Mike Pompeo

US President Donald Trump standing ordered the drone strike that killed Iranian military commander, Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, but what are the legal reasons for this procedure?

said to US: "This strike aims to deter future Iranian attack plans. "

So, what are the most important aspects of the examination of the legality according to International Law ?

the relevant provisions of the Charter of The United Nations allows a state to act in self-defence "if an armed attack".

But this definition tends to be interpreted by governments, say legal experts.

"In the Soleimani case, the challenge for US was to prevent, self-defense, the danger of attacks, the category of action which, if it is true, in fact, in General, as permissible in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations," says Dapo Akande, professor of public International Law at Oxford University and co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).

But Agnes Callamard , UN special Rapporteur on extra-judicial killings. has tweeted about The Strike say "this test is not likely to be achieved".

One said, there is a large body of scholarship, that of the self-defense argument than The Right to use force "against a real and Imminent Threat when the necessity of self-defence is instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation. be "

The omitted the word "immediate" and said The Strike was to deter future Iranian attacks, and Iran is the top military leader Soleimani was "active in the development of plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and in the region as a whole tire".

In later statements, U.S. officials, including President Trump said Soleimani conspired had, "imminent attacks".

Elizabeth Warren , a Democratic Party candidate for the U.S. presidency, said: "The administration can't keep their story straight. "

depends on The legality of the strikes under the International Law of him that sustained US points for future attacks, according to Mr. Akande.

The U.S. government has still not released the details publicly, but the administration said that the intelligence has, together with The Key figures in the U.S. Congress.

the question of a journalist on June 7. June. January for more details about the upcoming threats, US Secretary of state Mike Pompeo , but no indications of imminent attacks found.

There are other reasons, it has in The Past , Dr. Ralph Wilde , an expert in public International Law at University College London.

"Since 9/11, the US has taken a view that self-defense can be justified to prevent more attacks. If The Attack is planned, but not immediately before. To justify the Obama administration with this argument for drone attacks. "

The Other question is whether the U.S. had the consent of Iraq, from The Strike .

the Iraqi deputies responded got angry and went to a non-binding resolution, the troops of the U.S. leave the country. The Iraqi government called it a "

the US armed forces invited to Iraq to combat the Islamic state group and the training of the Iraqi armed forces.

could have a claim on The United States, this invitation was a form of consent, giving them The Right to protect its interests and personnel in Iraq.

But Mr Akande argued that, in practice, the terms of the agreement to host the US would stretch troops to an attack such as this.

On Sunday, Mr Trump tweeted, respect for the dignity of US were values of target sites, "it is important for Iran and the Iranian culture," if the American assets made goods.

Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, said, an attack on a cultural place, would be A War crime.

the trump card threat, "shows a callous disregard for the global rule of law," said Andrea Prasow of Human Rights Watch.

The U.S. government insisted it would behave lawfully.

an attack on a cultural side, However, would be a breach of several international treaties.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of cultural property in the secure cultural sites in The Wake of the destruction of cultural property during the second World War , and was signed by the United States.

In the year 2017, adopted by the UN, a resolution in reaction to the Islamic state attacks condemned "the illegal destruction of cultural heritage, including the destruction of religious sites and artifacts".

it was the sharpest critic of the destruction of the historic site of Palmyra In Syria in the year 2015, as well as the Taliban blowing up the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan in 2001.

In 2016, The International criminal court (ICC) convicted someone for the destruction of the cultural heritage for the First Time , after a extremists with links to Al-Qaeda, religious artifacts destroyed in Mali.

The United States is not part of the ICC-but it is a Contracting party to The Other Convention for the protection of cultural goods, and any attack would be a strong Reversal .

Source of news: bbc.com