UN Charter

The peaceful use of the various territories of the international community, including land, sea, air, and outer space, is one of the basic rules of international law, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force based on paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules.None of the members of the United Nations have the right to resort to force in the seas and non-peaceful maritime activities. Although the 1982 Montego Bay, Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted for peacetime, this does not mean that the aforementioned convention loses its validity and executive power when armed conflicts occur.In this research, using the analytical descriptive method, a review of the behavior of the United States in the peaceful use of the seas from the point of view of the United Nations Charter and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the authors' analyzes has been done.The findings of this research show that the US government, according to the statements issued by this country, which have been prepared in line with the interests and oceanic policies of this sea power, has provided interpretations or perceptions regarding the maritime activities of the US in relation to the 1982 convention, which can endanger the peaceful use of the seas.The approach of the United States through the seven positions that have been examined in this brief article indicates that this country allows its military activities in order to secure its interests and is not subject to dispute resolution methods and peaceful goals. It does not consider the 1982 Convention as its legal obligation.   Therefore, the US wants absolute freedom of navigation in all sea areas. Naturally, this approach of a maritime power cannot be a suitable basis for guaranteeing the peaceful use of the seas and institutionalizing maritime diplomacy. 

This article examines the legality of Israel’s claim to a right of preemptive self-defense against Iran within the framework of international law. It argues that such a claim lacks any valid legal foundation and stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as well as established international jurisprudence. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the use of force in self-defense is only permissible in response to an actual and verifiable armed attack. Any military action based solely on the anticipation or assumption of an imminent threat does not meet the legal threshold and is not recognized by the international legal order. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in landmark cases such as Nicaragua (1986), the Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004), and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005), has consistently adopted a narrow interpretation of self-defense, explicitly rejecting the doctrine of preemptive force. Israel’s assertion of facing a permanent threat from Iran, absent concrete evidence of an imminent armed attack, cannot serve as a lawful justification for the use of force. Such actions not only contravene the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of state sovereignty but may also constitute a breach of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and amount to an act of aggression. Furthermore, acceptance of such a precedent poses serious challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security and risks undermining the credibility of the global legal order. Drawing on authoritative sources, international instruments, and comparative legal analysis, the article concludes that Israel’s invocation of preemptive self-defense is legally unfounded and incompatible with contemporary international law.