Dr. Ahmad Kazemi, professor of international law at the university, stated at the conference “The Ramadan War in the Mirror of International Law,” while explaining the dimensions of UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 on the Definition of Aggression (1974): “The permission given by some Arab governments of the Persian Gulf for the United States and the Israeli regime to attack Iran during the Third Imposed War constitutes an act of aggression under the Definition of Aggression Resolution. This is because paragraph 6 of Article 3 of this resolution explicitly states that the act of a State allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State qualifies as aggression and constitutes the commission of aggression by the territorial State. For this reason, Tehran correctly emphasized during the Third Imposed War that attacks on military bases and enemy infrastructure in Arab countries would continue as long as the US and the Israeli regime used the soil of those countries to launch attacks against Iran.”

The university professor of international law also noted the importance of this resolution, which was adopted after fifty years of opposition by major powers, particularly the US and the UK, since the time of the League of Nations to define aggression. He added: “From the perspective of this resolution, the naval blockade of a country is considered a military operation and differs from sanctions. This is because the resolution in paragraph 3 of Article 3 explicitly states that the blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State constitutes an act of military aggression, which creates the right to self-defense for the blockaded State. Moreover, this US action qualifies as the crime of aggression, which was adopted at the 2010 Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in Kampala, Uganda, and based on that, aggression is considered a war crime.”

Dr. Kazemi noted that one of the legal effects of aggression under the Definition of Aggression Resolution is the responsibility of States and individuals, and the illegality of any benefit arising from aggression or occupation. He added: “Iran’s demand to the United Nations for compensation from the aggressors and some Arab countries is consistent with this resolution, whose principles have become customary and are binding on all countries.”

The university professor of international law also referred to doctrines arising from the expansive interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, including the doctrine of preemptive self-defense and the doctrine of preventive self-defense. He added: “These doctrines have no place in customary or treaty international law and constitute an abuse of Article 51 of the Charter to justify aggressive acts.”

He further stated: “The doctrine of preemptive self-defense is invoked in response to an imminent and immediate attack based on solid evidence and specific circumstances. The doctrine of preventive self-defense is invoked against a probable or imminent threat. Such an approach provides grounds for abuse by aggressors. Because under Article 2 of the Definition of Aggression Resolution, the first use of armed force by a State on the pretext of an imminent attack or as a preventive attack is inconsistent with the UN Charter and constitutes prima facie evidence of an act of aggression. At the same time, even by the admission of some American legal and political figures, there was no imminent threat or plan for an immediate and definitive attack by Iran against the United States. Therefore, even the US’s recourse to these doctrines is unjustified.”

Explaining the reasons for coordinated efforts by the US and its allies to intensify human rights cases against Iran in international forums and portray Iran as a gross violator of human rights, Dr. Kazemi added: “Their goal is to lay the groundwork to justify their attacks on Iran under the guise of the doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the responsibility to protect. However, their negative human rights record, the most recent example of which is the grim case of Jeffrey Epstein and the war crime at the Shajareh Tayyibeh School in Minab, shows that they lack the competence to express opinions on human rights.”

It is worth mentioning that the conference “Aggression, Defense, and the Boundaries of Legitimacy,” held as part of the series of roundtable discussions on “The Ramadan War in the Mirror of International Law,” was organized by the Office of Professors’ Roundtable of Islamic Azad University, Tehran Province.