On 1st April, Iranian military commanders stationed in Syria, Damascus, in support of the Syrian government gathered inside the Embassy’s compound. They included General Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was an influential figure in the IRGC (the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps) and the Quds Force, a militarized intelligence wing that is responsible for supporting militant wings in the region.
As the meeting started, Israel launched an airstrike that resulted in 16 killed, including the aforementioned General. The incident sparked global concern, because while Israel and Iran have been locked in a proxy war since 1985 and this conflict has only expanded largely due to the fault of US involvement in Iraq and Syria, Israel's action was perceived as an unprecedented breach, considering the targeted site's diplomatic status as Iranian territory.
Many nations across the world condemned this action by Israel, with some remaining criminally silent. Yet, Israel justified its action by initially stating that the building was not a consulate, but a civilian structure and when reports flooded in that the building indeed did have diplomatic status, Israel immediately announced that it had conducted a preemptive strike in self-defense and that the said structure did not have the requisite legal protections in international law. It is important to note that Israel has been violating international principles with impunity for decades and has increased these violations exponentially since it began the war in Gaza.
It is very important to understand that customarily, diplomatic missions and diplomatic premises have been provided special protections and it is this recognized custom in international law that was codified in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Convention on Consular Relations. These protections in international law are vast and remain in force even if the embassy is used for criminal or military purposes. Yet, similar to how the international community has distorted international law to legalize violations conducted by Israel for decades, some have presented a similar misinterpretation to legalize these illegal strikes.
The argument presented is that diplomatic missions are protected from the receiving state only, and Israel being a third state is not bound by the law of diplomatic relations, further stating that It was the job of the receiving state, Syria in this case, to protect the diplomatic mission. If this argument is to be applied, then it would mean that Iran should take issue with Syria rather than Israel. Another interpretation being presented is that the protections afforded to diplomatic missions are limited in treaty international law, in contrast to customary international law, and thus the strike by Israel was technically not illegal. A third argument being presented as a justification is the relegation of diplomatic premises to a civilian structure and applying the law of war that a civilian structure loses the protections afforded to it if said structure is being used for military purposes. These arguments are being coalesced to create a precedent of exceptions, where diplomatic missions could be targeted by third-party states or even host states.
To state that the Vienna Convention does not apply to third-party states is a horrid misinterpretation to justify an illegal act. Diplomatic protections are not a two-party relationship, and extend beyond such a myopic purview.
First, a diplomatic building is not some run-of-the-mill civilian structure and this can be seen from the fact that a diplomatic premises is the only area within a country that is considered foreign soil. No civilian structure is afforded such status. Furthermore, individuals within the diplomatic mission are protected individuals to such an extent that even if they conduct a criminal act, the host country can only demand their removal, and cannot prosecute them. This is an exception that is not provided to any other civilian structure or individual within said structure. To relegate diplomatic premises to mere civilian structures means that even the receiving state could enter diplomatic premises on military grounds, which will negate the very principle of diplomatic protection.
Secondly, to state that the Vienna Convention does not apply to third-party states is a horrid misinterpretation to justify an illegal act. Diplomatic protections are not a two-party relationship, and extend beyond such a myopic purview. This was witnessed in the 1999 bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade by the United States, conducted under the NATO strikes in Yugoslavia. The bombing led to President Bill Clinton apologizing, a Congressional Committee being called to probe the incident and the US making a $4.5 million payment to the affected families, with $28 million being paid to the Chinese Embassy, proving that diplomatic premises cannot be targeted either by the receiving state or a third-party state, accidently or otherwise.
Thirdly, international law is not just limited to what is agreed upon in treaties. Its primary source is customs, or the actions agreed upon by states, to be conducted between states, whether explicitly or implicitly. Customary law makes up a vast portion of international law. To argue that customary law is different from international law is to limit the scope of international law exponentially. It is a harrowing example of limiting and morphing international law to cater to the whims of a single state.
Israel clearly didn’t exhaust all available solutions and it most certainly did not act within the limitations of international law. Israel simply stated that its preferred targets had gathered, which is absolutely no justification and is a dangerous precedent to create if legalized by the international community.
As for Israel’s claim that it acted in self-defense under the anticipatory strike law, let us put aside the protections of diplomatic missions and analyze this assertion. It is very important to understand that the controversial principle of anticipatory strike is only applicable when certain conditions are met. The first condition is that there must be absolute intention of a threat of great nature and magnitude which will lead to irreparable harm. Second, the threat will be realized immediately and imminently unless preemptive action is taken. Third, all alternatives have been exhausted and such a strike is the only available solution. Lastly, such a strike is used in proportion to the threat and is consistent with international law.
Unsurprisingly, Israel cannot claim a single condition for the justification of this strike. Israel has presented no evidence to suggest that the gathering would have resulted in an immediate and imminent threat that would have done irreparable harm, nor did it provide clarification on how the said gathering would have resulted in the realization of this specific threat. Israel clearly didn’t exhaust all available solutions and it most certainly did not act within the limitations of international law. Israel simply stated that its preferred targets had gathered, which is absolutely no justification and is a dangerous precedent to create if legalized by the international community.
There can be no doubt that the airstrike by Israel was illegal and Israel must be penalized for this action. The silence of many nations and the attempted justification for this illegality highlights the immediate need for clarity and consistency in the application of international law. The misinterpretations presented by jurists over the last 70 years to justify Israel’s actions have resulted in great damage to the prestige of international law. If we are to mend and improve the law of nations, then we must discourage the creation of exceptions for favored nations with any such exceptions being a rarity and interpreted conservatively. One of the greatest creations in the legal history of humanity cannot be sacrificed on the altar of favoritism for one state.