The Legality and War Crimes in the Killings of Qasem Soleimani: An Analysis from an International Law Perspective

Qasem Soleimani, the former commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), was killed in a drone strike ordered by then-President Donald Trump. This event sparked intense global debate over the legality of such actions under international law. This article delves into the legal and ethical considerations surrounding this incident, focusing on international law, self-defense, and the potential war crimes committed by Qasem Soleimani.

Violation of International Law

The killing of Qasem Soleimani represents a clear breach of international law. This unauthorized act of aggression against Iran constitutes one of the most egregious violations under international norms. Several key principles of international law are explicitly breached:

No Use of Force: The prohibition against using force is one of the fundamental principles of international law, enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Non-Interference: The act violates the principle of non-interference with the political or territorial integrity of another state, as affirmed in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. International Conventions: The Geneva Conventions and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also apply, placing additional constraints on the use of lethal force.

The U.S. attempted to argue that its actions were justified under the principle of self-defense, citing an imminent armed attack as justification. However, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter strictly limits the right of self-defense to cases where there has been an actual armed attack and where the security of a state is at risk. Despite this, customary international law might allow for a narrower interpretation of what constitutes an imminent threat. Nonetheless, the evidence does not support the U.S. claim of an imminent armed attack, failing its requirement under both treaty and customary international law.

War Crimes and Legitimate Targeting

Qasem Soleimani was a military target, and the Rules of Engagement (ROE) clearly delineate who can be targeted in military operations. According to the laws of war, combatants are legitimate targets. Combatants include members of military forces, members of guerrilla forces, and anyone who takes up arms in the conflict, even if not in uniform. Soleimani fits this criteria, as evidenced by his role in the conflict and past heinous offenses.

The attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 is a significant example of Soleimani's involvement in incendiary acts. This attack, which also involved the killing of four U.S. diplomatic personnel, violated Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which prohibits any intrusion or damage to the premises of diplomatic missions. This action clearly established Soleimani as not only a military target but also an individual responsible for war crimes.

Another critical point is the legal framework for reprisals under international law. Reprisals are legally allowed under international case law as a form of countermeasures. Examples like the Naulilaa case, Portugal vs. Germany, Cysne case, Germany vs. United Kingdom, and the List case provide precedents on what constitutes a legitimate reprisal.

In these cases, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarified that reprisals are permissible only against the offending state, and the actions must be carried out in response to a prior violation of international law. The ICJ also noted that reprisals should be proportionate and not go beyond the bounds of legality.

Conclusion and International Law's Stance

Based on a comprehensive analysis of international law, it is evident that Qasem Soleimani's activities extend beyond a military leader into the realm of war crimes. His involvement in the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, among other violations, violated international law and gave justification for retaliatory measures.

Furthermore, the international law permits a state to take measures in self-defense or as a reprisal in response to violations of international law. The actions taken by Donald Trump were within the parameters of international law, as they were proportionate and aimed at countering violations by Iran.

Therefore, the international community should uphold the rule of law and recognize that the actions taken against Qasem Soleimani were in compliance with international legal standards.

For those seeking a deeper understanding of war crimes and the legal parameters within which countries may act, you can refer to the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau's Crash Course on War Crimes.