Critical Analysis of the Eroding Threshold: Anticipatory Self-Defence and the Imperilment of IHL Integrity in the Iran-Israel Situation

Abstract

This paper critically analyzes the doctrinal evolution of anticipatory self-defence (ASD) and its corrosive impact on the integrity of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Through a case study of the Iran-Israel situation, the authors argue that ASD has been strategically expanded from a narrow, customary law exception into a broad doctrine of preventive force. This shift, exemplified by state practices such as the "Bush Doctrine" and Israel's "Begin Doctrine, " has led to an inflation of the key thresholds of imminence, necessity, and proportionality. The paper identifies two dangerous patterns: "Imminence Inflation," where speculative threats are legally re-cast as imminent, and "Proxy Attribution," where states attribute the actions of non-state actors to sovereign rivals to justify direct strikes. The analysis demonstrates how this erosion of jus ad bellum principles directly imperils jus in bello, facilitating violations of distinction andproportionality, enabling the avoidance of IHL obligations, and undermining civilian protections. The paper concludes that this trend destabilizes the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force and weakens the collective security system. It calls for a urgent recommitment to clear legal thresholds and multilateral review mechanisms to restore the primacy of law over pre-emptive force.