CYIL vol. 11 (2020)

CYIL 11 (2020) LEGALITY OF TARGETED KILLINGS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW interchangeable with the term “targeted killing”, particularly in peace time. 76 Killing a top Iranian general of Quads force Qasem Soleimani who was the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular mobilization forces, Abu Mahdi, and other persons, in January 2020 by a targeted U.S. drone attack at Baghdad international airport was accomplished without any warning in the territory of a third state and without its permission. It was an illegal assassination. In his public statement, Iraq’s premier immediately protested the violation of the sovereignty of his country and appealed for withdrawal of all U.S. forces. The U.S. drone attack was taken as “decisive action” at the request of president D. Trump. The official U.S. justification for this “military action” was that general Soleimani was developing plans to attack U.S. diplomats and services members in Iraq and throughout the region. This targeted killing was characterized by the U.S. administration as part of an “armed conflict” between the U.S. and Iran. In fact, there was no “armed conflict” between these countries and no genuine armed attack on the U.S. The U.S. Department of Defense in a press statement explained this targeted killing as act of self-defense. 77 The Soleimani killing did not meet the basic prerequisites (existence of an armed attack) for lawful self-defense as it was claimed by the U.S. administration with the aim to avert military attack in the future. The study refuses to accept a “ continuing right of self-defense ” in response to 9/11 terrorist attacks (even twenty years after these events). The same is valid for the statement on the “ continuing imminent threat ” of Al-Qaeda and its “affiliates” to the U.S., its nationals, its allies, and its interests. It is not clear how to asses whether an individual or group of people pose such a threat and how to correctly interpret “ imminence ” of an armed attack not to distort the prohibition of the use of force. Very controversial is the U.S. “unwilling” or “unable” doctrine which claims a right to self-defense against states that are “ unwilling ” or “ unable ” to take effective action against terrorists. It seems that these “doctrines” are on a very short path to the doctrine of “preventive war”. In Syria and Iraq, the U.S. seems to develop a modified version of the “unwilling” or “unable” states doctrine on the premise that terrorist organizations had seized control of part of Iraqi and Syrian territory. This U.S. position was embodied in a 2016 White House Report on Legal and Policy Framework Guiding the United States’ Use of Military Force and Related National Security Operations. 78

76 See e.g. ROGERS APV, McGOLDRICK, D. Assassination and Targeted Killing – The Killing of Osama bin Laden, 60 ICLQ 2011, No 3, pp. 778-788; BLUM, G., HEYMANN, P.H., Law and Policy of Targeted Killing, 1 Harvard National Security Journal, Vol. 1, No. 145, 2010. 77 Available at: https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department- of-defense/. 78 Report on the Legal and Policy Frameworks.The White House 2016.

313