Baghaei: UNSC Resolution 2231 Has Expired
Tehran - BORNA - Baghaei made the remarks during a conference titled “Legal Response to the 12-Day Aggression: From Criminal Justice to Restorative Justice” held at the Faculty of Law and Political Science of the University of Tehran. He said that the international community has witnessed repeated violations of international law by certain countries, including in the case of the 2015 nuclear agreement (JCPOA) and UN Security Council Resolution 2231.
Referring to the recent attempts by the three European JCPOA parties — France, Germany, and the United Kingdom — to restore terminated UN sanctions against Iran, Baghaei said: “In the past two or three months, the three European countries have sought to reactivate the so-called snapback mechanism, but from the outset, we have declared this move illegal. This is not merely a political statement — it is a legal position.”
He underlined that no decision was adopted in the Security Council on this matter, as “two permanent members, China and Russia, opposed the move, two other members voiced their objections, and two members abstained.”
Addressing the legal experts and scholars present at the conference, Baghaei urged them to write and engage on the issue, noting that “many countries share Iran’s legal view — as reflected in the position of the 120 member states of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) during their recent ministerial meeting in Uganda.”
He stated that at the Kampala meeting, nearly 120 NAM member states supported Iran’s position, confirming that “the European move to reinstate resolutions against Iran lacks any legal validity.”
Baghaei further explained that the European initiative has created “legal confusion within the Security Council,” noting that there is “no consensus among Council members regarding what the three European states sought to achieve.” He added that “those who violate the law often try to justify their illegal actions by misusing legal concepts.”
Referring to Israel’s and the United States’ justifications for their recent attacks on Iran, the spokesperson said:
“The Israeli regime claimed its attack on Iran was a preventive strike, but such a notion has no basis in international law. The only recognized principle is legitimate self-defense in response to an actual armed attack — exactly what Iran exercised in defending itself against Israeli aggression.”
Baghaei stressed that Iran was subjected to “an unjustified act of military aggression,” adding that this reality must serve as the foundation of Iran’s legal position on issues of war, human rights, and international law.
He noted that the Foreign Ministry has documented and pursued this matter since the very first day of the conflict, publishing its efforts and reports in a compiled volume.
Calling the legal pursuit “a complex yet essential mission,” Baghaei said Iran faces “a regime that has been accused by two international courts of committing human rights violations and of perpetrating three of the four crimes listed in the Rome Statute.”
He continued: “The criminal nature of Israel’s attack on Iran is clear, but the main obstacle is that the regime enjoys constant protection from accountability by the United States and several Western countries. This sustained impunity has made our legal work difficult, yet it must not lead to discouragement.”
Baghaei concluded that Iran will continue its documentation and legal follow-up until justice is served, expressing hope that “one day, Iran will be able to seek justice before a competent international tribunal.” He also highlighted the importance of pursuing domestic legal avenues where applicable to protect Iranian citizens’ rights and shed light on all dimensions of the aggression.
End Article