By Dr. Ahmad Kazemi
Author, Researcher, and University Professor of International Law
The martyrdom of Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon and an irreplaceable resistance icon and a proud mujahid in the battlefield against the Zionist regime of Israel who was martyred in a terrorist strike by the Zionist regime on a civilian on civilian areas in the Lebanese Capital Beirut suburbs indicates the peak of inefficiency of the “global legal order.” The terrorist attack by the Israeli regime is part of a series of genocides perpetrated by the Zionist war machine in Palestine and Lebanon, with the participation of the United States and some Western countries. The issuance of an assassination order by the Prime Minister of Israel—recognized as a war criminal by all independent international lawyers—following a speech at the UN headquarters, is a bitter expression of the legal order established after World War II, which arose from the sorrow over the deaths of millions of people. This order was formed at the conferences of Dumbarton Oaks, Yalta, and San Francisco, and is symbolized by the 111-article charter of the United Nations. From the perspective of human dignity, international human rights, and international humanitarian law, the creation of treaty, procedural, and customary mechanisms for these rights constitutes the two main foundations of an order that promised international peace and security after World War II.
Those who view “international law” as opposed to the “reality of international relations” may consider it a real and even moralistic (ethical) experience. However, in general, the trajectory of strengthening international law continued to rise even after World War I. During the Cold War, despite the balance of terror between the Eastern and Western blocs, international human rights and humanitarian rights were never weakened to this extent. The Israeli regime, which emerged from British and American subversive plans in West Asia, has played a global role in undermining and destroying the legal order over the past 76 years. The unconditional support from the governments of the United States, England, and some Western nations for the crimes committed by this regime has dealt an irreparable blow to the fragile framework of international law.
The assassination of Martyr Seyed Hassan Nasrallah, a symbol and legend of Lebanese resistance, along with the targeting of civilians through airstrikes, has resulted in martyrdom and injuries to thousands of Lebanese during the initial weeks of the Zionist regime’s operations in Lebanon. This constitutes a gross violation of international human rights, including the right to life emphasized in the United Nations Charter. The United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regard deprivation of the right to life as unacceptable. The rampant state tyranny of this regime and its terror squads undermine international human rights.
From the perspective of international law, state terrorism and operations against civilians and civilian areas constitute gross violations of the Hague Rules, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional protocols, as well as numerous resolutions from the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly. The fundamental principles of humanitarian rights—such as the principle of distinction between civilians and combatants, the principle of necessity, and the principle of proportionality—have been repeatedly and deliberately violated by the brutal war machine of the Israeli regime.
According to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), the brutal actions in Palestine and Lebanon, including the assassination of leaders from Hamas and Hezbollah—who are part of the Lebanese government structure—along with the positions taken by Netanyahu and military commanders, constitute both material and spiritual elements of crimes, including war crimes and genocide. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, Netanyahu and the military chiefs should be treated as war criminals, tried, and punished in international courts. This sentiment has been emphasized repeatedly by public opinion around the world during anti-war demonstrations and in support of the resistance over the past year. However, the world is witnessing how the International Criminal Court (ICC) and its Attorney General, Karim Khan, have been influenced by the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel following a request for the “urgent detention” of Netanyahu and his regime. There were even proposals for the dissolution of this court. Ultimately, the prosecutor’s request to issue a verdict during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly was not realized, which contributed to the continuation of this regime and the escalation of its crimes.
On one hand, despite the fact that nearly a year has passed since South Africa filed a complaint on December 29, 2023, against this regime for violating the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and despite a temporary order issued to stop the regime’s crimes, this court has refused to implement these orders despite their legitimacy and support for this complaint. The Security Council, which according to paragraph 2 of Article 94 of the Charter is responsible for ensuring compliance with court decisions, has also taken no action. According to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is tasked with maintaining international security and must act against threats to peace and acts of aggression. Yet, during one year of the Israeli regime’s brutal genocide in Palestine and its extension into Lebanon, it has failed to issue even a resolution to stop the genocide or protect human and humanitarian rights. The Security Council has also been unable to halt American crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, as well as the wars in Yemen and other countries.
In a legal system dominated by NATO and the so-called “Global North,” few countries—aside from those in the axis of resistance—dare to exercise their right of “universal jurisdiction” to prosecute international criminals. It is not without reason that part of the speeches and demands made by heads of state during the 79th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York focused on the need to review the structure of the United Nations, the Security Council, and the veto power. Most countries recognize the impasse in the international legal order.
The brutality of the Israeli regime’s attacks on Lebanon and Yemen, along with the assassination of the popular icon of the axis of resistance—is a stark indication of the desperation of the existing “world legal order” and its impending “death.” Currently, this order serves as an ineffective legal restraint against state terrorism perpetrated by the Zionist regime.
The future of humanity requires the reconstruction of the “global legal order,” which must be built upon the sacrifices of martyrs like Seyed Hassan Nasrallah and his fellow martyrs, stemming from the historical battle between the “axis of resistance” and the “axis of genocide.” The United States will confront the BRICS countries and the so-called “global south,” alongside the G7 group, in the transition to a new world order. Instead of the “New Order” desired by Zionism, a new Nuremberg tribunal will be established to hold accountable those responsible for genocide.
Finally, in this crisis of the legal order, where the child-killing prime minister of the Zionist regime openly threatens Iran’s military at UN headquarters, issues orders for assassinations and killings, and maintains a vital fuel supply for the Zionist regime from Baku, there is an ongoing operation to create a military arsenal and depot of heavy offensive weapons sent by the Israeli regime to the Republic of Azerbaijan near Iran’s borders. This situation necessitates a serious revision of Iran’s defense doctrine, particularly in the nuclear field, and a conclusion to strategic patience against the hostile actions of certain Zionist regimes in the region—an issue that holds legitimacy, validity, and necessity from a legal perspective.
Leave A Comment