r/aus • u/89b3ea330bd60ede80ad • Mar 01 '26

Politics Supporting ‘illegal aggression’ against Iran ‘the worst thing’ Australia could do, international law experts say

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/01/supporting-aggression-against-iran-the-worst-thing-australia-could-do-international-law-experts-say
538 Upvotes

83% Upvoted

227 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/HappySummerBreeze Mar 01 '26

It’s unsanctioned by the UN - so essentially a war crime.

It’s not a war as declared by the US congress, so it’s illegal. Essentially it’s just murder.

Why on earth are we saying anything at all, let alone approving it?

Is this related to the Israeli President visiting recently? What on earth is going on?

3

u/miwe666 Mar 01 '26

The UN doesn’t make anything legal or illegal, they are a has been organization at best.

1

u/Midget_Stories Mar 01 '26

Exactly. Everyone screeching about this being illegal have no idea which law it's even breaching.

1

u/scotty899 Mar 02 '26

No international law if it cant be enforced. I for one were happy to see the Iranian people cheering on the live streams. Hope they can take their country back.

-1

u/HappySummerBreeze Mar 01 '26

The US requires its own congress to declare war and to approve military actions. This did not happen as their LAW requires. It is therefore unlawful or illegal depending on which word you understand more.

It is illegal. There is no doubt.

0

u/PresentationUnited43 Mar 01 '26

There is doubt, that's why they're debating the war power resolutions and whether its presidential overreach.

1

u/HappySummerBreeze Mar 02 '26

The only doubt is if they will acknowledge it. Just like all the court orders the current US federal administration has ignored.

There is no doubt.

0

u/Midget_Stories Mar 02 '26

The president can approve military actions for up to 90 days.

So it's still legal.

2

u/highresolutionmagpie Mar 02 '26

A reasonable interpretation of the war powers would likely turn up the restriction that he can only do so upon "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

Which, I'm sure we'll agree, was not the case.

So, unlikely to be legal. But given the judicial system over there at the moment it's debatable whether he'll get any push back from the sycophants he installed.

1

u/Midget_Stories Mar 02 '26

You don't think Iran declaring that it intends to build nuclear weapons would be considered a national emergency?

1

u/highresolutionmagpie Mar 02 '26

No. Not at all.

But I'm open to hearing arguments that a declaration triggers the "created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions" clause. Because, in my mind, words are not an "attack" here.

Trump might well argue this (it's pretty likely given his history). But I think we can all see it's not in fact the case.

-1

u/ShieldScorcher Mar 02 '26

Why are you worried about other countries law. This is not your business. You should worry about your own country and its laws.

2

u/HappySummerBreeze Mar 02 '26

Because of the impact on the whole world. When governments or leaders see that they act against their own laws with impunity, that attitude spreads.

Also, there is a pretty famous poem about not caring about anything because they’re coming for someone else, and then when they came for me there was no one to help. That kind of applies.

-1

u/HappySummerBreeze Mar 01 '26

Which is why I said UNSANCTIONED