Davoud Aqaei, a professor of international law at the University of Tehran, told IRNA on Tuesday that countries hosting US military bases used for launching attacks on Iran have exposed themselves to legal liability and may themselves be considered parties to the conflict under international law.
“In the framework of international law and the law of war, not only aggressor states but also states that violate the principle of neutrality may face the legal consequences of that situation,” Aqaei said.
“If a state places its territory, military bases, or logistical facilities at the disposal of a belligerent party, or in any way enhances that party’s military capacity and enables an attack on another state, it effectively becomes a party to the conflict and may be considered a legitimate target by the opposing side,” he said.
The professor noted that the United States has no military bases in the air or space, and therefore relies either on its naval vessels or on bases it has pre-positioned in countries such as Kuwait, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan.
“Accordingly, these facilities and territories, when used for military purposes by an aggressor party, may be regarded as legitimate targets for Iran,” he said.
On whether Iran could seek reparations for damage to civilian sites, Aqaei drew a sharp distinction between legal theory and practical reality.
“We must distinguish between field realities and the rules and norms of international law that exist on paper,” he said.
“From a theoretical standpoint, legal criteria exist; documentation can be collected, compiled, and prepared for submission to international judicial bodies, including the International Criminal Court or any other international authority agreed upon by the parties; this is legally provided for,” Aqaei said.
“However, as I noted, in the field and in the historical experience of the international system, major powers, particularly the United States, as the hegemonic power, exert influence over institutions and mechanisms within their sphere of influence and use these tools to advance their goals,” he added.
He said that even when their conduct violates international law, such powers rely on allies and self-constructed regimes to justify their behavior and obstruct the realization of justice.
Aqaei said Iran nonetheless has an obligation to document what has been done to it.
“It is necessary for the country’s officials to collect and document the evidence, take the necessary legal steps, identify competent judicial authorities, and present the cases to those bodies,” he said.
“But at the same time, I see no clear prospect of obtaining reparations or compensation from the United States or regional countries under current conditions,” he added.
He said Iran’s entitlement under international law was not in question.
“This is our natural right and international law grants us this right and this permission, because we have been subjected to aggression,” Aqaei said.
“Aggressor states that attack the territory of another state through or with the assistance of their armed forces are held responsible, because they have violated the principle of the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-aggression and are considered culpable from that standpoint,” he said.
“Therefore, from the perspective of international law, we are in the right, but the reality is that in international politics, because power prevails over international law, I see no clear prospect for receiving compensation for the damages inflicted on our country, and such an outcome is not foreseeable under current conditions,” Aqaei said.
On the specific question of whether attacks on hospitals, schools, and civilian infrastructure constitute war crimes, Aqaei said the legal framework was unambiguous.
“Yes. We have a legal framework. The 1949 Geneva Conventions explicitly enumerate the instances of violations of the laws of war and the commission of war crimes,” he said.
“Therefore, if any of the parties to the conflict violates those principles, rules, and norms, including by attacking civilians, as was done at the Shajare Tayyebeh school in Minab, where they committed a grave war crime and killed 168 of our innocent students, that is a clear war crime,” Aqaei said.
He said attacks on other civilian centers and infrastructure fall under the same legal definition.
“Clearly, any state that attacks these centers and areas has committed a war crime, and these actions are legally actionable,” he said.
Earlier in the day, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei said Washington had effectively acknowledged its disregard for humanitarian law from the outset of its military campaign.
“The Americans officially admitted they would not abide by any of the rules of international humanitarian law,” Baqaei said at his Monday news conference.
“The US secretary of war, in the very first days of the military aggression against Iran, announced that they would not be bound by these foolish rules of combat,” he said.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols obligate all parties to an armed conflict to distinguish at all times between military and civilian targets, one of the most fundamental rules governing armed conflict.
Attacks on civilian centers, including hospitals, schools, public service infrastructure, and vital installations, are prohibited under those rules and may constitute both human rights violations and war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
Tehran has said it is documenting attacks on civilian infrastructure and intends to pursue the matter through legal and international channels.
4573**9417