Attacks on universities, violation of international norms
By Kamran Yeganegi
Political analyst
Attacks on universities are not ordinary military actions; they constitute a clear violation of peremptory norms of international humanitarian law. These norms explicitly protect civilian objects, particularly educational institutions. As universities have come under attack, it is evident that certain actors—including the United States and Israel—have crossed well-established red lines of the international legal order.
Legal status of universities under international humanitarian law
Under international humanitarian law (IHL), the principle of distinction obliges parties to an armed conflict to differentiate between military objectives and civilian objects. Universities and educational institutions, as civilian entities, are protected under this principle and must not be targeted unless they are used for direct military purposes. In addition, the principle of proportionality and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks further reinforce the obligation to avoid harm to civilian infrastructure. Institutions such as the United Nations have consistently emphasized the protection of educational facilities during armed conflicts.
Legacy of World War II, from destruction to norm formation
During World War II, widespread destruction affected not only cities but also universities and centers of knowledge across Europe. The devastation of academic institutions highlighted the profound consequences of disregarding the civilian character of educational spaces. These experiences played a crucial role in shaping the post-war international legal framework, particularly the development and consolidation of norms aimed at protecting civilian objects. In this sense, safeguarding universities is not merely a moral imperative but a legal obligation rooted in the lessons of history.
Clear violations, responsibility of US & Israel
In light of the attacks on universities, actions carried out by the United States and Israel must be explicitly and unequivocally condemned.
Targeting educational institutions—especially in the absence of any direct military use—constitutes a clear breach of the principle of distinction and amounts to unlawful attacks against civilian objects. Such actions are not only inconsistent with international legal obligations but also undermine the normative foundations established after World War II to limit violence in armed conflicts.
Moreover, when such violations are committed by actors who claim to uphold a rules-based international order, they expose a fundamental contradiction between rhetoric and practice, further eroding trust in the international legal system.
Legal, diplomatic consequences
Violations of the protected status of educational institutions are not isolated incidents; they carry significant legal implications, including the international responsibility of states. Such actions may give rise to demands for accountability and potential recourse within international legal mechanisms.
From a diplomatic perspective, the continuation of such violations weakens established norms and diminishes the effectiveness of international humanitarian law. Silence or inaction by the international community risks normalizing these breaches, thereby lowering the threshold for future violations.
The experience of World War II demonstrated the devastating consequences of failing to protect civilian institutions, including universities. In response, the post-war international legal order sought to institutionalize norms aimed at preventing the recurrence of such tragedies. Today, attacks on universities signal a troubling departure from these norms. It is therefore imperative for the international community, through multilateral diplomacy, to reaffirm and strengthen the protection of educational institutions.
Protecting universities is not only a legal duty but a prerequisite for preserving civilization, rationality, and sustainable peace. Without safeguarding education and knowledge production, no international order can maintain its legitimacy or long-term stability.