The International Community at a Crossroads Over Iran: The reawakening of “illegal but legitimate” or the “law of self-preservation”?

(Yuval Shany and Amichai Cohen – Just Security) A momentous gap has emerged between the broad consensus among international lawyers regarding the illegality of Operation Epic Fury (or Roaring Lion) launched by the United States and Israel against Iran on Feb. 28, 2026, and the mild or even supportive reactions afforded to the operation by many States. While part of the gap can be explained by notions of political affinity to the United States and hostility toward Iran, and by reference to Iran’s own unlawful reaction to the attack (under both jus ad bellum and jus in bello), we believe this gap may also be indicative of a more fundamental crisis afflicting the international rule of law (or the rules-based international order (RBIO)): a growing perception among policymakers that international law no longer offers a workable framework of norms and institutions for addressing the most serious problems of international peace and security. In this contribution we discuss two normative frameworks of analysis that may emerge as alternatives to the existing rule of international law – the “illegal but legitimate” framework that accepts that, in some circumstances, legal violations may be nonetheless ethically justified, and the “right to self-preservation” that suggests that international law (or standard international legal rules) cannot prevent States from protecting themselves against existential threats. Before discussing these two normative frameworks we will briefly address the international law analysis of Operation Epic Fury/Roaring Lion, State reactions thereto and their implications for the future trajectory of international law. – The International Community at a Crossroads Over Iran: The reawakening of “illegal but legitimate” or the “law of self-preservation”?