Erfan Mirzazadeh – Ph.D. in International Law
The aforementioned attacks, in disregard of fundamental principles of international law, have placed significant legal and criminal responsibility on the U.S. and the Israeli regime. The unlawful use of force against Iran’s territorial integrity, without authorization from the UN Security Council, constitutes a clear violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Targeting civilians in Evin Prison and the IRIB building violates Article 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1949) and amounts to war crimes, prosecutable under Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Additionally, given that Article 4 of the NPT guarantees states’ rights to peaceful nuclear energy, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities constitutes another breach of international obligations. According to the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, these actions represent a grave violation of peremptory norms (jus cogens) and confirm the shared responsibility of the U.S. and the Israeli regime due to their mutual support and direct participation in these aggressions. This responsibility entails not only material and moral reparations but also the criminal prosecution of responsible individuals, including military commanders.

Legal Recourse in International Forums
To reclaim lost rights and seek reparations for damages, Iran can comprehensively and systematically utilize the capacities within the international legal system. One primary avenue is referring the case to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, which has jurisdiction over inter-state disputes. The ICJ can examine evidence such as satellite imagery of the destruction of Evin Prison and the state broadcasting headquarters, along with reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on nuclear facilities, to adjudicate the illegality of these attacks. Precedents like the “Oil Platforms” case (Iran v. U.S., 2003), where the ICJ rejected the U.S. claim of self-defense and ordered reparations, demonstrate this body’s capacity to hold major powers accountable. However, success in this path requires strong evidence, including witness testimonies and documentation of destruction, as well as diplomatic support from countries such as BRICS members and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), given that the U.S. and Israel may reject the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction by invoking national interests. In such circumstances, establishing the ICJ’s jurisdiction becomes challenging. Iran can also request the UN General Assembly to convene an emergency session under the “Uniting for Peace” mechanism (Resolution 377) to adopt a resolution condemning these actions. This approach could exert significant political pressure and pave the way for an advisory opinion from the ICJ, as seen in the “Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” case (2004).

Furthermore, the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides another avenue for prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity. While Iran, Israel, and the U.S. are not parties to the Rome Statute, Iran can voluntarily accept the ICC’s jurisdiction under Article 12(3) to request an investigation into the assassinations of commanders and scientists, as well as the attack on civilians in Evin Prison. This approach, similar to the ICC’s Gaza investigation (2024) against Israel, enables the direct prosecution of responsible individuals and could lead to indictments against military commanders. Though time-consuming, this process can yield results with independent evidence, such as reports from human rights organizations like Amnesty International and witness testimonies. Additionally, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) can play a complementary role. Iran can request a special session and the formation of a commission to investigate human rights violations during this war, akin to the 2006 inquiry into Israel’s attacks on Lebanon. Such reports can serve as credible evidence in other forums and help document crimes.

The IAEA can also contribute by issuing reports on damages to nuclear facilities, providing key evidence to support Iran’s claims. These internationally recognized reports can serve as supplementary documentation in courts and councils, strengthening Iran’s legal position. Moreover, Iran can leverage the principle of universal jurisdiction in countries like Spain or South Africa, filing cases in national courts to prosecute responsible individuals. This strategy, successful in the Pinochet case (1998), could directly pressure implicated commanders and politicians while offering a path to reparations through foreign judicial systems. Each of these avenues, despite challenges such as U.S. political influence or lengthy procedures, can contribute to Iran’s broader justice campaign—especially if coordinated diplomatically and backed by international support, drawing on past precedents.

A unique avenue related to the U.S. role in this conflict is referring its direct or indirect assistance to Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities—including military cooperation, equipment provision, and intelligence sharing—to the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal. Iran can argue that U.S. actions violate obligations under the Algiers Accords (1981), as they infringe on Iran’s contractual and international rights and have caused substantial damages. U.S. military support against Iran also contravenes Paragraph 1 of the Algiers Accords’ General Declaration, which prohibits direct or indirect political or military intervention in Iran’s internal affairs, violating both the letter and spirit of these commitments and customary international law. This framework provides a clear jurisdictional basis to compel the U.S. to compensate for unlawful acts through the Tribunal and other legal mechanisms under the Algiers Accords.

Conclusion
The 12-day war, marked by assassinations, the destruction of Evin Prison, the state broadcasting headquarters, and nuclear facilities, constituted egregious violations of international law by the U.S. and Israel. These actions, whose responsibility is affirmed by the Draft Articles on State Responsibility and precedents like the Oil Platforms case, demand a decisive response. By leveraging international legal mechanisms, Iran can not only pursue reparations but also reinforce principles of global justice. Establishing a legal task force, involving elites and government representatives, is crucial to coordinating efforts and overcoming current and future challenges. In this pursuit, the role of the Attorney General in safeguarding public rights must not be overlooked.