A chilling report emerged from southern Iran: a strike on the Shajarah Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab. The school, brimming with young pupils, was struck during a period of heightened conflict, leaving a scene of unimaginable devastation.
Initial reports from Iranian authorities indicate a staggering loss – over 150 people killed, including countless children, and another 60 injured. While independent verification is ongoing, the images are harrowing. Rescue workers are shown painstakingly digging through collapsed concrete, retrieving school bags from the wreckage, and documenting the scorched remains of the building.
Verified videos reveal a disturbing proximity: the school stands next to a naval base belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps. The footage appears to show a strike impacting that base, raising critical questions about the circumstances surrounding the school’s destruction.
Iranian representatives to the United Nations have condemned the strike as a deliberate attack on civilian infrastructure, labeling it a potential war crime and a crime against humanity. The United States and Israel have not publicly confirmed involvement, offering only cautious statements acknowledging reports of civilian harm and promising investigation.
The US military’s Central Command stated they are “looking into” the reports, emphasizing the importance of civilian protection and a commitment to minimizing unintended harm. However, a definitive legal conclusion remains elusive, hampered by a lack of verified facts.
This incident underscores a fundamental truth: even amidst conflict, international law matters. It provides a framework for conduct, defining what targets are protected and outlining the responsibilities of armed forces.
At the heart of this framework lie three core principles: distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. These principles dictate that combatants must differentiate between civilian and military targets, ensuring attacks are directed only at legitimate military objectives.
The principle of distinction is absolute. Schools, hospitals, and public transportation are explicitly protected. Any doubt regarding a target’s nature demands it be presumed civilian. A school is more than just a building; it’s a sanctuary for learning and a vital component of a functioning society.
Children, under the age of 18, are afforded special protection under international humanitarian law. They are never to be directly targeted. However, this protection isn’t unconditional. A school repurposed for military use – as a base, artillery position, or command post – could become a legitimate target.
Currently, there is no evidence to suggest the school in Minab was being used for military purposes or was intentionally targeted. This raises the possibility of collateral damage – unintended harm resulting from an attack on a nearby military objective.
Even in cases of collateral damage, international law demands adherence to the principles of proportionality and military necessity. The expected harm to civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.
Crucially, military commanders must take all feasible precautions to minimize civilian harm. This includes careful weapon selection and precise timing of attacks, considering the potential impact on nearby civilians and infrastructure.
In recent years, a disturbing trend has emerged: nations openly disregarding international law and the established rules-based order. However, to dismiss international law as irrelevant would be a grave error.
As scholar Louis Henkin observed, widespread compliance with international law remains the norm, even amidst violations. Diplomacy, trade, aviation, and peaceful dispute resolution all rely on adherence to these principles.
Breaches of fundamental rules, such as the prohibition on the use of force, do not invalidate the system itself. Instead, they highlight the necessity of identifying, condemning, and defending the legal order that most states continue to respect.
If the strike on the Minab school is ultimately determined to have violated the principles of distinction, proportionality, or military necessity, it wouldn’t disprove Henkin’s observation. It would, in fact, reinforce it.
International law’s power lies in its ability to identify and judge departures from its principles. The rubble of a girls’ school isn’t proof of the law’s meaninglessness; it’s a stark and tragic reminder of why it exists, and why unwavering commitment to its principles is essential.
