نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق بینالملل، دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
2 دانشیار حقوق بینالملل دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
The twelve-day war between the Zionist regime and Iran in June 2025 constitutes a pivotal moment in the region's tense dynamics, reviving fundamental questions regarding the scope of international state responsibility. The conflict began with coordinated aerial and cyberattacks by the Israeli regime against military, infrastructural, and civilian targets on Iranian soil and escalated with direct and indirect support from the United States. The core research question is whether the Israeli regime's military actions amount to "armed aggression" and a violation of peremptory norms of international law, thereby incurring its independent responsibility; and if so, to what extent its derivative responsibility can be established due to knowingly aiding, facilitating, and cooperating with the United States in committing internationally wrongful acts. The article's primary objective is to elucidate the legal dimensions and theoretical foundations of the Israeli regime's independent and derivative international responsibility in light of this event.
Methods
This research employs an analytical-comparative approach and library research method. The referenced data includes official international documents (such as United Nations reports, Security Council statements, and International Law Commission documents), rulings from international judicial bodies (such as the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights), reports from independent human rights organizations, and credible international media outlets. The analysis is based on the legal framework governing international state responsibility, particularly the ILC's 2001 Draft Articles and the provisions of the UN Charter.
Findings: The research findings are presented in three main areas:
The Independent Responsibility of the Zionist Regime:The Israeli regime's actions in initiating and expanding the twelve-day war constitute all elements of "armed aggression" from the perspective of international law. The regime's claim of preemptive self-defense is incompatible with the stringent criteria of the Caroline Test and the conditions of Article 51 of the UN Charter, as no credible evidence was presented of an imminent, overwhelming, and unavoidable threat from Iran. Therefore, Israel's use of force constitutes a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter and the peremptory norm prohibiting the use of force. Furthermore, the extent of attacks on densely populated civilian areas and vital infrastructure violated fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law, including distinction, proportionality, and precaution. From an attribution perspective, all direct operations by Israeli armed forces, as well as proxy acts under the direction or effective control of its security apparatus, are attributable to this regime under Articles 4 and 8 of the 2001 Draft Articles.
The Derivative Responsibility of the Zionist Regime:In the final days of the war, the Israeli regime, by providing precise targeting intelligence, logistical support, and operational coordination, facilitated and enabled the United States' aggressive attacks against Iran. This conduct, given the awareness of Israeli officials of the unlawfulness of US actions (absent Security Council authorization or legitimate self-defense), clearly falls within the framework of Article 16 of the ILC's 2001 Draft Articles (aid or assistance in the commission of an internationally wrongful act), thereby establishing the regime's derivative responsibility.
Convergence of Independent and Derivative Responsibility:The innovative aspect of this study is its analysis of a situation where a single set of actions (such as providing intelligence and operational assistance to the United States) simultaneously constitutes both a direct violation of the Israeli regime's primary obligations (e.g., the peremptory norm prohibiting assistance in the serious breach of international obligations) and a breach of its secondary obligation to refrain from aiding the wrongful act of another state. This leads to the convergence and concurrent application of both independent and derivative responsibility for a single set of wrongful acts.
Conclusion
Based on the findings, the study's primary hypothesis - that the Zionist regime incurs independent international responsibility for armed aggression and derivative responsibility for knowingly aiding and assisting the United States - is confirmed. This regime bears responsibility for the damages inflicted upon Iran not only as the principal perpetrator but also as an accomplice in the commission of the wrongful act, and is obligated to provide reparation and assurances of non-repetition. This analysis underscores the necessity of rethinking international legal mechanisms to address multilateral and networked forms of aggression and to strengthen the accountability of assisting states.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)