Pete Hegseth Impeachment: The International Law Issues Behind Massie’s Eight Charges

Introduction

The Pete Hegseth impeachment effort intensified on November 9, 2026, when Republican Representative Thomas Massie renewed his attempt to remove the U.S. Secretary of Defense through eight articles of impeachment. The charges accuse Hegseth of violating congressional war powers, disregarding civilian-protection obligations, directing unauthorized military operations, and retaliating against Senator Mark Kelly. They concern American military action in Iran, Yemen, Venezuela, and international waters. Massie argues that Hegseth's conduct constitutes an abuse of office warranting his removal under the United States Constitution.

As of November 9, 2026, Hegseth had not been impeached or removed from office. The renewed initiative had not resulted in an affirmative House impeachment vote or a Senate trial. The House was expected to consider the resolution within approximately two legislative days, although its procedural disposition remained uncertain. Hegseth and the Trump administration have rejected the accusations, defending the military operations as exercises of presidential authority undertaken for national-security purposes.

The eight charges raise questions extending beyond the constitutional division of powers between Congress and the President. Several concern obligations imposed by international law, including the prohibition on interstate force, civilian protection during armed conflict, the right to life, maritime jurisdiction, and the sovereignty of foreign states. The legality of American military operations must be assessed under these rules independently of their domestic constitutional authorization.

The allegations also involve different forms of responsibility. A violation of the War Powers Resolution does not automatically establish an internationally wrongful act. Conversely, an operation authorized under American constitutional law may still violate the United Nations Charter or international humanitarian law. Neither conclusion, standing alone, establishes Hegseth's individual criminal responsibility or determines whether Congress should remove him through impeachment.

1. Hegseth Impeachment: Eight Charges and the House Vote

Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, gave notice of his intention to offer articles of impeachment against Hegseth on September 15, 2026. The proposed resolution appeared in the Congressional Record, beginning at page H5637. Massie accused the Secretary of Defense of repeatedly implementing military policies that, in his assessment, exceeded constitutional and statutory limits on executive authority.

The September initiative did not produce a final House impeachment vote before Congress recessed. On November 9, Massie renewed the effort by invoking the procedure governing questions of the privileges of the House. His official announcement emphasized the continuation of military operations against Iran, which he alleged had exceeded the periods permitted under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The renewed initiative sought congressional consideration of all eight accusations, rather than a vote confined to the Iran campaign.

The dispute arose within a broader controversy over presidential military authority. Massie maintains that Congress has been excluded from decisions constitutionally reserved to the legislature. The Trump administration disputes that interpretation, arguing that the President possesses authority to employ military force in defense of American forces and national interests. The impeachment proceedings concern Hegseth's responsibilities as Secretary of Defense, including his conduct in implementing presidential orders and administering the military establishment.

1.1 What are the eight impeachment charges?

The first three articles concern the military campaign against Iran that began on February 28, 2026. Article I alleges that Hegseth implemented military orders initiating hostilities without a congressional declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or the emergency circumstances described in Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution. Article II concerns the continuation of operations after Congress adopted H. Con. Res. 86, directing the withdrawal of American forces from unauthorized hostilities. Article III alleges that military operations continued beyond the statutory 60-day termination period and any permissible additional withdrawal period.

Article IV accuses Hegseth of weakening civilian-protection systems within the Department of Defense, allegedly contributing to unlawful civilian casualties during the attack on Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Iran. Article V concerns lethal military strikes against vessels suspected of transporting narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The fifth charge also addresses alleged secondary attacks against survivors and failures to provide assistance to shipwrecked persons.

Article VI alleges retaliation against Senator Mark Kelly following his public statements about the obligation of military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Article VII challenges Operation Absolute Resolve, the January 2026 American military operation that captured Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores in Venezuela. Article VIII concerns Operation Rough Rider, the American campaign against Houthi forces in Yemen during March–May 2025, which Massie alleges violated congressional war powers and presidential reporting requirements.

These accusations do not constitute eight separate allegations of international crimes. Articles I–III principally concern American constitutional and statutory law, although the underlying Iran campaign also raises questions under the UN Charter. Article VI primarily concerns constitutional protections for political expression. Articles IV, V, VII, and VIII engage international humanitarian law, human rights law, maritime law, and the prohibition on unlawful military intervention.

1.2 Has Pete Hegseth been impeached?

As of November 9, 2026, the House had not adopted Massie's eight articles. Introducing or announcing an impeachment resolution is distinct from the constitutional act of impeachment. Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, the House possesses the sole power of impeachment and exercises that power by approving articles charging a federal official with impeachable misconduct.

The Senate has the separate responsibility for trying impeachments under Article I, Section 3. Conviction requires the concurrence of two-thirds of senators present. A Secretary of Defense is a civil officer subject to impeachment under Article II, Section 4, which identifies treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as constitutional grounds for removal.

The House may adopt the articles, reject the initiative, table the resolution, or refer it for further consideration. A vote to table would dispose of the immediate proposal without necessarily constituting a substantive determination concerning every accusation. Even if the House impeached Hegseth, removal would require conviction by the Senate, which could also consider disqualification from future federal office.

Massie's November 9 action created the prospect of House consideration by approximately November 11, subject to the chamber's parliamentary procedures. The anticipated vote and the eventual constitutional outcome remain distinct. Political expressions of support or opposition cannot substitute for the recorded decisions of Congress.

2. Articles I–III: The Iran War and Congressional Authority

The most extensive constitutional accusations concern American military operations against Iran. The United States and Israel commenced coordinated strikes on February 28, 2026, initiating a confrontation involving attacks on Iranian territory, Iranian responses against regional targets, and threats to military installations and commercial navigation. The United States designated its campaign Operation Epic Fury.

Congress had not formally declared war against Iran before the operation began. That fact is relevant but does not independently resolve the constitutional controversy. American Presidents have repeatedly ordered military operations without formal declarations, while Congress has sought to regulate such operations through legislation, appropriations, oversight, and specific authorizations for the use of military force.

The War Powers Resolution, enacted in 1973 over President Richard Nixon's veto, sought to restore congressional participation in decisions involving hostilities. Its provisions establish consultation, reporting, and termination mechanisms, although successive administrations have disputed aspects of their constitutional application. Massie's first three charges concern separate requirements within that legislation and must be assessed individually.

2.1 Article I: Initiating war without congressional authorization

Article I alleges that Hegseth implemented unlawful military orders by initiating hostilities against Iran without satisfying Section 2(c) of the War Powers Resolution, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1541(c). The provision identifies three circumstances in which presidential authority to introduce American forces into hostilities is exercised: a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Massie argues that none existed on February 28. Congress had not declared war or specifically authorized the campaign, and Massie disputes that Iran had attacked the United States or presented an imminent threat requiring immediate military action. His resolution cites the March 17, 2026 resignation letter of Joe Kent, then Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, who stated that Iran posed no imminent threat to the United States.

Kent's assessment demonstrates disagreement within the American national-security establishment, but it does not conclusively establish the intelligence available to the President. The administration has maintained that Iranian military capabilities, previous hostile conduct, and threats to American and allied forces justified action. Determining the existence and significance of those circumstances requires examining the evidence supporting the administration's position, including its account of earlier hostilities.

The constitutional interpretation of Section 2(c) is also disputed. The provision appears within Congress's statutory statement of purpose and policy. Although it expresses a restrictive understanding of unilateral presidential authority, the executive branch has historically maintained that the President possesses independent Article II powers to conduct certain military operations. Courts have not conclusively resolved every disagreement between those competing interpretations.

The distinction between declaring war and authorizing military force is relevant to declarations of war in international law. Under American constitutional law, the absence of a formal declaration does not automatically resolve whether another valid source of authority permitted military action. The contested question is whether the scale, purpose, and circumstances of the Iran operation required congressional authorization beyond the authority claimed by the President.

2.2 Article II: Congress's Iran withdrawal resolution

Article II concerns H. Con. Res. 86, which directed the President to remove American forces from unauthorized hostilities involving Iran. The House approved the resolution on June 3, 2026, by 215 votes to 208, recorded as Roll Call 199. The Senate concurred on June 23 by 50 votes to 48, recorded as Roll Call 184, completing its adoption by both chambers.

The resolution preserved an exception concerning defense against imminent attacks on the United States or an ally or partner. Massie alleges that Hegseth nevertheless continued directing military operations after Congress had formally expressed its position that unauthorized hostilities should end. His resolution specifically identifies military action on June 26 as evidence of continued defiance.

The decisive constitutional question concerns the legal effect of the concurrent resolution. Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1544(c), provides for directing the removal of forces through a concurrent resolution. Such measures ordinarily do not undergo presidential presentment and do not possess the same lawmaking status as statutes enacted through the constitutionally prescribed legislative process.

In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Supreme Court invalidated a legislative-veto arrangement that bypassed constitutional requirements of bicameralism and presentment. The Court did not specifically invalidate Section 5(c). Nevertheless, its reasoning has generated substantial constitutional doubts about whether Congress can impose an enforceable withdrawal obligation through a concurrent resolution without presidential presentment.

The administration relied on this argument in statements opposing H. Con. Res. 86. Its June 23 statement also asserted that the hostilities initiated in February had ended with the April 7 ceasefire and that a June 17 memorandum of understanding with Iran confirmed the cessation of fighting.

The resolution's adoption is established; its binding constitutional effect remains contested. A further factual question concerns whether subsequent military activities constituted renewed or continuing hostilities. Congress's decision and the administration's interpretation have different legal significance, and neither can be substituted for an examination of the operations occurring after June 23.

2.3 Article III: The 60-day limit and the Iran ceasefire

Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1544(b), establishes a termination requirement for unauthorized military hostilities. In general, the President must terminate the relevant use of American forces within 60 calendar days after a report is submitted or required under Section 4(a)(1), codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a)(1), whichever occurs earlier.

The termination requirement does not apply where Congress has declared war, specifically authorized the operation, extended the period by law, or is physically unable to meet because of an armed attack on the United States. The statute also permits an additional period of up to 30 days if the President certifies in writing that unavoidable military necessity concerning the safety of American forces requires continued deployment during their prompt withdrawal.

Massie's resolution identifies May 1, 2026, as the expiration of the initial period and June 1 as the end of any maximum additional withdrawal period. It alleges that the President issued no qualifying certification and that Hegseth continued military operations after both dates. These are Massie's proposed calculations, not independent judicial determinations of a statutory violation.

An important complication concerns the reporting provision invoked by the administration. President Trump transmitted a communication to Congress on March 2 concerning operations begun on February 28. Massie's resolution records that the communication referred to Section 4(a)(3), which concerns deployments substantially enlarging American combat-equipped forces already present in a foreign country.

Section 5(b), however, specifically refers to reports submitted or required under Section 4(a)(1), concerning introduction into hostilities or circumstances where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated. The difference is legally significant. The statutory termination clock depends on the nature of the deployment and the reporting obligation actually triggered, rather than solely on the provision selected in a presidential communication.

Military operations involving direct strikes against another state may trigger Section 4(a)(1) regardless of how the President labels the report. Yet identifying the precise date on which the reporting obligation arose requires application of the statutory criteria to the operational circumstances. The legal calculation cannot rest exclusively on the date of the March 2 letter.

The administration's ceasefire argument introduces another dispute. If the April 7 cessation genuinely terminated the relevant hostilities, subsequent operations may require separate analysis rather than automatic treatment as part of an uninterrupted campaign. If fighting merely paused while the original military confrontation continued, the statutory termination requirement may remain relevant.

Massie's allegation also concerns the purpose of any additional 30-day period. The statute restricts that extension to military necessity associated with the safety of American forces during prompt withdrawal. It does not authorize continuing a campaign for unrelated objectives merely because the initial 60 days have expired. Resolving Article III requires determining the applicable reporting trigger, the chronology of hostilities, and whether legally sufficient authorization or withdrawal certification existed.

2.4 The Iran campaign under the UN Charter

The constitutional controversy does not determine whether the February 28 military operations complied with international law. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against another state's territorial integrity or political independence, or otherwise inconsistently with UN purposes. Article 51 preserves the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs.

On March 10, 2026, the United States submitted a communication to the Security Council, registered as S/2026/161, invoking Article 51. The communication presented the February 28 operations as measures of self-defense against Iranian attacks and threats. The United States placed the campaign within the context of earlier hostilities and its continuing security confrontation with Iran.

Iran rejected the American justification and advanced its own position concerning the legality of the attacks and its right to respond. The competing diplomatic communications form part of the legal record, but neither government's characterization independently determines whether the conditions for lawful self-defense were satisfied.

The relevant inquiry concerns whether the United States or a state entitled to American collective defense had suffered an armed attack of sufficient gravity, whether the defensive response was necessary, and whether its scale and effects were proportionate to the defensive objective. The International Court of Justice addressed essential aspects of these requirements in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (1986) and Oil Platforms (2003).

The possibility of anticipatory self-defense introduces a contested question. Some states maintain that force may be justified against an imminent armed attack, while others interpret Article 51 more restrictively. International law does not recognize a general entitlement to conduct preventive war merely because another state possesses dangerous military capabilities or may present a future strategic threat.

The United States' Article 51 notification identifies the justification it invoked; submission of the communication does not establish that all substantive legal conditions were satisfied. The assessment must consider the timing and gravity of alleged armed attacks, the connection between those attacks and the military response, and the evidence supporting necessity and proportionality.

The broader legal questions are examined in the 2026 USA–Iran war and the prohibition on the use of force. For the impeachment proceedings, the distinction is narrower: even if the President possessed domestic authority to employ force, the operation remained subject to international law. Equally, an internationally valid self-defense claim would not necessarily resolve the constitutional allocation of authority between Congress and the executive branch.

3. Article IV: The Minab School Strike and Civilian Protection

Article IV concerns Hegseth's responsibilities for civilian protection within the Department of Defense. Massie alleges that the Secretary deliberately weakened mechanisms intended to prevent civilian casualties and that these decisions contributed to the February 28, 2026 attack on Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Hormozgan Province, Iran.

The accusation identifies institutional arrangements established through legislation and Defense Department policy. These include the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence, civilian-harm monitoring systems, implementation of the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, and the provision of legal advice to military commanders. Massie contends that reductions in those safeguards impaired the Department's ability to verify targets and minimize foreseeable civilian harm.

The legality of the Minab strike and Hegseth's responsibility for departmental decisions require separate assessment. A military attack may violate international humanitarian law without establishing that the Secretary personally ordered it. Conversely, disregarding a statutory administrative obligation may constitute misconduct even where a direct causal connection to a particular unlawful attack cannot be demonstrated.

3.1 What happened at the Shajareh Tayyebeh school?

Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School was struck on February 28, 2026, during the opening phase of the American-Israeli military campaign against Iran. The school stood near facilities associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Minab. Children and school personnel were present when the attack occurred.

The incident caused extensive destruction and mass civilian casualties. Investigations examined missile impacts, satellite imagery, the building's history, its civilian use, and evidence concerning the weapons employed. Early casualty reports differed considerably, reflecting difficulties in identifying victims and reconstructing the incident during continuing hostilities.

On September 17, 2026, the UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Iran reported that 157 people had been killed at the school, including approximately 123 children. The Mission found reasonable grounds to believe that American forces were responsible for attacks on civilian objects that amounted to war crimes. Its findings also addressed a separate strike on a sports facility in Lamerd, where 22 civilians were reportedly killed.

The Mission concluded that the school was an identifiable civilian object and that the attack raised serious concerns concerning the verification of military targets. Its assessment indicated that the available evidence pointed to the school building as the intended point of impact, rather than merely an object accidentally damaged during an attack on adjacent military infrastructure.

These findings are substantial, but they are not criminal convictions. The evidentiary threshold of reasonable grounds to believe differs from the standard required to convict an individual of an international crime. Responsibility for a particular attack also depends on the available operational information and the conduct of those involved in selecting, approving, and executing the strike.

The school’s location near military facilities does not independently justify its destruction. A civilian educational building remains protected unless it qualifies as a military objective under the circumstances existing at the time of attack. Historical association with a military installation is insufficient without evidence of a current or sufficiently established intended military function.

The findings also raise questions concerning the accuracy and currency of targeting intelligence. Public reporting has suggested that outdated information about the building contributed to the attack. The internal target-development records have not been fully disclosed, and the public record does not establish every decision taken within the military chain of command.

A more extensive examination of the attack's factual record and legal classification appears in the Minab school strike and the law of war. Within Article IV, the additional question is whether Hegseth's departmental decisions breached legal obligations or contributed to the failures identified by investigators.

3.2 Target verification and civilian-harm safeguards

International humanitarian law requires parties to distinguish civilians and civilian objects from combatants and military objectives. Attacks may be directed only against lawful military objectives. The rules of proportionality and feasible precautions further restrict attacks that may affect civilians, including operations directed against legitimate military targets.

The military-objective test requires an object to make an effective contribution to military action through its nature, location, purpose, or use. Its destruction, capture, or neutralization must also offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. These requirements prevent military forces from treating an entire area as targetable solely because it contains military facilities.

The relevant rules are reflected in Articles 48, 51, 52, and 57 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 and in customary international humanitarian law. The United States has not ratified Additional Protocol I, so its provisions cannot automatically be characterized as binding treaty obligations on American forces. Customary rules concerning distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions nevertheless govern American military operations in armed conflict.

Article IV also invokes 10 U.S.C. § 184, which establishes the Civilian Protection Center of Excellence and assigns the Center responsibilities concerning civilian-harm information, operational reporting, institutional learning, training, guidance, and coordination across the Department of Defense.

Massie alleges that Hegseth submitted a legislative proposal on May 29, 2025, seeking repeal of Section 184. The resolution further accuses him of weakening the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan, reducing civilian-harm mitigation personnel, eliminating support for a casualty-tracking database, and removing senior judge advocates general from the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The accusations also concern the omission of civilian protection from the 2026 National Defense Strategy and public statements favoring increased military lethality over restrictions on operational freedom. Massie presents these decisions as evidence of a broader institutional policy that weakened civilian protection.

Requesting legislative repeal is not itself a violation of the statute targeted for repeal. The legal question is whether the Department failed to perform existing obligations while Congress had left those requirements in force. Each alleged administrative decision requires examination of its legal basis, implementation, and consequences rather than treatment as automatically unlawful.

The connection between institutional decisions and the Minab attack is a separate issue of causation and responsibility. Reduced civilian-harm monitoring may impair accountability or increase operational risk, but a claim that particular reductions caused the strike requires evidence concerning the targeting process. Establishing individual criminal responsibility would demand further proof of participation, knowledge, authority, or legally relevant failures by a superior.

4. Article V: Extrajudicial Killings in Maritime Operations

Article V concerns American military strikes against vessels suspected of transporting narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The campaign began on September 2, 2025, and involved repeated lethal engagements against boats associated by the administration with designated criminal or terrorist organizations.

Massie's September resolution alleged at least 63 attack events involving 67 vessels and 221 deaths. His November 9 announcement increased the alleged death toll to at least 243. These figures reflect different stages of the continuing campaign and should not be treated as competing estimates of an identical period.

The administration has defended the operations as measures against organizations threatening American security through narcotics trafficking and related violence. Massie contends that Hegseth displaced ordinary maritime law enforcement with lethal military targeting, without establishing a lawful basis for treating suspected smugglers as military objectives. The controversy concerns the circumstances in which criminal activity may justify military force rather than arrest and prosecution.

4.1 Could suspected drug trafficking justify lethal strikes?

Maritime narcotics enforcement ordinarily operates through national criminal legislation and international cooperation. The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act, including 46 U.S.C. §§ 70503–70504, establishes federal offenses involving controlled substances aboard vessels subject to United States jurisdiction. Such legislation provides mechanisms for criminal prosecution; it does not independently authorize military execution of persons suspected of those offenses.

Article 17 of the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances establishes arrangements for cooperation against trafficking by sea. Where a suspected vessel is registered in another state, the Convention provides procedures for confirming registration and seeking authorization from the flag state to board, search, and take appropriate enforcement measures.

These arrangements operate within the international law of the sea. The general rule of flag-state jurisdiction on the high seas is subject to recognized exceptions, including lawful arrangements for interdiction and cooperation. Article 108 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea addresses cooperation against drug trafficking, but does not confer an unrestricted entitlement to attack suspected smuggling vessels.

The United States has not ratified UNCLOS, although it recognizes substantial parts of the Convention's maritime rules as customary international law. Jurisdiction to intercept or prosecute a suspected trafficker must be distinguished from the legal conditions governing intentional lethal force.

Massie's resolution also invokes 10 U.S.C. §§ 274–275 and Coast Guard statutory authorities. These provisions concern assistance by military personnel to civilian law enforcement and restrictions on direct military participation in certain enforcement activities. Their application requires attention to statutory exceptions, the location of operations, and the nature of the military activity involved.

The alleged military targeting policy is addressed separately in Article V. Massie identifies an August 5, 2025 execute order that allegedly established targeting criteria based on association with designated terrorist organizations. He contends that the order permitted lethal targeting without the identification and threat standards required under earlier counterterrorism policies.

The resolution alleges that the order used reasonable certainty of organizational affiliation rather than the near-certainty standard employed in certain previous counterterrorism policies. The significance of that comparison depends on the scope of the earlier policies, the circumstances in which they applied, and whether the government had a lawful basis for military targeting in the first place.

The original operational order and its complete supporting legal analysis have not been publicly disclosed. Its specific provisions remain allegations in the impeachment text rather than independently established findings. The legal issue nevertheless extends beyond the wording of that order: terrorist designation, suspected narcotics trafficking, and criminal association do not automatically confer authority to kill.

The applicable law of the sea is examined more extensively in International Waters Explained: What States Can Do on the High Seas. For Article V, the essential distinction is between jurisdiction to enforce criminal law and authority to employ lethal military force. The former does not establish the latter.

4.2 Does an armed conflict exist with drug-trafficking groups?

The administration has maintained that certain designated organizations are engaged in an armed conflict with the United States. This characterization has significant consequences because international humanitarian law governs military targeting during armed conflict, while operations outside that legal context remain principally subject to law-enforcement standards.

The existence of a non-international armed conflict depends on objective conditions rather than executive terminology. In Prosecutor v. Tadić, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia identified protracted armed violence involving organized armed groups as central to the classification. Subsequent jurisprudence has developed criteria concerning the intensity of violence and the organization of the parties.

Organized criminal groups may possess substantial resources, weapons, and territorial influence. Those characteristics alone do not establish that they are parties to a non-international armed conflict with the United States. Nor does designation as a terrorist organization automatically make every member or associate a lawful military target.

The relevant inquiry concerns the actual hostilities involving American forces and the particular organizations, including their intensity, organization, and relationship to the military operations. If the armed-conflict threshold is not met, deliberate lethal force against suspected traffickers must be assessed according to the applicable right-to-life and law-enforcement standards.

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life. The UN Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 36, adopted in 2018, explains the strict conditions governing intentional lethal force in law enforcement and addresses the Covenant's application beyond a state's territory. The United States disputes aspects of the Committee's extraterritorial interpretation, a disagreement that must be distinguished from the underlying treaty obligation.

The designation of the strikes as extrajudicial killings reflects the allegation that individuals were deliberately killed without a lawful basis for lethal force. It does not follow merely from the absence of a criminal trial, since international law recognizes limited circumstances in which lethal force may be lawful. The decisive questions concern the applicable legal regime, the threat posed, and whether the force employed satisfied its substantive requirements.

4.3 Secondary strikes, survivors, and rescue obligations

The September 2, 2025 incident generated particular controversy after reporting indicated that two individuals survived an initial American strike and were subsequently killed during a second engagement. The occurrence of a follow-up strike became part of the public account, while the circumstances of the engagement and the responsibility of particular officials remained disputed.

Reporting associated an alleged instruction to leave no survivors with Hegseth, but the administration contested that characterization. Hegseth denied personally ordering the second strike, and officials identified Admiral Frank M. Bradley as the commander responsible for the subsequent engagement. These competing accounts leave important questions concerning the authorization chain, the survivors' condition, and the information available to commanders.

Massie's resolution also identifies an incident on December 30, 2025, involving three vessels in the eastern Pacific. It alleges that three individuals were killed during the attack and eight others survived initially but subsequently died at sea before rescue assets arrived. The accusation concerns both the decision to employ lethal force and the preparedness of the operation to provide assistance to survivors.

If persons attacked were shipwrecked, defenseless, and no longer participating in hostilities, deliberately targeting them would raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law where an armed conflict existed. Customary humanitarian law protects persons hors de combat and prohibits attacks against persons who have surrendered or are otherwise placed outside combat under the applicable conditions.

The International Committee of the Red Cross's 2005 Customary International Humanitarian Law study identifies duties concerning the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked. Rule 109 requires parties to take all possible measures, whenever circumstances permit, to search for, collect, and evacuate such persons without adverse distinction. These obligations are also reflected in the Geneva Conventions and relevant military manuals.

Outside armed conflict, the right to life and maritime rescue obligations remain relevant. The applicable duty to provide assistance depends on the circumstances, the feasibility of rescue, and the legal regime governing the operation. A failure to assist cannot be evaluated solely by invoking military targeting authority.

Responsibility for the September 2 engagement requires a more specific evidentiary inquiry. It is necessary to establish whether survivors were still considered lawful targets, whether they posed an immediate threat, who authorized the subsequent strike, and what information supported that decision. The available public record raises substantial concerns, but does not conclusively establish that Hegseth personally directed an unlawful attack against defenseless survivors.

5. Article VI: Senator Mark Kelly and Unlawful Military Orders

Article VI concerns the treatment of Senator Mark Kelly after he participated in a November 18, 2025 video addressing the obligation of military personnel to refuse unlawful orders. Kelly, a retired Navy captain and former astronaut, appeared with other Democratic lawmakers in a message concerning the legal duties of service members. The statement that personnel may refuse illegal orders became the central point of the subsequent dispute.

Hegseth initiated disciplinary action against Kelly's retired military status. On November 24, the Department of Defense publicly raised the possibility of recalling Kelly to active duty for military proceedings or taking administrative measures. Hegseth subsequently directed the Secretary of the Navy to examine Kelly's conduct and issued a letter of censure on January 5, 2026.

The controversy involved Kelly's position as both a retired officer and a serving senator. Military personnel may be subject to restrictions on political expression that differ from those applicable to civilians. The government argued that Kelly's statements threatened military discipline and the chain of command. Kelly maintained that the disciplinary measures constituted retaliation for protected political expression.

Kelly challenged the actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. On February 12, 2026, Judge Richard J. Leon granted a preliminary injunction in Kelly v. Hegseth, Civil Action No. 26-81. The court concluded that Kelly had demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on his First Amendment retaliation claim and addressed the constitutional difficulties of applying active-duty speech restrictions to a retired officer serving in Congress.

The ruling did not constitute a final judgment resolving every constitutional claim. The administration filed an interlocutory appeal on February 24, and the district court stayed further proceedings on March 18 pending appellate review while leaving the preliminary injunction in effect. Its legal significance lies in the protection granted against enforcement of the disciplinary measures at that procedural stage.

Massie's resolution also invokes the constitutional protections of members of Congress. The First Amendment and the Speech or Debate Clause serve different functions. The former protects expression against unconstitutional governmental restriction or retaliation. The latter protects qualifying legislative acts from executive or judicial interference, but does not automatically immunize every public statement made by a legislator.

The scope of the Speech or Debate Clause depends on whether the conduct forms part of legitimate legislative activity. Public political advocacy outside formal legislative proceedings is not necessarily protected by that immunity, even where the subject concerns congressional oversight. The First Amendment analysis in Kelly v. Hegseth must consequently be distinguished from a separate legislative-immunity claim.

The underlying military-law principle also requires precision. American military law generally obliges personnel to obey lawful orders, not manifestly unlawful commands. The limits of obedience to orders were addressed in military jurisprudence, including United States v. Keenan (1969) and United States v. Calley (1973), in circumstances involving alleged unlawful orders and individual responsibility.

International criminal law likewise does not recognize superior orders as an unlimited defense to serious crimes. The availability and scope of such a defense depend on the applicable legal regime and the requirements of the particular offense. The principle does not imply that every service member may disregard an order merely because its legality is politically disputed.

Article VI is principally a constitutional accusation concerning retaliation and the use of executive authority against a legislator. Its relationship to international law arises from the obligation of military personnel to comply with lawful orders and avoid participation in internationally unlawful conduct. The preliminary ruling in Kelly's favor supports the seriousness of his constitutional claim, but it does not by itself establish the entire impeachment allegation.

6. Article VII: The Military Capture of Nicolás Maduro

Article VII concerns Operation Absolute Resolve, the American military operation conducted in Venezuela on January 3, 2026. United States forces entered Venezuelan territory, employed military aircraft and special operations personnel, and captured Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores. Both were transferred to American custody in connection with criminal proceedings.

The administration presented the operation as a law-enforcement action supported by military force. Maduro faced American narcotics-related charges, and the administration maintained that ordinary means of securing his appearance in court were inadequate. Massie disputes the legal basis for the operation and alleges that its purposes extended to asserting American influence over Venezuela's political transition and petroleum resources.

The operation raises constitutional questions concerning presidential military authority and independent international-law questions concerning sovereignty, force, and immunity. The legal consequences cannot be established solely by reference to the existence of an American criminal indictment or the administration's characterization of the mission.

6.1 Operation Absolute Resolve and Venezuelan sovereignty

The principal domestic legal justification appeared in a memorandum issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel on December 23, 2025, entitled Proposed War Department Operation to Support Law Enforcement Efforts in Venezuela. The memorandum addressed whether the President could authorize military personnel to assist in forcibly removing Maduro from Venezuela for prosecution in the United States.

The Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the President could reasonably determine that the proposed operation served important national interests and that its anticipated nature, scope, and duration did not rise to the level of war requiring prior congressional authorization under its interpretation of the Constitution.

That conclusion depended on the circumstances presented to the Office before the operation. Its reasoning relied on the administration's assessment of anticipated resistance, the limited duration of the mission, and the absence of plans for prolonged military occupation. It also discussed statutory provisions concerning military assistance to law enforcement without identifying them as an unambiguous independent authorization for the entire operation.

The memorandum recognized that the proposed military action would constitute an armed conflict under international law. It expressly declined to reach a definitive conclusion concerning the operation's international legality. That qualification is significant because the Office's conclusion concerning domestic presidential authority cannot be treated as a determination that the operation complied with the UN Charter.

Under Article 2(4) of the Charter, armed intervention within another state's territory engages the prohibition on the use of force. Potential justifications include valid territorial-state consent, Security Council authorization, and self-defense under Article 51. The existence of an American criminal indictment does not independently provide an exception to the prohibition.

The administration's discussion of Venezuelan political legitimacy and the influence of criminal organizations also does not eliminate the legal requirements governing intervention. The Office of Legal Counsel considered possible arguments concerning consent and threats arising from Venezuela, but did not establish a definitive international legal basis for Operation Absolute Resolve.

The principle of non-intervention supplies an additional restriction. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the International Court of Justice examined the prohibition on coercive interference in matters reserved to a state's sovereign decision-making. The forcible seizure of a person exercising governmental authority within another state's territory engages questions extending beyond ordinary criminal enforcement.

The distinction is examined in greater detail in the international legality of Nicolás Maduro's arrest. For Article VII, the central domestic issue is whether Hegseth lawfully implemented the operation under the authority claimed by the executive branch. Its international legality requires an independent assessment of the applicable rules on force and sovereignty.

6.2 Head-of-state immunity and criminal jurisdiction

The capture of Maduro also raises questions concerning personal immunity under customary international law. Certain incumbent senior state officials, including heads of state, enjoy immunity ratione personae from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign national courts while in office, subject to the applicable legal framework.

In Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), the International Court of Justice held that an incumbent foreign minister enjoyed immunity and inviolability from foreign criminal jurisdiction during office. The judgment directly concerned a foreign minister rather than a head of state, although its reasoning is relevant to the broader system of personal immunities protecting senior officials.

Maduro's status presents additional legal complications because governments have disagreed about the legitimacy of his presidency and the consequences of Venezuela's contested elections. Recognition may affect the treatment of governmental representatives, but its domestic and international consequences require separate analysis.

Personal immunity, where applicable, concerns the exercise of jurisdiction over a protected official. The legality of using military force to capture that person abroad is a distinct question. Even where a court recognizes jurisdiction over alleged criminal conduct, that finding does not establish that the means used to obtain custody complied with another state's sovereignty.

Cilia Flores's position must also be assessed independently. Her relationship with Maduro does not automatically confer every immunity associated with a serving head of state. Any claim to protection depends on the applicable customary rules, her official position, and the forum in which the issue arises.

Article VII consequently engages several distinct legal questions: presidential authority to employ military force, the prohibition on intervention, the immunities of foreign officials, and the jurisdiction of American criminal courts. The Office of Legal Counsel's December 2025 opinion provides the principal published domestic justification, but does not resolve the international-law objections or establish the alleged motives attributed to Hegseth by Massie.

7. Article VIII: Operation Rough Rider and the Yemen Campaign

Article VIII concerns Operation Rough Rider, conducted against Houthi forces in Yemen between March 15 and May 6, 2025. The campaign followed Houthi attacks and threats involving commercial shipping and American military assets in the Red Sea region. The administration stated that its objectives included protecting maritime navigation, defending American forces, and reducing the Houthis' ability to conduct further attacks.

Massie's resolution alleges that the operation involved more than 1,100 strikes over approximately 52 days and caused extensive civilian casualties. The figure concerning the number of strikes appears in the impeachment allegations and should be distinguished from independently documented incident counts, which may use different definitions of strikes, engagements, or targets.

The constitutional controversy concerns the authority to initiate and sustain the campaign without specific congressional authorization. Separately, the military operations are subject to international rules governing self-defense, the sovereignty of Yemen, and the conduct of hostilities. The documented civilian casualties make compliance with international humanitarian law a substantial part of the legal assessment.

7.1 Congressional authorization and the 48-hour report

Section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1543(a), requires presidential reporting within 48 hours in specified circumstances involving the introduction of American forces. These include deployment into hostilities or situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated.

Operation Rough Rider began on March 15, 2025. President Trump subsequently transmitted a communication dated March 28 describing American military operations against the Houthis and invoking his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive. The letter identified threats to American forces and commercial navigation as grounds for the operation.

Massie alleges that the reporting requirement was violated because the public presidential communication came after the statutory 48-hour period. The chronology supports the need for scrutiny, but the date of the public letter does not independently establish that no earlier communication satisfying the statute was delivered to Congress.

A conclusive finding would require the complete reporting record, including any relevant classified submissions. The statutory requirement concerns the President's reporting obligation, while Massie's impeachment charge addresses Hegseth's responsibility for participating in continued operations despite alleged constitutional and statutory deficiencies.

The administration's position on unilateral military authority also requires consideration. Presidents have historically asserted authority to conduct limited defensive operations without prior congressional approval. The constitutional analysis depends on the expected nature, scope, duration, and consequences of the military action, as well as the statutory requirements applicable to the particular operation.

The controversy surrounding a Signal messaging group involving senior administration officials adds a separate factual dimension. Reported discussions addressed the timing of Operation Rough Rider, including whether the campaign could be delayed. Massie relies on those communications to dispute the existence of an immediate threat requiring action without congressional participation.

The possibility of delaying an operation may be relevant to necessity, but is not conclusive. Military planners may consider timing, deterrence, intelligence, and operational advantage even where a genuine security threat exists. The constitutional question requires assessment of the underlying threat and legal authority rather than reliance on selected comments about scheduling alone.

7.2 Self-defense, the Red Sea, and civilian casualties

Houthi attacks against commercial vessels and American military assets raised serious security concerns in the Red Sea and adjoining waters. Under Article 51 of the UN Charter, a state may use force in individual or collective self-defense when the relevant legal requirements are satisfied. The existence of attacks against military or civilian vessels does not automatically authorize every subsequent military operation.

The legal assessment requires attention to the gravity of the attacks, their relationship to the United States or states requesting assistance, and the necessity and proportionality of the defensive response. Military action against non-state armed groups on foreign territory also raises questions concerning territorial-state sovereignty and the circumstances in which such action may occur without valid consent.

The administration maintained that Operation Rough Rider was necessary to protect navigation and deter further attacks. The protection of maritime commerce is a legitimate security objective, but it does not operate as an unrestricted exception to Article 2(4). The legal justification for employing force must still satisfy the requirements of the applicable international rules.

Once an armed conflict exists, military operations are additionally governed by international humanitarian law. The lawfulness of resorting to force and the legality of individual attacks remain separate. Even a defensible claim of self-defense does not exempt military commanders from the obligations of distinction, proportionality, and feasible precautions.

The civilian casualties associated with Operation Rough Rider are supported by an important official American assessment. In August 2026, the Department of Defense submitted its annual report under Section 1057 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, as amended, concerning civilian casualties connected to American military operations during 2025.

According to the Department's assessment, three American strikes in Yemen more likely than not killed 153 civilians and injured 243. The incidents occurred in Sanaa on April 6, at Ras Isa port on April 17, and near Saada on April 28. Senator Jack Reed, the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, publicly addressed the findings on August 13, 2026.

The Department assessed that the April 6 strike in Sanaa killed five civilians and injured 25. The April 17 attack at Ras Isa port killed 80 and injured 171, while the April 28 strike near Saada killed 68 and injured 47. These figures concern three assessed incidents rather than all civilian casualties during the campaign.

The Pentagon based its conclusions on intelligence, imagery, and publicly available information rather than direct visits to the strike locations or interviews with witnesses. Additional incidents remained under assessment. Independent monitoring organizations have recorded higher casualty figures across the broader campaign, reflecting different incident coverage and investigative methodologies.

The Ras Isa attack raises substantial questions concerning the classification of military objectives. The administration stated that the port facilities contributed to Houthi military capabilities through fuel supplies and revenue. Human Rights Watch's June 2025 assessment argued that the attack caused extensive civilian harm and required investigation under international humanitarian law.

A port or fuel facility is not automatically a military objective merely because it contributes economically to an armed group's activities. The applicable legal test requires an effective contribution to military action and a definite military advantage from destruction, capture, or neutralization. The presence of civilian workers, the importance of fuel imports, and foreseeable harm to surrounding populations must also be considered.

The Saada strike involved a detention facility holding migrants, according to contemporary reporting and subsequent investigations. The civilian status of detainees and their inability to escape an attack raise serious concerns under the rules governing distinction and precautions. The Pentagon's findings establish an official assessment of civilian harm, but do not amount to an admission that the attack constituted a war crime.

Massie's allegation of an unlawful campaign must consequently be assessed under two distinct legal standards. The War Powers Resolution concerns the constitutional and statutory authority to conduct hostilities. International humanitarian law concerns the legality of particular military attacks. The August 2026 casualty findings materially strengthen the factual record concerning civilian harm without resolving the individual responsibility of Hegseth or the military commanders involved.

8. Impeachment and Responsibility Under International Law

The eight impeachment charges concern conduct governed by several legal systems. The United States Constitution allocates authority over military action and establishes the conditions for removing federal officials. International law governs whether American military operations breached obligations concerning sovereignty, the use of force, civilian protection, and human rights. International criminal law may impose personal responsibility where the elements of a recognized offense and an applicable jurisdictional basis are established.

The factual record differs among the allegations. Congress adopted a withdrawal resolution concerning Iran, although its constitutional effect is contested. A federal court granted preliminary relief to Senator Kelly. A UN fact-finding mission reached significant conclusions concerning the Minab strike, while the Pentagon acknowledged substantial civilian casualties from operations in Yemen. Investigations of maritime strikes have also raised serious concerns about targeting and the treatment of survivors.

These developments do not establish an identical form of responsibility. Congressional decisions, judicial injunctions, administrative casualty assessments, and international investigative findings have different legal consequences. Each must be evaluated according to its institutional authority, evidentiary standard, and substantive scope.

The International Law Commission's 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provide a framework for assessing the consequences of conduct attributable to a state. Article 2 identifies attribution and breach of an international obligation as the basic elements of an internationally wrongful act. Article 4 addresses conduct of state organs, including military institutions, while Article 7 concerns certain conduct exceeding authority or instructions.

The ILC articles are not themselves a treaty, although many provisions reflect customary international law. They also distinguish the international characterization of an act from its status under domestic law. Article 3 provides that internal legal characterization does not determine whether conduct is internationally wrongful.

If American military forces breached an applicable international obligation, the United States could incur international responsibility even where the personnel involved acted under domestic orders. The consequences may include obligations concerning cessation, assurances of non-repetition, and reparation, depending on the established breach and applicable circumstances.

Individual criminal responsibility requires additional proof. A person may incur liability for ordering, assisting, or otherwise participating in international crimes under the conditions recognized by the applicable legal framework. Superior responsibility may arise where an official possessed effective control over perpetrators, had the requisite knowledge, and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or repress crimes or submit the matter to competent authorities.

Political or administrative authority alone does not establish those elements. Hegseth's position as Secretary of Defense is relevant to the military chain of command, but criminal responsibility would require evidence connecting his conduct or omissions to particular offenses. That inquiry cannot be replaced by a general assertion that all military operations occurred under his leadership.

International accountability mechanisms also possess different jurisdictions. The International Court of Justice principally resolves disputes between states where jurisdiction exists. It does not conduct criminal trials of individual officials. The International Criminal Court may prosecute individuals for crimes within its subject-matter jurisdiction, subject to the Rome Statute's territorial, nationality, temporal, and jurisdictional requirements.

The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute. This status limits important routes to ICC jurisdiction over American nationals, although it does not eliminate every possible jurisdictional basis. Any claim that Hegseth could be prosecuted before the Court would require identification of a specific applicable jurisdictional ground and satisfaction of the relevant criminal elements.

Domestic courts may provide other accountability mechanisms, including proceedings concerning military offenses or violations of applicable criminal legislation. Such proceedings remain subject to jurisdiction, immunities, procedural safeguards, and evidentiary requirements. International investigative findings may assist accountability but do not substitute for the determinations required in criminal proceedings.

Impeachment has a different constitutional purpose. Article II, Section 4 authorizes removal of civil officers for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. American constitutional practice does not confine impeachable misconduct to acts satisfying every element of an ordinary federal criminal offense.

Congress may consider serious abuses of entrusted authority, disregard of constitutional obligations, or misconduct fundamentally incompatible with public office. The House determines whether conduct warrants impeachment, while the Senate decides whether conviction and removal are justified. These are constitutional judgments rather than international criminal verdicts.

The distinction becomes particularly important where a Secretary is accused of implementing presidential military orders. Following an order does not automatically resolve whether an official fulfilled applicable legal duties. At the same time, responsibility for presidential decisions cannot simply be transferred to subordinate officials without examining their authority, conduct, and obligations.

Massie's resolution asks Congress to determine whether Hegseth repeatedly abused the powers of his office through military operations and associated administrative decisions. That inquiry may consider international-law violations as relevant evidence of official misconduct, but Congress must still assess the charges under the constitutional standard governing impeachment.

The international legality of the underlying operations remains a separate question. A Senate conviction would not automatically constitute a judicial finding of war crimes, just as failure to impeach would not establish that every American military operation complied with international law.

Conclusion

The eight articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth concern documented military operations, disputed exercises of executive authority, and allegations of misconduct that engage different constitutional and international legal standards. The Iran charges challenge congressional authorization, the continuation of hostilities after congressional opposition, and the statutory termination period. Their resolution requires careful interpretation of the War Powers Resolution and the actual chronology of American military operations.

The remaining accusations raise different questions. The Minab school strike is the subject of substantial findings by a UN-mandated investigation. The maritime campaign engages the legality of lethal military targeting and the protection of persons at sea. The Kelly dispute has produced a preliminary judicial ruling concerning constitutional expression, while the Venezuela and Yemen operations raise questions about military intervention, sovereignty, self-defense, and civilian casualties.

The available evidence establishes serious grounds for legal scrutiny, but it does not prove every allegation of Hegseth's personal wrongdoing. Congressional impeachment, state responsibility, and individual criminal liability require distinct legal assessments. The central constitutional question is whether Congress determines that Hegseth's conduct constitutes an impeachable abuse of office. The international legal question is whether particular military operations violated obligations binding on the United States and, where applicable, whether sufficient evidence exists to establish individual responsibility for those violations.

References

Charter of the United Nations (1945) Signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Human Rights Committee (2018) General comment No. 36 (2018) on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, on the right to life. UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/36, 30 October. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CCPR/CCPR_C_GC_36.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Human Rights Watch (2025) ‘Yemen: US Strikes on Port an Apparent War Crime’ [online]. 4 June. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/06/04/yemen-us-strikes-on-port-an-apparent-war-crime (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran (2026) Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Islamic Republic of Iran. UN Doc. A/HRC/63/61, 14 September, issued 21 September. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session63/a-hrc-63-61-aev.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Committee of the Red Cross (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law: Rule 109 — Search for, Collection and Evacuation of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked [online]. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule109 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14. Available at: https://api.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/70/070-19860627-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2002) Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, 14 February, ICJ Reports 2002, p. 3. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/121 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Court of Justice (2003) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment, 6 November, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/90 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1995) Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Appeals Chamber, 2 October. Available at: https://www.icty.org/en/case/tadic (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two, UN Doc. A/56/10. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/English/commentaries/9_6_2001.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Massie, T. (2026a) ‘Rep. Massie Forces Vote to Impeach Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth’ [online]. Office of Congressman Thomas Massie, 15 September. Available at: https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395853 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Massie, T. (2026b) ‘Rep. Massie Forcing House of Representatives to Vote on Impeaching Secretary Hegseth’ [online]. Office of Congressman Thomas Massie, 9 November. Available at: https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395863 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Office of Legal Counsel (2025) Proposed War Department Operation to Support Law Enforcement Efforts in Venezuela. Memorandum for the Legal Advisor, National Security Council, 23 December. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at: https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1423306/dl?inline= (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) (1977) Adopted 8 June 1977, entered into force 7 December 1978, 1125 UNTS 3. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Reed, J. (2026) ‘Reed Statement on DOD Civilian Casualty Report’ [online]. Office of Senator Jack Reed, 13 August. Available at: https://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/reed-statement-on-dod-civilian-casualty-report (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002, 2187 UNTS 3. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/publications/core-legal-texts/rome-statute-international-criminal-court (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

Trump, D.J. (2025) ‘Letter to Congressional Leaders on United States Military Operations in Yemen’. Compilation of Presidential Documents, DCPD-202500505, 28 March. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/DCPD-202500505/html/DCPD-202500505.htm (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988) Adopted 20 December 1988, entered into force 11 November 1990, 1582 UNTS 95. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=6&mtdsg_no=vi-19&src=treaty (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) Adopted 10 December 1982, entered into force 16 November 1994, 1833 UNTS 3. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetailsIII.aspx?chapter=21&mtdsg_no=XXI-6&src=IND (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United Nations Security Council (2026a) Letter dated 3 March 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. UN Doc. S/2026/121. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4104928 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United Nations Security Council (2026b) Letter dated 7 March 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General. UN Doc. S/2026/139. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4105532 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United Nations Security Council (2026c) Letter dated 10 March 2026 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council. UN Doc. S/2026/161. Available at: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4105908 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Congress (1973) War Powers Resolution. Public Law 93-148, 7 November, 87 Stat. 555, codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1550. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-136/t50/s1541/ (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Congress (2026a) Civilian Protection Center of Excellence. 10 U.S.C. § 184. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-118/t10/s184/ (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Congress (2026b) Congressional Record, 119th Congress, 2nd Session, 15 September, Vol. 172, pp. H5637–H5645. Washington, DC: Government Publishing Office. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-09-15/pdf/CREC-2026-09-15.pdf (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Congress (2026c) Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran. H. Con. Res. 86, 119th Congress, 2nd Session, agreed to 23 June. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/BILLS-119hconres86enr (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Congress (2026d) Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act: Prohibited Acts. 46 U.S.C. § 70503. Available at: https://uscode.house.gov/us/usc/119-134/t46/s70503/ (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Court of Military Appeals (1969) United States v. Keenan, Judgment, 31 January, 18 U.S.C.M.A. 108, 39 C.M.R. 108. Available at: https://www.courtlistener.com/c/uscma/18/ (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Court of Military Appeals (1973) United States v. Calley, Judgment, 21 December, 22 U.S.C.M.A. 534, 48 C.M.R. 19. Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v2/rule154 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States District Court for the District of Columbia (2026) Kelly v. Hegseth et al., Memorandum Opinion and Preliminary Injunction, 12 February, Civil Action No. 26-81 (RJL), Document 37. Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1%3A2026cv00081/288365/37/ (Accessed: 9 November 2026).

United States Supreme Court (1983) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, Judgment, 23 June, 462 U.S. 919. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-462/USREPORTS-462-919 (Accessed: 9 November 2026).