Following the large-scale military strikes launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, reactions from governments and international organizations have been sharply divided. Some voiced support, others issued condemnation, and many called for restraint. These responses do not fall neatly along a simple East-West or ideological divide. Viewed through the lens of international law rather than geopolitics alone, these official statements reveal deeper differences over the meaning of a rules-based international order.

Before dissecting the global reaction, we must address the legality of the strikes themselves. According to statements from Washington and Tel Aviv, the operation was designed to protect citizens, neutralize Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities, target senior leadership, and weaken the government to foster "democratic" change. Strategically, these goals may resonate with their allies. Legally, however, they stand on shifting sand. Under international law, none of these objectives constitutes a lawful basis for the use of military force.

The governing standard is Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, the very cornerstone of modern international law. It explicitly prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. There are only two recognized exceptions to this rule: authorization by the UN Security Council, or lawful self-defense under Article 51.

The strikes were not authorized by the UN Security Council. Therefore, the sole possible legal justification would be self-defense. Yet Iran did not launch an armed attack against the United States. Nor do the circumstances satisfy the customary international law criteria reflected in the Caroline doctrine, which requires necessity to be instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means. Claims of "preventive self-defense" or broader security concerns have not gained general acceptance in international law. On this basis, the conclusion that the US-Israeli military action violated international law is difficult to avoid.

If such justifications were widely accepted, any state could invoke similar reasoning to legitimize the use of force whenever it perceives a threat. The result would be a return to a law-of-the-jungle mentality in which power, rather than law, determines outcomes. The credibility of the so-called rules-based international order would be fundamentally undermined.

Against this legal backdrop, the international community's varied responses reveal several distinct geopolitical postures.

A small but notable group of countries directly called out the strikes as legal violations. Russia described the operation as an act of armed aggression against a sovereign UN member state. China took the position that the attack and killing of Iran's supreme leader constituted a serious violation of Iran's sovereignty and security, trampling on the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the basic norms governing international relations. Norway explicitly rejected the "pre-emptive" label, emphasizing that such action requires an imminent threat. These positions stand out because they frame the crisis in strict legal terms rather than solely political ones.

Other nations sought to maintain a formally balanced position grounded in legal principles by condemning both the initial strikes and Iran's subsequent retaliation. Malaysia criticized the US-Israeli attacks as violations of sovereignty while expressing deep concern over regional escalation. Spain echoed this, calling for full respect of international law and rejecting unilateral military actions from any side.

Conversely, a bloc of Western states focused their criticism almost entirely on Iran's response, neatly sidestepping the legality of the initial strikes. The UK, France, and Germany emphasized the need to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions, while several Gulf states condemned Iran's retaliatory actions as regional violations. While invoking principles of stability, they strategically avoided questioning the US-Israeli operation.

Finally, some US allies — including Canada and Australia — openly cheered Washington's actions, framing the strikes as necessary for global security without addressing the specific legal basis under the UN Charter. Nations like India took a different route, emphasizing respect for sovereignty and urging a return to dialogue without making explicit legal determinations.

Taken together, these reactions demonstrate that the defense of international law remains frustratingly uneven. States' positions are routinely warped by strategic interests, alliance structures, and regional calculations. Yet, beneath these diplomatic maneuvers lies an existential question for the global community: Does the prohibition on the use of force remain the bedrock of the international system?

International law cannot function as an à la carte menu, invoked selectively to punish adversaries and ignored to protect allies. If powerful states are permitted to rewrite the rules governing the use of force whenever it suits their strategic interests, the normative framework that has kept the world relatively stable since 1945 will collapse. Smaller and medium-sized states will be the first to suffer in a system where might makes right.

A genuine commitment to a rules-based international order requires consistency — something European states and certain US allies, through their complicity, have failed to uphold. In moments of crisis, geopolitical calculations inevitably dominate public discourse. Yet it is precisely in these high-stakes moments that adherence to international law matters most. The alternative is a world where legal restraints give way to unilateral force — a trajectory that will ultimately imperil the security of all nations.

The author is founder and president of the Global Governance Institution.

The views don't necessarily reflect those of China Daily.

If you have a specific expertise, or would like to share your thought about our stories, then send us your writings at opinion@chinadaily.com.cn, and comment@chinadaily.com.cn.