The admissibility of threats, admissions, and statements of state officials in international law — Case study of the war of the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran

Author: Hossein KHORASANI et Mahdi BEYGI

Download the article as PDF

Abstract

Public international law, in its evolutionary trajectory, has transcended the monopoly of traditional sources enumerated in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. One of the most significant manifestations of this evolution is the recognition of the admissibility of threats, admissions, and statements of state officials as unilateral acts before international tribunals. The present research, employing a descriptive-analytical method with a critical approach, examines the substantive status and evidentiary value of these acts. The research findings demonstrate that unilateral acts, grounded in the principle of good faith and the doctrine of self-limitation, are capable of creating independent legal obligations. In this regard, developed rules of attribution establish that the statements of specialized ministers are also considered binding upon states, relying on the doctrine of attribution. An examination of judicial practice reveals a dual function of these acts; the International Court of Justice (ICJ), through an interpretation-oriented approach, considers these statements as a source of states’ civil obligations, while the International Criminal Court (ICC) evaluates officials’ threats and admissions as robust evidence for establishing the mental element of international crimes. Furthermore, this research proves that unilateral acts, in conjunction with United Nations resolutions, accelerate the formation process of customary international law and have become efficient regulatory tools in emerging fields such as international environmental law and international investment law. The case study of the US-Israeli war against Iran demonstrates that the threatening statements of the US President, the admissions of the Secretary of State, and the statements of the Israeli Prime Minister, upon establishing the intention to be bound, the competence of the official, and the publicity of the issuance, all constitute legal unilateral acts and give rise to international responsibility.

Keywords: Unilateral Acts, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, Admissions and Threats of Officials, Doctrine of Estoppel