On "violations of international law": politics, morality and law -

International law, without binding supranational authority, cannot be understood independently of politics - fundamentally conflict.Faced with such exceptional situations as the conflict with Iran, sovereign political judgment takes precedence over legal standards.

International law, which lacks normative authority, can be understood independently of politics, but is fundamentally opposed to it.Faced with exceptional circumstances, such as the conflict with Iran, ultimately sovereign political decision trumps legal norms.

The outcome of the Iran war is not clear and tensions are being created between the United States on the one hand and the European allies on the other, and they want to avoid further involvement until the problem is somehow resolved.In addition to not consulting and following the decision of February 28, the aforementioned allies justify themselves by saying that this war is a “violation of international laws”.

It doesn't seem to matter that Iran's Islamic regime has launched terrorist campaigns in several countries, that it has a ballistic nuclear program aimed at wiping Israel off the map of the Middle East, its armed forces and friends throughout the region, including Lebanon's Hezbollah, or that it has previously intervened in Syria to support Bashar Al-Assad.So many violations of international law that we should deal with without remorse.Ultimately, the law is still on Tehran's side.

Right... horizontal

Let's focus on questions about law, international legitimacy and its relationship to politics. According to the philosopher and polemicist Julien Freund (1921-1993), Politics (with a capital letter) is an essence, namely a primitive activity, which is in line with the human condition.It regulates the fate of the community to ensure internal harmony and external security.Politics is inherently conflictual, and antagonism between human groups cannot ultimately be resolved through synthesis, resolution, or the “end of history.”In fact, conflict is the primary reason and the main reason.

Also read Gil Mihali: good kisses from Iran!

From this theoretical point of view, the distinction between friend and enemy is a constitutive condition of politics: “There can be no politics without a real or virtual enemy,” writes Julian Freund.The conflict of command and subordination, as well as the distinction between private and public (public order and private sphere) are two other preconditions of politics.In short, Julian Freund sees politics as a genre distinct from economics, ethics, aesthetics and religion.Each of these fundamental activities has its own specific goals and means.

Law, like politics, does not constitute substance.If law is gradually derived from religion and morality, it must be understood in relation to a larger original activity, principally politics and ethics.Therefore, law itself is not a binding order: it presupposes a political authority by force ("authoritas non veritas fecit legem") and by which citizens apply the moral rules, values, and aspirations that they share.Indeed, any real order is a combination of moral and legal norms and political decisions.based. Politics, morality and law are all reductionisms.

Quid de la légalité internationale tant invoquée par les contempteurs de l’action militaire contre le régime iranien ? Julien Freund définit la légalité comme « le système des normes, des règles, des conventions et des coutumes qui permet au gouvernement d’étendre son autorité à la fois sur la collectivité dans son ensemble et sur chacun de ses membres ». Comme il n’existe pas de Léviathan supranational, qui serait placé au-dessus des États, il s’ensuit que le concept de légalité internationale n’a pas la même consistance que l’ordre juridique interne d’une nation. L’humanité ne constituant pas un grand corps politique, les régimes juridiques internationaux reposent sur les promesses d’engagement des États, c’est-à-dire des traités et des conventions. Bref, le droit international n’est pas vertical mais horizontal.

Furthermore, the existence of the right of veto in the UN Security Council, a practice whose international legitimacy we seek to undermine, acknowledges the solidity of the state of affairs.The privilege that belongs to each permanent member of the aforementioned Council opens up the possibility of political arbitrariness, which is a negation of rights.This privilege is the embodiment of the responsibilities that fall upon the leaders of this world, their cooperative commitment in international conflicts to prevent the ever-threatening "war of all against all."Unfortunately, theory and practice often differ.

Also read Jeremy Stubbs: Persian Turks?

Let's go back to the war between Iran and the Israeli-American alliance.Forgetting that this is a long conflict called "hybrid" (a kind of phantom conflict), with the stage to start the war in 2024 and then in 2025, those who criticize the intervention say that the case started on February 28.It is a war of pure and illegitimate choice.The behavior of the Iranian Islamic regime at the regional and international level has long defied all legitimacy, but such history seems to be meaningless.Interesting point about the law!

Too often, the expression "violation of international law" looks like logomachy or automatism.However, exceptional circumstances arise in history that prevent the standard situation, the rules cannot be implemented.The law is silent: politicians must decide and act.Better than the law.We are involved in this kind of situation which requires a spirit of determination and moral clarity."So be it."

it lives only through its readers, this is the only guarantee of its independence.

To support us, shop at newsstands or subscribe!