Legal–Analytical Examination of Israel’s Military Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities on June 13, 2025: Assessing the Legitimacy of Preventive and Preemptive Self-Defense Under International Law

Abstract

On June 13, 2025, the Israeli occupying regime launched a large-scale and multifaceted attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, military bases, and the homes of Iranian commanders and nuclear scientists. The regime claimed that by destroying missile launchers and disrupting uranium-enrichment programs, it had prevented an imminent threat posed by Iran. However, this action clearly violates Article 2 of the United Nations Charter and the fundamental principles prohibiting the use of force in international law, constituting an act of military aggression. Israel attempted to justify this attack under the doctrines of “preventive self-defense” and “preemptive self-defense”; nevertheless, legal analyses and the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice indicate that neither doctrine has a clearly established legal basis in the international system and is often viewed as a pretext for aggressive conduct. Even under expansive interpretations of the concept of self-defense, Israel’s attack does not comply with the criteria of necessity and proportionality (the Caroline test). Accordingly, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 and Article 8 of the Rome Statute, this action can be classified as an “armed aggression.” Moreover, targeting Iran’s peaceful infrastructure and nuclear scientists constitutes a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions and the principles of international humanitarian law. Attacking nuclear facilities under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) also represents a direct threat to international security and the global environment. The support of certain Western powers for this action further reveals the double standards in the application of international norms and undermines the credibility of the collective security system. In light of these issues, the central question of this study is: “Can Israel’s attack be justified within the framework of preventive or preemptive self-defense?” The article’s hypothesis is that Israel’s attack does not meet the requirements of necessity, immediacy, and proportionality (the Caroline test) and therefore falls outside the scope of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.