Public Law Studies Quarterly

A Critical Assessment of the U.S Justification for the Assassination of ‎General Soleimani from the Perspective of the Law on the Use of Force

Document Type : Article

Authors

Abdolhosein Safaee 1
Mohammad Aghayan Hoseini 2

1 Assistant Prof. of Law Department, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran. ‎

2 Assistant Prof. of Law Department, Bandarabbas Branch, Islamic Azad University, Bandarabbas, ‎Iran. ‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.351958.3239
Abstract
In the early hours of January 3, 2020, General Qassem Soleimani and his companions were targeted in a U.S. drone strike near Baghdad Airport and were martyred. The President, Secretary of State, and several other U.S. officials, in their initial statements, described the action as a legitimate preemptive defense against an imminent attack. However, a few days later, the U.S. government, in a letter to the Security Council, characterized the action as a legitimate defense against an armed campaign and a series of actual attacks by Iranian-affiliated forces in the final months of 2019. These attacks, according to U.S. officials, were carried out on behalf of the Islamic Republic of Iran and under the leadership of General Soleimani against U.S. bases, diplomatic sites, and personnel. This letter can be considered the official position of the United States. In this context, some legal scholars, by invoking the doctrine of "accumulation of events," deemed the U.S. government's justification acceptable. This research employs a descriptive-analytical method and, through the analysis of library resources, existing evidence, and documents, evaluates the official U.S. justification and argues that this claim and the arguments of the supporting legal scholars lack international legal validity and represent a dangerous interpretative approach to the right of self-defense in international law.

Keywords

use of force
‎ general qassem soleimani
‎ self-defense
‎ doctrine of accumulation ‎of events.‎
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Alexandrov, S. A. (1996). Self-defense against the use of force in international law, Kluwer law international, Hague.
    3. Cassese, A. (2005). International Law. 2nd edn, Oxford University Press.
    4. Dinstein, Y. (2017). War, Aggression and Self-Defence. 6th edn, Cambridge University Press.
    5. Gray, C. (2018). International Law and the Use of Force. ‎ Oxford University Press.
    6. Ruys, T. (2010). 'Armed Attack' and Article 51 of the UN Charter: Evolutions in Customary Law and Practice, Cambridge University Press.
    7. Yearbook of International Law Commission, 1980, Vol. I.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Jain, A. G. (2014). Rationalising International Law Rules on Self-Defence: The Pin-Prick Doctrine. Chicago-Kent Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. XII, (2), 23-70
    3. MacGibbon, I. (1958). Estoppel in International Law. 7 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 458-468.
    4. Smith, C., Singer-Emery, J. (2019). Servants of Two Masters: The Risks Inherent in Iraq’s Hashd al-Sha’abi Legislation. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 167-229.
    5. Talmon, S., & Heipertz, M. (2020). The U.S. killing of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani: of wrong trees and red herrings, and why the killing may be lawful after all. German Practice in International Law, Bonn Research Papers on International Law Paper No. 18/2020,
    6. Tams, C. J. (2009). The Use of Force against Terrorists. European Journal of International Law, 20(2), 359–397.

     

    1. C) Documents
    2. The United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625, "The Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States" was adopted by the General Assembly on 24 October 1970
    3. Letter dated 8 January 2020 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc S/2020/20, 9 January 2020.
    4. Human Rights Council, Forty Fourth Session, 29 June 2020, A/HRC/44/38

     

    1. D) Sites
    2. Cohen, Z. (2020). "Barr and Pompeo shift justification for Iran strike from 'imminent' threat to deterrence", https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/13/politics/pompeo-barr-soleimani-strike-iran-rationale/index.html
    3. Iranian Strikes in Iraq, Fact Sheet, Office of the Spokesperson, 8 January 2020, https://www.state.gov/iranian-strikes-in-iraq/.
    4. Milanovic, M. (2020). The Soleimani Strike and Self-Defence against an Imminent Armed Attack. European journal of international law blog, link: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-soleimani-strike-and-self-defence-against-an-imminent-armed-attack/
    5. O'Connell, M. E. (2020). The Killing of Soleimani and International Law. European journal of international law blog, link: https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-killing-of-soleimani-and-international-law/
    6. Rucker, P., Hudson, J., Harris, S. & Dawsey, J. (2020). “Four embassies”: The anatomy of Trump’s unfounded claim about Iran, 14 January 2020, https://www.inquirer.com/politics/nation/four-embassies-trump-iran-soleimani-20200114.html

     

    1. E) Case law
    2. Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004.
    3. Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996.
    4. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnian and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007
    5. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v Uganda), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2005.
    6. Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission partial Award: “Jus Ad Bellum”, Ethiopia's claims 1 -8, 19 December 2005, (2006), 45 International Legal Materials.
    7. Fleck, D. (2008). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2nd ed. Edited by Dieter Fleck. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    8. Ghasemi, A., barin Chaharbakh, V. (2012). Self-defense in the Post - 9/11: An Examination of the Jurisprudence of the ICJ, International Law Review, 28(45), 175-194. Doi: 22066/cilamag.2011.16951
    9. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986.
    10. Momtaz, J., Saberi Niavarani, B. (2012). Impact of Subsequent Practice of States on the Principle of “Prohibition of Use of Force and Threat”, 21(2), Serial Number 63, September 2012 Dor: 1001.1.10283102.1391.21.2.6.0
    11. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2003.
    12. Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia vs. Thailand), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1962.

     

    References In Persian:

    1. Fleck, Dieter (2008) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2nd ed. Edited by Dieter Fleck. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
    2. Ghasemi, Ali, barin Chaharbakh, Victor (2012), Self-defense in the Post - 9/11: An Examination of the Jurisprudence of the ICJ, International Law Review, Volume 28, Issue 45, Pp. 175-194. Doi: 22066/cilamag.2011.16951
    3. Momtaz, Jamshid, Saberi Niavarani, Behzad (2012), Impact of Subsequent Practice of States on the Principle of “Prohibition of Use of Force and Threat”, Volume 21, Issue 2, Serial Number 63, September 2012 Dor: 1001.1.10283102.1391.21.2.6.0
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 1353-1378

  • Receive Date 25 February 2023
  • Revise Date 04 August 2024
  • Accept Date 15 September 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us