Gholam Ali Ghasemi; Mohamad Setayeshpur
Abstract
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Islamic Republic of Iran’s(IRI) missile operation against military base of United States of America (USA) called, Ain al-Assad, following the US drone strike and martyrdom of Genaral Haj Qasem Soleimani and some of other islam defendants, has raised various ...
Read More
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Islamic Republic of Iran’s(IRI) missile operation against military base of United States of America (USA) called, Ain al-Assad, following the US drone strike and martyrdom of Genaral Haj Qasem Soleimani and some of other islam defendants, has raised various opinions considering the legitimacy of the action in question. Countermeasure, self-defence and consent are three circumstances that have been raised in legal teachings and doctrines regarding the said issue. Pursuant to customary international law and article 20 of International law commission’s draft articles on international responsibility of states for international wrongful act (ARSIWA 2001), Iraq’s consent authorizes that the islamic republic of iran’s operation in iraq’s territory, does not violate territorial integrity of Iraq and does not consider as intervention in its internal affairs. Countermeasures can not affect state obligation not to use of force and demand of Islamic community of IRI for hard revenge, does not mean that the missile action is a reprisal, as in some doctrines has been said. Regarding the seriality of US internationally wrongful acts in this regard and the evidences that show the commitment of more similar wrongs, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s action is the legitimate self-defence as the inherent right has been explicited in article 51 of the UN charter. This should not be regarded as pre-emptive (anticipatory) or preventive defence but as a chain of infringements by the US makes that the IRI act would be considered self-defence which is legitimate and legal in international law.
