![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ikhrw.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/01\/aNYES.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n“The US justification\nhas even dazzled even the best international law experts because the attack is\nillegal and is considered a violation of international humanitarian law,”\nthe report author writes. Quoting Ms. Anis Kalamar, Special Rapporteur on\nextrajudicial killings at the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,\nit says: \u201cThis is completely illegal\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Qasem Suleimani’s murder is\na violation of international law<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n “In international law,\nextrajudicial killings perpetrated by governments are considered only on the\nbasis of three legal assumptions: when the country where the crime is committed\nis satisfied,” the report wrote citing Dappo Akand, director of the Oxford\nInstitute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict. On legitimate defense, or if the\nUN Security Council has allowed it or not, the UN has not been notified, so\nthere are only two cases: it is true that Iraq has agreed to US military action\non its territory. But this is only to train its forces to fight ISIL terrorism.\n“The report states that only the legitimate defense option remains the\ncornerstone of American reasoning. The expert points to the\n“defensive” nature of the deadly attack against General Suleimani,\nwho is claimed to have attempted more attacks, and writes: “According to\ninternational norms, the threat must be imminent and make the attack urgent and\nnecessary. Since there is no evidence to prove such a claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n America became a dangerous\nmodel<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n “This is not a\ndocumented act,” said Luca Trenta, an international relations researcher\nat Swansea University in Galway. “Even US President Barack Obama has\njustified and argued for such a dangerous act.” US stance is only\njustification, not legal or legal reasoning. “We should not confuse these\ndrone strikes with attacks against al-Qaeda and ISIS leaders, as this time an\nofficial representative of an official armed forces of one country was targeted,\nIran, whose main political and military figure was killed. “<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s impeachment and the attack\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While the US attack is\nneither in line with international law nor its own doctrine, US Secretary of\nState Mike Pompeo claims the attack is “completely legal”. It should\nbe said that the American approach on attacking others has evolved since the\n1970s because “targeted attacks were banned” at the time. President\nReagan banned such attacks in the 1980s, but after September 11, 2001, the\nUnited States resumed these attacks on a large scale. This has always been for\nmembers of nongovernmental terrorist groups. But the Trump administration,\nwhich measures everything on the basis of money, this time targeted a state\nofficial. This issue has never been investigated in the US to have a specific\npolicy on it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Iran’s military strike is a\nlegitimate defense<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n All of these experts believe\nthat Iran is unlikely to pursue the case in a US court, and will instead use\nthe attack as a reason to launch attacks against American interests and in turn\nuse legitimate defense. But Donald Trump’s behavior in the attack also leads us\nto see the political aims behind the scenes, as Republicans are likely to seize\nthe opportunity and delay impeachment. But that could also be a huge cost to\nTrump, especially at the diplomatic and geopolitical level. This has inspired\nother countries to take this approach and hence target other country’s\nofficials even if they are not an imminent threat. In other words, America\nbecomes a dangerous model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.ikhrw.com\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/01\/Luca.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\n