The Larak Island Strike: Self-Defense in the Strait of Hormuz
- Edmarverson A. Santos
- 4 hours ago
- 37 min read
Introduction
On August 30, 2026, U.S. forces struck two Iranian launchers on Larak Island in the Strait of Hormuz after a U.S. official said Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel were preparing rockets capable of deploying sea mines into the waterway. The Larak Island strike marked the first known U.S. strikes on Iran since late July. The IRGC subsequently said that it had launched ballistic missiles at two U.S. military bases in Jordan in retaliation. The immediate legal question is narrower than the wider confrontation: could the United States lawfully destroy the Iranian launchers before the alleged mine deployment occurred? The U.S. characterization of the threat as imminent does not by itself answer that question (Reuters, 2026).
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires states to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs (United Nations, 1945). The International Court of Justice has also held that necessity and proportionality are customary international-law conditions governing the exercise of self-defense (ICJ, 1996, para. 41). Because the Larak launchers were reportedly attacked before the mines were deployed, the operation appears at first to raise the disputed question of anticipatory self-defense: whether force may lawfully be used against an armed attack that is imminent but has not yet begun. The status and precise limits of that doctrine remain contested.
The strike, however, did not occur in circumstances of peace between Iran and the United States. In a March 10, 2026 letter to the Security Council, Washington stated that combat operations begun on February 28 formed the latest stage of an “ongoing international armed conflict” and asserted that its actions were being taken in individual and collective self-defense. The United States also identified the protection of U.S. forces and the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz among the objectives of its operations and reserved the possibility of further defensive action where necessary (United States, 2026). Those assertions record the U.S. legal position; they do not establish that the underlying campaign, or the later Larak strike, complied with international law.
The prior hostilities nonetheless make the existence and scope of any continuing right of self-defense a separate legal question from whether Iran had initiated a new armed attack at the precise moment of the Larak operation. Even where a state has suffered an armed attack, an ongoing armed conflict does not create an unrestricted entitlement to attack every military asset of its adversary. Force used in self-defense must remain connected to a defensive purpose and satisfy necessity and proportionality. If a continuing Article 51 justification covered the Larak operation, the central issue would be whether destroying these particular launchers was required and proportionate to halting or preventing further Iranian attacks. If no such continuing justification existed, the legality of striking before mine deployment would depend much more heavily on the disputed doctrine of anticipatory self-defense and on evidence that an Iranian attack was genuinely imminent.
That evidentiary issue remains unresolved on the public record. The U.S. account states that IRGC personnel were preparing launchers capable of placing sea mines in the Strait of Hormuz, but the public statements reported to date have not disclosed the intelligence underlying the assessment that the threatened operation was imminent. The distinction is legally significant. Possession of weapons capable of deploying mines, preparations for possible use, and evidence that a launch is about to occur do not necessarily establish the same degree of urgency for purposes of self-defense.
The Strait of Hormuz raises a separate legal question. Naval mines in a heavily used international waterway can threaten warships, commercial vessels, civilian crews, and navigation by states outside the immediate conflict. Such dangers may affect the gravity and urgency of the alleged threat, but freedom of navigation does not itself constitute an independent exception to the Charter prohibition on force. The legality of the Larak strike ultimately depends on whether the United States possessed a valid right of self-defense, whether the two launchers were sufficiently connected to the armed attack or continuing threat invoked, and whether destroying them before the alleged mine deployment satisfied the requirements of necessity and proportionality under international law.
1. The Larak Island Strike and the Claimed Mine Threat
U.S. forces struck targets on Iran’s Larak Island on August 30, 2026, marking the first confirmed American attack on Iranian territory since July 29. A U.S. official identified the targets as two launchers and said Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel had been observed preparing to launch rockets carrying sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz. The United States did not publicly disclose the type of launcher, the mine system involved, or the intelligence supporting its assessment of the intended operation (Reuters, 2026a; Associated Press, 2026a).
Larak Island lies in the Strait of Hormuz, placing the reported activity directly within a waterway already central to the six-month U.S.–Iran conflict. The U.S. military had completed the clearance of sea mines from the strait’s international shipping routes during the preceding week. President Donald Trump had also warned that vessels laying new mines would be destroyed. After the Larak operation, U.S. Central Command described the attack as a “limited, precise action” against forces it said were preparing to lay mines and stated that the purpose was to protect civilian mariners, commercial shipping, and the flow of commerce through the strait (Associated Press, 2026a).
Iranian sources confirmed that an attack had occurred but presented a different account of its character and consequences. The semi-official Tasnim news agency described the operation as a U.S. drone strike. The IRGC reported deaths and injuries among its personnel and civilians without providing an independently verified casualty figure in the immediate aftermath. Those claims should remain attributed to Iranian authorities rather than treated as established facts (Reuters, 2026a).
Iran then announced retaliatory missile attacks against U.S. sites in Jordan. Iranian state television showed what it said were ballistic missiles being launched at U.S. bases, while Jordan’s armed forces reported intercepting eight missiles that entered Jordanian airspace. The exchange broke an approximately one-month period without a confirmed U.S. strike on Iran. It did not, however, begin a new confrontation: direct hostilities involving the United States, Iran, and Israel had been continuing intermittently since February 2026 (Associated Press, 2026a).
1.1 What the Public Evidence Establishes
The public record establishes with confidence that U.S. forces attacked Larak Island and that American officials identified two launchers as the targets. It also establishes that the United States publicly linked those launchers to an alleged IRGC operation involving rockets capable of deploying sea mines. Iranian authorities acknowledged the attack and reported casualties. The more consequential proposition—that Iranian forces were on the verge of mining the Strait of Hormuz—remains dependent on the U.S. account of intelligence that has not been publicly disclosed (Reuters, 2026a).
That distinction affects the legal analysis because military “preparation” can describe materially different stages of activity. Possessing launchers capable of delivering sea mines establishes capability. Moving, loading, testing, or preparing those weapons may provide evidence of operational readiness, but not necessarily proof that a decision to attack has been taken. A mission-specific firing order, completed targeting process, or launch sequence would indicate a substantially more advanced threat.
The available U.S. statements do not identify where the activity on Larak fell along that spectrum. They do not disclose whether an operational order had been issued, how soon American officials believed the launch would occur, or what observations supported that conclusion. The absence of those details does not demonstrate that the U.S. assessment was wrong. States are not generally required to publish sensitive intelligence before exercising a claimed right of self-defense. It does limit what can presently be established from public evidence.
International adjudication does not treat a state’s characterization of an attack as conclusive merely because intelligence cannot be disclosed publicly. In Oil Platforms, the International Court of Justice examined the evidence offered to attribute attacks to Iran and assessed the relationship between those incidents and the American force used in response. The Court required the United States to establish an armed attack attributable to Iran and to show that its response was necessary and proportionate (ICJ, 2003, paras. 51–78). The same evidentiary discipline is relevant to Larak: the public evidence confirms a serious U.S. allegation of an impending mine operation, but it does not presently permit an independent determination of how close that operation was to execution.
2. Article 51 and the Existing U.S.–Iran Hostilities
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter requires states to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs. The International Court of Justice has repeatedly held that necessity and proportionality are customary international-law conditions governing the exercise of that right (United Nations, 1945; ICJ, 1986, para. 176; ICJ, 1996, para. 41).
The Larak strike occurred within hostilities for which Washington had already invoked Article 51. In a letter dated March 10, 2026, the United States informed the Security Council that combat operations begun on February 28 were being undertaken in self-defense against attacks and continuing threats from Iran. It described those operations as the latest stage of an “ongoing international armed conflict,” stated that they were also being conducted in collective self-defense of Israel, and identified the protection of U.S. forces and maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz among their purposes. The United States also reserved the right to take further action in individual and collective self-defense where necessary (United States, 2026, S/2026/161).
The existence of an international armed conflict and the legality of resorting to force within that conflict are separate questions. International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of hostilities once an armed conflict exists. The jus ad bellum governs whether interstate force may lawfully be initiated or continued. The ICJ has expressly distinguished these bodies of law: force that satisfies the proportionality requirement of self-defense must still comply with the separate rules governing armed conflict (ICJ, 1996, para. 42).
The reverse is equally important. The fact that an object may qualify as a military objective under international humanitarian law does not establish that a state is entitled to attack it under Article 51. The Larak launchers could have been military objects relevant to the conduct of hostilities while the separate question remained whether the United States possessed a lawful basis to use force against them at that time. The Article 51 inquiry cannot be displaced simply by classifying the broader confrontation as an armed conflict.
2.1 Continuing Self-Defense and Individual Strikes
Where an armed attack is genuinely continuing, the defending state does not need to identify a new Article 51 trigger for every individual tactical action taken to repel it. A continuing invasion, bombardment, or comparable sustained attack may support defensive operations for as long as the underlying right of self-defense remains engaged, subject to necessity and proportionality. Article 51 would otherwise operate unrealistically if every strike within a continuous defensive campaign had to be justified as a response to a wholly separate armed attack.
Greater difficulty arises where hostilities are intermittent. Separate attacks occurring over time do not automatically constitute one legally continuous armed attack merely because they involve the same states or form part of a wider political conflict. International law does not clearly establish an unrestricted “continuing self-defense” doctrine under which earlier attacks preserve an open-ended right to use force against whatever military capabilities may later pose a danger.
Some states have treated a concerted pattern of continuing armed activity as relevant when assessing the necessity and imminence of defensive action. The United Kingdom, for example, has identified an anticipated attack’s relationship to a continuing pattern of armed activity as one factor that may inform an imminence assessment (UK Attorney General, 2017). That position is state practice and opinio juris attributable to the United Kingdom; it is not a universally accepted test governing every interstate confrontation.
Necessity remains a central constraint. Defensive force must retain a sufficient relationship to the attack that generated the right of self-defense. In Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, the ICJ emphasized that Article 51 operates within “strict confines” and does not permit a state to use force to protect perceived security interests outside those parameters. The Court also questioned how the seizure of towns and airports hundreds of kilometers from Uganda’s border could be necessary or proportionate to the transborder attacks Uganda had invoked (ICJ, 2005, paras. 147–148).
For Larak, the existence of earlier hostilities is consequently relevant but not decisive. If the two launchers were being prepared for an operation forming part of ongoing Iranian armed attacks against U.S. forces, the connection to an existing defensive purpose would be stronger. If they represented only a military capability that might be used at some later stage, the earlier attacks could not by themselves create an indefinite authority to destroy them. The legal issue is the relationship between the specific force used on August 30 and the armed attack or continuing defensive threat on which the United States relied.
2.2 The Legal Limits of the U.S. Position
The March 2026 notification establishes what legal basis the United States formally asserted. Washington claimed that Iran posed continuing threats to American forces and allies, referred to earlier attacks involving the IRGC and associated groups, invoked Iranian missile capabilities, and stated that peaceful measures had been attempted and exhausted. It characterized the February operations as necessary and proportionate self-defense and expressly reserved further defensive action (United States, 2026, S/2026/161).
Those assertions do not determine the legality of the campaign. Article 51 requires states exercising self-defense to report measures to the Security Council, but notification is procedural rather than dispositive. A letter to the Council records the acting state’s legal position and may provide evidence concerning how that state characterizes its conduct. It does not transform contested factual allegations into established armed attacks or remove the requirements of necessity and proportionality.
Iran has advanced an incompatible characterization. In its February 28 letter to the Security Council, Tehran described the U.S.–Israeli attacks on Iranian territory as a violation of Article 2(4) and as armed aggression against Iran. It invoked its own right of self-defense under Article 51 and stated that it would continue exercising that right until what it described as the aggression had ceased (Iran, 2026, S/2026/106). The two states thus dispute the legal character of the hostilities as well as the factual and temporal scope of their respective self-defense claims.
The U.S. reliance on collective self-defense of Israel carries additional legal requirements. In Nicaragua, the ICJ held that collective self-defense presupposes an armed attack against the state receiving assistance and attached legal significance to that state declaring itself attacked and requesting assistance (ICJ, 1986, paras. 195, 199). Washington’s statement that it was acting in collective self-defense of Israel is relevant evidence of the U.S. position, but it does not dispense with the need to establish the underlying armed attack and to satisfy necessity and proportionality. The Larak operation can be treated as part of continuing self-defense only if those substantive conditions extend to that particular use of force; the earlier Article 51 notification cannot supply the answer on its own.
3. Does the Strike Depend on Anticipatory Self-Defense?
The timing of the Larak operation becomes especially important if an existing right of self-defense cannot independently justify the strike. The United States said IRGC personnel were preparing launchers for rockets carrying sea mines, which indicates that American force preceded the alleged mine deployment. If no ongoing armed attack supplied a sufficient Article 51 basis, the question becomes whether international law permitted the United States to strike before the threatened Iranian operation began.
The Charter text provides the starting point. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of self-defense “if an armed attack occurs.” A restrictive interpretation treats those words as requiring an armed attack before unilateral defensive force may be used. On that view, threats that have not yet crossed the armed-attack threshold cannot ordinarily be met by force without Security Council authorization, however serious they may appear.
The ICJ has not definitively resolved the broader controversy over anticipatory self-defense. In Nicaragua, the Court expressly stated that it was not addressing “the lawfulness of a response to the imminent threat of armed attack,” because the issue did not arise on the facts before it (ICJ, 1986, para. 194). Later cases have continued to insist on a demonstrable Article 51 basis for self-defense without producing a general ruling that either accepts or excludes force against every imminent attack.
A different position holds that Article 51’s reference to the “inherent” right preserved a customary right to act before an attack where the threat has become genuinely imminent. The 2004 UN High-level Panel adopted that approach, concluding that a threatened state could use force where the threatened attack was imminent, no other means would deflect it, and the response was proportionate (UN High-level Panel, 2004, para. 188). That report is influential but non-binding. It does not establish the existence or precise content of customary law by itself, and states continue to differ over how far anticipatory self-defense extends.
3.1 Imminence and the Caroline Standard
Modern debates about anticipatory self-defense remain closely associated with the Caroline incident. In December 1837, British forces crossed into U.S. territory and destroyed the steamer Caroline, which had been used in support of Canadian rebels. The ensuing diplomatic correspondence between the United States and Britain produced the formulation most frequently associated with pre-Charter anticipatory self-defense.
U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster argued that Britain had to demonstrate a necessity of self-defense that was instant and overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no time for deliberation (Webster, 1842). Although the legal significance of the Caroline correspondence after 1945 remains contested, its formulation continues to influence arguments that customary international law recognizes defensive force against an imminent attack.
Imminence in this tradition is closely connected to necessity. It does not merely ask whether an attack is expected at some point. The central inquiry is whether the threat has developed to a stage at which delaying action would deprive the threatened state of a reasonable opportunity to defend itself. General military capability, hostile intentions, threatening rhetoric, or preparations whose execution remains contingent on later decisions are not necessarily equivalent to an attack that is about to occur.
Contemporary state practice has sometimes adopted a more contextual approach to temporal proximity. The United Kingdom has stated that imminence should be considered through factors including the nature and immediacy of the threat, the probability and likely scale of an attack, whether it forms part of a continuing pattern of armed activity, and whether later opportunities for effective defensive action are likely to exist (UK Attorney General, 2017). That formulation illustrates one state’s interpretation of necessity in modern conditions. It should not be presented as a universally accepted rule, particularly because the 2017 statement was developed principally in relation to threats posed by non-state actors.
3.2 Preparing Sea Mines and the Threshold of Imminence
Applied to Larak, the legal significance of the U.S. allegation depends heavily on what “preparing to launch” meant in operational terms. The mere presence of launchers capable of deploying sea mines would establish military capability. Even preparation of those launchers would not necessarily establish that a decision to mine the strait had become irreversible or that an attack was about to begin.
The assessment changes if the United States possessed evidence of a mission-specific operational order. Intelligence showing that rockets had been loaded for immediate use, firing procedures had begun, target areas had been designated, or commanders had issued orders to place mines in the shipping lanes could support a substantially stronger claim of imminence. Under interpretations of international law that recognize anticipatory self-defense, the critical issue would then be whether waiting until the actual launch would remove the last reasonable opportunity to avert the attack.
A shorter operational window would also affect necessity. Sea mines can create hazards after deployment that differ from those presented by conventional projectiles: once placed in an international shipping route, they may remain capable of damaging vessels until detected and neutralized. That practical feature may be relevant to whether interception after deployment would provide an adequate alternative. It does not, by itself, establish a legal right to strike before deployment. The underlying requirements of an armed attack or accepted anticipatory self-defense remain controlling.
The available public evidence does not reveal whether the United States had information at that level of specificity. American officials stated that IRGC personnel were observed preparing the launchers, but they have not publicly disclosed the operational intelligence establishing when the alleged mine-laying mission was expected to begin. The distinction between capability, preparation, an issued operational order, and commencement of execution consequently cannot be resolved from the present public record (Reuters, 2026a; Associated Press, 2026a).
That uncertainty affects the legal characterization rather than merely the strength of the factual narrative. If the Larak operation fell within a valid and continuing exercise of self-defense against an ongoing Iranian armed attack, a wholly new imminent attack would not necessarily be required to justify each tactical strike, although necessity and proportionality would still have to be satisfied. If no such continuing basis existed, the legality of attacking before the mines were deployed would depend much more heavily on the contested doctrine of anticipatory self-defense and on evidence showing that the alleged Iranian operation had progressed beyond military readiness to a threat sufficiently imminent to make the use of force necessary.
4. Necessity and the Decision to Strike Larak
Even if the United States possessed a valid right of self-defense on August 30, that conclusion would not by itself justify force against the two launchers identified by U.S. officials on Larak Island. Necessity applies to the exercise of defensive force as well as to the existence of the right invoked. The legal question is whether striking those particular targets was reasonably required to respond to the armed attack or continuing defensive threat relied upon by the United States. Military usefulness and legal necessity are not synonymous.
The U.S. account supplies a specific defensive rationale. American officials stated that IRGC personnel were preparing two launchers for rockets capable of deploying sea mines into the Strait of Hormuz, while U.S. Central Command described the subsequent operation as a limited and precise action intended to protect civilian mariners and commercial shipping (Associated Press, 2026a; Reuters, 2026a). If the United States possessed reliable intelligence linking those launchers to an operation forming part of armed attacks against U.S. interests protected under Article 51, striking the delivery systems could have a direct relationship to the asserted defensive purpose.
The legal position becomes weaker if the launchers were selected principally because destroying them would reduce Iran’s future military capabilities. Article 51 does not provide a general entitlement to degrade an adversary’s armed forces whenever doing so might improve the defending state’s security. Defensive force must remain connected to the armed attack that generates the right of self-defense and must satisfy necessity and proportionality (ICJ, 1986, para. 176; ICJ, 1996, para. 41). An operation aimed primarily at strategic attrition or punishment cannot be justified merely by describing the target as militarily valuable.
Timing consequently forms part of the necessity inquiry. A strike against launchers about to deploy mines into active shipping routes presents a different case from an attack on equipment whose possible future use remained dependent on additional decisions. The public U.S. statements reported to date do not disclose the intelligence establishing how close the alleged mine operation was to execution, whether an operational order had already been issued, or what alternative means U.S. commanders considered available. Those factual limits prevent a definitive public assessment of necessity.
4.1 Oil Platforms and the Connection to the Threat
The ICJ’s judgment in Oil Platforms is especially relevant because the dispute also arose from U.S.–Iran confrontation in the Persian Gulf and involved attacks on vessels, naval mines, and American force against Iranian installations. The case nevertheless arose under the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The Court was not exercising a general jurisdiction to determine Charter compliance; rather, it assessed the U.S. reliance on the treaty’s essential-security clause by reference to the international law governing self-defense (ICJ, 2003, paras. 40–43).
The United States relied principally on the 1987 missile attack on the U.S.-flagged Sea Isle City and the April 1988 mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts. Following the latter incident, Operation Praying Mantis involved attacks on Iranian oil platforms and naval forces. The Court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to establish the necessary Iranian armed attacks on the United States and then considered whether the American measures could, in any event, satisfy necessity and proportionality (ICJ, 2003, paras. 51–78).
The relationship between the targets and the defensive justification was central to the Court’s treatment of necessity. The United States argued that Iranian oil platforms were being used for military functions, but the Court was not persuaded that destroying them had been shown to be necessary in response to the attacks invoked. It noted, among other considerations, that the United States had not previously complained to Iran about military activities on the platforms in the same manner as it had complained about mining and attacks on shipping. The R-4 platform of the Reshadat complex had also been described by U.S. forces as a “target of opportunity” (ICJ, 2003, para. 76).
Larak presents a potentially closer connection between the asserted threat and the selected target. If the two launchers were themselves being prepared to execute the alleged mine operation, destroying them would be directed against the means of carrying out the threatened attack rather than against infrastructure whose connection to previous attacks remained uncertain. That difference could strengthen the U.S. necessity argument. It remains contingent, however, on the accuracy of the underlying factual assessment.
Oil Platforms does not establish that a target must already be firing or actively attacking before defensive force can be necessary. Its significance lies in the requirement to demonstrate a credible connection between the armed attack invoked, the target selected, and the defensive purpose served. The same distinction separates an attack aimed at preventing a specific armed operation from one undertaken principally to weaken an adversary’s broader military capacity.
4.2 Could the United States Have Waited?
Necessity does not impose a mechanical obligation to exhaust every possible non-forcible or less destructive option before a state can act in self-defense. The existence of realistic alternatives is nonetheless relevant when determining whether force was required. The assessment must take account of the information reasonably available to decision-makers at the time rather than depend on alternatives identified only with hindsight.
Several possible responses can be identified in abstract terms. U.S. forces might have continued surveillance, issued warnings, attempted to intercept the rockets after launch, relied on mine-countermeasure capabilities, or delayed action until preparations progressed further. None of those possibilities can be assumed to have been operationally adequate. Warning the forces involved might have accelerated the alleged deployment, while waiting until mines entered the water could create risks that later clearance operations could not eliminate immediately.
The existence of U.S. mine-clearing capabilities does not itself show that waiting was a reasonable alternative. Once mines are dispersed through a shipping route, locating and neutralizing them may require time while vessels remain exposed to danger. Conversely, if U.S. surveillance could reliably track the launchers and the alleged operation was not close to execution, greater time could weaken the contention that an immediate strike on Iranian territory was necessary.
The ICJ’s reasoning in Oil Platforms does not create a categorical requirement of prior warning or diplomatic protest. The Court considered the absence of earlier complaints concerning the platforms as evidence bearing on whether the United States genuinely regarded their destruction as necessary (ICJ, 2003, para. 76). Necessity remains contextual: the question is whether other reasonably effective means were available to address the armed attack without resorting to the force actually used.
The unresolved variable at Larak is the operational window. If U.S. decision-makers possessed credible information that deployment was about to occur and that waiting would remove the last reasonable opportunity to prevent the threatened attack, the necessity argument becomes significantly stronger. If meaningful time and effective alternatives remained, the justification becomes correspondingly weaker. The publicly available account does not permit that factual question to be resolved conclusively.
5. Proportionality and the Scope of the Defensive Response
Proportionality is a separate customary condition of self-defense. The ICJ has repeatedly stated that measures taken in self-defense must be necessary to respond to the armed attack and proportionate to it (ICJ, 1986, para. 176; ICJ, 1996, para. 41). That formulation does not require numerical equivalence between attack and response. A defending state need not use the same weapons, cause the same amount of damage, or restrict itself to targets identical to those used by the attacker.
The precise methodology of jus ad bellum proportionality remains the subject of scholarly disagreement. Some formulations emphasize the relationship between the scale of defensive force and the armed attack suffered, while others place greater weight on what force is reasonably required to achieve the legitimate defensive objective of halting or repelling that attack. The ICJ’s jurisprudence does not reduce the inquiry to a single mathematical comparison. It does make clear that the scale and character of the response cannot exceed what can be justified as self-defense.
This proportionality requirement must also be distinguished from proportionality under international humanitarian law. IHL prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian death, injury, or damage that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 51(5)(b)). Jus ad bellum proportionality addresses the permissible scope of interstate force exercised in self-defense. A strike may satisfy one body of law while violating the other (ICJ, 1996, para. 42).
The publicly reported target set at Larak was narrow: U.S. officials identified two launchers, and CENTCOM characterized the action as limited and precise (Associated Press, 2026a). That description may support the U.S. argument if the defensive objective was specifically to prevent those launchers from deploying mines. It cannot establish proportionality by itself. The legal assessment depends on the gravity of the armed attack or threat being addressed and on whether the force used remained proportionate to it.
5.1 The Strike Within the Wider Military Campaign
The treatment of Operation Praying Mantis in Oil Platforms shows why the unit of analysis can extend beyond an individual target. The United States had attacked the Salman and Nasr oil platforms as part of a larger April 1988 operation that also involved attacks on Iranian naval forces. The ICJ refused to evaluate the platform strikes as though they were isolated from the broader military operation of which they formed part (ICJ, 2003, para. 77).
The Court did not create a rule requiring every strike within a prolonged conflict to be aggregated with every other military action. Its reasoning concerned attacks forming part of the same operation and justified as a response to the same alleged armed attack. The relevance of the wider U.S. campaign in 2026 consequently depends on how Washington legally characterizes the Larak operation and the armed attack to which it says the strike responded.
If the Larak attack was a discrete effort to prevent the alleged deployment of new mines, its narrow target set could weigh substantially in the proportionality analysis. The corresponding legal burden would fall more heavily on demonstrating that the mine operation represented an armed attack, or an imminent attack under a legally available anticipatory-self-defense theory, and that force against the launchers was necessary.
A broader continuing-self-defense theory changes the analysis. If the United States treats the Larak strike as one component of a sustained defensive campaign responding to continuing Iranian armed attacks, the relationship between the cumulative U.S. response and those attacks may become relevant. A state cannot avoid proportionality scrutiny merely by dividing a larger defensive operation into individually limited strikes.
No simple comparison of casualties, weapons, or economic damage resolves that issue. Proportionality is not retaliation by arithmetic. The narrower the asserted defensive objective at Larak, the more significant the evidence concerning the specific mine threat becomes. The broader the Article 51 justification, the more difficult it becomes to assess proportionality without considering the scale and purpose of the wider military response.
6. Commercial Shipping and the Right of Self-Defense
Protection of maritime commerce has figured prominently in the U.S. explanation of its operations against Iran. The March 2026 Article 51 notification stated that U.S. combat operations were intended in part to ensure the free flow of maritime commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, while CENTCOM later linked the Larak strike to the protection of civilian mariners and commercial shipping (United States, 2026, S/2026/161; Associated Press, 2026a).
The strategic and economic importance of uninterrupted navigation does not create a separate exception to Article 2(4). The Charter recognizes self-defense under Article 51 and allows enforcement action authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII. It does not establish a unilateral right to attack another state solely to maintain international trade routes. Interference with navigation may violate other rules of international law without necessarily constituting an armed attack.
The position changes where the interference itself involves armed violence of sufficient gravity. Naval mines capable of killing personnel or damaging vessels may implicate Article 51 in circumstances that ordinary navigational interference would not. Even then, the applicable right of self-defense belongs to a state or states affected by an armed attack; the economic interests of the international community cannot substitute for the Charter’s legal requirements.
Oil Platforms provides a direct illustration. The United States referred to attacks on vessels of several nationalities when explaining the threat posed by Iran, but the ICJ distinguished attacks potentially directed against the United States from incidents affecting other states’ shipping. Because Washington had not invoked collective self-defense on behalf of those other states, attacks on their vessels could not simply be treated as part of the U.S. claim of individual self-defense (ICJ, 2003, para. 51).
6.1 Threats to U.S. Ships and Personnel
The clearest individual-self-defense scenario concerns armed attacks on U.S. military forces or warships. If the U.S. factual account is correct that the alleged mine operation was being prepared by IRGC personnel, attribution would not present the same doctrinal problem encountered in Oil Platforms. The IRGC is an organ of the Iranian state; conduct established to have been carried out by its personnel in that capacity would be attributable to Iran. The principal evidentiary question would instead concern whether the alleged preparations occurred and what operation they were intended to support.
Oil Platforms nevertheless remains instructive on proof of an armed attack. In relation to the Sea Isle City, the Court found the evidence insufficient to establish that Iran was responsible for the missile strike relied upon by the United States (ICJ, 2003, paras. 52–61). Concerning the USS Samuel B. Roberts, the Court regarded the evidence linking the mine to Iran as suggestive but insufficient to establish the U.S. case to the required standard.
The Court made an important additional observation about the military vessel. It did not exclude the possibility that the mining of a single warship could, depending on the circumstances, amount to an armed attack capable of engaging Article 51 (ICJ, 2003, para. 72). A credible threat of comparable force against U.S. military vessels would consequently present a materially stronger individual-self-defense argument than a generalized threat to maritime commerce.
The position of U.S.-flagged merchant vessels is less conclusively settled. Oil Platforms does not establish a categorical rule that every sufficiently grave attack on a merchant vessel constitutes an armed attack against its flag state. The Court examined the Sea Isle City incident within the U.S. self-defense claim but did not articulate a general doctrine governing when attacks on merchant vessels engage the flag state’s Article 51 rights.
A serious attack on a U.S.-flagged commercial vessel could potentially contribute to an armed-attack analysis, depending on its gravity, circumstances, and legal relationship to the United States. Flag status alone is insufficient, and proof of a subjective Iranian intention to attack a particular U.S. vessel is not necessarily an independent legal element. Relevant considerations would include the expected targets and effects of the operation, the scale of the force involved, and whether the alleged conduct constituted an armed attack against the United States within Article 51.
6.2 Protecting Ships of Other States
Foreign merchant vessels raise a different problem. The United States cannot transform harm to vessels connected to other states into an armed attack on itself merely because the consequences threaten American economic or strategic interests. Individual self-defense depends on an armed attack against the state invoking that right.
Collective self-defense may provide a lawful basis for assistance where another state has suffered an armed attack. Nicaragua established that customary international law requires the state claiming to be the victim to regard itself as having suffered an armed attack and to request assistance before another state may exercise collective self-defense on its behalf (ICJ, 1986, paras. 195, 199).
The ICJ applied that distinction directly in Oil Platforms. Although the United States referred to attacks on neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf, it did not claim to have acted in collective self-defense of the states connected to those vessels. The Court consequently required the United States to establish attacks against itself for purposes of the individual-self-defense justification it had advanced (ICJ, 2003, para. 51).
An attack on a foreign merchant vessel would not automatically amount to an armed attack against its flag state merely because it involved unlawful interference with navigation. The gravity and circumstances of the incident would remain relevant. If the armed-attack threshold were satisfied and the affected state requested assistance, collective self-defense could become available, subject to necessity and proportionality. The commercial importance of the vessel or the economic consequences of disruption cannot replace those requirements.
There is consequently no general Article 51 entitlement to use force in “defense of global commerce.” That expression may identify a strategic objective, but international commerce is not a state capable of invoking Article 51 or requesting collective self-defense. Threats to shipping can strengthen the factual case that an Iranian mine operation would have serious consequences. They cannot independently expand the recognized exceptions to the Charter prohibition on force.
7. Freedom of Navigation Does Not Authorize Force
The Strait of Hormuz is a strait used for international navigation connecting the Persian Gulf with the Gulf of Oman and the wider Indian Ocean. Part III of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea establishes the regime of transit passage for straits of this kind. Article 38 recognizes transit passage for continuous and expeditious transit, while Article 44 requires states bordering straits not to hamper transit passage, to publicize known dangers to navigation or overflight, and not to suspend transit passage (UNCLOS, 1982, arts. 37–44).
The treaty position of Iran and the United States requires care. Iran signed UNCLOS in 1982 but has not ratified it. In its declaration upon signature, Iran stated that certain provisions of the Convention, including the regime of transit passage, were contractual in character and available only to parties. The United States is also not a party to UNCLOS but regards transit passage through international straits as reflecting customary international law. The legal relationship between Washington and Tehran cannot consequently be treated as though both states were bound by Part III simply as treaty law.
Customary law nevertheless protects navigation through international straits. In Corfu Channel, the International Court of Justice held that states in time of peace possess a customary right for warships to pass through straits used for international navigation, provided that the passage is innocent. Albania could not require special authorization merely because the waters formed part of its territorial sea (ICJ, 1949, pp. 28–30). The judgment predated the distinct transit-passage regime later created by UNCLOS and does not establish every element of that regime as customary law.
The case also illustrates the limits of unilateral enforcement. After British warships struck mines in Albanian waters, the United Kingdom conducted minesweeping operations without Albania’s consent. The Court rejected the British reliance on intervention and “self-help” and held that the operation violated Albanian sovereignty (ICJ, 1949, pp. 34–35). Albania’s responsibility for failing to warn approaching ships of the minefield did not confer a general British entitlement to enforce navigational rights through operations in Albanian territory.
The same distinction governs the Strait of Hormuz. Interference with lawful navigation may breach the law of the sea, customary rules governing international straits, or other international obligations and may engage state responsibility. It does not follow that every affected state acquires a right to attack Iranian territory. Armed force against Iran still requires an independent legal basis under the jus ad bellum, such as individual or collective self-defense or Security Council authorization. Freedom of navigation identifies an interest protected by international law; it is not itself an exception to Article 2(4).
7.1 Sea Mines in an International Strait
Sea mines create a distinct legal danger because their effects need not remain confined to the armed forces against which they are directed. Mines placed in or near international shipping routes may endanger merchant vessels, neutral shipping, and warships alike. Their continued presence may also expose vessels to risk after the immediate military operation has ended, particularly where mines are difficult to locate, break free from their original positions, or remain active after deployment.
The 1907 Hague Convention VIII concerning automatic submarine contact mines remains an important historical instrument in the development of naval mine law. Article 1 restricts certain unanchored and anchored automatic contact mines; Article 2 prohibits laying such mines off enemy coasts and ports for the sole purpose of intercepting commercial shipping; and Article 3 requires every possible precaution for the security of peaceful shipping and notification of danger zones when mines cease to be under surveillance, subject to military exigencies (Hague Convention VIII, 1907, arts. 1–3).
Those provisions do not apply as treaty law between Iran and the United States in the present conflict. Iran signed Hague Convention VIII but never ratified it, whereas the United States became a party in 1909. Article 7 further limits the Convention’s operation to conflicts in which all belligerents are parties. Hague VIII is consequently relevant to the historical development of the law and potentially to the identification of corresponding customary rules, but its treaty obligations cannot simply be imposed on Iran in this conflict.
Contemporary naval warfare law is broader than the specific technology addressed in 1907. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea states that mining must not have the practical effect of preventing passage between neutral and international waters and that transit passage through international straits should not be impeded unless safe and convenient alternative routes are provided (San Remo Manual, 1994, paras. 87–89). The Manual is a non-binding expert restatement rather than a treaty, so its formulations remain subject to verification against applicable treaty rules, customary international law, and state practice.
Corfu Channel provides firmer judicial authority concerning known minefields. The ICJ did not establish that Albania itself had laid the mines. It nevertheless held Albania responsible because it knew of the minefield and failed to warn approaching British ships. The Court grounded that obligation in elementary considerations of humanity, freedom of maritime communication, and the duty of a state not knowingly to allow its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states (ICJ, 1949, p. 22).
A deliberate Iranian operation placing mines in international shipping routes without adequate precautions could accordingly raise serious questions under the law governing naval warfare and international navigation. Such conduct could strengthen the factual case that the threat faced by affected vessels was grave and urgent. It would not determine which state was entitled to answer that threat with force. The legality of the mine operation and the existence of an Article 51 entitlement remain separate questions.
8. Jus ad Bellum and the Law of Targeting
The legality of the Larak strike depends on two bodies of international law that perform different functions. The jus ad bellum determines whether the United States was entitled to use force against Iran. International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of attacks once an international armed conflict exists. The ICJ has confirmed that a use of force satisfying the requirements of self-defense must still comply with the separate rules governing armed conflict (ICJ, 1996, para. 42).
A military object may be lawfully targetable under IHL without the interstate use of force itself being lawful under Article 51. The customary principle of distinction restricts attacks to military objectives. Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I expresses the widely used definition: objects are military objectives when, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, they make an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time (Additional Protocol I, 1977, art. 52(2)).
Neither Iran nor the United States is a party to Additional Protocol I, although both signed it in 1977. Its provisions cannot accordingly be applied between them simply as treaty obligations. Core rules relevant to targeting—including distinction between civilian objects and military objectives, proportionality in attack, and feasible precautions—are nevertheless widely recognized as customary international humanitarian law (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005, Rules 7, 14–21). The ICJ has described distinction as one of the cardinal principles of humanitarian law (ICJ, 1996, para. 78).
If the objects struck on Larak were genuinely IRGC rocket launchers being prepared for military operations, their qualification as military objectives would ordinarily present little difficulty. Military weapons and delivery systems generally make an effective contribution to military action, and their neutralization can offer a definite military advantage. That conclusion addresses target status only. It does not establish that the United States was entitled to use armed force on Iranian territory at that time.
A valid Article 51 justification would not settle the IHL analysis either. Customary IHL prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian death, injury, or damage excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated and requires feasible precautions in verifying targets and selecting means and methods of attack (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005, Rules 14–21). These requirements are analytically distinct from necessity and proportionality under the jus ad bellum.
The two bodies of law can consequently produce different legal conclusions. An operation may strike a genuine military objective in compliance with IHL while forming part of an unlawful interstate use of force. Conversely, a state lawfully acting in self-defense may conduct an individual attack unlawfully if it fails to distinguish, disregards feasible precautions, or anticipates excessive incidental civilian harm. Military-objective status cannot substitute for the Article 51 inquiry.
8.1 What Cannot Yet Be Determined Publicly
The public evidence permits identification of the basic target alleged by the United States but does not allow a complete assessment of the conduct of the strike. U.S. officials identified two launchers and attributed their operation to IRGC personnel. Iranian authorities acknowledged an attack and reported casualties. Those propositions do not reveal the full information available to those who selected and approved the targets.
U.S. sources have not publicly specified the strike platform or weapon employed. Iranian reporting described the operation as a drone strike, but that characterization has not been independently established in the available reporting. Nor have U.S. authorities publicly disclosed the targeting intelligence used to identify the launchers, the expected military advantage from destroying them at that moment, or the anticipated effects on nearby civilians and civilian objects.
The available information is similarly insufficient to evaluate proportionality in the attack. Iranian sources reported civilian as well as military casualties, but the existence of civilian casualties does not itself establish an IHL violation. The legal inquiry is prospective: it asks whether the incidental civilian harm reasonably expected before the strike was excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005, Rule 14). Actual consequences may provide evidence relevant to that assessment but are not the legal test by themselves.
Precautions cannot presently be assessed with confidence either. Customary IHL requires those planning or deciding upon attacks to take feasible steps to verify that the target is a military objective and to take feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods to avoid or minimize incidental civilian harm (Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck, 2005, Rules 15–21). Nothing publicly available establishes what verification procedures, weapon-selection considerations, timing decisions, or civilian-harm mitigation measures were used at Larak.
A narrower conclusion is consequently warranted. If the objects struck were IRGC military launchers, they were capable of qualifying as military objectives. The available evidence does not establish whether all other targeting obligations were complied with or violated. A definitive IHL assessment would require information that remains unavailable publicly, including the targeting intelligence, anticipated civilian effects, feasible precautions, and operational circumstances considered when the attack was authorized.
9. The Strongest Legal Assessment of the Larak Strike
The strongest legal case for the United States requires more than proof that Iran possessed launchers capable of deploying sea mines. Washington would first need a valid Article 51 basis arising from an armed attack against the United States or from a lawful exercise of collective self-defense. That entitlement would have to remain operative on August 30, and the Larak launchers would need a sufficient connection to the armed attack or defensive threat to make their destruction necessary and proportionate.
On the U.S. account, the relationship between target and threat could be unusually direct. Washington did not publicly justify the strike merely by identifying the launchers as Iranian military equipment. It alleged that IRGC personnel were preparing those specific systems to place mines in the Strait of Hormuz. If reliable intelligence showed that the operation was about to be executed as part of a genuinely continuing armed attack relevant to the U.S. Article 51 claim, destroying the launchers could constitute a closely directed defensive measure rather than a generalized attempt to reduce Iranian military capacity.
A genuinely continuing armed attack would not ordinarily require a defending state to identify an entirely new Article 51 trigger before each tactical action taken to repel it. That proposition should not be extended automatically to intermittent earlier attacks. Prior hostilities do not by themselves create an indefinite entitlement to use force whenever the adversary later develops or prepares military capabilities. The continuing character of the armed attack and the relationship of the Larak operation to that attack remain essential.
The public U.S. case is weakest on the factual evidence establishing the stage reached by the alleged mine operation. Available statements do not reveal whether IRGC personnel were undertaking routine readiness measures, preparing a mission still dependent on further authorization, acting pursuant to an issued operational order, or approaching an actual launch sequence. Those distinctions bear directly on necessity and become especially important if anticipatory self-defense must supply the legal basis.
If no continuing Article 51 entitlement existed, the legal argument becomes substantially more difficult. Some states, including the United Kingdom, accept that self-defense may be exercised against a genuinely imminent armed attack, while influential non-binding UN reports have endorsed a similar position (UK Attorney General, 2017; UN High-level Panel, 2004, para. 188). That doctrine remains contested, and the ICJ has not definitively resolved whether or under what conditions customary international law authorizes anticipatory self-defense.
Even under a legal approach permitting anticipatory force, a remote possibility that Iran might deploy mines at some later stage would not suffice. The argument would require evidence that the threatened armed attack had reached a stage at which waiting would leave no reasonable opportunity to avert it. The undisclosed timing and operational detail behind the U.S. assessment consequently become decisive rather than peripheral.
The protection of international navigation cannot repair a deficient Article 51 case. Keeping the Strait of Hormuz open, protecting neutral shipping, and preventing hazardous mine warfare are legitimate international interests. They may affect the seriousness and urgency of the alleged threat and the practical availability of alternatives. They do not create an independent right for the United States to use force against Iran.
Nor does the military character of the launchers settle the issue. If the targets were IRGC weapons systems, they could qualify as military objectives under IHL. The United States would still need a lawful jus ad bellum basis for striking Iranian territory, and the attack itself would remain subject to the rules governing distinction, proportionality in attack, and precautions.
The strongest assessment is consequently neither that the strike was plainly lawful nor that it was necessarily unlawful because the alleged mines had not yet been deployed. The public evidence supports a coherent U.S. self-defense argument if the launchers were about to participate in an attack connected to a valid and continuing Article 51 entitlement. The information currently available does not establish all of the factual premises required to confirm that conclusion.
Also read
Conclusion
On the presently available evidence, the legality of the Larak Island strike cannot be determined conclusively. The central issue is not simply that the two launchers allegedly possessed the capacity to deploy sea mines. It is whether the United States held a valid right of self-defense on August 30 and whether those particular launchers were sufficiently connected to the armed attack being repelled for striking them to satisfy necessity and proportionality.
If a valid U.S. right of self-defense remained operative against a genuinely continuing armed attack, and reliable intelligence showed that the Larak launchers were about to be used as part of that attack, international law would not necessarily require Washington to wait until the rockets were fired or mines physically entered the Strait of Hormuz. On those assumptions, force directed narrowly at the means of carrying out the attack could support a substantial necessity-and-proportionality justification.
The legal burden would be considerably greater if no continuing Article 51 basis existed. The United States would then need to rely much more heavily on anticipatory self-defense and establish, under a doctrine whose status remains contested, that the threatened Iranian attack was genuinely imminent and that force had become necessary before its commencement. The available public evidence does not disclose enough about the underlying intelligence to determine whether that threshold was satisfied.
The international importance of the Strait of Hormuz does not alter the Charter framework. Navigation rights, protection of merchant shipping, and restrictions on naval mining are significant legal interests, but none constitutes an independent authorization to attack Iranian territory. They become relevant to the use of force only through a recognized jus ad bellum basis, including individual or collective self-defense.
The best-supported conclusion is conditional. The United States has articulated facts capable of supporting a lawful self-defense argument, particularly if the alleged mine operation formed part of a genuinely continuing armed attack and had reached an advanced stage of execution. The public record does not yet establish those critical factual predicates. The legality of the Larak strike ultimately depends on the scope of the underlying Article 51 entitlement, the actual stage of the alleged mine operation, and whether striking the two launchers was necessary and proportionate when the decision to use force was made.
References
Associated Press (2026) ‘US strikes Iranian rocket launchers on the Strait of Hormuz in first military action in weeks’, 30 August 2026 [online]. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/iran-strait-hormuz-strike-united-states-6b098da673ac3161a266ee459d5eff44 (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
Convention (VIII) relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines (1907) adopted 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910, 205 CTS 331.
Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L. (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law. Volume I: Rules. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
International Committee of the Red Cross (n.d.a) ‘Convention (VIII) relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines: States parties and signatories’ [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/hague-conv-viii-1907/state-parties (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
International Committee of the Red Cross (n.d.b) ‘Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I): States parties and signatories’ [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/state-parties (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
International Court of Justice (1949) Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 4.
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.
International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226.
International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161.
International Court of Justice (2005) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, ICJ Reports 2005, p. 168.
Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2026) Letter dated 28 February 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2026/106, 2 March 2026.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (1977) adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3.
Reuters (2026) ‘US forces strike two Iranian launchers on Iran’s Larak island, US official says’, 30 August 2026 [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-forces-strike-two-iranian-launchers-irans-larak-island-us-official-says-2026-08-30/ (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994) adopted 12 June 1994, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 309 (1995), pp. 583–594.
United Kingdom Attorney General (2017) ‘Attorney General’s speech at the International Institute for Strategic Studies’, 11 January 2017 [online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/attorney-generals-speech-at-the-international-institute-for-strategic-studies (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 397.
United Nations High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change (2004) A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility, UN Doc. A/59/565, 2 December 2004.
United Nations Treaty Collection (n.d.) ‘United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: status, declarations and reservations’ [online]. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?Temp=mtdsg3&chapter=21&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&src=TREATY (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
United States of America (2026) Letter dated 10 March 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/2026/161, 11 March 2026.
U.S. Naval Forces Central Command (2021) ‘Unsafe and Unprofessional Interaction with IRGCN FIAC in Strait of Hormuz’, 10 May 2021 [online]. Available at: https://www.cusnc.navy.mil/Media/News/Display/Article/2602006/unsafe-and-unprofessional-interaction-with-irgcn-fiac-in-strait-of-hormuz/ (Accessed: 31 August 2026).
Webster, D. (1842) ‘Mr. Webster to Lord Ashburton, 6 August 1842’, British and Foreign State Papers, 1841–1842, Vol. XXX, p. 201.
