Assassination of Ali Khamenei: Is It Legal?

1. Introduction

The Assassination of Ali Khamenei presents a precise legal question under public international law: can a sitting head of state lawfully be targeted and killed during an armed conflict? The answer depends neither on political judgment nor on the symbolic weight of the office involved. It depends on the classification of the individual under international humanitarian law (IHL), the continued relevance of international human rights law (IHRL), and the doctrinal limits of head-of-state immunity. This section defines the legal framework that governs the analysis.

International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of hostilities once an armed conflict exists. Its core principles—distinction, military necessity, proportionality, and precautions in attack—structure all lawful targeting decisions (Fleck, 2013; Dinstein, 2022). These principles apply universally to all persons in the theatre of hostilities. IHL does not establish a special protected category for heads of state. Nor does it create an automatic right to target them. The law is status-based and functional.

The starting point is the principle of distinction. Parties to an armed conflict must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Art. 48). Combatants may be targeted at any time unless they are hors de combat (Geneva Convention III, 1949; Dinstein, 2022). Civilians are protected against attack “unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities” (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Art. 51(3)). The decisive question in the context of the Assassination of Ali Khamenei is therefore whether a sitting supreme political authority qualifies as a lawful military objective under these rules.

International humanitarian law does not treat political office as determinative. A president, monarch, or supreme leader is not targetable because of rank. Equally, a high office does not generate immunity from lawful attack if the individual qualifies as a combatant or exercises a continuous combat function. The functional approach reflects the logic of IHL: protection and exposure to attack depend on conduct and role within the armed forces, not on constitutional title (Melzer, 2009; Fleck, 2013).

The concept of “continuous combat function” is particularly relevant. According to authoritative interpretations of IHL, individuals who assume a lasting function involving direct participation in hostilities within an organized armed force may be targeted at any time, not merely while carrying out specific operations (Melzer, 2009). The question for the Assassination of Ali Khamenei would be whether the Supreme Leader’s constitutional and practical authority over Iran’s armed forces amounts to operational military command or whether it remains strategic, supervisory, or political in character. Strategic decision-making alone does not automatically convert a civilian into a lawful military objective.

The analysis must also distinguish between the general political direction of war policy and direct participation in hostilities. Direct participation requires a concrete act that is likely to adversely affect the military operations or military capacity of a party to the conflict, combined with a direct causal link and a belligerent nexus (Melzer, 2009). Approving national security doctrine or authorizing armed forces in a broad sense does not, without more, satisfy this threshold. The law requires a close operational connection between the individual’s conduct and specific military harm.

The legal label “assassination” does not itself determine unlawfulness. International law does not contain a general treaty prohibition of assassination during armed conflict. What is prohibited is perfidy—killing by resort to treachery involving misuse of protected status (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Art. 37). Outside perfidious methods, the legality of a targeted killing depends entirely on compliance with targeting rules. The term “assassination” is political; IHL applies objective criteria.

Head-of-state immunity must also be separated from the law of targeting. Sitting heads of state enjoy immunity ratione personae from foreign criminal jurisdiction (International Court of Justice, 2002). This immunity is procedural. It prevents prosecution before foreign national courts while the individual remains in office. It does not create a substantive shield against lawful acts of war. The regimes of immunity and targeting operate independently (Akande and Shah, 2010). A lawful military objective does not become immune because of diplomatic status. Conversely, immunity does not authorize targeting.

The relevance of international human rights law depends on whether an armed conflict exists and whether the acting state exercises jurisdiction over the individual through the use of force. The right to life, as codified in instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966, Art. 6), prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. In situations of armed conflict, IHL operates as the lex specialis governing targeting decisions (International Court of Justice, 1996; 2004). Outside armed conflict, the threshold for lawful lethal force is significantly stricter and tied to immediate necessity.

The Assassination of Ali Khamenei must therefore be evaluated within a structured doctrinal sequence. First, determine whether an international armed conflict exists. Second, classify the individual under IHL as a combatant, a civilian directly participating, or a civilian not directly participating. Third, assess compliance with proportionality and precaution requirements. Fourth, consider whether any prohibited methods, including perfidy, were used. Fifth, examine residual IHRL constraints where applicable.

International law does not recognize a categorical prohibition on targeting a sitting head of state. Nor does it provide a categorical authorization. The legality of the Assassination of Ali Khamenei depends on functional status and strict adherence to established targeting rules. The office of the head of state is legally significant for immunity and diplomatic relations. It is not, by itself, determinative for the lawfulness of lethal force under the law of armed conflict.

2. Head of State Status in International Law

2.1 No Special Protection in IHL as Such

International humanitarian law does not recognize “head of state” as a protected category for targeting purposes. The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I classify individuals according to status and function, not political office (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Arts 43, 48, 51; Fleck, 2013).

The principle of distinction governs. Parties to an armed conflict must distinguish between combatants and civilians at all times. Combatants may be targeted unless hors de combat. Civilians are protected against attack unless and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Art. 51(3)).

No provision in treaty law creates immunity from attack based solely on constitutional rank. IHL is function-oriented. It asks whether the individual is a member of the armed forces or is taking part in hostilities, not whether the person holds supreme political authority.

If a sitting leader qualifies as a member of the armed forces within the meaning of Article 43 of Additional Protocol I, he may be targeted at any time. If he does not, he is presumptively a civilian and protected except during direct participation.

The decisive issue is therefore functional. Political symbolism is legally irrelevant. Targetability depends on objective criteria established by the law of armed conflict (Dinstein, 2022).

2.2 Civilian Presumption

International humanitarian law operates on a presumption of civilian status in case of doubt. Article 50(1) of Additional Protocol I provides that when uncertainty exists, a person must be considered a civilian.

This presumption applies regardless of office. A head of state is not automatically a combatant. Formal integration into the armed forces is required to qualify as such.

In some constitutional systems, the head of state is designated commander-in-chief. The legal relevance of this title depends on whether it reflects actual incorporation into the military chain of command. A symbolic or ceremonial role is insufficient.

Where formal membership is absent, targetability may arise only through continuous combat function. This concept refers to individuals who assume a lasting role involving direct participation in hostilities within an organized armed force (Melzer, 2009).

Strategic direction or general war policy does not automatically meet this threshold. High-level political authorization of military operations is not the same as operational command over specific attacks.

Direct participation requires a concrete act likely to cause military harm, a direct causal link, and a belligerent nexus. Broad political leadership does not satisfy these elements (Dinstein, 2022; Melzer, 2009).

Accordingly, unless it can be demonstrated that the individual exercised continuous operational control or direct involvement in hostilities, civilian protection remains in force. The burden lies on the attacking party to justify classification as a lawful military objective. High political office does not reverse the civilian presumption.

3. Continuous Combat Function and Direct Participation

3.1 Continuous Combat Function (CCF)

The concept of continuous combat function was developed to address a structural gap in the law of armed conflict. Traditional treaty law distinguishes between members of the armed forces, who may be targeted at any time, and civilians, who may not be attacked unless directly participating in hostilities. Contemporary conflicts, however, have revealed categories of individuals who are not formally enlisted but nonetheless assume enduring operational roles within organized armed structures. The notion of continuous combat function seeks to capture that reality (Melzer, 2009).

For members of state armed forces, the analysis is generally straightforward. Article 43 of Additional Protocol I defines the armed forces as all organized armed forces, groups, and units under a command responsible to a party to the conflict. Formal membership typically suffices to establish combatant status. Once classified as a member of the armed forces, an individual is targetable on a continuous basis, subject only to protections such as hors de combat (Additional Protocol I, 1977).

The more complex question arises where a person occupies a constitutional position of supreme authority over the armed forces but is not formally integrated into their structure. Many constitutional systems designate the head of state as commander-in-chief. That title, however, does not automatically establish a continuous combat function. International humanitarian law requires more than formal authority. It requires operational involvement in the conduct of hostilities.

Continuous combat function presupposes that the individual performs tasks that amount to direct participation in hostilities on a lasting basis. This includes planning, ordering, or supervising specific military operations in a manner that directly shapes battlefield conduct. The role must be closely linked to concrete military action, not merely to the political or strategic direction of state policy.

A distinction must therefore be drawn between strategic oversight and operational command. Strategic oversight involves defining national defense objectives, approving general military doctrine, or articulating war aims. Operational command involves directing identifiable military operations, issuing orders tied to specific attacks, or controlling tactical deployment. Only the latter satisfies the threshold of continuous combat function.

In assessing whether a sitting leader falls within this category, the inquiry must be factual and institutional. It requires examination of the constitutional framework, the internal command structure, and the practical distribution of authority. If operational control is exercised by professional military commanders and the political leader’s role is supervisory or strategic, the criteria for continuous combat function are not met. In that case, the individual remains a civilian for targeting purposes.

International humanitarian law does not dilute the civilian presumption merely because a person occupies the apex of the political system. Exposure to lethal force must be grounded in sustained operational involvement, not in the symbolic unity between the state and its head.

3.2 Direct Participation in Hostilities (DPH)

Where a continuous combat function cannot be established, the only remaining pathway to targetability lies in direct participation in hostilities. Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I provides that civilians lose protection against attack “unless and for such time” as they directly participate. This rule imposes both substantive and temporal limits.

The concept of direct participation has been elaborated in authoritative legal interpretation. It requires that the act in question be likely to adversely affect the military operations or capacity of a party to the conflict, that there be a direct causal link between the act and the expected harm, and that the act be specifically designed to support one party against another (Melzer, 2009). These elements are cumulative and restrictive.

The requirement of direct causation is central. The act must form an integral part of a concrete military operation. Remote political decisions, even those that authorize the use of armed force at a national level, are generally too attenuated from the battlefield to meet this threshold. The law demands a close operational nexus between the conduct of the individual and identifiable military harm.

High-level approval of military campaigns, public declarations of hostilities, or endorsement of strategic doctrine typically fall outside the scope of direct participation. They lack the immediacy and causal proximity required by IHL. The fact that such decisions may influence the overall course of a conflict does not suffice. Influence is not the same as direct operational involvement.

Temporal limitation reinforces this conclusion. Even when a civilian directly participates, protection is lost only during the period of participation. Once the specific act ends, protection revives. A targeted killing conducted outside that temporal window violates the principle of distinction.

Accordingly, if a political leader is not exercising continuous combat function and is not engaged in a concrete operational act meeting the criteria of direct participation at the time of the attack, civilian protection remains in force.

3.3 Decapitation Strategy and Target Qualification

Modern military doctrine sometimes advocates the elimination of senior leadership to disrupt adversary command structures. Such “decapitation” strategies aim to weaken coordination, reduce morale, or generate political instability. Their strategic logic is clear. Their legal validity depends entirely on compliance with the law of armed conflict.

International humanitarian law does not recognize political destabilization as a lawful targeting criterion. The only relevant question is whether the person targeted qualifies as a lawful military objective under established rules. The definition of military objective in Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I requires that the object or person make an effective contribution to military action and that its destruction offer a definite military advantage.

A political leader may, in some circumstances, satisfy this definition if he performs an operational military role or directs specific hostilities. In that case, the elimination of that role could yield a definite military advantage. However, the mere fact that removing a leader might generate broader political consequences does not meet the legal standard. IHL is concerned with military contribution, not regime change.

If the rationale for targeting rests primarily on political symbolism, deterrence, or destabilization, the legal test is not satisfied. The law requires a demonstrable connection between the individual’s function and military operations. Strategic benefit alone is insufficient.

The legality of targeting senior leadership, therefore, hinges on classification under the principles already examined. Continuous combat function and direct participation remain the decisive criteria. Without satisfying one of these pathways, the killing of a political leader would violate the foundational rule of distinction that structures the entire law of armed conflict.

4. Immunity of a Sitting Head of State

4.1 Immunity Ratione Personae

Under customary international law, sitting heads of state enjoy immunity ratione personae, also referred to as personal immunity. This immunity shields them from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign national courts while they remain in office. It is comprehensive in scope and covers both official and private acts performed during the term of office (International Court of Justice, 2002).

The rationale is functional and systemic. The immunity protects the effective performance of state functions and preserves sovereign equality among states. It prevents one state from exercising coercive jurisdiction over the incumbent leadership of another.

Crucially, this immunity is procedural. It concerns jurisdiction, not substantive legality. It does not determine whether the conduct in question is lawful under international law. It determines only whether a foreign court may exercise criminal jurisdiction over the individual while in office.

This distinction is decisive for the present analysis. Immunity ratione personae does not operate as a shield against the application of the law of armed conflict. It does not transform an otherwise lawful military objective into a protected person under IHL. Nor does it create a new protected category within the targeting rules of Additional Protocol I.

The central doctrinal point is therefore clear: immunity bars prosecution, not targeting. If a sitting head of state qualifies as a lawful military objective under IHL, personal immunity does not invalidate that classification. Conversely, if targeting would violate IHL, immunity does not cure the illegality.

The jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice confirms this separation between immunity and substantive responsibility. In the Arrest Warrant case, the Court emphasized the procedural character of personal immunity, without suggesting that it alters the underlying legality of conduct under international law (International Court of Justice, 2002). The same logic applies in the context of armed conflict.

4.2 Immunity and Use of Lethal Force

International law draws a structural distinction between diplomatic protection and battlefield targeting. The rules governing immunities belong to the law of state responsibility and jurisdiction. The rules governing lethal force in armed conflict belong to international humanitarian law. These bodies of law operate independently.

A lawful military objective does not become immune because of high office. If an individual satisfies the criteria of combatant status, continuous combat function, or direct participation in hostilities, they may be targeted in accordance with IHL. Personal immunity does not override the principle of distinction.

At the same time, immunity does not authorize targeting. The existence of immunity does not relax the strict requirements of lawful attack. A head of state who remains a civilian under IHL retains protection from attack unless directly participating in hostilities. Immunity cannot be invoked to justify an otherwise unlawful killing.

The separation of regimes ensures coherence. Immunity protects against judicial interference by foreign courts. The targeting law regulates the conduct of hostilities between states. Conflating these regimes would distort both.

It follows that the legality of lethal force against a sitting head of state depends entirely on compliance with international humanitarian law. Immunity is irrelevant to the determination of lawful military objective status. It becomes relevant only at the stage of judicial proceedings, and even then, only in relation to national courts, not necessarily international tribunals.

The conclusion is therefore doctrinally straightforward. Personal immunity does not create substantive protection against lawful acts of war. Nor does it weaken the protective force of the principle of distinction. The assessment of targetability remains governed exclusively by the rules of IHL.

5. International Human Rights Law Constraints

5.1 Right to Life Outside Armed Conflict

If no armed conflict exists at the time of the killing, international humanitarian law does not govern the use of force. The applicable framework becomes international human rights law, and in particular, the right to life.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects every human being against arbitrary deprivation of life (United Nations, 1966). This provision applies to all individuals under a state’s jurisdiction, including foreign nationals. The Human Rights Committee has repeatedly emphasized that lethal force by state agents must comply with strict standards of necessity and proportionality.

Under human rights law, the use of lethal force is an exceptional measure. It is permissible only where strictly necessary to protect life against an imminent threat. The standard is restrictive. Force must be a last resort. Less harmful alternatives must be unavailable or ineffective. The response must be proportionate to the concrete danger faced.

Applied outside armed conflict, the targeted killing of a political leader would amount to an intentional deprivation of life. The legality of such an act could be sustained only if the individual posed an immediate and direct threat to life that could not be neutralized by other means. Political hostility, strategic rivalry, or long-term security concerns do not meet this threshold.

Human rights bodies have consistently rejected broader doctrines that allow lethal force based on general national security interests. The requirement of immediacy is central. The threat must be concrete and temporally proximate. Preventive elimination of a political adversary does not satisfy the necessity requirement.

Accordingly, in the absence of an armed conflict, the killing of a sitting head of state would be presumptively arbitrary under international human rights law unless the acting state demonstrates strict compliance with the necessity and proportionality criteria.

5.2 Extraterritorial Application

A further question concerns the territorial reach of human rights obligations. States sometimes argue that human rights treaties apply only within their own territory. Contemporary jurisprudence has rejected such a narrow view.

Human rights obligations may apply extraterritorially where a state exercises power or effective control over an individual. The Human Rights Committee has clarified that jurisdiction under the ICCPR extends to persons subject to a state’s authority or control, even outside its territory (Human Rights Committee, 2018).

The use of lethal force through a drone strike, missile attack, or special operation can constitute the exercise of such power. When a state intentionally directs lethal force against a specific individual, it exercises authority over that person decisively and immediately. In such circumstances, human rights obligations are engaged.

Extraterritorial application does not depend on prolonged physical control. The decisive element is the exercise of state power over the individual’s life. Once that threshold is met, the acting state must justify the use of lethal force under the standards of necessity and proportionality.

The burden lies on the state invoking justification. It must demonstrate that the individual posed an imminent threat to life and that no alternative means were available. Absent such proof, the killing constitutes an arbitrary deprivation of life.

In situations where an armed conflict exists, international humanitarian law operates as the primary framework for assessing targeting decisions. Outside that context, human rights law imposes significantly stricter limits. The distinction is structural. The legal regime depends on factual classification of the situation.

The conclusion is therefore clear. If a targeted killing occurs outside armed conflict, the right to life under international human rights law governs. High political office does not diminish the protection afforded by this right. The legality of lethal force must be assessed through the lens of strict necessity and proportionality.

Also read

• USA-Iran War and the Use of Force under International Law

• Legal Boundaries of U.S. Military Strikes on Iran

• Evolution of the Law of Armed Conflict

• Principles of Jurisdiction in International Law

• International Responsibility in Public International Law

• Law and Force in the Twenty-First Century

• Human Rights in Iran: Law Violations and Accountability

• Crimes Against Humanity in Contemporary International Law

6. Assassination as a Method of Warfare

6.1 Is Assassination Prohibited Per Se?

International humanitarian law does not contain a general treaty rule prohibiting assassination as such during armed conflict. The term itself does not appear in the Geneva Conventions or in Additional Protocol I. The legality of a killing is not determined by the label attached to it but by compliance with the substantive rules governing the conduct of hostilities (Dinstein, 2022; Fleck, 2013).

What IHL does prohibit is perfidy. Article 37 of Additional Protocol I forbids killing, injuring, or capturing an adversary by resort to treachery. Perfidy involves inviting the confidence of an adversary by leading him to believe he is entitled to protection under international law, with the intent to betray that confidence. Examples include feigning civilian status or misuse of protective emblems.

If a killing is carried out through deception that exploits protected status—such as pretending to negotiate under a flag of truce or disguising combatants as civilians—the act violates IHL regardless of the identity of the target. The prohibition is categorical because it undermines the protective framework of the law of armed conflict.

Outside the context of perfidy, international humanitarian law does not prohibit targeted killing as a method of warfare. The decisive question is whether the individual targeted qualifies as a lawful military objective and whether the attack complies with the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Arts 48, 51, 52).

Accordingly, the legality of eliminating a senior political or military figure depends entirely on status and conduct. If the person is a combatant or exercises continuous combat function, and if the attack complies with the applicable rules, the act is not unlawful solely because it involves the intentional killing of a specific individual.

The absence of a general prohibition does not mean unrestricted permissibility. The targeting framework remains stringent. The individual must make an effective contribution to military action, and the attack must offer a definite military advantage. Incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated advantage (Dinstein, 2022).

The legal inquiry, therefore, remains grounded in established targeting principles. Assassination is not prohibited per se, but perfidious killing is.

6.2 Distinction Between Assassination and Targeted Killing

The term “assassination” is primarily political. It conveys moral condemnation and is often associated with peacetime political murder. International humanitarian law, however, operates through objective criteria. It does not assess the legality of conduct through rhetorical characterization.

In legal analysis, what is often described as assassination may instead constitute targeted killing within the framework of armed conflict. Targeted killing refers to the intentional use of lethal force against a specific individual who qualifies as a lawful military objective. Its legality depends on classification and compliance with IHL standards, not on terminology (Melzer, 2009).

If the individual targeted is a member of the armed forces or exercises a continuous combat function, and if the attack respects distinction, proportionality, and precaution, the killing is lawful under IHL. The fact that the target is a high-ranking political leader does not alter this conclusion.

Conversely, if the individual retains civilian status and is not directly participating in hostilities at the relevant time, the killing violates the principle of distinction. In such a case, describing the act as targeted killing does not sanitize the breach.

The distinction between assassination and targeted killing is therefore conceptual rather than legal. International humanitarian law evaluates acts through structured rules. It does not prohibit the intentional killing of specific individuals during armed conflict as such. It prohibits unlawful killing.

The decisive legal question is not whether an act can be labeled an assassination. It is whether the target qualified as a lawful military objective and whether the method and execution complied with binding norms of the law of armed conflict.

7. Legal Conclusion: Conditional Targetability

The legality of the Assassination of Ali Khamenei under international law depends on a cumulative and restrictive set of conditions. International law neither grants categorical immunity from targeting to a sitting head of state nor permits his elimination on the basis of political symbolism or strategic value alone. The decisive variables are factual classification and strict compliance with the governing legal regimes.

The first condition is the existence of an armed conflict. International humanitarian law regulates the conduct of hostilities only when an international armed conflict is present. In such circumstances, the lawfulness of lethal force is assessed through the framework of distinction, military objective, proportionality, and precautions in attack (Additional Protocol I, 1977; Dinstein, 2022). Absent armed conflict, the governing framework shifts to international human rights law, where the threshold for lawful lethal force is significantly narrower.

The second condition concerns target status. A head of state is not automatically targetable under IHL. He may be lawfully attacked only if he qualifies as a lawful military objective. This requires that he either be a member of the armed forces within the meaning of Article 43 of Additional Protocol I, or exercise a continuous combat function involving operational military command. Failing that, he must be shown to be directly participating in hostilities at the time of the attack.

Political authority, ideological leadership, or strategic direction of state policy does not suffice. The law requires a functional connection to concrete military operations. If continuous combat function cannot be established and no act of direct participation is ongoing, civilian protection remains intact.

The third condition concerns the conduct of the attack itself. Even where lawful military objective status is established, the operation must comply with the principle of distinction and the proportionality rule set out in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I. Incidental civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Feasible precautions must be taken to verify the target and minimize harm (Additional Protocol I, 1977, Arts 48, 51, 52, 57).

The method employed must also comply with the prohibition of perfidy. Treacherous killing, including deception that exploits protected status under Article 37 of Additional Protocol I, remains categorically unlawful regardless of the target’s identity.

If these cumulative conditions are not satisfied, the killing would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law. In particular, if the individual retains civilian status and is not directly participating in hostilities at the relevant time, the attack would breach the principle of distinction.

Outside armed conflict, the legal analysis shifts. The right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. Lethal force is lawful only where strictly necessary to protect against an imminent threat to life. A premeditated targeted killing of a political leader outside hostilities would almost certainly fail this test and constitute an internationally wrongful act (Human Rights Committee, 2018).

Personal immunity of a sitting head of state does not alter this framework. Immunity operates at the level of jurisdiction and prosecution, not at the level of battlefield targeting. It neither creates a shield against lawful attack nor authorizes unlawful killing.

The legal position is therefore conditional and exacting. International law does not recognize a blanket prohibition on targeting a head of state during armed conflict. At the same time, it imposes strict substantive constraints grounded in functional status and operational conduct. The legality of such an act turns entirely on compliance with the established principles of the law of armed conflict and, where applicable, international human rights law.

References

1. Dinstein, Y. (2022) The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. 4th edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2. Fleck, D. (ed.) (2013) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Available at https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/31461.pdf (Accessed: 02/03.2026).

3. Human Rights Committee (2018) General Comment No. 36 on Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life.

4. International Court of Justice (1996) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996.

5. International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002.

6. International Court of Justice (2004) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 2004.

7. Melzer, N. (2009) Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.

8. United Nations (1949) Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Third Geneva Convention).

9. United Nations (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

10. United Nations (1977) Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Additional Protocol I).