TEHRAN – In an exclusive interview, the Tehran Times engaged with Alfred de Zayas, a distinguished professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, former Secretary of the UN Human Rights Committee, and former UN Independent Expert on International Order (2012-18). 

With escalating tensions in the region, particularly following the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran during the 12-day war in June 2025, de Zayas offered a sharp legal perspective on the violations of international law, including aggression under the UN Charter and the humanitarian impact of unilateral coercive measures.

He critiqued the systemic failures of the UN Security Council, the misuse of the snapback mechanism under Resolution 2231, and the complicity of Western powers in shielding Israel from accountability. De Zayas also explored Iran’s strategic options in a shifting multipolar world, emphasizing legal and diplomatic pathways to resist aggression while upholding sovereignty.

Below is the full text of the interview:

From the perspective of international law, how do you assess the recent U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran during the 12-day war? Do these actions amount to aggression under the UN Charter, and what legal accountability mechanisms exist?

Yes, they amount to aggression under article 2(4) of the UN Charter and under GA resolutions 2625 and 3314. They constitute a “crime against peace” within the meaning of Article 6a of the Statute of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (London Agreement of 8 August 1945), and the Nuremberg Judgment, also a crime of aggression under Article 5 of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and under the Kampala definition of “aggression” of 2010.  According to the principle ubi ius, ibi remedium, and the 2001 International Law Commission’s Draft Declaration on State Responsibility, Israel must make reparation, but, of course, Israel will not pay reparations, because it is in open rebellion against international law with the support and complicity of the Untied States.  

The Object and Purpose of the United Nations, the principles and purposes of the United Nations Organization are to ban war, ban warmongering, ban war propaganda.  Hitherto the UN has been famously ineffective in securing world peace and has been far too tolerant of violations of the UN Charter and UN Human Rights Treaties by the US and the collective West.  There was zero justification in international law for the US and Israeli aggression against Iran in June 2025, which actually constituted a grave breach of international peace and security within the meaning of Article 39 of the UN Charter.
 
The UN Charter gives the Security Council the responsibility to maintain peace and security. Why has the Security Council failed to stop repeated acts of aggression against Iran, and does this reflect a structural flaw in the UN system itself?

Article 27(3) of the UN Charter gives the 5 permanent members of the Security Council the power to “veto” or block resolutions and decisions of the Security Council. Three members of the Security Council, the US, UK and France, would no doubt veto any resolution to condemn Israeli aggression. Other UN members including Germany would oppose sanctioning Israel.  Not only Israel, but also the US, UK, France, Germany are in open rebellion against the fundamental tenets of the UN Charter. There is no structural flaw, but a total lack of political will on the part of the “collective West”, and a failure by the “Global Majority” in Africa and Asia to recognize the gravity of the situation.  The BRICS countries should bring the matter before the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court.

Western powers are now invoking the snapback mechanism under Resolution 2231. From your legal expertise, is this move legitimate, or is it another political manipulation of international law by the U.S. and its allies?

An illegitimate political manipulation of international law by the US and allies, with the complicity of the mainstream media in the US, UK, France, Germany, Israel.  

You have described sanctions as a form of collective punishment. How do you assess the humanitarian impact of U.S. and European sanctions on ordinary Iranians, and can they be classified as crimes against humanity?

Under modern international law, the only legal and legitimate “sanctions” are those adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the Un Charter. Unilateral coercive measures should NOT be confused with “sanctions”, they constitute an illegal “use of force” contrary to UN Charter Art. 2(4).  

The problem with using the term “sanctions” to refer to UCMs is that the term “sanctions” is loaded and implies that the country imposing “sanctions” has the legal or moral authority to do so.  This is part of the Orwellialization of language, the manipulation of legal concepts through the use of terms that have positive or negative connotations. 

Collective punishment is specifically prohibited in international humanitarian law and international human rights law.  The imposition of UCMs entail gross violations of international law that should be investigated by the International Law Commission as “crimes against humanity” under article 7 of the Rome Statute.

Could Iran realistically challenge U.S. and European sanctions before the ICJ or other international tribunals? What obstacles exist in practice?

Yes, but the ICJ and International Criminal Court have a record of serving the interests of the “collective West”.  Nevertheless, it is worth opening a “contentions case” before the ICJ or even getting the UN General Assembly to ask for an advisory opinion on the illegality of US and European UCMs. Article 96 UN Charter allows the GA to request such an advisory opinion from the ICJ, which may (or may not – it is discretionary) accept to give the AO pursuant to Art. 65 of the Statute of the ICJ.  

Under Article 15 of the Statute of Rome the Prosecutor of the ICC could motu proprio commence an investigation and ask for arrest warrants for violations of article 7 of the Rome Statute. Alas, there is little to no chance that the Prosecutor or Acting Prosecutor would dare to challenge the US and Europe.

Israel repeatedly violates international law through military actions against Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. Why does the West shield Israel from accountability, and what precedent does this create for international law?

The “collective West” is complicit in the ongoing genocide in Gaza and complicit in the 78 years of Nakba against the Palestinian People.  The Western mainstream media white-washes the genocide and engages in “apologetics” about all the human rights violations of Israel.  They are in rebellion against international law – and hitherto have gotten away with it.  The only hope lies with the “Global Majority” that must finally stand up for the UN Charter and take measures against the US and Europe.  

But no one seems to have the courage to do so, not even to ask the General Assembly to adopt a resolution asking for an advisory opinion. Another possibility would be to make use of the inter-State complaints procedure of the Human Rights Committee, Committee against Torture, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Rights of the Child  etc. – and accuse Israel of gross violations of the ICCPR, CAT, ICERD, ICESCR, CRC.

How do poetry, music, and art, as cultural responses to the Gaza genocide, complement legal efforts by international law organizations to foster solidarity with Palestinians and uphold the UN Charter’s principles, especially given the complicity of Western leaders?

Hannah Arend's pertinent analysis of the “banality of evil” has gained enhanced significance in the light of Netanyahu’s ongoing genocide of Palestinians and the obscene complicity of Trump, Starmer, Macron, Merz, Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas. We should also reflect on the implications of Theodor Adorno's remark that “after Auschwitz it is impossible to write poetry". 

Mutatis mutandis one would think that the genocide in Gaza could paralyze us and silence our sense for poetry, music, art. On the contrary! Today many poets are writing in solidarity with the martyred Palestinians. Poetry and art preserve memory. 

We also need musical expression of our horror at the genocide being committed in the name of Judaism and in a larger sense in the name of the “collective West”- We need not only a Requiem for the Dead, but also and more pertinently a Resurrection Symphony. I would like to see Daniel Barenboim conduct it. As a law professor, I also want to see the lawyers of all continents stand in solidarity with the Palestinian victims. the American Society of International Law, the International Law Association, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht. Yes, I still believe in the "rule of law", in the UN Charter, in international morals – even if Trump, Netanyahu, Starmer, Macron, Merz quite evidently do not. 

European countries often claim to defend human rights and multilateralism, yet they support sanctions and military pressure against Iran. How do you explain this contradiction in European foreign policy?

Contradiction is the “new normal”.  Double standards are the “order of the day”.  There is no rationality in the US and European policies, only an animus dominandi – an over-arching policy to achieve and maintain full-spectrum dominance.  There is no explanation to the US and European behaviour but the clear and present intent to dictate terms to others, notwithstanding the theoretical equality of sovereign states.  

The rule is “might makes right” and “the end justifies the means” (Machiavelli, The Prince) .  Yet, there are more voices among prominent academics in the US, UK, France, Germany who challenge the mainstream narrative and conclude that the US and EU are morally bankrupt. Invoking “human rights” to justify unilateral coercive measures is a kind of blasphemy, a sacrilege – to use something noble to do something ignoble.  But that is the game that is being played.

Do you believe Washington is genuinely interested in reviving nuclear negotiations with Iran, or is the nuclear issue mainly used as a political pretext for broader containment of Iran?

The US is only interested in maintaining the unipolar world and US hegemony.  There is zero interest in engaging in good faith negotiations with IRAN. The US does not want to abide by article 2(3) of the UN Charter and resolve differences by peaceful means. The US only wants to bully and blackmail.

Some argue the international system is shifting toward multipolarity, with countries like China, Russia, and regional blocs playing a greater role. How does this changing landscape affect Iran’s position in global politics?

BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Belt and Road Initiative are some of the multipolar developments that may eventually strengthen the tenets of the UN Charter and the sovereignty of all States on the planet.  But he unipolar world fantasy dies hard – and in the process NATO is capable of destroying the entire planet before it accepts that we can and must live together in peace pursuant to the UN Charter.  NATO is a criminal organization under articles 9 and 10 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal and pursuant to its 1946 judgment.  Apply the same criteria used against Nazi organizations in 1945, and NATO – because of its aggressive actions, war crimes and crimes against humanity since 1991 – will be similarly condemned as a criminal organization.  

What steps can Iran take—legally, diplomatically, or strategically—to resist unlawful sanctions and aggression, while still avoiding isolation?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty is not ius cogens or peremptory international law.  It is only a treaty which a country may or may not want to adhere to.  Israel, for instance, does not adhere to the NPT. 

Pursuant to Art. X of the NPT any state party can withdraw from it, especially if its sovereignty is grossly violated by other countries and if it is under relentless threats from other countries (US and Israel), which are inconsistent with article 2(4) of the UN Charter.  North Korea invoked Article X of the NPT and freed itself of abusive overreach by the IAEA.  Alas, as I explain in my book “The Human Rights Industry”, many UN and other international agencies have been hijacked and are largely in the service of the “collective West”, act selectively and discriminatorily.  Among the hijacked organizations are the IAEA, the ICC, the OPCW, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.