Global Accountability or Selective Justice? International Criminal Law and Aggression Against Iran in the 12-Day War

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant Professor,Department of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Family Law Studies, Women Research Center, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran‎

10.22091/ijicl.2026.15320.1237

Abstract

Abstract: The military actions undertaken by Israel and the United States against the territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Khordad 1404 (May–June 2025) may, from the perspective of international criminal law, constitute a prima facie case of the crime of aggression under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) possesses a theoretical legal framework for addressing such conduct, significant structural and political impediments—including the non-membership of the United States and Israel in the Rome Statute system, the limited jurisdictional regime governing aggression, the need for United Nations Security Council involvement in certain circumstances, and the veto power of permanent members—substantially restrict the practical enforcement of accountability. This disparity exposes a persistent gap between normative universality and selective implementation within international criminal justice. While Iran retains the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the prospects for criminal prosecution at the international level remain constrained by geopolitical considerations and institutional asymmetries. The study concludes that the current framework of international criminal justice faces serious legitimacy and effectiveness challenges when responding to acts of aggression involving major powers or their allies.

Keywords

Main Subjects