By: Khaled CHEBLI
The US military operations against Iran rank among the most contentious issues in modern international law. Airstrikes, covert operations, and incursions by Washington-conducted without UN authorization or looming threat- all constitute clear violations of the UN Charter and foundational principles of public international law. This raises a pivotal question that transcends the Iranian case: Who holds the USA accountable for its aggression? And can US leaders, such as President Donald Trump, be prosecuted for serious violations, even after leaving office?
- Use of Force: Legal Constraints Violated
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter enshrines the prohibition on force between states, allowing exceptions only for self-defense under Article 51 or UN Security Council authorization. In its actions against Iran, the USA frequently resorts to vague justifications- “preemptive deterrence” and “counter-terrorism”- which fail to meet the legal tests of necessity and proportionality. These operations more closely resemble systematic aggression than lawful acts of self-defence.
- Aggression as a Crime, Not Mere Politics
Under the 2010 Kampala Amendments to the Rome Statute of the ICC, a crime of aggression is defined as: “The planning, preparation, initiation or execution of an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter, committed by a person effectively controlling a state’s political or military actions.”
This definition explicitly includes heads of state or government, implying that a former US President could theoretically face prosecution for crimes of aggression if jurisdictional criteria are satisfied.
- Veto Power and US Non-Ratification of the ICC
The USA is not a party to the Rome Statute and rejects ICC jurisdiction over its nationals. Moreover, as a permanent Security Council member, Washington can use its veto to block efforts toward condemnation or accountability. This institutional shield effectively renders international legal avenues ineffective.
- The Trump Precedent: State-Sanctioned Aggression
Former President Trump authorized several high-profile extrajudicial killings and strikes in Iraq, Syria, and Iran- most notably the targeted killing of Gen Qasem Soleimani on Iraqi soil, without Iraqi consent or UN approval. Under legal scrutiny, this act exhibits key elements of a crime of aggression-sovereignty violation, prior planning, and execution outside legal frameworks. Many international law experts advocate for symbolic or even in absentia trials to affirm the rule of law.
- Mechanisms for Holding Former US Presidents Accountable
a) Domestic Legal Routes:
- The Constitution does not bar criminal prosecution of a former president for illegal actions taken while in office.
- Congress could pass legislation banning unauthorized military attacks and enabling retroactive investigations.
- State attorneys general might pursue cases under their jurisdictions if domestic interests were impacted.
b) International Courts & Universal Jurisdiction:
Countries bound by the Rome Statute or applying universal jurisdiction have prosecuted leaders such as those responsible for atrocities in Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia, and Charles Taylor in Liberia.
c) Symbolic People’s Tribunals:
Internationally organized courts- akin to the Russell Tribunal on Vietnam- offer platforms to document alleged crimes and generate legal and moral pressure.
- Precedents and Legal Debates in US Jurisprudence
Historically, the US legal system has grappled with the question of holding presidents accountable for actions taken while in office. The resignation of President Richard Nixon amid the Watergate scandal in 1974 triggered debates on whether a sitting or former president could face criminal charges. Although Nixon received a full pardon from his successor Gerald Ford, the legal principle that presidential immunity does not extend beyond office was firmly underscored.
International crimes- whether aggression or war crimes- do not expire with time, and high office does not grant impunity. Fairness demands that the USA be held accountable no differently than any other nation. Only when such accountability becomes reality can the global order begin healing from the chaos of unchecked power and uphold equality, sovereignty, and justice.
More recently, legal scholars and human rights organizations have raised the possibility of prosecuting former President George W. Bush for the 2003 Iraq invasion, which was carried out without explicit UN Security Council authorization. Although no formal charges were filed, several symbolic legal actions and public tribunals— such as the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal in 2011— declared Bush and key administration officials guilty of crimes against peace. These precedents demonstrate that both domestic and international legal mechanisms have at least entertained, if not fully pursued, accountability for high-level executive actions that violate international law.
Such historical reflections reinforce the notion that legal and moral accountability for heads of state is not theoretical; it is possible, even if politically difficult.
- Iran’s Right to Self-Defence
Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran retains the lawful right to defend itself against armed aggression. Yet the US-dominated global media often portrays Iranian responses as unjustified escalation, reflecting a stark asymmetry in the public narrative.
- Reform Steps to Reinvigorate Accountability
- Security Council reform: restrict veto usage in cases involving grave international crimes.
- Regional recognition: acknowledge aggression as a crime and empower national courts to prosecute foreign aggressors.
- International advocacy: mobilize legal campaigns calling for accountability-even symbolic prosecutions of Trump and others, in line with past efforts targeting Israeli war crimes.
Accountability for US aggression may be difficult, but it is not impossible. History demonstrates that international law can eventually reach powerful leaders. Former President Trump and other American officials are not above the law. If institutional paralysis exists today, let it strengthen future resolve to reopen these files.
International crimes- whether aggression or war crimes- do not expire with time, and high office does not grant impunity. Fairness demands that the USA be held accountable no differently than any other nation. Only when such accountability becomes reality can the global order begin healing from the chaos of unchecked power and uphold equality, sovereignty, and justice.
The writer is a University Professor and Researcher in Public Law, Based in North Africa, and can be reached at [email protected]
