Legal statement: Legal adaptation of crimes of aggression and international responsibility for Iran’s attacks on Jordan and the Gulf states (Geneva decision March 2026)

Legal statement: Legal adaptation of crimes of aggression and international responsibility for Iran’s attacks on Jordan and the Gulf states (Geneva decision March 2026)
Welcomes and supports “The National Council for Human Rights” The historic UN resolution unanimously issued in Geneva on 25 March 2026, which was sponsored by more than 100 A country, and it is a decisive international document of condemnation that puts an end to the policies of attrition and cross-border aggression. This decision does not merely represent a political position; “Criminal description” An integrated program that places the Iranian regime, its functional tools, and the attempt to use its sleeper cells to destabilize countries under the penalty of international legal and financial accountability..
Firstly: Legal adaptation of attacks on civilian objects
The resolution condemned the targeting of infrastructure, residential areas, airports, energy facilities, and desalination plants in each of... (UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Jordan). From a legal standpoint, these systematic attacks with missiles and drones constitute... “War crimes” Complete according to:
Subject 8 (2)(for)(2) of the Rome Statute, which prohibits intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects.
Subject 52 Of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which imposes absolute protection for civilian objects indispensable for the survival of the population.
secondly: The crime of aggression and violation of state sovereignty
Since the resolution confirmed that the attacks targeted countries “They are not parties to the conflict”This action amounts to “A crime of aggression” (Crime of Aggression) Explicitly violate:
Subject 2 Paragraph (4) of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Subject 8 Bis of the Rome Statute, which prosecutes leaders responsible for planning, preparing or initiating an act of aggression that constitutes a clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations.
Third: Maritime terrorism and undermining global economic security
The resolution’s emphasis on rejecting the threat to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, and linking this to the repercussions on supply chains and human rights, places these actions within a framework:
Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (YOUR) of 1988, which criminalizes any act that threatens the safety of international navigation.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), specifically materials related to “Transit right of way”This makes Iranian threats a violation of international obligations related to freedom of global trade.
Fourth: Entitlement to compensatory damages and civil liability
The Council confirms that the resolution demands that Iran submit “Complete, effective and fast compensation” For all victims, it is a legal entitlement arising from:
principle “Responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts” (General Assembly resolution 56/83)Which obligates the aggressor state to make reparation for material and moral damage and compensation for economic and environmental losses and vital installations that were destroyed..
The right to self-defense: The resolution's recognition of the established right of affected states to defend themselves in accordance with Article 51 The United Nations Charter grants these states full legitimacy to use all legal and sovereign means to deter “The mentally ill” and protect its lands.
Fifth: Individual criminal responsibility and prosecution of leaders and decision makers
The National Council for Human Rights confirms that it condemns the Geneva resolution (March 2026) to Iranian attacks “Brutal and systematic” It opens the door legally to activate the principle “Leadership responsibility” (Command Responsibility)Accountability is not limited to the state as an entity, but extends to include the military and political leaders in Tehran who planned, supervised, and gave orders to carry out these attacks, based on:
Subject 25 From the Rome Statute: Which determines the individual criminal responsibility of everyone who contributed, aided, incited, or provided means (Such as marches and missiles) to commit international crimes, and stresses that the official status of leaders does not exempt them from criminal responsibility.
Subject 25 From the Rome Statute: Which determines the individual criminal responsibility of everyone who contributed, aided, incited, or provided means (Such as marches and missiles) to commit international crimes, and stresses that the official status of leaders does not exempt them from criminal responsibility.
The principle of irrelevance of immunity: The Council stresses that the crimes classified by the Geneva Resolution as: “A threat to international peace and security” and”Serious violations of international law” It waives all sovereign immunities for the diplomats and leaders involved, making them vulnerable to prosecution before international judiciary and national courts with universal jurisdiction..
Accordingly, the Council calls for the formation of “International fact-finding committee” To list the names of officials in the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian senior leadership involved in the administration “Operating rooms” These attacks are in preparation for issuing international arrest warrants against them, and ensuring that they do not escape punishment under any future political settlements..
Sixth: Syria and the right to compensation for crimes committed by agents and functional tools
Based on unit “Criminal instrument” And loneliness “Destructive approach” Condemned by the 2026 Geneva Resolution, the National Council for Human Rights affirms that the Syrian people and their national capabilities have never been a party to regional power struggles, but rather have been a direct victim of them, and therefore the Council demands the following::
Legal equality in reparation: Since the UN resolution obligated Iran to provide full compensation for the destruction of energy facilities and infrastructure in the Gulf, we adhere to the right of the Syrian people to obtain similar compensation for the destruction of their economic capabilities and vital facilities that were exhausted and destroyed by the militias linked to Tehran and their functional tools over the years.
Deconstruct job roles: The Council stresses that terrorist armed groups in the region constitute a threat to international peace and security, led by Hezbollah, and must be dismantled and their functional role ended to achieve peace and development for the peoples of the region, which will be reflected in Syria by ending the role of functional militias and combating the ideology of extremism, terrorism and hate speech within a democratic civil state..
Conclusion and international appeal:
The Geneva March resolution 2026 It represents the beginning of the end for the policy of regional blackmail. Accordingly, the National Council for Human Rights calls on the international community and human rights organizations to consider this statement “Supplementary legal note” The Geneva resolution guarantees comprehensive justice and compensation from the Gulf to Syria, to ensure the security of international corridors and restore the dignity of the Syrian human being..
Mr. Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab
President of the National Council for Human Rights

Legal Statement: The Legal Characterization of Aggression Crimes and International Liability for Iranian Attacks on Jordan and the Gulf States (Geneva Resolution, March 2026)
The National Council for Human Rights welcomes and supports the historic UN resolution issued unanimously in Geneva on March 25, 2026. This resolution, sponsored by over 100 countries, serves as a decisive international document of condemnation, putting an end to policies of attrition and trans-border aggression. This resolution is not merely a political stance; it is a comprehensive “Criminal Characterization” that places the Iranian regime, its functional tools, and its attempts to use sleeper cells to destabilize states under the weight of international legal and financial accountability.
First: Legal Characterization of Attacks on Civilian Objects
The resolution condemned the targeting of infrastructure, residential areas, airports, energy facilities, desalination plants, and civilian neighborhoods in (the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Jordan). Legally, these systematic attacks using missiles and drones constitute full-fledged “War Crimes” in accordance with:
• Article 8 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rome Statute, which prohibits intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects.
• Article 52 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which mandates absolute protection for civilian objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population.
Second: The Crime of Aggression and Violation of State Sovereignty
Since the resolution confirmed that the attacks targeted states that are “not parties to the conflict,” this act amounts to a “Crime of Aggression,” explicitly violating:
• Article 2, Paragraph (4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
• Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute, which prosecutes leaders responsible for planning, preparing, or initiating an act of aggression that constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter.
Third: Maritime Terrorism and Undermining Global Economic Security
The resolution’s emphasis on rejecting threats to navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and Bab al-Mandab, and linking this to repercussions on global supply chains and human rights, places these acts within the framework of:
• The 1988 YOUR Convention (Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation), which criminalizes any act that threatens the safety of international navigation.
• The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), specifically articles related to the “Right of Transit Passage,” rendering Iranian threats a breach of international obligations regarding the freedom of global trade.
Fourth: Entitlement to Reparations and Civil Liability
The Council affirms that the resolution’s demand for Iran to provide “full, effective, and swift reparations” to all victims is a legal entitlement stemming from:
• The principle of “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts” (UN General Assembly Resolution 56/83), which obligates the aggressor state to provide restitution for material and moral damages and compensation for economic and environmental losses and destroyed vital facilities.
• The Right to Self-Defense: The resolution’s recognition of the inherent right of affected states to defend themselves under Article 51 of the UN Charter grants these states full legitimacy to use all legal and sovereign means to deter “mentally deranged” actors and protect their territories.
Fifth: Individual Criminal Responsibility and Prosecution of Leaders
The National Council for Human Rights emphasizes that the Geneva resolution’s condemnation of “brutal and systematic” Iranian attacks legally activates the principle of “Command Responsibility.” Accountability is not limited to the state as an entity but extends to the military and political leaders in Tehran who planned, supervised, and issued orders for these attacks, based on:
• Article 25 of the Rome Statute: Which establishes individual criminal responsibility for anyone who contributes to, aids, abets, or provides the means (such as drones and missiles) for the commission of international crimes, affirming that official status does not exempt leaders from criminal liability.
• Article 28 of the Rome Statute: Which mandates the responsibility of military commanders and civilian superiors for crimes committed by forces or proxies under their effective control and supervision.
• The Principle of Non-Applicability of Immunity: The Council stresses that crimes classified by the Geneva resolution as a “threat to international peace and security” and “gross violations of international law” strip all sovereign immunities from the involved diplomats and leaders, making them liable for prosecution before international courts and national courts with universal jurisdiction.
• Accordingly, the Council calls for the formation of an “International Fact-Finding Commission” to list the names of officials in the IRGC and the Iranian High Command involved in managing the “operation rooms” of these attacks, in preparation for issuing international arrest warrants against them.
Sixth: Syria and the Entitlement to Compensation for Crimes of Proxies and Functional Tools
Based on the unity of the “criminal instrument” and the “destructive methodology” condemned by the 2026 Geneva resolution, the National Council for Human Rights affirms that the Syrian people and their national assets have never been a party to regional power struggles, but rather a direct victim. Therefore, the Council demands the following:

1. Legal Equality in Restitution: Since the UN resolution obligated Iran to provide full reparations for the destruction of energy and infrastructure in the Gulf, we uphold the right of the Syrian people to receive similar compensation for the destruction of their economic capacities and vital facilities, which were depleted and destroyed by Tehran-linked militias and functional tools over the years.
2. Dismantling Functional Roles: The Council emphasizes that armed terrorist groups in the region constitute a threat to international peace and security, foremost among them Hezbollah. It is imperative to dismantle them and end their functional roles to achieve peace and development for the peoples of the region. This will reflect on Syria by ending the roles of functional militias and combating extremist ideology, terrorism, and hate speech within a civil, democratic state.
   Conclusion and International Appeal:
   The Geneva Resolution of March 2026 marks the beginning of the end for the policy of regional blackmail. Consequently, the National Council for Human Rights calls upon the international community and human rights organizations to consider this statement as a “Supplementary Legal Memorandum” to the Geneva resolution, ensuring comprehensive justice and reparations from the Gulf to Syria, guaranteeing the security of international corridors and restoring the dignity of the Syrian individual.
   Mr. Qutaiba Qasim Al-Arab
   President of the National Council for Human Rights

Geneva Resolution 2026, Human Rights Council, Iranian attacks, international reparations, war crimes, Article 51, corridor security, National Council for Human Rights, Qutaybah Qasim Al-Arab, individual criminal liability, functional militias, Syria and reparations.

Geneva Resolution 2026, UN Human Rights Council, Iranian Aggression, International Reparations, War Crimes, Article 51 UN Charter, Corridor Security, National Council for Human Rights, Individual Criminal Responsibility, Functional Militias, Syria Reparations, Command Responsibility.