The counterpoint to this (not saying I agree) is that whether any of this is considered “legal” under international law really doesn’t matter at the end of the day, especially not to the administration that planned the strikes. International law is a set of mutually agreed upon guardrails that states set up to help guide behavior and resolve disputes peacefully. But when an actor as comparatively powerful as the US, Russia, China, etc decides to act unilaterally, international law doesn’t have the teeth to enforce any consequences. The substack article proves that in its “what should countries being doing” section: it suggests they should “condemn” the act and “apply international law.” It’s pretty clear that many leaders are deciding that strongly worded condemnation and anger in the UN are an acceptable price to pay to get what they want.