The US - Iran War

Scholars of international relations employ different lenses for analyzing emerging scenarios. These lenses may include, inter alia, military and strategic comparisons, international law framework, economic consequences, religious genesis and cultural viewpoints. The purpose of this brief adumbration is to take stock of the legal issues that must be considered by all and sundry before firming up views on the ongoing US-Iran War. The issues may be discussed under the following thematic areas:

In recalibrating geopolitics, the first and foundational question that begs attention is the very existence of the international legal order based on rules or the applicability of international law. The question is not new. The proponents of this view untiringly cite and quote Professor Hans Kelsen, who in his 'Principles of International Law' (1959) questioned the very existence of international law. The nub of his argument was that unlike national law, it lacks enforcement mechanism. Despite his vehement scholarly attack on the ontology of international law, it evolved and expanded over the last seven decades and turned into a multilateral system that is now being threatened. In fact, linking international law to the last century is fallacious, as it did exist in one form or the other even before that. The most ancient part of international law is the law of war, which is now styled as the International Humanitarian Law (IHL). There are, in fact, two streams of international law that must be noted: jus ad bellum (law of war) and jus in bello (law in war). The two aspects qua the US-Iran war are discussed separately here:

a. Jus ad bellum