A/HRC/44/38 Charter. One must not “ascribe to State’s legal views which they do not themselves formulate.”81 56. The United States asserts that the strike was “in response to an escalating series of armed attacks in recent months by the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran-supported militias on U.S. forces and interests in the Middle East region, in order to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against the United States or U.S. interests, and to degrade the Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force-supported militias’ ability to conduct attacks.”82 57. This statement alleges an ongoing series of attacks, thereby entitling the United States to defend itself.83 The International Court of Justice has intimated that a series of attacks, collectively, could amount to an armed attack.84 But on its face, the letter fails to describe even one ongoing attack. It describes separate and distinct attacks, not necessarily escalating, that are not related in time or even targets.85 58. The first incident listed, which occurred almost 5 months prior to the strike, was a “threat,” not an attack, against a US ship by an Iranian unmanned aerial system: a threat is not an attack for purposes of Art. 51, unless it is recent and provides evidence that indicates an imminent attack. The second incident listed, which occurred almost 6 months prior to the strike, was the shooting down of a US drone by an Iranian missile; Iran claimed the drone entered its airspace. Even if such an attack sufficed under Art. 51, which is questionable, the attack had clearly concluded well before January 2020.86 59. The letter generically identifies “attacks on commercial vessels off the port of Fujairah and in the Gulf of Oman that threaten freedom of navigation and the security of international commerce,” as well as “missile and unmanned aircraft attacks on the territory of Saudi Arabia.” However, the United States was not the target of these attacks, and none of the countries involved asked the United States to use force against Iran in their defense. They do not provide grounds to the United States itself for a claim of self-defense.87 60. The core of any argument that there was an ongoing attack seems to turn on attacks by “Qods Force-backed militia groups in Iraq, including Kata’ib Hizballah”88 against bases where US personnel were present. However, nowhere in the letter does the United States state that Iran had “overall control”89 over these groups;90 instead the United States claims that Iran “backed” them. According to the ICJ, assistance to armed groups “in the form of the provision of weapons or logistical or other support” does not constitute an armed attack.91 61. At no point in its Art. 51 letter, filed a full 5 days after the strike, does the United States state that it was defending against an imminent attack. In public statements, the US 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 34 Nicaragua v United States of America, Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, 14 at 134, para 266. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/united-states-article-51-lettersoleimani.pdf. https://gpil.jura.uni-bonn.de/2020/01/the-u-s-killing-of-iranian-general-qasem-soleimani-of-wrongtrees-and-red-herrings-and-why-the-killing-may-be-lawful-after-all/. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2003, para. 64. https://www.justsecurity.org/68008/u-s-legal-defense-of-the-soleimani-strike-at-the-united-nations-acritical-assessment/. Ibid. Ibid. See also https://www.justsecurity.org/68094/how-to-think-about-the-soleimani-strike-in-fourquestions/. https://www.justsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/united-states-article-51-lettersoleimani.pdf. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, 15 July 1999, paras. 120, 131, 137. The US Department of Defense statement on January 2, 2020 stated that he “orchestrated” and “approved” the attacks in December in Iraq. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/ Releases/Release/Article/2049534/statement-by-the-department-of-defense/. However, while it is certainly possible that the US has evidence to this effect, this allegation is not made in the subsequent US official letter to the UN, nor was this evidence provided. https://www.justsecurity.org/68008/u-s-legal-defense-of-the-soleimani-strike-at-the-united-nations-acritical-assessment/.