Battle of Narratives: Aftermath of an Assassination in Tehran!-Abbas Safari

Abbas Safari - Ph.D.  Student in Public International Law at University of Tehran, College of Farabi
2024/08/13

On Wednesday 31st of July Ismail Haniyeh the political chief of Hamas was assassinated in Tehran at his residing whereabouts. This was done in such a manner that was a shock to many throughout the world due to the fact that assassination victim was the head of Hamas, Palestinian resistance group and he was residing in Tehran (Iran) to attend Iran’s newly-elected president’s inauguration, when the assassination took place. 
Introductory remarks are regarding the political aspects of the subject matter. A key issue that needs mentioning regarding this assassination is that on Tuesday in the afternoon at Parliament of Islamic Republic of Iran the new reformist president, Dr. Masoud Pezeshkian’s inauguration took place where Ismail Haniyeh was one of the delegates amongst the many in the ceremony as a guest. Contextually, it is noteworthy that the new President during his speech expressed two significant issues that are at the top of his concerns; first, the support for Palestinian people especially Palestinian children and the resistance groups so that one day Palestine would be free from any occupation and second, Iran’s willingness to negotiate with western states emphasizing it with quoting to Hafez, well known Persian poet, as Iran’s slogan that: “the  comfort of both worlds lies in, being kind to friends and exercising patience with enemies”. The relevance of these two matters can be brough to light by pointing to the fact that the new President of Iran is a reformist. It is evident that Iran was eager to set the table for negotiations in a manner that would even, presumably, be ready to enter into diplomatic talks with the United States_ referring to the poetry the president elect read in his final part of speech “being kind to friends and exercising patience with enemies!”; however, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh has made issues much more complex than it was before. 
Iran’s caretaker Foreign Minister Ali Baqeri regarding the assassination in Tehran stated that this was done by the Zionist regime and considered it as a terrorist act which was done by the terrorist mafia ruling the occupied Palestinian land. Moreover, he expressed that this terrorist act is a gross violation of international law, the United Nations Charter, and a breach of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s national security and territorial integrity. It is pivotal to note that after the assassination occurred Iran declared 3 days of national mourning. Relevant to this occurrence, Israel also assassinated one of Hezbollah’s top military commanders in an airstrike in Beirut and this was done a few hours before the assassination in Tehran. Hamas blamed the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh on Israel, even though there was no immediate comment from Israel. There isn’t much debate on whether Israel conducted the operation of assassination or not due to the adversity that existed between Israel and Hamas over the years especially after 7 October attack of Hamas to Israel. In reaction to these unbelievable developments in the middle east especially in Iran, a considerable number of top authorities in Iran declared that Iran will seek revenge for the blood that has been spilt on their soil and there will be a severe punishment for those at fault.
From international legal standpoint the assassination that was carried out by Israel which resulted in the death of Ismail Haniyeh in the territory of Iran is a clear violation of Article 2 (4); a breach of Iran’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty. This was also pointed out in Iran’s caretaker Foreign Minister Ali Baqeri’s statement. The principle of international law enshrined and articulated in Art. 2(4), with regards to the case at hand, has two relevant sides that can be explored. First one is that the assassination carried out by Israel infringed and violated Iran’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty plus threatening its national security after a prestigious inauguration ceremony of the president-elect where many delegates and diplomatic guests were officially invited to Iran. Second, the assassination was clearly in violation with the principle of prohibition of the use of force that resulted in the death of Ismail Haniyeh and his bodyguard in Tehran. The assassination ostensibly was carried out with a drone. this could not have happened without fatal military equipment which was a deliberate and precise operation with a purpose of resulting into depriving a human’s right to life; in other words, the use of lethal force through a drone strike or other lethal military explosives that reaches its target led into the death of a diplomatic guest in Iran. This, as present author contends, can amount to and fall within the definition of the use of force. Moreover, by emphasizing the prohibition of the use of force in relation to states mentioned in various international instruments including the Locarno Pact 1925 and the Kellog-Briand Pact 1928, and also the said principle has been stated and recognized by the International Court of Justice in numerous judgements including Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Judgment of 27 June 1986, Merits on page 100, para. 190, making it more evident that the prohibition of the use of force has become a customary rule of international law and that all states and actors in the international community shall abide by this rule. As a result, it is obvious that the assassination carried out by Israel is in violation of international rules and principles and above all such course of action is an evident step towards threatening the peace and security of the region which goes against the heart and soul of the United Nations Charter.
In this sense, Iran can argue and has a legal stance to its inherent right to self-defense as it is enshrined in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This was also stated in Iran’s delegate’s statement at the United Nations Security Council meeting on 31 July 2024.
It is worth mentioning and stressing the importance of previous resolutions adopted by the United Nations particularly A/RES/67/19 which not only recognized but also “reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination and to independence in their State of Palestine on the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967” indicating Israel as the occupier of Palestinian people in their territory. In this regard, International Court of Justice also recognized the Palestinian People’s right to self-determination in its Advisory Opinion on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory 2004 on page 199 para. 155. In addition, ICJ delved into the right of Palestinian people to self-determination in its recent Advisory Opinion in 2024 on Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Including East Jerusalem in paragraphs 230 to 243 emphasizing in para. 232 that self-determination is owed erga omnes and that all states have a legal interest in protecting that right and also in p. 243 that the prolonged character of unlawful policies and practices of Israel aggravates their violation of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. The relevance of the abovementioned facts comes to light when we consider that Ismail Haniyeh was acting and fighting for the Palestinian’s right to self-determination throughout the years. This view is supported by Iran and can be viewed expressly in its representative’s statement at the Security Council’s meeting on 31 July. Iran stated that Ismail Haniyeh was the great leader of the Palestinian people and he perused Palestinian’s legitimate right to self-determination.
At this stage, it is for the purpose of this article to work its way around its title to point out where the struggle and battle of narratives lie. From Israel’s point of view, the story is entirely different. After the 7 October attack on Israel by Hamas, Israel has vowed to Kill Haniyeh and other leaders of Hamas. Israel considers Hamas as a terrorist group that was responsible for the death of its citizens. The fact that Hamas is considered as a terrorist group is also stated in Israel’s defense memorandum before the International Court of Justice following the submission of South Africa’s memorandum on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide 1948. In its defense memorandum on p. 38 in para. 64 Israel stressed that Hamas is recognized as a terrorist group by at least 41 states, including the United States, the United Kingdom, all members of the European Union, Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Colombia. The relevance of the matter is related to the doctrine of targeted killings. As Marco Milanovic mentioned in his book, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, Law, Principles, and Policy, on p. 255, the Supreme Court of Israel delves into the matter of targeted killings and the Court’s prime desire in that case is to give clear guidance to the Israeli armed forces and secret services as to under what conditions they can target a suspected terrorist. Before examining the targeting question, the Court had to resolve two preliminary questions: first, it (somewhat questionably) held that the conflict between Israel and Palestinian groups in the occupied territories should be qualified as an international armed conflict; second, it held that the suspected terrorists designated as targets can be qualified as civilians taking a direct part in hostilities. And on page 256, Milanovic puts forward that, as to the conditions, first is that a terrorist may not be targeted if the incidental damage caused to nearby civilians is disproportionate to the direct military advantage anticipated from the elimination of the said terrorist. Second, a terrorist may not be targeted if less harmful means can be employed, that is if he can be captured and put on trial. 
Regarding the doctrine of targeted killings, there is a lot of controversies and significant debate revolves around its legitimacy or its application with regard to international law especially when examining the doctrine with principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. For instance, there are those scholars who disapprove the said doctrine in the following articles Targeted killing’ and the lack of acquiescence and Targeted Killings: Contemporary Challenges, Risks and Opportunities. On the other hand, there are scholars who approve and support the abovementioned doctrine in the following articles The transformation of targeted killing and international order, Targeted Killing and Accountability, and also Chris O’Meara in Reconceptualizing the right of self-defense against ‘imminent’ armed attacks on page 279, approves the targeted killing notion and the US’s state practice and on page 289 the UK’s stance on targeted killing under the legal basis of self-defense with respect to imminence of the threat and pre-emptive self-defense. 
The present author’s stance on the targeted killing doctrine is complex, requiring careful scrutiny of relevant principles, rules and policies. In short and focusing on the key aspects, firstly, significance of the principle of prohibition of the use of force and the obligation to respect other states’ territorial integrity and independence, as mentioned earlier, must be upheld at all times by states. secondly, this principle cannot and shall not be violated, legally speaking, unless under Article 42 of the UN Charter by the resolution of the security council or the invocation of Article 51of the UN Charter on the grounds of self-defense. Thirdly, invocation of Article 51 must be at times of war to rightfully invoke jus ad bellum and the pre-emptive self-defense is considered inconsistent with the purposes and heart and soul of the UN Charter. Fourthly, as for the rules and policies, doctrine of targeted killing raises jurisdictional and territorial issues due to the fact that they are mainly carried out outside the territory of the state conducting the lethal military operation that triggers the violation of another state’s territorial integrity and its sovereignty. This can easily threat the international peace and security as the state that its sovereignty and/or territorial integrity was violated has a legal ground for invoking its right to self-defense, hence explaining the threat to peace and international security. Moreover, the issue of listing and considering specific individuals as terrorists raises the issue of different states having conflicting ideas and remarks on validity of such claim; that is, a few states might consider an individual as a terrorist and some other states might not have the same view. This questions the morality of the doctrine at hand. Lastly, international human rights and international humanitarian law violations might correlate when a targeted killing is carried out by a state, along with other violations mentioned before. In this sense, if targeted killing is carried out outside the scope of war and does not fall within the scope of jus ad bellum, a human’s right to life is deprived unlawfully and without due process and a judicial process. In conclusion, the author believes that targeted killing doctrine is inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and the assassination that took place in Tehran is completely inconsistent with international law’s principles and rules and violated Iran’s sovereignty and its territorial integrity along with unlawful deprivation of life of the victim who was assassinated.
 As far as the present debates regarding the targeted killing of Ismail Haniyeh goes in international forums particularly in the Security Council’s meeting convened on July 31 and the United States’s stance on the matter focused on Israel’s right to defend itself and also United Kingdom’s stance on the matter (which was surprisingly similar to the US) stating that Iran must stop aiding Hizbullah and Houthis and expressed support for Israel’s right to defend itself. It can be derived from these conflicting views of opinions of states which results in their various and often conflicting practices that there is a battle of narratives going on at international level; the one that can pave the way for the destruction of international peace and security… this is what Martti Koskenniemi argues in his article Politics of International law on p. 8 that, the requirement of normativity in law dictates that legal rules must be applied consistently, regardless of the political preferences of those subject to them. This principle is crucial in ensuring that law functions impartially and uniformly, even when a state opposes its application to itself. Legal rules whose content or enforcement hinges on the consent of the subjects they govern are not considered true legal rules. Instead, they merely reflect the political interests of those subjects, undermining the very essence of legal normativity. And in situations where state’s political interests are not in line with legal rules and norms the result is that the law becomes the language of power and the narratives of those who possess it more than others will ultimately prevail. 
In this case, the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh is a multifaceted issue at international level that could lead into escalation of tensions, or even a war, in the Middle East. This could be a type of international conflict where each state has its own version of narrative.