In the aftermath of the recent military escalation involving Iran and the United States, questions concerning the future of international law, humanitarian norms, and the credibility of the post-World War II legal order have once again moved to the center of global debate. At a time when governments, legal scholars, and international organizations continue to dispute the legality and consequences of contemporary armed conflicts, the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and the broader framework of international humanitarian law face renewed scrutiny.
Against this backdrop, Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad—professor of law at Shahid Beheshti University, a member of the Iranian Academy of Sciences, and a prominent authority in jurisprudence, philosophy of law, and comparative legal studies—offers his reflections on these developments. Drawing upon decades of scholarship in law and ethics, he examines the historical evolution of the modern international legal system and argues that its legitimacy ultimately depends on the consistent application of the very principles upon which it was founded. In this interview, Mohaqeq Damad discusses the intellectual and moral legacy of the post-war international order, the significance of the Geneva Conventions and international criminal law, and his assessment of recent US military actions against Iran. He also addresses broader questions concerning aggression, the protection of civilians during armed conflict, accountability for alleged violations of international humanitarian law, and the increasingly contested concept of humanitarian intervention.
Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, his observations represent the perspective of a leading legal thinker whose work has long engaged with the relationship between law, morality, and human dignity. The following interview presents his views on the challenges facing the contemporary international legal order and the responsibilities of states in preserving the universal principles that have shaped modern humanitarian law.
After the Second World War, what do you consider to be the greatest achievement of the modern West in the field of international law and human rights?
The Western world, in the twentieth century, after enduring two devastating world wars and witnessing millions of innocent people being drenched in blood, established the United Nations and, through the efforts of scholars and the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, recorded a glorious page in the history of humanity. With the adoption of this document, people nurtured the sweet dream of peace, tranquility, prosperity and development.
Interestingly, after the Declaration was adopted, its principles were rapidly institutionalized throughout Western societies. They took root in the hearts of their citizens and became part of their culture, to the extent that violating those principles came to be regarded as a sign of backwardness, poor upbringing, and lack of civilization.
How did international humanitarian law evolve after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…while acknowledging that some individuals might nevertheless, for whatever reason and under whatever circumstances, commit the dark and ugly act of war and hostility, efforts were made in 1949 to adopt the four Geneva Conventions containing humanitarian regulations. These were eventually completed through the adoption of the Additional Protocols, thereby adding further distinction to the achievements of the Western world.
What practical protections did the Geneva Conventions provide for civilians during armed conflicts?
Under the protection of the Geneva Conventions, civilian populations were able to go about their lives. Women and children could rest peacefully in the embrace of their families with the hope that even if powerful states were to wage war against one another, civilians would remain protected from harm. The sick, the wounded, medical centers, and places of worship all came under complete protection.
How has the establishment of the International Criminal Court influenced the understanding of war crimes and crimes against humanity?
In recent decades, with the establishment of the International Criminal Court, specific acts came to be recognized as war crimes or crimes against humanity. These crimes became so abhorrent and disgraceful that no one would even approach committing them or wish to be associated with them. No power would ever allow itself even to slap a child, let alone tear apart children studying in school in such a way that their body parts could no longer be recognized.
Why do you believe recent US actions against Iran represent a turning point in the moral and legal legacy of the modern West?
Regrettably, after years during which civilized Western countries took pride in adopting the above-mentioned legal standards, in recent days the government of the United States of America, under the influence of either uninformed or treacherous lobbyist advisers, committed acts against Iran that, with certainty, can be said to have invalidated all of the West’s achievements. These actions have brought shame not only upon the US government but upon the entire Western world and, indeed, humanity as a whole. This is because the United States has not merely engaged in an unequal and unnecessary war; according to the United Nations General Assembly resolution defining aggression, it has committed aggression. Beyond that, through repeated violations of the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets, through the killing of 168 schoolchildren in Minab, and through attacks on dozens of educational, medical, humanitarian relief, cultural heritage, and other civilian sites, it has committed war crimes and even crimes against humanity. Hundreds of internationally recognized figures have affirmed this assessment, and, according to available information, even the Red Cross has condemned these attacks.
How do you interpret statements by the president of the United States about returning Iran to the “Stone Ages”?
Even more regrettable is the fact that the president of the United States publicly declares that he wants to return the nation of Iran—a country whose ancient civilization is well known to all people of wisdom and learning—to the “Stone Ages.” Is such a statement not an official denial of all humanitarian principles? Such words might be uttered by irresponsible individuals, perhaps while intoxicated, but can they be accepted when spoken by someone who stands at the head of a civilized nation? I leave that judgment to the pure conscience of the free people of the world. It is said that in the year 1655, the Parlement of Paris, which at that time effectively served as the kingdom’s supreme judicial authority, asked Louis XIV, the absolute monarch known as the “Sun King,” to change his manner of governing. The king asked why. They replied that it would benefit the state. The tyrannical king is said to have shrugged his shoulders and said that he himself was the state.
The Parlement then fell silent and no longer raised its voice. But the people of France did not remain silent. They continued their struggle for liberty, equality, and fraternity, and through popular uprisings—the French Revolution—they brought self-centered and authoritarian rule (the individual-state) to an everlasting end. Are the American people truly satisfied that, at the expense of their own poor citizens, their head of state, driven by personal pride, should commit inhumane acts and permanently brand their country with the disgrace of aggression against an oppressed nation?
How do you respond to those who justify such military actions under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention?
How astonishing! Such crimes are justified by some through illogical arguments and without any valid legal basis under the title of “humanitarian intervention.” Is killing children, destroying hospitals, scientific and cultural institutions, demolishing bridges and infrastructure, and darkening the lives of innocent people truly humanitarian? Humanitarian toward which human beings?
