Concern after attack

International law expert: “Military force is prohibited”

Nowak was "very cautious" when it came to assessing whether this would give rise to the right to self-defense.(Bild: AFP)

For international law expert Manfred Nowak, the latest acts of war between Iran and Israel are legally problematic. He calls for "extreme restraint" and refers to possible UN resolutions: "Any form of military force is prohibited!"

The question of the legitimacy of an attack is "not an easy one", says Nowak. The alleged Israeli attack on Iran's embassy premises in Syria was "a clear violation of diplomatic immunity", "even if secret service agents were there".

Nowak was "very cautious" in his assessment of whether this gave rise to the right to self-defense. The former United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture referred to the UN Security Council. This had been convened on Sunday at Israel's request. There has been no condemnation of the Iranian attack so far.

International law expert Manfred Nowak(Bild: APA/KEYSTONE/SALVATORE DI NOLFI)

"War - and the threat of it - is forbidden!"
Nowak referred to the possibility of the permanent Council members China, France, Russia, Great Britain and the USA to block resolutions with a veto. This is why condemnations rarely occur in practice. Official declarations of war have also become rare, "because war - and the threat of it - is prohibited".

"Aid is not illegal"
Arms deliveries from third countries, on the other hand, are a legitimate means. The same applies to defensive measures such as the firing of missiles, but these may only be used at the specific invitation of another country: "Aid is not illegal. Nevertheless, extreme restraint should be exercised."

Austria has "no option"
Nowak justified the security guarantees given to Israel by Austria and Germany with their "special historical responsibility". Nevertheless, Israeli policy can be criticized, as Germany has done time and again. The lawyer sees "no possibility" for Austria to intervene militarily in the conflict due to its neutrality.

Violations of the law on both sides
International law expert Ralph Janik identified violations of the law on both sides. The alleged Israeli attack was not in order "because Iran and Syria were not in an ongoing armed conflict with Israel". The ban on the use of force had been violated. 

Janik: "Nevertheless, Iran did not respect the right to self-defense or the applicable criteria: self-defense serves to repel a current attack and prevent further attacks. Not for 'retaliation'". The same now applies to a "possible reaction by Israel".