United States

Page 2 of 11

Filter category

Feature post image

Use of third-state air bases by the United States in the conflict with Iran

The United States has used air bases located in third states in the armed conflict with Iran that began on 28 February 2026. Yet, the action of the United States in Iran may be qualified as aggression, given that neither the conditions of self-defense nor an authorization by the Security Council appear to be satisfied. Proceeding from that premise, this post will analyze the legal position of the third states whose bases the United States used or requested to use. It will show that the justifications provided by third-party states have varied. For example, Portugal, France, and the United Kingdom paid particular attention to the need to avoid assisting the United States in its offensive operations, as they justified the use of their bases as solely for “defensive purposes”. However, the law of neutrality has almost never been mentioned by any State granting or refusing access to the bases. A neutral State would abide by the law of neutrality without furnishing any military assistance. A non-belligerent State would assist…

Read more

Beyond the Blockaded Area: Interdicting Iranian Oil and the Limits of Existing Maritime Legal Frameworks

Recent efforts by the United States to interdict Iranian oil shipments in distant waters have extended well beyond the Persian Gulf. These operations have included the interception of tankers carrying Iranian oil—often operating under neutral flags—in areas such as the Indian Ocean, far from any declared blockaded zone. In at least some instances, so-called “sanctioned”…

Read more

Analysing Objections to the UN Declaration on the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans

On 25 March 2026, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted Resolution A/80/L.48 titled “Declaration on the Trafficking of Enslaved Africans and Racialised Chattel Enslavement of Africans as the Gravest Crime Against Humanity”. 123 UN member states voted in favour, 3 (the United States, Israel, and Argentina) voted against, and 52 abstained. The abstaining states included all…

Read more

Codifying Coercion: Iran’s “New Legal Regime” and the Law of International Straits

The Legal Novelty of the Proposal  International commentary on the Strait of Hormuz crisis has focused, understandably, on the lawfulness of Iran’s closure. The more legally significant development has received comparatively little analysis: Iran’s stated intention to revise the legal order governing it on a continuing basis. On April 5, Deputy Presidential Chief of Staff Mehdi Tabatabaei…

Read more

War, Neutrality and the UN Charter: State Practice in the Iran Conflict

Legal assessments of the ongoing Israel-US hostilities with Iran have thus far been largely characterized by a binary framework. Criticisms have focused on the manifest disregard for the UN Charter and the law governing self-defence. Supportive assessments have either contorted the Charter requirement of imminence beyond recognition—or simply looked past it…

Read more