International Bar Association, human rights institute question legality of air strikes vs. 'repressive' Iran

The International Bar Association (IBA) and the IBA’s Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) condemn the armed conflict in the Levant and Gulf regions as they question the legality of the military air strikes against the "repressive" Iran regime.

In a press statement, the groups called for an immediate end to hostilities because the conflict violates international law and the United Nations Charter.

The statement sought to address concerns about the safety and well-being of people in the Levant region (Syria, Lebanon, Israel and the Palestinian territories), and the Gulf region (Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates. and Oman). Both regions are considered as part of the Middle East.

The IBA and the IBAHRI described Iran as "a repressive regime that has long been the subject of well-documented human rights abuses carried out against its own people."

"International bodies and independent observers have repeatedly reported systematic violations by Iranian authorities," the groups said.

They cited "unlawful killings; torture and inhumane treatment; the repression of women and girls; the suppression of peaceful protest and freedom of expression; discrimination against minorities; the execution of political dissidents; and supporting armed proxy groups across the region." 

However, the groups said "the question before the international community is whether the chosen remedy – that is, military strikes – is legal." 

 The legality of using force should not depend on "the perceived character or legitimacy of the government targeted," the groups said.

They noted that the joint military offensive by the United States and Iran on February 28, 2026 "were carried out without authorization from the UN Security Council and without a publicly substantiated armed attack by Iran that would plainly trigger the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter."

"The prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state – commonly referred to as forcible regime change – set out in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is a cornerstone of the international legal order," the groups said.

SELF-DEFENSE?

The groups also questioned the justification provided by the US and Israel for the air strikes: self-defense, citing Iran's nuclear program, repression of anti-government protestors, and proxy hostilities.

However, IBA and IBAHRI said, "These justifications fail under rigorous legal scrutiny."

They explained that, "International law allows self-defense only in response to an armed attack."

They said any "anticipatory use of force must meet a strict test of imminence – a threat that is ‘instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation’ – a standard derived from the Caroline incident of 1837."

IBA and IBAHRI said military action against any "speculative or longer-term threats" lacks a widely accepted basis in international law.

COMMUNICATIONS BLACKOUT: A VIOLATION 

Meanwhile, IBA and IBAHRI also highlighted the near-total communications blackout imposed by Iran after the initial Israeli and US air strikes on February 28.

The groups said the communications blackout violates Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR) on the right to freedom of expression and access to information. 

They noted that evacuation notices and air strike warnings are often issued via digital platforms.

With the communications blackout, "civilians may have no reliable means of knowing whether they are in the path of an imminent strike or whether their loved ones are safe," the groups said. 

"Such restrictions will probably cause not only severe humanitarian and psychological consequences for the country’s population of 90 million, but will also impede the documentation of human rights violations," they added.

The groups also expressed hope that the conflict is not being used as "a pretext to intensify repression under the guise of national security."

CALL FOR DE-ESCALATION OF WAR

According to the press statement, IBA and the IBAHRI are calling for:

• An immediate cessation of unlawful uses of force;

• Strict compliance with the UN Charter and international humanitarian and human rights law;

• Independent probe into alleged violations, and

• The urgent resumption of diplomatic negotiations.

  
  

"Sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved through cycles of retaliation," the groups said.

They said peace can be achieved through "adherence to international law, the protection of civilians, accountability for violations and genuine good faith diplomacy."

IBA, established in 1947, is the foremost organization for international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. 

IBAHRI, on the other hand, was established in 1995 under Founding Honorary President Nelson Mandela. It is an autonomous entity working to promote and protect human rights.

-Veronica Pulumbarit/Paraluman News