The courageous protests in Iran and the killing of countless Iranians by the regime demonstrate how strong the desire for freedom, rule of law, and political self-determination is. This reality must neither be relativized nor instrumentalized.
The question inevitably arises: Do grave human rights violations change the legal assessment of a war of aggression under international law? The historical record of forced regime change provides a definitive answer. Regime changes imposed from abroad, particularly when attempted solely through airstrikes, create neither rule of law nor stable institutional frameworks. Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (2003), Libya (2011): the facts speak for themselves.
The attack by the United States and Israel on Iran is unlawful under international law and constitutes an act of aggression. There is no evidence of an imminent armed attack that would justify self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
International law cannot be applied selectively. The prohibition on the use of force does not merely protect statehood statehood in the abstract, but also protects individual societies, populations, political self-determination, and civilian life. An order which condemns breaches of law some places and downplays them in othersis not a rules-based order. It is instead a system of power-political double standards. Such practice undermines not only the law itself but also any credible invocation of international law—whether in Ukraine, in Greenland, or elsewhere.
When German Chancellor Merz declares thatinternational law “achieves nothing” and uses this to justify abandoning its binding force, what he is doing is not realpolitik. Rather, it declares failure with respect to the principles of Nuremberg and the obligation to uphold the rule of law even when it comes at a cost. It is a capitulation to imperial power, disguised as pragmatism, and an abandonment of the order to which Germany owesparticularl commitment due to its history. It is an unparalleled statement for a German federal chancellor.
The European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) already called for international criminal law measures against the Iranian regime in 2022 — and again last week, in 2022 — and again last week—, including by filing a criminal complaint for crimes against humanity. Instead, we now see alleged international crimes by all parties to the conflict, including attacks on civilian targets. These must be documented and prosecuted.
It is imperative to call on the German federal government and the EU to de-escalate. It is imperative but futile as long as the Chancellor publicly declares the law to be ineffective. The real task therefore starts here: we must not allow this statement go unchallenged. ECCHR calls for accountability for the crimes of the Iranian regime and for attacks on civilian targets by all parties to the conflict under international criminal law. Because, contrary to what Chancellor Merz suggests, international law does not apply only when it is useful. It applies because without it, nothing applies.
