Tehran:The post-World War II international legal order, anchored by the United Nations Charter, is designed to maintain global peace and security by preventing acts of aggression and ensuring states refrain from the use of force. The Charter's Article 2.4 explicitly prohibits threats or force against any state, prioritizing these obligations over any other international agreements through Article 103. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) supports this by consistently recognizing the prohibition of aggression as customary international law.
According to Islamic Republic News Agency, the military actions against Iran by Israel and the United States, beginning in June 2025 and escalating in February 2026, are deemed acts of aggression under international law. The UN Charter allows only two exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force collective enforcement actions by the Security Council and self-defense under Article 51. Due to the Security Council’s paralysis caused by the US veto, Iran's right to self-defense is triggered, as upheld by the ICJ in the 1986 Nicaragua case, recognizing self-defense as an inherent right of statehood.
Iran's defensive measures in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical global maritime corridor, are legally justified under the law of armed conflict. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea legitimizes naval blockades and maritime exclusions during wartime. Iran's actions are a response to the existential threat posed by coordinated military and economic offensives, including the US-led Operation Economic Outcast, which integrates economic measures with military aggression, thereby constituting a comprehensive assault on Iran's sovereignty.
The legal framework supports Iran's use of maritime geography for defense, challenging the notion that UNCLOS's peacetime transit passage rights apply during active hostilities. Furthermore, Iran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz align with international law principles, as demonstrated by historical precedents like the 1980s Tanker War and ICJ rulings. Host states in the Persian Gulf facilitating military aggression lose their neutral status and become lawful targets, as outlined in UN Resolution 3314 and the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibility.
Ultimately, Iran's maritime measures are a lawful defense against acts threatening its survival, reflecting the principle that no state is obligated to allow its destruction while aggressors exploit global commons for coercion.