Abstract

Qasem Soleimani, one of the senior commanders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed on January 3, 2020, near Baghdad airport by an American drone authorized by the US president. US officials justified their actions on the basis of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter and the anticipatory self-defense theory. This paper deconstructs the US legal arguments in accordance with international law, especially the rulings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and concludes that it is difficult to justify the US's actions based on the theory of self-defense, both in its restrictive and broad interpretations. Considering the fact that at the time, Iran and the United States were not in a state of armed conflict, resorting to the law of war to justify the United States' decision in assassinating General Soleimani would be baseless. Using deductive reasoning, this paper concludes that Soleimani's assassination was more a matter of revenge and deterrence rather than self-defense. The paper is organized into five sections, including an introduction, US domestic legal justification, self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, anticipatory self-defense, and conclusion.