Who's the global bad guy? | thearticle

International law prohibits the use of force between states unless authorised by the United Nations Security Council or in immediate self-defence against an armed attack. Custom has extended

this latter right to include the pre-emptive use of force where the threat of an armed attack is so imminent that it is necessary to address it. The 2010 UN report on targeted killings

summarised what is universally accepted as the international norm: that the use of force in self-defence must be “against a real and imminent threat when the necessity of that self-defence

is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.” As argued previously, this was not the case with the assassination of Iranian General Qasem

Soleimani by the United States last month, and accordingly it was illegal. Any lingering connection to an imminent threat justification was dismissed by the man ordering the strike, with

President Donald Trump tweeting last week: “It doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past.” As a matter of law, it does. No one with an understanding of international law disputes

this. Iran has said it will pursue President Trump for war crimes at the International Criminal Court in the Hague. While its case would be strong, unless the United States could provide

some until-now withheld intelligence, in all likelihood the United States would not seek to defend itself. It is a non-signatory to and non-supporter of the Court. At worst an adverse

finding would only add a further smear to an already tarnished international reputation. Now, before you rush to kick me to the curb as Fake News, the question that I argue needs addressing

is not whether the US actions were in breach of existing international law, but rather whether international law should change to recognise threats such as that posed by Iran and Soleimani,

or beyond that whether the United States should ignore the law — as President Trump appears comfortable to do. Iran is one of several countries, including China and Russia, that poses an

elevated level of threat to the United States (arguably all states pose at least some threat). Relations between the nations have been strained since the US orchestrated a coup against the

democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to establish the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, as the ruler in 1953 — its first covert overthrow of a foreign government in peacetime.

The 1974-75 _Amnesty International _annual report noted: “The shah of Iran retains his benevolent image despite the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian

courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief… the total number of political prisoners has been reported at times throughout the year to be anything from 25,000 to 100,000.” With

the 1979 Revolution, anti-US Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini gained power. The new leader viewed America as the “Great Satan”. In November that year, 54 US diplomats were taken

hostage in their embassy, and would remain there for 444 days. In April 1980, President Carter severed official relations with Iran and they have remained frozen ever since. Sanctions ensued

and continue. The US supplied Saddam Hussein during Iraq’s near-eight-year conflict with Iran. Iran contributed to the 1983 United States embassy and barracks bombings in Beirut, killing

258 Americans. In 1988, the United States shot down an Iranian commercial plane with 290 onboard. Following September 11, President Bush included Iran in the axis of evil. In 2015, President

Obama negotiated a treaty to address concerns over the Iranian nuclear programme, but this has been subsequently scrapped by Trump. Iranian citizens are currently banned from entering the

US, while people like me require special permission because I have visited the Islamic Republic. Relations are not at an all-time low, but we are looking at a tinderbox. It is within this

context that the United States assassinated Soleimani. Accepting that there was no imminent threat that enlivened a right of pre-emptive self-defence, does not mean that there is no general

threat posed to the United States by Iran — and vice versa. So, why shouldn’t the United States use force to remove the General and address the very real threat of Iran? The reason for the

strict prohibition on the international use of force is declared in the first line of the preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of

war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”. Despite the many conflict deaths since the Second World War, including atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the

Congo and Rwanda, the United Nations has been unprecedented in its success. As an international community we have so far managed to prevent regional conflicts escalating, and have largely

been restrained in direct action. Without question, there are frustrations with the current system. The most significant was demonstrated during the Cold War between the United States and

Russia. Both nations are among the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, having veto over its resolutions and effectively grinding the body to a stalemate in

conflicts to which the parties have an interest. Despite the hurdles in seeking Security Council authorisation for the use of force, failure to abide by international law would create a

free-for-all. As many threats as are posed by states to the United States, there are an equal number in the opposite direction. If states were justified in taking illegal and unilateral

action based on a threat, where would this leave the United States in light of the abuses at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, the 1953 Iran coup or, of course, following the assassination of

Soleimani? On a practical level, the failure to observe international law also contributes to an environment of fear and uncertainty — which leads to itchy trigger fingers and costly

mistakes. Tragically, following the dead of Soleimani, we’ve witnessed the deaths of 176 people, killed when Iran accidentally shot down a flight departing from Tehran. Iran’s foreign

minister Mohammad Javad Zarif claimed that “human error at a time of crisis caused by US adventurism led to disaster”. Blaming the circumstances for the mistake would be as wrong as not

holding the United States accountable for the 1988 downing of an Iranian plane that resulted in 290 deaths. Both incidents, however, highlight the dangers of a lawless international system.

As arguably the dominant player in the world, the United States will find itself the target of threats so long as it holds that position. Despite the urge to use its power to address these

threats without regard to the international system, it should demonstrate its leadership — and moral guidance — by showing restraint, utilising the existing mechanisms, and seeking peace

through shared beliefs and a commitment to a better future. No one ever thinks they are the bad guy.