International law experts have launched a scathing critique of Australia's decision to support what they describe as an illegal military attack by Israel and the United States against Iran. The condemnation follows statements from Foreign Minister Penny Wong and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese endorsing actions to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
Legal Experts Decry 'Rolling Over' to Superpowers
Ben Saul, a University of Sydney professor and United Nations special rapporteur, argued that Australia's position represents a dangerous erosion of international legal standards. "The attack on Iran was clearly a violation of the ban on the use of force under the UN charter and international law," Saul stated, emphasizing that this legal framework has been fundamental to global order since 1945.
Saul specifically challenged the Australian government's justification citing Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' involvement in 2024 attacks in Melbourne and Sydney. "Domestic criminal acts like the IRGC's interference here are not armed attacks which would somehow justify military self-defence against Iran," he explained. "You may not like Iran, you may not like what it does, but that doesn't justify an aggressive armed attack."
Middle Powers' Responsibility Questioned
The legal scholar emphasized that countries like Australia and Canada have a particular responsibility to uphold international law when superpowers violate it. "If middle powers and other coalitions of states raise the political price on the United States by objecting strenuously every time they break the law, it does make it a lot harder for the US to get away with it in future cases," Saul argued.
He delivered a particularly harsh assessment of Australia's current stance: "When countries like Australia roll over and support this kind of illegal aggression, that's the worst thing, in terms of contributing to the erosion of international law."
Government Defends Position Amid Criticism
Foreign Minister Penny Wong maintained Australia's position while avoiding direct legal assessment. "I will leave it for the United States and Israel to speak of the legal basis for the attacks," Wong stated on Sunday. "What I would say to Australians is that Iran has been a destabilising force in the region for decades. It has orchestrated attacks on Australia, and I think we all understand this issue did not start yesterday."
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese echoed similar sentiments when questioned about the legality of the strikes. "What I would say is that the threat to international peace and security of the Iranian regime is real," Albanese responded. "The fact that they orchestrated attacks here in Australia on the other side of the world underlines the threat that this regime presented to the rule of law and to international norms of behaviour."
Historical Context and Domestic Opposition
The Australian government previously supported similar actions when then-President Donald Trump bombed Iran's nuclear facilities in June 2025 during a 12-day conflict. At that time, Trump claimed the US had "totally and completely obliterated" key enrichment facilities.
Domestic opposition has been vocal, with Greens foreign affairs spokesperson David Shoebridge accusing the Labor government of outsourcing Australian foreign policy to Washington. "Labor has made Australia a part of this war by allowing Pine Gap and other US military bases here to be used to gather intelligence and target US bombs and missiles," Shoebridge charged.
Even within the Labor party, dissent has emerged. Doug Cameron, patron of the Labor Against War group, criticized the government's position: "Albanese's backing of Israeli and US attacks on Iran shows that we are completely devoid of acting independently. There was a time when Labor pursued peace not war. That time is long gone."
Legal Analysis and Future Implications
Donald Rothwell, a professor of international law at the Australian National University, noted that the weekend attacks on Iran lacked legal justification based on publicly available information. "There is no basis under the UN charter with respect to the exercise of the right of self-defence, nor is there any UN security council resolution authorising any use of force for an intervention in Iran," he stated.
Rothwell acknowledged the government's cautious approach in the immediate aftermath but emphasized that "in due course, Australia will need to give a clearer statement of its views" regarding the legal basis for the military action.
Despite the controversy, Wong reiterated Australia's commitment to diplomatic solutions. "We join our partners in calling on all parties to adhere to international humanitarian law," the foreign minister said, adding that Australia wants "the resumption of dialogue and diplomacy."
