When the US or Israel blatantly violate int law for their own gain we mustn't mistake it for an effort to reform an imperfect system of laws.
Thanks @tomdannenbaum.bsky.social & @bechamilton.bsky.social for saying this with clarity and integrity.
justsecurity.org/133417/aggre...
I have not seen officials explanations by the United States.
The onset of major hostilities would have created an obligation for Iran to evacuate the school if feasible, given its proximity to the military base. Some news outlets report that Iranian authorities have claimed this was not feasible as the attack occurred too soon into the war.
Addendum Option 2: Reckless attacks against civilian objects have in certain contexts been deemed criminal. This standard was not adopted in the Rome Statute. Crucially, too many news outlets wrongly equate “unlikely to be a war crime” with “no violation of law”.
Addendum Option 1: There has been no indication or claim whatsoever that the school had lost its status as a civilian object due to being used for military purposes.
In this case, extra care would have to be taken not to misfire or cause incidental damage to the school. Even this factually less likely scenario, likely involves a violation of international law.
If the US military knew about the presence of the school, the principle of constant care would demand that they attack proximate military objectives at a time when the school is not in session, unless there are overriding military considerations (such as a fleeting target).
3. Misfire: the attacker knew this was a school, meant to target one of the nearby military objectives, but the weapon misfired and hit the school.
the investigation suggests that it would have been feasible to identify the building as a school (visibility, generally good intelligence, publicly available information about the school). Attackers are under an obligation to do everything feasible to verify the status of the targeted object.
2. Misidentification: the attacker assumed they were directing the attack against a military objective (for instance a building belonging to the neighboring base). This would still be a very serious violation of international law since...
1. Atrocity: the attacker knew they were directing the attack against a school (for whatever purpose). This would be a war crime. Whether media outlets entertain this possibility depends not so much on the available evidence, but on their general assumptions about the US military.
A School is a civilian object that must not be directly attacked. The building was directly attacked mostly likely by, the NYT argues, US forces. There are three options for how this happened with different legal implications:
The NYT Investigative team (and other news outlets) have reported in detail on the attack against the Elementary School in Minab, Iran. I had the opportunity to comment, but the law is not the story so there is more to be said.
Allow me to elaborate:
And a Master in Public Policy, though from well before my time, so I claim no credit whatsoever. :)
Excellent explainer with analysis from @janinadill.bsky.social, @oonahathaway.bsky.social, @adhaque.bsky.social, Ben Saul, and Marko Milanovic:
www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/u...
British PM Starmer says that U.K. bases will only be used for ’defensive’ operations and not ‘offensive’ ops. But how can that be so when they are being used by the aggressor?
Great discussion here with Milanovic, @adhaque.bsky.social @janinadill.bsky.social
www.middleeasteye.net/explainers/u...
📣 Reminder: Join us on 12 March (16–18h) at the Paulinum, Leipzig, for our panel “Peace and Security in Times of Hybrid Threats.”
🗣️Panel:
Dr. Astrid Irrgang (ZIF)
Prof. Dr. @janinadill.bsky.social (ECLAC)
Oberst i.G. Katharina Benford (BAKS)
Ulrich Hörning, Mayor of Leipzig
German and English!
Thanks for flagging this issue @antjewiener.bsky.social !
This is my only disagreement with this excellent post by Marko Milanovic here on
@ejiltalk.bsky.social
www.ejiltalk.org/the-legality...
Disproportionate self-defence is a violation of int. law that affords implicated third states a right of self-defence. It does not justify the use of further force by the original aggressor, if ceasing the aggression is the most apt means to end disproportionate defensive force.
No use of force on the part of the United States in support of the Gulf states passes the necessity test that all actions in self-defence are subject to, since the United States could (and must) first and foremost cease its illegal aggression.
The UK's legal position on the use of its bases in the Middle East is solid with one glaring hole: The US cannot act in collective self-defence with the Gulf States. It is the aggressor. Ergo the UK cannot assist the US in collective self-defence.
Rousing speeches on European assertiveness & middle powers countering hard power do not a viable foreign policy make, it turns out.
European, EU & Canadian responses to the US/Israeli aggression against Iran are short-sighted and help weaken the legal rules these countries depend on.
Winter 2026 issue preview @intsecurity.bsky.social!
R. Krebs| why populists love dead soldiers
@janinadill.bsky.social et al. | local consent for military interventions
@lmaschmeyer.bsky.social | AI & cyberattacks
Brenner | AI & strategic surprise
@johnseverini.bsky.social & Biddle | naval warfare
Thanks so much @vukusiciva.bsky.social! 🙏 (We would have needed another 5 hours to be honest.)
I'll be watching this today as I missed it when it was live, and some of the commentators are always excellent, like @janinadill.bsky.social. Do take a look. #IHL #InternationalLaw
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzLS...
I mean smudged make-up is way down the list of issues :)
Exactly this...though I look a bit different doing it 😬
Watch the recording of our Conversation on Security and Accountability in a Disintegrating Legal Order at the Munich Security Conference
here: securityconference.org/msc-2026/oef...
📣 Join us on 12 March (16–18h) at the Paulinum, Leipzig, for our panel “Peace and Security in Times of Hybrid Threats,” held in the context of the AFK Conference.
🗣️Panel:
Dr. Astrid Irrgang (ZIF)
Prof. Dr. @janinadill.bsky.social (ECLAC)
Oberst i.G. Katharina Benford (BAKS)
German and English!
