An independent United Nations investigative body examining alleged human rights violations in Iran has criticised military actions carried out by Israel, the United States and Iran during the current hostilities, stating that the attacks raise concerns under the United Nations Charter.
According to reporting by Arise News, the probe said the strikes carried out by Israel and the United States inside Iranian territory, along with retaliatory missile attacks launched by Iran across the region, may constitute violations of international legal provisions governing the use of force between states.
The United Nations Charter prohibits military action that undermines the territorial integrity or political independence of another state except under specific circumstances recognised by international law.
Civilian Casualties Raise Alarm
Investigators involved in the probe expressed particular concern over an incident last week in which a strike reportedly hit the Shajare Tayebe Girls’ School in Minab, a town in southern Iran. Reports indicate that the victims were primarily schoolchildren.
According to the findings cited in the probe, most of those killed were girls aged between seven and twelve years. The attack occurred during the first phase of the military campaign involving US and Israeli forces.
The UN investigation said it was “deeply shocked” by the reported strike on the school facility. In a separate assessment referenced by the inquiry, another UN panel of experts estimated that more than 160 children may have been killed during the escalation, based on information gathered from various reports.
The probe noted that the Iranian population now finds itself trapped between two pressures: an expanding military confrontation that could continue for weeks and a government in Tehran that has long faced accusations of human rights abuses.
Debate Over the UN’s Role
Speaking on Arise News about the wider implications for global governance, Professor Femi Otubanjo of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs discussed the relevance of the United Nations at a time when alternative diplomatic initiatives are emerging on the international stage.
Responding to questions about a proposed international initiative known as the “Board of Peace”, which has reportedly received recognition from a United Nations Security Council resolution, Otubanjo suggested the development could create tensions with the UN’s foundational principles.
He said the initiative had initially been expected to operate within a limited timeframe. “It expects that his tenure will be just for about a month or so, but of course Donald Trump has expanded it to a parallel international organization,” Otubanjo said during the interview.
The professor argued that the structure of the proposed body differs significantly from the UN’s model of universal membership. “The board of peace is not a desirable alternative because in fact is an aristocracy of nations those who can pay 1 billion dollars to join,” he stated.
By contrast, he said the United Nations operates as an inclusive international system. “The United Nations is an equal opportunity organization that allows everybody to join once you are independent.”
Concerns About Institutional Competition
Otubanjo rejected the suggestion that the new body could replace the United Nations but warned that it could weaken the organisation’s authority by diverting resources and political support from its activities.
He argued that contributions made to such initiatives might otherwise have strengthened existing UN programmes. “This is one billion dollars that should have been put into the UN to improve his efficacy,” he said.
However, the academic insisted that the global institution remains structurally indispensable. “The board of peace can never replace United Nation,” he said, noting that many countries would be unable to meet the financial threshold required for membership in such an organisation.
Gaza Conflict and Regional Politics
Otubanjo also discussed broader geopolitical tensions, including the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the historical roots of the Israeli–Palestinian dispute.
He argued that recent attempts to broker peace agreements in the region have often excluded key actors from negotiations. “What we are looking at in Gaza is the exclusion of the Palestinian themselves,” he said.
According to him, the October 2023 attacks by Hamas were partly linked to diplomatic arrangements involving Israel and several Arab states that did not adequately address Palestinian concerns.
“They want to have peace in the Middle East without those who are the victims,” he said, adding that the conflict traces back to unresolved issues dating to the creation of Israel in 1948.
Calls for Reform Rather Than Replacement
While acknowledging criticism of the UN’s ability to manage global conflicts, Otubanjo argued that dismantling the organisation would be unrealistic and counterproductive.
He said the institution continues to perform essential functions beyond conflict mediation, including humanitarian assistance, development programmes and global health coordination.
He cited the response to the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of the UN system’s operational role. “Look at what the WHO, the World Health Organization did during COVID. That was the country that supervised a global response to COVID,” he said.
Otubanjo also pointed to the work of agencies such as the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organization, noting that they address food security, development and emergency relief.
Structural Challenges
Despite these contributions, he acknowledged that the organisation’s political structure often limits its ability to resolve major conflicts. According to him, the influence of powerful states frequently undermines the institution’s authority.
“In the short term the UN has been undermined by the big powers,” he said, referring particularly to permanent members of the Security Council.
He argued that meaningful reform should focus on the veto system used by those permanent members. “You have to democratize it… no one country should be able to veto any policy of the security council,” he said.
According to Otubanjo, requiring multiple permanent members to support a veto could reduce the ability of a single state to block international decisions.
Continuing Relevance
Although the UN faces political constraints, Otubanjo maintained that its humanitarian and development programmes remain essential to global governance.
“The United Nations is bigger in terms of its agenda than just managing conflict,” he said.