نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق، واحد تهران مرکزی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
2 استادیار گروه حقوق، واحد بندرعباس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، بندرعباس، ایران
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
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.
کلیدواژهها English
الف) کتاب
ب) مقالات
ج) وبگاه
http://internationallawof.blogfa.com/post/369