Examining the Legal Aspects of Arab Countries' Complicity in Aggression against Iran

TEHRAN (Defapress) - "Nader Haj Ali Khamseh," the attorney and international law expert, stated in an interview with Defapress's correspondent regarding the legal dimensions of Arab countries' complicity in aggression against Iran: If the territory of a country is placed at the disposal of hostile forces to attack Iran, that country is not merely a neutral neighbor. Under international law, it is considered an accomplice to the aggressor. From the UN Charter to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, there are clear rules regarding the responsibility of these states—responsibility that could bring their leaders to the criminal prosecution table and equip Iran with the right of self-defense against them.

The Iron Principle of the Prohibition of the Use of Force

He added: In the international legal system, the prohibition of the use of force is a jus cogens and non-derogable. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. This prohibition has only two exceptions: self-defense (Article 51) and actions authorized by the Security Council.

Khamseh said: But the important point is that this prohibition does not only include direct attack. According to UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970), the indirect use of force is also prohibited. This means that if a state places its territory at the disposal of an aggressor or if attacks are organized from its territory, it too is considered among the violators of the prohibition of the use of force.

Allowing Aggression is Itself Aggression

The international law expert stated: In 1974, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 3314 (XXIX), titled "Definition of Aggression." Article 3 of this resolution provides a list of acts constituting aggression, one of the most important of which is paragraph (g): "The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State."

He clarified: The meaning of this paragraph is clear: if a country allows American or Israeli forces to use its soil, airspace, or military facilities to attack Iran, that country has directly committed an act of aggression. To prove this, there is no need to prove active participation in the military operation; it is sufficient that it knowingly places its territory at disposal.

Neutrality has been Violated

Khamseh noted: The rules of neutrality, codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907, establish clear obligations for states that do not wish to become party to a conflict. Article 5 of Hague Convention V emphasizes: "A neutral Power must not allow any of the acts referred to in Articles 2 to 4 to occur on its territory."

The international law expert stated: A neutral state has two duties: first, refraining from assisting the belligerents (duty of abstention); second, preventing the use of its territory by the belligerents (duty of prevention). If a state not only fails to prevent the use of its territory but knowingly places it at the disposal of one party, it exits the circle of neutrals and falls into the category of a "co-belligerent" state. Such a state can no longer enjoy the protections of the law of neutrality and will be subject to legitimate countermeasures.

He added: In 2001, the International Law Commission adopted the final draft Articles on "Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts," which was endorsed by the UN General Assembly. Article 16 of this draft regulates aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act.

Khamseh expressed: According to this article, if a state assists another state in the commission of an internationally wrongful act, it is held responsible under two conditions: first, that it is aware of the wrongful nature of the act; second, that the act would be considered wrongful had it been committed by the assisting state itself.

The international law expert stated: States that place their territory at the disposal of aggressors against Iran meet both conditions. They know that aggressive attacks against Iran are a clear violation of international law, and if they themselves committed such attacks, they would certainly be considered violators. Therefore, their international responsibility is established. This responsibility has three consequences: cessation of the wrongful act, assurance of non-repetition, and reparation for damages caused.

Leaders Before the International Criminal Court

He noted: But responsibility is not limited to states. According to Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute (1998), which was completed at the Kampala Conference (2010), the crime of aggression is among the crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

The first-tier attorney stated: According to this article, any person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a state who plans, prepares, initiates, or executes an act of aggression may be held criminally responsible. The definition of an "act of aggression" precisely corresponds to paragraph (g) of Article 3 of Resolution 3314.

Khamseh said: That is, the political leaders and military commanders of countries that place their territory at the disposal of aggressors against Iran, if their effective position is established, could find themselves before an international criminal court. The precedents of the Nuremberg, Tokyo, Yugoslavia, and Rwanda tribunals show that this attribution of responsibility is not merely a legal theory.

Iran and the Right of Self-Defense

Faced with such a situation, Iran is not defenseless.

The first-tier attorney stated: Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in the event of an armed attack. This right is exercisable until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary.

Khamseh stated: An important point is that the right of self-defense is exercisable not only against the primary aggressor but also against co-belligerent states that have placed their territory at the disposal of the aggressor. International practice shows that countermeasures against bases used for aggression are accepted within the framework of self-defense.

He continued: The Islamic Republic of Iran has exercised this right before. The missile attack on the Ain al-Asad airbase in response to the assassination of General Soleimani was an instance of exercising the right of self-defense against aggression.

The international law expert stated: Ultimately, states that, knowing the aggressive nature of the attacks against Iran, place their territory and airspace at the disposal of the aggressors must prepare themselves for severe legal consequences; because, on the one hand, by this action, they commit the indirect use of force and violate Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, and on the other hand, according to paragraph (g) of Article 3 of Resolution 3314, they have committed an act of aggression that removes them from the circle of neutral states and places them among co-belligerent states with the aggressor. This situation not only obliges them under Article 16 of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts to compensate for damages caused but also exposes their leaders to international criminal responsibility; responsibility that, based on Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute and the precedent of international tribunals, could bring them to the prosecution table. In such circumstances, the international community, especially the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council, cannot remain silent in the face of these clear violations, because silence in the face of this complicity would mean encouraging aggression and further instability in the sensitive Middle East region. Iran also, under international law, reserves its right to self-defense against all actors who participate in the aggression against its territory, and will exercise this right if necessary.