The Great Showdown: Can Israel Legally Eliminate Khamenei? A Legal Analysis of Israel's Threat Against Iran's Leader
Can International Law justify the assassination of Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei by Israeli forces?
In the heightened tensions between Israel and Iran, the Israeli Defense Minister, Israel Katz, has compared Iran’s spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to a modern-day Hitler, hinting at a possible Israeli strike against him. Here, we throw light on the legitimacy of such an action under international law.
Ayatollah Khamenei: A Potential Military Target?
Alexander Wentker, a researcher at the Heidelberg Max Planck Institute for Foreign Public and International Law, asserts that, according to humanitarian international law, Khamenei, as the supreme commander of the Iranian armed forces, could be considered a military target. Thus, he could be attacked during an armed conflict.
The Prohibition of Unjustified Use of Force
However, Wentker warns that the use of force by Israel against Iran could be questionable. The United Nations Charter and customary international law stipulate that force should only be used in self-defense, following a prior armed attack. No clear evidence supports the claim that Iran posed an immediate threat to Israel, making the use of force in this context tenuous.
The Exceptional Case of Heads of State
The assassination of heads of state is a rare, complicated issue in international law. If two states are embroiled in a conflict, and the head of state also commands the armed forces, they may be considered a legitimate military target.
In the context of Ukraine and Russia, for instance, Ukraine could legally kill President Vladimir Putin under humanitarian international law, following a prior armed attack by Russia on Ukraine and Ukraine's right to self-defense. Nevertheless, such extreme measures would require careful consideration under international humanitarian law to respect the principle of proportionality and avoid causing unnecessary harm to civilians.
The Human Right to Life in War
There is a human right to life that even applies in war, according to expert Wentker. This principle protects against arbitrary killings. However, a killing would not be considered arbitrary if it is in accordance with international humanitarian law, as stated earlier.
The Principle of Proportionality
If the assassination of Khamenei were to result in the death of many civilians, the principle of proportionality would come into play. each case must be assessed individually. There is no fixed number of acceptable casualties, and Israel should take measures to protect civilians under international humanitarian law.
Israel's Legal Position and the International Court of Justice
Israel, having withdrawn its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in 1985, may face difficulty being held accountable for any violations of the prohibition of the use of force. This could make it challenging to establish Israel's jurisdiction for such actions.
Conclusion
Balancing the need to protect its national security and the preservation of international peace, Israel must tread carefully when considering the elimination of Khamenei. According to prevailing international law, the assassination of a head of state such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would generally be considered unlawful, especially outside active battlefields, and a violation of the protected right to life under international humanitarian law and the UN Charter.
In the context of Ayatollah Khamenei being a potential military target, the United Nations Charter and customary international law restrict the use of force by Israel against Iran, stipulating that force should only be used in self-defense following a prior armed attack. Additionally, the assassination of heads of state, such as Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is a complex issue in international law, and if carried out, it would generally be considered unlawful and a violation of the protected right to life under international humanitarian law and the UN Charter.
