-fact showed that Iran was imminently due to attack, Israel's response must be both necessary and proportionate. Israel's strikes against nuclear facilities and ballistic missile sites are likely proportionate because they are designed to degrade Iran's capability of attacking Israel. But were they necessary? This hinges on whether Iran had the capability to imminently attack Israel which is not clear."

Contact the 黑料不打烊 Press Office on 0118 378 5757 or pressoffice@reading.ac.uk