"Killing in self-defense is allowed as a last resort, to protect one's own life or that of others. The United States should demonstrate that it has encountered an imminent threat to the lives of others and that, to protect those lives, there was no choice but to use lethal force. So far, no such justification has been proven".
These are a summary of the concept expressed by Parla Agnès Callamard, United Nations special rapporteur for human rights violations which in the article published by Anna Germoni on "The Post Internazionale" raises doubts about the legality of the killing of General Soleimani
“The targeted killing of General Qasem Soleimani is the first case of a drone attack against the representative of an armed state force. Until now, all drone killings that I am aware of have targeted non-state targets, particularly individuals associated with acts of terror. " This is how Agnès Callamard, the United Nations special rapporteur for human rights violations, begins with TPI for an exclusive interview. And he adds: “I want to stress that my mandate is to examine situations of arbitrary murders. My predecessors have already worked on these issues and I have been working on the topic for about 10 years, with two important reports focusing exclusively on national reports of targeted killers ".
Is Dr. Trump's decision to kill General Qasem Soleimani on January 3 near Baghdad Airport with a drone, Dr. Callamard?
As for the legality of the U.S. strike against General Soleimani, the information made available by the U.S. authorities does not, in my view, allow us to say that the murder was legal under international law.
For what reasons?
For a drone attack to be legal, it must meet the legal requirements of all applicable international legal regimes, namely: the law governing the use of force between states (ius ad bellum), international humanitarian law (ius in handsome) and international human rights law (Ihrl). I believe that, in itself, the ius ad bellum is not sufficient to guide the use of extra-territorial force but that other legal principles apply.
The criminal record of General Qasem Soleimani, number three of the government of Iran, had been known for some time: why did the United States decide to eliminate it just a few days ago, in Iraqi territory, with a drone that left Qatar?
The justifications put forward by the United States have largely focused on Soleimani's past activities and the serious crimes for which he is held responsible. And there is much evidence linking Soleimani to serious human rights violations in Iran, Syria, Iraq and other countries. But under international law his past involvement in human rights violations or acts of terror is not enough to make his murder lawful.
Can you explain better?
Sure. Authorizing the planned and targeted killing of these human rights violators may seem well justified to many in the world. But is not so. If we start bombing people without respecting international laws, will we be able to stop? Who has the decision-making power to use this violence against a man and who has it to leave him free to live? And most importantly, who decides who should be targeted? There are too many human rights violators around the world, some of whom are heads of state, others supported by the United States or other governments. Do we have to accept that any country with adequate power and advanced tools to carry out drone or targeted kills can proceed at any time, at its discretion, to strike anyone considered a threat to their interests?
How can we stop all this?
According to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and customary international law, a state may invoke self-defense in response to an imminent armed attack. Self-defense cannot be invoked to prevent a threat from arising in the future, nor can it be invoked as retaliation for past events. The threat must be present, instantaneous and leave no choice but to strike.
That?
We must analyze the killing of Soleimani from the point of view of international law. It is, in my view, the main framework through which the extra-territorial use of force should be assessed, regardless of whether the United States considers itself bound by it or not. Reaffirming the primacy of international law in these periods of crisis is a solemn and fundamental duty of and for the international community. The United States should therefore demonstrate that: a) an imminent armed attack was planned; b) the killing of General Soleimani prevented such an imminent attack; and c) killing General Soleimani was the only way to prevent such an attack. So far the United States has not provided sufficient evidence to prove this.
But President Trump called for "self-defense" ...
You see, according to international human rights law, the targeted killing of Soleimani is unlikely to be lawful. In a police framework, killing in self-defense is allowed as a last resort, to protect one's own life or that of others. The United States should demonstrate that it has encountered an imminent threat to the lives of others and that, in order to protect those lives, there was no choice but to use lethal force. So far, no such justification has been proven.
The White House has sent a classified and full of omissions file to the United States Congress on the justification for this drone attack to eliminate a statesman. What do you think?
I cannot answer this question for the role I play in the United Nations. But I can tell you that media reports on the briefing in Congress suggested that little evidence had been presented. The letter sent to the United Nations Security Council is also very vague and does not answer previous questions.
With the killing of General Soleimani there were certainly other people. Iran will certainly be informed of the names of the other victims, as will the United States. Why are they not disclosed? Maybe because they were civilian victims?
This aspect is of considerable importance and serious. Tell me how the United States could justify the killing of five other people who traveled with Soleimani or walked around his car at the time of the drone attack? According to human rights law, there is no other way to describe such deaths than as arbitrary deprivations of their lives. Which should involve some responsibility of the American state and individual criminal responsibility of whoever has decided this.
In your opinion, will there be geopolitical changes with unpredictable dynamics after these events?
Without a doubt, we are experiencing a moment of serious instability, the result of many forces moving from climate change to the digital revolution. The global system of international relations is undergoing a reconfiguration with two, probably three, states seeking to (re) assert their global superpower. The tensions between them are manifesting in many different ways, one of which is evident in regional struggles through delegated actors. Above all, it appears that this reconfiguration of the global system is turning into attempts to transform the rules established in the aftermath of World War II, including those relating to the use of force.
Does NATO still have any decision-making power? The President of the United States decided this attack alone, without warning and concerting with the coalition member countries ...
I can't answer this question. I'm sorry. Precisely for the role I hold at the United Nations High Commissioner.
What could be the future scene of international geopolitical positions after this action that has ruined the balance, albeit precarious?
Not good. The regulatory framework for global governance, including peace and security, and the institutions set up to oversee its implementation, are increasingly being ignored or questioned. The risks are very high, especially for people in countries that have become the theater of these transformations by proxy.
How do the United Nations intervene to prevent unrest and escalation of tensions between states?
At the heart of this serious question is the deepest: what kind of global judicial system should govern these decisions? What system do we want to implement in the field? And above all: how can we create the right process, so that effective justice is distinct from revenge? We do everything we can. But a country that pursues its own interests, acting alone without any reference to any legal process or system, no matter how serious the provocations are, inevitably leads this path to a state of permanent war and instability rather than to justice and peace .