In recent days, numerous scholars in the field of international law have presented opinions, sprouting like mushrooms after rain, claiming that Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities and strategic infrastructure does not meet the requirements of international law, particularly the laws governing the use of force (
I think this can appear a less one-sided defense if the reason for Iran's strikes were contextualised : surgical strikes and assassination of proxy leadership. Perhaps, adding legal arguments to justify that move and expose the grim realities of the Iranian regime will be a better counter?
I think this can appear a less one-sided defense if the reason for Iran's strikes were contextualised : surgical strikes and assassination of proxy leadership. Perhaps, adding legal arguments to justify that move and expose the grim realities of the Iranian regime will be a better counter?