Was It Really a Pre-Emptive Attack?

By Maria Rogano

On 28 February, Israel launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran. According to the world of Israel Katz, the Defence Minister of Israel, this action was carried out ‘to remove threats to the State of Israel’. The interest of Israel is the complete blockage of the development of Tehran’s nuclear infrastructure, and not only a halt to the process of enrichment.

But what really is a pre-emptive attack? And, more importantly, is it accepted in international law?

According to its definition, a pre-emptive attack refers to a military attack initiated on the belief that an enemy is planning an imminent offensive. According to the UN Charter, all states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity and the political independence of any state. An exception to this prohibition is given by article 51, which affirms the right to self-defence if an armed attack occurs. From the wording of these articles, it is clear that one country can defend itself only after the attack has actually taken place. Nonetheless, in international law, states’ interpretation is highly relevant. It was further interpreted that a pre-emptive attack is lawful only if the threat is imminent, overwhelming and leaves no alternatives but to act. 

It is not the first time that Israel has used this justification to attack another country. The same happened in 1967 during the Six-Day War, when Israel attacked Egypt and other Arab states. Today, as in 1967, the international forum is divided on whether to accept or not this reasoning.

What Position Did the EU Take?

The EU and the UK called for respect of international law and urged de-escalation. The bloc has called for restraints and intensified diplomatic efforts to prevent further escalation in the Middle East.

According to the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Antonio Tajani, it was unacceptable that Tehran could have the nuclear bomb and that Israel and the US acted like this because they ‘foresaw’ a possible threat to their security (quite far away from what international law says).

Differently, France took a more legally nuanced stance. President Macron affirmed that every action carried out outside international law could weaken the international equilibrium. On the other hand, Germany was more sympathetic to US goals by saying that Iran is a major security threat and that Western governments have an interest in Iran not developing nuclear weapons.

More generally, we can find here the little usual cohesion among European states, which weakens their position in the international arena.

What is relevant is that the theories of international law and what is written on paper can be interpreted, changed and used very differently. The political nature of international law, although it permits its functioning and exchange, is also its major weak point since situations are addressed mainly from a political standpoint and rarely by looking at what is precisely provided for by international law.