SRM University (SRMUH) 
Introduction
Some disputes between countries go back decades. They are layered with history, religion, politics, and competing claims that no single law or agreement can fully resolve.
The conflict between Iran and Israel is one of those. It is military in some dimensions, political in others, and deeply tied to questions of regional power, ideology, and national identity. It plays out in open statements, covert operations, proxy conflicts, and moments of confrontation.
And sitting underneath all of it, trying to define what is permissible and what is not, is international law.
International law does not solve conflicts like this one. Anyone who has followed global affairs for any length of time knows that. But it does something important. It establishes a shared framework of rules that countries have agreed to, at least in principle, follow. It defines when force can legally be used. It protects civilians caught in the middle of a conflict. It provides tools for diplomacy and accountability that exist outside the battlefield.
For students looking at the No. 1 law colleges in India, studying a conflict like Iran and Israel through the lens of international law is one of the most revealing ways to understand how legal principles operate when the stakes are real and the pressures are enormous.
What Is International Law and How Does It Actually Work?
International law is not a single document or a single court. It is a system built from multiple layers of rules, agreements, and customs that have developed over centuries.
At its foundation are treaties. These are formal agreements between countries that create binding legal obligations. When a country signs and ratifies a treaty, it commits itself to following the treaty’s rules. The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and hundreds of other agreements form the backbone of the international legal order.
Alongside treaties, there is customary international law. These are rules that have become so widely accepted and consistently followed by countries over time that they are considered binding even on states that have not formally signed a specific agreement. The prohibition on genocide is one example. The basic rules protecting civilians in armed conflict are another.
Then there are the institutions that interpret and apply these rules. The International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the UN Security Council, and various regional bodies all play roles in this system.
The system has real limitations, which we will come to. But it also has real substance. It shapes how countries justify their actions, how the international community responds to violations, and how diplomatic negotiations are framed.
Students at the No. 1 law colleges in India study this system in depth because understanding it is essential for anyone who wants to work in international law, diplomatic practice, or policy.
What Does International Law Say About Using Military Force?
This is the most fundamental question in international law, and it is directly relevant to any analysis of the Iran-Israel conflict.
The starting point is the United Nations Charter, which most countries in the world have signed. Article 2(4) of the Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. This is one of the most important rules in the entire international legal system. The idea behind it is straightforward. If countries can freely attack each other whenever they decide it serves their interests, peace becomes impossible to maintain.
But the Charter also recognizes that this prohibition cannot be absolute.
Article 51 preserves the right of individual and collective self-defense. If a country is attacked, it has the legal right to defend itself. This right exists under customary international law as well and is recognized as fundamental. The more contested legal question is when self-defense can be invoked. Can a country act pre-emptively against a threat that has not yet materialized? How imminent does a threat have to be to justify military action? These questions are actively debated among international law scholars and governments, and they come up directly in the context of how Israel and Iran have each justified their actions toward the other.
The UN Security Council has separate authority to authorize the use of force for the maintenance of international peace and security. This is the legal basis for many multilateral military operations. But the Security Council’s decision-making is complicated by the veto power held by its five permanent members, which means that geopolitical interests can and do block legal action.
Students at top law colleges in India analyze cases such as the Iran-Israel conflict using these legal frameworks. Not to arrive at simple answers, because simple answers rarely exist in international law, but to develop the rigorous analytical thinking that legal practice requires.
How Does International Law Protect Civilians During Conflict?
Even when force is legally justified, international law does not give countries a free hand to use it as they see fit. International humanitarian law, also known as the law of armed conflict or the laws of war, governs how military operations must be conducted.
The Geneva Conventions are the cornerstone of this body of law. Originally adopted in 1949 and extended by Additional Protocols in 1977, they establish binding rules for the treatment of people in armed conflict. Wounded soldiers must be cared for. Prisoners of war must be treated humanely. Medical facilities and personnel cannot be targeted. Civilians must be protected from attack.
Two principles sit at the heart of international humanitarian law. The first is distinction. Military operations must distinguish between combatants and civilians. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime under international law. The second is proportionality. Even when attacking a legitimate military target, the harm caused to civilians must not be excessive relative to the military advantage gained.
These principles are not always easy to apply in practice. Modern conflict often takes place in densely populated areas where the line between military and civilian infrastructure is blurred. Assessing proportionality involves judgments that reasonable people can dispute. These are genuine legal and ethical difficulties, not just technical ones.
In the context of Iran and Israel, questions about compliance with international humanitarian law arise on multiple dimensions. Attacks on infrastructure, the targeting of individuals, and operations that affect civilian populations all raise questions that international law is designed to address, even if the answers are contested.
For law students at the No. 1 law colleges in India, studying these principles in the context of real conflicts develops the kind of nuanced legal thinking that cannot be acquired from a textbook alone.
What Role Do Sanctions and Diplomacy Play?
Military force is not the only tool that international law provides for managing conflict. It also supports a range of non-military measures that countries can use to influence behavior and resolve disputes.
Sanctions are one of the most commonly used. These are restrictions imposed on a country’s economy, financial system, or leadership to change behavior. The United Nations Security Council has the authority to impose mandatory sanctions that all member states must follow. Individual countries and regional bodies, such as the European Union, can also impose their own sanctions.
Iran has been subject to extensive international sanctions related to its nuclear program, its support for armed groups in the region, and other activities that the sanctioning countries consider violations of international norms. The legal framework around sanctions is complex. There are rules about what sanctions can target, how they must be implemented, and what protections exist for humanitarian activity that might otherwise fall within their scope.
Diplomacy sits alongside sanctions as the other main non-military tool. International law actively supports the diplomatic resolution of disputes. The UN Charter calls on countries to seek peaceful solutions first. Numerous international institutions exist specifically to facilitate negotiation and mediation.
The ongoing diplomatic efforts around Iran’s nuclear program, involving multiple countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency, are a concrete example of how this works in practice. Agreements like the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, known as the JCPOA, represent attempts to use the tools of international law and diplomacy to manage what would otherwise be a purely military confrontation.
Students at the top law colleges in India who study these mechanisms develop skills directly applicable to careers in international law, diplomacy, and policy work.
What Makes Enforcing International Law So Difficult?
This is the honest part of any discussion about international law. The rules exist. But making countries follow them is genuinely hard.
There is no world government with the power to compel compliance. The International Court of Justice can rule on disputes between states, but it cannot compel a state to accept its jurisdiction or to comply with its judgments. The International Criminal Court can prosecute individuals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Still, it depends on states’ cooperation in arresting and surrendering suspects, and powerful countries have often refused to cooperate.
The UN Security Council has the most coercive authority in the international system. But the veto power held by its permanent members means that action can be blocked whenever it conflicts with a major power’s interests. This has been a consistent limitation on the Security Council’s ability to respond to conflicts involving states backed by permanent members.
Countries also interpret international law to serve their interests. The right of self-defense, the definition of a military target, and the assessment of proportionality are all areas where legal language gives governments room to justify actions others consider violations.
None of this means international law is meaningless. It shapes behavior, provides a language for international debate, creates accountability mechanisms that matter, even when imperfect, and establishes standards against whichagainst which violations must be measured. But it is not a system with the enforcement power of domestic law, and understanding that distinction is essential.
Students at the No. 1 law colleges in India engage with these tensions directly because becoming a serious international lawyer or a thoughtful policymaker requires understanding not just what the law says but where it works and where it falls short.
How Can the Right Legal Education Prepare You for This Field?
If international law genuinely interests you, the quality and focus of your legal education matters enormously.
This is a demanding area. It requires strong foundations in legal doctrine, genuine familiarity with history and international relations, the ability to analyze complex multilateral documents, and the skill to argue positions clearly and rigorously in writing and in person. It also requires the kind of intellectual honesty to engage with difficult questions that lack clean answers.
SRM University, Delhi NCR, Sonepat, takes legal education seriously on all of these dimensions. The law programs cover international law, human rights, and global governance as substantive areas of study. Students participate in moot courts that simulate real legal proceedings, building the practical skill of constructing and defending arguments under pressure. Internship opportunities connect students with legal practice while they are still in their program, so they arrive at their first professional role with genuine experience.
For students looking at the No. 1 law colleges in India, SRM University, Delhi NCR, Sonepat, offers an environment that genuinely bridges the gap between learning law in a classroom and practicing it in the world.
Why Should You Care About This as a Law Student?
The Iran-Israel conflict is not a historical case study. It is an ongoing situation, with live legal questions actively debated by governments, international institutions, lawyers, and scholars.
When is self-defense legally justified? What constitutes a war crime? How do sanctions interact with humanitarian obligations? What happens when a powerful country ignores an international court ruling? These are not abstract puzzles. They are real questions with real consequences for real people.
If you are drawn to law because you want your work to connect to the most important issues of your time, international law puts you right in the middle of them.
And the right education is where that journey starts.
