Assassination of Major General Soleimani under the International Law on the Use of Force

At the dawn of 3 January 2020, a surprising unpredicted event reported via mass media and made the whole Iranian nation and many peoples in the region deeply shocked and sad and caused serious concerns of many politicians and statesmen, even in the United States of America. Assassination of the most influential commander in the frontline against the Takfiri terrorism in the region by American military forces in Iraq, under the direct command of the president of this state, has raised numerous discussions including among lawyers. How could the assassination of a governmental high-ranking military commander, not in a battlefield, but during an official mission not of a military kind, but a diplomatic one to make a dialogue with the authorities of the host state for decreasing the regional tensions be characterized according to international law on the use of force? How much the American alleged justifications could be heard and valid? What would be the international legal consequences of the US attack? This study, through analyzing the facts related to the case and evaluating alleged justifications of the United States that are mainly around self-defense, on the basis of governing rules and regulations on the use of force, has come to this conclusion that the US act lacks any legal justification and is an manifest example of illegal resorting to force which is incompatible with UN Charter. Furthermore, it has violated the US-Iraq bilateral agreements and specifically Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). and in accordance with the Declaration on the Definition of Aggression and the Rome Statute, is the example of act of aggression and paves the way of international responsibility of US governments and criminal responsibility of persons engaged in the commission of this illegitimate act.