Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran
2
Assistant Prof, Department of Islamic teachings, Payame Noor University, Tehran, Iran
10.22091/ijicl.2025.13732.1177
Abstract
The principle of the prohibition of the use of force, enshrined as a fundamental norm of international law in the United Nations Charter, forbids the use of force except in cases of self-defense (Article 51) and collective measures under Chapter VII. Nevertheless, certain states—particularly the United States—have, by invoking the doctrines of pre-emptive or preventive self-defense, blurred the legal boundaries of this principle. This article critically analyzes the 12-day armed aggression against Iran as a concrete instance of such a breach, situating it within the broader framework of U.S. foreign policy and the doctrine of exceptionalism. Over the past two decades, including actions such as the invasion of Iraq (2003) and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani (2020), the United States has relied on expansive interpretations of self-defense, citing concepts such as “imminent threat” and “terrorism.” These practices have generated conceptual ambiguities in the interpretation of Article 51, undermined the principle of state sovereignty, and set unilateralist precedents that challenge the enforcement of international legal norms.
This approach has not only generated conceptual ambiguities in the interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter, but—due to the absence of objective criteria and the potential for abuse by major powers—has also posed a serious threat to the legal peace and security of the international system. Using a descriptive–analytical method, this article critically examines the claim of pre-emptive self-defense within the framework of U.S. foreign policy, analyzing its incompatibility with international law and its implications for the global legal order. The findings demonstrate that the United States, by instrumentalizing concepts such as “imminent threat” and “terrorism,” has engaged in an expansive reinterpretation of self-defense that is inconsistent with the sources of international law—customary, treaty-based, and judicial practice. This has not only undermined the principle of state sovereignty but also established a unilateralist precedent that enables exceptionalism from the application of international legal norms. Limiting and adhering to the strict and exceptional scope of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter remains the only means to safeguard the function of the prohibition of the use of force.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)