Former Irish president, Mary Robinson: On The West's Selective Silence

How International Law Falters in the Face of Power

In a world where the rules-based international order is repeatedly invoked as a cornerstone of global stability, a troubling pattern has emerged: the selective application of international law. Nowhere is this more evident than in the muted Western response to the United States and Israel's military campaign against Iran—a campaign that leading legal experts and respected voices like former Irish President Mary Robinson have unequivocally labeled illegal.

Mary Robinson—a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a moral authority on global justice—has issued a stark warning against "double standards" in upholding international law. "It's really very important that other countries do speak up, because we need to support the international rule of law. It's one of the great gains of humanity," Robinson stated, contrasting the robust condemnation of Russia's invasion of Ukraine with the tepid reaction to US-Israeli strikes on Iran.

Her message is clear: international law cannot be "à la carte." When powerful nations act with impunity, the entire framework designed to protect the vulnerable crumbles.

The joint US-Israeli attacks launched on February 28, 2026, targeting Iranian military and governmental sites and assassinating political leaders, raise profound legal questions under the United Nations Charter—the foundational treaty of the modern international system.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter explicitly prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." Exceptions are narrowly defined: either authorization by the UN Security Council or self-defense against an actual armed attack.

Yet the US and Israel have not secured Security Council authorization for these strikes. Nor can they credibly claim self-defense under the strict legal standard required by international law. As UN Special Rapporteur Ben Saul has noted, lawful self-defense requires responding to an armed attack that is actual, not speculative. Preventive strikes aimed at disarmament, counterterrorism, or regime change do not meet this threshold—and may, in fact, constitute the international crime of aggression.

Legal scholars reinforce this assessment. The concept of "imminence" in international law requires a threat that is "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The US justification—citing Iran's missile and nuclear programs—fails this test, especially given that diplomatic talks were ongoing when strikes commenced.

Rebecca Ingber, a professor and former US State Department adviser, has described the prohibition on the use of force as a "bedrock" principle. "States may not use force against the territorial integrity of other states except in two narrow circumstances," she explained—neither of which apply here.

The contrast with Western responses to other conflicts is glaring. When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Western governments swiftly invoked international law, imposed sweeping sanctions, and rallied global condemnation. Yet when the US and Israel—close allies of many Western capitals—launch strikes that kill hundreds, including civilians, and target critical infrastructure, the response has been markedly restrained.

Robinson highlighted this discrepancy pointedly: "We see aggression now by the United States and Israel on Iran, which is not justified on the Charter, which is illegal, and very few countries have spoken explicitly about it. They're trying to avoid."

This silence is not merely diplomatic caution; it is a betrayal of the principles Western nations claim to champion. When international law is enforced only against adversaries while allies operate with impunity, the system loses its legitimacy.

Beyond the Charter violations, the conduct of the conflict raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law. Reports of strikes on civilian sites—including an attack on a girls' school in Minab that killed at least 165 people—underscore the human toll of military escalation. Civilians are already paying the price for this escalation, and these strikes risk igniting a wider regional catastrophe.

Meanwhile, Iran's retaliatory strikes against regional targets also risk violating international law if they deliberately target civilians—a reminder that violations by one party do not justify violations by another. The war on Iran is another episode in the worrying trend of international law's unraveling.

Mary Robinson's intervention is more than criticism; it is a call to action. "Governments must be prepared to speak out" against violations of international law, regardless of the perpetrator. This means European leaders, in particular, must find the courage to state clearly that the attacks on Iran violate the UN Charter.

The stakes extend far beyond the Middle East. If the international community permits powerful states to rewrite the rules of engagement through force, we return to a world where might makes right—a world the UN Charter was designed to prevent.

The war on Iran is not merely a regional crisis; it is a test of whether the international community values law over expediency. By failing to condemn illegal uses of force by their allies, Western governments undermine the very system they claim to defend. As Robinson reminds us, double standards corrode the foundation of global justice.

If we believe in a rules-based order, we must apply those rules consistently. Anything less is not pragmatism—it is complicity. The time for selective silence is over. The time for principled leadership is now.