Amid the recent twelve-day war, which unfolded along the lines of escalating security tensions between Iran and Israel, one of its most shocking dimensions was the attack on civilian infrastructure—particularly medical centers and emergency bases. Part of these assaults, unfortunately, directly targeted the fundamental right to access healthcare. According to reports published in July 2025 (Tir 1404) by the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), during aerial and missile strikes, at least seven hospitals, four health units, six emergency stations, and nine ambulances were seriously damaged. (1) These figures, though raw and statistical, reflect a violation of one of the core principles of international humanitarian law—the principle of distinction and the protection of civilians and civilian objects. This event once again illustrated how contemporary armed conflicts, especially in the Middle East, continue to suffer from a lack of adherence to foundational principles of international humanitarian law.

Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), under the prohibition on attacks against civilian hospitals, stipulates: “Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.” Likewise, Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court reaffirms the prohibition on attacking civilian hospitals, adding the condition that such protection applies unless the facility is being used for military purposes. (2) Field reports suggest multiple indications that these centers were deliberately targeted without verified military use. In many areas, the destruction of core clinic buildings and emergency stations has disrupted access to primary healthcare for thousands of civilians and severely diminished the capacity to care for the wounded and chronically ill.

The issue does not end here—schools have not been spared either. Bombing or destroying schools is not only a clear violation of the principle of child protection in conflict but also has long-term consequences on the right to education and the human development of future generations. Article 52 of the First Additional Protocol (1977) to the Geneva Conventions classifies schools among cultural property and special civilian objects that must receive heightened protection under all circumstances. (3) Damage to these institutions, beyond its physical and financial costs, has left irreversible impacts on the rights to health, education, and life for thousands of civilians, especially children and vulnerable groups.

To analyze this incident in terms of universal obligations, we must return to the customary rule prohibiting attacks on vital infrastructure. This rule is enshrined not only in formal texts but also in the jurisprudence of international institutions. The International Court of Justice, in the case of “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua” (1986), affirmed the principle of distinction between military and civilian targets and deemed its violation a breach of peremptory norms. (4) Furthermore, Article 8 of the Rome Statute explicitly identifies deliberate attacks on hospitals and facilities used by the wounded and sick as clear examples of war crimes. (2)

In the recent crisis, the destruction of medical and emergency centers has had a direct impact on the right to health—a right guaranteed under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Both Iran and Israel are parties to this Covenant and are thus obligated to ensure citizens’ access to medical care even during armed conflict. The reported attacks, which systematically disrupted healthcare infrastructure, have placed the civilian population at heightened risk, particularly in areas lacking immediate alternative capacity.

Practically speaking, the twelve-day conflict demonstrated that protecting medical facilities is not merely a moral or theoretical duty but is essential for the survival and continuity of civil society amid military crises. The forced closure of emergency stations, destruction of ambulances, and targeting of rescue routes have effectively deprived the injured of even the most basic means of rescue and treatment—an act classified under international custom and numerous ICRC reports as a “blind attack” and “disproportionate use of force.”

On the other hand, the legal consequences of such attacks cannot be limited simply to the realm of state responsibility. Under the rules governing individual criminal responsibility in the Rome Statute, political leaders and military commanders who directly design or implement military operations and knowingly target medical and educational infrastructure may be held accountable before international criminal courts. (5)

Ultimately, the core question is what legal and political mechanisms the international community has at its disposal to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities—and how these tools can be effectively employed. The first and foremost mechanism is documenting the truth and gathering reliable evidence. As shown in reports published by HRANA, independent fieldwork and precise documentation of coordinates, images, and credible witness accounts can later form the basis for litigation or official reporting in international forums. The next step involves utilizing the capacities of institutions such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. With their authority and impartial status, these bodies can monitor the implementation of humanitarian commitments and act as mediators between parties to the conflict. In addition, civil society must hold governments accountable to use the mechanisms of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court to pursue civil and criminal accountability for the perpetrators of such attacks. Although there are many political obstacles along the way—especially given the influence of veto-holding powers—strengthening documentation tools, developing legal narratives, and garnering support from neutral countries can help pave part of the path toward justice. As the targeted state, the Islamic Republic of Iran is also obligated to use its legal and diplomatic resources to pursue this case. This means that Iranian officials must employ the precise language of international law in official documentation, provide reliable and verifiable data, and elevate their approach from political slogans to substantiated legal claims. Such a strategy not only enhances the legitimacy of the claims but also plays a central role in securing reparations and ensuring non-repetition.

Ultimately, the issue of attacks on hospitals and schools is not merely a localized tragedy within Iran’s borders—it is a warning to the entire international order. If the global community remains indifferent to repeated violations of peremptory norms, these standards will gradually lose their authority. In a time when proxy wars, hybrid conflicts, and precision strikes are part of the geopolitical reality of the region, the protection of civilians and vital infrastructure must remain a definitive red line in the legal and moral order.

As a scholar of international law, I emphasize that no compromise can suspend the fundamental principles of humanitarian law. Today, the issue is not merely the reconstruction of seven medical centers or six emergency stations and schools—it is about preserving the bare minimum of human dignity in the midst of armed conflict. This responsibility lies first with governments, but more broadly, it is a test of the international community’s moral and practical commitment to the peremptory rules that underpin the global legal order. If we fail to use available mechanisms to halt this trajectory today, we will face even greater violations tomorrow, with even fewer defenses. The credibility of international law—especially humanitarian law—depends on the enforcement of its norms. What occurred during the twelve-day war and the destruction of medical and educational centers is a wake-up call for all of us: from decision-makers in the Islamic Republic to international observers, legal experts, journalists, and human rights defenders.

May the reports and analyses of legal scholars serve as a reminder to redefine our immediate and shared responsibilities—whether in documentation and truth-seeking, diplomatic pressure, or targeted legal action. In the end, the rights to health and education are fundamental rights that no bullet or missile can invalidate—provided that the global community upholds these rights not just in texts and statements but in action.

References:
1 – A Review of What Happened: Ceasefire on the Twelfth Day of Israeli Attacks, HRANA, July 2025 (4 Tir 1404).
2 – Full Text of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, “Legal Issues and News” Blog, May 2022 (1 Khordad 1391).
3 – Draft Bill on the Accession of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the First and Second Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1977, 12th Term – First Year, Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly.
4 – International Court of Justice, “Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America),” Merits Judgment, June 27, 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 212.
5 – Full Text of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Documentation Center of Iran