Murder is at all times illegal – no matter who’s killed and on whose orders

Assassination is a special type of murder. Regardless of who commits the act, on whose orders or for what reason, it’s at all times illegal.

For this reason, Vadim Krasikov was behind bars in Germany before being released on August 1, 2024 as a part of a historic prisoner exchange.

Krasikov was serving a life sentence for the murder of exiled Chechen separatist Zelimkhan Khangoshvili. in a Berlin park in 2019.

The German court that sentenced him found that he Carrying out the Kremlin’s orders; his victim had fought against Russian forces within the Chechen wars and was suspected of carrying out terrorist attacks in Moscow. But none of those aspects legally justify the murder.

The same applies to the case of Ismail Haniyeh, a political leader of Hamas. He was killed in Tehran on July 31, 2024, on the invitation of the Iranian government. The Israeli government, which Many consider he’s behind the murderhas has repeatedly expressed its willingness to search out the Hamas leadership world wide following the group's deadly attack on October 7, 2023. Israel has carried out many such attacks in Iran, Lebanon and elsewhere over time.

Despite these and other international cases, the term “assassination” isn’t defined in international law. Legal scholars like me depend on Standard dictionary definitions There, assassination is defined as “murder by sudden or secret attack, often for political reasons.” But treaties and other international laws make it clear that killing by sudden or secret attack for political reasons is against the law.

The most vital treaty on this issue is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – Adopted by the United Nations in 1966 and now binding on 174 states, including Russia, Israel and the United States. The pact affirms: “Everyone has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”

Treacherous acts

This doesn’t mean that intentional killing can never be justified. International law incorporates rules that determine when the usage of lethal force is permissible.

In peacetime, police are allowed to make use of deadly force to save lots of lives in immediate danger. The officers killed the person who shot at Donald TrumpFor example, to forestall the shooter from shooting again because human lives are in immediate danger.

The use of military force against one other state is regulated by the United Nations Charter. The Charter prohibits any use of force unless authorized by the UN Security Council or within the case of self-defense. The Charter allows a state to make use of force for individual or collective self-defense “when an armed attack occurs.” until the Security Council can act.

The UN International Court of Justice has further clarified that even when a state has the correct to self-defence, military motion in response have to be needed and proportionate and directed against a sovereign state chargeable for the primary armed attack. The Court has reiterated these principles in several decisions, most comprehensively in a case brought by Iran after deadly US attacks on their oil platforms within the Persian Gulf.

Once an armed conflict has begun, the combatants have the correct to make use of lethal force to defeat the opponent. International humanitarian law allows the deliberate killing of enemy combatants inside legally defined armed conflicts. Even then, nobody could also be singled out for killing based on their past actions. And civilians not participating within the fighting may never be deliberately targeted.

Recent international decisions underline the importance of the concept of limiting the killing of combatants to lively combat zones. Outside such areas, the human right to life in peacetime applies. The European Court of Human Rights has stressed this point in a lot of rulings. most recently in early 2021.

These decisions contradict an older view held by some members of the US military that political or military leaders of a war opponent could also be killed wherever they’re found.

As the political leader of a celebration at war with Israel within the Gaza Strip, Haniyeh could fit this older interpretation. However, it will still not extend to “treacherous or perfidious” killing as defined within the mandatory rules. within the Annex to the Hague Convention IV of 1907. To kill treacherously or perfidiously means to kill someone who doesn’t expect to be in peril of death. For example, a soldier who falsely raises a white flag to signal his give up and lures an enemy close enough to kill him can be guilty of treacherously killing.

Haniyeh had such an expectation of being secure in Tehran, and subsequently his killing will be considered treacherous.

A double standard

All principles of international law on the usage of lethal force exclude murder. And yet countries like Israel, Russia and the United States proceed to make use of lethal force. Some others – France, India, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom – have used it in some notorious, high-profile cases.

Israel has claimed responsibility for attacks from the even before its founding.

The United States has joined the remaining of the world in criticizing these killings. In 1988, for instance, Israel murdered a PLO leader named Khalil al-Wazir in Tunisia. The UN Security Council condemned the operation in a resolution that the US couldn’t veto.

To appease critics, Israel began in 2000 to confer with its killing practice as “targeted killings.”

The term makes it sound more like legitimate killing in wartime. In 2001, US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk rejected Israel's try to legitimize the assassination when he said on Israeli television: “The US government has clearly spoken out against targeted assassinations. These are extrajudicial killings and we do not support that.”

Then got here the attacks of September eleventh and the US itself adopted the practice of targeted killings. The first known case was carried out by the CIA in November 2002 against six suspected members of al-Qaeda in Yemen. The killings were condemned as illegal by a UN human rights expert shortly thereafter.

Nevertheless, US killings with drones and other means have continued to today. The US has repeatedly condemned the Russian murders. What many Experts in international lawmyself included, see a double standard within the USA in relation to the usage of lethal force, including in assassinations.

While there have been attempts to defend assassinations like that of Hamas's Haniyeh, there is an easy truth: the usage of lethal force is subject to strict limits, and murder is rarely legal.