Double standards? Germany supports Israel’s violation of international law
by Bernd Müller
[This article posted on 6/14/2025 is translated from the German on the
According to experts, Israel’s attack on Iran is a clear violation of
international law. But Germany is backing the action. A commentary.
In recent years, it seemed that international law was a matter close
to the heart of the German government. Time and again, it has
demonstrated its commitment to international law and called for
compliance with international rules.
Germany’s commitment to international law: just empty words?
Former Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Green Party) even declared
international law to be one of Germany’s fundamental values. In the
foreword to the National Security Strategy, she wrote:
We will have to stand up even more strongly for our fundamental values
– for the principles of the United Nations Charter, human rights, and
international law.
Today, one day after Israel’s attack on nuclear facilities in Iran,
this apparently no longer applies. The German Foreign Ministry, now
led by a Christian Democrat, has unhesitatingly backed the military
strike, which lawyers have classified as a clear violation of
international law.
The former Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Mohamed El-Baradei, advised German diplomats to familiarize themselves
with the basic principles of international law. On X (formerly
Twitter), he wrote in response to the German Foreign Ministry’s
statement:
Has anyone told you that “targeted attacks on nuclear facilities” are
prohibited under Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva
Conventions, to which Germany is a signatory, and that the use of
force in international relations is prohibited under Article 2(4) of
the UN Charter, with the exception of the right to self-defense in the
event of an armed attack or after authorization by the Security
Council in the event of a collective security measure?
Advertisement
Experts agree: Israel’s attack violates international law
German law professor Kai Ambos also emphasized the violation of
international law in an interview with Spiegel Online. He added that a
preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear program would only be
permissible if an Iranian attack were imminent. He went on to say:
A preventive strike is only justified if it is, so to speak, the last
window of opportunity to prevent an attack. But even Netanyahu has
said that Iran is still months away from nuclear capability. And
negotiations are ongoing between the US and Iran. This attack by
Israel undermines these efforts and further destabilizes the region.
Other legal experts have expressed similar views, such as Gerhard
Mangott, professor of international relations at the University of
Innsbruck. On X, he writes that military strikes can be legal, but
only under certain conditions, which do not appear to have been met in
the current case.
Read also
Gas prices skyrocket: Are Germans footing the bill for Israel’s attacks?
Telepolis
Iran-Israel conflict causes oil prices to skyrocket: Is a mega oil
shock looming?
Telepolis
Nuclear threat: Netanyahu’s risky game with fire
Telepolis
Ahead of next round of negotiations: Israel launches major attack on
Iranian military facilities
Telepolis
Will the alliance with Israel break down over the Gaza war?
Telepolis
Preemptive military strikes are legal under customary international
law if the threat against which military action is taken is
“instant/imminent,” “overwhelming,” and there is “no time for
deliberation” and “no choice of means.”
If Iran were actually seeking to build a nuclear bomb, this would be a
serious violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. But Israel
cannot invoke this as justification for its military strikes, as it is
not a party to the treaty. He also sees no evidence that there was an
immediate threat to Israel. He writes:
Iran has so far enriched uranium to about 60 percent; that is not far
(even in terms of time) from weapons-grade uranium enrichment of about
90 percent. But producing weapons-grade uranium does not mean you have
a usable nuclear bomb. Nuclear experts believe that Iran could not
achieve this goal for up to a year.
Marko Milanovic, professor of international law at the University of
Reading, also addresses the issue in an essay. According to him, even
under a broad interpretation of international law, the Israeli attack
was illegal.
As long as Israel cannot present significantly more convincing
evidence than is currently available to the public, it cannot be
reasonably argued that Iran would immediately attack Israel or that
the use of force would be the only way to prevent such an attack.
In this respect, Germany’s solidarity with Israel is also on shaky
ground if Germany wants to continue to credibly invoke international
law.
Site Title 