Let’s first start with the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran. Under Article 94 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, the Security Council has the authority to enforce International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) decisions. The ICJ can take a range of measures to ensure compliance, including economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and the use of military force. The territorial jurisdiction of the ICJ is fairly broad, as it can deal with matters relating to any of the UN member states, which essentially means almost all the countries in the world. The ICJ, however, can only entertain cases where states appear before it. It should be noted that the ICJ has no enforcement powers. However, if states don’t comply, the Security Council, the organ of the UN primarily responsible for maintaining peace and security, may take action. This means that the ICJ is more or less toothless as it requires unanimous agreement by Security Council members to take action, something inevitably impossible in this case given the U.S. is a Council member.
Then one has the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is a criminal tribunal that can prosecute individuals. The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the ICC. It has never ratified the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that created the court, and U.S. federal law actively prohibits most forms of cooperation with it. As of 2026, the relationship apparently grew even more adversarial, with the current U.S. administration re-imposing economic sanctions on ICC personnel and declaring the court’s actions an “extraordinary threat” to national security. American officials have consistently argued that the U.S. military justice system is capable of investigating and prosecuting misconduct by its own personnel, thus making ICC involvement unnecessary. In short, the U.S. ignores ICC deliberations except when the U.S. selectively cooperates with the Court in investigations targeting foreign leaders the U.S. also opposes.
Next, one has to deal with recent U.S.military strikes against vessels off the coasts of Latin America, most notably that of Venezuela. One could consider the American actions as being questionable given International Law of the Sea. According to the 1982 convention on International Law of the Sea (in effect since 1994), each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of what is referred to as innocent passage through this zone. The Law of the Sea also applies to territorial waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, used for international navigation. The navigational rights of foreign shipping are strengthened by the replacement of the regime of innocent passage by one of transit passage, which places fewer restrictions on foreign ships. Moreover, Iran by threatening the safe passage of ships through the Strait is in violation of international law. However, the recent declaration of a naval blockade of the Strait by the Trump administration could also be determined to be illegal. The matter could be referred to the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for compulsory settlement, by arbitration, or by the ICJ. However, once again, resort to these compulsory procedures has been quite limited in the past.
All said and done, none of these bodies would appear to be in a position to rule on the current conflict between the U.S.and Iran. Through its overt aggression, the U.S.has thrown international law out the window. However, should the U.S. decide to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran (e.g. energy, bridges, water desalination, etc.), as threatened by Trump, those American military leaders who proceed to carry out such attacks could be held responsible by the ICC as being complicit in such attacks. Consequently, they could be deemed to be “war criminals” under international law. From a purely political viewpoint, the damage to the America’s image internationally would be devastating.
The actions of the U.S. will no doubt continue to be closely scrutinized by world leaders during this conflict. Certain countries, such as China and Russia in particular, will take full advantage of the situation in their foreign policy. Any attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran would most likely lead to a major humanitarian disaster. How the American people further react to this war, time will only tell?
FROLITICKS 