A writing by Hujjat al-Islam Dr. Mohammad Hossein Pouramini, Head of the International Law Department of the Qur’an Encyclopedia in IICT
Ayatollah Khamenei, in his Friday Prayer sermon, regarding the Operation True Promise 2, by the Islamic Republic of Iran against the Zionist regime and in response to the martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, stated that: “All of these attacks and the Storm of Al-Aqsa, which took place around this time last year, were a correct, logical, lawful international move, and the Palestinians were in the right. The vigorous defense by the Lebanese for the people of Palestine is also subject to the same ruling; it is lawful, reasonable, logical, and legitimate, and no one has the right to criticize them for entering into this defense. The brilliant action of our armed forces two or three nights ago was also a completely lawful and legitimate act. What our armed forces did was the least punishment for the usurping Zionist regime in response to its astonishing crimes; the bloodthirsty regime, the wolf-like regime, and the rabid dog of America in the region. The Islamic Republic will carry out any duty it has in this regard with power, firmness, and decisiveness.”
This writing briefly explains some of the legal dimensions of his statements:
- Violation of the Sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh on the soil of the Islamic Republic of Iran is clearly considered a violation of the country’s sovereignty. Based on Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter (1945), all members are obliged to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. This principle emphasizes that no government has the right to intervene in the internal affairs or sovereignty of another state, and actions like assassination on the territory of another state are directly in conflict with these principles.
In this specific case, Ismail Haniyeh was present on a political and diplomatic mission on behalf of Hamas, recognized as the legitimate representative of a segment of the Palestinian people. Furthermore, according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons (1973), Haniyeh was considered an internationally protected person in Iran. In addition, any military action against figures within Iranian territory is not only an instance of the use of force and aggression but also, if this attack is against a civilian, it is regarded as a terrorist act.
- Targeted Assassination, a Violation of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law
Targeted assassination refers to a military or security action to deliberately and premeditatedly kill a specific individual. According to international conventions, targeted assassination is generally considered a violation of human rights and international humanitarian law. Targeted killings typically violate the right to life and due process obligations, as these acts involve killing an individual without fair trial and judicial proceedings. The International Court of Justice, in its advisory opinions on the “Separation Wall” and the “Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons,” stated that the protections of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including the right to life, do not cease during armed conflicts. Therefore, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh is deemed an illegal act and a violation of human rights.
- Violation of the Palestinian Nation’s Right to Resist
The martyrdom of Ismail Haniyeh, as an act by the Zionist occupying regime, is not only a violation of the Palestinian nation’s right to resist but also a clear example of state terrorism and a violation of fundamental principles of international law. The right to resist is the legitimate right of nations under colonial and occupation rule, allowing them to fight against oppression and occupation. In this regard, the Zionist regime, by assassinating Haniyeh, has clearly violated the fundamental rights of this nation and perpetuated its occupation policies.
The Palestinian people, given their historical and cultural conditions, have the legitimate right to fight for self-determination and independence. This right particularly gains legitimacy when the realization of a nation’s rights through peaceful means is not possible. In this context, the actions of Hamas and other resistance groups, aimed at ending the occupation and realizing the human and national rights of the Palestinian people, are considered efforts to realize the right to resist.
Therefore, the Zionist regime’s action in martyring Ismail Haniyeh is not only a violation of the right to resist but is also recognized as an international crime and a violation of human rights. This action undermines the principles of the rule of law and justice at the international level and must be condemned as an illegal and inhumane act.
- The Inherent Right of Self-Defense of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Response to the Zionist Regime’s Aggression
According to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, any state has the right to take retaliatory action in the event of an armed attack. This article clearly specifies the right to self-defense for countries in the face of threats and armed attacks. In this context, the Islamic Republic of Iran, due to the Zionist regime’s aggression against its sovereignty and the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, as a legitimate and lawful action, has the right to invoke this article.
The Zionist regime’s aggression against the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its attempt to assassinate a political figure within the country’s territorial borders is not only a violation of international law but also a serious threat to the territorial integrity and political independence of Iran. Based on international law principles, this aggressive act necessitates an immediate and proportionate response from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Moreover, the history of international law shows that the United Nations Security Council, in similar cases, such as the assassination of Abu Jihad in Tunisia, recognized and condemned the Zionist regime’s actions as a threat to international peace and security. This legal precedent allows the Islamic Republic of Iran to defend itself within the framework of international law.
As a result, the Islamic Republic of Iran, by invoking its inherent right to self-defense, has lawfully responded to the Zionist regime’s aggressions and defended its sovereignty and national security. Therefore, it must be said that this action is not only a response to the military attacks of the Zionist regime but also a necessary step in maintaining regional and international peace and security.
