From Missile Spillover to International Courts: Could Gulf States Launch War Crimes Action Against Iran?

The escalating conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran has not only heightened military tensions in the Gulf but also prompted regional legal considerations. While Gulf states have not been primary belligerents, Iranian missile and drone attacks have crossed into their territories, causing casualties, property damage, and disruption of daily life.


The United Arab Emirates, for example, intercepted the majority of incoming threats, but falling debris from missiles and drones led to fatalities and minor injuries in Dubai and Abu Dhabi, demonstrating the tangible spillover effects of the broader war. Markets and investors are closely monitoring the situation, particularly given the UAE’s role as a regional business hub.

Against this backdrop, questions have arisen about whether affected Gulf states could pursue legal accountability against Iran for violations of international humanitarian law. Under the principles of sovereignty and the prohibition on the use of force, a state does not need to be a direct combatant to seek legal remedies if its territory or civilians are targeted unlawfully. Sunil Ambalavelil, Global Executive Chairman of a UAE-based legal consultancy, explains: “From a strict international law perspective, any state whose territory or civilians are unlawfully attacked has standing to seek remedies. The law itself does not distinguish between primary belligerents and those drawn into conflict by cross-border offensives.”

However, pursuing such claims is complex. Procedural hurdles such as jurisdiction, attribution, and enforceability often define the practical limits of international litigation. Ambalavelil emphasises: “The real battleground is not the law on paper but the procedural hurdles — jurisdiction, attribution, and enforcing a judgment against a state that has not consented to a court’s authority.” For Gulf states, this is particularly relevant when considering forums like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which requires either Iran’s consent or a pre-existing treaty clause to establish jurisdiction.

Despite these challenges, Gulf countries could theoretically bring claims at the ICJ for violations of sovereignty or attacks on civilians and infrastructure. Ambalavelil notes: “The ICJ route is legally clean but politically constrained. Without Iran’s acceptance of jurisdiction or a binding treaty clause, a case may be dismissed on procedural grounds before it ever reaches the merits.” Even if accepted, ICJ proceedings are often lengthy, and enforcement of judgments depends heavily on political and diplomatic support.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) represents another possible avenue, though its relevance is limited. As Ambalavelil observes: “The ICC prosecutes individuals, not states, and Iran is not a party to the Rome Statute. Unless there is a UN Security Council referral, the ICC’s role is likely to be marginal in this context.” Consequently, the focus for Gulf states may shift towards national courts or civil claims under principles of universal jurisdiction, which allow states to pursue perpetrators of serious international crimes regardless of where the acts occurred. These proceedings, however, would still face challenges related to sovereign immunity, evidence collection, and cross-border enforcement.

Historical precedents suggest both possibilities and limitations. The ICJ case of Nicaragua v United States in 1986 demonstrated that smaller states can achieve legal victories against more powerful states, although enforcement of rulings can be uncertain. More recently, Ukraine’s parallel legal actions against Russia illustrate how litigation can serve as a form of strategic signalling and diplomatic pressure even when final judgments take years to materialise. Iran itself has previously invoked the ICJ to challenge US sanctions, underscoring that international legal mechanisms are as much about asserting rights and shaping narratives as securing immediate remedies.

Ambalavelil offers insight into how Gulf states may proceed strategically: “What we are likely to see in the near term is not immediate high-profile lawsuits, but careful legal positioning: evidence preservation, formal protests, and preparatory work. International litigation in the midst of an active conflict is as much about signalling and deterrence as it is about securing judgments.” The decision to move forward with formal claims would balance the benefits of legal and diplomatic pressure against the risks of escalation and the inherent uncertainty of enforcement.

Ultimately, while Gulf states have plausible legal pathways to pursue accountability for cross-border attacks, the success of such efforts depends on a combination of law, diplomacy, and strategic timing. For now, the focus remains on defence readiness, public safety, and market stability, with the legal front quietly emerging as a potential avenue for asserting state rights and reinforcing deterrence.

For any enquiries or information, contact ask@tlr.ae or call us on +971 52 644 3004. Follow The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels.