Key Concepts
- Self-Defense (International Law): The legal justification used by states to use force; Professor Jamshidi argues the US claim is invalid due to the ongoing nature of the conflict.
- Blockade: An act of war/aggression involving the restriction of movement in a maritime area.
- UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea): A treaty governing maritime rights; Iran is not a signatory, relying instead on earlier legal regimes.
- Strait of Hormuz: A critical global shipping artery currently subject to geopolitical tension, US blockades, and Iranian regulatory fees.
- Human Rights Law: The framework governing freedom of information and expression, often cited in the context of internet blackouts.
1. US Military Strikes and International Law
Professor Maryam Jamshidi challenges the US Central Command’s assertion that recent strikes against Iran were acts of "self-defense."
- Argument: The conflict began on February 28th with an unlawful war initiated by the US and Israel.
- Legal Perspective: Because the US instituted a blockade against Iran—which constitutes an act of aggression—the conflict remains active. Therefore, the US cannot claim self-defense for actions taken within an ongoing, unlawfully initiated conflict.
2. The Strait of Hormuz: Legal Analysis
The discussion highlights a distinction between US blockades and Iranian regulatory actions in the Strait of Hormuz.
- US Actions: Characterized by the Professor as an unlawful blockade and an act of aggression.
- Iranian Actions: Iran is charging fees for ships passing through the strait. Jamshidi clarifies that these are not "tolls" but "fees for services rendered," specifically regarding environmental management.
- Legal Basis: Iran is not a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Instead, it operates under an earlier legal regime that permits coastal states to regulate straits and charge fees for specific services, providing Iran with a "reasonable legal basis" for its actions.
3. Diplomatic Negotiations Amidst Conflict
Despite the ongoing military exchanges, both the US and Iran continue to pursue a negotiated resolution.
- Strategic Stance: Jamshidi notes that while both nations desire a deal, Iran has demonstrated a willingness to continue armed conflict if negotiations fail.
- Reciprocity: The Iranian response—downing a US drone and firing on a fighter jet following the strike on Bandar Abbas—serves as a clear signal that Iran will not absorb US military strikes without a kinetic response.
4. Internet Blackouts and Human Rights
The interview addresses the recent, extensive internet blackout affecting 90 million people in Iran.
- Human Rights Context: While there is no specific, universally recognized "right to the internet" under international law, the blackout is viewed as problematic regarding the broader rights to information and freedom of the press.
- Security Justification: Jamshidi acknowledges that Iran faces legitimate security concerns, including documented sabotage, infiltration, and cyberattacks by the US and Israel.
- Synthesis: The Professor concludes that while the blackout is not justifiable from a global human rights perspective, it is a complex issue given the active state of war and the external threats Iran faces.
Conclusion
The main takeaway is that the current US-Iran conflict is characterized by a dual-track approach: active military engagement and persistent diplomatic negotiation. Professor Jamshidi emphasizes that international law is being interpreted differently by both sides, particularly regarding maritime rights in the Strait of Hormuz, where Iran’s non-participation in UNCLOS creates a distinct legal framework for its actions. Ultimately, the conflict is framed as an ongoing, unlawful escalation where security concerns are frequently used to justify actions that challenge international norms.
AI summaries can miss context or contain errors. Check important details against the original video.