Tag: US

Over 100 International Law Experts Warn: U.S. Strikes on Iran Violate UN Charter and May Be War Crimes

Posted on By Admin

The United States and Israel initiated strikes on Iran over one month ago, on February 28, 2026. The attack was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter. The conduct of the war, and statements of U.S. officials, also raise serious concerns about violations of international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes. We have written the below statement together with over 100 U.S.-based international law experts, to detail our profound concerns about the war. The letter is signed by international law experts across the United States, including senior professors; leaders of prominent international law associations, non-governmental organizations, and legal clinics; former government legal advisors; and military law experts and former Judge Advocates General (JAGs).

We, the undersigned U.S.-based international law experts, professors, and practitioners write to express profound concern about serious violations of international law and alarming rhetoric by the United States, Israel, and Iran in the present armed conflict in the Middle East.

Due to our connection to the United States, our focus here is on the conduct of the U.S. government, but we remain concerned about the risk of atrocities across the region including the continuing risks posed by the Iranian government to Iranians through violent crackdowns on dissent, and to civilians across the Middle East through Iran’s ongoing unlawful strikes on civilian infrastructure using explosive weapons in densely populated areas.

One month has passed since the United States and Israel launched strikes across Iran. The initiation of the campaign was a clear violation of the United Nations Charter, and the conduct of United States forces since, as well as statements made by senior government officials, raise serious concerns about violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including potential war crimes.

We collectively affirm the importance of equal application of international law to all, including countries that hold themselves out as global leaders. Recent statements from senior U.S. government officials describing the rules governing military engagement as “stupid” and prioritizing “lethality” over “legality” are profoundly alarming and dangerously short-sighted. These claims, particularly in combination with the observable conduct of U.S. forces, are harming the international legal order and the system of international law that we have devoted our lives to promoting.

The war, which is costing U.S. taxpayers between $1-2 billion each day, is imposing significant harm to civilians in the region, has resulted in the loss of hundreds of civilian lives across the Middle East, and is causing serious environmental and economic harms.

We write to express our concern about 1) jus ad bellum, or the decision to go to war, 2) jus in bello, or the conduct of hostilities, 3) rhetoric and threats from senior U.S. officials and their allies, which portend further abuses, and 4) the decimation of civilian harm mitigation structures within the U.S. government as a part of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s “gloves off” approach to warfare.

  1. Jus ad bellum concerns: The strikes launched by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026 clearly violated the United Nations Charter prohibition on the use of force. Force against another state is only permittedin self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack or where authorized by the UN Security Council. The Security Council did not authorize the attack. Iran did not attack Israel or the United States. Despite the Trump administration’s varied and sometimes conflicting claimsto the contrary, there is no evidence that Iran posed an imminent threat that could ground a self-defense claim. Many international law experts have concluded that Israel and the United States’ actions violate the UN Charter, including the President and President-elect of the American Society of International Law, and the President of the American Branch of the International Law Association; UN Secretary-General António Guterres also condemned the attacks as undermining international peace and security.
  2. Concerns about violations of international humanitarian law: The laws of armed conflict constrain the conduct of hostilities of all parties to the ongoing conflict. We are concerned that these fundamental rules may have been violated, including in the context of reported strikes on civilians and civilian objects such as political leaders who have no military role, oil and gas infrastructure, including South Pars, and water desalinationplants. On March 19, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemnedstrikes on energy infrastructure, noting their “disastrous” impacts for civilians.

We are seriously concerned about strikes that have hit schools, health facilities, and homes. The Iranian Red Crescent reports that “67,414 civilian sites have been struck, of which 498 are schools and 236 health facilities.” A report by leading civil society organizations found that at least 1,443 Iranian civilians, including 217 children, were killed by U.S. and Israeli forces between February 28 and March 23.

The strike on Minab primary school is particularly concerning. On February 28, Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Iran, was struck, resulting in the deaths of at least 175 people, many of them children, according to Iranian officials. Based on easily accessible online information and commercially available satellite imagery, it appears the building had been used as a school for a decade. President Trump denied U.S. responsibility, falsely stating that “It was done by Iran.” However, a preliminary investigation by the Department of Defense reportedly determined that the U.S. conducted the strike, and the targeting had been based on outdated intelligence. The strike likely violates international humanitarian law, and if evidence is found that those responsible were reckless, it could also be a war crime. The strike is among the deadliest single attacks by the U.S. military on civilians in recent decades.

  1. Concerns about rhetoric and threats from senior officials. We are deeply concerned about the dangerous rhetoric government officials have engaged in during the war, including:
  2. Threatened denial of quarter: On March 13, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stated“We will keep pushing, keep advancing, no quarter, no mercy for our enemies.” In international law, it is “especially forbidden” to “declare that no quarter will be given,” a prohibitionalso set out in the Department of Defense’s own law of war manual. Hegseth’s statement likely violates international humanitarian law as well as the U.S. War Crimes statute 18 U.S.C. 2441. Ordering or threatening no quarter is a war crime.
  3. Dismissal of rules of engagement and international law: Secretary of Defense Hegseth’s “no quarter” statement followed similarly alarming statements by the Secretary, including on September 25, 2025and March 2, 2026that the U.S. does not fight with “stupid rules of engagement.” On January 8, 2026 President Trump had made the disturbing comment that “I don’t need international law.” On March 13, he stated that the U.S. may conduct strikes on Iran “just for fun.”
  4. Threats on energy infrastructure: President Trump threatenedon March 13, 2026: “I could take out things within the next hour, power plants that create the electricity, that create the water… We could do things that would be so bad they could literally never rebuild as a nation again.” International law protects from attack objects indispensable to the survival of civilians, and the attacks threatened by Trump, if implemented, could entail war crimes. On March 21, President Trump further threatenedto “obliterate” power plants in Iran. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mike Waltz, defended power plant attacks the next day, and also said that striking nuclear power plants was not off the table. It is prohibited to attack civilian energy infrastructure. If a power plant has both civilian and military purposes (“dual-use”), it may be considered a military objective where it makes “an effective contribution to military action” and the attack “offers a definite military advantage.” However, any strike must respect the principles of proportionality and precautions in attack. The proportionality principle prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the military advantage. The civilian harm to be considered includes foreseeable reverberating or indirect harm. In any attack, “all feasible precautions” must be taken to avoid civilian harm.

Attacks on nuclear power plants, even if they have a military purpose, require particular care because of the high risk of releasing radiation and radioactive material and consequent severe harm to the civilian population. Such a strike could harm the health and safety of millions of civilians.  On March 23, 2026, the ICRC President Mirjana Spoljaric Egger expressed her deep concern, noting that “War on essential infrastructure is war on civilians” and described threats to nuclear power plants as “Most alarming.”

  1. Concerns about institutional safeguards against further violations: Since the start of the second Trump administration, the Defense Department under Secretary Hegseth has deliberately and systematically weakenedthe protections meant to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law. This includes removing senior military lawyers without publicly citing misconduct, and replacing the Army, Navy, and Air Force judge advocates general, directly undermining legal oversight of combat operations. It has also abolished “civilian environment teams” and other mechanisms specifically designed to limit harm to civilians during operations. The 2026 National Defense Strategy omits references to civilian protection and international law entirely. These changes are especially concerning in light of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s comments that rules of engagement interfere with “fighting to win.”

We are gravely concerned that the conduct and threats outlined here are causing serious harm to civilians in the Middle East, and that they also contribute to escalating the conflict, damaging the environment and the global economy, and that they risk degrading the rule of law and fundamental norms that protect every nation’s civilians. Public statements by senior officials indicate an alarming disrespect for the rules of international humanitarian law accepted by states, and which protect both civilians and members of the armed forces.

We urge U.S. government officials to uphold the UN Charter, international humanitarian law, and human rights law at all times, and to publicly make clear U.S. commitment to and respect for norms of international law.

We remind all states of their legal obligations not to aid or assist the United States, Israel, or Iran in the commission of internationally wrongful acts, as well as to cooperate to bring to an end through lawful means serious breaches of peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens) including the prohibition of aggression and the basic rules of international humanitarian law.

We also urge the U.S. governments’ allies and cooperating partners to take steps to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, in line with Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions and associated customary international law. The United States has itself acknowledged that states should seek to promote adherence by others to international humanitarian law. The International Committee of the Red Cross 2016 Commentary on the First Geneva Convention of 1949 provides that a state is “in a unique position to influence the behavior” of partner states where the state “participates in the financing, equipping, arming or training of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict, even plans, carries out and debriefs operations jointly with such forces.”

Source: Just Security

This is not the time for Secretary Rubio to act as he is when it comes to Taiwan

Posted on By Joshua Kingdom

In showing public support for Taiwan during his recent visit to Guatemala contrary to a promise made to Foreign Minister Wang Yi earlier this month, United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio played a card that is now but too common i.e. US officials saying one thing in private, and doing another when the cameras are on in regards to this question– declassified 1982 communications thus show President Reagan’s team secretly undermining the 3rd joint communiqué on the island almost the instant that it was signed.

To understand the motivation behind conduct like this, we can take to the aid of history and what we quickly find, is that the US was never on board with the idea of a Taiwan that is subordinate to mainland China to begin with. It is just that the international consensus strongly sided with Beijing such that America could not do anything about it. Additionally, Dr. Henry Kissinger who was Washington’s chief diplomat at the time recognized that having China’s back was key for both the prevailing Cold war as well as future business given her rising economy.

As USA’s perception of China changed overtime from trading partner to what most hawkish politicians at the Capitol Hill now call a threat, the country’s masked Taipei sentiments inevitably came to the fore. That is not the worst part though (I mean, countries do not always agree) but rather the fact that the United States is willing to act on the same in direct violation of international law.

With the passing of Resolution 2758 by the United Nations General Assembly, supporting Taipei secessionist forces is out rightly illegal. This instrument did not only revoke the membership of the “Republic of China” to the United Nations and sister organizations replacing it with the People’s Republic of China, but also obliged all countries party to the UN Charter, among them the US, to only recognize the latter government in their diplomatic missions (a declaration that has come to be known as the One-China principle).

Indeed, as the spokesperson for the Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council Zhu Fenglian recently pointed out, as many as 183 nations have gone on to implement the said principle. Moreover, One-China is not a ghost that the Communist Party of China (CPC) is trying to awaken. The United Nations Secretary General has expressed support for it as recent as 2022. Leaders of more than 170 of the 183 countries mentioned earlier reaffirmed their commitment to this way of doing things too not long ago.

A specific recurring way in which the United States of America has put herself first despite the stipulations of legal norms, is passing domestic laws that rescind her duties to China under the global order. Take the case of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act which effectively kneecapped all progress that President Jimmy Carter had made with the 2nd joint communiqué. Behaviour like this contravenes the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Any country going against this should be condemned and called to order!

Amazingly, China does not demand that Washington cut all her ties with Taiwan. Going by the communiqués, the two can still connect through trade and cultural initiatives to mention but a few of the exemption clauses. Insisting on having her way is therefore a wanton disregard for the rule of law by USA as it is bullish there serving to undermine a major pillar of international relations; comradely.

“Why should Mr. Rubio care now (after the US has gotten away with all these misgivings)?” you might ask. Well, there are a couple of reasons. Firstly, China is far different from what it was during Nixon’s time. As it stands, the country is among USA’s top three trading partners as well as lenders.

It would also serve Sino-USA relations well if President Trump’s administration took a path of de-escalation for its Taiwan policy given that this deludes the separatists in Taipe.

But assuming that all this analysis misreads the moment, and that Marco Rubio actually has no intention of antagonizing the China’s handling of her internal affair especially the issue of its inalianable Island – Taiwan, he still ought to conduct himself in a more responsible manner. Surely, he above all people know that remarks like his most recent will play in the hands of forces opposed to the Chinese establishment, rule based worold order and more importantly, international laws!

There is also the argument that explains Secretary of State’s style as reducible to advancement of his nation’s best interests in which case he should think twice before provoking a power of China’s military capabilities into war. We saw hints of this when in 2022 then House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to provke Beijing and traveled to Taipei in show of what she called solidarity for the government there. China did not hesitate to carry out retaliatory drills.

The writer is a research fellow at the Development Watch Centre.

 

Sino-Africa Relations and USA’s Compete Act: US Should Emulate China’s Principle of Mutual Respect.

Posted on By Admin

By Allawi Ssemanda and Alan Collins Mpewo.

Last week, the United States of America (US) House of Representatives passed an act introducing strong measures to counter what they described as China’s growing relations with African Countries. In the Act entitled “America Competes Act of 2022,” US law makers passed six sections all seeking to counter or undermine China-Africa relations. The subtitle of the Act is also telling: “America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence, in Technology, and Economic Strength (America Competes) Act of 2022.”  If implemented, this act will see US using Africa based Civil Society organisations, US Global Media Agencies, organisations like Young African Leaders Initiative, USAID, and Mandela Washington Fellowship among others to undermine China’s development cooperation with Africa while promoting US’ primarily to promote Washington’s “Strategic interests in Africa.”

All the above should make us pause some questions such as; where does America Competes Act of 2022 leave African countries’ ambitious infrastructure and other developmental projects?  Is this Act meant to promote African countries interests and independence or America’s? Isn’t this Act against principles of respecting sovereign states legitime interests?

If critically analysed, America Competes Act of 2022 has no interest in promoting Africa’s interests or goals. The Act’s main focus is to weaken China-Africa cooperation and promote US’ “strategic interests” on the continent. Put differently, the Act is meant to help Washington revive its dying hegemony in Africa. The unfortunate part with this is that, it is not the US to miss out but Africa.

For example, section 30271 of America Competes Act of 2022 shows that its main objective is not helping African countries but rather to know how China’s projects and cooperation with African countries is impacting “US’ strategic interests.” The Act directs US secretary of state to submit a report which will guide Congress to counter Sino-Africa cooperation.

Further, section 30276 recommended amendment of “the Electrify Africa Act of 2015 by expanding the statement of U.S policy to include advancing U.S foreign policy.” In other words, US’ house of Representatives wants US’ Electrify Africa Act of 2015 amended to include provisions that promote US’ foreign policy interests in Africa at the expense of African countries. Further, the same section talks of encouraging export of US energy resources that benefits US’ interests stating that the US is committed to “helping facilitate the export of U.S. energy resources, technology, and expertise to global markets in a way that benefits the energy security of U.S.”

While it is true that all countries world over act in their own interests, aware that relationship between China and African countries are guided by China’s philosophy of mutual respect and working for a shared future, one can confidently say US’ Competes Act of 2022 whose intent is undermining Sino-Africa relations in favor of Washington’s strategic interests will largely affect African countries whose partnership with China has been praised for addressing Africa’s challenges especially infrastructure sector.

For example, the action plan for the year 2022-2024 produced from November 2021 Forum on China-Africa Co-operation (FOCAC) ministerial conference held Senegal, China renewed her commitment to continue supporting African countries development efforts. Indeed, this Action Plan details how China and African countries will co-operate in the next three years with clear details of projects to be supported through a generated consensus which reflects China’s relationship with African countries – mutual respect and the partnership of equals unlike US’ America Competes Act of 2022 passed by American law makers with no single input of African countries.

 While FOCAC’s 2022-2024 action plan offered a package of $40 billion financial commitments of which $10 billion will be invested in specific sectors, namely; manufacturing industries, agriculture and digital economy which is a big step in empowering African countries and creating China-Africa Community with a shared future, section 30273 of US’ Competes Act requires US president to “establish an interagency Working Group, which shall include representatives of the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other agencies…on means to counter Chinese” digital cooperation with Africa. Today, it is an open secret that technology is way to go and China has been building this capacity in a number of African countries Uganda inclusive. Therefore, any country that seeks to derail African countries or divert them from this as US’ Competes Act of 2022 seeks to do is an enemy of the continent.

Also, while section 30272 of US’ Competes Act of 2022 “requires that the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the U.S. Trade Representative, the USAID Administrator, and the leadership of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation submit to Congress a report setting forth a multi-year strategy for increasing,” through FOCAC’s 2022-2024 action plan, China has already earmarked $10 of her International Monterey Fund (IMF) drawing rights share to assist development in African countries. Also earmarked is $10 billion will go to supporting trade with aim of boosting African countries exports to China a development expected to increase volume of China’s imports from African countries to a whopping $300 billion while $10 billion has been set aside to facilitate credit lines to African financial institutions to be accessed by several African countries.

If critically analysed, the entire part 4 of Subtitle D of this act does not only seek to promote US’ interests but also seeks to broadly curtail African countries choice on which country to associate with. Put differently, US house of representative meet and passed a law that will covertly decide for African countries who their development partner(s) should be! Even if Washington sugarcoats their act with diplomatic words to make it look pro-Africa, the act is largely political, seeks to expand their geopolitical calculations and in light of principle of State Sovereignty of these African countries, it is against the values of sovereign states.

On contrary, China’s relations with Africa remain bold as they are founded on a principle of mutual respect, mutual benefits and not outright imperialism or ‘ally and master’ like the West’s. It’s arguably clear that China remains resolute to respect State Autonomy and Sovereignty of her African counterparts as the two sides and the U.S should learn from that development in rethinking its mode of presence in Africa.

This principle has been greatly yielding for both China and Africa in context of mutual benefits. Trade, infrastructure, energy, to state the least have a long list of achievements that have emerged from this foundational cornerstone in the few decades China has been actively present in Africa. In fact, new participants in this yielding phenomenon on the African continent have emerged by taking examples of their counterparts, key players involved in the diplomatic relations. But now with the passing of the Competes Act of 2022 by the U.S, a question stands out! How will African countries standout by the time the U.S achieves its intended goals? Africa deserves respect of its independence. Africa deserves relations of mutual respect with whoever its countries choose to engage on the global stage of diplomacy. I think it is high time the US dropped her stance against Sino-Africa relations and join China and Africa in creating a China-US-Africa Community with a shared future and benefits. Dominance is a thing of past!

Allawi Ssemanda and Alan Collins Mpewo are research fellows at Development Watch Centre, a foreign policy think