The International Responsibility of the Zionist Regime in the 12-Day War: The Convergence of "Independent Responsibility" and "Derivative Responsibility"

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Student in International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

2 Associate Prof., International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

10.22099/jls.2026.54518.5393

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Abilova, F., & Mirzayev, F. (2022, July 4). Who has effective control in Azerbaijan's Karabakh region? EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/who-has-effective-control-in-azerbaijans-karabakh-region/
Ahmadi Bakhtiari, D., & Mahmoudi, S. H. (2025). The challenges of litigating joint international responsibility before international judicial bodies. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 55(2), 1035–1055. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.373675.3496, (In Persian).
Atlantic Council. (2025, June 16). Twenty questions (and expert answers) on the Israel-Iran war. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/twenty-questions-and-expert-answers-on-the-israel-iran-war/
Atlantic Council. (2025, July 30). What the Israel-Iran conflict revealed about wartime cyber operations. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/what-the-israel-iran-conflict-revealed-about-wartime-cyber-operations/
Aust, H. P. (2016). The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and attribution. German Yearbook of International Law, 59, 123–145.
Boutin, B. (2022). Attributing conduct in the law of state responsibility: Lessons from Dutch courts applying the control standard in the context of international military operations. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 37(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.546
Crawford, J. (2013). State responsibility: The general part. Cambridge University Press.
De Schutter, O. (2011). Human rights and the rise of international organisations. Human Rights and International Legal Discourse, 5(1), 51–67.
Dinstein, Y. (2017). War, aggression and self-defence (6th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Gaja, G. (2005). Third report on responsibility of international organizations. UN Doc. A/CN.4/553. https://legal.un.org/ilc/documentation/english/a_cn4_553.pdf
Galand, R. (2022, April 8). Azerbaijan v. Armenia before the European Court of Human Rights: Revisiting the effective control test after the "44-Day War". Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2022/04/08/azerbaijan-v-armenia-before-the-european-court-of-human-rights-revisiting-the-effective-control-test-after-the-44-day-war/
 Hadadi, M. (2019). Complicity in Committing Internationally Wrongful Acts in the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States 2001. Journal of Legal Studies, 10(4), 1-30. doi: 10.22099/jls.2019.29680.2962 (In Persian).
Henckaerts, J.-M., & Doswald-Beck, L. (2005). Customary international humanitarian law (Vol. I: Rules). Cambridge University Press / ICRC.
 Hosseini-Nejad, H. (1998). A look at the European Court of Human Rights. International Law Journal, 16(22), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.22066/cilamag.1998.18169, (In Persian).
International Law Commission. (2001). Draft articles on responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, with commentaries. UN Doc. A/56/10. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf
 International Law Commission. (2011). Draft articles on responsibility of international organizations, with commentaries. UN Doc. A/66/10. https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/9_11_2011.pdf
 Knuckey, J. (2014, September 16). Hassan v. UK: A new approach to security detention in armed conflict? Just Security. https://www.justsecurity.org/15018/hassan-v-uk-new-approach-security-detention-armed-conflict/
 Lavrysen, L. (2016). Human rights in a positive state: Rethinking the relationship between positive obligations and the European Convention on Human Rights. Intersentia.
Longobardo, M. (2022). The 2021 ECtHR decision in Georgia v Russia (II) and the application of human rights law to extraterritorial hostilities. Israel Law Review, 55(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021223721000233
 Longobardo, M. (2022). Occupation and attribution in Ukraine v. Russia. Leiden Journal of International Law, 35(2), 345–367.
 Milanović, M. (2011, July 7). European Court decides Al-Skeini and Al-Jedda. EJIL: Talk! https://www.ejiltalk.org/european-court-decides-al-skeini-and-al-jedda/
 Milanović, M. (2011). Extraterritorial application of human rights treaties: Law, principles, and policy. Oxford University Press.
 Milanović, M. (2021). Intelligence sharing in multinational military operations and complicity under international law. International Law Studies, 97, 1099–1127. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3930712
Molkizadeh, A. H. (2013). The control standard in the system of international responsibility: unity or conflict in international judicial practice. Judiciary Legal Journal, 77(82), 160–191. https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2013.10830, (In Persian).
 Newsweek. (2025, June 18). Full list of U.S. military deployments that point to war with Iran. https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-us-military-deployments-that-point-war-iran-2087171
Nollkaemper, A. (2020). Special rules of attribution of conduct in international law. International Law Studies, 96, 1–64. https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol96/iss1/1
 Nollkaemper, A., & Jacobs, D. (Eds.). (2015). Distribution of responsibilities in international law. Cambridge University Press.
 Nollkaemper, A., Plakokefalos, I., Schechinger, J. N. M., & Ryngaert, C. (2020). Guiding principles on shared responsibility in international law. European Journal of International Law, 31(1), 15–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chaa017
Politico. (2025, June 22). Bank hacks, internet shutdowns and crypto heists: Here’s how the war between Israel and Iran is playing out in cyberspace. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/22/us-israel-iran-war-cyber-attacks-00417782
 Promo-LEX. (2025, July 16). Russia refuses to comply with ECHR judgments in Transnistrian cases. IPN. https://ipn.md/en/promo-lex-russia-refuses-to-comply-with-echr-judgments-in-transnistrian-cases/
Raei, M. (2009). General control or effective control as a factor for realizing state responsibility? Journal of Private Law Studies, 39(3), 151–164. (In Persian).
Reinisch, A. (2010). Aid or assistance and direction and control between states and international organizations in the commission of internationally wrongful acts. International Organizations Law Review, 7, 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1163/157237410X543332
 Risini, I. (2018). Aid and control in Mozer. International Organizations Law Review, 15(2), 234–256.
Risini, I. (2021). January 28). Human rights in the line of fire: Georgia v Russia (II) before the European Court of Human Rights. (Seen at 12 October 2025), Verfassungsblog. https://verfassungsblog.de/human-rights-in-the-line-of-fire/
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. (1998). United Nations.
Ruys, T. (2010). ‘Armed attack’ and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Evolutions in customary law and practice. Cambridge University Press.
Sadāt Akhavi, S. A., & Hosseini Akbarnejād, H. (2009). The extraterritorial application of the European Convention on Human Rights in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of Private Law Studies, 39(4), 233–256. (In Persian).
Salomon, S. (2020). Economic control and attribution in international law. Human Rights Law Review, 20(3), 456–478.
Sari, A. (2015). Untangling extraterritorial jurisdiction from international responsibility in Jaloud v. Netherlands. Journal of International Criminal Justice, 13(2), 287–308. https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqv001
Sobhani, M., & Bagheri, N. (2020). The nature and types of complicity liability in international criminal tribunals. Legal Studies, 12(2), 131–162. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2020.34341.3531 (In Persian).
 Zakir Hossein, M. H. (2024). Settlement and settlement activities in occupied territories from the perspective of international criminal law. Legal Studies, 16(1), 391–426. https://doi.org/10.22099/jls.2024.49216.5090 (In Persian).
Zamani, S. Q. (2012). State responsibility for acts of private companies from the perspective of judicial and arbitral practice. Public Legal Research, 15(40), 115–140. (In Persian).
Ziyaei Bigdeli, M. R., & Tarazi, N. (2021). Analysis of attribution rules in international shared responsibility. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 51(1), 81–102. https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.281810.2022 (In Persian).
 
Judicial Procedure
 European Court of Human Rights. (2007, May 2). Behrami and Behrami v. France and Saramati v. France, Germany and Norway (Grand Chamber). App. Nos. 71412/01 & 78166/01. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-80830
 European Court of Human Rights. (2010, January 7). Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia. App. No. 25965/04. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-96549
 European Court of Human Rights. (2011, July 7). Al-Jedda v. United Kingdom (Grand Chamber). App. No. 27021/08. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-105612
European Court of Human Rights. (2012, September 12). Nada v. Switzerland (Grand Chamber). App. No. 10593/08. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-113118
 European Court of Human Rights. (2012, October 19). Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia (Grand Chamber). App. Nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 & 18454/06. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-114082
 European Court of Human Rights. (2014, September 16). Hassan v. United Kingdom (Grand Chamber). App. No. 29750/09. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-146501
 European Court of Human Rights. (2014, November 20). Jaloud v. Netherlands (Grand Chamber). App. No. 47708/08. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-148367
 European Court of Human Rights. (2015, June 16). Chiragov and Others v. Armenia (Grand Chamber). App. No. 13216/05. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155353
 European Court of Human Rights. (2016, February 23). Mozer v. Moldova and Russia (Grand Chamber). App. No. 11138/10. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-161055
 European Court of Human Rights. (2020, December 16). Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) (Grand Chamber). App. Nos. 20958/14 & 38334/18. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207622
 European Court of Human Rights. (2021, January 21). Georgia v. Russia (II) (Grand Chamber). App. No. 38263/08. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-207757
 European Court of Human Rights. (2024, February 20). Guide on Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Obligation to respect human rights – Concepts of "jurisdiction" and imputability. https://ks.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr-ks/guide-on-article-1-obligation-to-respect-human-rights
 European Court of Human Rights. (2025, July 9). Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia (Grand Chamber). App. Nos. 8019/16, 43800/14, 28525/20 & 11055/22. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-244292
 International Court of Justice. (1986, June 27). Military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). (2003). Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgment.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics