Evidence mounts daily that the US-Israeli war with Iran has been, at least on the US side, ill-conceived and embarked upon without even minimal forethought. When the strikes against Iranian targets began, Prime Minister Carney voiced support for ending Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and support of terrorism but did so “with regret” because the attacks were “inconsistent with international law.” Among critics of Carney’s stance was former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy, who argued that because US and Israeli actions were illegal under international law, Carney should have denounced them, drawing analogies to Canada’s 2003 refusal to take part in the US-led invasion of Iraq. 

Yet the alleged inconsistency in Carney’s response raises the point that actions may be inconsistent with international law (at least some understandings of it) and defensible, perhaps necessary. Consideration of the questions of whether the war with Iran is illegal and, if so, how much it matters, can help clarify the nature of international law and its limitations as a guide to the conduct of states. 

As Francis Fukuyama reminds us, international law “does not exist in the same sense as domestic law” in the absence of a global sovereign authority that can prescribe and enforce law. International law has two components. One is treaty law, the body of international agreements to which states commit themselves, which are binding only upon their signatories, and from which states may withdraw, following the prescribed procedures. The other, more fluid and amorphous, is customary international law, which, put bluntly, consists of what states can get away with, to general acceptance. 

Most judgements about the justice of a given war hinge upon the question of whether it is a war of aggression or one of individual or collective........

© OpenCanada