International legal authorities have issued a sharp rebuke to the Australian government for its endorsement of military strikes conducted by the United States and Israel against Iran. They argue that Canberra's stance effectively supports an illegal act of aggression, thereby weakening the foundational principles of the post-1945 international order.
Legal Experts Condemn 'Rolling Over' on Use of Force
Professor Ben Saul, a United Nations special rapporteur and expert at the University of Sydney, stated unequivocally that the attacks represent a clear breach of the United Nations Charter's prohibition on the use of force. He emphasised that supporting such actions is profoundly damaging for nations like Australia, which traditionally advocate for a rules-based system.
'When countries like Australia roll over and support this kind of illegal aggression, that's the worst thing, in terms of contributing to the erosion of international law,' Professor Saul declared. He further argued that domestic criminal acts, such as those attributed to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Australia, do not constitute an armed attack justifying military self-defence under international law.
Government Justification and Diplomatic Fallout
Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have publicly defended Australia's position. They cited Iran's longstanding nuclear ambitions and its role in orchestrating attacks on Australian soil, including the 2024 firebombing of the Adass Israel synagogue in Melbourne, as justification for supporting preventative action.
'Australia supports action to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security,' Wong stated. The government subsequently expelled Iran's ambassador and designated the IRGC as a state sponsor of terrorism.
However, when pressed on the specific legal basis for the military strikes, both Wong and Albanese deferred to the United States and Israel. 'I will leave it for the United States and Israel to speak of the legal basis for the attacks,' Wong said on Sunday.
Academic and Political Backlash Intensifies
Professor Donald Rothwell of the Australian National University concurred with the legal assessment, noting that publicly available information provides no basis under the UN Charter for the attacks, whether as self-defence or under a Security Council mandate.
The political reaction has been swift and critical. Greens foreign affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge accused the Labor government of outsourcing Australian foreign policy to Washington, particularly through the use of facilities like Pine Gap for intelligence and targeting. 'People see through Labor when it says it believes in international law and then repeatedly backs the US and its illegal wars,' Shoebridge asserted.
Internal dissent within the Labor party has also surfaced. The Labor Against War group, with former senator Doug Cameron as patron, lambasted the government's stance. 'Albanese's backing of Israeli and US attacks on Iran shows that we are completely devoid of acting independently,' Cameron stated, lamenting a departure from Labor's historical pursuit of peace.
Calls for Diplomatic Resolution and Future Implications
Amid the controversy, Minister Wong reiterated Australia's ultimate desire for a diplomatic solution. 'We join our partners in calling on all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law,' she said, advocating for the resumption of dialogue.
Experts warn that Australia's alignment with the US on this issue carries significant long-term consequences. Professor Saul argued that middle powers have a crucial role in upholding international norms by raising the political cost for superpowers that violate them. By failing to do so, Australia risks normalising the unilateral use of force and further destabilising the global legal framework designed to maintain peace and security.
