Trump's Iran war conduct sets dangerous international law precedent, says article

Perth,UPDATED: Aug 28, 2026 14:46 IST

An article published by The Conversation on August 28 said the Trump administration has repeatedly acted as if it is above international law, including by claiming such law does not apply to the United States and by imposing sanctions on officials of the Criminal Court (ICC). The article said this approach was setting a dangerous precedent.

It said the US and Israel began a war against Iran six months ago in what legal scholars described as a clear violation of international law, citing Article 2 of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use or threat of force. It added that the conduct of the war since then had also come under scrutiny and said actions in Iran must be monitored, investigated and prosecuted if the evidence warrants it.

The article said the body of law governing armed conflict is known as international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, and is meant to limit the means and methods of warfare to prevent suffering among combatants and civilians. It said many, though not all, violations amount to war crimes. It also said the law draws a clear distinction between civilians and combatants, and between civilian and military objects, and prohibits attacks on civilians and civilian objects such as schools, hospitals, bridges, power plants, agricultural infrastructure, dams and water treatment plants.

According to the article, militaries must take "all feasible precautions" to minimise civilian deaths, injuries and damage to civilian objects, including verifying that targets are military objectives. It said a "dual-use" object can be treated as a military target only if it makes "an effective contribution to military action" and attacking it offers a "definite military advantage". Even then, it said, an attack is prohibited if it would cause disproportionate damage to civilians. The article gave the example of a bridge, saying that although it could have a military use, damage to it could severely affect civilians and a strike on it would likely amount to a war crime. It added that if there is any doubt, a site should be presumed to be a protected civilian object.

The article said US President Donald Trump had repeatedly threatened to destroy bridges, power plants, oil wells and desalination plants, and had also threatened to destroy Iran's entire civilisation. It said Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth had argued for fighting wars without legal constraints, referring to what he called "stupid rules of engagement". The article also cited Hegseth as saying there would be "no quarter, no mercy for our enemies", and said ordering denial of quarter is expressly prohibited under the laws of war and amounts to a war crime.

Turning to specific incidents, the article said a girls' primary school in the southern town of Minab was bombed on the opening day of the war. It said the strike took place on a Saturday morning, a school day for Iranian children, and at least 156 people were killed, including 120 children. The article said a school is unquestionably a civilian object and, with teachers and students present, the attack was also on civilians, making it unlawful on its face.

It said evidence collected after the strike suggested a guided Tomahawk missile was used and noted that the US has such missiles in its arsenal while Iran does not. The article said the school was next to buildings of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which were also hit, and this could suggest mistaken targeting. It added that the Trump administration had not accepted responsibility, though an initial US assessment found US forces were "likely" behind the bombing and cited outdated targeting information. The article said the US had apparently still not carried out a comprehensive intelligence assessment or released its full investigation. It added that while Washington could argue the school was hit by mistake while targeting IRGC buildings, it appeared likely that legally required precautions and target verification had not been taken.

The article also referred to strikes on water facilities. It said two water storage reservoirs near the Strait of Hormuz were damaged in June and that they supplied water to 20,000 civilians. It said it was unclear whether the US had intentionally struck the reservoirs, but added that independent experts described the weapon as a precision-guided bomb and said the remoteness of the facilities pointed to a precision strike. The article said desalination plants had also been targeted by both the US and Iran during the war. It described desalination plants and water storage facilities as essential to supplying fresh water to civilians and said attacks on them were especially serious in an arid region that often faces water shortages. Such attacks, it said, would amount to war crimes because they severely affect access to water.

On accountability, the article said the ICC has no jurisdiction over the war because neither the US nor Iran is a party to the court. It said that leaves open the possibility of another country investigating and prosecuting individuals in its own domestic courts, but added that such cases are complex and politically unlikely because they could require Americans to be tried abroad. The article concluded that full investigations and prosecutions over military actions in the war should take place in both the US and Iran, saying the issue goes to the heart of accountability for possible war crimes and the wider effort to deter future violations.

With PTI Inputs

- Ends