The legality of the US missile strike that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani last week has been the subject of considerable speculation, with most observers giving the strike a judgment of at least qualified legality under the international law of armed conflict. (A number of observers give it unqualified approval.) The law is complicated, but there are at least three aspects to be considered. First, was the strike within the authorities US domestic law grants the President? It's the President's contention that it was, and that Congressional authorization of the use of force and prior designation of the Quds Force as a terrorist organization constitute all the authority the President needed. The New York Times says the Administration notified Congress of the strike as required by the War Powers Act. And was the strike a prohibited assassination, or a lawful attack on an enemy combatant leader? Lawfire makes the case that it was the latter.
Second, was the strike properly defensive? That is, was the US engaged in legitimate self-defense as opposed to aggression, a question of jus ad bellum? The key point here, as the Washington Post observes, is the US claim that General Soleimani was preparing to direct an imminent attack against US forces or personnel. This claim is more controversial, but Washington's position is not at all an unreasonable one. Soleimani and his organization have been responsible for a large number of lethal and damaging attacks against US assets, most recently as last week, when Iraqi militias aligned with and controlled by the Quds Force fired artillery at US positions, killing at least one US citizen, and when a mob organized by Iran unsuccessfully stormed the US embassy in Baghdad.
Third, was the strike conducted within the norms governing the conduct of war, that is, in accordance with principles of jus in bello? In this case the answer also seems to be that, yes, it was. That is, it showed the proportionality, discrimination between combatant and noncombatant, and military necessity those rules enjoin. The Washington Post outlines a dissenting view, arguing that Soleimani, unlike, say, Osama bin Laden, was not a stateless outlaw, but rather an agent of a government that might have been restrained by diplomatic pressure. A Navy Times op-ed lays out the Administration's case that the strike did indeed meet the requirements of jus in bello.
The US 9th Circuit has ruled that Enigma Software's lawsuit against Malwarebytes may proceed. The two security firms are embroiled in litigation over Enigma's allegation that Malwarebytes has engaged in unfair and improper anticompetitive practices.