Commission of International Law published a draft on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts in 2001 the main core of which is based on the very fact that every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. The wrongful acts may conduct an action or omission of an action when attributed to the State and constitute a breach of an international obligation.

Unfortunately, we see no unity of interpretation in the viewpoints of international lawyers on the assassination of General Soleimani, the reason for this is their approach was formed based on the media reports.

The current procedure indicates that the status of international law at present time becomes so worrying and has remained confused on obvious cases rather than directing the international community to a definite resolution. It is important to say that if the international lawyers even as real persons are unable to come to a consensus on the legitimacy or wrongful act of a State in assassinating a prominent military personality of another country which is not in war with, in the territory of a neutral country, then it is hard to understand what will be the interpretation on non-resorting to violence rule as the cornerstone of the United Nations Charter in particular and international law in general.

Dangerous Consequences of Arbitrary Interpretation

What the U.S. has managed to harbor among international lawyers through generated literature and publicity was to avoid the term assassination for such a remarkable and unique personality of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The U.S. has made effort to harbor this notion that General Soleimani was a legitimate military target because according to the claims of the American regime, he intended to stage so-called imminent attacks against diplomats and military staff of the U.S.?! This interpretation is called pre-emptive self-defense which means foiling the attacks that have not been started yet.

The interpretation has gained a prevailing aspect when the experts of international law believe that international law has not given permission to anyone and to resort to violence in order to reply to a plan for an assault in the future. No court of justice or international tribunal has ever accepted such a theory or argumentation.

This is the case while Agnes Callamard, the then Special Rapporteur of the United Nations on Extrajudicial killings in her report to Human Right Council spelled out that the U.S. behavior in this operation was unlawful and against the international law.

According to Iranian lawyers, what has happened was an all-out full-fledged state terrorism. The criminal title, however, has not any international substantive document yet. Unfortunately, international conventions related to terrorism such as the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons including Diplomatic Agents or International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings have not so far addressed the States in its definition, instead, they have been focused on real persons or non-governmental groups.

Against the legal tricks such as preemptive self-defense, for sure making global consensus and coining relevant legal terms which is well accepted by the international community is needed in order not to be entangled by unilateral legal regimes which are required by the world powers.

The U.S. Measure against International Peace and Security

Having considered the record, action plan, and risk of shelving legal structures in international relations, with a glance at the present UN and the UNSC structures, one should raise the question if the U.S. measure could be interpreted as an example of breach for international peace and security?

As admitted by friends and foes, martyr General Soleimani has played a key role in providing peace and stability in West Asia. The brave and charismatic commander served many years in line with providing security and national interests of the country and in his funeral procession, we noticed how Iranian people, as well as the people of the region, paid respect to him.

Can the world forget the role of General Soleimani in fighting against ISIS, Jebhatol Nosrah, and other terrorist groups in Iraq, Syria, and other regions? If it was not because of the sagacity of this great commander, the terrorists who had conquered important capitals of the West Asia would not have brought down these lands one by one wrapped in their black flag into the deep darkness?

All of what the U.S. tried to prove within the past two years after the assassination was to change the power balance in the region in her favor as well as her allies’ favor. What have been and continue to be the risks of such an approach to the West Asia and to the world?

Assassination of one of the most important and influential military personalities in the Western Asia region has had considerable and complicated consequences for the whole region. The first of which has been to foster hostility in relations between the U.S. and Iran and other regional governments. The U.S. policy of maximum pressure against Iran tried to bring our country to its knees. The assassination was also in line with the policy.

There is no one spared unharmed in the region from the consequences of the U.S. hostility against Iran if and when it ends with an armed clash. Therefore, the U.S. has obviously dragged the whole region into danger with such a measure. Iran’s crucial response to reciprocate the assassination of General Soleimani in attacking the Ein-ol-Assad base showed that Iran has no reservation with any power to preserve her security and national authority.

While the resistance groups in the region have been inspired by the Islamic Republic of Iran based on wisdom and creating stability in the region to the benefit of the people of West Asia and has followed up such a resilience policy, having targeted an influential personality for the stability and security of the region, the U.S. has made effort to instigate the Resistance and to change to power balance in the region to the benefit of groups relying to her.

What we have noticed from the U.S. policies and measures was nothing but to support empowering protégé governments or terrorist groups whose task and plan was focused on the destruction of the region. As an example, it suffices to look at invasive war against Yemen, and realize how the war has affected the security and stability of the region. In the case of internal war in Syria, which governments extended their financial, intelligence, and logistical supports to terrorists?

Insecurity of West Asia             

Post-assassination situation was to make effort to fan further chaos and insecurity in the West Asia region. As mentioned earlier and we already witnessed many examples if Iran quits the idea to support the Resistance in the region or leave the security condition of the region to its own, what will happen is to follow up terrorist measures by the Zionist regime, training terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS by the West supported by some Arab states and the intensification of war and bloodshed in the most ancient region of the world.

The U.S. has changed the stage of civilized politics relied on rights and equality into tough war ear. Is it not the right time for international bodies such as the United Nations Security Council to act according to the UN Charter on such measures that breach the international peace and security?

However, they do nothing if and when such bodies enter into the scene because the structure of such bodies are still based on the post-World War II arrangements that give special concessions to countries like the U.S. and is not proportionate to today circumstance and global challenges.