Dr. Ali Karbalaei Hosseini – International Law Expert

To examine the phenomenon of the Zionist regime’s design, attempt, and execution of assassinations targeting the political leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, we must move beyond generalizations and analyze the dimensions of this act within a legal framework, citing authoritative texts of international law.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter explicitly prohibits any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of states. This prohibition, as a jus cogens norm, is not only inviolable but also cannot be justified by bilateral treaties or regional customs. Therefore, any targeted action aimed at assassinating political leaders constitutes the use of force against a state’s political independence and is a clear violation of the Charter.

Furthermore, the 1973 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, including high-ranking political officials, explicitly criminalizes in its Article 2 any assassination attempt, threat thereof, or participation in such acts against these individuals. This convention is applicable even during armed conflicts, as the special status of protected persons grants them an additional layer of legal protection.

Customary international law, supported by rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also takes a clear and stringent stance on this matter. In the famous Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), the ICJ emphasized that even in the absence of written agreements, the principle prohibiting the use of force is so firmly established that its violation entails international responsibility. This ruling provides a solid legal basis for recognizing the Zionist regime’s actions as a blatant breach of international norms.

Additionally, the 1999 UN Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, in Article 2, criminalizes any material or immaterial support for terrorist acts. The targeted assassination of political leaders, aimed at instilling fear within the political structure of the targeted country, fully aligns with this convention’s definition of terrorism. This not only holds the Zionist regime accountable to the Islamic Republic of Iran but also to the entire international community.

Protocol I, Additional to the Geneva Conventions (1977) also prohibits, under Article 51(2), any attacks against civilians. While it may be argued that political leaders, due to their positions, could be considered legitimate military targets, this argument is only valid if the leader in question is directly participating in hostilities. Otherwise, the principle of distinction in the laws of armed conflict is violated.

The silence of the international community in the face of such actions is not merely a moral void but a clear violation of explicit legal obligations. UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970), which emphasizes the principles of international law concerning friendly relations among states, obliges states to cooperate in maintaining international peace and security. Failure to condemn or counter these actions amounts to neglecting the collective duty to uphold the international order.

Moreover, the international criminal responsibility of the involved state officials must not be overlooked. Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) classifies systematic or widespread killings of civilians as crimes against humanity and explicitly denies immunity to state officials in such cases. The jurisprudence of international tribunals, including the Nuremberg Trials, demonstrates that state positions do not confer immunity but rather intensify criminal liability.

In confronting this unlawful act, the Islamic Republic of Iran has multiple legal tools available to it under international law. Article 51 of the UN Charter recognizes the right to self-defense, provided that defensive measures are proportionate and taken immediately after the attack. However, it is essential to note that self-defense does not justify unlimited retaliatory actions and must be conducted within the bounds of international law. Additionally, the Islamic Republic of Iran can file a lawsuit against the Zionist regime under Article 36 of the ICJ Statute. However, this path faces numerous judicial and political obstacles beyond the scope of this brief note.

Should the Security Council prove ineffective, the Islamic Republic of Iran may resort to General Assembly Resolution 377 (“Uniting for Peace”) to request measures through the General Assembly to counter threats to international peace and security. While this mechanism is not legally binding, it provides significant political and diplomatic leverage. Regional mechanisms, such as human rights courts or arbitration bodies, can also complement international action.

A more concerning aspect is the precedential consequences of such actions. The ICJ’s advisory opinion in the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons case (1996) stressed that fundamental principles of international law must not be violated, even under exceptional circumstances. If the international community remains silent in the face of state-sponsored assassinations, it risks not only establishing a dangerous precedent but also undermining the legitimacy of the entire international legal system. Such silence amounts to the gradual acceptance of arbitrary norms that directly threaten global security and order.

In conclusion, the assassination of political leaders—regardless of motives or alleged justifications—constitutes a clear and multi-layered violation of international law. These acts not only wounded the global conscience but also destabilized the foundations of international order. The legal, criminal, and moral responsibility of the perpetrators and their supporters is undeniable, and the international community must abandon passivity and inaction, standing firmly against such dangerous trends.