analyzing the compatibility of the assassination of qasem soleimani with the self-defense theory (both restrictive and anticipatory)

Purpose: qasem soleimani, one of the senior commanders of the iranian revolutionary guard corps, was killed on january 3, 2020, near baghdad airport by an american drone authorized by the us president. us officials justified their actions on the basis of self-defense under article 51 of the un charter and the anticipatory self-defense theory. the main purpose of this paper is to deconstruct the us legal arguments in accordance with international law, especially the rulings of the international court of justice (icj).method: in a deductive argument, this article first analyzes the standards of self-defense according to article 51 of the united nations charter and the theory of anticipatory self-defense in customary international law. it then employs a desk study to confront the u.s. arguments with the realities on the ground.findings: considering the fact that at the time of incident, iran and the united states were not in a state of armed conflict, resorting to the law of war to justify the united states' decision in assassinating general soleimani would be baseless. furthermore, soleimani was a diplomatic guest of the iraqi government. therefore the legal reasoning of the us is flawed.conclusion: it concludes that it is difficult to justify the us's actions based on the theory of self-defense, both in its restrictive and broad interpretations. this paper concludes that soleimani's assassination was more a matter of revenge and deterrence rather than self-defense.

analyzing the compatibility of the assassination of qasem soleimani with the self-defense theory (both restrictive and anticipatory)

purpose: qasem soleimani, one of the senior commanders of the iranian revolutionary guard corps, was killed on january 3, 2020, near baghdad airport by an american drone authorized by the us president. us officials justified their actions on the basis of self-defense under article 51 of the un charter and the anticipatory self-defense theory. the main purpose of this paper is to deconstruct the us legal arguments in accordance with international law, especially the rulings of the international court of justice (icj).method: in a deductive argument, this article first analyzes the standards of self-defense according to article 51 of the united nations charter and the theory of anticipatory self-defense in customary international law. it then employs a desk study to confront the u.s. arguments with the realities on the ground.findings: considering the fact that at the time of incident, iran and the united states were not in a state of armed conflict, resorting to the law of war to justify the united states' decision in assassinating general soleimani would be baseless. furthermore, soleimani was a diplomatic guest of the iraqi government. therefore the legal reasoning of the us is flawed.conclusion: it concludes that it is difficult to justify the us's actions based on the theory of self-defense, both in its restrictive and broad interpretations. this paper concludes that soleimani's assassination was more a matter of revenge and deterrence rather than self-defense.