A/HRC/44/38 to condemn the air strike and assassination, which amount to extra-judicial killings and contravene with the human rights obligations of the United States.” On January 9, 2020, Iraq formally protested the strikes by Iran on Iraqi territory. 70. International law has traditionally required either valid consent of the State for the use of force in its territory or the acts of the target must somehow be attributable to the territorial State. Iraq did not consent, and while one could argue that the Kata’ib Hezbollah attacks in December were attributable to Iraq, none of the other attacks in the US Art 51 letter, justifying the strike, related to Iraq at all. The US has not provided any evidence that any attacks by Kata’ib Hezbollah were imminent. The failure of the United States to justify and formally explain its violation of Iraqi sovereignty should end the analysis. Without justification, this constitutes, as Iraq claims, an act of aggression, and all resulting deaths arbitrary deaths for which the United States bears responsibility. 71. Nonetheless, the US Secretary of Defense has suggested the US felt justified to strike General Soleimani in Iraq because of Iraq’s alleged failure to prevent Iranian attacks. On January 2, 2020, he issued a statement that he had “urged the Iraqi government to take all necessary steps to protect American forces in their country. I personally have spoken to Iraqi leadership multiple times over recent months, urging them to do more.”105 72. Since 9/11, the US and other States have articulated the “unwilling and unable” doctrine to permit strikes within a territorial State without consent: according to the US, as articulated with respect to attacks on ISIL in the Syrian Arab Republic, “States must be able to defend themselves, in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective selfdefence, as reflected in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, when … the government of the State where the threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent the use of its territory for such attacks.”106 This doctrine has been used by the US, the UK, and others to justify targeting inter alia the Taliban in Afghanistan, and ISIL in the Syrian Arab Republic or providing support for those attacks. To the extent that other states have taken any position, the support for this doctrine is mixed, 107 but it has been used to justify the use of military force.108 Russia has articulated this doctrine with respect to the Chechen in Georgia, but has rejected it with respect to Syria; Turkey has defended its actions against the PKK and Daesh in Iraq on the basis of this doctrine;109 and Israel has similarly defended its actions against Hezbollah in Lebanon and against alleged Iran-backed forces in Syria.110 73. Even if valid, the “unwilling and unable” doctrine does not justify the strike within Iraq. First, as an initial matter, the extension of this doctrine to State actors, as opposed to armed non-state actors (ANSAs), appears fundamentally untenable, at least under the circumstances of this case. The threat of Iran was not “located” in Iraq, as this doctrine requires. The attacks listed by the US as justification for the strike occurred throughout the Middle East, not just in Iraq, and only two of those listed in the US Art. 51 notification were launched from Iraq. General Soleimani was traveling in Iraq on January 3, 2020, and the US took that opportunity to attack him there. However, despite travel bans imposed by the US, General Soleimani travelled throughout the Middle-East and also, apparently, to Russia. Does this mean that the US is justified in targeting General Soleimani and other Iranian officials in any State to which they travel? Would the threat from Iran then be “located” in 105 106 107 108 109 110 https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Releases/Release/Article/2049227/statement-by-secretary-ofdefense-dr-mark-t-esper-as-prepared/; see also https://www.defense.gov/Explore/ News/Article/Article/2050341/senior-dod-official-describes-rationale-for-attack-on-quds-forcecommander/ (quoting unnamed senior defense officials stating “We have been very clear with Iran and our Iraqi partners that these increasing attacks need to stop and that we would hold Iran directly responsible for any harm to U.S. personnel”). Letter dated 23 September 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. https://www.ejiltalk.org/a-plea-against-the-abusive-invocation-of-self-defence-as-a-response-toterrorism/. https://www.lawfareblog.com/which-states-support-unwilling-and-unable-test https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3125882-TURKEY-IRAQ-Pkk-Isil-12-18-2015.html. See http://opiniojuris.org/2011/12/15/ashley-deeks-failure-to-defend-the-unwilling-or-unable-test/; 37