Iran’s legal path ...
Page 1
While the aggression would be assessed against Customary International Law (specifically the prohibition on the use of force), such claims face an insurmountable jurisdictional hurdle as CIL breaches cannot unilaterally confer jurisdiction upon the ICJ.
What specific expectations can Iran reasonably hold of the United Nations Security Council in terms of accountability and concrete action?
Legally, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council bears the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Iran could request an urgent meeting to present evidence of the unlawful attack and seek a resolution condemning the act, demanding guarantees of non-recurrence. It could also call for an independent fact-finding mission under the council’s or secretary-general’s auspices, or even propose targeted measures against individuals responsible for authorizing the strike.
Realistically, however, given the United States’ veto power as a permanent member (P5), the council is highly unlikely to adopt any resolution adverse to Washington’s interests. Therefore, Iran’s reasonable expectation would be limited to placing the matter on record, compelling public debate, and using the Security Council as a platform for international advocacy rather than a mechanism for coercive enforcement.
In parallel, Iran could appeal to the UN General Assembly for moral and political support, potentially invoking the Uniting for Peace resolution (GA Res. 377(V)), allowing the assembly to recommend collective measures when the council is paralyzed by veto. While such outcomes are non-binding, they reinforce Iran’s legal narrative and contribute to the progressive development of international accountability norms.