The situation in Iran warrants immediate attention from the United Nations Security Council, according to prominent German legal scholar Claus Kreß. Speaking to the “Kölnische Rundschau”, Kreß expressed alarm at reports emerging from Iran, emphasizing the urgent need for the Security Council to take proactive measures. His comments come amidst escalating tensions, fueled by threats of sanctions from US President Donald Trump directed at the Iranian theocratic regime.
Kreß cautioned against the potential for a devastating crackdown on ongoing peaceful demonstrations, suggesting that the Security Council’s inaction in the face of such a scenario could realistically trigger discussions surrounding a humanitarian intervention – a prospect fraught with grave and complex dilemmas. He underscored the severity of the situation, warning of the potential consequences should the regime resort to large-scale violence against its citizenry.
However, Kreß sharply criticized the United States’ recent intervention in Venezuela, asserting that it lacked any semblance of justification under international law. While acknowledging that such interventions have occurred in the past, he highlighted the significant departure from established norms. Unlike the handling of the Panama situation in 1989, he noted, the US has failed to even attempt a credible justification for its actions within the legal framework of international law. He characterized the intervention as symptomatic of a broader danger: the potential disintegration of the international order and a descent into a state of lawlessness.
Kreß’s criticism was particularly pointed, referencing President Trump’s statement in the “New York Times” regarding his prioritization of personal moral convictions over adherence to international law. He denounced this assertion as “utterly baseless” raising concerns about the implications for the stability and legitimacy of global governance. The stark contrast between his condemnation of US actions in Venezuela and his call for Security Council engagement in Iran underscores a concern for the inconsistent application of international legal principles and the potential for selective enforcement based on geopolitical interests.