（下边有中文翻译请继续看到底。 谢谢。）
In a world shaped by lofty international norms and charismatic legal instruments like the United Nations Charter, the brutal truth is that power often trumps principle. Recent joint military strikes by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran — actions publicly acknowledged by leaders in Washington and Tel Aviv — did not occur in a legal vacuum. They happened in broad daylight, against a sovereign state that, until these events, was actively engaged in nuclear negotiations and diplomatic outreach. This was an unprovoked act of aggression — and Iran’s forceful response is not only predictable but legitimate under international law.
Disregarding the Charter: Aggression That Defies Legal Norms
The foundational norm of the post-World War II order is clear: Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. There are only two narrow exceptions: a Security Council mandate or a genuine act of self-defense under Article 51. Neither existed for these attacks.
When U.S. and Israeli forces launched strikes on Iranian territory, they justified them as preventive or defensive measures. But the international legal community — including the International Commission of Jurists — condemned these attacks as grave violations of the Charter and international law and a serious threat to global peace and security.
Even the United Nations Secretary-General publicly stated that these strikes undermined international peace and security and violated states’ obligations to respect international law.
What the World Has Said: Condemnations and Support for Iran’s Rights
The global response has included a wide array of official condemnations:
Pakistan condemned the Israeli strikes as “illegitimate” and a violation of Iran’s sovereignty, reaffirming Iran’s right to self-defense under Article 51.
Pakistan’s Prime Minister later reiterated that Iran “has every right to self-defence” under the Charter, calling Israel’s actions unlawful.
Iran’s Foreign Minister told the UN that Tehran will exercise its inherent right of self-defense without hesitation “until the aggression ceases fully and unequivocally.”
Other governments, including Turkey, publicly recognized that the spiral of violence began with U.S. and Israeli attacks, warning of the severe risks to peace.
Such statements do not merely signify diplomatic politeness. They reflect an emerging global consensus that unilateral military action against a sovereign nation — absent Security Council authorization — is unlawful.
The Right of Self-Defense: Iran’s Legal Grounding
Under international law, states retain the right to defend themselves. Article 51 of the UN Charter affirms that if a state is the victim of an armed attack, it may respond in lawful self-defense. The seriousness of the initial strikes on Iran — targeting leadership, military infrastructure, and nuclear facilities — compelled Iran to respond to protect its territorial integrity and population. That response, too, has been framed publicly by Iranian authorities as lawful self-defense.
Moreover, Iran’s call to the UN Security Council to act against these breaches highlights a fundamental legal reality: a state under unjust attack is entitled to resist.
Not Just a Regional War — A Systemic Breakdown
This conflict is not a narrowly defined skirmish. It is a symptom of a much deeper malaise: the erosion of the global rule of law. When powerful states decide that international treaties and norms are optional tools of diplomacy rather than binding obligations, the entire edifice of international peace collapses.
For decades, U.S. and Israeli policies in the Middle East have been justified through shifting rationales — from counterterrorism to the prevention of weapons proliferation, to regime change. Yet even when serious concerns exist about the behavior of other governments, legal responses require multilateral consensus, not unilateral military action.
Iran’s Position: Sovereignty and Resolve
The Iranian government has presented itself — at least officially — as a nation committed to peace but determined to defend its sovereignty at all costs. Iranian diplomats have repeatedly called on the UN Security Council to condemn the aggression and uphold international law.
These justified assertions resonate not only in Tehran but in capitals across the Global South, where nations with recent histories of colonialism and foreign intervention see a familiar pattern of powerful states imposing their will on weaker ones.
Global Voices of Criticism — And What They Mean
Beyond diplomatic statements, public opinion has erupted in many parts of the world with protests, rallies, and calls for solidarity with Iran. While governments balance geopolitical interests, ordinary citizens — especially in the Muslim world — see in this conflict a stark choice between principle and hegemony.
Across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, protesters have expressed outrage against what is widely perceived as an illegal attack on an independent nation. In capitals from Jakarta to Dakar, marchers have invoked the UN Charter, sovereign equality, and the right of every nation to defend itself.
These movements testify to a growing awareness of global justice — that powerful states cannot act without accountability.
Why This Matters: The Future of International Order
If the actions of the United States and Israel go unchallenged, they set a dangerous precedent: that military might, not international law, defines legitimacy. This trajectory risks engulfing the Middle East — already traumatized by decades of conflict — in a broader conflagration.
For the sake of peace, stability, and the integrity of international law, the world must heed the principle that sovereignty cannot be violated with impunity, and that self-defense is a right, not a privilege.
China and Russia: Balancing Power or Perpetuating Conflict?
It is argued by some analysts that China and Russia — as permanent members of the Security Council — have both the capability and the obligation to temper escalatory action and to uphold the UN Charter. Both have historically opposed unilateral sanctions and rejected regime change as a tool of foreign policy.
Yet, their own geopolitical interests — in Ukraine, Central Asia, and beyond — demonstrate that no great power is immune from realpolitik. Support for one state against another does not automatically confer legitimacy; adherence to international law does.
The Choice Before the World
Iran, facing overwhelming military pressure, did not capitulate. It exercised its lawful right to self-defense in the face of aggression. This moment should prompt not only reflection but action: a reaffirmation of the UN Charter, a recommitment to peaceful resolution, and a rejection of power politics that trample legal norms.
History will judge this moment not merely by the battles fought but by whether the international community stood up for law or abdicated it. The choice today is stark: uphold the rights of nations or normalize aggression.
伊朗对不公正侵略的正当自卫。
在一个由崇高国际准则和诸如《联合国宪章》这样的极具影响力的法律文件所塑造的世界里，残酷的事实是，权力往往凌驾于原则之上。美国和以色列近期针对伊朗伊斯兰共和国发动的联合军事打击——华盛顿和特拉维夫的领导人对此公开承认——并非是在毫无法律约束的环境中发生的。这些行动是在阳光下进行的，针对的是一直积极参与核谈判和外交接触的主权国家。这是一次未经挑衅的侵略行为——而伊朗的强硬回应不仅在情理之中，而且在国际法框架下也是合法的。
无视宪章：违背法律准则的侵略行为
二战后国际秩序的基本准则十分明确：《联合国宪章》第 2(4) 条规定，禁止对任何国家的领土完整或政治独立进行威胁或使用武力。只有两种狭义的例外情况：一是安理会的授权，二是根据第 51 条规定的正当自卫行为。但在这次袭击中，这两种情况均不存在。
当美国和以色列军队对伊朗领土发动袭击时，他们声称此举是出于预防或防御目的。但国际法律界（包括国际法学家委员会）却谴责这些攻击是严重违反《宪章》和国际法的行为，并对全球和平与安全构成了严重威胁。
就连联合国秘书长也公开表示，这些袭击行为破坏了国际和平与安全，并且违反了各国遵守国际法的义务。
世界所表达的观点：对伊朗人权状况的谴责与支持
全球的应对措施包括了众多官方的谴责声明：
巴基斯坦谴责以色列的袭击行为是“非法的”，并认为这是对伊朗主权的侵犯，同时重申伊朗依据第 51 条拥有自卫的权利。
巴基斯坦总理随后再次强调，根据《联合国宪章》，伊朗“完全有权进行自卫”，并称以色列的行为是非法的。
伊朗外交部长向联合国表示，德黑兰将毫不犹豫地行使其固有的自卫权，“直至侵略行为完全且明确地停止为止。”
包括土耳其在内的其他一些国家也公开承认，这场暴力事件的恶性升级始于美国和以色列的攻击行为，并警告称这将对和平造成严重威胁。
此类言论并非仅仅是出于外交上的礼貌。它们反映出一种正在形成的全球共识：在未获得安理会授权的情况下，对一个主权国家采取单方面军事行动是违法的。
自卫权：伊朗的法律依据
根据国际法，各国仍保有自卫的权利。《联合国宪章》第 51 条规定，如果一国遭受武装攻击，该国可以采取合法的自卫行动予以回应。对伊朗的最初攻击（针对领导层、军事设施和核设施）的严重性迫使伊朗作出回应，以保护其领土完整和民众。这一回应同样也被伊朗当局公开表述为合法的自卫行动。
此外，伊朗向联合国安理会发出的采取行动制止这些违规行为的呼吁，凸显了一个基本的法律事实：遭受不公正攻击的国家有权进行抵抗。
不只是一场地区性战争——而是系统性的崩溃
这场冲突并非狭义上的小规模冲突。它反映的是一个更为严重的弊病：全球法治的衰落。当强国认定国际条约和规范只是外交手段中的可选工具，而非具有约束力的义务时，整个国际和平的架构便会崩溃。
数十年来，美国和以色列在中东地区的政策一直以不断变化的说辞为依据——从反恐到防止武器扩散，再到政权更迭。然而，即便对其他政府的行为存在严重担忧，法律上的应对措施仍需要多边共识，而非单方面的军事行动。
伊朗的立场：主权与决心
伊朗政府至少在官方层面已将自己描绘成一个致力于和平但又不惜一切代价捍卫自身主权的国家。伊朗外交官多次呼吁联合国安理会谴责这种侵略行为，并维护国际法。
这些合理的论断不仅在德黑兰引起了共鸣，在全球南方的众多国家的首都也同样如此。在这些国家中，那些有着近代殖民历史和外国干涉经历的国家看到了一种熟悉的模式：强大的国家将自身意志强加于弱小国家之上。
全球批评之声——以及它们的含义
除了外交声明之外，世界各地的公众舆论也因抗议、集会以及对伊朗的声援呼吁而沸腾起来。尽管各国政府在平衡地缘政治利益，但普通民众——尤其是穆斯林世界的人们——在这场冲突中看到了在原则与霸权之间必须做出的艰难抉择。
在亚洲、非洲和中东地区，抗议者对这场被普遍视为对一个独立国家的非法攻击表示强烈愤慨。从雅加达到达喀尔等各大城市，游行者都援引了《联合国宪章》、主权平等以及每个国家都有权自卫的原则。
这些行动表明人们对于全球正义的意识正在不断增强——即强大的国家若要采取行动，就必须承担相应的责任。
为何此事件至关重要：国际秩序的未来
如果美国和以色列的行动不受任何质疑，那么这将开创一个危险的先例：军事力量而非国际法来决定合法性。这种趋势有可能使中东地区——这个已经因数十年的冲突而饱受创伤的地区——陷入更广泛的冲突之中。
为了维护和平、实现稳定以及保障国际法的完整性，全世界必须遵循这样一个原则：主权不容侵犯，否则将无法逃脱惩罚；而且自卫是一种权利，而非特权。
中国与俄罗斯：是实现力量平衡还是加剧冲突？
一些分析人士认为，作为安理会常任理事国，中国和俄罗斯都有能力也有义务缓和局势的进一步恶化，并维护《联合国宪章》。两国在历史上一直反对单边制裁，并拒绝将政权更迭作为外交政策的手段。
然而，他们自身的地缘政治利益——在乌克兰、中亚以及其他地区——表明，没有任何大国能够完全摆脱现实政治的影响。支持一方对抗另一方并不能自动赋予这种行为以合法性；遵守国际法才是关键。
世界面临的抉择
伊朗在遭受压倒性军事压力的情况下并未屈服。面对侵略，它行使了合法的自卫权利。这一时刻不仅应当引发反思，还应当促使采取行动：重申《联合国宪章》的宗旨，重新致力于和平解决争端，以及摒弃践踏法律规范的强权政治。
历史将会对这一时刻作出评判，评判标准不仅在于所经历的战斗，还在于国际社会是坚守法律还是放弃了法律。如今的抉择十分明确：是维护各国的权益，还是让侵略行为常态化。
( 注意： 本文是用AI翻译的，或有误差。请以原版英文为准。谢谢。)
Reference Link:- https://www2.apdnews.cn/en/item/26/0302/axjfkjzg3888dc5cb98617.html