The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory advisory opinion issued in 2004, explicitly declared the clear incompatibility of the Israeli regime’s actions with fundamental principles of international law.

Twenty years later on July 19, 2024, the ICJ once again revealed the illegitimate nature of an occupying regime that adheres to no international rules, obliging the world to end this illegal occupation.

The United Nations General Assembly, Security Council, and International Court of Justice have explicitly condemned the use of force to acquire territory. In fact, the prohibition on the acquisition of territory through the use of force is a fundamental principle of international law, considered a peremptory norm, that cannot be deviated from. As such, occupying or seizing territory through force is illegal under the international system.

Accordingly, the forcible seizure of Palestinian territories by the Israeli regime does not grant sovereignty to the occupying power. Israel's illegal occupation of Palestinian territory violates the Palestinians' right to self-determination, which is also a peremptory obligation. Therefore, States must not maintain this situation [created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory] and instead take positive action to end the occupation.

The United Nations General Assembly, in resolution A/ES-10/L.31/Rev.1 of September 13, 2024, followed by the ICJ’s recent ruling, ordered the Israeli regime to withdraw all its military forces from the occupied territories. In fact, the General Assembly in this resolution with 124 votes in favor, confirms the prolonged occupation and consequently the violation of the principle of non-acquisition of territory by force and obliges all States to stop the transfer of arms to the occupying regime. Beyond that, the General Assembly calls on States to abstain from entering into economic or trade dealings with Israel in order to effectively end the occupation.

Both the UN General Assembly and the ICJ have explicitly acknowledged the illegitimate nature of the Israeli regime and its illegal occupation in recent months, and have repeatedly reminded States of their duty not to act in any way that would entail recognition or provide aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, but the fact that the Israeli regime considers itself above any law still casts a shadow over the credibility of all international norms and pushes the world to the edge of an abyss. Netanyahu’s recent speech at the UN General Assembly ended as he arrogantly labeled the legitimate documents issued by international bodies a disgrace to the United Nations and described them as “ridiculous”. Earlier, the regime’s representative at the General Assembly, by tearing up the UN Charter, demonstrated the extent to which the Tel Aviv regime respects international rules and obligations.

Moreover, after UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres criticized the Israeli regime's actions in the region and described its immunity from punishment and accountability as devastating to the very foundations of international law and the United Nations, the regime declared the UN chief “persona non grata”, which could be deemed as a dangerous step in distorting the truth and undermining the credibility of international institutions. The move by the regime sounded a serious alarm for all governments and international bodies.

The outbreak of war in Lebanon, following the explosion of bombs-laden pagers and the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Seyed Hassan Nasrallah with unconventional weapons, coinciding with the presence of the Israeli prime minister at the annual session of the UN General Assembly, has pushed trust in the fundamental principles and ideals of the United Nations to the brink of collapse, posing one of the most serious threats to the security of our world today. 

The vast majority of those targeted by the pager attacks were not involved in the war and many were going about their daily lives when pagers exploded in residential homes, commercial premises, shopping centers, and vehicles, resulting in the martyrdom of countless civilians. This is while, according to Protocol II to the 1980 CCW Convention amended on May 3, 1996, to which the Israeli regime is also a party, the use of explosive devices or other devices designed to kill or injure persons is prohibited, and committing such an unprecedented crime can be considered a new level of barbarism by the Israeli regime in violating international rules.

Moreover, the relentless ground and air attacks by the Israeli regime on Lebanon are in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of this country, the principles of international humanitarian law such as distinction and proportionality, and UN Security Council Resolution 1701, all confirming the unlawful use of force, or in other words, the armed aggression of this regime against Lebanon, which, according to the draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), and due to the continuous wrongful act of the occupying regime, creates the right to self-defense for the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah. It should be noted that the Hezbollah resistance movement is an official government party established in accordance with Lebanon’s domestic laws and is considered a component of the Lebanese military.

It should be added that the occupation and aggression against other territories constitute the right to self-defense and resistance for the original inhabitants of that land. It is for this reason that the right of the people of Palestine and liberation movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah in defense and resistance against the Israeli occupation is rooted in the growing consensus on the rights of nations in the international community. For this reason, standing up against apartheid regimes or aggressor governments has been recognized as legitimate. It is an undeniable fact that the liberation struggles of people under foreign occupation or armed aggression are the most important remaining tools for them to assert their rights.

Under such circumstances, denying the right to resist the occupation of Palestinian territories and the aggression of the Israeli regime against Gaza and Lebanon constitutes a clear violation of peremptory norms and erga omnes obligations. No agreement or situation can undermine the exercise of this right by other subjects of international law. 

Depriving people of such a right means denying the right to equality and human dignity as enshrined in the UN Charter. Therefore, the legitimate struggles and resistance of Hamas and Hezbollah to liberate themselves from Israeli occupation and aggression distinguish them from any kind of insurgent or terrorist groups. In this regard, it should be added that attempts by the US and other Western governments to unilaterally declare military entities as terrorist groups, which has been explicitly condemned by UN experts, is worrisome and, according to UN special rapporteurs, a serious obstacle to international peace and security. In fact, according to a statement issued by experts such as Alena Douhan (UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights), “the unilateral designation itself goes against the fundamental principles of international law, including the principle of sovereign equality of States, the prohibition to intervene into domestic affairs of states and the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes.” The experts further urged the United States to review its domestic framework that triggers specific sanctions against States designated as “Sponsors of Terrorism” (SST).

Accordingly, the unilateral and unfounded claims of a few governments and the Israeli regime regarding designating certain resistance fighter groups as terrorists in no way conforms to the standards of international law, and the legal nature of the Hamas resistance movement as a liberation movement, as well as that of Hezbollah is well-established in international law. In support of this assertion, one can refer to UN General Assembly Resolution 4337 of 1982, which has explicitly recognized and affirmed the legitimacy of resistance to foreign domination and occupation, recalling the cases of Namibia and Palestine. 

It should be noted that all historical evidence strongly supports the use of force and self-defense to confront occupation and achieve self-determination. The unilateral non-recognition of resistance movements or the unilateral alteration of their legitimate nature by a few governments does not provide any justification for attacking them or prohibiting their liberation struggles.
Therefore, the commitment to respect the right to self-determination and the commitment arising from the prohibition on the acquisition of territory through the use of force is of such a high order in international law that the consequences of its violation will affect all states, and this is clearly stated in Article 41 of the draft articles on the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts, which obliges states to cooperate and assist in ending the existing situation. 

In this context, the UN Human Rights Council experts, in a statement on September 18, 2024, expressed concern about the inaction of countries in implementing the International Court of Justice's advisory opinion of July 19, warning that “the edifice of international law stands upon a knife’s edge, with most States failing to take meaningful steps to comply with their international obligations reaffirmed in the ruling... Despite these adamant directions, States remain paralyzed in the face of the seismic shift represented by the Court’s ruling and appear unwilling or unable to take the necessary steps to meet their obligations. Devastating attacks on Palestinians across the occupied Palestinian territory show that by continuing to turn a blind eye to the horrific plight of the Palestinian people, the international community is furthering genocidal violence. Gaza remains under siege and intense bombardment, with homes, schools, hospitals, and densely populated displacement camps sheltering thousands, routinely attacked. The world stands upon the edge of a knife: Either we travel collectively towards a future of just peace and lawfulness – or hurtle towards anarchy and dystopia, and a world that might make right…they must listen to voices calling on them to take action to stop Israel’s attacks against the Palestinians and end its unlawful occupation.”

The world has been watching the Israeli regime's genocide in the region for over a year now. The current situation in Gaza and Lebanon, which is intertwined with large-scale human suffering, widespread civilian casualties, and dire living conditions due to sieges and military actions, meets all the humanitarian requirements for collective action by governments under the responsibility to protect in order to stop the crimes of the Israeli regime; however, despite all these clear signs of a human tragedy and widespread international condemnation, the response of governments to these crimes has been limited to calls for a ceasefire and a reduction in military actions. 

It is noteworthy that despite the severity and extent of all these unimaginable crimes, so far, no request has been made by any group associated with the responsibility to protect to impose sanctions or create no-fly zones to curb the violence of the regime or any kind of military intervention to protect Palestinians from the widespread crimes of the Zionist regime. This is the same double standard of Western powers in response to the crimes of the Israeli regime in Gaza and recently in Lebanon, which has destroyed the international community's trust in human rights values and international rules.

The doctrine of Responsibility to Protect in international law, despite all controversies surrounding it, obliges the global community to intervene on behalf of a people who are victims of gross and widespread violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, and now the ground for achieving this has been created by the relentless crimes of the Israeli regime. The recent regional crisis is a test for the international community to put into practice its commitments. This commitment has been the unwavering basis of Iran's recent missile operation - titled "Va'deye Sadegh," or "True Promise, - and is in line with all recognized international standards and the fundamental principles of international law. The Islamic Republic of Iran, on the one hand, has fulfilled its international obligation to cooperate in preventing gross violations of peremptory norms by the Israeli regime and, on the other, as a self-defense right to protect its territory in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter. By fully respecting the principles of international humanitarian law such as distinction, proportionality, and necessity, it has demonstrated its commitment to international rules alongside enhancing its authority and sovereignty to the world, thus proving Iran's determination to defend its sovereignty. 

In fact, it is the inherent right of Iran, stemming from its sovereignty, to resort to self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, and in circumstances where the UN Security Council, by neglecting its duties to maintain international peace and security, has left no alternative option to stop the attacks of the Israeli regime, to put a robust defense on its agenda. The military response on the evening of October 10, 2023, in precisely targeting the military objectives of the Israeli regime, indicates that Iran is on the right track of its international commitments, which enjoys unanimous support in today's legal doctrine. For this reason, creating any obstacle to the inherent right of the Islamic Republic of Iran to self-defense will not only lead to the international responsibility of the relevant state but will also place Iran in a position to assert its rights.