Legal Classification of the Attack as an "Act of Aggression" The panelists unanimously classified the military operations executed against Iran on February 28, 2026, as a clear and manifest "crime of aggression." This action constitutes a gross violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which strictly prohibits both the use of force and the threat of force. Illegality of Stated Objectives: The U.S. justified its operation on three grounds: preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, destroying Iran’s missile program, and neutralizing its naval and security infrastructure. Jurists emphasized that none of these objectives hold any legal validity or provide a legitimate basis for the use of force under international law. Rejection of "Self-Defense" Claims: Arguments claiming individual or collective self-defense (in support of Israel) were thoroughly debunked. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, self-defense requires a prior "armed attack," which was non-existent. Furthermore, Israel had filed no formal request for collective defense in the official U.S. briefs to the UN Security Council. Rejection of "Ongoing Conflict" Pretext: The U.S. claimed the strike was merely a continuation of an armed conflict active since June 2025. Experts rejected this, noting that active diplomatic negotiations were underway right before February 28, meaning no active hostilities legally justified a "continuous conflict" framework. The Legal Status of the Strait of Hormuz and Iranian Sovereignty   The webinar dedicated significant analysis to the maritime and territorial legal framework governing the Strait of Hormuz, establishing a hierarchy where the prohibition of the use of force supersedes general law of the sea provisions: Absence of International Waters: The entire Strait of Hormuz lies strictly within the territorial waters of Iran and Oman; legally, there is no "high seas" zone in this sector. Non-Recognition of Transit Passage: Because Iran is not a party to the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), it does not recognize "transit passage" as a binding rule of customary international law. Wartime Regulatory Rights: Under customary international law and the San Remo Manual, wartime conditions fundamentally alter straits management. Iran, as the primary coastal state, possesses the legitimate right to implement security, environmental, and traffic control regulations over all vessels—including commercial ships—to safeguard its national security. This does not inherently contradict freedom of navigation but adapts it to defensive necessities caused by a fundamental change of circumstances. Responsibility of Host States and Partners in Aggression The panelists challenged the use of the term "third states" for regional countries hosting foreign military infrastructure: Complicity under UN Resolution 3314: According to UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, any state that places its territory or military bases at the disposal of another state to perpetrate an attack is legally a co-perpetrator and accomplice to aggression. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof rests on these host nations to demonstrate that bases on their soil were not utilized in the attacks against Iran. Despite their complicity, Iran’s military response was noted to be highly precise, limiting its retaliation strictly to the specific hostile bases involved. The Erosion of Global Rule of Law and International Inaction The opening remarks highlighted a shift from a lack of legal rules to a "crisis of legalism" driven by major powers. Western Double Standards: Speakers criticized Western diplomatic bodies for disproportionately inflating Iran’s defensive responses while remaining silent on blatant violations, such as threats of assassination directed at Iranian diplomatic negotiators. This asymmetrical application of international law sets a highly dangerous precedent. The Decline of European Autonomy: Europe’s silence regarding unilateral U.S. actions and the ongoing genocide in Gaza has severely compromised its standing, reducing its capacity to act as an independent, rule-abiding global actor. Conclusion and Call to Action The seminar concluded with a stark warning to the international community. As affirmed by the International Law Commission in 2022, the prohibition of aggression is a peremptory norm (Jus Cogens) that creates erga omnes obligations—meaning all states have a legal duty to refuse recognition of the consequences of such aggression and to actively condemn it. The systemic paralysis of the UN Security Council, caused by the direct involvement of one of its permanent members, legitimizes Iran’s right to proportional self-defense and maritime management under Article 51. The experts warned that international silence today creates a dangerous blueprint for the violation of any sovereign state tomorrow. Consequently, standing against this aggression is a collective defense of the entire international legal order. *The complete video is available at https://www.youtube.com/live/syux6bf5Ams?si=iSy1wfaEdZ0KM2AD