A Legal and Non-Political Discussion of the Middle East War Walid Abd El, Hai
Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Ebeid. March 15/2026
A Legal and Non-Political Discussion of the Middle East War
Walid Abd El, Hai
Translated from Arabic by Ibrahim Ebeid. March 15/2026
The raging conflict in the Middle East, specifically in the Gulf, is between two parties, namely Iran (with the support of Arab parties from sub-state organizations in Lebanon and Iraq, which may be joined by Yemen) and the United States and its ally Israel. Still, there are other countries (Arab countries that include the Gulf states, including Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan) and non-Arab countries (Turkey and Cyprus, albeit at a much lower pace than the Arab countries), that are crossed by planes and missiles used by the conflicting parties, which raises the following legal question: How does international law view the crossing of attacks between the parties to the conflict to the atmosphere of the third party, mainly the Arab party?
First: Historical Precedents:
There are historical facts that have been dealt with by international judicial bodies, which are very similar to the case we are discussing:
1- The case of the Strait of Corfu, in which the Supreme Court of Justice issued its ruling (which was the first decision of the Court in 1949), and the issue of the strait is summarized in the injury of two British destroyers by the explosion of mines at sea while crossing the Strait of Corfu off the coast of Albania. The Court ruled at the time that:
The principle of “exclusive control of the State over its territory” holds Albania responsible for the explosion, whether or not it knew of the presence of mines in its territorial waters.
The Court ruled that warships have the right of innocent passage in the international straits connecting the two sides of the high seas, even if part of the strait is located within the territorial waters of one of the States bordering it, but that the entry of British ships into Albanian territorial waters constitutes a violation of Albanian sovereignty.
The foregoing provides the basis for the conclusions of the International Tribunal’s judgment:
a) The State is fully responsible for acts that fall within the limits of its territorial sovereignty.
(b) States shall be obliged to prevent the use of their territory in a manner that violates the rights of other States.
2- The case of military and paramilitary activities in Nicaragua in 1986, in which the International Court ruled that the aid, most of it American – provided to the “Contra” forces against the Nicaraguan government, was a complete violation of Nicaraguan sovereignty.
When we move the above to the current context of the current confrontation in the Middle East (the Gulf specifically), we see the following:
1- The right of innocent passage applied to warships does not apply to warplanes crossing the airspace of another country, which is confirmed by the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation in 1944, which means that warplanes or missiles crossing Arab airspace are a “joint violation of Arab sovereignty by the parties to the conflict”, while allowing Arab planes or missiles to cross its airspace by one of the conflicting parties arranges one of the following two consequences:
(a) Either it agrees to cross, which makes it a party to the conflict.
b) Or it did not agree, which is evident in its right to intercept these missiles or aircraft, whether American, Israeli, or Iranian.
2- The concept of neutrality in international armed conflicts: The principle of neutrality in international armed conflicts is based on a clear rule of commitment not to allow any party to use the territory of the state to carry out military operations against another party, and therefore the Arab state has the right to intercept what crosses its airspace, whether American/Israeli or Iranian, but we note that the Arab objection is directed to one side and not the other, which means indirect transformation into a party in the conflict, as we hear news about the dropping of weapons of one party This is what makes the argument of neutrality out of the question.
3- The existence of foreign bases in Arab lands must be distinguished between two issues: the first is the right of the Arab state, based on the principle of sovereignty, to allow another country to have its bases on its territory, and the second is the restrictions on the use of these rules, these rules may not be used against a third party that is not in a state of war with the sovereign state over its territory, as the existence of the rule is a sovereign matter, but its use against a third party makes the Arab state lose its neutrality and transform it To a party to the conflict.
4- The Israeli legal position on the issue of sub-state organizations seems to be stronger, because it considers attacks by the resistance on Israel to be carried out without the consent of the sovereign Lebanese state. Hezbollah is not seen as a sovereign party over Lebanese territory (and here we are discussing the legal, not the political, dimension, which has a completely different argument).
5- The issue of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz: It is necessary to recall that Iran is not a party to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, it signed the convention but did not ratify it, and Iran adheres to the application of the “right of innocent passage” system established by the Geneva Convention in 1958, which stipulates the right of the state to prevent maritime passage “if such passage harms it”, in addition to the fact that the maritime traffic system has not acquired the status of customary international law that binds all countries, which makes Iran indifferent. Bound by it.
Another aspect that must be mentioned from a legal point of view is:
A- The war started from the American-Israeli side against Iran at the same time that the political negotiations between the two parties, and under the auspices of an Arab party, were continuous. Still, its atmosphere was positive, which legally means a violation of the United States and Israel.
b) Israel uses the occupied Palestinian territories to launch attacks on Iran and Lebanon, and since international law imposes obligations on the occupying power, including not to use the occupied territories in acts of war against another party, because Israel does not have the right to sovereignty over these occupied territories, Israel is in violation of its obligations under international law.
The way out of this vicious circle from the legal side (and not from the political side) is for the Arab countries to confront the crossing of the two sides of the conflict – not one side – into the Arab airspace, and the Arab countries must reject the use of the military facilities of another country on its territory to be used against another party. Is this possible? I am not looking for a political answer, but a legal answer.
