Bomb or Projectile? Haniyeh's Assassination Raises Legal Concerns

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in Iran and Khaled Qaddoumi, the Hamas representative in Tehran, claim that the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh was carried out by an airborne projectile. However, some foreign media, citing anonymous sources, report that the assassination was a bombing that occurred inside the building. This discrepancy raises questions about the differing narratives and their implications.

The (IRGC) has provided details indicating that Haniyeh was killed by a projectile or short-range projectile fired from outside the building, with the warhead weighing 7 kilograms. Khaled Qaddoumi, who was on a lower floor at the time of the attack, described seeing debris and structural damage resulting from the explosion. He stated that Haniyeh and his bodyguard were buried under debris from the ceiling and wall that fell due to the explosion.

An informed source interviewed by IranWire refuted the bombing claim and supported the view that a projectile from outside was responsible for Haniyeh’s death.

From a legal perspective, the method of assassination - whether through bombing or a projectile - affects the interpretation of the event. Since Haniyeh’s assassination occurred on Iranian soil, it is considered an attack on Iran’s territorial integrity and national sovereignty.

For example, the assassination of Khalil al-Wazir in Tunisia in 1988 was attributed to Israel. Following this, the United Nations Security Council, in Resolution 611, condemned Israel’s actions as an aggression against Tunisia's territorial integrity. The resolution defined such acts as "targeted killings," which are premeditated lethal actions by states against specific individuals.

If an assassination is executed with a projectile fired from outside a country's borders, as per Security Council Resolution 611, it would be classified as an "act of military aggression." This distinction highlights the significance of the method used in terms of legal and diplomatic consequences.

Under the United Nations Charter, a country whose territory is subjected to military aggression has the right to exercise "legitimate defense," but this right is subject to specific conditions. The Charter permits the use of force in self-defense only in response to an armed attack or as mandated by a Security Council resolution.

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter establishes that legitimate defense is applicable when an armed attack or military aggression occurs, such as the firing of weapons from outside a country's borders into its territory. Merely violating a country’s sovereignty, such as through an act of terror like bombing, does not automatically qualify as an armed attack warranting legitimate defense.

This context is crucial when assessing the Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, which is the most significant assassination of a foreign official in Iran's history.

According to the IRGC, the Iranian government, and Khaled Qaddoumi, the Hamas representative in Tehran, Haniyeh was killed by a projectile, which they consider an act of military aggression. This interpretation aligns with international regulations and the provisions of United Nations Security Council Resolution 611, which grants the right to legitimate defense under certain conditions.

The right of legitimate defense is not mandatory but is prescribed by the UN Charter and the Security Council for specific situations. Governments can choose whether to exercise this right based on their interests or to prevent further attacks and deter the aggressor.

Iran has attributed the assassination to Israel and has left open the option of invoking the principle of legitimate defense, which could include military countermeasures, as it deems appropriate.