Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination is seen by many as a grave violation of international law. Unlike previous Hamas leaders he was often spotted in public and seen indulging in several diplomatic visits. During his stay in Tehran following the inauguration ceremony of Iran’s new supreme leader, he was killed by a ‘possible’ air strike. Hamas alleges that this was an Israeli air strike while the state of Israel has neither accepted nor denied such a statement. Quite evidently, this is a violation of Iran’s territorial integrity under the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. It also makes the Middle East a hotpot for further escalations.

The International Court of Justice operates via its statute, the UN Charter of Human Rights (UNHR). Article 2(1) of the said statute, states that the UN is based on the principle of ‘sovereign’ equality of all its members. It is therefore the duty of all the signatories to the UN charters and conventions to uphold its terms and articles. The killing of the Palestinian leader on Iranian soil is a step to tarnish this sovereign equality of Iran amongst all the UN member states. Under this article the UN clearly prohibits one state to perform acts of aggression within the bounds of another state, as this is seen as an interference in the internal affairs of the state against whom the act of aggression has been performed. Ismail Haniyeh was staying in Tehran in the capacity of a guest. The assassination is a direct step against Iran’s territorial integrity and may serve as the stepping stone to ignite Iran.

Article 2(3) of this Charter has also been violated by the assassination of the former Palestinian politician. Accordingly, ‘All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.’ Israel hasn’t denied the allegations against it in this regard. Keeping the Palestine-Israel conflict in view, it would’ve been better if the aggressors had resorted to peaceful means such as peace talks to resolve any Hamas-Israel discrepancies.  The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh has been met with strong reactions from both Iran and Hamas stating that this aggression will be met with aggression. Not only this, before the demise of Haniyeh he was involved in cease-fire talks. Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination is a set back to any chances of an imminent ceasefire agreement in Gaza. If Iran or other Hamas allies respond with attacks and another war erupts in this already troubled region then the clear implications of the violation of this article will come into play.

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter talks about political independence and territorial integrity, this article has also been violated by Ismail Haniyeh’s assassination. Political independence refers to the demand for autonomy and freedom from external influences. This assassination has hindered Iran’s freedom from external influences. Iran being an autonomous state reserves all the rights over its internal and external affairs. Haniyeh was a guest for Iran. The Hamas leader’s assassination is not just a move to anger Iran but its also an attack on this state’s political Independence.

The US’s statement regarding this development in the Israel-Palestine conflict was two-fold. First it stated that it feared this war would dangerously escalate with more tensions spreading across the Middle East. The US went on to state that it is Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from terrorists. Israel’s actions stand in a clear contradiction with Article 51 of the UN Charter. The said article states that an occupying entity can not claim self-defence. It is widely established that the Israel is continuously occupying the West bank territories of the Palestinians. How can an occupier claim self-defence? As per UNCHR, it can’t. Ismail Haniyeh wasn’t targeting or killing anyone at the time of his assassination. He was at a simple diplomatic gathering. So, if the claim that Israel targeted him stands corrected, then it’s without any doubt a grave international law violation. This is because he was killed at foreign soil while posing threat to none. Besides this, every person reserves the right to live, assassination of Haniyeh is his deprivation from this right; hence a clear violation if article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

World War two’s bloodshed led the world to the signing of the Geneva Conventions which define the rights of both soldiers and civilians during wartime. Israel ratified the Conventions in July 1951.These Conventions prohibit the targeting of individuals in armed conflict except in the context of legitimate hostilities. One may argue to defend this assassination by the latter part of this statement, but then Is such a killing justified within the territorial bounds of another sovereign state? The short answer to this is No, as has already been discussed above.

Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh is a clear violation of both the United Nations Charter and the Geneva Conventions, however the aftermath to this is to be feared. Interference into the Iranian territory and hence targeting Iran’s sovereignty is what will most likely be met with an equally aggressive reaction by this state. And this is what may serve as the foundation of a next Middle Eastern battle in picture.