At a time when military tensions in the Middle East have further intensified in recent weeks, in the context of operations conducted by the United States and Israel and renewed concerns surrounding Iran’s nuclear programme, a recurring question has re-emerged in public debate: why does Israel possess nuclear weapons while Iran is legally prohibited from acquiring them?
Often framed in terms of unequal treatment or “double standards,” this question actually relates to the very structure of the international legal regime governing nuclear weapons.
International law is a legal order created by states and for states. As such, it is grounded in the consent of states, which derives from their sovereignty. This fundamental principle also applies to the legal regime governing nuclear weapons: the possession of nuclear weapons – or the decision to renounce them – is a matter of sovereign choice. In other words, only a state may consent to limiting its military capabilities by renouncing possession of such weapons of mass destruction.
