Bolton’s Anti-Iran Remarks: From a Legal P.O.V

According to Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), member states should guarantee the peaceful nature of their nuclear activities and cooperate in the same field with those states that do not possess nuclear weapons. Implication: not only must the peaceful-use nuclear facilities not be attacked, but any threats against these sites must also be removed by nuclear weapon-wielding members of the NPT.

Thus, as far as international law is concerned, making any threats or actually using force against peaceful nuclear facilities is against the law, and if a state official utters such a threat, the case can be pursued in international courts. As such, no US official has taken such an unambiguous stance to date. What Bolton has stated is his personal view, in the media, so he or the state cannot be legally sued.

Based on international law, using force against another state should take place under at least one of the following conditions: based as a legitimate defensive response, or according to a UN Security Council resolution. Nonetheless, since the end of the Second World War and the drawing up of the UN Charter, the world has not witnessed even one war-free year. International law theoretically bans atrocity, but reality is a very a different thing. The gap between the law and the reality is one of the serious defects of the international community. Force appears to rule when it comes to using illegal rationale for war.