Trump sparks debate over whether Iran conflict has broken international law - what we know

Questions have arisen over the airstrikes in the Middle East and whether the conflict has broken international law.

Legal experts have since weighed in with their views on the lawfulness of the actions of the countries involved, including America and Israel's joint strikes on Iran over the weekend, which killed the country's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The strikes targeted the country's military sites, missile infrastructure, and leadership in the capital, Tehran, and across the country.

Since then, the US and Israel have continued to target key sites, and Iran has retaliated by carrying out widespread missile and drone attacks in response, targeting American assets and allies such as Israel, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

We're now into day five of the conflict, and as per Al Jazeera, Iranian state media says the death toll in US-Israeli attacks has now reached 1,045.

The conflict in the Middle East has sparked questions over international law (Jim Lo Scalzo/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Were the strikes by the US and Israel lawful?

A debate has been sparked over whether the strikes that sparked the regional war on Saturday (28 February) were compliant with international law.

There are two reasons for this - number one is that US President Donald Trump's administration didn't get authorisation from the UN Security Council or domestic lawmakers in Congress for the war before going ahead with strikes.

Secondly, Iran didn't attack the US or Israel before the strikes that killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and hundreds of people.

The United Nation's founding document reads: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

The UN's special rapporteur on the promotion of human rights and counterterrorism, Ben Saul, told Al Jazeera: "This is not lawful self-defence against an armed attack by Iran, and the UN Security Council has not authorised it.

"Preventive disarmament, counterterrorism, and regime change constitute the international crime of aggression. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries that excel in shredding the international legal order."

Meanwhile, Yusra Suedi, an assistant professor in International law at the University of Manchester, also told the publication that the strikes on Iran amount to a 'crime of aggression'.

Sudei said: "This was an act of use of force that was unjustified."

Experts have weighed in on whether the US and Israel's initial strikes were lawful (ATTA KENARE / AFP via Getty Images)

Can the 'imminent threat' argument be used?

Another argument that can sometimes be used to justify a strike is when a country is acting against an 'imminent attack' by another state.

Trump has previously argued that one of his reasons for the war is to 'defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime'.

However, Suedi said: “Imminence in international law is really understood to be something that is instant, something that is overwhelming, something that leaves really no other choice but to act first, something that is pretty much happening now."

And Susan Breau, a professor of international law and a senior associate research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, told The Guardian: “Even the doctrine of imminent [threat of] use of force is very controversial.

"Academics are divided on what it actually means. But in this case, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of an imminent threat by Iran.”

The Iranian Supreme Leader was killed by US-Israeli strikes over the weekend (Handout/Getty Images)

What have the US and Israel said about the accusations?

The US and Israel have argued against the accusations that their actions in the conflict have been unlawful.

America’s UN ambassador Mike Walz insisted that the strikes were not against international law, but 'in line with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter'.

Walz said the US has 'made every effort to negotiate a peaceful resolution of this conflict with Iran, but Iran has failed to take that opportunity'.

"So in close coordination with the Government of Israel, the United States has taken lawful actions to address these threats," he said during a briefing on 28 February.

He affirmed: "The United States strongly rejects this ridiculous and frankly farcical assertion that US actions are inconsistent with international law.

"For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted quote, “Death to America.” At every turn, at every opening of its Parliament, it has sought to eradicate the State of Israel. It has waged unending campaign of bloodshed and mass murder.

Trump and Herzog have defended the action (George Chan/Getty Images)

"It is responsible for a series of unprovoked armed attacks targeting the United States and Israel, violations of the UN Charter, and threats to international peace and security across the Middle East.

"It has even attempted to assassinate the US President, President Trump. It has done so not only directly, but through its proxies seeking to hide and mask its bad actions while publicly claiming to be a victim.

"Iran’s menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas, our partners, our allies around the world."

Meanwhile, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz similarly described the strikes as 'pre-emptive' to 'remove threats against the state of Israel'.

Israel's president, Isaac Herzog, also told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that because Iran was allegedly 'planning a bomb,' this was enough to justify the attacks.

Tyla has contacted the White House and Israeli government for further comment.

CENTCOM (United States Central Command) spokesperson Tim Hawkins said: "We are aware of reports concerning civilian harm resulting from ongoing military operations. We take these reports seriously and are looking into them. The protection of civilians is of utmost importance, and we will continue to take all precautions available to minimize the risk of unintended harm."