Israel`s Legal Options Against Iran

After months of tension, expectation, and discussion of when and how Israel will bomb Iran and nullify its nuclear reactors--is it possible that Israel will stop Iran in the courtroom instead?

In an article in Tuesday's Washington Post, two lawyers make the case that back in October when Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "disgraceful blot" and also called for it to be "wiped off the map"--while also asserting Iran's right to proceed with it's nuclear ambitions--violated the UN Charter:

Ahmadinejad's words clearly violate Article 2.4 of the U.N. Charter. This provision, to which Iran has agreed, requires all U.N. member states to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Ahmadinejad's specific formulation -- wiping Israel off the map and prophesying a coming nuclear conflagration in which much of humanity would expire -- also clearly entails a threat of committing genocide, which member nations are obliged, under the Genocide Convention, to prevent.

Back in October, the best the UN could muster was statement that

all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."

But more than just the UN figures into the legal aspects of the options that Israel has recourse to. According to the article, the Hague figures into this as well, because Ahmadinejad's are more than just harsh rhetoric:

But Ahmadinejad's rant features a direct and unequivocal threat, and it gives Israel a valid casus belli -- under both Article 51 (self-defense) of the U.N. Charter and customary international law -- to use preemptive force as a means of ensuring that Iran cannot make good on its stated intentions.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice, in a 1996 opinion analyzing the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, found that use-of-force threats that violated Article 2.4 and were not otherwise justified under Article 51 also posed a threat to international peace and security, thereby further infringing the U.N. Charter. Since Israel has not committed aggression against Iran, Ahmadinejad's statements cannot be justified as self-defense. They have, in fact, created a legally cognizable threat that can, and should, be addressed by the Security Council under its Chapter VII powers, which are concerned with threats to peace.

What the article is outlining may be more than abstract legal theorizing if word last month that Israeli Diplomats were planning to bring the issue to the ICJ pan out. According to the YNet article, the diplomats were working on the final wording of the petition and collecting evidence.

If Israel does follow through, we can only hope that the Hague will do a better job than the UN, which besides taking no action in response to Iran's threat, went ahead and elected Iran to a vice-chair position on the U.N. Disarmament Commission, whose job it is to deliberate on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.

The UN has nothing if not a sense of humor.
No, nothing at all.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Ahmadinejad and UN and The Hague and International Court of Justice and ICJ .