On Feb. 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched a war of aggression against Iran, in clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and customary international law, according to a consensus of international law experts with whom we agree. Iran responded with a series of unlawful attacks against States in the region.

In a piece published last week by Just Security, Professors Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen suggested the U.S. and Israeli strikes against Iran, and the notably mild or even supportive response by certain western States, reflects a general dissatisfaction with international law on the prohibition on the use of force. They suggest that international law must change to accommodate such States’ frustrations if a viable international legal order is to survive. We disagree.

There is no doubt that there are systemic and structural problems with the international architecture to respond to States that transgress international law. Yet, the inference of a general dissatisfaction with the substantive rules of the U.N. Charter is unfounded. For the overwhelming majority of the 193 Member States in the United Nations, the prohibition on the use of force remains evidently in their interests. Many have made this clear, with varying degrees of directness, in their responses to the current war. 

Continue reading at justsecurity.org