Author

• Afshin Danehkar

Department of Environment, Faculty of Natural Resources, University College of Agriculture & Natural Resources, University of Tehran, Karaj, Iran.

Abstract

The year 1405 (Solar Hijri, which began in March 2026) started as the military aggression of the United States and Israel against Iran was completing its twenty-first day. While the stated reasons for this military aggression were to curb the country's nuclear and missile capabilities, this military aggression, regardless of its declared motivations, is regarded within the international legal system as a violation of several fundamental principles and rules. These principles, recognized as the cornerstones of international peace and security, are enshrined in the most important instrument of international law: the United Nations Charter.

The Prohibition of the Use of Force

This principle, articulated in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, is the most fundamental rule in this context. This Article explicitly states that all members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. In other words, any military attack, even if justified by aims such as "regime change," "combating drug trafficking," or "defending human rights," constitutes a clear violation of this Article unless authorized by the Security Council. The exceptions to this principle are only two:

Self-Defense: Under Article 51 of the Charter, a state may unilaterally use force only if it is subjected to an "armed attack," and such action must be immediately reported to the Security Council.
Security Council Authorization: Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council may authorize the use of force against a state to maintain or restore international peace and security.

In a military aggression, neither of these conditions is typically met; therefore, such an act is a clear instance of "aggression" and a fundamental violation of international law.

The Principle of National Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity

International law is founded on the principle of the sovereign equality of states, referred to in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter. Sovereignty implies the exclusive right of a state to exercise authority within its territory and to be free from external interference. Military operations conducted within a state's territory without its consent represent the most blatant violation of that state's territorial integrity and political independence.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in several cases, including Nicaragua v. United States (1986) and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005), has deemed such actions incompatible with fundamental principles of international law.

The Principle of Non-Intervention

This principle, a logical consequence of the principle of sovereignty, prohibits any coercive interference by one state in the internal or external affairs of another. In the Nicaragua case, the International Court of Justice identified "the element of coercion" as integral to the very essence of unlawful intervention. A military aggression is manifestly the most blatant form of such coercive and unlawful intervention.
Nevertheless, from the perspective of environmental activists and advocates of national land sustainability, it is the environmental catastrophes imposed on the country that are of paramount concern. According to official reports published by specialized bodies, the military aggression by the United States and Israel against Iran during the holy month of Ramadan (dubbed the "Ramadan War") has led to the destruction of vital infrastructure, including oil facilities, energy industries, water resources, marine habitats, protected areas, and environmental monitoring centers. The widespread release of hazardous pollutants—including sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbon compounds, particulate matter, and heavy metals—has not only created a crisis for air, water, and soil quality across vast expanses of the country, but their effects have also transcended national borders, impacting regional and global ecosystems. Preliminary estimates indicate that in just the first two weeks of the attacks, over several million tons of greenhouse gases were released into the atmosphere—a figure exceeding the annual carbon footprint of dozens of countries worldwide, with consequences for global climate change that cannot be ignored. The destruction of oil reservoirs, increased emergency flaring, oil contamination in marine areas, and the release of toxic compounds resulting from the explosion of industrial facilities have posed a serious threat to biodiversity, destroyed sensitive habitats, and increased health risks for human populations. These actions stand in clear opposition to established principles of international law, including the Precautionary Principle, the Prevention Principle, and the No-Harm Principle (the principle of not causing transboundary harm). Under Article 55 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, parties involved in armed conflicts are obliged to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term, and severe damage. This agreement prohibits intentional attacks on the natural environment that would cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage and affect the health of civilian populations. Furthermore, the 1976 Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) prohibits any environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. Under the principle of international responsibility, states that cause damage to the environment of another state through their unlawful acts are liable to compensate for the damage caused. Sustainable development is realized in peace and security, and military aggressions and warmongering are fundamentally at odds with all of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, this conflict is particularly direct and pronounced with respect to Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), Goal 15 (Life on Land), Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and Goal 1 (No Poverty). Given the evolving concept of "environmental security" in international law and the recognition of the right to a healthy environment as a fundamental human right, any military action resulting in widespread destruction of ecosystems may be considered a case of "ecocide"—a concept that is being recognized and developed as one of the most serious forms of international crime within the global legal system. It is evident that the destructive effects of war are not limited to the duration of the hostilities. Soil contamination, pollution of surface and groundwater resources, coastal and marine ecosystems, and the release of hazardous materials can persist for decades, imposing heavy costs on environmental restoration. The introduction of heavy metals, carcinogenic compounds, and persistent chemicals into natural cycles poses a long-term threat to human health, food security, and economic sustainability. Therefore, the attacks on Iran's vital, industrial, and environmental infrastructure constitute a flagrant violation of international obligations regarding the protection of the environment during armed conflicts. The environmental consequences of these attacks transcend national borders and may affect the environmental security of the Middle East region and even the regional climate system. The international community, the United Nations, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the International Maritime Organization (IMO), UNESCO, and other specialized bodies must adopt a firm stance on this event within the framework of their legal and ethical responsibilities. Silence in the face of environmental collapse during armed conflicts may weaken the international legal system and lead to the repetition of environmental catastrophes in other parts of the world. The environment is the common heritage of humanity, and its protection is a responsibility that transcends political borders. The destruction of nature undermines the very foundations of lasting peace, and disregard for the environmental consequences of war constitutes a direct threat to future generations. Science, international cooperation, and respect for the environment can serve as a bridge to lasting peace, and it is hoped that the international community, through its accountability, will prevent the recurrence of such catastrophes.
 
Footnotes:
ICJ: International Court of Justice
ENMOD: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques
SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals