The International Bar Association (IBA) and the IBA's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) condemn the escalation of the armed conflict around the Levant and Gulf region. The undersigned express grave concern about the serious and ongoing violations of international law and the United Nations Charter , as well as the risks posed to international peace and security. The IBA and the IBAHRI call for an immediate end to all hostilities and strict adherence to international law by all parties.
The calls follow military strikes between Israel, the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran that have triggered a widening regional confrontation affecting several states in the Gulf region.
The IBA and the IBAHRI recognise the government of Iran as a repressive regime that has long been the subject of well-documented human rights abuses carried out against its own people. International bodies and independent observers have repeatedly reported systematic violations by Iranian authorities, including: unlawful killings; torture and inhumane treatment; the repression of women and girls; the suppression of peaceful protest and freedom of expression; discrimination against minorities; the execution of political dissidents; and supporting armed proxy groups across the region.
This statement does not minimise the gravity of the above facts. The longstanding human rights concerns provide important context, but the question before the international community is whether the chosen remedy - that is, military strikes - is legal.
The present phase of the conflict began on 28 February 2026, when Israel and the US carried out a joint military offensive against Iran. The strikes were carried out without authorisation from the UN Security Council and without a publicly substantiated armed attack by Iran that would plainly trigger the right to self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter .
The prohibition on the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state - commonly referred to as forcible regime change - set out in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter is a cornerstone of the international legal order. The legality of the use of force cannot depend on the perceived character or legitimacy of the government targeted.
Israel and the US have sought to justify the strikes on grounds of self-defence, citing Iran's nuclear programme, repression of anti-government protestors and decades of proxy hostilities in the region. These justifications fail under rigorous legal scrutiny.
International law allows self-defence only in response to an armed attack. Any anticipatory use of force must meet a strict test of imminence - a threat that is 'instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation' - a standard derived from the Caroline incident of 1837. Military action taken to neutralise speculative or longer-term threats - often described as pre-emptive force - has no widely accepted basis in international law.
On 1 March 2026, Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and several states hosting US military bases in the Gulf region. The conflict has since expanded across multiple theatres including Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, raising fears of a wider regional war. To the extent that force has been directed at states not involved in the initial strikes, such actions also raise serious concerns under the prohibition on the use of force.
Civilian harm and potential war crimes
The human cost is already severe. According to reports from the Iranian Red Crescent Society more than 1,300 people have been killed in Iran following the initial strikes. This reportedly includes the more than 165 people killed in a strike on a girls' elementary school in Minab, where many of the victims were said to be children. Retaliatory attacks have also resulted in multiple civilian deaths and injuries across the region.
The undersigned note that all involved in the conflict are bound by the UN Charter and the applicable rules of international humanitarian law . The laws governing armed conflict, including the principles of necessity, distinction and proportionality impose fundamental obligations designed to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure. Attacks that fail to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, or that cause civilian harm that is disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage, are prohibited under international humanitarian law. Such attacks may constitute war crimes and should be subject to prompt, independent and impartial investigation, with those responsible held accountable in accordance with international law.
Communications shutdown - a violation of free expression
The ongoing near-total communications blackout, imposed by the Iranian authorities on 28 February 2026 within hours of the first Israeli and US air strikes, raises additional concerns under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects the right to freedom of expression and access to information. Further, as evacuation notices or strike warnings are often issued through digital platforms, civilians may have no reliable means of knowing whether they are in the path of an imminent strike or whether their loved ones are safe. Such restrictions will probably cause not only severe humanitarian and psychological consequences for the country's population of 90 million, but will also impede the documentation of human rights violations.
We call on the Iranian authorities to ensure that the present conflict is not used as a pretext to intensify repression under the guise of national security.
Call for immediate de-escalation and accountability
The IBA and the IBAHRI call for:
- an immediate cessation of unlawful uses of force by all parties;
- strict compliance by all parties with the UN Charter and international humanitarian and human rights law;
- independent investigations into alleged violations; and
- the urgent resumption of diplomatic negotiations.
Sustainable peace and security cannot be achieved through cycles of retaliation. They require adherence to international law, the protection of civilians, accountability for violations and genuine good faith diplomacy.
Claudio Visco, President, IBA
Dr Mark Ellis, Executive Director, IBA
Mark Stephens CBE, Co-Chair, IBAHRI
Hina Jilani, Co-Chair, IBAHRI
Baroness Helena Kennedy LT KC, Director, IBAHRI
- The International Bar Association (IBA), the global voice of the legal profession, is the foremost organisation for international legal practitioners, bar associations and law societies. Established in 1947, shortly after the creation of the United Nations , it was born out of the conviction that an organisation made up of the world's bar associations could contribute to global stability and peace through the administration of justice. The IBA has considerable expertise in providing assistance to the global legal community, and through its global membership, it influences the development of international law reform and helps to shape the future of the legal profession throughout the world.
- The International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI), established in 1995 under Founding Honorary President Nelson Mandela, is an autonomous entity working to promote, protect and enforce human rights under a just rule of law, and to preserve the independence of the judiciary and the legal profession worldwide.
