Following the twelve-day conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the State of Israel, the issue of civilian protection during armed conflict—one of the fundamental and imperative principles of international humanitarian law—has gained renewed urgency and relevance. The nature of modern warfare, often marked by aerial and missile attacks on urban areas, places civilian populations at unprecedented risk, thereby intensifying state responsibilities to implement preventive measures.

Investigations show that amid recent tensions, the state of civil defense infrastructure in various Iranian cities—including Tehran—especially in terms of the provision of safe shelters and effective protective mechanisms, reflects a deep gap between the government’s legal obligations and field realities. This gap, in light of Iran’s commitments under international humanitarian and human rights law, raises serious concerns.

Adherence to international humanitarian law forms the cornerstone of a state’s legitimacy in wartime actions. This body of law, particularly in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their First Additional Protocol of 1977, imposes clear obligations on parties to a conflict. Chief among these is the Principle of Distinction, which requires states to consistently differentiate between civilians and combatants, and between civilian property and military objectives. However, states’ obligations are not limited to the negative duty of refraining from attacks on civilians. Article 58 of the First Protocol mandates positive obligations known as “precautionary measures.” These include a set of practical actions in the realm of “civil defense,” such as establishing effective early warning systems, public education for emergency evacuation, and specifically, constructing and equipping fortified shelters to ensure citizens’ physical safety. These shelters receive special protection under humanitarian law and are prohibited targets of attack.

In comparison to Israel’s evident investment in a broad network of public and private shelters, Tehran—a densely populated metropolis with mostly apartment-style structures—subjects its residents to disproportionate and severe risks. The absence of standard shelters, weak alert systems, and the lack of evacuation drills reflect a failure to fulfill positive obligations and a breach of the precautionary principle toward civilians.

Concurrently, state obligations under international human rights law remain in force even during wartime. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees the “inherent right to life,” has broad implications, as elaborated by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in General Comment No. 36. According to this interpretation, states are not only required to refrain from arbitrary deprivation of life but are also obliged to take positive steps to protect life from foreseeable threats, including violence resulting from armed conflict. This obligation requires that states take reasonable, proportionate, and accessible measures to mitigate life-threatening risks. The failure to establish protective infrastructure, such as shelters, when the threat of military conflict was foreseeable, constitutes a clear violation of this positive obligation. This failure takes on a discriminatory character when vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly, the ill, and low-income citizens—those without private resources or the means to leave urban centers during a crisis—are disproportionately exposed to danger, violating the principle of equal enjoyment of the right to life.

From the perspective of international legal doctrine, a state’s failure to adopt preventive and protective measures can be assessed under the concept of “due diligence.” Under this standard, if a state cannot demonstrate that it has taken all reasonable and available steps to protect its population, it is considered to be in breach of its obligations. The absence of a long-term strategy, insufficient allocation of resources, and the failure to implement approved safety plans for the capital are all instances of non-compliance with this standard. Such failure, categorized as an “act of omission,” is attributable to the state, and as it constitutes a breach of international obligations in the fields of human rights and humanitarian law, it can form the basis for international state responsibility. This includes the duty to immediately cease the violation (by implementing safety measures) and to compensate affected individuals.

Beyond international obligations, Iran’s domestic laws also assign clear responsibilities to state institutions. The “National Crisis Management Law” explicitly requires the Crisis Management Organization and other executive bodies to develop and implement comprehensive preparedness and response programs, including against foreign military threats. This law establishes a “legitimate expectation” among citizens for protection. However, the stark contrast between these legal duties and the absence of tangible infrastructure reveals a hollowing out of legal guarantees. This situation not only violates civil rights but may also form the basis for civil and administrative liability of relevant officials and institutions. Affected citizens may pursue legal claims against these bodies for failure to fulfill their statutory duties.

Ultimately, the twelve-day war between Iran and Israel was not only a test of the rules governing international conflict but also a benchmark for evaluating states’ commitment to the foundational principles of civilian protection. The analysis of Tehran’s situation highlights a structural, multilayered failure in the implementation of Iran’s binding obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law, and even its own domestic regulations. This failure is not a political choice but a clear violation of legal commitments. Therefore, an urgent review of civil defense policies, emergency resource allocation for the construction and equipping of safe shelters, their equitable distribution, and the implementation of training and evacuation programs are imperative steps to align state action with international obligations and safeguard citizens’ inherent right to life.