1/9. This landmark report is highly recommended. Among other findings, the Special Rapporteur argues that there are "limitations" to the conclusion that the Soleimani strike constituted an IAC. She suggests that subjecting such strikes to IHRL is "far more straightforward." https://twitter.com/AgnesCallamard/status/1280761521514205185

2. While the report is certainly impressive, I disagree on this point, for reasons elaborated here (and I was happy to see that the SR engaged with some of these in the report) :) https://www.justsecurity.org/68030/targeted-killing-of-general-soleimani-why-the-laws-of-war-should-apply-and-why-it-matters/

3. I specifically disagree that applying IHL to the first attack against a state actor means "that ALL soldiers, anywhere in the world, could constitute a legitimate target." Attacks against soldiers in an act of aggression are never legitimate, even if not prohibited by IHL.

4. I also disagree that IHL doesn't "fit" the Soleimani case, inter alia because of its limited nature as a single strike. The event was limited only because Iran didn't respond immediately. Whether IHL applies to an attack cannot depend only on the adversary's ex post reaction.

5. Additionally, such reasoning would incentivize states to "bootstrap" their way into IHL by using more force. H/T @LieberCode

6. Also, IMHO, that the strike was in a non-belligerent 3rd country doesn't preclude the application of IHL. This was an attack against a state's combatant - not a NIAC, where the mere fact that a person is outside a zone of hostilities is likely to result in regaining protection

6. The SR notes that if we apply IHL to a first strike in a non-belligerent 3rd state, we would "subject non-belligerent civilians ... to 'proportional' harm simply because 'an individual sought by another State is in their midst.'' (following the ICRC's 2011 position on NIACs).

7. But I don't see why this differs from subjecting civilians to incidental harm in first strikes against combatants in *belligerent states*. After all, law doesn't assume that civilians in belligerent states are more "responsible" than those in non-belligerent states.

8. All of this doesn't mean that IHRL doesn't apply to 1st strikes against combatants. It just means that IHL would also apply.

9. As @AdHaque110 writes, and as reflected in HRC GC 36, the fact that IHL provides combatant immunity doesn't mean that the attacking STATE didn't violate the right to life. END