THE coordinated military strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran on Feb. 28, 2026 as part of “Operation Epic Fury” have plunged the Middle East into a “war without law.” While Washington and Tel Aviv frame these actions as a “preemptive” necessity to neutralize nuclear threats and “Axis of Resistance” proxies, a rigorous examination of international legal frameworks — specifically the United Nations Charter and landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) precedents — reveals a starkly different reality: These strikes constitute a clear act of aggression.
Failure to meet ‘armed attack’ threshold
The bedrock of modern international order is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which strictly prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” The only exception is the “inherent right of individual states” or “collective self-defense” under Article 51, triggered exclusively if an “armed attack occurs.”
The ICJ, in the Nicaragua case (1986), established that only the “most grave forms of the use of force” qualify as an armed attack. In the lead-up to February 2026, despite regional tensions, US intelligence reportedly admitted there was no evidence Iran was preparing an immediate strike. Under the Nicaragua precedent, providing arms or logistics to proxies does not equate to an armed attack by the sponsoring state. Therefore, bombing sovereign Iranian territory in response to the actions of groups like Hezbollah or the Houthis lacks a valid legal trigger.
The ‘Caroline test’ and the myth of anticipatory defense
The US and Israel have frequently invoked “imminent threats” regarding Iran’s nuclear latency. However, international law follows the “Caroline Test,” which dictates that the necessity for self-defense must be “instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation.”
A potential future capability — such as reaching a “nuclear breakout” point — is not the same as a decision to use a weapon. Striking a state based on a perceived future threat is considered “preventive war,” a concept generally rejected by international law as it invites global chaos where “might makes right.” As the ICJ ruled in the “Oil Platforms” case (2003), even if a state is responsible for minor hostile actions (like mining a ship), such incidents do not justify the destruction of a nation’s infrastructure or the targeting of its leadership.
A breach of necessity and proportionality
Even if a right to defense existed, the strikes must be necessary and proportional. The 2026 campaign has seen nearly 900 strikes in its opening hours, hitting not just military sites but schools, hospitals and cultural heritage sites like the Golestan Palace. The “Oil Platforms” ruling emphasized that the burden of proof lies entirely on the attacker to provide “highly convincing” evidence of an ongoing attack — a standard the current coalition has failed to meet. By targeting civilian infrastructure and political leaders, the strikes likely violate international humanitarian law and the principle of distinction.
Why this matters to the Philippines
For the Philippines, this conflict is not a distant geopolitical abstraction; it is an immediate domestic crisis. The Philippines has become the first nation to declare a “state of national energy emergency” as a direct result of the war. With 90 percent of its petroleum products sourced from the Middle East, the partial closure of the Strait of Hormuz has sent local fuel prices to historic highs, forcing the government to consider four-day work weeks to conserve electricity.
Beyond economics, the safety of thousands of overseas Filipino workers remains a paramount concern, with embassies on “full alert” and thousands requesting repatriation as the conflict spreads to neighboring Gulf states.
By disregarding the established boundaries of the UN Charter, the US and Israel have set a dangerous precedent where state sovereignty is conditional. For a nation like the Philippines, which relies on the “rule of law” to navigate its own regional maritime disputes, the erosion of international legal standards in the Middle East is a chilling development that threatens the very foundation of global stability.
The author is the dean of the College of Law of Baliuag University. He was recently appointed vice president and chief legal counsel of SM Prime Holdings Inc. He earned his juris doctor with honors from UST and his LLM, with distinction, from the London Metropolitan University, UK, as a Chevening scholar of the British Council in 2005. He completed an executive program on leadership at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University in 2002 and the Future Leaders Program from the National University of Singapore Business School in 2022.