Accountability Cannot Wait: Why Iran’s Leadership Must Face International Justice Now
Sovereignty ends where systematic killing begins—and the world has lawful tools to act today
In recent weeks, Iran has ceased to conceal the nature of its rule. What began as repression has hardened into routine state violence—executions conducted at speed, protesters shot in the streets, and trials reduced to formalities devoid of defense or due process.
Among the dead was a 23-year-old protester, publicly executed after a closed trial that lasted less than an hour, accused of “enmity against God” for participating in a demonstration. His case is not exceptional. It is illustrative.
These are not excesses of overzealous local officials. They are the outcome of a centralized system of control directed from the top—by Ali Khamenei, whose authority over Iran’s judiciary, security forces, and Revolutionary Guard is absolute.
Under the doctrine of command responsibility, long recognized in international law, leaders are criminally liable when they authorize, enable, or knowingly fail to prevent crimes committed by subordinates. Iran’s leadership meets this standard.
Sovereignty Ends Where Systematic Killing Begins
For decades, Tehran has relied on a familiar shield: sovereignty. That shield no longer holds.
The modern international legal order—shaped by the failures of the 20th century—recognizes that sovereignty is conditional. It exists to protect populations, not to exterminate them. When a state becomes the primary threat to its own citizens, it forfeits the protections it claims.
This is the logic behind the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, and Iran now squarely falls within its scope.
Economic Convenience Is Not Neutrality
Western governments often justify restraint toward Iran by citing energy markets, regional stability, or commercial engagement. This calculation is short-sighted.
History shows that impunity is not stabilizing. It is corrosive. Each execution carried out without consequence signals to other regimes that mass repression remains negotiable. The cost of silence is not confined to Iran—it erodes the credibility of international law itself.
A rules-based order cannot survive selective enforcement.
Justice Is a Process—and It Can Begin Now
Iran’s non-membership in the Rome Statute is frequently invoked as an obstacle. It is not.
There are immediate, lawful steps available:
• National prosecutors in Europe—particularly in Germany, France, and the Netherlands—can initiate investigations under universal jurisdiction statutes.
• Foreign ministries should summon Iranian ambassadors and formally notify them that individual officials may face prosecution abroad.
• Targeted sanctions regimes must expand beyond symbolic listings to include coordinated asset freezes and travel bans tied explicitly to criminal responsibility.
These are not acts of escalation. They are acts of enforcement.
A Moment That Will Be Remembered
Iranian citizens are not asking the world to intervene militarily. They are asking for something far more basic: that the law apply to those who rule over them.
International justice does not require immediacy to be effective—but it does require inevitability. The moment accountability appears possible, deterrence begins.
The question before the international community is not whether it has the tools. It does.
The question is whether it has the resolve to use them.
