International Frameworks And Legality Of The US/Israel Strikes On Iran: Implications For The Global South
By Rommy Mom
Wars between powerful states are rarely explained in terms of human suffering. They are framed instead through the language of deterrence, strategic balance and national security. The current military confrontation involving the United States, Israel and Iran is no exception. Much of the public debate focuses on uranium enrichment levels, missile capabilities and the regional balance of power in the Middle East.
Yet beneath these strategic calculations lies a more troubling reality: wars justified in the name of security often produce profound humanitarian consequences, particularly for civilians who have little influence over the political decisions that lead to conflict.For countries across the Global South, including Nigeria, the unfolding crisis is therefore not merely a geopolitical drama. It is also a reminder that the human costs of international power struggles are frequently borne by ordinary people, both within the conflict zone and far beyond it.
A Preventive Nuclear War? The immediate trigger for the confrontation lies in long-standing concerns about Iran’s nuclear programme. International monitoring bodies have confirmed that Iran has enriched uranium to levels approaching weapons-grade capability, far above what is necessary for civilian nuclear energy production.
For the United States and Israel, preventing a nuclear-armed Iran is presented as a strategic necessity. Israel has repeatedly argued that it cannot tolerate a hostile regional power with nuclear weapons capability, while Washington views nuclear proliferation in the Middle East as a direct threat to international security. Interestingly, Iran has, albeit, even if reluctantly, submitted to international monitoring, and has not totally refused conversations in the determination this question/issue. Conversations were in fact ongoing as the strikes commenced.
Given the above, is the preemptive attack on Iran justified? The use of military force to prevent a potential future threat raises serious questions under international law. The United Nations Charter provides the foundational legal framework governing the use of force in international relations. Article 2(4) clearly states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”
The Charter allows only two principal exceptions to this rule. The first is collective security action authorised by the United Nations Security Council. The second is the inherent right of self-defence under Article 51, which provides that: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.”
Preventive military strikes, attacking a state before an armed attack has occurred, occupy a controversial grey zone in international law. Some governments argue that emerging threats such as nuclear proliferation justify anticipatory action. Others contend that expanding the doctrine of self-defence risks weakening the prohibition on the use of force that lies at the heart of the UN system.This legal tension sits at the centre of the current crisis.
International Humanitarian Law and the Protection of Civilians: Even when the use of force is considered lawful, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) imposes strict rules on how wars are conducted. The Geneva Convention of 1949, widely regarded as the cornerstone of modern humanitarian law, were designed to limit the human suffering caused by armed conflict. Their core principle is the protection of civilians and those no longer participating in hostilities. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention establishes a minimum humanitarian standard, declaring that persons not actively participating in hostilities, “shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.”
More legal safeguards appear in the 1977 Additional Protocol I, which governs international armed conflicts. Article 48 introduces the fundamental principle of distinction: “The Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.” This principle requires military forces to ensure that attacks are directed only at legitimate military targets.
Equally important is the principle of proportionality. Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacks that may cause: “incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, [or] damage to civilian objects… which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” These provisions exist precisely because modern warfare often occurs in densely populated environments where military and civilian infrastructure coexist. Even precision-guided weapons cannot totally eliminate the risk of civilian harm.
The case of over 150 school girls killed on the first day of the war brings the reason for the Geneva Article into sharp focus, including what the world has been witnessing in Gaza, Lebanon and the strikes in the Gulf states. Civilians it would seem are either deliberately targeted, or no deliberate and/intentional efforts are made to avoid civilian deaths. Two weeks into this war, estimates suggest that 1850 Iranians have been killed, with WHO stating that 10,000 have been injured with 3.2m temporarily displaced. Israel civilian fatalities is about 15, with the Institute for National Security Studies of the Tel Aviv University suggesting that the actual number is subject to military censorship.
The Humanitarian Ripple Effect of War
Human rights consequences extend far beyond immediate casualties.Modern conflicts often produce secondary humanitarian crises: displacement, economic collapse, psychological trauma and the destruction of essential infrastructure. Hospitals, water systems, electricity networks, transportation and other social infrastructure are damaged or disrupted during hostilities. The loss of these systems can endanger civilian populations long after the immediate fighting subsides. The humanitarian dimension of war therefore extends beyond battlefield casualties. It includes the broader social and economic consequences that shape the lives of civilians for years after the conflict ends.
In the case of the current confrontation involving Iran, these effects may not remain confined to the Middle East.When War Raises the Price of BreadThe Gulf region is central to global energy supply. Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes through the Strait of Hormuz each day. The disruption to this narrow maritime corridor has triggered sharp increases in global energy prices. For industrialised economies, higher oil prices are largely an economic inconvenience. Governments possess financial reserves and policy tools to cushion the impact. For developing countries, however, energy price shocks often translate into hardship for ordinary citizens.
Nigeria offers a striking example.Despite being one of the world’s largest crude oil producers, the country remains heavily dependent on imported refined petroleum products. When global oil prices rise, domestic fuel costs typically follow. This is now evident in Nigeria with higher transport costs pushing up food prices, increase in the cost of electricity generation for businesses reliant on diesel generators and additional pressure on household budgets. For millions of Nigerians already grappling with inflation and economic uncertainty, global conflicts can therefore translate into very real human consequences.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) recognises the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food and living conditions. Article 11 of the covenant states that: “The States Parties… recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living… including adequate food, clothing and housing.” Economic shocks triggered by distant wars can therefore indirectly undermine the enjoyment of these rights in vulnerable societies.
Nigeria’s Foreign Policy MomentFor Nigeria, the conflict presents both a challenge and an opportunity.Historically, Nigeria has positioned itself as a defender of international law and peaceful conflict resolution. The country has played a leading role in peacekeeping operations across Africa and has often advocated diplomatic solutions to international disputes. In moments of international crisis, middle powers like Nigeria can play an important role in reinforcing the importance of legal norms governing the use of force.
Diplomatic engagement through the United Nations, the African Union and other multilateral forums can help strengthen calls for restraint, de-escalation and renewed negotiations over nuclear safeguards. At the same time, Nigeria must recognise that geo-political instability elsewhere can quickly translate into economic pressure at home. Strengthening domestic resilience, through expanded refining capacity, economic diversification and stable macroeconomic policy, should therefore be viewed as part of Nigeria’s broader national security strategy.
In conclusion, at its core, the current crisis raises a fundamental question about the kind of international order the world seeks to preserve. If security policies are pursued without regard for humanitarian consequences or legal restraint, the result is a cycle in which civilian populations repeatedly bear the cost of geopolitical rivalry. Upholding international humanitarian law and the protection of civilians is therefore not merely a moral aspiration; it is essential to maintaining a credible and stable global order. For nations across the Global South, the stakes are particularly high, because the economic and social aftershocks of distant wars often arrive long before the diplomats do.
International humanitarian law was designed to limit the human cost of war and to ensure that even in times of conflict, certain basic principles of humanity are respected. Whether these principles remain meaningful depends on the willingness of all states, powerful and weak alike, to abide by them.For countries across the Global South, including Nigeria, the challenge is not only to observe these conflicts but also to advocate for a world in which security is pursued without abandoning the legal and humanitarian norms that protect civilian life. When the language of war dominates international politics, it is rarely the strategists who pay the highest price. The actual price is paid in the blood of everyday citizens who had no say in where the dice fell.
Barrister Rommy Mom, PhD, a Human Rights Expert and President, Lawyers Alert writes from Abuja
