19 March 2026

Statement on German Foreign Policy in Light of the U.S. and Israeli Attacks on Iran

As scholars specializing in International Law and International Relations, we are concerned about the German government’s response to the attack launched by the United States and Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026. The German federal government’s statements to date do not clearly condemn this action. This violates international law and thus contributes to the further erosion of the rules-based and institutional order in Europe and in the world.

The use of military force against Iran by Israel and the United States constitutes a violation of the prohibition on the use of force under international law.

Since no armed attack by Iran on Israel, the United States, or any other state was imminent, the use of force is not justified by the right to self-defense. At the time of the attack, the U.S. and Iranian governments were still in negotiations regarding the Iranian nuclear program, and there is no evidence that the production and use of a nuclear bomb or other weapons were imminent.

Nor do the Iranian government’s unprecedented atrocities against its own population justify the missile and bombing strikes by the US and Israel on targets in Iran. The use of armed force by states in response to serious human rights violations and humanitarian emergencies can only be authorized by resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. Invoking the controversial instrument of humanitarian intervention in fulfillment of the responsibility to protect, even without a UN mandate, is out of the question because the form in which the attacks are carried out and the selection of targets clearly do not serve to improve the humanitarian situation of the Iranian population. Neither the U.S. nor Israel has sought a multilateral approach by appealing to the Security Council or the General Assembly.

The Federal Government must take the illegality of this attack into consideration when taking decisions about the use of military bases on German territory, unless it wants to violate both international law and the German Basic Law.

Germany’s historical responsibility, as well as the Basic Law’s inherent alignment with international law, oblige the Federal Government to respect and strengthen fundamental norms of international law as the foundation of German foreign policy. The prohibition of the use of force is a necessary condition for a peaceful world order and is therefore non-negotiable. International cooperation, global governance, and transnational economic transactions are based on mutual trust that these rules will be respected.

Only a principled foreign policy can provide the background for ensuring that international law can also be demanded of other states in the future (e.g., in the demand for the security and sovereignty of Ukraine and Greenland). If third countries perceive the German federal government’s enforcement of international legal norms as selective, this impression of double standards may undermine future agreements and trust-based cooperation.

In the long term, therefore, it is not only morally and legally imperative, but also in Germany’s own interest, to insist on a rules-based order and to act accordingly. We therefore call for a return to the foundations of German foreign policy, which are based on the UN Charter and the Basic Law and which are mindful of embedding international relations in broadly agreed principles, norms and rules.

  1. Prof. Dr. Anne van Aaken, University of Hamburg
  2. Prof. Dr. Andreas von Arnauld, Kiel University (CAU Kiel)
  3. Prof. Dr. Felix Anderl, University of Marburg
  4. Prof. Dr. Grażyna Baranowska, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg (FAU)
  5. Prof. Dr. Jochen von Bernstorff, University of Tübingen
  6. Prof. Dr. Christina Binder, Bundeswehr University Munich
  7. Prof. Dr. Christine Binzel, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg (FAU)
  8. Prof. Dr. Hannah Birkenkötter, ITAM (Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico)
  9. Prof. Dr. Sigrid Boysen, Helmut Schmidt University / University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg
  10. Prof. Dr. Marten Breuer, University of Konstanz
  11. Prof. Dr. Susanne Buckley-Zistel, University of Marburg
  12. Prof. Dr. Philipp Dann, Humboldt University of Berlin
  13. Prof. Dr. Tobias Debiel, University of Duisburg–Essen
  14. Prof. Dr. Janina Dill, University of Oxford
  15. Prof. Dr. Thomas Diez, University of Tübingen
  16. Prof. Dr. Andreas Fischer-Lescano, University of Kassel
  17. Prof. Dr. Thomas Giegerich, Saarland University
  18. Prof. Dr. Matthias Goldmann, EBS University of Business and Law
  19. Prof. Dr. Michaela Hailbronner, University of Münster (WWU)
  20. Prof. Dr. Felix Hanschmann, Bucerius Law School
  21. Prof. Dr. Gisela Hirschmann, Leiden University
  22. Prof. Dr. Anna Holzscheiter, TU Dresden (Technical University of Dresden)
  23. Prof. Dr. Till Patrik Holterhus, Saarland University
  24. Prof. Macartan Humphreys, Ph.D., WZB Berlin Social Science Center
  25. Prof. Dr. Florian Jeßberger, Humboldt University of Berlin
  26. Prof. Dr. Oliver Kessler, University of Erfurt
  27. Prof. Dr. Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Bundeswehr University Munich
  28. Prof. Dr. Simon Koschut, Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen
  29. Prof. Dr. Markus Kotzur, University of Hamburg
  30. Prof. Dr. Markus Krajewski, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg (FAU)
  31. Prof. Dr. Andreas Kulick, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU)
  32. Prof. Dr. Heike Krieger, Free University of Berlin
  33. Prof. Dr. Nico Krisch, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva
  34. Prof. Dr. Felix Lange, University of Cologne
  35. Prof. Dr. Andrea Liese, University of Potsdam
  36. Prof. Dr. Philip Liste, Fulda University of Applied Sciences (HS Fulda)
  37. Prof. Dr. Matthias Mahlmann, University of Zurich
  38. Prof. Dr. Christian Marxsen, Humboldt University of Berlin
  39. Prof. Dr. Franz Mayer, Bielefeld University
  40. Prof. Dr. Nele Matz-Lück, Kiel University (CAU Kiel)
  41. Prof. Dr. Stefan Oeter, University of Hamburg
  42. Prof. Dr. Mehrdad Payandeh, Bucerius Law School
  43. Prof. Dr. Birgit Peters, University of Trier
  44. Dr. Hanna Pfeifer, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (IFSH)
  45. Prof. Dr. Eva Pils, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen–Nuremberg (FAU)
  46. Prof. Dr. Alexander Proelß, University of Hamburg
  47. Prof. Dr. Nina Reiners, University of Oslo
  48. Prof. Dr. Dagmar Richter, Saarland University
  49. Prof. Dr. Solveig Richter, University of Leipzig
  50. Prof. Dr. Conrad Schetter, University of Bonn & Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC)
  51. Prof. Dr. Klaus Schlichte, University of Bremen
  52. Prof. Dr. Bernhard Stahl, University of Passau
  53. Prof. Dr. Dominik Steiger, TU Dresden (Technical University of Dresden)
  54. Prof. Dr. Christian Walter, LMU Munich (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich)
  55. Prof. Dr. Antje Wiener, University of Hamburg
  56. Prof. Dr. Michael Zürn, WZB Berlin Social Science Center
  57. Prof. Dr. Aziz Epik, University of Hamburg
  58. Dr. Michel Erpelding, Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory
  59. Dr. Sassan Gholiagha, Leibniz University Hannover
  60. Prof. Dr. Tobias Ide, TU Darmstadt (Technical University of Darmstadt)
  61. Prof. Dr. Henning Lahmann, Leiden University
  62. Jun.-Prof. Dr. Maximilian Mayer, University of Bonn
  63. Prof. Dr. Henning Melber, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation, Uppsala
  64. Prof. Dr. Daniel Naujoks, Columbia University
  65. Prof. Dr. Norman Weiß, University of Potsdam
  66. Prof. Dr. Markus W. Gehring, University of Cambridge
  67. Prof. Dr. Michael Brzoska, Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy (IFSH)
  68. Prof. Dr. Manuel Brunner, University of Applied Sciences for Public Administration North Rhine-Westphalia (HSPV NRW)
  69. Prof. Dr. Julia Eckert, University of Bern
  70. Prof. a.D. Dr. Bernhard Frevel, University of Applied Sciences for Public Administration North Rhine-Westphalia (HSPV NRW)
  71. Prof. Dr. Robert Frau, TU Freiberg (Technical University Bergakademie Freiberg)
  72. Dr. Alke Jenss, University of Freiburg (ALU Freiburg)
  73. Prof. Dr. Nicolas Lamp, Queen’s University, Ontario
  74. Dr. Wolfgang Minatti, Leuphana University Lüneburg
  75. Dr. Christian Scheper, University of Duisburg–Essen
  76. Prof. Dr. Werner Schroeder, University of Innsbruck
  77. Dr. Hendrik Simon, Goethe University Frankfurt / Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF)
  78. Prof. Dr. Carsten Stahn, Leiden Law School & Queen’s University Belfast
  79. Prof. Dr. Patrick C. R. Terry, University of Public Administration Kehl (HÖV Kehl)
  80. Prof. Dr. Silja Vöneky, University of Freiburg (ALU Freiburg)
  81. Dr. Irene Weipert-Fenner, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF)
  82. Dr. Carmen Wunderlich, University of Duisburg–Essen
  83. Prof. Dr. Christiane Ahlborn, Trinity College Dublin
  84. Dr. Patrick Flamm, Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF)
  85. Prof. Dr. Dr. Valentin Jeutner, Lund University
  86. Prof. Dr. Elisabeth Rossa, Bundeswehr University Munich
  87. Prof. Dr. Wolfram Schaffar, University of Passau
  88. Prof. Dr. Angelika Siehr, Bielefeld University
  89. Prof. Dr. Christian Thies, University of Passau
  90. Dr. Nella Sayatz, Humboldt University of Berlin

SUGGESTED CITATION  Stellungnahme aus der Wissenschaft, : Statement on German Foreign Policy in Light of the U.S. and Israeli Attacks on Iran, VerfBlog, 2026/3/19, https://verfassungsblog.de/statement-on-german-foreign-policy-in-light-of-the-u-s-and-israeli-attacks-on-iran/.

Leave A Comment

WRITE A COMMENT

1. We welcome your comments but you do so as our guest. Please note that we will exercise our property rights to make sure that Verfassungsblog remains a safe and attractive place for everyone. Your comment will not appear immediately but will be moderated by us. Just as with posts, we make a choice. That means not all submitted comments will be published.

2. We expect comments to be matter-of-fact, on-topic and free of sarcasm, innuendo and ad personam arguments.

3. Racist, sexist and otherwise discriminatory comments will not be published.

4. Comments under pseudonym are allowed but a valid email address is obligatory. The use of more than one pseudonym is not allowed.