Israel carried out an airstrike on Monday that targeted a building within the Iranian Embassy complex in Damascus, resulting in the deaths of seven individuals, including high-ranking Iranian military officials. Diplomatic missions, such as embassies, have historically been granted special protections under international customary law, including immunity from prosecution and inviolability of their premises. However, experts believe that Israel’s actions may not have violated these protections due to specific circumstances surrounding the attack.
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Convention on Consular Relations outline the inviolability of diplomatic and consular premises, stating that host countries must protect these buildings from intrusion or damage. While receiving states have a duty to safeguard embassies, the conventions do not address attacks by third states on foreign territory. As Israel is not bound by the law of diplomatic relations with regard to Iran’s Embassy in Syria, the protections afforded to the embassy may not apply in this case.
Despite the taboo against attacking embassies in international relations, the legality of such actions remains unclear. Embassies are considered civilian objects and are protected from use of force in armed conflicts, similar to schools or homes. An embassy can lose these protections if used for military purposes, raising questions about the legality of targeting a military building housed within diplomatic premises. Israel’s justification for the airstrike, reportedly targeting Iranian intelligence officials and Palestinian militants, may impact the legality of the attack.
Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran, involving multiple assassinations and covert military operations, adds complexity to the legality of the recent airstrike. Iran’s ties to proxy armed groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon further complicate the situation. International law mandates that attacks be proportional, with military gains outweighing harm to civilians and civilian objects. Iran’s claim that no civilians were killed in the airstrike on Monday raises questions about the targeted nature of the attack and the adherence to international legal standards.
The airstrike raises legal questions regarding Israel’s use of force against Iran and Syria, in violation of the United Nations Charter’s prohibition on using force against the territorial integrity of other states. The justification for the attack as an act of self-defense may be scrutinized in the context of international law. The debate surrounding the extent to which self-defense can justify attacks in third countries, along with the global implications of such actions, underscores the complex legal dynamics at play in conflicts involving multiple states.
As legal experts analyze the implications of the airstrike on the Iranian Embassy compound in Damascus, questions remain about the broader impact on diplomatic relations and international law. The blurred lines between diplomatic and military operations in the Middle East, as seen in Iran’s ambassadorial appointments and foreign policy decisions based on military operations, add further complexity to the legal considerations in conflicts involving multiple states. The ongoing shadow war between Israel and Iran, including the involvement of proxy armed groups, highlights the intricate legal challenges in addressing military actions that cross national boundaries.
