US action in Iran unlawful and dangerous

THE reported US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities mark a dangerous escalation in regional tensions – and a clear breach of international law.

According to the BBC and other mainstream sources, the targets included nuclear infrastructure that Iran claims is used for peaceful purposes. Such military actions not only endanger regional and global peace, but also violate foundational legal norms under both international huma­nitarian law (IHL) and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Under IHL, particularly as codified in the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conven-tions, the protection of civilian objects is a central tenet. Article 52(1) explicitly provides that “civilian objects shall not be the object of attack”. Nuclear facilities used for civilian energy or medical research fall within this protected category unless they are being used to make an effective contribution to military action and their destruction offers a concrete military advantage (Article 52(2)).

Critically, the principle of distinction under IHL obliges all parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilian and military targets. Striking a nuclear power plant or medical isotope production site risks catastrophic civilian harm due to radioactive contamination, potentially rendering such attacks indiscriminate under Article 51(4).

Furthermore, environmental damage caused by such strikes may breach Article 35(3), which prohibits means of warfare expected to cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.

In parallel, the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) establishes the legal framework governing nuclear technology. Article IV of the NPT affirms the inalienable right of non-nuclear- weapon states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Attacks on such facilities by nuclear-armed states violate this right and undermine the foundational bargain of the treaty: non-proliferation commitments in exchange for peaceful nuclear cooperation.

Taken together, these legal frameworks underscore that the US strikes, if indeed targeting peaceful nuclear installations, may constitute internationally wrongful acts. Under general principles of international law, as reflected in the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility (2001), such acts trigger obligations for cessation, non-repetition, and full reparation (Articles 28-36).

Beyond the legalities, the strategic recklessness of targeting nuclear sites – regardless of their actual function – cannot be overstated. The risk of radioactive fallout, civilian casualties and regional escalation is immense. This act not only breaches treaty obligations but further erodes the already fragile architecture of international law and security.

In short, the deliberate targeting of peaceful nuclear infrastructure violates both the laws of war and the laws of peace. The international community must respond firmly to uphold legal norms and avert a wider catastrophe.

PROF DR MOHAMMAD NAQIB EISHAN JAN

Ahmad Ibrahim Kulliyah of Laws

International Islamic University Malaysia