Military interventions conducted by the United States and Israel in the Middle East have raised serious concerns about their compliance with international law, specially Article 2(4) of UN Charter which says no country should use force against another country, and Article 51 which only allows self defence in very limited situations. This study tries to find out if these military actions were truly done for security reasons or if they were actually done for other purposes like getting oil, becoming more powerful, and stopping Iran from growing strong in the region. A doctrinal legal research methodology was adopted, relying on primary sources including the UN Charter, UN Security Council resolutions, International Court of Justice judgments and advisory opinions, and reports of UN human rights bodies, alongside comparative case study analysis of three major interventions. The study finds that the legal reasons given by United States and Israel for their military actions were not strong enough under international law, specially when checked against standards like the Caroline Test, and the real reasons behind these actions were actually connected to oil, power and political interests. Furthermore the study finds that UN Security Council was not able to do anything about these violations because powerful countries used their veto power to block any action against themselves or their allies. This study concludes that these military interventions broke the basic rules of international law and that the UN Security Council needs serious reform so that powerful countries can no longer escape accountability for their actions.
Ghulam Sarwar (Sat,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: