Latest news with #InternationalLawCommission
Al Jazeera
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Iran will pursue all legal avenues to seek redress from its attackers
The international legal order loses its effectiveness when faced with the unilateralism of hegemonic powers as well as acts that flout universally accepted norms. If such practices remain unaddressed, there is a risk that the order will lose its foundational purpose: the protection of justice, peace, and the sovereignty of nations. The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran, including the targeted killings of scientists and intellectuals, bombing of IAEA-approved nuclear facilities, and strikes against residential, medical, media, and public infrastructure, is a prime example of illegal, unilateral action that must not remain unaddressed. It is a wrongful act and a clear violation of fundamental norms of international law. In this context, the principle of state responsibility, which dictates that states are held accountable for wrongful acts, must be applied. This principle was codified by the International Law Commission ILC in its 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which have since been widely recognised and cited by international courts and tribunals. Per their provisions, the commission of a wrongful act – such as the unlawful use of force – constitutes a violation of an international obligation and imposes a binding duty on the responsible state to provide full and effective reparation for the harm caused. In the case of the illegal acts committed by the United States and Israel, the scope of legal responsibility goes far beyond ordinary violations. These acts not only contravened customary international law, but also breached peremptory norms, the highest-ranking norms within the international legal hierarchy. Among these, the principle of the prohibition of aggression is a core and universally binding rule. No state is permitted to derogate from this norm, and violations trigger obligations, requiring all members of the international community to respond collectively to uphold the law. There are at least two relevant legal precedents that can guide the application of the principle of state responsibility and the obligation for reparations in the case of Iran. In 1981, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 487 in response to Israel's attack on Iraq's nuclear facilities. It unequivocally characterised this act of aggression as a 'serious threat to the entire safeguard regime of the International Atomic Energy Agency [IAEA]', which is the foundation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The resolution also fully recognised the inalienable sovereign right of all states to establish programmes of technological and nuclear development to develop their economy and industry for peaceful purposes. Article 6 stipulates that 'Iraq is entitled to appropriate redress for the destruction it has suffered, responsibility for which has been acknowledged by Israel'. By mandating that the aggressor compensate the victim for the resulting damages, the resolution provides a clear legal precedent for pursuing redress in similar cases. Thus, given the fact that the attacks by the US and Israel were carried out with public declarations confirming the operations and are well-documented, the application of the principles and provisions of Resolution 487 to the Iranian case is not only appropriate and necessary but also firmly grounded in international law. Another relevant document is UN Security Council Resolution 692, which was adopted in 1991 and established the United Nations Compensation Commission (UNCC) following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The commission was tasked with processing claims for compensation of losses and damages incurred as a result of the invasion. The creation of UNCC demonstrated the capacity of international mechanisms to identify victims, evaluate damage, and implement practical compensation – setting a clear model for state responsibility in cases of unlawful aggression. This precedent provides a strong legal and institutional basis for asserting the rights of the Iranian people. It is therefore both appropriate and necessary for the UN to establish a rule-based mechanism, such as an international commission on compensation, to redress Iran. Such a commission, initiated and endorsed by the UN General Assembly or other competent UN bodies, should undertake a comprehensive assessment of the damages inflicted by the unlawful and aggressive acts of the US and the Zionist regime against Iran. The establishment of reparative mechanisms – whether through independent commissions, fact-finding bodies, or compensation funds operating under international oversight – would contribute meaningfully to restoring trust in the global legal system and provide a principled response to the ongoing normalisation of impunity. Iran also has another avenue for pursuing justice for the illegal attacks it was subjected to. In the lead-up to them, the IAEA published biased and politically motivated reports about the Iranian nuclear programme, which facilitated the commission of aggression by the US and Israel and breached the principle of neutrality. This places Iran in a position to seek redress and claim damages from the agency under Article 17 of the IAEA Safeguards Agreement. As a state harmed by the agency's manifest negligence, Iran is entitled to full reparation for all material and moral damages inflicted upon its peaceful nuclear facilities and scientific personnel. In this context, pursuing accountability for the IAEA, alongside the aggressor states, is a vital element of Iran's broader strategy to uphold accountability within the international legal order. By relying on recognised, legitimate, and binding international mechanisms, Iran will steadfastly defend the rights of its people at every forum. Ultimately, responsibility for the recent crimes of this war of aggression does not lie solely with the direct perpetrators, the US and Israel, and those who aided them, the IAEA. All states and international organisations bear an undeniable obligation to implement effective legal measures to prevent such crimes. The international community as a whole must respond decisively. Silence, delay, or any form of complicity in the face of aggression and atrocities would reduce the principle of state accountability under international law to an empty slogan. In its pursuit of accountability, Iran will exhaust all available resources and will not relent until the rights of its people are fully recognised and they receive adequate redress. It will continue to seek the prosecution and accountability of those responsible for these crimes, both domestically and internationally, until justice is fully achieved. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Bawaba
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Al Bawaba
Sudan appoints Kamil Idris as new PM after years of leadership vacuum
Published May 19th, 2025 - 06:16 GMT An accomplished academic, Idris has held teaching positions in international law, jurisprudence, and philosophy at institutions including Cairo University, Ohio University, Khartoum University, and Beijing University ALBAWABA- Sudan's Sovereignty Council has appointed veteran diplomat and legal scholar Dr. Kamil Al-Tayeb Idris as the country's new Prime Minister, marking the first such appointment since the resignation of Abdullah Hamdouk in 2021. Also Read Khartoum announces putting out Port Sudan fire The announcement was made by General Abdel Fattah Al-Burhan, Chairman of the Sovereignty Council, as Sudan grapples with ongoing political turmoil and conflict. ⭕️ رئيس مجلس السيادة يصدر مرسوماً دستورياً يقضي بتعيين د.كامل الطيب إدريس عبدالحفيظ رئيسا لمجلس الوزراء بورتسودان ١٩-٥-٢٠٢٥م — مجلس السيادة الإنتقالي - السودان (@TSC_SUDAN) May 19, 2025 Idris's appointment signals a potential shift toward institutional leadership after years of military-dominated governance and stalled civilian transitions. Dr. Idris brings a distinguished international and academic background to the role. He previously served as Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and as Secretary General of the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). He was also a member of the United Nations International Law Commission. An accomplished academic, Idris has held teaching positions in international law, jurisprudence, and philosophy at institutions including Cairo University, Ohio University, Khartoum University, and Beijing University, where he was named an honorary professor of law. His appointment comes at a critical time as Sudan faces not only political fragmentation but also widespread humanitarian and security crises. © 2000 - 2025 Al Bawaba (
Fox News
03-03-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Mexico broke international law with the cartels and Americans suffer the consequences
Over many years, the United States has suffered tremendously from the cross-border impacts of the trafficking of people and drugs by Mexican cartels. From the opioid crisis fueled by fentanyl to broader public safety issues arising from cartel-facilitated crime and violence, American communities have borne the brunt of this transnational scourge. This is sad, but not new. We are used to thinking about this as a domestic problem, but it is also the case that the Mexican government is in violation of international law by allowing harm emanating from its territory to be inflicted on America and her citizens. By allowing so much harm to America and its citizens to emanate from Mexico, the Mexican government is violating international law by failing to rein in the criminal enterprises at the heart of the illegal trafficking. A careful analysis of international legal principles, state responsibility and treaty obligations makes it clear that Mexico is neglecting its duty to prevent harm emanating from its territory (International Law Commission, 2001). At the core of this argument is the principle of state responsibility for acts committed by non-state actors. According to the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility for Internationally Wrongful Acts, a state may be held accountable if it fails to take reasonable measures to prevent foreseeable harm to other states (International Law Commission, 2001). In the case of Mexican cartels, the Mexican government has not exercised due diligence in curtailing the activities of these organizations, despite possessing both the capacity and the obligation to do so (Cassese, 2005). When criminal activities such as drug and human trafficking result in significant harm to American citizens, the principle of due diligence demands that Mexico take concrete actions to mitigate these risks. Ironically, one of the most famous cases of the implementation of this principle occurred on our Northern border in the Trail Smelter arbitration between America and Canada before WWII. Furthermore, international law upholds the principle of non-intervention, which prohibits a state from permitting its territory to be used as a launching pad for activities that cause harm to another state. The seminal Corfu Channel case underscores the duty of states to ensure that their territories do not become conduits for external aggression (International Court of Justice [ICJ], 1949). By allowing Mexican cartels to operate with relative impunity, Mexico is enabling a situation in which its soil becomes a safe haven for criminal elements that directly inflict damage on America and her citizens. In failing to implement and enforce robust security measures, Mexico is abdicating its responsibility to prevent cross-border harm — a breach of the non-intervention principle enshrined in international law. Mexico's international obligations are further illuminated through its participation in several key treaties designed to combat transnational organized crime. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (the Palermo Convention), Mexico has explicitly committed to enacting measures to combat organized criminal groups, drug trafficking, human trafficking and human smuggling (United Nations, 2000). Similarly, treaties such as the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961) and the Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988) impose legal duties on member states to control and prevent the illicit drug trade (United Nations, 1961; United Nations, 1988). By inadequately enforcing its domestic laws against cartels and failing to disrupt their transnational networks, Mexico has long violated these international commitments. This shortfall is not a mere administrative oversight; it represents a fundamental failure to uphold the rule of law on an international scale, directly contributing to the crises that plague America's communities. While the cartels are powerful, even de facto governments in some parts of Mexico, this does not absolve Mexico of its responsibilities under international law. The doctrine of due diligence holds that a state must take all reasonable measures, given its capacity, to prevent harm from non-state actors. In this regard, the continued proliferation of cartel activities and their devastating effects on American society indicates that Mexico has not met this minimum standard of care. Rather than viewing these challenges as a justification for inaction, they should serve as a catalyst to work together toward more effective solutions. Moreover, the tangible impact of cartel trafficking and violence on U.S. communities cannot be ignored. The fentanyl epidemic — a crisis largely fueled by precursor chemicals and production methods linked to Mexican cartels — has exacted a staggering human toll (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2020) and strained public resources across the United States (Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], 2021). In failing to implement and enforce robust security measures, Mexico is abdicating its responsibility to prevent cross-border harm — a breach of the non-intervention principle enshrined in international law. In addition to the loss of life, the economic and social costs associated with the illicit drug trade underscore the urgent need for action. By allowing its territory to be exploited as a hub for these activities, Mexico not only compromises its own domestic security but also contributes to a broader pattern of transnational harm that violates established norms of international conduct. It is thus clear that the Mexican government is violating international law by failing to control cartel-related activities under well-established principles of state responsibility, the doctrine of due diligence, and the obligations embedded in international treaties to which Mexico herself is a signatory (Palermo Convention, 2000; Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961). While challenges remain on the ground, the failure to act decisively against cartels constitutes a breach of both the spirit and the letter of international law, with severe consequences for American citizens. Holding Mexico accountable for these transnational harms is not merely a matter of legal principle — it is an urgent imperative for safeguarding public safety and upholding the integrity of the international legal order.
